Absolutely – we're all just trying to interpret what we see, and watching Match of the Day or Sky on a Sunday morning *might* help us with that understanding, although most analysis is of the most basic cause-and-effect kind. By that I mean pundits point out poor positioning in a 20- or 30-second stretch of video but rarely highlight what happened in the phase of play before, or even two or three phases of play before that (which might be highly relevant). But using screengrabs to make a tactical point is just crackers. It's a popular trend because it makes it look like there's some deep thinking going on in the background but it sheds no real light on things at all, as far as I can see. By all means we should try to understand what we're seeing but the fundamental issue we will always have is that we have no idea what the players are told by the coaches. We simply don't know if Holebas or Doucouré or whoever is in the *right* or *wrong* position at all. We're just guessing. We have no idea what they work on in training, all we usually judge on is whether the ball goes in the back of the net or not. Perhaps Holebas is told to do something specific, or maybe he's not, but we mustn't forget that the opposition is playing the game too. They are trying to stretch and confuse matters with their movement, or by doing something differently late in the game to how they did it earlier. As much as we'd like to simplify things for ourselves and boil a game down to moments, nothing happens in isolation. Obviously, no coach is saying to them: "Leave Defoe to burst in between you and stab the ball into the net in injury time," but the game happens in real time and is affected by a huge range of factors, including mental and physical fatigue. Football is a game of mistakes, primarily, and they happen in more or less every minute of every game. The team that makes the fewest serious mistakes in dangerous areas usually wins.
The fact they signed Zeegelaar when everyone knew he was poor quality and have also given Holebas a new contract would suggest to me that they have been fairly blind to it.
Howe reckons we should have had 3 players sent off !! Maybe Prodl was a bit lucky and Gracia did take him off after a couple of iffy moments but not sure Holebas and I presume Okaka's late elbow were worthy of more than a booking.
Not out for a fight. Just curious to hear how you explain arrive at your judgements. I'll let you get on with that.
The difference in sentiment - to me - is that one suggests that the club has made no effort to improve the defence because the club is happy with it, and the other suggests that the club has tried to improve (perhaps with a flawed method) and failed. I'd be much more concerned with the former. For instance, I think that our striking options have not improved since we got promoted, much like our defence, but I wouldn't say: Very little has been done since promotion on upgrading the strikers. The club tried but made bad choices. I don't think you bring in 10 defenders in three seasons without the intent to improve.
You got it wrong from the beginning. Before apportioning blame, you need to know what the coach's instructions were for defending free-kicks like that. (Zonal marking? Staying goal-side of men? Intercepting the second ball?) When you know that, you can work out where the instructions weren't followed - or whether the instructions (or lack of them) were at fault. Without starting from there, you're just making up what went wrong. As Forzainglese observed, we're all amateurs on matters like this - me, you, all of us. Best not for any of us to pretend we have the answer - and insist we're right - when we have no knowledge of what the defensive instructions were in the first place. Or we look ridiculous.
If Gracia is sending the team out with instructions to defend like that, I very much doubt he will be here much longer. IF.
I am stating an opinion on what our defensive problems are. I think it's fairly lucid in interpretation, but you think they are just plain wrong, which is fair enough. When I see a central defender just stand there making no attempt to contest the ball, it seems unlikely to me that Gracia would tell him to defend like that. but maybe he did. Maybe he wanted Holebas to mark space and not follow Defoe's run. Maybe he wanted Mapps to play deep, to allow the opposition a sporting chance to be onside. Maybe he wanted big gaps between defenders, so the striker could have plenty of time to control the ball and shoot. I think it's unlikely, but who knows? Gracia did say in his post-match that the defending was not correct though. I used my interpretation from years of watching football and offered a conclusion as to what the problems may be. If you think that's total garbage, that's fine, I respect your point-of-view.
I’ve had many a row with HB1 but I thought his post was a good one. You might disagree with his analysis but it’s certainly not garbage.
HB1 once told me you cant prove anything with still photo's.. then proceeded to use still photos to prove his points Tbf i think some things can be proven with snapshots. It's not so clear cut this time imo but looking at the pics he posted from the Liverpool game it's hard to come to any other conclusion when a player was so clearly behind play.. 10-15 meters behind. When things are closer to call you really do need to see things in real time i'd agree. As you pointed out its hard to make conclusions without having heard the teams tactics but its hard to believe said tactics would include a defensive player being nowhere near play and looking so imobile.
JA is having a bad day on his armchair, so that's fair enough. I did post a link to the highlights from the official website though. It's just easier to take stills from that to illustrate a point. You cannot run the entire clip, unless you are SkySports. Here's the link again though. https://www.watfordfc.com/teams/first-team/match-report-watford-2-2-bournemouth. Just watch it and follow the movement of Cathcart, then do that again and just focus on Holebas, do that same for all players involved if you like. You will see their contribution, or lack of. This will gave you some insight as to where our problems lie and why we keep conceding so many cheap goals.
His analysis is garbage because it has no context. HB1 has no clue what the plan on the pitch was, or what happened between the players. Yet he's certain what the problem was. Hornetgags quite reasonably suggested: "Deeney doesn't get goalside (essential when defending) misjudges the flight and gets outjumped. We don't know what the communication was. Did Deeney just leave his man? Maybe, Deeney called for the header which meant Cathcart dropped off - if he calls it, he has to make it." And yet HB1 says it's a "fact" that "Cathcart should have attacked the ball but didn't, making Deeney have to come across and do his job for him." A "fact"? Garbage. As amateurs, we can speculate - as Hornetgags does. But presenting an uninformed amateur diagnosis as "fact" is, ahem, everything that's wrong with modern football.
Maybe Gracia told Cathcart that if they get a free kick in the 92nd minute that under no circumstances should he challenge for the ball pumped forward to the guy he was just stood next to, but that he should drop 10 paces backwards so he's in a pocket of space and let him head it almost unopposed into the six yard box? Seems a bit unlikely but we're just fans so we can't understand the game as we weren't in the dressing room.
So in conclusion: Two pieces of nincompoop defending from our players,at the end of each half,have cost us a win. Whether or not all of our defenders and Daktari,for not tracking Defoe,are all nincompoops is open to debate. All I know is,despite yesterday being tarnished by our hapless defending,I'd rather we get it all out the way before April 21.
I'm offering opinion, like everyone else. If you want to put these little "fact" tags to it, that's up to you. I think most can see it for what it is.
It's not that we don't understand the game. It's that we don't understand specific situations. Is Troy detailed as the man who attacks the ball when defending those free-kicks? Did he call for it? If so, Cathcart was right not to challenge for it. When people don't know the answers to the first two questions, it's pointless making up a narrative about who should have done what. I guess it just makes people feel better about themselves. So carry on.
What you said was (and I quote accurately, without changing your words): "Cathcart should have attacked the ball but didn't, making Deeney have to come across and do his job for him. The gap between Mapps and Holebas is way too big. Nobody followed Defoe's run. Mapps was too deep and kept Defoe onside. These are all facts." It was you, not me, that said you were dealing in facts. Now you've backtracked and said it was opinion. I'll leave others to judge why you've made that shift.
This is what you fail to understand. This is opinion and fact intertwined. The opinion part is saying Cathcart should have attacked the ball, and it's a fact that he didn't do this. He made Deeney come across, is an opinion, and Deeney did come across which was fact. The gap in my opinion was too big, and the gap was big. Nobody followed Defoe's run is a fact, as nobody did. Mapps was too deep and played on Defoe is another factual event. Maybe I've upset you today, and that's not my intention. I write honestly, without thought I may upset a few on here, as I didn't realise a people can be quite so sensitive to things, but in future I will try to put IMO or IMHO next to things I write.
Well, it would be nice; but, Madam, if you really think we're going to improve dramatically in the next three weeks aren't you displaying a teensy bit of nincompoopery yourslf?
"Opinion and fact intertwined" is a beautiful-sounding concept. It's not one that a historian, lawyer, scientist, or philosopher would accept, but it sounds beautiful. But, hey, this is a football forum. If you can try to write IMO or IMHO - to make it clear when you're expressing an opinion, it would definitely help.
Good point. Maybe all our players were told that they should handball it if it looked like the opposition were going to score? Probably shouldn't discuss that either just in case, we simply don't know what Gracia says in the dressing room before the game. I'm not sure it's about people making themselves feel better either. Some like to talk about the game afterwards on here, others prefer to write pompous blogs and start threads about them, each to their own.
Don't want to wade in on this argument about how the team contrived to leave Defoe free in the box - but whoever's analysis is correct/incorrect, the one thing consistent in all of them is a lack of communication between those defending the ball. This could be down to insufficient work on the training ground regarding practice for this type of set-piece - but I believe it's more likely the result of a team with a history this season of letting in very late goals when in a winning position. In the nervy situation they found themselves in with only a minute to go - they panicked and collectively didn't do their jobs. An identical situation after 15/30/60 mins etc would have seen it comfortably defended. A subconscious/mental problem that has dogged the team for most of the season. On a separate topic - I took my dad to the game yesterday for the first time since the early 90's. After ten or so minutes he said to me "it's much louder than it used to be, better atmosphere". That pretty much goes against what everybody believes the matchday experience at the Vic is like (including me). Perhaps those that go often, and have done so for years, only notice the quiet spells or a vociferous away section (not yesterday - muff very quiet)? Of course, his opinion doesn't mean it's factually correct - I just thought it was interesting as it goes against what most regulars hear/see.
I dont get the over analysis of the Defoe goal. If there were no mistakes in football no one would concede a goal. Do think defensive issues stem from us not having a settled back 4/5 . Different players injured at different times. Arguably we haven't had the chance to field our strongest back line once this season.
Spot on. Analyse any of the goals scored in the EPL this weekend and most of them will be down to some kind of defensive f**k up. I wish some posters on this site would stop accentuating the negative in what was, by and large, an excellent performance yesterday. Yes, we drew when, arguably, we should have won, but guess what? S**t happens. Get over it.
I don't think anyone is saying that these situations shouldn't be discussed. It's a good discussion. But there's quite a big gap between saying that the defenders should have done better in a given situation and using photographs, or even film, to dissect a single situation in the match in order to draw a much wider set of tactical conclusions about defensive strategy.
Good grief. Paris Saint Germain buying megastars due to State sponsored backing to the point their domestic opponents rest their best players may be bad form. But Hornetboy1 posting his views of Watford's defending on a football forum? Well - that's everything that is wrong with modern football. Give your head a shake man!
All very well hb1 but every team concedes some late goals and scores some too. You've conveniently forgotten the match-defining late goals we've scored ourselves. They were against Swansea away (winner), WBA away (draw), Arsenal home (winner) Saints home (draw - and should have been disallowed) and Chelsea home (three to win). We should also have had a penalty against Spurs. So if we even out all that late stuff and a bit of luck I make it that we could/should have had six more points rather than your twelve. So not so polarised as you make out then. I'd be rather more concerned that most of our late stuff happened towards the beginning of the season and we've now moved to a nett loss. And that the away defeats at Everton and Palace and at home to Swansea were more like capitulations than simply conceding a late goal. The ten men of Chelsea also capitulated at home to us.
Agreed. Just like with VAR removing wrong decisions from football, if HB1 didn't post his opinions on the forum, I'd have even less to moan about down the pub before kicking off with an opposing fan.
I'm not forgetting those late goals we scored, but why does this always have to be some sort of balancing act? Over the past 9 or 10 years Watford have regularly conceded late goals, especially at home. Far more than we've ever scored. We scored late goals due to good play and high pressing trying to force something. This seems to have gone now. I'm concerned with bad play, and the amount of late chances we continually give away in the final moments of games. We do this constantly. We beat Everton 1-0 recently, but do you remember they had their best chance with virtually the final kick. Even Chelsea who we were beating 4-1 should have scored when Giroud had a great chance with the last kick. It's a regular thing with Watford, that doesn't mean occasionally score a late one ourselves, or win a match comfortably without a major scare. It just means, we give up big chances to the opposition far more than we force them when we are chasing the game. This is game management, and Watford are notoriously bad at it.
