Square pegs into round holes – how should Leeds United line up next season (Part 4.)

The defenders – I difensori

“I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I I’ll blow your house down!” cried the Wolf as the two little pigs scampered away from the crumbled remains of houses made of straw and sticks towards the safety provided by a third house of brick.

What you have here is a classic child’s story and a brief summary of what the Leeds United defence was like during the 2013/14 Championship campaign. Leeds stumbled from one makeshift ‘house’ to another, applying different formations in attempting to shore up a defence more leaky than a parent’s eyes on their child’s first day at Junior school.

The difference between the ‘Three Little Pigs’ and the ‘Leeds United defence’ was simple. The pigs found sanctuary in the 3^rd pig’s house made of bricks whilst Leeds never had that luxury; the walls that they put up seemed paper-like and never quite reached brick.

Leeds’ Championship 23 game/23 game split

	P	W	D	L	CS*	FTS*	F	A	GD	PTS	PPG	Rank
03 Aug – 29 Dec 2013	23	10	5	8	7	6	34	26	+8	35	1.52	7th
01 Jan – 03 May 2014	23	6	4	13	3	8	25	41	-16	22	0.96	21st

*CS – Clean Sheets

*FTS – Failed to score

The ‘rank’ for each part of the table is how the team ranked in the whole division based solely on their performance in the 23 games.

Source – statto.com

I’m not sure about the game of football being a ‘game of two halves’ but Leeds United’s Championship campaign for 2013/14 season definitely was. A seventh place position in the table halfway through the season slowly began to trickle away before then gathering momentum into what could only be described as a ‘plummet of epic proportions’. A decent defensive performance up to December 29^th (only 26 goals conceded) soon became a mad scramble away from relegation that was, at one point, a serious worry for Leeds United fans. The second half of the season saw a 9 goal drop in goals scored (from 35 to 25 goals) but more worryingly a 15 goal turnaround in goals conceded (from a respectable 26 goals to a more alarming 41 goals conceded). The ‘relegation party’ was only postponed when Leeds gained 10 of 15 points available (WWLWD) from the final 5 games of the season. Before I move onto a more in-depth look at Leeds United’s defence, there is one little illustrative nugget that is worth mentioning. The Leeds run up to 29^th December 2013, where Leeds gained just over 50% of the available points (35 from 69) included a block of 10 games where they utilised a 5-3-2 formation. The rapid decline in defensive fortunes began on 1^st January when Leeds abandoned the 5-3-2 formation in favour of a more standard 4-4-2 line-up.

Photo Credit: zimbio.com via Charlie Crowhurst/Getty Images Europe

Leeds United’s 5 main defenders 2013/14 season (min 25 appearances)

	Apps (sub)	Tackles   W           L		Take-ons (%age won)	Aerial Duels* (% age won)	Int*	Blks*	Clr*
Jason Pearce (DC)	45	41	35	3 (75%)	3.60 (71%)	1.18	0.84	10.31
Tom Lees (DC)	40 (+1)	39	20	7 (100%)	4.39 (68.44)	1.73	0.71	8.78
Steven Warnock (LB)	27	49	40	15 (75%)	2.15 (63.74%)	1.93	0.26	5.44
Sam Byram	17 (+8)	31	19	8 (53.33%)	1.28 (49.23%)	1.08	0.24	2.88
Lee Peltier	23 (+2)	40	25	6 (54.55%)	2.12 (63.10%)	1.20	0.36	4.76

* totals per game

Source Squawka.com

Figure and players put into a table like this tells you very little if anything about their strengths and weaknesses, nor does it provide insights into Leeds United as a defensive unit. All that it will tell the reader is that Jason Pearce and Tom Lees were the first-choice Central Defender (DC) pairing for the 2013/14 season, that the Left Defender (DL) position was manned by Steven Warnock on 27 occasions (leaving 19 games for other players) and that the Right Defender (DR) position was at times manned by Sam Byram, at other times by Lee Peltier. Leeds’ defence had the dubious pleasure of being ranked the 19^th worst team for goals conceded (67) in the Championship during the 2013/14 season; with only 5 of the bottom 6 teams having a worse record in conceded goals.

Statistics for 6 defenders in top 20 defensive players – Championship 2013/14

	Apps (sub)	Tackles W             L		Take-ons (%age won)	Aerial Duels* (% age won)	Int*	Blks*	Clr*
Shane Duffy (DC)	38	36	34	6 (75%)	6.11 (69.25%)	2.34	1.95	14.79
Kieran Trippier (DR)	41	78	69	26 (65%)	1.80 (56.06%)	2.02	0.44	4.80
Christophe Berra (DC)	41 (+1)	59	36	3 (50%	3.71 (62.40%)	1.36	0.62	13.86
Alex Pearce (DC)	45	50	30	9 (90%)	5.62 (66.23%)	1.18	0.76	12.04
Clint Hill (DL)	40	56	56	2 (50%)	4.07 (68.09%)	1.67	0.65	8.79
Ritchie De Laet (DC/DR)	35 (+1)	82	55	39 (57.35%)	2.58 (56.36%)	2.25	0.19	4.56

* totals per game

Source Squawka.com

6 defenders chosen based on defensive data from Whoscored.com

Comparing the five most used defenders for Leeds against 6 defenders placing in the top 20 Championship defensive players (Whoscored.com) brings up some interesting questions. Two players for Leeds, DC duo Jason Pearce and Tom Lees, were almost ever presents in the Leeds United side in the 2013/14 Championship campaign with 45 and 41 appearances respectively. Irrespective of what formation was deployed by the then manager Brian McDermott, it is safe to say that both Lees and Pearce played in those games. Bearing this point in mind, it makes sense to look at comparing ‘like for like’ insomuch as how Leeds’ Jason Pearce and Tom Lees measure up individually to the three central defenders in the above table: Shane Duffy (Yeovil), Christophe Berra (Ipswich) and Alex Pearce (Reading).

Comparing defensive interceptions per game

Defensive interceptions (AvgPG*)
Lees (Leeds)	1.73 – 2.34	Duffy (Yeovil)	2.34 – 1.18	Pearce (Leeds)
Lees (Leeds)	1.73 – 1.36	Berra (Ipswich)	1.38 – 1.18	Pearce (Leeds)
Lees (Leeds)	1.73 – 1.18	Pearce (Reading)	1.18 – 1.18	Pearce (Leeds)

Comparing defensive blocks per game

Defensive blocks (AvgPG*)
Lees (Leeds)	0.71 – 1.95	Duffy (Yeovil)	1.95 – 0.84	Pearce (Leeds)
Lees (Leeds)	0.71 – 0.62	Berra (Ipswich)	0.62 – 0.84	Pearce (Leeds)
Lees (Leeds)	0.71 – 0.76	Pearce (Reading)	0.76 – 0.84	Pearce (Leeds)

Comparing defensive clearances per game

Defensive clearances (AvgPG*)
Lees (Leeds)	8.78 – 14.79	Duffy (Yeovil)	14.79 – 10.31	Pearce (Leeds)
Lees (Leeds)	8.78 – 13.86	Berra (Ipswich)	13.86 – 10.31	Pearce (Leeds)
Lees (Leeds)	8.78 – 12.04	Pearce (Reading)	12.04 – 10.31	Pearce (Leeds)

Source Squawka.com

AvgPG*  - average per game

At first glance, Shane Duffy of Yeovil (on loan from Everton) seems like a Marvel superhero with his returned figures. However, Yeovil were relegated in 24^th place, with a goals against record of 75, so it is clear to assume that his increased ‘production’ was probably likely to have been the result of being a member of an almost constantly under siege defence. Comparing Christophe Berra (Ipswich) and Alex Pearce (Reading) makes more sense for a couple of reasons: a.) their ‘production’ figures aren’t skewed by a relegation battle and also questions regarding the tactical formations and line ups deployed by Ipswich and Reading.

Reading’s go-to formation was the standard 4-4-2 formation which they used 27 times in the 46 match regular season (59% of total games); playing this formation gained them 43 points from a total available of 81 (53% of available points and 60% of their season’s total). Similarly, Ipswich’s go-to formation was the standard 4-4-2 which they used 25 times in the 46 match regular season (54% of total games); playing this formation gained them 35 point from a possible 75 (47% of available points and 51.5% of their season’s total). One thing that both of these teams have in common is that their ‘most used XI’ is also closely tallied with their most numerous and successful formation; Ipswich’s especially mirrored this as they had a set of consistently played defenders all season. Ipswich only ever deployed tactical formations based on a ‘back 4’; all their main defenders had a virtually ‘ever-present’ season: Luke Chambers 46 appearances, Aaron Cresswell 42 appearances, Christophe Berra 41 (+1) appearances and Tommy Smith 45 appearances.

Conversely, Leeds United didn’t have a settled defence, aside from the Jason Pearce-Tom Lees partnership, nor did they have a settled defensive formation. Leeds deployed two tactical line-up formations more than others, these being the standard 4-4-2 and the more defensive 5-3-2 formations. The least successful of these was the 4-4-2 which was used 13 times from the possible 46 games (28.3% of total games); playing this formation gained them only 10 of the possible 39 points available (or 25.7% of the points available). Leeds, however, had more success with their use of the 5-3-2 formation playing it the same 13 times in the 2013/14 season as their use of the 4-4-2 formation. However, it is the difference in fortune that they had when using the 5-3-2 formation that makes for interesting reading. When Leeds relied on the 5-3-2 it gained them 21 of the possible 39 points on offer (53.85% of points available and 36.8% of their season total – from only the 13 games).

The intangible – l’intangibile

After selling Tom Lees to Sheffield Wednesday during the off season, Leeds were in the market for a replacement Central Defender. They initially enquired about Chesterfield’s Liam Cooper but, after offering a reputed £475,000 for his services, were put off by Chesterfield’s alleged counter-valuation of £1 million. Then, almost out of the blue, there came news that Leeds were in negotiations with Italy’s ‘La Vecchia Signora ‘ aka Juventus to acquire the services of Danish defender Frederik Søresen on an initial year-long loan with option to buy; the figure reportedly being around the £3 million mark.

Photo Credit: The Hard Tackle Weblog

Frederik Sørensen statistics 2012/13 and 2013/14 seasons (all per 90 mins)

2012/13 Serie A season (Bologna)
Tackles	Take-ons (% won)	Aerial duels (% won)	Defensive Interceptions	Defensive Blocks	Defensive Clearances
1.73	3 (60%)	2.63 (56.14%)	3.29	0.58	8.88
2013/14 Serie A season (Bologna)
2.22	5 (50%)	2.61 (58.24%)	3	0.49	8.28

Source Squawka.com

Whilst Sørensen’s numbers don’t look overly impressive, certain areas do represent an upgrade over the recently departed Tom Lees. Sørensen is only bested convincingly by the number of aerial duels per 90 that Tom Lees engaged in in 2013/14 (Sørensen 2.63 to Lees’ 4.53); certain of his other ‘numbers’ mark him out as an upgrade at centreback for Leeds. His (Sørensen’s) ‘tackles won per 90’ is better (1.73 to Lees’ 0.98), his ‘interceptions per 90’ rate is higher (3.29 to Lees’ 1.79), whilst his ‘blocks’, ‘clearances’ and ‘take-ons’ per 90 are roughly comparable to the output gained from Tom Lees during Leeds United’s 2013/14 Championship campaign. Time will tell as to how Frederik Sørensen performs over the duration of an English Championship season, 46 games played in more varieties of weather than there are gnocchi in Turin. The signs though are encouraging; the results need to follow this vein.

Graham’s final thoughts: what do Leeds need to do to improve? What ‘square pegs’ need to be pared away and rounded off so this coming season, the 2014/15 Championship campaign, runs smoother than the previous one? Through the last 4  'Square pegs into round holes – how should Leeds United line up next season' articles, (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) I have tried to develop a common spine that answers the following question: ‘How should Leeds United line up next season?’ I’ve tried to look through the general misgivings of last season, teasing out the bits that went well (there weren’t many and one has moved on to pastures new) and the bits that didn’t go so well; of those there were sufficient, believe me. I have taken a look at the three main areas of: i difensori, lo centrocampo e i attacanti (the defence, the midfield and the attack to you and me), how they were represented last season and what the new signings could bring to the table this season. I have also tried to look at some of the ‘intangibles’ or players brought in under Mr Celliino’s ‘rivoluzioni gloriosa’ and how they might affect decisions made by Coach Hockaday.

I’m going to stick my head above the parapet and say this: whatever Dave does, let’s hope that it is consistently applied and not changed when there’s a hiccup. After all, there’s that great adage of ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!’

Oh and I’m going for either a 4-4-2 diamond or 4-1-3-2 with Rodolph Austin playing as a midfield version of a ‘catenaccio’; like a ‘sweeper’ but in front of, rather than behind the back four.