Split Centre-Backs And The Need For A Pivot

[Rousseau 9,399]

I don't think a Pivot needs great pace, but needs to read the game well and have good distribution. Murdoch was a good wee passer so could do the job -- don't know about his reading of the game, though?

 

It's amazing how much an opinion of a player differs. I don't really care for Walsh, as he's not really shown enough for me on the wing or in the centre, but I do like Murdoch, as I think he is one of our best passers, and his movement and interplay was great to watch.

 

I think we expect too much of players. Instead of demanding Murdoch do everything in midfield, I'd prefer him to just concentrate on doing a smaller role well. I think he'd be good at Pivot; he's got a look of a metronome about him too.

Edited September 22, 2015 by Rousseau

[Rousseau 9,399]

But he has had about 15 minutes playing that position.....

 

Yes, but 15 minutes at full-back, not as a winger, his 'natural' position. Warburton obviously feels Aird has the attributes to play that role. (Oh, he has got Tavernier ahead of him: how much is any full-back in our squad going to play with Tavernier in front of them?)

[charltonman 19]

Very astute analysis mate. And proven right tonight.

[JTP 0]

For league games our system is fine.

If we want to win a cup we need more defensive cover,we will be exposed when better teams come calling.

 

Boom. Nail. Head.

 

Along with the OP.

[alexscottislegend 2,084]

For those of us who date back to the fifties, the term 'pivot' meant a centre half, who sat between the left and right backs... Think George Young, Ronnie McKinnon eg.

[Ser Barristan Selmy 222]

Aside from Barcelona, which other sides play with two full backs constantly in the opponent's half? I don't think we have shown this season that our defensive system works at all because on the rare occasion the opponent attacks, we look all over the place. St Johnstone showed how shambolic we are defensively. If our full backs continue to play as advanced as they are, we will very quickly get found out in Europe, Celtic will likely cause us problems too, even if it's the worst Celtic side in living memory.

 

Generally when sides have one attacking full back it is supplemented with a more defensive player. Like Cafu and Maldini, Irwin and Neville, Cole and Ivanovic, Roberto Carlos and Salgado . Even with this pivot I would just see us getting exposed on the flanks.

[der Berliner 3,263]

For those of us who date back to the fifties, the term 'pivot' meant a centre half, who sat between the left and right backs... Think George Young, Ronnie McKinnon eg.

 

Is that essentially a 3-man back-line?

[Rousseau 9,399]

Aside from Barcelona, which other sides play with two full backs constantly in the opponent's half? I don't think we have shown this season that our defensive system works at all because on the rare occasion the opponent attacks, we look all over the place. St Johnstone showed how shambolic we are defensively. If our full backs continue to play as advanced as they are, we will very quickly get found out in Europe, Celtic will likely cause us problems too, even if it's the worst Celtic side in living memory.

 

Generally when sides have one attacking full back it is supplemented with a more defensive player. Like Cafu and Maldini, Irwin and Neville, Cole and Ivanovic, Roberto Carlos and Salgado . Even with this pivot I would just see us getting exposed on the flanks.

 

There are a few: Arsenal, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich...etc. It's a good point, though. Do you propose leaving three defenders back (RCB, LCB and LB) and a DM? Or just the three defenders? If it's the former, then the opposition have an easier time defending, and we have less player to attack with; if the latter, then a pivot would become the third defender, while also allowing width on both sides.

 

I would also suggest that full backs push the opponents winger back, making them less of a threat. It wasn't really St Johnstone's wingers that caused the damage, but their forward. We had enough to cover the 1st goal, but too many players failed to block/take out the player; their 2nd was just poor defending, not exposure on the flanks; and their 3rd was a long ball down the middle, again no exposure on the flanks. Others have already mentioned that the our centre-backs were too zonal, letting the player run, rather than cutting off passing lines and the attack -- I felt we did that better the second half, with our centre-backs stepping out to intercept, rather than getting run in behind. Someone very colourfully suggested one centre-back should drop deep, acting as sweeper, the other should mark Anally. Our centre-backs are also quite narrow: they need to spread out more IMO.

 

If we have a pivot, then one of the centre-backs takes on the responsibility of covering the flank, and we get an extra man to act as an interceptor, allowing one or two of the centre-backs to act as sweeper.

Edited September 24, 2015 by Rousseau

[Oleg_Mcnoleg 50]

There are a few: Arsenal, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern Munich...etc. It's a good point, though. Do you propose leaving three defenders back (RCB, LCB and LB) and a DM? Or just the three defenders? If it's the former, then the opposition have an easier time defending, and we have less player to attack with; if the latter, then a pivot would become the third defender, while also allowing width on both sides.

 

I would also suggest that full backs push the opponents winger back, making them less of a threat. It wasn't really St Johnstone's wingers that caused the damage, but their forward. We had enough to cover the 1st goal, but too many players failed to block/take out the player; their 2nd was just poor defending, not exposure on the flanks; and their 3rd was a long ball down the middle, again no exposure on the flanks. Others have already mentioned that the our centre-backs were too zonal, letting the player run, rather than cutting off passing lines and the attack -- I felt we did that better the second half, with our centre-backs stepping out to intercept, rather than getting run in behind. Someone very colourfully suggested one centre-back should drop deep, acting as sweeper, the other should mark Anally. Our centre-backs are also quite narrow: they need to spread out more IMO.

 

If we have a pivot, then one of the centre-backs takes on the responsibility of covering the flank, and we get an extra man to act as an interceptor, allowing one or two of the centre-backs to act as sweeper.

'Get behind him. In tight!'

Damn you autocorrect!

Edited September 24, 2015 by Oleg_Mcnoleg

[pete 2,499]

I don't think a Pivot needs great pace, but needs to read the game well and have good distribution. Murdoch was a good wee passer so could do the job -- don't know about his reading of the game, though?

 

It's amazing how much an opinion of a player differs. I don't really care for Walsh, as he's not really shown enough for me on the wing or in the centre, but I do like Murdoch, as I think he is one of our best passers, and his movement and interplay was great to watch.

 

I think we expect too much of players. Instead of demanding Murdoch do everything in midfield, I'd prefer him to just concentrate on doing a smaller role well. I think he'd be good at Pivot; he's got a look of a metronome about him too.

 

To be honest the only thing he was reading was the name on the back of his opponents shirt.