The case for the defence
 

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.

Re: The case for the defence
 

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

Re: The case for the defence
 

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

Re: The case for the defence
 

Bring back Rocky!! :D

Re: The case for the defence
 

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.

Re: The case for the defence
 

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.

Re: The case for the defence
 

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

Re: The case for the defence
 

Re: The case for the defence
 

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

Re: The case for 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.

Re: The case for the defence
 

Re: The case for the defence
 

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.

Re: The case for the defence
 

"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.

Re: The case for the defence
 

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

Re: The case for the defence
 

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:rolleyes: