New Centre Back

[Hazzman]

Completely agree

The one thing last Saturday did expose was the fact that, with a decent midfield four in the team, the weaknesses of the back four became evident - namely their desire to blindly hoof the ball aimlessly up the pitch at every given opportunity.

McAuley being by far the worst culprit

Yes the back 4 do like to panic a bit don't they? But personally, I believe this is a nothing story. Maculay or his agent haven't been directly quoted or such, only Norn Iron Jim attempting to disettle him.

 

[consty]

Completely agree

The one thing last Saturday did expose was the fact that, with a decent midfield four in the team, the weaknesses of the back four became evident - namely their desire to blindly hoof the ball aimlessly up the pitch at every given opportunity.
McAuley being by far the worst culprit

An effective pairing should not be broken up. They are stopping the oppostiton very effectively and have been playing together long enough to have a good understanding. I take your point about them hoofing the ball. They do! But, at this level, I don't think you can expect a centre half to be a great distributor of the ball... it's enough to be good at stopping the opposition which GM and PK do much better than most other pairings in this division. Coventry never looked like scoring - apart from when the weak link, Stearman, nearly let them in.
Let's remember, Walsh was no great distributor of the ball. We can't have everything in a centre half - great stopper and great passer... if we did, a premier team would take him off our hands very quickly. Be satisifed with what you've got is my opinion here when they have been doing very well all season behind inadequate players in front of them and beside inadequate full backs on their flanks.

 

[stockholm fox]

it's an interesting reflection of the renewed optimism in our collective camp if our back four is now seen, by some, as potentially our weakest link... when barely two months ago the defence was the only part of the team that we were relativley happy with...it's certainly true that in both midfield and attack we are now considerably better equipped...

however we shouldn't ignore our defensive record...with Wolves getting hammered at home 0-3 to Palace we have conceded only one more goal...we are equal to Palace with 27 goals against and better than the rest of league and rest of the top six....

I agree though we need more leadership and communication at the back...and I guess the question is do we currently have the right characters at the club and/or on the pitch to provide it?

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

But our defensive record is only as it is because we adopted such a defensive formation and tactics under Megson. When Ollie came and tried to play a more expansive game we started to concede more, if we are going to play a more fluent, high tempo and attacking game then IMO there will have to be casualties as I don't believe as a collective unit that these players are good enough to take us where the chairman and manager want us to be.

 

[highland fox]

Why would we want to sell him if we dont have to,maybe im a bit thick well not even maybe,but I thought the idea was to build a squad.

We might not want to..he might want to go.Why can't people see this and realise we aren't the gretest team in the Country?

 

[homer]

it's an interesting reflection of the renewed optimism in our collective camp if our back four is now seen, by some, as potentially our weakest link... when barely two months ago the defence was the only part of the team that we were relativley happy with...

But it's all relative

They looked the strongest part because we had an utter shambles in midfield and losers up front - and they only stemmed the tide because we played seven defenders in the team, and actually played five at the back instead of four

The minute we switched to a 4-4-2 they looked out of their depth - and now that we have seen them play with an attacking competent midfield four in front of them they look even worse

If the team needs improving somewhere, then improve it. Simple

 

[PFKAKTF FOX]

But it's all relative

They looked the strongest part because we had an utter shambles in midfield and losers up front - and they only stemmed the tide because we played seven defenders in the team, and actually played five at the back instead of four

The minute we switched to a 4-4-2 they looked out of their depth - and now that we have seen them play with an attacking competent midfield four in front of them they look even worse

If the team needs improving somewhere, then improve it. Simple

Cracking post

 

[H T B]

Time will tell if our current back 4 occupants can play football and not just block and hoof.
They now have a decent midfield in front of them, let's see how they react before culling them.

 

[stockholm fox]

But it's all relative

They looked the strongest part because we had an utter shambles in midfield and losers up front - and they only stemmed the tide because we played seven defenders in the team, and actually played five at the back instead of four

The minute we switched to a 4-4-2 they looked out of their depth - and now that we have seen them play with an attacking competent midfield four in front of them they look even worse

If the team needs improving somewhere, then improve it. Simple

don't disagree Homer...hence my closing question

I agree though we need more leadership and communication at the back...and I guess the question is do we currently have the right characters at the club and/or on the pitch to provide it?

personally I believe leadership, communication and quality are lacking and you are right about it becoming increasingly evident with the change of formation ...so...who should we let go and who is worth keeping?

 

[newtonfox]

But it's all relative

They looked the strongest part because we had an utter shambles in midfield and losers up front - and they only stemmed the tide because we played seven defenders in the team, and actually played five at the back instead of four

The minute we switched to a 4-4-2 they looked out of their depth - and now that we have seen them play with an attacking competent midfield four in front of them they look even worse

If the team needs improving somewhere, then improve it. Simple

well said homer

 

[TommyK]

Does anyone actually think its a good idea to break up the most stable part of the team at a time when so much of the team is changing?

Maybe in the summer. Now - no way.

 

[Brown Nose]

IH on McAuley today:

“Gareth McAuley has been excellent since I have been here. He will learn and improve in a regular system and a regular team".

Doesn't sound like he's going anywhere. Unless the regular team he's referring to is Ipswich?

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

or maybe he is testing gm's resolve??

 

[consty]

But it's all relative

They looked the strongest part because we had an utter shambles in midfield and losers up front - and they only stemmed the tide because we played seven defenders in the team, and actually played five at the back instead of four

The minute we switched to a 4-4-2 they looked out of their depth - and now that we have seen them play with an attacking competent midfield four in front of them they look even worse

If the team needs improving somewhere, then improve it. Simple

Did the defense look that bad against Coventry? I thought their passing and Stearman's incredible gaffe were the only weaknesses, but as defenders GM & PK looked decent enough. If GM stays which I hope he does I think the next couple of games will be interesting to take further stock and I think the weak link will continue to be seen to be Stearman, not GM/PK or the defensive unit as a whole. I absolutely agree these guys are none too skillful and poor passers BUT they stop the opposition, and can bang in a goal or two... plus they give a bit of stability and foundation to the new team being built in front of them. As for being slow I seem to remember Elliot and Taggart as not being the quickest, and they did ok with 9 reasonable players in a well-balanced team around them.

You might be right that they might not prove to be good enough in a new team with higher standards, but I can't see that yet after one game. Ideally more games are needed to assess GM & PK, but on form hitherto, they have seemed good enough to me and a lynch-pin to build a team around.

 

[Steven]

Did the defense look that bad against Coventry? I thought their passing and Stearman's incredible gaffe were the only weaknesses, but as defenders GM & PK looked decent enough. If GM stays which I hope he does I think the next couple of games will be interesting to take further stock and I think the weak link will continue to be seen to be Stearman, not GM/PK or the defensive unit as a whole. I absolutely agree these guys are none too skillful and poor passers BUT they stop the opposition, and can bang in a goal or two... plus they give a bit of stability and foundation to the new team being built in front of them. As for being slow I seem to remember Elliot and Taggart as not being the quickest, and they did ok with 9 reasonable players in a well-balanced team around them.

You might be right as it is whole new ball-game now with better players and the bar standard is being raised. Ideally more games are needed to assess GM & PK, but on form hitherto, they have seemed good enough to me and a lynch-pin to build a team around.

They were not part of a 4-4-2 formation but more often than not a 3-5-2. Easier to be a good defender if you have two colleagues alongside rather than one. :icon_wink

 

[consty]

They were not part of a 4-4-2 formation but more often than not a 3-5-2. Easier to be a good defender if you have two colleagues alongside rather than one. :icon_wink

that is true and that thought crossed my mind, but on form hitherto I think they deserve being given a chance in an improving team before breaking up the partnership... If they prove to be poor by the end of the season I'd have no quarell with letting either go in the summer... but I think they've earned a place in the team for the rest of the season.

 

[Hammond Organ]

They were not part of a 4-4-2 formation but more often than not a 3-5-2. Easier to be a good defender if you have two colleagues alongside rather than one. :icon_wink

Sinclair was employed as the 'quick one' (physically, not mentally) of the three to help sweep up if there were any issues.

 

[Motown Fox]

Sinclair was employed as the 'quick one' (physically, not mentally) of the three to help sweep up if there were any issues.

It was either that or he took the player out all together. I remember he did so to Ryan Giggs once at Filbert Street and there were others that were less obvious

 

[Uncle Connolly]

Sinclair was employed as the 'quick one' (physically, not mentally) of the three to help sweep up if there were any issues.

Well why cant Chambers be our 'quick' one unless Stearman is quicker

 

[LCFC 4 life]

gabbidon at west ham, he is out of the 1st team now but doubt we could afford him.