The Wall - stick or twist?

[TheBigIguana]

3 goals conceded in 6 games for the 1st back four. Until we start conceding a lot, it stays for me.

What happens up the other end is a real issue though. We could have scored 3 or 4 in that span and wouldn't have been able to rue anything but our poor attacking play. For me the balance is off. I know people talk all that mess about Serie A in the 90s but this isn't Serie A in the 90s, teams score and we need to make sure we have a team that can do that too.

 

[BNJ1878]

A routine 7/10 keeper, week in, week out.

Digne Mina Keane Godfrey

Godfrey can get one of the coveted CB spots when one of Mina/Keane gets injured. It will then be up to him to keep the shirt on his back. Tough on Holgate, but we're a level up on the past few seasons.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Ill pose the question here, but would you have swapped Van den Hauwe for Digne in the 1985 side?

I'm not saying Godfrey is as good as Pat, but it's the same sort of question.

To me we should break the defence up if/when it starts conceding goals. All the while it's 0-1 goals conceded it should stay. We can do what we like ahead of it, in terms of getting more creative players in, but I wouldn't sacrifice our defensive stability at this point.

It isn't the 80s. City are the best defensive side in the league and they also have the most progressive playing fullbacks aside from maybe the RS. Atletico are probably the team we closest resemble right now but they use Trippier when not suspended almost always. He's pretty much a right footed Digne. Again, the balance isn't there for me. We go with 4 CBs Saturday we're asking to turn a very winnable game into 0-0.

 

[catcherintherye]

What happens up the other end is a real issue though. We could have scored 3 or 4 in that span and wouldn't have been able to rue anything but our poor attacking play. For me the balance is off. I know people talk all that mess about Serie A in the 90s but this isn't Serie A in the 90s, teams score and we need to make sure we have a team that can do that too.

Of course. That is the key question. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer in this.

My view is, there are 6 attacking positions to be filled after the back 4. They have the onus to create. I happen to think;
1) Keeping James fit
2) Getting Richarlinson back to form
3) Getting DCL fully

Will have more impact on the team than whether Digne plays left back or left midfield, or Coleman replaces Holgate (I see Coleman as essentially quite a defensive fullback now too).

My own view (and others are welcome to contradict me) our best chance to get top 4 is to do is with solidity. It may not be Serie A, but 3 goals (2 in open play) in 6 games conceded is very solid, over a prolonged period. That is a better chance than going for attacking shoot outs. If we can concede 20 or less from the next 20 games, we are in with a great opportunity. James will find ways to score goals, as will DCL. We will score goals off set plays (we could have got 3 in the last 10 minutes yesterday) given the height of the team. If Richarlinson can hit a sweet spell, he is also a good finisher (he's just not carrying the ball right)

Thats just my view though. It sounds logical to me, but as you say you are justifying playing arguably the best left back in the world out of position to accomodate a right footed centre back.

 

[ElGato]

Digne - Keane/Mina - Holdgate/Godfrey - Coleman

I) We need attacking full backs overlapping to enable Jameth and Richy to dip inside;
II) Keane and Mina with Allan in front is a little laboured and can be exposed by pace; and
III) Pairing Godfrey/Holdgate with Keane/Mina in the long-term gives us a ball winning cb and a cb with pace.

That being said Keane and Mina have formed an ace partnership and Mina looks better than he ever has in an Everton shirt. We just have to defend deep with them due to lack of pace.

Good conundrum to have!

 

[Lanolin]

Do you not think that with Allan and Doucoure there to act as a 'shield' in front of the defence and also go box to box we would be better in transtioning the ball forwards quicker and getting bodies forward?

id say the main issue for me is that if we sit deep (to benefit Mina/Keane) then when the full backs bomb on we need players to cover their positions.

If were going to do that then Doucoure and/or Allan will need to sit and play as anchor which takes away from their box to box games.

If we push higher up the pitch then we'd have no option but to play Godfrey and Holgate CB (imo) because they have the pace to get back and cover oppositions quick forwards.

I've mentioned this in other posts. It's not as simple as Godfrey and Holgate at full back making us difficult to break down. What's making us difficult to break down is the fact that we spend 75% of the time with 10 men behind the ball. We need to find a balance where we're still solid but able to offer enough of a threat going the other way. We've struggled to do that this year, going from free scoring and leaky to solid but turgid. There is a happy medium and that's what we need to find.

 

[catcherintherye]

It isn't the 80s. City are the best defensive side in the league and they also have the most progressive playing fullbacks aside from maybe the RS. Atletico are probably the team we closest resemble right now but they use Trippier when not suspended almost always. He's pretty much a right footed Digne. Again, the balance isn't there for me. We go with 4 CBs Saturday we're asking to turn a very winnable game into 0-0.

Why do you think football is fundamentally a different sport to the 80's though? You need to score more than the opponents. Thats the basics of the game.

We can't compete with City. There's a moment in moneyball where Brad Pitt says "if we think likes the Yankees in here, we lose to the Yankees out there". It's the same thing. If we try to emulate City, on half the wages we wil lose. We have to find edge don't we? We hve to do things different to them, and probably diferent to percieved wisdom.

The Atletico thing is a better example. My understanding, is they built a side that was snide, horrible to beat and fundamentally very defensive? If we were lookingto try and emulate anyone, they are a good example. You know more than me, but it feels an Atletico manouevre what we have done.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Of course. That is the key question. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer in this.

My view is, there are 6 attacking positions to be filled after the back 4. They have the onus to create. I happen to think;
1) Keeping James fit
2) Getting Richarlinson back to form
3) Getting DCL fully

Will have more impact on the team than whether Digne plays left back or left midfield, or Coleman replaces Holgate (I see Coleman as essentially quite a defensive fullback now too).

My own view (and others are welcome to contradict me) our best chance to get top 4 is to do is with solidity. It may not be Serie A, but 3 goals (2 in open play) in 6 games conceded is very solid, over a prolonged period. That is a better chance than going for attacking shoot outs. If we can concede 20 or less from the next 20 games, we are in with a great opportunity. James will find ways to score goals, as will DCL. We will score goals off set plays (we could have got 3 in the last 10 minutes yesterday) given the height of the team. If Richarlinson can hit a sweet spell, he is also a good finisher (he's just not carrying the ball right)

Thats just my view though. It sounds logical to me, but as you say you are justifying playing arguably the best left back in the world out of position to accomodate a right footed centre back.

To me the issue is we're riding our luck a touch. It is only 3 in this run but in the next run if the luck switches it could be 6 or 8. And we aren't doing enough going forward to cover that.

Digne playing LB imo will go a long way to getting Richarlison into form so I think those things are too related to be separate issues.

I still think our run at the start of the year is a way more sustainable way of playing. We weren't actually that bad defensively as that was when Pickford was making the errors constantly that conceded goals. And we were genuinely awesome going forward. Now that way of playing requires complete health so we can't really do it unless Allan, James and Digne all stay fit, but if they are that would be my preferred way to see us go at teams. Especially teams that we have no reason to be scared of.

 

[JMT]

The Godfrey/Holgate thing gives us future options in matches down the line which is a good thing, What isn't good is thinking we can keep playing this way and it'll be enough for Europe. Godfrey should be dropped from LB on Saturday if he isn't then that is worrying, It's a good option/plan to have against certain teams or styles of play but we need to find a way to keep that defensive wall while also giving our attackers more chances and control the game more ourselves, DCL has suffered badly but it's not that much of a problem because we're getting points on the board.

 

[catcherintherye]

I've mentioned this in other posts. It's not as simple as Godfrey and Holgate at full back making us difficult to break down. What's making us difficult to break down is the fact that we spend 75% of the time with 10 men behind the ball. We need to find a balance where we're still solid but able to offer enough of a threat going the other way. We've struggled to do that this year, going from free scoring and leaky to solid but turgid. There is a happy medium and that's what we need to find.

It's a fair point. And it is worth noting, the discussion is really here about swapping 1 fullback in for 1 centre back at this point, and a fullback who's arguably the best in the world. There's a different discussion about right back and Coleman. It's a fair argument.

My contention with all of these things, is that balance in a back 4 is very important. We are discussing hypotheticals here, and hypothetically swapping Digne for Godfrey may not upset the balance, but also it could do. Likewise then shifting Godfrey to right back, and changing 2 positions is more likely to upset the balance. The best back 4's are rarely the best 4 defenders, but they are the players who are comfortable playing together. The whole team looks more balanced with that back 4 defensively.

On a final point, I do think there was a third phase this season. We went from free flowing, and now we are solid and turgid. There was a middle period where we were poor defensively and couldn't score at the other end. We've not improved going forwrd the other way (though look betetr with James in as any team would) but I'm not wholly convinced moving away from solidity is going to easily see us scoring lots more goals again.

There's no doubt balance is the longer term aim here. But whether it's imperaative we do it this season, when we are in the position we are, is an open question to me.

 

[Lanolin]

Of course. That is the key question. There's no "right" or "wrong" answer in this.

My view is, there are 6 attacking positions to be filled after the back 4. They have the onus to create. I happen to think;
1) Keeping James fit
2) Getting Richarlinson back to form
3) Getting DCL fully

Will have more impact on the team than whether Digne plays left back or left midfield, or Coleman replaces Holgate (I see Coleman as essentially quite a defensive fullback now too).

My own view (and others are welcome to contradict me) our best chance to get top 4 is to do is with solidity. It may not be Serie A, but 3 goals (2 in open play) in 6 games conceded is very solid, over a prolonged period. That is a better chance than going for attacking shoot outs. If we can concede 20 or less from the next 20 games, we are in with a great opportunity. James will find ways to score goals, as will DCL. We will score goals off set plays (we could have got 3 in the last 10 minutes yesterday) given the height of the team. If Richarlinson can hit a sweet spell, he is also a good finisher (he's just not carrying the ball right)

Thats just my view though. It sounds logical to me, but as you say you are justifying playing arguably the best left back in the world out of position to accomodate a right footed centre back.

I disagree. I think you're talking about it as if you can just keep the defensive side of things exactly the same and change what we do going forward but you can't do that, it's literally not possible. Attacking and defending are two sides of the same coin; the more onus we put on the attacking players to create the less they can get back into shape and help out the defence, getting Richarlison 'back to form' won't be easy if we're asking him to get up and down the pitch for 90 minutes and don't have an overlapping full back for him to link with etc etc.

 

[evertonandchelmsford]

I know there doesn't seem to be much difference in playing teams home and away these days with no fans. Playing this defensive system seems to work temporarily but by no means should it be a long term solution.

I don't think we should be over complicating it against Newcastle. I'd go with a back 4 and drop/rest 2 of the CB's and play with wingbacks.

 

[TheBigIguana]

Why do you think football is fundamentally a different sport to the 80's though? You need to score more than the opponents. Thats the basics of the game.

We can't compete with City. There's a moment in moneyball where Brad Pitt says "if we think likes the Yankees in here, we lose to the Yankees out there". It's the same thing. If we try to emulate City, on half the wages we wil lose. We have to find edge don't we? We hve to do things different to them, and probably diferent to percieved wisdom.

The Atletico thing is a better example. My understanding, is they built a side that was snide, horrible to beat and fundamentally very defensive? If we were lookingto try and emulate anyone, they are a good example. You know more than me, but it feels an Atletico manouevre what we have done.

Because it just kind of is. I mean I've watched back some old 80s classic games and teams just play completely differently. I don't know how much NBA you know but it's still basketball now the same way football is but if teams tried to use 1980s NBA strategies now they'd be helplessly looking on as the opponents hit 30 three pointers and won by 50. I think football is really similar in its level of evolution.

For me the lesson we should take from moneyball is more on a recruitment front. I bang on about that in the transfer threads more than enough. Yeah finding revolutionary ideas tactically wouldn't hurt but for me dropping deep and being solid isn't really that.

Atletico are very defensive yes, but they score too. The lowest total for goals under Simeone is still in the 50s. Our recent attacking would not get us there over a whole season I don't think. So balance wise we still have to tweak what we're doing and for me the easiest tweak is just get Digne back in at LB.

 

[Blue Roo]

Any of the six depending on the opponent
until more mids and forwards come in.
There's real potential for a 3-4-3
with Digne (Small) and Coleman (??) as part of the mid 4

 

[catcherintherye]

To me the issue is we're riding our luck a touch. It is only 3 in this run but in the next run if the luck switches it could be 6 or 8. And we aren't doing enough going forward to cover that.

Digne playing LB imo will go a long way to getting Richarlison into form so I think those things are too related to be separate issues.

I still think our run at the start of the year is a way more sustainable way of playing. We weren't actually that bad defensively as that was when Pickford was making the errors constantly that conceded goals. And we were genuinely awesome going forward. Now that way of playing requires complete health so we can't really do it unless Allan, James and Digne all stay fit, but if they are that would be my preferred way to see us go at teams. Especially teams that we have no reason to be scared of.

To a point we are getting lucky (I presume you mean on Xg) but I actually think we are Burnleying Xg and it's flaw in the model. On the one hand we give lots of low xg chances away that we defend narrowly with and block very well. We also concede crosses which again have limited impact. In a lot of ways, both the Wolves and Leicester goals are actually quite unlucky, 1 goes under about 4 players and against Wolves it dissects 3 defenders where was it about an inch off in any direction one gets a touch. The counter of course is if you concede such a high number of shots from range, eventually one finds it's way through.

At the other end, DCL & Richarlinson in open play, and Mina/Keane off corners are very good in the air, and Xg seems to under estimate headed opportunities. The 2 Dom/Richarlinson had yesterday will be low chances, but knowing their abilities they should be higher. We also have Gylfi and especially James who are more likely to score from distance.

So yes, someof it is luck, a lot of it I think are flaws of Xg. It's interesting that the game we overpowerformed Xg most was Burnley but it wasn't a game you came away from thinking we'd dominated. Wood missed a couple of great headed chances for him. Brady scores a goal from distance and Burnley block a load of crosses/shots.