Tim's Magical World of Football Tactics.

Number One.
Narrow full backs.
A defensive error whereby the full backs are too narrow thus causing them to be too narrow. The narrowness of the full backs is determined by how narrow they are on the field. Narrow full backs are not good and should not be practised under any defensive set-up (see number two: Setting up a defence). Well known narrow full backs include Jlloyd Samuel, Paul Robinson, Gretar Steinsson, Sam Ricketts and Alan Slim.

Number Two.
Setting up a defence.
When the opposition has any attacking players your defence should always be 'set up'. Talk to the defensive players beforehand to determine the set-up and to ensure the defence is adequately set-up before play begins. Setting up a defence can include discussing how to tackle, the narrowness of full backs (refer to number one: Narrow full backs), the tactical use of own goals, the benefits of giving away penalties and where to stand to best enjoy the stylings of Carlos Tevez. Remember, if the defence is properly set-up the manager will always take the blame. This section was co-written by Zat Knight.

come on breeze, very funny article but there are different ways of setting up a defence and megsons decisions do not appear to suit our team. You could say individual errors have led to goals but you also have to say that the chances of individual errors happening can be reduced by a change in personnel or tactics. Also the number of potential incidents can be reduced by the overall mentality and formation going into a game (ie if you are playing with a very defensive mentality you will invite more pressure onto your defenders more frquently and thus the chances of errors are increased*)

The way the defence is "set up" is ultimately determined by the manager. He doesn't just pick 4 defenders and say you go and play defence. He decides if we are going to put pressure on the ball, if we are going to play deep (on the edge of our own box) or high (towards the half way line). He decides if we are going to shepherd players wide or if we are going to try to win challenges and when during an attack this should be done.
He decides if we are going to deploy an offside trap, he decides if he wants his defenders to hold the ball, get rid of it, play it long, give it to another defender or if their job is to give it to midfielders.

And yes, he decides if we are going to play narrow, ie the 4 defenders all little more than arms length apart or wide with the 2 centre halves taking care of the middle of the pitch and the full backs just the flanks etc.

If we play tactics like we have done all season, mainly long ball, hoof it up, lose possession, nobody is very mobile, nobody holds the ball then we are inviting the other team to have the ball and build more chances putting extra pressure on our defenders. If we know Knight can only deal with 7 out of 10 things that come his way, then dont play a game where he is going to have 40 things to do in a match, because we know, playing this way, he will make a couple of individual mistakes.

That's just a little example but it's down to every decision the manager makes, yes he can't do the actual tackling or stop every individual thing that goes wrong, but its the number of things that happen that he needs to address, and ginger fool doesn't seem to care if his tactics are getting us nowhere and putting us under a lot of pressure, he keeps using them.

And he doesnt seem to "organise" the defence in a way that they will be able to cope with the pressure they ae coming under.

Would anyone like me to expand on what I mean?



*unless you have a defensive "set up" which can cope with additional pressure, deal with a constant threat without being pulled apart, can cover their team mates individual errors and who won't fatigue too quickly due to the extra pressure on them.

Well seeing as you agree with Tim, explain this: how do you set up your defence against Tevez, Robinho, Adebayor and SWP and what did our defence do wrong against City?

We let in three goals, other than that, i thought we did well....

I dont think its about jayjay agreeing with tim, i thought he made a decent point, we all know tim is a bit mental!

Can anyone explain to me how our defence was 'set up' against City and where it went wrong and also what it should have done?

i cant explain it... ill think about it.

Breeze if Megson has no impact upon the teams performance tactically what exactly is he being paid for, I mean he is hardly going to be giving inspirational speeches?

Setting up the defence is how you put it. explain to me how the defence was set up against City and how YOU would have set it up.

I can't remember the game well enough now to go through it like that, I have had a lot on since then, will do it for tonight's game if you like.
Breeze do you accept the manager has any tactical impact on his defence at all, or does he just send out four defenders with the instruction "Now you lads do some defending"?

Ok Tim, explain to me how the defence was set up tonight that was different to the City game.

Birmingham have kept the second highest amount of clean sheets this season. Only Chelsea have kept more. Now there is a manager who can set up a defence.

When asked about defence Ricardo Gardner said "de mon with de nails will come and fix it later"

Okay I know I'll get my coat.................

good one.

I thought our defence was just as bad as against city, it is simply that West Ham are not as good as city. Breeze it is patently obvious that set up and tactics mean the same thing, so either you are being thick or you are deliberately trying to draw a distinction that does not exist just to be difficult. The fact is our defensive tactics, if you prefer to call them that, are woeful. We must be getting on for 4 clean sheets in 50 games, which is pathetic. Last nights win against terrible opposition does not detract from the argument that Megson should be fired. We were too deep and could easily have lost the game.

Explain why is was set up badly then.

Breeze you know why I think it is badly set up, the full-backs tuck in too much, thus forcing the wingers to come back and ineptly defend against the oppositions wingers, thus allowing them to get a cross in and denuding our attacking potential, it would be far better if Muabma was played deeper to act as cover. We play too deep, the defenders seem to have no unity of understanding or purpose, I often wonder if they train together or indeed at all.
If the managers tactics have no effect tactically why are Birmingham with worse and less expensive defenders keeping more clean sheets, try answering a question for once breeze rather than simply ignoring them and asking another question of you own to try and cover up your flawed position.

Like I thought, you're just making it up. Villa have Young and Milner who play much further forward than our wingers and yet they track back throughout the match. If you don't like wingers having to do this that's fine...but there aren't many clubs that can have two wingers floating around the pitch whilst watching their opposite number or the full back simply waltz past them. Repeat after me, wingers have to track back, wingers have to track back.

As for Muamba, well he does play deep and he does stop the runner although not as often as he should and not like Campo used to but that's down to experience and knowing where and when to position yourself...and also him being a bit thick. But I'd like to know how you think Muamba tracking back down the middle can allow our full backs to mark both the winger and the full back or someone from midfield running wide...it's an odd theory but I'm happy to read it.

If your point is that our defence has no cohesion, that much I would have agreed with until these last two games when Robinson seems to have galvanised us into a stronger unit.

I ask you again breeze why if Megson's tactics are not crap are birmingham, fulham, blackburn, stoke and even portsmouth better than us defensively, don't tell me any of them have significantly better defenders than us.
Had you thought the opposition fullbacks might be less inclined to come forward if they did not know that our wingers would run after them.

No, none of them have better defenders...just more togetherness and more support from their own flanks.

But if you think wingers don't need to track back, that's fine...

So the only reason they are better at defending is they have more spirit and more support from the flanks, garbage, Megson's tactics are woeful.
Breeze it is clearly Megson's fault we cannot defend he has been the manager for two years why won't you just accept it.

Tim, don't worry...I have managed to boil your defensive gile and tactical nous to this precise statement in the full knowledge that our back four will flourish as a result:

Paul Robinson and Gretar Steinsson should stand three metres further away from the centre halves.

River dancing genius.

Just listening to Alan Hansen explain in detail how City's full back didn't play narrow enough against Lennon and was let down by his winger not tracking back.

You couldn't make it up...

And the reason Hanson stays on the sofa and does not go into management? He is too cowardly to test out his tactical opinions for real.

That's true...also true was the video evidence to back it up and the reply of CY Lee daydreaming whilst his man ran past him meaning Paul Robinson had to watch two players instead of one and which led to their goal.

Like I said, you couldn't make it up.

But what if Lee had stayed on the half-way line would the fullback have dared to go up?
Also please answer the question, do Megson's tactics have any effect on the fact that we are so bad defensively. This is all just a smoke screen to try and disguise the fact that your hero Gary Megson is utterly incompetent and has no idea how to defend effectively. As far as you are concerned nothing seems ever to be Megson or Gartside's fault.

BREEZE

Paul Robinson and Gretar Steinsson should stand three metres further away from the centre halves.

River dancing genius.


funny and well executed use of our new swearword. well done.

Tim, the video evidence disproves everything you are saying. Lee was ball watching whilst his man and others swarmed the box. Robinson and Knight were berating him the moment the ball went in - that was clear for all to see. Against City Robinson Matt Taylor had come back but then didn't bother following the runner (Richards) so whilst Robinson rightly tucked in as the ball came across the middle it left Richards free to find space...that was Taylor's man, not Robinsons.

You can carry on with this distraction all you like but two goals from the last two games came as a result of wingers/wide men not tracking back. I think they have a duty to do it but you don't.

Breeze so still no answer? Is it or is it not Megson's fault and his lack of tactical aptitude that have seen us not get a clean sheet for 20 odd games?

What defensive tactics are you talking about? You can't even describe to me what he has done wrong other than the full backs standing three metres too close to the centre halves. You even think wingers should be excused defensive duties and even though you know this is wrong you can't admit it.

Explain to me precisely what Megson's defensive set up is...if you can't then how can you even begin to find fault with it.

you two are so gay. funny reading it though.

hard to figure out which one of you is moe frustrated.

I just cannot see how breeze cannot grasp that Megson is responsible for our defence, goodness knows how long he would have to be manager before breeze would accept he should be doing something about it, it's only been two years. He has bought every player in the defence except Jussi who is widely acknowledged as a top keeper, but it is nothing to do with Megson, one begins to wonder why we pay him if he has no responsibility for anything.

And yet again you can't even begin to describe how Megson 'set up' a defence even though you claim it is wrong. Have another go...

pthorpe wrote:When asked about defence Ricardo Gardner said "de mon with de nails will come and fix it later"

Okay I know I'll get my coat.................

Quality.