Whom do we blame for our lacklustre performance? The defence? or Midfield? A very debatable issue that has gone hot in out team tag board. In this post i aim to be objective to each argument, and let the tag board run and be open to suggestions and solutions. I have my prescribed solution for the next match, but lets keep things democratic and hear you guys out.
Let hypothesize that the Defence is the weaklink.
Argument for...
Defence has always been weak. we have let in many goals that exposed the vulnerability of the defense. Our defence has always proven to be static and would be hurt worst if they had to deal with long balls in between the GK and the defence line. We need faster and stronger defenders whom can anticipate and not be as static, as most of our goals conceded are from a swift counter attack by the opponent. the Gk has to meet any ball played into the no-man's land (the space between the defence and the GK).
Argument against.....
The defense has saved the skin for the team a few times already. has met with counter attacking opponents swiftly and decisively before, putting balls away at almost every measure, putting bodies on the line to prevent concession of goals. to argue then, of a weak defense could be an unfair excuse of a weak team effort in defending especially when the team has had conceded its fair share of goals from the opponent passing from within the penalty area. the Gk in turn has been at many times let down by a lack of decent cover.
Now lets hypothesize that the Midfield is really the weak link.
Argument for........
The midfield has at many times led to an open gateway for the opponent to breach the heart of the defense. in almost all games, the midfield looked to be almost giving in without a fight, losing the midfield battle and losing out on the scraps in the centre line. Losing the ball in any position like that could prove disastrous as it means an opportunity for a swift counterattack by the opponent. A Lack of leadership (and fitness) to pull the team as a working cohesive unit especially in the later parts of the half is a worrying problem.
Arguments against.....
The midfield has more than held its own in a couple of matches. many a times the midf had been outnumbered and the midfield has passed the ball around the midfield, yet has been successful in bottlenecking the opponent attack. if the midfield was to be suggested as the real blame for the lack of cover, then it is suggested that the goals conceded by the team during the games where the midf has dominated be examined. In matches where the midf has dominated the opponent, such as in the 4-2 game the team won, it was rather down to the lack of concentration of the defence and the lack of experience of the team as a whole that nearly took the wind out of our sails. the demanding style and pace of the game that we play, quick counter attack, which could turn to a quick defence (playing the yo-yo) could really stretch the midf to its limit.
Yours,
Rahman
