Jump to content
IGNORED

Left Back


GrahamC

Recommended Posts

I know it was Keef's stated aim at the shareholders meeting to add a left back and a midfielder in the transfer window (4 days to go....) but with the need so urgent elsewhere I can't see a value in us bothering with a full back now.

I say this as it is obvious that our greatest areas of weakness are in midfield and (certainly whilst we are without both Stead and Maynard), up front, whereas at left back we have McAllister now fit again, plus Fontaine who is able to deputise and (when fit) Nyatanga if really necessary.

The midweek back four of Carey Caulker Stewart and Fontaine have just played the last two games away and conceded just one goal, and we have McAllister to add to them, plus Skuse and Cisse could be used there and presumably we'll also have Ribeiro and Nyatanga available again at some point, which seems enough to me.

I'd be concentrating for the rest of the January window on adding some goals to a side that hasn't scored in four games, whether that is a midfielder and/or a naturally left footed wide player, (any update on Rose?) because, let's face it, do we really think we will guarantee our safety by adding another full back this month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Defence-wise it would be nice just to be able to keep a settled back 4 for a run of games.

With McAllister back I think our best bet would be: Carey, Caulker, Fontaine, McAllister

I was looking back last night at some of the line-ups from the playoff season (I've been ill, couldn't sleep) and the most notable thing is the consistency of the lineup, especially the back 5. Obviously there's no point in being consistently rubbish, but I do think we'd be doing a lot better if we'd been able to play the same defence in the majority of games.

With this in mind I'm inclined to agree with you. McAllister is hardly the world's best left-back but he's a solid and experienced championship player who is known by the rest of the squad. I'd rather have him in and some money to spend elsewhere than have a new player who might be better but would take a few games to settle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly a solid back four is the bedrock of any successful team and things have improved of late. Unfortunately, this seems to have been at the expense of the attack. Right now we seem to have a problem setting up a team that can do both. Elliot and Johnson proves defensively weak for obvious reasons whereas Elliot and Skuse proves to be offensively weak.

If we're unable to fulfil both requirements with a 4-4-2, I wonder if we should go with a 4-3-3, with Elliot, Skuse and Johnson all starting and Albert being given a free role behind Pitman and Clarkson/Stead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...