Sampson Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 I agree with what others have said above about our current defence being no better than 09/10. It's our midfield which sets us apart from the rest of the league, not our defence. Dyer - James - Drinkwater - Knockaert is certainly the best midfield we've had since O'Neill was in charge.
Father Ted Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 Talking of back fours, This was from Charlton a few years back, This was their defence against Chelsea.... Luke Young, Mark Fish, Jorge Costa and Jonathan Fortune. Young Fish Costa Fortune! Made me laugh anyway. When they all played for Newcastle: Shearer Cort Dyer Given Bellamy Speed
Manwell Pablo Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 People missing the important point again! Its the TEAM that is better defensively. Starting from the front. Nuge and Vardy hold it up well, Drinky and James control the midfield and the defence is pretty solid. We are defending well AS A UNIT.. Hats off again to Pearson. Clearly it isn't as we've let more goals in I think it's you who is missing the point, this is a discussion about whether the current four players playing at the back consistently for us are better than in the past, nothing to do with closing down from the front or breaking up play in midfield. So stop trying to be clever
Socks Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 de leat, moore, morgan konch is very close... Was needs to prove himself a bit more then id agree
Father Ted Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 I'm still not convinced as a defensive unit that we're any better than 2009/10. We're a far better side now but defensively? I'm still not entirely convinced by us at times. We do let in the odd soft goal. Although we have really tightened up of late. Only 3 conceded in 2014. And dare I say it... We were very tight at the back the year we went down (07/08) with a back four of: Stearman - Kisnorbo - McAuley - Clapham/Sheehan/Mattock We only conceded 45 goals all season which is an almost identical rate to our current rate this season. Unfortunately we couldn't score in a brothel that season.
Guest Col city fan Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 Clearly it isn't as we've let more goals in I think it's you who is missing the point, this is a discussion about whether the current four players playing at the back consistently for us are better than in the past, nothing to do with closing down from the front or breaking up play in midfield. So stop trying to be clever Its impossible to tell. The likes of Walsh and Elliott will say that they were very strongly defensively because they had Lennon in front of them. Lennon was so adept at breaking up attacks before they got as far as Walsh and Elliott that he made their job so much easier. Without Lennon, its likely that we would have conceded more goals, thus leading to people saying that the back line wasn't as good. Now some are saying we have the best back four for years. Again, this is because, to some extent, Drinkwater and James are so good at controlling the central midfield area that the back line is put under less pressure. Possibly the best back four, in recent years therefore, was the Brown/Hobbs combination in the centre. That season we conceded relatively few goals with King and Wellens in the midfield. Neither of whom are as good as the current two. The back four is only as good as the team playing in front of them. If put under lots of pressure because the rest of the team can't keep the ball, law of averages dictates any defence will eventually concede. This is why defending as a team is crucial and why the introduction of James has been pivotal.
Vlad the Fox Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 Walsh and Prior were epic in the closing stages of the Middlesbrough cup replay.
OLD norfox Posted 4 February 2014 Posted 4 February 2014 But can anybody compete with :Whitworth - Cross -Woollett and Rofe ??
Woollett's Wellies Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 Rodrigues, Sjoberg, Cross, Bell....? Peter Rodrigues.King of the slide tackle...he'd probably spend half his career on suspension if he were playing now.
deanolegend1989 Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 Because football is a team game its very hard like Col said to actually know the best defence. Stats tell you alot but dont tell you why it was that good/bad. I think the 07/08 back 4 was very good, amazingly . McCuarley has proven hes a very good defender and Id say hes better than any CB we have here.Moore has potential but currently not finished article, dare I say hes better than Wes but maybe next season Wes could prove me wrong and be solid in the prem. Stearman Kisnorbo and Mattock were pretty decent and have made alright careers but Id take De Laet and Konchesky over them. Konch has had a great career as a solid prem LB. Hobbs Brown but also Morrison were all really good I thought and the main reason we did so well in 09/10. I think we would maybe of done just as good that year as now if we threw in Knocky, Vardy and Nugent that year over Gallagher, Howard and Fryatt. Hard to say but for sure this is the best since Pearson before..Sven had the likes of Bruma, Bamba, Mee, Davies all 'ok' and Davies maybe better than 'ok' but never a good partnership. I feel Sven is an awful manager and underachives constantly. England in 06, Gerrard, Terry, Ferdinand, Cole, Lampard, Joe Cole all in thier prime. We were awful at that world cup, we should of ot very near to winning it that year, we were just as good if not better than Italy that year.
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 Its impossible to tell. The likes of Walsh and Elliott will say that they were very strongly defensively because they had Lennon in front of them. Lennon was so adept at breaking up attacks before they got as far as Walsh and Elliott that he made their job so much easier. Without Lennon, its likely that we would have conceded more goals, thus leading to people saying that the back line wasn't as good. Now some are saying we have the best back four for years. Again, this is because, to some extent, Drinkwater and James are so good at controlling the central midfield area that the back line is put under less pressure. Possibly the best back four, in recent years therefore, was the Brown/Hobbs combination in the centre. That season we conceded relatively few goals with King and Wellens in the midfield. Neither of whom are as good as the current two. The back four is only as good as the team playing in front of them. If put under lots of pressure because the rest of the team can't keep the ball, law of averages dictates any defence will eventually concede. This is why defending as a team is crucial and why the introduction of James has been pivotal. Yes but your missing the point Col, again. Despite what is going on in front of them or what the team is doing, it is possible for football fans to discuss the merits of the four players playing at the back without bringing the rest of the team into it. To come steam rolling in here screaming "YOUR MISSING THE POINT IT'S THE WHOLE TEAM" would be relevant in a discussion about how good our back four was because of the amount of goals we've let in, this is a comparison of players, and it's not impossible to tell, anyone who watched us defend in 2002/03 and now will have an opinion on which set of players they prefer, regardless of the midfield. I say again, stop trying to be clever.
Hirsty The Blue 94 Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 I think it's the best since Svens back 4, wouldn't like to compare with MONs as they were in Prem and IMO different gravy! What!? You think Peltier Mills Bamba Konch is better than De Laet Wes Moore Konch? Or even if you're talking about when we were Loan FC we still had Naughton Bamba Bruma PVA which were pretty terrible defensively but attacked well.
Guest Col city fan Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 Yes but your missing the point Col, again. Despite what is going on in front of them or what the team is doing, it is possible for football fans to discuss the merits of the four players playing at the back without bringing the rest of the team into it. To come steam rolling in here screaming "YOUR MISSING THE POINT IT'S THE WHOLE TEAM" would be relevant in a discussion about how good our back four was because of the amount of goals we've let in, this is a comparison of players, and it's not impossible to tell, anyone who watched us defend in 2002/03 and now will have an opinion on which set of players they prefer, regardless of the midfield. I say again, stop trying to be clever. I'm sure I answered the question? What consitutes 'best'? Goals conceded? Nicest bottoms? Most slick hairdo's? Given the players in front of them, I'd go for the Hobbs-Brown partnership (Morrison and Berner were in that one I think). That season if I recollect, we conceded relatively few goals. Does that fit into how you see the thread progressing? Or am I being clever?
Manwell Pablo Posted 5 February 2014 Posted 5 February 2014 I'm sure I answered the question? What consitutes 'best'? Goals conceded? Nicest bottoms? Most slick hairdo's? Given the players in front of them, I'd go for the Hobbs-Brown partnership (Morrison and Berner were in that one I think). That season if I recollect, we conceded relatively few goals. Does that fit into how you see the thread progressing? Or am I being clever? Not everything comes down to statistics as I say I presume you've seen all these players play a fair amount of games so will have an opinion on how good they are at their jobs. No your not being clever now.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.