Are C.B.'s really the problem

[Edinblade]

Everyone is crying out for a new centre back, but is this really the problem. Goals recently conceded have hardly been the fault of the centre backs. Neil Collins is pretty robust and doesn't often get directly blamed for goals conceded but everyone is desperate to replace him.

I blame the midfield, who have been terrible. Poor at supporting defence, rubbish at creating chances and generally slow and ponderous.

With a big improvement from midfield I feel our strikers would get the goals, especially if the defence were also protected.

What we need is at least one if not two strong athletic midfielders who can get hold of the ball and control the pattern of play.

 

[super_pig]

yeah them an 'all!

 

[Karaoke Blade]

Everyone is crying out for a new centre back, but is this really the problem. Goals recently conceded have hardly been the fault of the centre backs. Neil Collins is pretty robust and doesn't often get directly blamed for goals conceded but everyone is desperate to replace him.

I blame the midfield, who have been terrible. Poor at supporting defence, rubbish at creating chances and generally slow and ponderous.

With a big improvement from midfield I feel our strikers would get the goals, especially if the defence were also protected.

What we need is at least one if not two strong athletic midfielders who can get hold of the ball and control the pattern of play.

I agree. Thinking of all the teams that have come to the Lane, I can't really remember many outstanding centre backs, but most teams seem to have midfielders that can do the basics, i.e. pass and move for the return, break quickly, with and without the ball. We are clearly lacking in this area.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Everyone is crying out for a new centre back, but is this really the problem. Goals recently conceded have hardly been the fault of the centre backs. Neil Collins is pretty robust and doesn't often get directly blamed for goals conceded but everyone is desperate to replace him.

I blame the midfield, who have been terrible. Poor at supporting defence, rubbish at creating chances and generally slow and ponderous.

With a big improvement from midfield I feel our strikers would get the goals, especially if the defence were also protected.

What we need is at least one if not two strong athletic midfielders who can get hold of the ball and control the pattern of play.

Yes and they were the day Adkins got the job.
Sadly still are.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

Everyone is crying out for a new centre back, but is this really the problem. Goals recently conceded have hardly been the fault of the centre backs. Neil Collins is pretty robust and doesn't often get directly blamed for goals conceded but everyone is desperate to replace him.

I blame the midfield, who have been terrible. Poor at supporting defence, rubbish at creating chances and generally slow and ponderous.

With a big improvement from midfield I feel our strikers would get the goals, especially if the defence were also protected.

What we need is at least one if not two strong athletic midfielders who can get hold of the ball and control the pattern of play.

Another nail hit firmly and squarely on the head.

 

[Jesus_was_a_Blade]

You could have the best defence in the world, but if you can't keep hold of the ball for a while and it keeps coming back at you you're eventually going to concede.

 

[nopigfansintown]

The spine of the team starting with the centre backs is the problem, particularly the issue of pace and athleticism. Our best two centre backs are Basham and Kennedy (chronic knee problem) with Edgar a close third. Here's my tactical analysis of the blades including centre mids and centre backs, and how it affects the tactical setup:

This problem of pace is endemic throughout the team and handcuffs NA tactically. Collins (in particular) drops too deep which makes the gap between back four and midfield far too big. The central midfielders have neither the pace or athleticism to cover this overlarge gap and protect us defensively . Of course, then the strikers are left isolated, particularly as the game wears on and covering the big gap is physically a bigger challenge. To counteract this lack of pace in CH and CM, NA plays narrow (in midfield) and allows Brayford to play like a wingback in a back four – otherwise how could we carry the ball forward without merely lumping it. This leaves us vulnerable out wide on the right – especially as we begin to tire. You really are on a hiding to nothing if you play in CM or RB/RWB for the blades at the moment (unless you love running marathons two or three times a week!). The centre back issue being resolved would allow the midfield to push up and get closer to the strikers and we would improve at the other end too.
A side issue is the general fitness of players which only exacerbates the structural failings in our shape.

 

[Harry's Game]

Yes they are, along with goal keeper, full backs, centre midfielders, wingers and centre forward.

Apart from that it's not too bad.

 

[JasonEllis]

The spine of the team starting with the centre backs is the problem, particularly the issue of pace and athleticism. Our best two centre backs are Basham and Kennedy (chronic knee problem) with Edgar a close third. Here's my tactical analysis of the blades including centre mids and centre backs, and how it affects the tactical setup:

This problem of pace is endemic throughout the team and handcuffs NA tactically. Collins (in particular) drops too deep which makes the gap between back four and midfield far too big. The central midfielders have neither the pace or athleticism to cover this overlarge gap and protect us defensively . Of course, then the strikers are left isolated, particularly as the game wears on and covering the big gap is physically a bigger challenge. To counteract this lack of pace in CH and CM, NA plays narrow (in midfield) and allows Brayford to play like a wingback in a back four – otherwise how could we carry the ball forward without merely lumping it. This leaves us vulnerable out wide on the right – especially as we begin to tire. You really are on a hiding to nothing if you play in CM or RB/RWB for the blades at the moment (unless you love running marathons two or three times a week!). The centre back issue being resolved would allow the midfield to push up and get closer to the strikers and we would improve at the other end too.
A side issue is the general fitness of players which only exacerbates the structural failings in our shape.

I don't think defending deep is a problem to be honest, as long as the players in defence and in particular midfield are disciplined enough to maintain their shape and position. I don't blame Collins for this either, as for me we seem to defend deep to counter-act a lack of pace at CH. This seems logical, and would not be a problem if the midfielders did their job.

The defence looked shaky on Saturday when the gap appeared between them and the midfield, the latter of whom who I thought lost the battle conclusively. They seemed to start well, then individual errors drawn out by Wigan's patient play crept in, as did some lazy positioning by our MFs. Once Wigan were past our midfield, they were direct and bombed forward, leaving our defence exposed and stuck between a rock and a hard place - should they stand off the runners (risking the player on the ball swiftly advancing into dangerous territory) or step out to the player on the ball (risking a ball in behind or a foot race which they would seem certain to lose).

I got the impression from the match, contrary to what I expected before attending the game (my first this calendar year), that our problems lie in midfield and up front rather than at the back. I think the defence is solid enough for this level if, and this is what appears to be lacking, the midfield are disciplined enough to keep their shape, and energetic enough to provide cover up and down the pitch.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Just thought I'd say my tactical analysis is only good for our narrow 442. The diamond is similar but I think leaves us more vulnerable down the sides.

 

[robbiez666]

Many of the goals we conceded seem to come due to fullbacks and midfielders running past our midfield as if they aren't there. The defenders keep retreating and then put in daft challenges or allow them a free shot. When we had Doyle, there was at least someone protecting them. Basham tries to get back and Hammond is too slow, but there's hardly any cover if we're not playing ultra-defensively.

To give them credit, the defence has tightened up a lot, especially fro set pieces. They get beaten for pace and the fullbacks being out of position on occasion but with a good midfield in front of them they'd be solid enough.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I don't think defending deep is a problem to be honest, as long as the players in defence and in particular midfield are disciplined enough to maintain their shape and position. I don't blame Collins for this either, as for me we seem to defend deep to counter-act a lack of pace at CH. This seems logical, and would not be a problem if the midfielders did their job.

The defence looked shaky on Saturday when the gap appeared between them and the midfield, the latter of whom who I thought lost the battle conclusively. They seemed to start well, then individual errors drawn out by Wigan's patient play crept in, as did some lazy positioning by our MFs. Once Wigan were past our midfield, they were direct and bombed forward, leaving our defence exposed and stuck between a rock and a hard place - should they stand off the runners (risking the player on the ball swiftly advancing into dangerous territory) or step out to the player on the ball (risking a ball in behind or a foot race which they would seem certain to lose). Another point, with no pace to counterattack and the defense forcing the midfield deep and thus the strikers isolated we are unable to maintain possession and save energy. The whole thing is a recipe for disaster, logically away from home should suit us more as we can just spoil and the fans won't demand attacking forays.

I got the impression from the match, contrary to what I expected before attending the game (my first this calendar year), that our problems lie in midfield and up front rather than at the back. I think the defence is solid enough for this level if, and this is what appears to be lacking, the midfield are disciplined enough to keep their shape, and energetic enough to provide cover up and down the pitch.

Yeahm its both the midfield and defence both which require discipline. Chris Morgan and Harry Maguire were slow, as is John Terry and Gerard Pique, but they know if you drop too deep and don't maintain the defensive line you are gonna get found out. The defense, or the strikers are the ones that initiate the two lines (or presses) - most teams not at elite level look to the back four. If you saw Leicester expose Man City's lack of pace, the Man City players were actually following instructions by playing that high line. Clough counteracted this lack of pace by having the midfield camp behind the halfway line and only press in our half. Scougall, Coady and Reed were all high energy playersm so along with the defensive midfielder Doyle, could have a very high intensive organised press withinin our own half. Clough would not risk 442 with these centre halfs and a higher defensive line because he knew we'd be exposed - especially when Coady had gone. Of course we don't have the same threat on the counter (I wonder why). Another point is how many long range goals did we concede last season as the defence dropped soooo deep.

 

[JasonEllis]

Yeahm its both the midfield and defence both which require discipline. Chris Morgan and Harry Maguire were slow, as is John Terry and Gerard Pique, but they know if you drop too deep and don't maintain the defensive line you are gonna get found out. The defense, or the strikers are the ones that initiate the two lines (or presses) - most teams not at elite level look to the back four. If you saw Leicester expose Man City's lack of pace, the Man City players were actually following instructions by playing that high line. Clough counteracted this lack of pace by having the midfield camp behind the halfway line and only press in our half. Scougall, Coady and Reed were all high energy playersm so along with the defensive midfielder Doyle, could have a very high intensive organised press withinin our own half. Clough would not risk 442 with these centre halfs and a higher defensive line because he knew we'd be exposed - especially when Coady had gone. Of course we don't have the same threat on the counter (I wonder why). Another point is how many long range goals did we concede last season as the defence dropped soooo deep.

Agreed, I think that midfield is the key position for us.

Another issue that I noticed on Saturday was the lack of movement in front of the defence - one time that really sticks out is where Collins kept gesturing for Basham to show himself for a pass (in vain) before offloading it long towards Sharp/Sammon and turning to berate Basham. In the time that Collins spent on the ball, prolonged by the lack of an option ahead of him, he could easily have been dispossessed by an opponent. This happens several times during a match and could well cost us goals in the long run. Contrast this with Wigan who had Morsy always available for a short pass from any of the back four (indeed almost playing in the position of a sweeper/3rd centre half for much of the game) and then intelligent movement ahead/around him.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

Our CB's lack pace so we try to defend too deep to compensate - neither McE. Collins or Edgar are blessed with pace. (I seem to recall one of the reported disagreements between Collins and Clough was that Clough wanted the defence to play a higher line). Add to this that none of them are much good on the ball and carrying it forward and this further slows our attacks and weakens us in midfield - more often than not we are outnumbered there, especially if their defence carries the ball out - something we haven't done since we lost HM.The only attacking defender we have is Brayford. This then impacts through the way we set up and play.

If our strikers stay up and the defence plays too deep that creates an awful lot of grass for our midfield to cover - especially defensively if Coutts, Woolford or Baxter are playing. The midfield pairing of Hammond and Basham is purely a defensive ploy to protect the back four in an attempt to stop leaking goals (41 so far this season against 53 all last season) - neither of them have creativity or passing as a strength and they don't have the engine (or opportunity really ) to do box to box as they have to hold a position since the other MF players are poor defensively and pace-wise (particularly Baxter, Coutts, Woolford). A case in point, as Bergen pointed out elsewhere, was when Basham got caught out of position v Wigan - Coutts and Baxter were not switched on to the possible danger.

Clough protected the defence by sacrificing a striker to play an extra midfielder (at times 2 with Baxter playing the false number 9) and playing the MF deep. As a result we looked toothless up front but we still had Jamie Murphy as an outlet. Now we don't have anyone like him. Hence Adkins going for a narrow MF I think.The defence is an ongoing problem. So is MF. Sharp is the only reliable front player who can hold a ball up. Only Done has the pace up front to enable fast counters - but he is definitely off the boil this season. Adams has a lot of developing to do and he needs to stop falling over trying to con free kicks.

The truth is I don't think we can play 442 effectively with this defence or midfield and we need CB's with pace enough to play a higher line with some confidence, MF with an engine and defensive and creative options plus another striker and an experienced and capable goalkeeper - ie a new spine. Sorry but I don't think Long is there yet. CB's with pace would at least allow us to put more pressure on in midfield. From memory we did a little better when we played 433 with the two wide front players dropping back when we are defending (making the 4 5 1) - the other option being to try 3 5 3 using Brayford/Flynn and Harris/Wallace as WB's. Hard to come up with any system that is great with this set of players, but I don't think its 442.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Agreed, I think that midfield is the key position for us.

Another issue that I noticed on Saturday was the lack of movement in front of the defence - one time that really sticks out is where Collins kept gesturing for Basham to show himself for a pass (in vain) before offloading it long towards Sharp/Sammon and turning to berate Basham. In the time that Collins spent on the ball, prolonged by the lack of an option ahead of him, he could easily have been dispossessed by an opponent. This happens several times during a match and could well cost us goals in the long run. Contrast this with Wigan who had Morsy always available for a short pass from any of the back four (indeed almost playing in the position of a sweeper/3rd centre half for much of the game) and then intelligent movement ahead/around him.

If we play Basham and Kieron Wallace in the back four you've got a deal (don't care which CH you drop). Then if we play four in midfield we have to get high energy people who can cover space. Most teams play 5 just to crowd out the midfield so they have to be able to counteract or compete this to take full advantage of our two strikers. I vote Brown and Coady. If not five in midfield or a narrow three or four is the only option I'm afraid. Morsy was the spare man in their five, but we haven't really ot anyone with his passing range except Baxter who won't do the dirty work or lightweight Reed who can't play in a four.

 

[Godbeblade]

Many of the goals we conceded seem to come due to fullbacks and midfielders running past our midfield as if they aren't there. The defenders keep retreating and then put in daft challenges or allow them a free shot. When we had Doyle, there was at least someone protecting them. Basham tries to get back and Hammond is too slow, but there's hardly any cover if we're not playing ultra-defensively.

To give them credit, the defence has tightened up a lot, especially fro set pieces. They get beaten for pace and the fullbacks being out of position on occasion but with a good midfield in front of them they'd be solid enough.

I think this is bang on. I've watched nippy opposition wingers/full backs breeze past our midfielders (especially ones without pace). If basham plays well he can often add a bit more stability in the middle and win a few tackles. Brayford and coutts look quite good together at times when going forward but when defending they've been error prone recently

 

[Latters]

I've been saying since we sold Doyle, and even more so since we signed Hammond that central midfield is our biggest problem. We are too soft and indisciplined and many opposition goals have come from players running through the centre of the pitch like our midfielders aren't there. Basham and Hammond offer nothing, either defensively or offensively.

We need a big, commanding midfielder to win the ball and play a simple pass, and another creative, quick midfielder to drive play forward.

Hammond should be disposed of, and Basham can stay as cover at centre half.

 

[longinthe toothblade]

Agreed, I think that midfield is the key position for us.

Another issue that I noticed on Saturday was the lack of movement in front of the defence - one time that really sticks out is where Collins kept gesturing for Basham to show himself for a pass (in vain) before offloading it long towards Sharp/Sammon and turning to berate Basham. In the time that Collins spent on the ball, prolonged by the lack of an option ahead of him, he could easily have been dispossessed by an opponent. This happens several times during a match and could well cost us goals in the long run. Contrast this with Wigan who had Morsy always available for a short pass from any of the back four (indeed almost playing in the position of a sweeper/3rd centre half for much of the game) and then intelligent movement ahead/around him.

Bang on the money Jason.

Additions at CB are coming we all know that and it won't do us any harm. Indeed, assuming we get better quality it will certainly strengthen the defence.

Real weakness is definitely midfield and yes, the man Morsy played a great game on Saturday. Our central midfielders were ponderous in comparison to Wigan's and Saturday at least, both Baxter and Coutts were poor. Pity for the latter who's been one of our better players of late and much improved.

For me it's not so much cover for the CBs, I think we have that at present. My frustration is the lack of creativity there and the lack of support for the forwards. Poor old Edwards has been saying the same on the radio for weeks and he's been hammered on here by the Clappettes (who obviously know better)

 

[Fulwood Blade]

To answer the OP - emphatically YES

Has been since Andy Butler (allegedly) plus others opened his big gob and upset Clough.

If people think Edgar and Collins are good enough for us, to be in the team, and finish top two, then I think they are mistaken.

2 x CH's is the start of putting our problem right.

Clough knew this and we wouldn't be here where we are if he had been allowed to solve "the" problem.

UTB

 

[nopigfansintown]

Our CB's lack pace so we try to defend too deep to compensate - neither McE. Collins or Edgar are blessed with pace. (I seem to recall one of the reported disagreements between Collins and Clough was that Clough wanted the defence to play a higher line). Add to this that none of them are much good on the ball and carrying it forward and this further slows our attacks and weakens us in midfield - more often than not we are outnumbered there, especially if their defence carries the ball out - something we haven't done since we lost HM.The only attacking defender we have is Brayford. This then impacts through the way we set up and play.

If our strikers stay up and the defence plays too deep that creates an awful lot of grass for our midfield to cover - especially defensively if Coutts, Woolford or Baxter are playing. The midfield pairing of Hammond and Basham is purely a defensive ploy to protect the back four in an attempt to stop leaking goals (41 so far this season against 53 all last season) - neither of them have creativity or passing as a strength and they don't have the engine (or opportunity really ) to do box to box as they have to hold a position since the other MF players are poor defensively and pace-wise (particularly Baxter, Coutts, Woolford). A case in point, as Bergen pointed out elsewhere, was when Basham got caught out of position v Wigan - Coutts and Baxter were not switched on to the possible danger.

I think your first two paragraphs add a lot to the debate and actually show why Clough failed to turn United into an effective attacking side in his second season(especially at home), as well as addressing the OP. We were too slow getting the ball through the thirds - we didn't have the most composed third tier CH with the ability to carry the ball or use his excellent passing range any longer. That meant we went across the back four and hoofed it from full back to non existent target man (we do it now to Woolford). Or passed it at snails pace giving opposition geriatrics ample time to get in position. That is still the case: if we had a great ball playing CH now, the depth of the back four wouldn't be quite the issue it is as they would help to cover the space and allow the team to get out. Clough, to his credit identified the problem but ultimately that, and not signing a capable target man or a capable replacement for Coady cost him his job imo. Football systems failings bring on the domino effect. This meant Scougall was trying to help out the centre halves instead of staying close to the final third; Murphy was double banked and his great break aways became more rare. Coady's break aways were none existent. United will never be able to play the 442 champagne football until they address the lack of pace, or perhaps more accurately - the fear of opposition pace. The way to emphasise your CM's lack of pace and mobility is for your CH's to drop too deep.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Our CB's lack pace so we try to defend too deep to compensate - neither McE. Collins or Edgar are blessed with pace. (I seem to recall one of the reported disagreements between Collins and Clough was that Clough wanted the defence to play a higher line). Add to this that none of them are much good on the ball and carrying it forward and this further slows our attacks and weakens us in midfield - more often than not we are outnumbered there, especially if their defence carries the ball out - something we haven't done since we lost HM.The only attacking defender we have is Brayford. This then impacts through the way we set up and play.

If our strikers stay up and the defence plays too deep that creates an awful lot of grass for our midfield to cover - especially defensively if Coutts, Woolford or Baxter are playing. The midfield pairing of Hammond and Basham is purely a defensive ploy to protect the back four in an attempt to stop leaking goals (41 so far this season against 53 all last season) - neither of them have creativity or passing as a strength and they don't have the engine (or opportunity really ) to do box to box as they have to hold a position since the other MF players are poor defensively and pace-wise (particularly Baxter, Coutts, Woolford). A case in point, as Bergen pointed out elsewhere, was when Basham got caught out of position v Wigan - Coutts and Baxter were not switched on to the possible danger.

I think your first two paragraphs add a lot to the debate and actually show why Clough failed to turn United into an effective attacking side in his second season(especially at home), as well as addressing the OP. We were too slow getting the ball through the thirds - we didn't have the most composed third tier CH with the ability to carry the ball or use his excellent passing range any longer. That meant we went across the back four and hoofed it from full back to non existent target man (we do it now to Woolford). Or passed it at snails pace giving opposition geriatrics ample time to get in position. That is still the case: if we had a great ball playing CH now, the depth of the back four wouldn't be quite the issue it is as they would help to cover the space and allow the team to get out. Clough, to his credit identified the problem but ultimately that, and not signing a capable target man or a capable replacement for Coady cost him his job imo. Football systems failings bring on the domino effect. This meant Scougall was trying to help out the centre halves instead of staying close to the final third; Murphy was double banked and his great break aways became more rare. Coady's break aways were none existent. United will never be able to play the 442 champagne football until they address the lack of pace, or perhaps more accurately - the fear of opposition pace. The way to emphasise your CM's lack of pace and mobility is for your CH's to drop too deep.
Iagree with all the rest except maybe Kieron Wallace adding pace to the left back or WB role. Should be given his head imo.

 

[VLYDONIMIR]

That's a Big 10-4 Good Buddy.
Any Suicide-Jockeys out there, Kojaks with Kodaks by the Three Sisters.

 

[nopigfansintown]

I think your first two paragraphs add a lot to the debate and actually show why Clough failed to turn United into an effective attacking side in his second season(especially at home), as well as addressing the OP. We were too slow getting the ball through the thirds - we didn't have the most composed third tier CH with the ability to carry the ball or use his excellent passing range any longer. That meant we went across the back four and hoofed it from full back to non existent target man (we do it now to Woolford). Or passed it at snails pace giving opposition geriatrics ample time to get in position. That is still the case: if we had a great ball playing CH now, the depth of the back four wouldn't be quite the issue it is as they would help to cover the space and allow the team to get out. Clough, to his credit identified the problem but ultimately that, and not signing a capable target man or a capable replacement for Coady cost him his job imo. Football systems failings bring on the domino effect. This meant Scougall was trying to help out the centre halves instead of staying close to the final third; Murphy was double banked and his great break aways became more rare. Coady's break aways were none existent. United will never be able to play the 442 champagne football until they address the lack of pace, or perhaps more accurately - the fear of opposition pace. The way to emphasise your CM's lack of pace and mobility is for your CH's to drop too deep.
Iagree with all the rest except maybe Kieron Wallace adding pace to the left back or WB role. Should be given his head imo.[/QUOTE]

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

To answer the OP - emphatically YES

Has been since Andy Butler (allegedly) plus others opened his big gob and upset Clough.

If people think Edgar and Collins are good enough for us, to be in the team, and finish top two, then I think they are mistaken.

2 x CH's is the start of putting our problem right.

Clough knew this and we wouldn't be here where we are if he had been allowed to solve "the" problem.

UTB

Agree, build from the back thus making sure you don't have to score twice just to get a point.

 

[alcoblade]

The defence isn't up to it. Adkins This was evident again on Saturday. We need a replacement of Collins(who's god enough in a defensive setup, just) before we can move forward.

But a skilful, energetic midfielder is a priority too. Someone who can support the defence AND the forwards. We don't have a single one at the club.

And then we need a big forward to hold the ball up, if only as an option. Winders are pointless in the current set-up, be we cant move away from the current setup because of weaknesses elsewhere.

The useless Sammon looks even more useless because we sit so deep as a team. So when the inevitable bobble off "ten bob head" occurs, there's too few players in the vicinity. But he's still useless and needs replacing.

So my priorities would be those 3 positions - starting from the back and working forwards.

UTB

 

[VLYDONIMIR]

Have a strong spine, then build from that.
Our spine isn't anywhere near strong enough.
That starts with the GK thru' to the CF's.

We're neither strong or creative, not just thru' the centre, but out wide too.

Signing a CH would be a start, but it's February and the season started in August, last year.

 

[BerksBlade]

Clough knew this and we wouldn't be here where we are if he had been allowed to solve "the" problem.

In a way Clough caused the problem by sidelining Butler & Collins for reasons undocumented. Maguire leaving was always a possibility and Butler was supposed to be the insurance. He had opportunities to fix the problem, but didn't do so. So we ended up with the Beard at CB, where he got injured.
The Board obviously didn't like Clough's "solution" in the summer (Shaun Barker?).

 

[nopigfansintown]

The most logical formation for us is five in midfield or any formation which emphasises blocking the middle of the pitch (three midfielders very narrow in a 433?) Adkins has obviously come under strict instructions to "attack". If you cant get the ball or your defensive shape is shocking, what are your your attacking principles worth?

PS sorry for the double post

 

[Living In a Fantasy World]

They are a problem, but I do agree that midfield shares as much of the blame.
But I do think we are light in midfield I much prefered it when we had 5 but Adkins insists playing 4-4-2.

 

[BushBlade]

They are a problem, but I do agree that midfield shares as much of the blame.
But I do think we are light in midfield I much prefered it when we had 5 but Adkins insists playing 4-4-2.

Because Billy isn't a lone striker. Not unless we played like Donny and we don't have the players for that. And you can't drop Billy.
He's like Shearer or Gerard. Drop him and lose and you're fucked.