The phrase "Win or lose as a team"

[Alex Sapphire]

so those who won't entertain bigblue's argument must hold the view that when the coaching staff are analysing how a team concedes a goal they take the one player who dropped a clanger on one side and let the rest of the team have the afternoon off?

[Slim]

so those who won't entertain bigblue's argument must hold the view that when the coaching staff are analysing how a team concedes a goal they take the one player who dropped a clanger on one side and let the rest of the team have the afternoon off?

There are a number of reasons why I disagree with him, however I cannot be bothered explaining reasons to someone who waffles on dispensing naive nonsense in what seems like analytical wisdom.

But here's one for you, he has completely marginalised every attacking player we have claiming that the only reason we scored, THE ONLY REASON, was as a result of 5-6 consecutive mistakes that led to each and every goal.

[Ted Hughes]

so those who won't entertain bigblue's argument must hold the view that when the coaching staff are analysing how a team concedes a goal they take the one player who dropped a clanger on one side and let the rest of the team have the afternoon off?

Football is not an exact science, so within 30 seconds of kick off, half the team will be a few yards away from where Bob & Plunty would put them if they had them on strings like puppet masters. As the game progresses, with every attack the oppo have, half the team will be making a technical mistake compared to the idea Bob would have of perfection, and half the team which is attacking will be making less than perfect runs & not neccessarily making perfect passing decisions.

Then someone may be slightly out of position as a ball is threaded through but deflect it just enough so that it goes to one of our defenders, thus redeeming his mistake & solving what could have been a problem.

Have any of them cost us a goal yet ?

Let's imagine now that our defender in possession now dallies on the ball, lacking urgency & concentration & gets robbed of possession right on the edge of our penalty area. That would be seen as a bad mistake & singled out for a special mention as being a big moment in the impending disaster to come. Bob would not be happy with this player. Neither would some of the fans.

Immediately the ball is played wide & the lino incorrectly gives a free kick.

As the free kick is about to come in, the opposing CF picks out the very same defender responsible for losing the ball in the first place & gets 'touch tight' on him. As the ball comes in the player moves said defender around like a rag doll finally jumping over him like a man playing against a child & heads the ball into our net.

Some may say this is us losing a goal as a team & people have no right to question the ability of the player involved, especially in a heavy handed manner. I would argue that if you replace said player with someone like (for example) Andy Morrison, the goal is averted, twice, & thus, whilst the team was gulity of several technical mistakes, (all teams are guilty of technical mistakes) when one of their players also performs like John OShea's shite little brother, It is within everyone's right to mention it &, if they believe said player is guilty of the same thing on many occasions, they may feel that he is, at the moment, utter shite.

Formations & tactics are great, if the players are good enough to implement them. When one is cocking it up, we are not letting in a goal as a 'team' as we are no longer a team.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Don't know if this relates directly to the header of this thread, or not, but the first goal we conceded against QPR was interesting (??) for the way our defence was lined up and what subsequently happened.

Whilst waiting for the free kick to be taken, Helguson was on the QPR left, being actually marked by Richards. Savic was in the middle, marking the central space, presumably in line with the zonal system we operate (are we still operating it ??). In between Savic and Richards was Lescott who seemed to be marking Bothroyd.

Just before the ball was flighted in, Lescott turned and said something to Richards and they quickly 'swapped' the players they were marking, with Lescott taking the smaller Helguson and getting tight on him and Richards moving over, albeit more leisurely, to pick up the taller Bothroyd.

When the ball was played in, Savic jumped but it was over his head and Bothroyd racing in, having gained a yard on Richards, got to the ball first with his header, to score.

On that basis,
(1) Was Savic incorrectly positioned, as per zonal marking requirements ??
(2) Why did Richards and Lescott 'swap' players at the last second ?? Lescott is the centre-back but ended up marking the smaller player, away from the centre of the goal area, so was it pre-determined by City's back-room staff that at set plays, Lescott would mark Helguson and Richards would mark Bothroyd ??
(3) Why didn't Richards get tighter on Bothroyd with the same haste that Lescott did with Helguson ??
(4) Are we playing a zonal defence system, a man for man marking system, or are we operating a hybrid mixture of the two and, if this is the case, is it confusing some of the players as to where and how they ought to be positioned ??

.......or were we just missing Vincent ??

Although there were a number of others in the box, it seemed that three of our back four combined to gift QPR their opening goal through indifferent organisation.

[Ted Hughes]

Don't know if this relates directly to the header of this thread, or not, but the first goal we conceded against QPR was interesting (??) for the way our defence was lined up and what subsequently happened.

Whilst waiting for the free kick to be taken, Helguson was on the QPR left, being actually marked by Richards. Savic was in the middle, marking the central space, presumably in line with the zonal system we operate (are we still operating it ??). In between Savic and Richards was Lescott who seemed to be marking Bothroyd.

Just before the ball was flighted in, Lescott turned and said something to Richards and they quickly 'swapped' the players they were marking, with Lescott taking the smaller Helguson and getting tight on him and Richards moving over, albeit more leisurely, to pick up the taller Bothroyd.

When the ball was played in, Savic jumped but it was over his head and Bothroyd racing in, having gained a yard on Richards, got to the ball first with his header, to score.

On that basis,
(1) Was Savic incorrectly positioned, as per zonal marking requirements ??
(2) Why did Richards and Lescott 'swap' players at the last second ?? Lescott is the centre-back but ended up marking the smaller player, away from the centre of the goal area, so was it pre-determined by City's back-room staff that at set plays, Lescott would mark Helguson and Richards would mark Bothroyd ??
(3) Why didn't Richards get tighter on Bothroyd with the same haste that Lescott did with Helguson ??
(4) Are we playing a zonal defence system, a man for man marking system, or are we operating a hybrid mixture of the two and, if this is the case, is it confusing some of the players as to where and how they ought to be positioned ??

.......or were we just missing Vincent ??

Although there were a number of others in the box, it seemed that three of our back four combined to gift QPR their opening goal through indifferent organisation.

Watch it again.

Bothroyd starts putting his hands on Savic before the ball is even delivered. He effectively 'marks' him. He makes sure that he's in physical contact with him all the time & finally leans above him to score. He is too close to Savic for Richards to be involved as Savic is directly underneath him as he jumps to head it, there is simply no room for Richards to get involved, he would have to be in the area Savic is occupying. This is no accident, it's intentional; they have spotted Savic as the weak link & are using him to help them score. Similarly Helguson picks out the same player later & hits the bar.

The only way to solve this would have been to move Savic out of the way, so Richards could have made a challenge on Bothroyd unobstructed. That would be effectively admitting that Savic was incapable of doing the job of CB.

If you watch carefully, it's actually Richards who instigates the swapping of positions as captain rather than (as I thought) Lescott. It wouldn't have made any difference if Lescott had been there though as there was no way he could have got in front of Bothroyd either; Savic was already there taking up the space.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Don't know if this relates directly to the header of this thread, or not, but the first goal we conceded against QPR was interesting (??) for the way our defence was lined up and what subsequently happened.

Whilst waiting for the free kick to be taken, Helguson was on the QPR left, being actually marked by Richards. Savic was in the middle, marking the central space, presumably in line with the zonal system we operate (are we still operating it ??). In between Savic and Richards was Lescott who seemed to be marking Bothroyd.

Just before the ball was flighted in, Lescott turned and said something to Richards and they quickly 'swapped' the players they were marking, with Lescott taking the smaller Helguson and getting tight on him and Richards moving over, albeit more leisurely, to pick up the taller Bothroyd.

When the ball was played in, Savic jumped but it was over his head and Bothroyd racing in, having gained a yard on Richards, got to the ball first with his header, to score.

On that basis,
(1) Was Savic incorrectly positioned, as per zonal marking requirements ??
(2) Why did Richards and Lescott 'swap' players at the last second ?? Lescott is the centre-back but ended up marking the smaller player, away from the centre of the goal area, so was it pre-determined by City's back-room staff that at set plays, Lescott would mark Helguson and Richards would mark Bothroyd ??
(3) Why didn't Richards get tighter on Bothroyd with the same haste that Lescott did with Helguson ??
(4) Are we playing a zonal defence system, a man for man marking system, or are we operating a hybrid mixture of the two and, if this is the case, is it confusing some of the players as to where and how they ought to be positioned ??

.......or were we just missing Vincent ??

Although there were a number of others in the box, it seemed that three of our back four combined to gift QPR their opening goal through indifferent organisation.

Watch it again.

Bothroyd starts putting his hands on Savic before the ball is even delivered. He effectively 'marks' him. He makes sure that he's in physical contact with him all the time & finally leans above him to score. He is too close to Savic for Richards to be involved as Savic is directly underneath him as he jumps to head it, there is simply no room for Richards to get involved, he would have to be in the area Savic is occupying. This is no accident, it's intentional; they have spotted Savic as the weak link & are using him to help them score. Similarly Helguson picks out the same player later & hits the bar.

The only way to solve this would have been to move Savic out of the way, so Richards could have made a challenge on Bothroyd unobstructed. That would be effectively admitting that Savic was incapable of doing the job of CB.

If you watch carefully, it's actually Richards who instigates the swapping of positions as captain rather than (as I thought) Lescott. It wouldn't have made any difference if Lescott had been there though as there was no way he could have got in front of Bothroyd either; Savic was already there taking up the space.

I've followed your suggestion, Ted, and watched the nightmare scenario all again. You're definitely right about Richards being the one to suggest swapping players, so well done there.

However, I still think it was bad form for markers to swap players at such a potentially crucial time and I take your point about Bothroyd hanging onto Savic, but I still feel that if Richards hadn't come across in quite such a leisurely fashion, he might have got tighter on Bothroyd a touch earlier and partly obstructed his run, but that's arguable and my own viewpoint is probably coloured by the advantage of hindsight and the annoyance of City conceding a goal in such a cheap way.

The unacceptable aspect, apart from the fact that it shouldn't have been a free kick in the first place, was the way that Bothroyd had a virtually free header. Hope this is food for thought for the back-room boys but we do seem to be continually suspect in the air, at the back, from set plays. It does need to be sorted once and for all, which goes back to a different thread of yours which queried as to which central defender we could get in, in January, to tighten up matters at the back.

[Ted Hughes]

Don't know if this relates directly to the header of this thread, or not, but the first goal we conceded against QPR was interesting (??) for the way our defence was lined up and what subsequently happened.

Whilst waiting for the free kick to be taken, Helguson was on the QPR left, being actually marked by Richards. Savic was in the middle, marking the central space, presumably in line with the zonal system we operate (are we still operating it ??). In between Savic and Richards was Lescott who seemed to be marking Bothroyd.

Just before the ball was flighted in, Lescott turned and said something to Richards and they quickly 'swapped' the players they were marking, with Lescott taking the smaller Helguson and getting tight on him and Richards moving over, albeit more leisurely, to pick up the taller Bothroyd.

When the ball was played in, Savic jumped but it was over his head and Bothroyd racing in, having gained a yard on Richards, got to the ball first with his header, to score.

On that basis,
(1) Was Savic incorrectly positioned, as per zonal marking requirements ??
(2) Why did Richards and Lescott 'swap' players at the last second ?? Lescott is the centre-back but ended up marking the smaller player, away from the centre of the goal area, so was it pre-determined by City's back-room staff that at set plays, Lescott would mark Helguson and Richards would mark Bothroyd ??
(3) Why didn't Richards get tighter on Bothroyd with the same haste that Lescott did with Helguson ??
(4) Are we playing a zonal defence system, a man for man marking system, or are we operating a hybrid mixture of the two and, if this is the case, is it confusing some of the players as to where and how they ought to be positioned ??

.......or were we just missing Vincent ??

Although there were a number of others in the box, it seemed that three of our back four combined to gift QPR their opening goal through indifferent organisation.

Watch it again.

Bothroyd starts putting his hands on Savic before the ball is even delivered. He effectively 'marks' him. He makes sure that he's in physical contact with him all the time & finally leans above him to score. He is too close to Savic for Richards to be involved as Savic is directly underneath him as he jumps to head it, there is simply no room for Richards to get involved, he would have to be in the area Savic is occupying. This is no accident, it's intentional; they have spotted Savic as the weak link & are using him to help them score. Similarly Helguson picks out the same player later & hits the bar.

The only way to solve this would have been to move Savic out of the way, so Richards could have made a challenge on Bothroyd unobstructed. That would be effectively admitting that Savic was incapable of doing the job of CB.

If you watch carefully, it's actually Richards who instigates the swapping of positions as captain rather than (as I thought) Lescott. It wouldn't have made any difference if Lescott had been there though as there was no way he could have got in front of Bothroyd either; Savic was already there taking up the space.

I've followed your suggestion, Ted, and watched the nightmare scenario all again. You're definitely right about Richards being the one to suggest swapping players, so well done there.

However, I still think it was bad form for markers to swap players at such a potentially crucial time and I take your point about Bothroyd hanging onto Savic, but I still feel that if Richards hadn't come across in quite such a leisurely fashion, he might have got tighter on Bothroyd a touch earlier and partly obstructed his run, but that's arguable and my own viewpoint is probably coloured by the advantage of hindsight and the annoyance of City conceding a goal in such a cheap way.

The unacceptable aspect, apart from the fact that it shouldn't have been a free kick in the first place, was the way that Bothroyd had a virtually free header. Hope this is food for thought for the back-room boys but we do seem to be continually suspect in the air, at the back, from set plays. It does need to be sorted once and for all, which goes back to a different thread of yours which queried as to which central defender we could get in, in January, to tighten up matters at the back.

It's not our strongest point whoever plays & we let in goals we shouldn't sometimes, but in this case the same ball wouldn't have beaten any of our other CB's if they had been in Savic's position. There's a fair chance Zabba or Kolarov would have defended it too. It wasn't the most difficult ball to defend & the only reason it was a free header is because of the player himself not being up to the task of defending it. Savic was in place to defend it but made no challenge at all; he barely got off the ground or blocked the player. Micah would have had to move Savic out of the way in order to be in the right position as the ball was on the other side. As 1 v 1 defending, it's simply not upto the required standard not just for the Prem, but the same thing would happen to Savic in the lower leagues too. It shows that no matter what you do as a team, if one player is so far below par, it falls apart in his area.

Luckily the attackers bailed us out. Savic has to either bulk up or fight like a tiger or both if he's to get a CB job at City.

[ashton287]

The saying is true. A team that plays together and understands each other and their own roles in the bigger picture will beat 11 outstanding players who have no understanding of each other 11 times out of ten. When your winning as a team it's ok to say "good result today, played well. Left back could of been better though." because it's constructive.

But then if you lose the next time round and people are screaming "THAT FUCKING LEFT BACK IS A CUNT, cost us the game i hope he gets aids tonight and dies tomorrow" that's obviously not right because if we lose the rest of the team hasn't done their job either. The strikers didnt score enough, the mifield didnt create enough, the keeper should of saved it. So the team didn't do enough.

So i don't have a problem with the saying. The one i hate that i have heard nearly every game i watch these days is "he's the outball", "the problem is they don't have an outball", fucking outball outball outball. Don't even know why it winds me up it just does.

[Yffi_88]

So i don't have a problem with the saying. The one i hate that i have heard nearly every game i watch these days is "he's the outball", "the problem is they don't have an outball", fucking outball outball outball. Don't even know why it winds me up it just does.

Apologies. What on earth is an outball? Must be a word that's passed me by.

[Alex Sapphire]

So i don't have a problem with the saying. The one i hate that i have heard nearly every game i watch these days is "he's the outball", "the problem is they don't have an outball", fucking outball outball outball. Don't even know why it winds me up it just does.

Apologies. What on earth is an outball? Must be a word that's passed me by.

It's the "go-to" term of the modern pundit