The case for the defence

Revived Red · 17-03-2008, 20:38

We are always talking about our defensive frailties, but we must remember that football is a team game. Ineffective forwards + ineffective midfield = extra pressure on defenders + increased likelihood of mistakes.

But that is not the main point of this thread. I am wondering what others think about the lack of a settled defensive pairing at the heart of Stanley's defence. By my reckoning, we have had at least 10 different partnerships at centre back during the course of this season. Although rotation may be the name of the game for some of the top Premiership teams, that central pairing at the heart of the defence is never included in the rotation policy.

depechemode · 17-03-2008, 20:42

needs for defenders to gain understanding of each other , like webb and kemps to remain in team . 1st choice i think

shakermaker · 17-03-2008, 20:46

For me, we need to get back to 4-4-2 with players vaguely in their correct positions.

Arthur

Edwards
Roberts
Kempson
Richardson

That there is a solid back five.
Aswad isn't good enough, neither is Webb from what I've seen. Leam has had his attacking fun for the season, I think it's time he bolstered the back line again.

Todd
Craney
Mannix
Whalley/Grant

Simple. Mannix holds, Craney creates, Todd & Whalley (or Grant) scare the bejesus out of full backs.

Mullin
Mangan/McGivern

Mullin wins it, Roy Cropper finishes.

Of course every football fan knows everything about tactics

but I fail to see any problems with going with the obvious (ie straight 442 with players in their correct positions).

Tin Monkey · 17-03-2008, 20:58

Bring back Rocky!!

maccawozzagod · 17-03-2008, 21:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakermaker

we need to get back to 4-4-2 with players vaguely in their correct positions.

Arthur Dunbavin

Edwards Cavanagh
Roberts Webb
Kempson Williams
Richardson King

Todd
Craney Harris
Mannix Proctor
Whalley Grant

Simple. Mannix holds, Craney creates, Todd & Whalley scare the bejesus out of full backs.

Mullin
McGivern Mangan

I agree whole heart about players in the right places. Highlighted are squad players who can come in to replace an out of form or injured player.

Note there is no real alternative to Todd unless you bring in King (a left back) at left back and put Richardson there.

Note also there is no alternative to Mullin. At all.

Tin Monkey · 17-03-2008, 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Note also there is no alternative to Mullin. At all.

We still have McEvilly, even though he isn't here at the moment.

I still wonder how things would have been if Mullin had gone to Shrewsbury and McEvilly had become our first choice striker.

Oggy · 17-03-2008, 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by maccawozzagod

Note there is no real alternative to Todd

We've still got John Miles! And somebody told me Branch could stand in for Mullin.

Revived Red · 18-03-2008, 00:42

Interesting ideas, but only depechemode has yet commented on the main point I was trying to put forward. Do others think that some of our defensive problems could be caused by a lack of settled partnership at the heart of the defence?

depechemode · 18-03-2008, 06:31

its pointless trying to gain an understanding with each other on the training pitch when they dont get the chance on a saturday afternoon .

JEFF · 18-03-2008, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Revived Red

Interesting ideas, but only depechemode has yet commented on the main point I was trying to put forward. Do others think that some of our defensive problems could be caused by a lack of settled partnership at the heart of the defence?

Coleman said he wanted a settled defence yet he changes it nearly every game. In my opinion there is only one person to blame - he who picks the team - and he has no idea about defending. Last season we had the worst defence in the league, this season we have the worst defence in the league, what does that tell you. I will repeat what I have been saying for years IF WE HAD A DEFENCE WE WOULD BE DANGEROUS.

Pendle Red · 18-03-2008, 12:35

Coleman Plans Summer Shakeup Of Stanley Defence (from Lancashire Telegraph)

JEFF · 18-03-2008, 13:22

How many times has he theatened to shake up the defence and done nothing? We can only wait and see and hope for the best.

Alvin the chipmunk · 18-03-2008, 13:56

"Shaking up" the defence is exactly whats wrong with it. We need to keep with the same back four for a run of games and not keep chopping and changing. This creates a better understanding at the back.

JEFF · 18-03-2008, 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin the chipmunk

"Shaking up" the defence is exactly whats wrong with it. We need to keep with the same back four for a run of games and not keep chopping and changing. This creates a better understanding at the back.

It might create a better understanding, but, if the back four are not good enough things will never get better.

AccyMad · 18-03-2008, 17:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alvin the chipmunk

"Shaking up" the defence is exactly whats wrong with it. We need to keep with the same back four for a run of games and not keep chopping and changing. This creates a better understanding at the back.

Quite correct, but it seems Coley is the only one who doesn't see it like that - either that or he's too damn stubborn to admit he's wrong