GoalWatch vs Walsall

[Woodwardfan]

How many times do I have to make the point to make it sink in ? Its not about running around a lot ,he offers very little at all in a team ,which is why his career has gone spectacularly down the pan since he was rated with Rooney. He has no more quality on the ball than 5 or 6 more on our team ,his team ethic is nil ,as for his technique ,when was the last time he took a decent corner or free kick ? They are terrible and I don't mean the odd one ,its the 6 - 12 he takes a game.
I don't know how you want me to substantiate this any further ,even Im bored with it .
If you think he is value for money or the equivalent of fabregas or a specialist , an artist or a technician good for you. He would be released in the January window if I was manager ,I think he is a liability with exaggerated ability ,poor technique and will ultimately cost us promotion if we stick with him.

OK Sitters. now substantiate Scougall, Murphy, Flynn, Doyle, Adams, McNulty, Wallace, McGinn, Porter, Davies, Higdon, Collins, Harris, McGahey, Basham, Howard, Turner, Long, Alcock, McEveley, Cmpbell-Ryce.

We are in league 1 for goodness sake.

 

[oxonblade]

There is a big difference between players being idle, and them making poor decisions. We have all been frustrated by the teams inability to hit last years form. However, Baxter is lazy whilst others are not. Murphy Scougs and Baxter are all well below last years form. In the Walsall goal, for me Murphy's lack of cover meant their right winger was completely unmarked, and this leads to our whole defence having adjust when the ball gets to him. This is a collective problem and not just Baxter, and the coaching staff must deal with this urgently.

 

[sitwell]

Out your list I would get rid of (Baxter )McGinn ,Porter ,Collins and Long.
Of the others ,I would probably replace Higdon and hope Mcgahey can improve. the rest I would keep and think can get us up with couple of additions.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Zonal defending has more rules than, 'he's close, so he should pick him up'. There is a structure, a shape to both the midfield and the defence, where they work as a unit. Imagine an elastic rope tied round each midfielders waist. When one (Scougall) pushes up, the other three concentrate, pull together more central behind him. If the opposition play it sideways, Scougall has to get back in line, and another player pushes out to close down, while they all move over in that direction.

When Baxter doesn't do this I will be singling him out. It's got nothing to do with being harsh on any player. He is the one who doesn't do his job within the ideal structure of a zonal marking midfield.

The point of analyses is to be able to tell the players: This is what went wrong. This is what we want you to do - and then hopefully you get improvement.

If you look at the photos and just see who's nearest and then think 'I think he should have done something' you'll get too many opinions, and not enough clear guidelines. You think Harris should have gone there, others may claim Basham should have pushed out, others that Adams should have spotted the danger and sprinted back from his forward position. Team meetings would get very vocal I imagine.

Or you could stick to simple, basic rules that will give you good organisation, or specific things to work on at Shirecliffe if we've been slipping up.

Bergen, your elastic band was round the three midfield players in your first photo and they were Doyle, Scougall and Murphy. Why did you point to Baxter if the "band" was in place? Murphy was furthest back in your zonal theory.

The other "band" round the single forward did not have to be elasticated, there were four defenders, there was loads of slack in it. Plenty to release a bit of tension in the rubber if Harris had pushed up.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Out your list I would get rid of (Baxter )McGinn ,Porter ,Collins and Long.
Of the others ,I would probably replace Higdon and hope Mcgahey can improve. the rest I would keep and think can get us up with couple of additions.

Honestly in our current situation, would you really get rid of Baxter, honestly? I ask you. Think about it in the context of where we are and what we've got.

If so, who would be your creative playmaker? And then when he's injured or suspended, who would you play then?

 

[Dnblade]

Just on the goal...anyone notice 2 or 3 United players make unsuccessful challenges to win the ball back before it went to the wide man.So even though a box full of red and white couldn't prevent a free header,we failed to prevent the attack once it progressed into our half.

 

[sitwell]

Honestly in our current situation, would you really get rid of Baxter, honestly? I ask you. Think about it in the context of where we are and what we've got.

If so, who would be your creative playmaker? And then when he's injured or suspended, who would you play then?

Last time ,Yes I would honestly get rid of Baxter ,he is a liability and will cost us promotion. Cut and paste that and just put it in every response you want because Im off to the States in a couple of hours.
he doesn't create enough and is certainly no playmaker. I would rather have Reed ,Wallace J ,Scougall ,Murphy or even Basham now he has confidence. Not seen enough of Wallace L or Adams yet but Adams put 2 balls through against Southampton which Baxter produces rarely against much lesser opposition. What is not required is an over-rated, static, show pony ,poncing about in the centre circle ,ambling up slowing momentum to float another corner into the goalkeepers arms or a free kick into the kop.
Do you deny we were much more fluent and threatening and exciting against Southampton ?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Last time ,Yes I would honestly get rid of Baxter ,he is a liability and will cost us promotion. Cut and paste that and just put it in every response you want because Im off to the States in a couple of hours.
he doesn't create enough and is certainly no playmaker. I would rather have Reed ,Wallace J ,Scougall ,Murphy or even Basham now he has confidence. Not seen enough of Wallace L or Adams yet but Adams put 2 balls through against Southampton which Baxter produces rarely against much lesser opposition. What is not required is an over-rated, static, show pony ,poncing about in the centre circle ,ambling up slowing momentum to float another corner into the goalkeepers arms or a free kick into the kop.
Do you deny we were much more fluent and threatening and exciting against Southampton ?

Thanks sitwell, that's an answer with conviction. I totally disagree with you and that's life. Have a good trip.

 

[sitwell]

Cheers ,enjoyed the debate shame your wrong

 

[Bergen Blade]

Bergen, your elastic band was round the three midfield players in your first photo and they were Doyle, Scougall and Murphy. Why did you point to Baxter if the "band" was in place?

The other "band" round the single forward did not have to be elasticated, there were four defenders, there was loads of slack in it. Plenty to release a bit of tension in the rubber if Harris had pushed up.

Baxter played left midfield so also has the band tied to his waist. So when Scougall pushes up, the other three - Murphy, Doyle and Baxter pulls together behind him.

Roughly:

Starting position:----------------------------------------- CORRECT: Remaining midfielders concentrating.-WRONG: Baxter's mistake leaving gap to play in

 

[Bergen Blade]

Just on the goal...anyone notice 2 or 3 United players make unsuccessful challenges to win the ball back before it went to the wide man.So even though a box full of red and white couldn't prevent a free header,we failed to prevent the attack once it progressed into our half.

I noticed! Doyle and Scougall get challenges in, but these are desperate attempts as we've already been caught out.

Also, figures showed once that you need 234 attacks to score a goal if the attack starts in your own half. If you win the ball in the opposition half, the number is 34. In quick succession Walsall twice regained possession it in the dangerous area between our defence and midfield and this creates problems.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Baxter played left midfield so also has the band tied to his waist. So when Scougall pushes up, the other three - Murphy, Doyle and Baxter pulls together behind him.

Roughly:

Starting position:----------------------------------------- CORRECT: Remaining midfielders concentrating.-WRONG: Baxter's mistake leaving gap to play in
View attachment 10037 View attachment 10038View attachment 10039

But those hypothetical diagrams are nothing like your first video photo. Murphy was furthest back, then Doyle , then Scougall and Baxter. please explain.

Also can you tell us when we lost possession and how we lost it, who and in which area please.

Then, why should we need 4 at the back? That's some "elastic band" wrapped around a single striker who heads a goal without a challenge.

Frankly I think there's a bit too much theory here and it doesn't make much sense. For Baxter to assume most of the blame is patent nonsense.

 

[Wards]

He has no more quality on the ball than 5 or 6 more on our team ,his team ethic is nil ,as for his technique ,when was the last time he took a decent corner or free kick...I think he is a liability with exaggerated ability ,poor technique and will ultimately cost us promotion if we stick with him.

 

[crucialkneeligaman]

Very interesting the more people say about the situation. The gap between defence and midfield was wide and at that stage of the game Walsall had hardly been in our final third. Why was the back 4 so deep? Or should the midfield really have been deeper, bearing in mind we had just given up the ball presumably.

I recall on the day Doyle and Scougall going in really hard on the man in possession and just missing out. Why should it have been left just to them? As I said before, who were all the Back 4 marking, if not fresh air. Walsall end the move with 3 in our box, and there was the winger who chipped the ball across. We had 6 plus the keeper in the photo frame plus McGahey and Murphy near the winger. Therefore we had 9 players back to defend a 4 player attack. The manager cannot do anything about goals conceded like this, it's a bloody nightmare really.

I still think Harris played the role of bystander, marking nothing. Baxter failed to jump once he got there. Basham was out of position sadly. McEveley went across to cover McGahey. Doyle nearly got back again. What a mess, hey we're not playing Ronaldo, Kroos and Benzema here!!

Agree about Doyle going in hard on their man, but Scougs appeared to nesh his challenge.

 

[Cyprus Blade]

I think there's a bit of beat up baxter syndrome around some of the posts. Yes he is not the most energetic and he blows hot and cold ( and especially after running) but to lump responsibility for the goal on him alone is hogwash. I'm not sure how Scougall and Doyle got out of this scot free. The ball into our half which starts the move sees Doyle and Scougall marking fresh air. Doyle's tackle is desperate (his wife agrees apparently) - its supposed to be his forte as well, but he starts out in non man's land. They are able to pinpoint the cross because the makeshift RB is standing too far off the player - lost him completely. NC seems to agree - "Harrison (McGahey) did okay at right-back but when you get a centre-half playing there he can get tucked too far in and that happened for their goal."

I don't agree that we have any number of players capable of seeing and making the pass for our goal - Doyle couldn't in a month of Sundays and Scougall is a headless chicken this season. Reed could. We all see things differently. Happy Christmas.

 

[JohnDenver]

This can lead to gaps in between them and it's exactly what happened when Walsall scored.

From the moment Walsall's spell of possession began, Clough was doing his nut, yelling at his team and doing the "squeeze together" arm gesture to get the players to tighten-up. He continued to do this until Walsall scored, when he went even nuttier.

 

[Bergen Blade]

But those hypothetical diagrams are nothing like your first video photo. Murphy was furthest back, then Doyle , then Scougall and Baxter. please explain.

The last one is similar in principle, don't you think? It shows one player closing down the man on the ball, and two others covering, then the left sided midfielder is too wide, just like the first photo in the OP. Murphy being a yard or two behind Doyle is normal, a midfield line can't be expected, nor does it need to be, as straight as the defensive line, which must have the offside rule in mind.

Also can you tell us when we lost possession and how we lost it, who and in which area please.

Both Doyle and Scougall got interceptions in, but Walsall picked the ball up again. See second photo in OP with description right above it.

Then, why should we need 4 at the back? That's some "elastic band" wrapped around a single striker who heads a goal without a challenge.

They have three players attacking the box when they score. Why we need four at the back? Not sure if it's what you want to know, but a zonal defence will always try to establish:

• 1st defender, closing down the man on the ball (McGahey when they cross the ball)
• 2nd defender, covering behind the 1st def in case he gets past (McEveley)
• 3rd defenders, marking zone and players within it (Basham, Harris, anyone else)

Frankly I think there's a bit too much theory here and it doesn't make much sense. For Baxter to assume most of the blame is patent nonsense.

Apologies if my explanations are poor, the basic principles of zonal marking are pretty simple. Baxter being in the wrong position is what gave them space to play in and it is what made the rest of the attack difficult to deal with. I want our defending to be proactive, rather than reactive. I want us to be organised and difficult to break down and that's why I look at why we give chances away, not just who was closest to the guy who scored.

 

[Bergen Blade]

I'm not sure how Scougall and Doyle got out of this scot free. The ball into our half which starts the move sees Doyle and Scougall marking fresh air. Doyle's tackle is desperate (his wife agrees apparently) - its supposed to be his forte as well, but he starts out in non man's land.

Doyle is the second defender covering behind Scougall and is in a decent position. He realises Baxter hasn't tucked in though so desperately moves over and then tracks back, but our midfield as a defensive shield never quite recovers.

 

[Woodwardfan]

A stimulating thread thanks Bergen. 9 men back v 3 in the area wasn't enough on this occasion but it should be really.

 

[wizadry]

If Baxter didn't play it would have been 0-0 according to some,in one way or another.He made the goal brilliantly and then apparently gave them theirs.Never mind,we've still got Doyle,who can't even do the basic job of sitting infront of the CB's.There's always players running past Doyle and no one even mentions a thing about it,even though that's his main job,to stop them.

Woodwardfan is correct in saying that Baxter is there to create and score goals mainly,rather than stop them,even though he was in a position to stop the goal at Fleetwood before McEveley decided to stick his arms up in the air and handball it over him.This is also Scouggs' main attribute,but only one out of the two can play there.

How many players do we have on the pitch to do the dirty work?Not all 11 players need to do it.It's nice if they could,but the chance of that happening are very slim to none.I'm not saying Baxter has been brilliant by any means because he certainly hasn't but for us to even think about getting rid of one of our most influential players would be very stupid indeed.

Baxter and Scougall are 2 players i grew very fond of but it has now,more than ever,come apparent that they cannot play together.Don't ask me why because it worked perfectly well last year,having said that Brayford and Coady really were different gravy and created a real buzz around the place that made everybody click.

For now i'd play Baxter and leave Scougall on the bench and use him as an impact player until the confidence is back,like i say Baxter isn't lighting the place up 'atm' but he is definately contributing a lot more than our little man in Scouggs who i really do like.Scouggs needs to be up the pitch causing havoc,not chasing back limiting the chances of him doing what he does best.Anybody remember the goal at MK Dons last year,i thought we would see him do that quite often in this league this season but for one reason or another it just hasn't come to fruition for him just yet,there's time yet though.

Scougall at Colchester when he came on was also very influential indeed and i can see him doing this more often when used off the bench against tiring league one sides.

Clough isn't going to play Reed a lot with the looks of it which is guttering 'btw' so we have to have atleast one player in the middle who can unlock someone's defence,we only really have Baxter who can do this 'atm' just like he did on Saturday,so for me,and this isn't sticking up for him sitwell ,this is looking at the options we have and simply saying he has to start 'atm'.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I'm weary of sticking up for Baxter. In life maybe you have to take notice of your forum.

I've worked out his average rating on here in 25 games this season and it's 5.54 - nowhere near good enough.

If Wallace gets fit and Cuvelier too, maybe they are more of the "real deal". Trouble is they are not fit enough so who else do we turn to?

 

[Dnblade]

I'm weary of sticking up for Baxter. In life maybe you have to take notice of your forum.

I've worked out his average rating on here in 25 games this season and it's 5.54 - nowhere near good enough.

If Wallace gets fit and Cuvelier too, maybe they are more of the "real deal". Trouble is they are not fit enough so who else do we turn to?

Mark Mcnulty who never got a kick coming on as sub has got a higher score in the match ratings than Baxter who created the goal...something not right there.

 

[wizadry]

I'm weary of sticking up for Baxter. In life maybe you have to take notice of your forum.

I've worked out his average rating on here in 25 games this season and it's 5.54 - nowhere near good enough.

If Wallace gets fit and Cuvelier too, maybe they are more of the "real deal". Trouble is they are not fit enough so who else do we turn to?

That's just it,fitness wise and player ability,who do we play instead of Baxter?

Scougall definately needs benching,i think that goes without saying,but we can't drop everybody.So Baxter has to play while he's not willing to play Reed hardly ever it seems,Wallace is always injured,young Wallace is very raw to say the least,Doyle is great at passing to the opposition,Cuvelier is only just coming back from a serious injury.I'd love to know who people would play instead of Baxter who would actually create something and who Clough is willing to play 'atm'.

 

[wizadry]

Mark Mcnulty who never got a kick coming on as sub has got a higher score in the match ratings than Baxter who created the goal...something not right there.

Exactly mate.No dis respect to people that give ratings but Flynn has got loads of MOTM's on here when he was clearly not the best player and sometimes only been off the bench for a short period of time.Some people vote with agenda's in mind and it spoils how they view the game when rating a match.