www.altyfans.co.uk

General Category => Altrincham FC First Team => Topic started by: GEOFF HOOLEY on October 27, 2013, 05:04:03 PM

Title: defence
Post by: GEOFF HOOLEY on October 27, 2013, 05:04:03 PM
there seems to be alak of comments on yesterdays game , when are we going to sort the defence out ? to llet 3 goals in , surely there must be a problem
Title: Re: defence
Post by: RageAgainstTheFirstTeam on October 27, 2013, 05:08:58 PM
YOU decide!
Title: Re: defence
Post by: bumble on October 27, 2013, 05:42:32 PM
I suggest walshaw tracks back more?  ;)
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Timperley The Best on October 27, 2013, 05:50:36 PM
a new centre half would be useful
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Hale Alty on October 27, 2013, 06:15:05 PM
or a fatter goalkeeper.
Title: Re: defence
Post by: GEOFF HOOLEY on October 27, 2013, 08:07:31 PM
I suggest walshaw tracks back more?  ;)
[/you could be right, maybe tracking back to guiseley would suit you better?
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Jimmy Hill on October 27, 2013, 08:56:32 PM
I suggest walshaw tracks back more?  ;)
[/you could be right, maybe tracking back to guiseley would suit you better?

You know that was a joke, right?

Also, even if it wasn't, mild criticism of a player doesn't mean you want them to leave the club.
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Jimmy on October 27, 2013, 09:16:20 PM
I actually think the 4 defenders are ok however to only have 4 at the club is ridiculous if any of them are out of form or worse injured what do we do
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Mrs Warbouys on October 27, 2013, 11:16:58 PM
I suggest walshaw tracks back more?  ;)
[/you could be right, maybe tracking back to guiseley would suit you better?
Arsed
Title: Re: defence
Post by: GEOFF HOOLEY on October 28, 2013, 07:55:13 AM
I actually think the 4 defenders are ok however to only have 4 at the club is ridiculous if any of them are out of form or worse injured what do we do
if letting three goals in ,isnt bad defending , is it lack of form. :-*
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Paul Cain's Chip Pan on October 28, 2013, 08:47:29 AM
I actually think the 4 defenders are ok however to only have 4 at the club is ridiculous if any of them are out of form or worse injured what do we do
if letting three goals in ,isnt bad defending , is it lack of form. :-*

He didn't say it wasn't bad defending, he said the 4 recognised defenders we have availble are ok, and they have been in most games this season. The issue is a lack of depth in our squad in that position, which I think everyone recognises is a potential problem.
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Timperley The Best on October 28, 2013, 08:52:09 AM
I actually think the 4 defenders are ok however to only have 4 at the club is ridiculous if any of them are out of form or worse injured what do we do
if letting three goals in ,isnt bad defending , is it lack of form. :-*

He didn't say it wasn't bad defending, he said the 4 recognised defenders we have availble are ok, and they have been in most games this season. The issue is a lack of depth in our squad in that position, which I think everyone recognises is a potential problem.


 
Just wish  the manager would do something about it.
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Jimmy on October 28, 2013, 05:40:29 PM
I actually think the 4 defenders are ok however to only have 4 at the club is ridiculous if any of them are out of form or worse injured what do we do
if letting three goals in ,isnt bad defending , is it lack of form. :-*
I didn't go Boston so won't comment on that game the previous week we defended very well but if they are of form there is nothing we can do no backup
Title: Re: defence
Post by: robininstockport on October 28, 2013, 09:44:46 PM
I see it as we have 7 'defenders'.

The starting 4 plus stand in rb Moult, the stand in cb Rodgers and the stand in lb Clee.
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Jimmy on October 28, 2013, 09:48:43 PM
That's probably the opinion of Sinnott as he isn't getting any new defenders in
Title: Re: defence
Post by: markecky on October 28, 2013, 09:50:52 PM
Carl Rodgers did a decent enough job in the second half at Boston.  He is Ok to cover but wouldn't like him to start too many games there.

I'm pretty sure we will add to the squad soon though as I know Sinnott likes to run with a small squad but we only have 16 players at the moment.  We're paying 17 with Mike Williams but we should have space for another body at least.

As he has said before, if he gets a loan player in he really has to play him though so I am guessing he may wait until his hand is forced.
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Jimmy on October 28, 2013, 09:57:24 PM
It seems an uneven squad to me that we have centre mid players in it and only 4 defenders plus Williams who is out for the season
Title: Re: defence
Post by: robininstockport on October 28, 2013, 09:58:17 PM
Id rather see Rogers at cb than Smile at rw
Title: Re: defence
Post by: markecky on October 28, 2013, 10:00:33 PM
Id rather see Rogers at cb than Smile at rw

I'd rather see Ted Rogers at centre back than Smikle at rw
Title: Re: defence
Post by: roytonmike on October 28, 2013, 10:02:58 PM
Carl Rodgers did a decent enough job in the second half at Boston.  He is Ok to cover but wouldn't like him to start too many games there.
I'm pretty sure we will add to the squad soon though as I know Sinnott likes to run with a small squad but we only have 16 players at the moment.  We're paying 17 with Mike Williams but we should have space for another body at least.
As he has said before, if he gets a loan player in he really has to play him though so I am guessing he may wait until his hand is forced.
I think any player brought in at this stage, loan or otherwise, will not want to bench-warm, so while I agree that we could do with another quality defender, finding one at this point in time will be difficult. Glad it's the management's problem rather than mine!
Title: Re: defence
Post by: Bob on October 29, 2013, 06:35:54 AM
Id rather see Rogers at cb than Smile at rw

I'd rather see Ted Rogers at centre back than Smikle at rw

That 3-2-1 formation never did catch on. :-/