With regard to Stevens, the timing of him becoming number 1 may have been just right.
I don't disagree with the general point, but since Long came back from injury and we've had a full strength back 5, we've still only kept one clean sheet in seven matches.
If we believed in having more than five defenders on the books at any one time, we could cope with one or two injuries without it putting 10+ games in the bin.
Yes that’s true of course. But we don’t know exactly why we didn’t sign certain players or that it was deliberate. There comes a point where you have to stop harping on about that and look at the season as a whole, which has had lots of great bits as well as bad.
We barely have one player for each defensive position, which is not new to this season, which very openly handicaps us and stops us fulfilling our potential because a single injury can knock us for six, and I shouldn’t mention it. I was replying to somebody with a fair counter - I’m not going to stop doing that. It isn’t ‘harping on’ to respond to something. Metaphorically you’re basically saying that it’s okay for a defender to constantly make silly errors that give the opposition a clear run at goal, so long as they usually (but not always) make a saving tackle at the end, and it’s all very exciting. It’s fair to point that out when someone else says there’s nothing wrong with it.
I wouldn't disagree for a moment that the season has had some good bits but, had the lack of defensive cover been addressed in a timely manner, there might have been even more 'good bits'
I’m not disagreeing, we should certainly have signed more defenders and no one would disagree with that, probably not even Karl. But since then there has been a lot of really creditable stuff. We could easily have ended up like Plymouth, a skilful side fannying around in mid table.
And we could’ve had just one point more, which would’ve put the playoffs in our own hands without needing someone else to let us in, or maybe even 3/4 points more that would’ve already had us basically home and hosed, by doing something as simple has having more than one player for each position at the back. Which is something we also refused to do for a lot of last season, too, so it isn’t a mistake and it wasn’t unavoidable. We aren’t talking about a shot that hit the post instead of going in, or a freak slip that cost a goal. That would be back luck.
Letting in quite a lot of goals has been down to not having enough backups in defence, as has been said, and losing the midfield in several games, leaving us too exposed.
We agree. We just emphasise things a bit differently. My view is a bit skewed cos I didn’t start watching online till a few games in - I just didn’t fancy it, but then got hooked. We’re certainly going to have to up our game in recruiting defenders if Josh goes.
I just found one. Our defensive issues were unavoidable and it’s all down to purely bad luck, apparently, and isn’t anything to do with management decisions. That’s why I replied to begin with. It’s the second season in a row that we’ve decided to go this way. We had six defenders for the first half of last season (which was still pretty bare) and only five after Cadden went, which became four once Mousinho did his knee just before covid hit. People often talk about what would’ve happened if the season hadn’t stopped, and how we surely would’ve been runaway automatic contenders, but they never mention that we would’ve had to play the next two months with absolutely zero defensive cover. As it was, we got three months off and then only had to navigate three games. It’s why seeing the same thing happen again this season has been annoying. It wasn’t a one off.
I don't think anyone's saying this. I think we were all agreed before the season started that we were putting a lot of store in Ruffels' capacity not to get injured. But I don't think our lack of cover was as woefully negligent as you're making out. Remember, the squad size limit being introduced before the season began meant that gambles had to be made and priorities had to be established. At CB, we had Moore, Atkinson and Mous (who had just come off a season being our starting CB alongside Dickie, so hardly the glorified coach he is now considered to be), with Long as cover. Hell even Nico Jones was considered a possibility if worst came to worst. If we'd got in another CB, we'd all probably have been questioning whether that squad space couldn't have been better used for another attacking option. Similarly, at RB, we had Clare who was being brought in as the attacking prospect, with Long in behind if needed (as it's proved), and at least another couple of players who could fill in if necessary (Forde and Hanson). Again, getting in another specialty RB would probably have been seen as overkill. LB was always the position we were lacking, and we all said this from the start (though I suppose Obita was brought in to fill that gap). I agree with the above poster that it's difficult to make an argument, given the squad cap, for Hall getting a place over a dependable backup LB, or utility defensive cover. But it can also be true that we were dealt a very unlucky hand in the first few weeks.
Of if we had adequate cover for what was essentially just three injuries.
He certainly does.........Sean Clare.
I honestly think fatigue must be setting in a bit with our defence, particularly with our two CBs. Out of all the outfield players Atkinson and Moore must have played the most over the last few months. They have not been out injured and have played nearly every minute in recent months. I'm sure that impacts defensive performance on the pitch.
