Midfield's defending at Crewe

[Bergen Blade]

I focused on our attacking movement in the other post following the Crewe game. Our tempo was poor and we struggled to make use of the pace we had in the forward positions. I blamed a pedestrian midfield for the lack of tempo.

It is not just about trying to pass the ball quicker to each other though. Poor tempo is also linked to what we do when the opposition have the ball. Too often this season we've seen the opposition run through our midfield and we don't win the ball often enough in good positions.

Compared to last season we've changed to a four man midfield most of this season. Despite this we've also used players whose work rate, stamina and ability to cover grass aren't their greatest strength. AND we have used out and out wingers, or forwards in wide midfield.

A comment from the other thread from him behind you was:

I also think we don't press enough when we don't have the ball.

I agree with this and don't think the selected midfield at Crewe will ever be capable of doing it very well. Another quote:

Klopp has termed his philosophy "Gegenpressing" the German word "gegen" meaning to counter. In other words, pressing is intense and organised and flips defending into counter attacking rapidly to catch the opposition defence disorganised.

After the opening ten minutes, we couldn't do this at Crewe, we didn't have the required legs in midfield.

Here's a few examples of Liverpool's pressing in Klopp's first game:




And this is The Blades trying to do it at Crewe:




And a couple of examples of our midfield struggling to prevent Crewe from running straight through us in midfield, let alone doing something that resembles effective gegenpressing:

 

[raul]

What about ,,,,arsenals defending ,,,,, at Bayern?

 

[Sirius]

I focused on our attacking movement in the other post following the Crewe game. Our tempo was poor and we struggled to make use of the pace we had in the forward positions. I blamed a pedestrian midfield for the lack of tempo.

It is not just about trying to pass the ball quicker to each other though. Poor tempo is also linked to what we do when the opposition have the ball. Too often this season we've seen the opposition run through our midfield and we don't win the ball often enough in good positions.

Compared to last season we've changed to a four man midfield most of this season. Despite this we've also used players whose work rate, stamina and ability to cover grass aren't their greatest strength. AND we have used out and out wingers, or forwards in wide midfield.

A comment from the other thread from him behind you was:



I agree with this and don't think the selected midfield at Crewe will ever be capable of doing it very well. Another quote:



After the opening ten minutes, we couldn't do this at Crewe, we didn't have the required legs in midfield.

Here's a few examples of Liverpool's pressing in Klopp's first game:




And this is The Blades trying to do it at Crewe:




And a couple of examples of our midfield struggling to prevent Crewe from running straight through us in midfield, let alone doing something that resembles effective gegenpressing:

Thanks again Bergs I enjoy this type of input. A picture tells a thousand words

 

[UnitedBlade]

I would love a Blades side that could Gegenpress. I suspect this would be another purchase.

If Brayford proves his fitness, he is the only person in the entire club I can think of who would do this effectively.

It's been our achilles heel for 3 seasons now. Anyone who can press us closely and persistently usually has a field day and take 3 points away with them. Generally we find it very difficult to take 3 points from any club in the top 6 in this league, partly because we are poor at pressing and collapse if opponents press us.

 

[Bergen Blade]

What about ,,,,arsenals defending ,,,,, at Bayern?

Only watched the highlights, they seemed to struggle?

 

[JohnDenver]

we are poor at pressing and collapse if opponents press us.

That'd be funny if it wasn't so bloody true.

The thing with pressing is that it has to be a whole-team enterprise or it's wasted effort. How often do we see Scougall or Done doing shuttle runs to little effect?

It only takes the odd lazy player (Baxter), or the odd crock (Coutts), or even a stubbornly deep-lying defender (Collins), and the players doing the running become traffic cones. And dispirited ones at that.

The list of players in our team who are essentially incompatible with their team mates is remarkable.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Liverpool were magnificent this evening and yes they were pressing high upfield and had highly mobile players all over the field moving quickly into position once the ball was won. The majority of passes were forward and penetrating. The full backs overtook the midfield time and again. The opposition were overwhelmed.

Our previous manager spent two years signing and cultivating a system of playing which was almost directly the opposite of "gegenpressing", we dropped back into a flooded midfield and moved the ball slowly once the opposition had surrendered it. Our squad is comprised almost entirely of non-pressers now Doyle has gone.

The new manager has tried to bring more verve and optimism into our play by including Adams, Sharp, Done, Sammon and Ryce at times but has not signed any "gegenpressers" as yet. Quite the opposite, in Hammond and Woolford.

To be fair it will take a long time to create a pressing squad and so Adkins has to find a way of playing with the players he inherited plus a few of his own at this stage. "Gegenpressing" is not an option if indeed that is what he ever wants to play. Just because Klopp does it doesn't mean everybody has to. So the manager is working with what he has. He's still only been here just over 4 months.

Having said all that, the signing of Hammond is a complete mystery to me, having seen him play and studied his record and enquired of a Foxes pal. He has never been a presser, more a deep lying midfield stopper; slow tempo but rock solid role model and leader though. Perhaps he has been signed for his presence and authority in the dressing room and on the pitch. If he's staying the formation has to be built round him but if Coutts makes a case all of a sudden the manager either has to play them both or disappoint one of them...and I still think Coutts can make a case.

 

[Bergen Blade]

Liverpool were magnificent this evening and yes they were pressing high upfield and had highly mobile players all over the field moving quickly into position once the ball was won. The majority of passes were forward and penetrating. The full backs overtook the midfield time and again. The opposition were overwhelmed.

Our previous manager spent two years signing and cultivating a system of playing which was almost directly the opposite of "gegenpressing", we dropped back into a flooded midfield and moved the ball slowly once the opposition had surrendered it. Our squad is comprised almost entirely of non-pressers now Doyle has gone.

The new manager has tried to bring more verve and optimism into our play by including Adams, Sharp, Done, Sammon and Ryce at times but has not signed any "gegenpressers" as yet. Quite the opposite, in Hammond and Woolford.

To be fair it will take a long time to create a pressing squad and so Adkins has to find a way of playing with the players he inherited plus a few of his own at this stage. "Gegenpressing" is not an option if indeed that is what he ever wants to play. Just because Klopp does it doesn't mean everybody has to. So the manager is working with what he has. He's still only been here just over 4 months.

Having said all that, the signing of Hammond is a complete mystery to me, having seen him play and studied his record and enquired of a Foxes pal. He has never been a presser, more a deep lying midfield stopper; slow tempo but rock solid role model and leader though. Perhaps he has been signed for his presence and authority in the dressing room and on the pitch. If he's staying the formation has to be built round him but if Coutts makes a case all of a sudden the manager either has to play them both or disappoint one of them...and I still think Coutts can make a case.

I think we countered very well in Clough's first season. In his second season we struggled to get anything to work properly and couldn't fix a problem without creating another.

Adkins is struggling with the same now I think. He's tried different systems, narrow midfields, wide open midfields, non creative, holding central midfields, but judging by our last game is no nearer to finding a solid line up which brings the most out of all players. I also think it's strange to hear him talk about wanting an energetic team - and then select Coutts, Hammond and Baxter in the same midfield. What remains to be tried in my opinion is a very fit, mobile and hard working midfield. I only think there's room for one of Coutts, Hammond and Baxter in such a set up.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

Liverpool were magnificent this evening and yes they were pressing high upfield and had highly mobile players all over the field moving quickly into position once the ball was won. The majority of passes were forward and penetrating. The full backs overtook the midfield time and again. The opposition were overwhelmed.

Our previous manager spent two years signing and cultivating a system of playing which was almost directly the opposite of "gegenpressing", we dropped back into a flooded midfield and moved the ball slowly once the opposition had surrendered it. Our squad is comprised almost entirely of non-pressers now Doyle has gone.

The new manager has tried to bring more verve and optimism into our play by including Adams, Sharp, Done, Sammon and Ryce at times but has not signed any "gegenpressers" as yet. Quite the opposite, in Hammond and Woolford.

To be fair it will take a long time to create a pressing squad and so Adkins has to find a way of playing with the players he inherited plus a few of his own at this stage. "Gegenpressing" is not an option if indeed that is what he ever wants to play. Just because Klopp does it doesn't mean everybody has to. So the manager is working with what he has. He's still only been here just over 4 months.

Having said all that, the signing of Hammond is a complete mystery to me, having seen him play and studied his record and enquired of a Foxes pal. He has never been a presser, more a deep lying midfield stopper; slow tempo but rock solid role model and leader though. Perhaps he has been signed for his presence and authority in the dressing room and on the pitch. If he's staying the formation has to be built round him but if Coutts makes a case all of a sudden the manager either has to play them both or disappoint one of them...and I still think Coutts can make a case.

Most agreed we missed a deep lying holding midfielder with positional discipline since Doyle left. Hammond was signed to fill that void. I wasn’t expecting him to be charging all over the pitch. We have Basham, Scougall and Done who can do that. What has disappointed me though is that since he came in, we’ve conceded two goals (Crewe and Millwall’s 2nd) where he seems to have been partly culpable for letting a midfield runner getting away. I was hopeful that he would bring that added protection to the back 4. Hopefully, when Edgar’s fit, Basham can rejoin him in midfield and between them, they can give the protection he defence need whilst Adams, Sharp, Sammon and JCR (or sometimes Done) can provide the attacking threat.

 

[Fjortoft's Aeroplane]

Just watched our Crewe low-lights there. How very degegenpressing.

 

[judge]

Our midfield

 

[Woodwardfan]

I think we countered very well in Clough's first season. In his second season we struggled to get anything to work properly and couldn't fix a problem without creating another.

Adkins is struggling with the same now I think. He's tried different systems, narrow midfields, wide open midfields, non creative, holding central midfields, but judging by our last game is no nearer to finding a solid line up which brings the most out of all players. I also think it's strange to hear him talk about wanting an energetic team - and then select Coutts, Hammond and Baxter in the same midfield. What remains to be tried in my opinion is a very fit, mobile and hard working midfield. I only think there's room for one of Coutts, Hammond and Baxter in such a set up.

If we play 4-2-3-1 with Coutts and Hammond as the 2, then the full backs can add all the energy we need to supplement that from 4 other attacking players. Coutts and Hammond have enough nous to cover an overlapping full back and Coutts would find himself initiating most of our attacks, largely through Brayford ( fingers crossed) or Harris, Baxter or Reed, Adams and Done. Coutts would be permitted to go into the final third himself of course. This defending lark shouldn't need more than 4 as long as the midfield doesn't totally overcommit itself. If it does, give away the foul.

I know that it would need to be seen working to be believed but I think it gets our best players on the park. I hate to see quality players sitting on the bench while lesser players make the team. I lso think it is the formation in Adkins mind at least until January.

 

[Fjortoft's Aeroplane]

If we play 4-2-3-1 with Coutts and Hammond as the 2, then the full backs can add all the energy we need to supplement that from 4 other attacking players. Coutts and Hammond have enough nous to cover an overlapping full back and Coutts would find himself initiating most of our attacks, largely through Brayford ( fingers crossed) or Harris, Baxter or Reed, Adams and Done. Coutts would be permitted to go into the final third himself of course. This defending lark shouldn't need more than 4 as long as the midfield doesn't totally overcommit itself. If it does, give away the foul.

I know that it would need to be seen working to be believed but I think it gets our best players on the park. I hate to see quality players sitting on the bench while lesser players make the team. I lso think it is the formation in Adkins mind at least until January.

On what evidence do you base the assertion that Coutts & Hammond are two of our best players?

 

[Woodwardfan]

On what evidence do you base the assertion that Coutts & Hammond are two of our best players?

Good point.

On the basis that they have to be if we are to achieve anything this season. Without a couple of leaders and influencers in midfield I'm afraid we only have Sharp who has the where-withall to think for himself. Without them coming good I can't picture any combination for Adkins to form a settled side. Hope that makes sense.

I'm still hopeful they can earn their salaries which I'm sure reflect that they are two of our best players.

 

[BushBlade]

If we play 4-2-3-1 with Coutts and Hammond as the 2, then the full backs can add all the energy we need to supplement that from 4 other attacking players. Coutts and Hammond have enough nous to cover an overlapping full back and Coutts would find himself initiating most of our attacks, largely through Brayford ( fingers crossed) or Harris, Baxter or Reed, Adams and Done. Coutts would be permitted to go into the final third himself of course. This defending lark shouldn't need more than 4 as long as the midfield doesn't totally overcommit itself. If it does, give away the foul.

I know that it would need to be seen working to be believed but I think it gets our best players on the park. I hate to see quality players sitting on the bench while lesser players make the team. I lso think it is the formation in Adkins mind at least until January.

Imo, the best exponent of the 4231 in the PL at the moment is Pochettino. He's had the time to build a side with the type of players he thinks are suitable for that formation, which allows one to look at the attributes they bring, to try to understand how the system works.

The way I see it is that you need two mobile defenders, quite pacy and with a good reading of the game, and two central midfielders who are athletic and have a reasonably complete skill set; they have to be good defensively, retain and pass the ball and be able to support the attack. They have to be fit enough to get up and down the pitch, essentially an old fashioned box to box midfielder.

The defence keeps a high line (which is why they need to be mobile and good at reading the game) so that the two central midfielders can support the attacking four in possession and back them up when they're pressing to win the ball back. See Bergen's comments on pressing.

I don't think we've got the players to play 4231.

 

[Woodwardfan]

Imo, the best exponent of the 4231 in the PL at the moment is Pochettino. He's had the time to build a side with the type of players he thinks are suitable for that formation, which allows one to look at the attributes they bring, to try to understand how the system works.

The way I see it is that you need two mobile defenders, quite pacy and with a good reading of the game, and two central midfielders who are athletic and have a reasonably complete skill set; they have to be good defensively, retain and pass the ball and be able to support the attack. They have to be fit enough to get up and down the pitch, essentially an old fashioned box to box midfielder.

The defence keeps a high line (which is why they need to be mobile and good at reading the game) so that the two central midfielders can support the attacking four in possession and back them up when they're pressing to win the ball back. See Bergen's comments on pressing.

I don't think we've got the players to play 4231.

I think Spurs of last season anchored the two young lads Mason and Bent---? in quite restricted roles in central midfield. I've not seen them this season so they may have expanded the roles. Thing about two anchors in midfield though is that it licenses full backs, in Spurs case Walker and Davies or Rose, to rampage up the wings in the knowledge they are covered. A lot of the time they play as wingers well ahead of the central midfield anchors.

Man City play 4-2-3-1 in big games.

 

[BushBlade]

I think Spurs of last season anchored the two young lads Mason and Bent---? in quite restricted roles in central midfield. I've not seen them this season so they may have expanded the roles. Thing about two anchors in midfield though is that it licenses full backs, in Spurs case Walker and Davies or Rose, to rampage up the wings in the knowledge they are covered. A lot of the time they play as wingers well ahead of the central midfield anchors.

Man City play 4-2-3-1 in big games.

I haven't seen Man City as much as Spurs and I chose Poch because he tends to stick to that formation so it seemed like a good example to illustrate my point.
I saw them beat Seville the other day and I don't think the central midfielders were anchors, particularly Fernandinho, who got forward with Toure.
And again, both Fernandinho and Fernando are able to get up and down the pitch.
But the key point is that we don't have the central defenders to hold a high line and if they don't, there will be a gap between the defence and the four attacking players, who have to play high up the pitch so that they can press. Or they drop back and leave the lone striker isolated and the formation becomes, effectively, 451.

 

[BushBlade]

I think Spurs of last season anchored the two young lads Mason and Bent---? in quite restricted roles in central midfield. I've not seen them this season so they may have expanded the roles. Thing about two anchors in midfield though is that it licenses full backs, in Spurs case Walker and Davies or Rose, to rampage up the wings in the knowledge they are covered. A lot of the time they play as wingers well ahead of the central midfield anchors.

Man City play 4-2-3-1 in big games.

Sorry, Benteleb. Although I don't think they were 'anchored', nor were Dyer and Mason last night.

 

[Woodwardfan]

I haven't seen Man City as much as Spurs and I chose Poch because he tends to stick to that formation so it seemed like a good example to illustrate my point.
I saw them beat Seville the other day and I don't think the central midfielders were anchors, particularly Fernandinho, who got forward with Toure.
And again, both Fernandinho and Fernando are able to get up and down the pitch.
But the key point is that we don't have the central defenders to hold a high line and if they don't, there will be a gap between the defence and the four attacking players, who have to play high up the pitch so that they can press. Or they drop back and leave the lone striker isolated and the formation becomes, effectively, 451.

This "high line" business has become a regular bone of contention on here. Do Man City hold a high line,no.? Do Spurs, middle of the road? Chelsea don't. I'm sure Liverpool do now. Arsenal don't. Man Utd don't I guess. Just looking at Leicester, Palace and West Ham , doing well this season, do they? Probably not, but they do at certain stages of the game i.e. when they have the ball and when they don't.

Did we hold a "high line" when Maguire was playing alongside Collins and we did OK? Not an issue then.

There is more than one way of skinning a cat and I am far from convinced that United's problems are down to this "high line" business. In any case, 4-2-3-1 bridges the gap between the defence and the strikers.

What's more important is: workrate, team spirit and confidence. All that conjours up momentum.

If United even stumble across a couple of good results, then get a couple of instances of good fortune, our players will grow balls bigger than anyone would imagine and off we go. If we get a couple of good refs that will help for example.

 

[sheffielder]

What about ,,,,arsenals defending ,,,,, at Bayern?

Is that you, Blade too Long or Blade in Spain..

 

[BushBlade]

This "high line" business has become a regular bone of contention on here. Do Man City hold a high line,no.? Do Spurs, middle of the road? Chelsea don't. I'm sure Liverpool do now. Arsenal don't. Man Utd don't I guess. Just looking at Leicester, Palace and West Ham , doing well this season, do they? Probably not, but they do at certain stages of the game i.e. when they have the ball and when they don't.

Did we hold a "high line" when Maguire was playing alongside Collins and we did OK? Not an issue then.

There is more than one way of skinning a cat and I am far from convinced that United's problems are down to this "high line" business. In any case, 4-2-3-1 bridges the gap between the defence and the strikers.

What's more important is: workrate, team spirit and confidence. All that conjours up momentum.

If United even stumble across a couple of good results, then get a couple of instances of good fortune, our players will grow balls bigger than anyone would imagine and off we go. If we get a couple of good refs that will help for example.

Yes they do hold high lines, when they're playing 4231. And not all of those teams play 4231.

I agree that the things you listed are more important but I'm not the one saying we should play a particular system. 4231 doesn't bridge the gap between the defence and strikers if the defence sit too deep because it pulls the midfield deeper.

If Coutts ever gets his legs back and Hammond, when match fit, proves to still be able to get up and down for 90 minutes, we get Edgar back, it might just work but we'd still need to consider who would be the lone striker, who could play that role in that system?

 

[Woodwardfan]

Yes they do hold high lines, when they're playing 4231. And not all of those teams play 4231.

I agree that the things you listed are more important but I'm not the one saying we should play a particular system. 4231 doesn't bridge the gap between the defence and strikers if the defence sit too deep because it pulls the midfield deeper.

If Coutts ever gets his legs back and Hammond, when match fit, proves to still be able to get up and down for 90 minutes, we get Edgar back, it might just work but we'd still need to consider who would be the lone striker, who could play that role in that system?

I'm a big Billy Sharp fan. I wrote years ago that we should have held on to the lad when he was a teenager and built the side round him to stand or fall by his quality. I wrote it again in Robson and Blackwell's times ( but I wasn't a Beattie fan for many reasons, don't go there).

Anyway I have to say Sharp. Baxter was Clough's one up for long enough. Sharp could have done 10 times the job, so I'll leave it at that.

Sharp for me, but.............who else is there?

 

[BushBlade]

I'm a big Billy Sharp fan. I wrote years ago that we should have held on to the lad when he was a teenager and built the side round him to stand or fall by his quality. I wrote it again in Robson and Blackwell's times ( but I wasn't a Beattie fan for many reasons, don't go there).

Anyway I have to say Sharp. Baxter was Clough's one up for long enough. Sharp could have done 10 times the job, so I'll leave it at that.

Sharp for me, but.............who else is there?

Sammon? I think Done may have played up front on his own in a 433 for Rochdale but I'm not sure, I wouldn't put my house on it.

Billy played lone striker under SOD at Donny but I prefer him as part of a two. I do wonder how he'd get on with Baxter as a 10, similar to how he played off Keogh at Scunny, though.

 

[FriethBlade]

Has anyone considerd that Hammond isn't actually very good ? So he did it for Adkins previously but he is early 30s now and hasn't played regular football for a while, maybe like many players we sign he past it ?

The game has moved on, how many on here can name Burton or Walsalls midfield ? But they seem to be doing quite well don't they whilst we.struggle with old/crocked/not bothered midfielders.

Why don't we sign some young, hungry players ? Seemed to work with Adams and Wallace didn't it and there has to be othes around...or we can keep signing sh1te like Woolford etc

 

[Woodwardfan]

Has anyone considerd that Hammond isn't actually very good ? So he did it for Adkins previously but he is early 30s now and hasn't played regular football for a while, maybe like many players we sign he past it ?

The game has moved on, how many on here can name Burton or Walsalls midfield ? But they seem to be doing quite well don't they whilst we.struggle with old/crocked/not bothered midfielders.

Why don't we sign some young, hungry players ? Seemed to work with Adams and Wallace didn't it and there has to be othes around...or we can keep signing sh1te like Woolford etc

Very much so but the manager has invested a lot in him and he has to succeed or we all fail. Hammond hasn't played much football for over 2 years.

Not sure myself whether Adams or Wallace are good enough for a promotion side week in week out either by the way.

 

[FriethBlade]

Woody, the main point is we continue to sign oldish players who have played at a higher level but don't do it at this level, woolford has been a disaster so far, sharp has scored how many from open play ? Sammon can't hold down a regular place etc etc, why can't we pick up some good youngsters ? I think Adams could be a real star and there has to be others like him in div2 and non league...why can't we spot them ?