And yet we only have 5 recognised defenders in the squad. 6 if you count Cunningham but that's still pretty appalling. It's not solely about the defensive improvement, which is highly laudable and a step in the right direction, but the fact we have only 5 defenders and the fact our improvement leaves in the summer! This suggests the "defenders are coming" comment needed an amendment - "but they won't be here for long."

"We probably need to recruit a whole back 4 for competition" TM Nothing like forward planning! Not sure how this counts as a slow build progress needing 4 defenders and a keeper. (Actually 2 keepers if Leuits is the back up). Although if I am honest I may have heard him say this before...

Think you missed my point. Wasnt recommending those guys for positions rather the fact you dislikes them and criticised the job they were doing yet others you champion like Woodgate and Potter are doing much worse. Feels a bit double standards imo. Whilst no guarantee they'd do better with a replacement that's not a reason not to change if the manager isn't good enough. We have a season of evidence that Woodgate isn't cutting it, so the fear the replacement is as bad, is a poor reason not to change. It seems like they are stuffed in they keep with him so a change won't make anything worse. In fact it could make it better. On that point you list a number of examples where it has gone well which suggests it's worth a gamble. Sometimes it works! Not only that even if there isn't enough time it gives the new man extra time to assess and prepare for a promotion push to bounce back. In fact you could say that's what happened with TM. (Ok I think he had time to save us but even if he didn't - and it was a tall order - I'm glad he got time to assess the team and impose some standards before the league 1 campaign.)

Even though he looks like he might get them relegated and they are underperforming? No wonder you are so pro TM when this is where the bar is! Makes me wonder what Houghton and McCarthy did wrong to be villified when rhe likes of Potter and Woodgate are endorsed. Being honest I don't see the logic of this whatsoever.

Hmm, no sooner do we put one player back in his position and it works (Gally), do we move another out of position and it costs us (Bennett.) Think we can score more goals but can we keep Swansea out? Not sure we can.

A good response. Add in Lenihen is injury prone. Add in centre back is a very specialised position. Add in there are only 2 other actual defenders behind these 4 and you see how neglected the defence is. Factor in Cunningham has been injured for ages and we've been happy to only carry 5 defenders in the squad since then is criminal. Heck even with Cunningham there it leaves 6 defenders only for 4 positions. Contrast that with how many midfield and striker options we have and threadbare is an understatement. And that's before we consider quality. Williams and Bell aren't really good enough. Clear neglect imo.

9 if Gally is wide. That said I think Gally will start up front today. TM often goes with common sense when the pressure and spotlight is on. (And reverts back to type when it isn't.)

Bit unfair to Samuel to shunt him out wide. Still think he will do better than Gally did there. No surprise Johnson dropped he was gassed midweek. Bit harsh no place for Buckley. Not sure why on that one. And as for the defence...

Don't suppose their injury list helps them much. Not selling your best players.

Agree. Even assuming it doesn't signal a dip in form I think being 4 points off the playoffs, or worse if we lose more ground, would be too much to turn around in too short a space of time given how many teams are vying for playoffs.

Thanks. It hopefully helps highlight the double standards and also helps me avoid doing my essay...

I'm not sure I follow the logic here. On one hand when you disagree with KHod it is a different opinion, and that is all well and good. Freedom of speech and fine for you to hold your opinion. Your opinion can't be criticised because it is your opinion. HOWEVER when people have a different opinion to you - saying Gally plays out wide for example - you get frustrated and angry they won't accept others opinions. In these cases you think it is wrong to hold a different opinion to you. I can hear your response - where have I said people can't have different opinions? So to quote you: "why can't you accept my opinion?" "He isn't playing wide though. How many times do you not get it?" Both cases here suggest very heavily it is wrong to have opinions different to yours. Yet you also in the quoted text say it's fine for you to disagree with KHod because it is a different opinion. Can you see how this may come across as double standards. Also and this is key opinions are not unquestionable. They aren't all correct or right. For example I think Dack is rubbish. Is that an ok opinion to have? Is it true? The point I am making is that it can be questioned. In fact if opinions can't be questioned and have to be accepted as true we are in a world of trouble. Just think if someone had the opinion racism was ok? Can we leave that unchallenged? Is it true? If opinions can't be challenged there's a world of hurt. It seems however the unquestioning of opinions remains solely for you however. This'll be ignored but hopefully read and seen why this thread is causing you some bother.

Yeah definitely. It doesn't have to be width but as you say it does need a system where all players are contributing to that system to unlock teams. Am ok with us not having wide players in the midfield 3. Ok, I'm not but I can live with it IF the rest of the team was built to accommodate it. But then neither of our full backs are great in an attacking sense (much as I like Nayambe) so as you say there's no system. Then there's the issue that Gally out wide is a passenger and contributes to no system. A bit of thought and a plan when recruiting would go a long way to making us a better team. TM sometimes identifies some really talented players (and some duds) but I am not sure how much he thinks of then fitting together.

The long hair thing annoys me too. He spends far too much game time faffing with it.

Aside from our central defence issues there are a number of other questions. My biggest worry outside of central defence is who partners Travis. Downing would be the obvious choice but does that give too much dirty defensive work for Travis. Johnson - but he looks like he needs a rest. I'd also wonder about Downing at left back as Bell's attacking prowess isn't great. Probably wouldn't with the other defensive issues but food for thought when we are likely to dominate as Bell adds little going forward. (We probably won't dominate this one so perhaps not an issue this game.) Also do we want to try out passing Swansea and would Graham up top with Armstrong wide be better to cause Swansea problems. Oh and the wide right mid issue if Armstrong is up top but that's been done to death. Point is there's a fair few selection niggles and issues as well as our centre back saga.

Fair play on 3 and 4. I hope he scores too. I've detailed in the Stoke game why I think he hinders creativity so won't again, suffice to say width aside there are a number of other ways he stifles our play playing out wide. As for our full backs providing width my big issue with that is that neither are that creative. I don't think Bell should be first choice full back at all for the club (although is ok back up) bit Nayambe has a great engine but not an amazing cross and isn't great offensively. I like Nayambe as he is athletic, solid defensively and his energy stretches the play but he doesn't provide many crosses or killer balls. The best more attacking mid playing on the right with the full back providing the width was the Bentley-Emerton combination. Bentley had the skills to drift inside with the ball, Emerton had the engine to tear up the wing outside into the space generated which gave us two options - Bentley continues inside or plays it to Emerton. It was a killer combination that always excited me. This is far from the case with Gally & Nayambe because 1) Nayambe's final ball/cross is much worse then Emerton's and 2) Gally isn't much good at dribbling and holding onto possession (or passing, or starting wide and dribbling inside to leave the space, or holding onto the ball.) Oh and 3);our tactics are to Welly it head height to Gally which invariably means the tactic wouldn't work even if Gally had the dribbling ability to do so.

Not that people don't get what you are saying Chaddy, it's just that they disagree with you! Btw 1) if he is not playing wide that's part of the problem. He isn't stretching the defence. 2) Call the position what you want but it doesn't stop him having a stinker there. No creativity, no final ball, very few goals, no pace. I think inside forward and winger are both an injustice as they suggest he is offering an attacking threat. Whatever it is called it is not working and Gally isn't offering anything from said position.

We've had the centre back debate elsewhere and so don't think it's worth rehashing. I think for both of us though if we had decent back up at full back we'd feel a lot better about Nayambe moving insiide, even though he's a loss at RB. As it is we're just as thin and poor in quality there too imo. One more defensive reinforcement of a decent standard - better than Mulgrew / Williams and we would be rediculously better off.

I think this highlights the problem in part. We are reliant on our best players to produce a moment of magic to unlock the park a bus team rather than have an overall.strategy, involving the whole team, for beating them. Yes brilliance is important - and again only a couple of players seem to have that magic in the team, one of whom is injured (hence we need more of it. But when these players are crowded out, as you point out, we struggle. If we had a better overall team strategy for bearing these teams we wouldn't be so vulnerable to teams crowding out our best players.

No there may be more to it then we see. The captain to exile is odd. As to who is to blame - mix of TM.and Mulgrew. Mulgrew for ending the loan/forcing our hand a bit and being poor, TM for not sourcing adequate defensive cover and leaving us in this mess.

He did it in league 1 and has a load of energy. I think that's his best position. Whether that is good enough is a different question (not sure he is) but I think his best games for me are there from what I have seen of him.

Again you are missing my point although I might not be making it as clear as I think I am. By weaker I mean weakest. As I said before we struggle Vs teams that park the bus Vs us. Those are the type of teams I am talking avout. And there's more than 1 or 2 examples - this season alone I can think of 4 or 5. There are loads of positives too but that doesn't negotiate this weakness. In contrast I'd feel more.confident going up against any of the division away from home. But equally the negative is I worry we don't have a strategy to beat the park the bus teams at Ewood.

The evidence of the clause is he isn't in the squad when there are literally no other defenders. Why else wouldnt he be when there is literally no-one else? I'd say that's quite compelling. I'm not going to disagree with you about how poor he is or how much I have slated him. He is poor no question about it. Thing is it's not so much "any port in a storm" as "only port in a storm." He's poor but the nearest thing we have to a competent centre back. A fair way off and I'm nervous about him playing too, but there aren't any other choices - unless you take Nayambe in there but he 1) isn't great at CB 2) is good at RB and 3) Bennett is also poor at RB. It's the least bad option imo although firmly in the bad category too. Bit unfair about the retired lark. Read an article a while back on Charlie about his vegan diet and wanting to play till he is 40. We can question his ability (and it is questionable!) but don't think he is thinking of retiring yet.

I wonder why Mulgrew won't drop the clause? He'd be playing football, maybe even get into the playoffs. It's a game of chicken with our manager who will break first and one I don't think will work. As the Gally situation shows TM is happy to weaken the team to stick to his principles. (Cue outrage but see squad unnecessary rotation, length of time Smallwood and Bennett kept their places for proof of this.)

Well if it is least disruption it has to be Mulgrew. Yep he's poor but is he a) worse than Nayambe at centre back and Bennett at right back? I'd say not. Plus he has played at this level this season. If Carter was ready I reckon he'd have been involved in the squad earlier, not just when we are down to the bare bones. So it's a crap option but the least crap one imo.