| Defending -- football's "poor relation" 16:12 - Feb 4 with 1238 views | Davillin |
[By way of preface, if anyone is offended by this post, it’s all on you because I intend to offend no-one, just to make a couple of observations and hope for some objective observations in reply.]
After having read and inwardly digested the several threads about what happened at Southampton on Sunday, I have concluded what I have subliminally suspected for a long time. Some of our posters on here either have an overpowering preference for attacking football and players taking lots of shots, or they don’t recognise that defending is at least half of the game of football. Or maybe they just find defending boring [or something].
For some [I’d prefer to say “for many,” or even “for most,” but will try to err on the side of objectivity] defending is the more fascinating part.
In football, as in all other sports, a solid, well-designed, and well-executed defence wins games — especially in a situation like Southampton, which situation has been accurately described many times in these threads.
It was crystal clear to many posters that Monk had set up in the first half for the specific purpose of presenting a very well-disciplined defence to keep Southampton scoreless — emphasis on “well-disciplined.” [Watch the game again if you recorded it and see that for yourself.] It was equally clear also that he intended to open up with an attacking component in the second half.
p.s. Some even found his “Plan B” satisfying and rewarding. See, for example, the excellent post from Griffting at
http://www.fansnetwork.co.uk/football/swanseacity/forum/137811/page:7#.VNEI2sY0p
|  |
| |  |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 16:51 - Feb 4 with 1182 views | controversial_jack |
We rode our luck. We were fortunate their finishing was below par and Ash was playing a blinder. Not a plan that will work very often imo |  | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 17:12 - Feb 4 with 1158 views | LeonisGod |
I see where you are trying to come from. The tactical element can be fascinating, but there's only so much interest that can come from the defensive aspects when you don't have the ball. At the end of the day, that involves good organisation and communication and you are just watching players' general awareness and positioning sense. And it's even worse to watch on TV when you can't appreciate the bigger picture.
For me, the 'wow' moments come from what you can do with the ball. When we have the ball for longer than the opposition, there is more chance of seeing the wow moments.
I can't speak for everyone but I appreciate the nuances of technique - so a perfectly executed pass with the outside of the foot, a perfectly weighted ball in behind the fullback, quick-fire triangle of passes to play our way out of danger even if by our own corner flag. To me Ash's raking long diagonals are a thing of beauty. Notice how many are bang on target compared to when our other defenders try them. It's the things that used to give me a buzz when I used to play the game. For example, connecting superbly with a volley on the full is the sweetest feeling and it still gives a buzz when I see a player do it. Of course, the pinnacle of all this is the attacking side and scoring. But to me I don't mind whether we are in a deep or advanced position, but it's how players 'make the ball sing' ball that I find most enjoyable.
But then maybe i'm weird!
I don't think anyone who knows his or her onions could not see the reasoning behind the way we set up against S'ton. But the S'ton game is only part of the story. We have become less adventurous under Garry - particularly if we go in front. This tendency to sit back is biting us on the bum, as evidence by us dropping more points from winning positions than any other team (if that's still the case). The best way to relieve pressure is to retain possession and slow the game down. We seem less able to do that these days with on paper a more superior squad. I find that a bit strange. |  | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 17:15 - Feb 4 with 1147 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 16:51 - Feb 4 by controversial_jack |
We rode our luck. We were fortunate their finishing was below par and Ash was playing a blinder. Not a plan that will work very often imo |
If you set up to defend everybody knows that is what they need to do, defend, just like with Strikers some defenders will perform better than others, Sunday was Ash's turn, hopefully if he has a bad game the next time we try it another defender will have a really good day instead.
We seem to be better at defending set pieces with Fab in goal, Bony and now Gomis coming back to defend.
So if you look back at most of the goals scored against us you can see a pattern where we are overrun, when our defenders are in midfield, either by a player carrying the ball, a quick pass or by a hoofball over the top.
Those kinds of goal are very hard to achieve when the defense stays back.
Quite a few teams use this kind of tactic, especially against superior footballing sides and it can be very hard to break down and make chances.
With more practice hoepfully we will get better at it, even though it goes against the passing/attacking that we are used to playing. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 17:17 - Feb 4 with 1142 views | jack247 |
There has to be a balance. It is difficult to be sound defensively and threatening going forward. The top teams manage it, because they have the best players and managers. Southampton have managed it to a degree this season.
Under Sousa, it was very negative, but we were bloody hard to break down. Under Martinez and to a lesser extent Rodgers, we were a bit mite kamikaze, which led to more entertaining matches but more goals at both ends. Laudrup started adapting our tactics to the opposition and Monk has carried this on. We often use that game plan away from home, particularly against tough opponents. It worked very well Sunday, as well as at Man Utd and Everton. Other games it has been less effective.
It's hard not to give credit for Sunday, based on the calibre of the opposition and the number of players we had unavailable. With Britton and Cork presumably fit and hopefully Montero and Barrow, it will be interesting to see how we approach Sunderland and West Brom. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 17:38 - Feb 4 with 1112 views | BobJack |
I think for quite a few years we have tried to play possession football.
The message being if we have the ball, the opposition can't score.
We have seen some other teams play and even when a result has gone their way, there have been posts on here along the lines of " I couldn't watch that every week".
We have had a run of matches where possession football has not been on our agenda.
Think this has come as a bit of a culture shock as we have had a certain style preached to us from the club and we have totally embraced it.
We have been told that youngsters at Swansea academy at all ages play a certain style, ( The Swansea way) sometimes costing us a match but this will continue to help them slot into 1st team if chance arises.
Will be interesting to see if whole ethos will change, so indeed plan A, B , C etc are going to be introduced throughout club. | |
| |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:17 - Feb 4 with 974 views | Islander |
Good post. Its interesting that Arsenal have recently adopted similar 'defensive' tactics - with great success.
Their possession game has been been diluted in favour of a highly organised defensive system - with a tight-three in central midfield orchestrating the structure and high tempo pressing game; rapidly turning defence into pacey attack with a highly mobile and quick witted forward line.
Maybe Wenger's been swapping notes with our Garry....... | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:30 - Feb 4 with 950 views | C_jack |
We were defending so much because we couldn't hold on to the ball or get anywhere near opposition players to take it off them. I cannot believe that the first half was part of any pre-prepared plan.
What excuses are there for pathetic submission of possession, or standing off players as if they had the plague? Don't tell me, "the plan was to defend anyway so it didn't matter if we had the ball" |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:42 - Feb 4 with 928 views | jack247 |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:30 - Feb 4 by C_jack |
We were defending so much because we couldn't hold on to the ball or get anywhere near opposition players to take it off them. I cannot believe that the first half was part of any pre-prepared plan.
What excuses are there for pathetic submission of possession, or standing off players as if they had the plague? Don't tell me, "the plan was to defend anyway so it didn't matter if we had the ball" |
We barely attempted to retain possession in the first half. We just tried to play diagonals to Gomis who was fairly isolated and didn't have a lot of support. Shelvey was normally near him but easily marked. Wingers weren't tight to him unless he came wide. Carroll and Fulton sat and protected. For all Southamptons clever triangles, they only had one decent chance I can remember, when Fab saved with his feet.
We pressed them a lot more in the last half hour or so, which forced mistakes and opened the game up. Similar to how we played at Old Trafford.
Looked very much a gameplan to me. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:57 - Feb 4 with 903 views | Davillin |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 16:51 - Feb 4 by controversial_jack |
We rode our luck. We were fortunate their finishing was below par and Ash was playing a blinder. Not a plan that will work very often imo |
First, I very much appreciate the very thoughtful responses, including yours, above.
I don't disagree with any part of your post, but I do think there's a bit more to be said.
If we had played our usual "style" in the first half, we'd have had a much more violent and deadly "ride" of our luck. I think that, in this game or one like it, this determined defence brought the luck pendulum more firmly on our side. It's both an opinion and "predicting the past," but that's all I have to go on here.
One of the "standard" comments in football is the one which gives no credit to one team after they have hurt the other. At Swansea, we know that all too well -- so-and-so was off their game, etc., with no credit to the Swans for putting them off their game. I'll suggest that, yes, their finishing was below par, but I'll posit that that was because of Swansa's fierce defending.
It is definitely "not a plan that will work very often," but in Southampton's case, our usual "style" would not have worked well either, most especially because of the high number of non-regulars playing for us.
I repeat that I agree with your points, especially that Ash played a blinder. | |
| |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:59 - Feb 4 with 899 views | C_jack |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:42 - Feb 4 by jack247 |
We barely attempted to retain possession in the first half. We just tried to play diagonals to Gomis who was fairly isolated and didn't have a lot of support. Shelvey was normally near him but easily marked. Wingers weren't tight to him unless he came wide. Carroll and Fulton sat and protected. For all Southamptons clever triangles, they only had one decent chance I can remember, when Fab saved with his feet.
We pressed them a lot more in the last half hour or so, which forced mistakes and opened the game up. Similar to how we played at Old Trafford.
Looked very much a gameplan to me. |
Difference being we pressed United from the very first minute, and we took the lead from counter attacking play. That was a pre-meditated game plan.
The first hour on Sunday was no different to the previous 2 in regards to the performance/ ,yet a brilliant goal in a piece of rare attacking play has managed to convince some (thanks to the manager) that it was the plan to go there and fool Southampton into a false sense of security with our lethargic, insipid display. | |
| |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:13 - Feb 4 with 875 views | LeonisGod |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:30 - Feb 4 by C_jack |
We were defending so much because we couldn't hold on to the ball or get anywhere near opposition players to take it off them. I cannot believe that the first half was part of any pre-prepared plan.
What excuses are there for pathetic submission of possession, or standing off players as if they had the plague? Don't tell me, "the plan was to defend anyway so it didn't matter if we had the ball" |
That's how it works. You stand off and retain shape only press if there's a chance in their final third. It's definitely deliberate. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:14 - Feb 4 with 866 views | swan_si |
Chelsea won the CL playing defensive football, not attractive, but, horses for courses (as they say), it is a results business after all (as they say). we all want to see fast attacking football, but more importantly, we all want the 3 points, i think playing football the Swansea way will be back sooner rather than later, we were in a poor run of form, winning breeds confidence(as they say).
COYS
 |  | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:14 - Feb 4 with 866 views | dameedna |
welcome back |  | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:19 - Feb 4 with 855 views | jack247 |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 20:59 - Feb 4 by C_jack |
Difference being we pressed United from the very first minute, and we took the lead from counter attacking play. That was a pre-meditated game plan.
The first hour on Sunday was no different to the previous 2 in regards to the performance/ ,yet a brilliant goal in a piece of rare attacking play has managed to convince some (thanks to the manager) that it was the plan to go there and fool Southampton into a false sense of security with our lethargic, insipid display. |
It wasn't. The plan was to keep our (very negative) shape at all times. Made us very difficult to break down, but also took all the impetus out of any attacking play. It wasn't a stroke of genius, it was parking the bus. We got lucky that we won, although in fairness, there was a clear change of tactics half way through the second half, when we pressed, disrupted and countered, with the risk that we didn't have so much defensive shape.
I'm not sure it was much different at United, apart from the fact that Bony was able to hold the ball up on his own, meaning Siggy and the wingers had more time to get up and support him. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:25 - Feb 4 with 842 views | C_jack |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:13 - Feb 4 by LeonisGod |
That's how it works. You stand off and retain shape only press if there's a chance in their final third. It's definitely deliberate. |
So what about when we had the ball? what was our plan then? according to some it must have been give it back to Southampton as quickly as possible, because the whole thing was played out to script.
If we had kept the ball or managed to string together 2 passes, this so called plan of gladiatorial defending would have never have materialised, the game panned out the way it did because we played like drips, yet according to some that was the plan from the outset! | |
| |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:28 - Feb 4 with 832 views | swan_si |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:25 - Feb 4 by C_jack |
So what about when we had the ball? what was our plan then? according to some it must have been give it back to Southampton as quickly as possible, because the whole thing was played out to script.
If we had kept the ball or managed to string together 2 passes, this so called plan of gladiatorial defending would have never have materialised, the game panned out the way it did because we played like drips, yet according to some that was the plan from the outset! |
yet according to some that was the plan from the outset!
the "some" being the players them selves. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:29 - Feb 4 with 824 views | jack247 |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:14 - Feb 4 by swan_si |
Chelsea won the CL playing defensive football, not attractive, but, horses for courses (as they say), it is a results business after all (as they say). we all want to see fast attacking football, but more importantly, we all want the 3 points, i think playing football the Swansea way will be back sooner rather than later, we were in a poor run of form, winning breeds confidence(as they say).
COYS
|
That's pretty fair.
We were away to a team in the top 4 with our first choice midfield out. If we had gone toe to toe with them, they would probably have ripped us apart. It's not great to watch, but if its the most effective way of picking up points then so be it. I would expect a more adventurous gameplan against Sunderland. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:30 - Feb 4 with 819 views | C_jack |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:28 - Feb 4 by swan_si |
yet according to some that was the plan from the outset!
the "some" being the players them selves. |
To play like drips?
Well at least that explains Neil Taylor's last 20 games. | |
| |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 22:42 - Feb 4 with 745 views | LeonisGod |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 21:25 - Feb 4 by C_jack |
So what about when we had the ball? what was our plan then? according to some it must have been give it back to Southampton as quickly as possible, because the whole thing was played out to script.
If we had kept the ball or managed to string together 2 passes, this so called plan of gladiatorial defending would have never have materialised, the game panned out the way it did because we played like drips, yet according to some that was the plan from the outset! |
lol. No, on the ball we were shocking in the first half. I doubt that was part of the plan. Unless they were lulling S'ton into a false sense of security, or hoping they'd pi55 themselves seeing how bad we were. | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 23:55 - Feb 4 with 700 views | dameedna |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 22:42 - Feb 4 by LeonisGod |
lol. No, on the ball we were shocking in the first half. I doubt that was part of the plan. Unless they were lulling S'ton into a false sense of security, or hoping they'd pi55 themselves seeing how bad we were. |
play like so that it looks like we are wearing ripped wellies so that the oppo take their foot off the gas in the hope that they don't score 2 before we reveal they are actually top of the range precision footballing boots worn by top tier pros
A cunning plan is ever there was one Baldrick | | | |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 23:55 - Feb 4 with 700 views | dameedna |
| Defending -- football's "poor relation" on 22:42 - Feb 4 by LeonisGod |
lol. No, on the ball we were shocking in the first half. I doubt that was part of the plan. Unless they were lulling S'ton into a false sense of security, or hoping they'd pi55 themselves seeing how bad we were. |
play like so that it looks like we are wearing ripped wellies so that the oppo take their foot off the gas in the hope that they don't score 2 before we reveal they are actually top of the range precision footballing boots worn by top tier pros
A cunning plan if ever there was one Baldrick | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
