Thetownend.com

25% => Players => Topic started by: sonicyouth on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:19:33



Title: The case for the defence
Post by: sonicyouth on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:19:33
I can't remember the last time we looked defensively solid owing to a genuine back four (or three). Even under Di Canio where we were difficult to beat, our defence was average at best.

Who were the last great defenders you saw at STFC?


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:20:56
ost, bodin, calderwood.. kerslake

we even leaked goals then as you say :)


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:23:41
Thing is we have had a number of technically good defenders over the last few years, but they have almost without exception been shit if they don't have someone next to them talking them through the game - the phenomenon known as Titus Bramble syndrome.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:25:34
In all my 43+ years of following Swindon we have never been known for the strength of our defence, we have always been known as an attacking side playing with skill and speed and scoring goals, almost at the expense of defending at times.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:27:34
I can't remember the last time we looked defensively solid owing to a genuine back four (or three). Even under Di Canio where we were difficult to beat, our defence was average at best.

Who were the last great defenders you saw at STFC?

Under PdC in Div 4, we only conceded at the CG in 4 games out of 23. 3 of them were early doors...so 19 clean sheets, exceptional.

Our greatest ever back 4/5  is Thomas, Burrows, Harland, Trollope.  With Joe Butler holding.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: pauld on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:28:41
In all my 43+ years of following Swindon we have never been known for the strength of our defence, we have always been known as an attacking side playing with skill and speed and scoring goals
Not this season we're not!


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: chalkies_shorts on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:33:55
Jay Mac, vincent


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Bewster on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:36:15
In all my 43+ years of following Swindon we have never been known for the strength of our defence, we have always been known as an attacking side playing with skill and speed and scoring goals, almost at the expense of defending at times.

This. Even under Macari/Hoddle we were never that solid but we'd outscore the opposition.

The PDC era for me was the most reliable defence.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Tails on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 10:36:20
Our defence in the L2 title winning season was fucking immense


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:04:09
Not this season we're not!
I didn't include this season in my mind ;)


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Stevens on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:11:16
Our defence in the L2 title winning season was fucking immense

Under Di Canio 0.5 goals per game for home and away.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:17:19
 The legendary back 4/5 of 68/69, more or less did 4 seasons....Ok Stan went part way through 71/72.  At the CG in those 4 seasons we conceded 2, 7 times, 3 once. the other 78 league games 1 or a clean sheet.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: mastapeaka on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:20:16
The DiCanio defence was the most drilled and organised I've seen in 30 years of watching Town


Title: The case for the defence
Post by: sonicyouth on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:20:35
Our defence in the L2 title winning season was fucking immense
None of them lasted though, did they? Caddis was the stand out but if memory serves our defensive solidity mostly came from midfield

It does go to show the importance of training  and that you don't necessarily need great defenders to defend greatly


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Tails on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:32:42
Flint's done alright for himself since. Same with Caddis. McCormack also played in the Championship fairly regularly. It was a solid back 4 as part of a much more solid unit.

Goes to show what good fitness and discipline can do.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: horlock07 on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:34:20
Flint's done alright for himself since. Same with Caddis. McCormack also played in the Championship fairly regularly. It was a solid back 4 as part of a much more solid unit.

Goes to show what good fitness and discipline can do.

Also shows how things can fall to bits when you fall out with your players.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 11:57:52
I had a quick look at goals conceded per game and the table is a little surprising to me, the first figure is games managed the 2nd is average goals conceded per game, there are a couple of interesting ones in the top 10 with Beamish, Trollope and Hart in there.

I know its a bit simplistic and doesn't take into account division or points achieved etc but it does check out that Di Canio had the tightest defence.

Paolo Di Canio      95 - 0.80
Dennis Wise         17 - 0.82
Paul Sturrock       52 - 0.98
D Williams(1)     222 - 1.06
Paul Hart             11 - 1.09
Fred Ford           122 - 1.14
Lou Macari         285 - 1.19
John Trollope      121 - 1.26
Ken Beamish        68 - 1.27
Bob Smith          132 - 1.28
Ossie Ardiles       106 - 1.32
Danny Wilson      120 - 1.33
Roy Evans            26 - 1.34
Andy King          232 - 1.34
Kevin Mcdonald    14 - 1.35
Glenn Hoddle      120 - 1.35
Steve Mcmahon   204 - 1.35
Maurice Lindley     93 - 1.39
Iffy Onoura           40 - 1.40
Mark Cooper        125 - 1.43
D Williams(2)      227 - 1.44
Maurice Malpas     42 - 1.45
Dave Mackay        45 - 1.46
Sam Allen         1192 - 1.48
Luke Williams       62 - 1.48
Bert Head           426 - 1.49
Les Allen              62 - 1.51
Louis Page          369 - 1.54
Colin Todd            18 - 1.61
Jimmy Quinn        85 - 1.65
Martin Ling            9 - 1.66
Ted Vizard          285 - 1.68
John Gorman        72 - 2.05


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: The Artist Formerly Known as Audrey on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 12:15:29
Who the fuck is Ted Vizard?


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 12:22:28
Quote
Paolo Di Canio      95 - 0.80
Dennis Wise         17 - 0.82
Paul Sturrock       52 - 0.98

Covers the last two escapes from division 4....
Oh.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Peter Venkman on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 12:25:07
Who the fuck is Ted Vizard?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Vizard


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: BambooToTheFuture on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 12:31:41
It's nothing new or shocking is it.... Italian manager has best defensive record (yes there are shocking examples too) on the whole Italians are pretty good at defending. If you have a solid defence and only even 1 playmaker and 1 goalscorer you WILL win more games than lose due to the sheer fact you set up tactically as 8-1-1.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: sonicyouth on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 12:32:53
Flint's done alright for himself since. Same with Caddis. McCormack also played in the Championship fairly regularly. It was a solid back 4 as part of a much more solid unit.

Goes to show what good fitness and discipline can do.
Exactly.

The back 4 changed a lot though, only Caddis was a constant there. We used Kennedy, Cibocchi, Ridehalgh and McEveley at left back, Devera and Flint were supplemented by others and as such we didn't really have a fixed regular back 4 - as you say, fitness and discipline can make a big difference. I wouldn't say Devera was any better than some of the current crop but had a bit of pace at least.

The defence has declined massively since then but I honestly can't remember us not having defensive problems, a season and a half aside.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 12:41:38
Exactly.

The back 4 changed a lot though, only Caddis was a constant there. We used Kennedy, Cibocchi, Ridehalgh and McEveley at left back, Devera and Flint were supplemented by others and as such we didn't really have a fixed regular back 4 - as you say, fitness and discipline can make a big difference. I wouldn't say Devera was any better than some of the current crop but had a bit of pace at least.

The defence has declined massively since then but I honestly can't remember us not having defensive problems, a season and a half aside.

Luke Garrard has got Joe Devera at Boreham Wood, so probably shows he gets lower league football.  Oh and Ricky Shakes  :)


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Wobbly Bob on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 13:54:33

Martin Ling            9 - 1.66
Lee Power             3 - 1.66
Ted Vizard          285 - 1.68
John Gorman        72 - 2.05


Was hoping he would make the top ten at least. Not to be.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: leftside on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 20:45:07
It's nothing new or shocking is it.... Italian manager has best defensive record (yes there are shocking examples too) on the whole Italians are pretty good at defending. If you have a solid defence and only even 1 playmaker and 1 goalscorer you WILL win more games than lose due to the sheer fact you set up tactically as 8-1-1.
PDC's team was good because it worked hard as a unit. Everyone knew their jobs and there were 'mini teams' within the team - eg Caddis and Ritchie. Fitness, organisation, planning. That Div 4 team would eat the current lot for breakfast. Quality at a price, yes, but fitness, organisation and planning doesn't cost, which is why this season's debacle is particularly galling.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: tans on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 21:03:44
Do we even have a fitness coach?


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Batch on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 21:05:39
Do we even have a fitness coach?

If we do they must be very very part time.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Christy on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 22:34:35
PDC's team was good because it worked hard as a unit. Everyone knew their jobs and there were 'mini teams' within the team - eg Caddis and Ritchie. Fitness, organisation, planning. That Div 4 team would eat the current lot for breakfast. Quality at a price, yes, but fitness, organisation and planning doesn't cost, which is why this season's debacle is particularly galling.

This is precisely what I was thinking reading other comments about individual defenders or even back 4s and 5s as units.  Whoever the players were, we were so so difficult to play against under PDC - that was fantastic coaching.  Unfortunately his coaching ability is overlooked due to err, other elements of his personality.  Proper coaching, not just the high risk 'beating the press' nerdy stuff (if you're reading Luke).


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Ells on Wednesday, February 15, 2017, 23:26:41
Do we even have a fitness coach?

We have a sports scientist.. I'll let others run with that one (excuse the pun)


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Tails on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 10:14:22
This is precisely what I was thinking reading other comments about individual defenders or even back 4s and 5s as units.  Whoever the players were, we were so so difficult to play against under PDC - that was fantastic coaching.  Unfortunately his coaching ability is overlooked due to err, other elements of his personality.  Proper coaching, not just the high risk 'beating the press' nerdy stuff (if you're reading Luke).

I think he had a very good coaching team alongside him. Not sure he can take full credit, but otherwise yes I agree.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Panda Paws on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 12:24:53
I think he had a very good coaching team alongside him. Not sure he can take full credit, but otherwise yes I agree.

He also spent an absolute fortune. Luke Williams would have won that league with that budget.





OK, maybe not. But still.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Posh Red on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 13:01:43
Maybe not (LW), but he (PDC) did benefit from a Bristol City/Bournemouth sized budget, a fair amount of which was pissed away on Lanzano type signings


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 13:25:58
Maybe not (LW), but he (PDC) did benefit from a Bristol City/Bournemouth sized budget, a fair amount of which was pissed away on Lanzano type signings
Lanzano, Commazi, Boateng, Esajas, Risser, Atiku, Gabilondo, Tehoue, Magera, Montano, Murray, Abdulla, Navarro, Rooney, Bessone, Coke.....

The list of shit signed by PdC was long, admittedly a couple of those were loans but a fair few just had their contracts paid up by us and cost a small fortune.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: RobertT on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 15:00:47
The problem with Di Canio is you had to have that budget to let him hit and miss to find that formula, otherwise he'd strop and walk, which he did.  For all the fun at the time, not worth it in my opinion as it would have broken the club with no guarantee at what point his line had been crossed.  The Wise and Sturrock numbers stand out for me - we were abysmal the season before, so it wasn't a foregone conclusion we'd turn it around in their time.  I didn't like Sturrock, but you can't argue with the numbers and either one of those two would probably get better results out of the current team.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Reg Smeeton on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 15:41:11
Lanzano, Commazi, Boateng, Esajas, Risser, Atiku, Gabilondo, Tehoue, Magera, Montano, Murray, Abdulla, Navarro, Rooney, Bessone, Coke.....

The list of shit signed by PdC was long, admittedly a couple of those were loans but a fair few just had their contracts paid up by us and cost a small fortune.

That list should go straight to the Washbag Hall of Shame.  TBF Adam Rooney wasn't bad, still knocking them in for Aberdeen, unlike Him, who seems to have STFC striker style figures for the season of 1.


Title: Re: The case for the defence
Post by: Peter Venkman on Thursday, February 16, 2017, 15:43:35
That list should go straight to the Washbag Hall of Shame.  TBF Adam Rooney wasn't bad, still knocking them in for Aberdeen, unlike Him, who seems to have STFC striker style figures for the season of 1.
I meant Luke Rooney ;)