Bleary-Eyed Statto

Sunday, February 3, 2008

The Other Bob Wilson served up a post to the messageboard today entitled "Too Many Goals Conceded From Free Kicks and Corners." He's been keeping track of City's relative inability to defend against set pieces and so has a bit to say on the matter. He wrote:

I make it that it is now fourteen league goals that we have conceded this season through our inability to defend first or second balls from free kicks or corners properly. Mind you, it was ironic that, against a team that are very strong from set pieces, the goal we conceded was from a corner that never got more than about four foot off the floor! Also, if Stoke hadn’t have had so many six foot plus players in their team, we may have had someone on the near post who would have been able to keep the deflection off Johnson out - as it is, I think the goal has to go down entirely to Paul Parry’s air shot.

One other thing about corners, Stoke’s second goal and a great chance they had in stoppage time came as a direct result of them leaving a player up field when defending corners - I wish we did the same (especially if that person had a bit of pace about them).

In response, Bluebeetle wrote:

I know I'm no Oakes fan, so call me biased, but he is particularly bad at corners and free kicks into the area, being completely unable to dominate his box, and lacking that natural ability which any decent keeper should have i.e. knowing when to come and when to stay back. . . .

I understand that we've done away with the 'marking areas' tactic at set pieces which Jones once favoured, but effectively defending set pieces has, in my view, a lot to do with the physical presence of the keeper. If the oncoming forwards have it in the back of their mind that if they make a genuine effort to attack the ball they may well get clattered by a keeper who stands his ground, they'll think twice before going for it. If they know he's a 'flapper' they'll be right in there every time, putting additional pressure on the centre backs and often leading to them making errors and conceding own goals!

Dano observed, "I've been saying that since the end of September! Our two over rated central defenders have problems defending set pieces." The Other Bob offered this by way of a reply:

To be fair Dano, with Scimeca out and Thommo often missing, we aren't that tall a side. Gavin Rae's not bad in the air, but I reckon we rely too much on the likes of Ledley and Parry when defending. I would like to see Parry occupying the opposition by staying on the half way line when we are defending dead ball situations, but, the trouble is that he is probably one of our better headers of a ball so we can't afford to do that .

Maybe all of this has something to do with Dave Jones' desire to get a more dominant keeper in who would come for more balls knocked into our penalty area, but, although I don't think Oakes is as bad as some on here make him out to be, he certainly isn't that sort of keeper.

The Incredible Bulk observed, "I cannot believe that there wasn't anyone on the posts against a team that is pretty big and good in corner situations." He added, "should have been one on each post as well as the man in front of the front post to stop the ball reaching front post (which is what parry was doing, but unfortunately missed his kick!!)."

Certainly, the defeat at Stoke brings into focus some weaknesses in City's game. Stoke are better suited to playing basketball than just about any side City will face all year and their height advantage may have made a difference yesterday. Still, how much longer will Jones go with Michael Oakes in goal? With Enckelman available, now might be the time to make a move.

Bleary-Eyed Navigation