Bolton Wanderers Football Club Fan Forum for all BWFC Supporters.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Where is Bolton's biggest problem right now - defence or midfield or strikers?

Where is Bolton's biggest problem right now - defence or midfield or strikers?

+7
Soul Kitchen
Norpig
Natasha Whittam
wanderlust
Hipster_Nebula
Whitesince63
Michael Bolton
11 posters

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Reply to topic

Go down  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

Sluffy wrote:When any team kicks off the score is 0-0 obviously.  If the game ends 0-0 then we get a point.

With our defence we can’t keep clean sheets - so that means we probably need to score one goal or more to draw and two or more to even hope to win.

The team then as to concentrate on shoring up the defence.  That's why we have to play with two defensive midfielders.

If you have four defenders, two midfielders and the keeper concerned with defence - seven players - then you are only left with a maximum of four players to create chances and score them (set pieces not included).

If we only have a maximum of four players in an attacking role, then if we play with say a winger (or two) then that leaves just two or at the most three players to attack the ball from crosses.

One of the most notable deficiencies during the Coyle era was the lack of a tackling midfielder in front of our fullbacks, which thus allowed the opposition to attack down the wing.  We were at one time the worst team for conceding goals from crosses - I don't know the stats these days but I suspect it is probably still not good.

We therefore need to stop playing with Lee and Eagles in the side together as neither tackle in midfield, and replace one or both of them with someone who does - which in turn makes us more solid but less creative.

Basically we then have two lines of four players, which makes us more solid but less attacking.

The more solid we become the less the need for both defensive midfielders which allows for box to box players who can then support the attackers.

As for attack we will need to work a great deal more on set pieces.  Back in Allardyce's day we were feared for scoring from corners and free kicks - not anymore though - how many headers as the 7 foot 9 inch Knight scored for us for instance?  He should have had a hat-full by now.

Summary - plug the defence, toughen up the midfield and concentrate vastly more on set pieces for goals.

QED.
Sluffy  - the truth is out you really are Big Sam aren't you?

Hipster_Nebula

Hipster_Nebula
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

It really doesn't matter what formation we play there will always be a problem somewhere.

and more than likely a mistake.

so the debate about 4 4 this and 44 that really is redundant.

Sluffy

Sluffy
Admin

wanderlust wrote:So your for 442 or similar Sluffy? There is definitely a case for it with this squad, but they do need to up their workrate.
You can only play with the cards you have.

In a perfect world you would use the best strategy to exploit your opponents weaknesses whilst at the same time maximises your strengths, whether that be 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-2-3-1, or whatever.

We clearly have a big problem in defence and not many options to improve it.

Freedman seems to be trying to address it by first changing his fullbacks, then by playing two defensive mids and before he got injured, playing Ream as a sort of third defensive mid / conduit / outlet for the defence.

The more resources used to sort of the defence, the less you have to create and attack.

I've always been critical of Coyle using two attacking wingers as they left the fullbacks vulnerable - and stats showed we let in an average of 2 goals a game in our relegation season and were the worst team in the league for letting in goals from crosses - the numpty never really addressed this and instead regularly played Petrov, Lee and Eagles throughout the season.

So it really doesn't take too much thought to toughen up our side by playing less wingers who aren't tackling back and replacing them by players who do stop the defence being put under pressure.

If then we by doing this we are reducing our attacking options we then need to increase them by some other means - and that would be to score more goals from set pieces.

Seeing Knight is 6 foot 7 inches (or whatever his true height is) it is absolutely scandalous imo that he hasn't scored loads more goals than what he has. Cahill and Dawson for instance went up for set pieces and scored - surely Knight should be winning headers and contributing vastly more to our attack than what he has done?

OK you need to keep players back at set pieces but Knight is even our best defender - so use his height at corners etc.

All seems obvious to me with the players we have and the attributes they have.

The problem is that Coyle loved his wingers and didn't his more 'solid' midfielders - so we don't have the right balance in the squad.

He also brought in so many crap players - but we all know that by now.

So until players leave we are stuck with a poor defence, a lack of solidity on the flanks of midfield and very little set piece plays - and those are the areas I would address as per my post above.

Norpig wrote:Sluffy - the truth is out you really are Big Sam aren't you?
I wish!

It's not really rocket science though is it.

Norpig

Norpig
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

you're right about it not being rocket science but defence seems to be beyond our last few managers, even Mugsons teams didn't keep that many clean sheets.

We have a decent squad for this level, its the application that's letting them and us down.

doffcocker

doffcocker
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

Attitude.

No urgency, no tempo.

The opposition likes backwards/sidewards passing. Some people argue it encourages them out of their defensive positions, creating attacking opportunities. I say it gives them to regroup and apply pressure, in such a way that it's difficult to get the ball in areas where it's useful.

scottjames30

scottjames30
Nat Lofthouse
Nat Lofthouse

I think the problem is not feeding the forwards enough, no wingers .

Whitesince63


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

Well much as I want rid of Freedman I accept it isn't going to happen. The majority of you on here think he should have more time so you should be happy that he will. Virtually all your posts though are stating what should happen, what formation we should be playing, what players should be playing and where. All of them are in direct disagreement with what Freedman's doing now yet you still back him. Absolutely unbelievable.

Guest


Guest

Whitesince63, at this point it comes down to whether or not you think he can turn it around. Nobodies happy with performances so far (that's why we're dicussing what would improve them), but I do think he deserves more time to turn it around.

We have a lot of problems, but there have still been positives so far and players to return from injury. Will you not give him 3 or 4 more games? By that time we'll know if he's acted on the players he spoke of after the Blackburn game, we'll also have a better idea of where the season is going. Our 5 games have been disappointing so far, but at this point it's just a bad start. If we're in the same position after 8 and he's not giving youth a go or trying new things there won't be many left defending him.

Whitesince63


El Hadji Diouf
El Hadji Diouf

1874 I know we have differing views on DF but whether I like it or not DF is going to get more than your 8 games so we'll both see how he fares. My problem is he's had many more than 5 or even your 8 games now including last season. Again we'll disagree here because I ascribe no credit to him for last season other than bringing in Dawson, which was a good move, but then he ruins it by not trying to retain him despite the difference he made and the fact Dawson wanted to see the season out. We all know how that ended. I'm not intentionally criticising him I just don't think he's up to it and I don't think I need any further proof. You do and that's fine so let's agree to disagree on it and we'll see after your 8-10 games.

Copper Dragon

Copper Dragon
Ivan Campo
Ivan Campo

Brian Clough wrote:Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes

Guest


Guest

Copper Dragon wrote:
Brian Clough wrote:Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes
Was he pissed when he said that?

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 2 of 2]

Go to page : Previous  1, 2

Reply to topic

Bolton Nuts » BWFC » Bolton Wanderers Banter » Where is Bolton's biggest problem right now - defence or midfield or strikers?

Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum