Guest Stephen927 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yes, the defence is Premiership standard. Midfield with the exceptions of Jonas and Joey Barton is Championship standard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 They are and they were last season. But you defend as a team. If you dominate possession and put teams on the back foot you will keep more clean sheets. The defence is too good for this league as it has shown. The problems we have are further up the pitch. We may be top but we don't dominate games in this league like we should. We have a consistent injury-free back four which is something we haven't had in ages. The same players week in week out, it makes a big difference espescially at the back. In the Premier League they will come up against strikers who don't miss sitters and quicker teams with better movement, so it is important we have more control of games and are better at keeping possession. This is where our midfield in particular let us down last season and isn't helping this campaign either. The other issue is cover. An injury to any of our back four and what is our backup? There's nothing there. R.Taylor for right back perhaps, but we definitely need cover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaehyun Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 If we get decent cover for Enrique, then perhaps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Enrique is good going forward, and is athletic enough at Championship level for his poor positioning not to matter. At Premiership level, he's been vulnerable and I don't think anything's changed. When has he been vulnerable at Premiership level? I can't remember any winger ever fully dominating him in a game. The only real issue he had at times was his distribution which improved a lot last season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 In reply to the OP, the answer is no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gggg Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 It wasn't last year with a better right back so no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Zaius Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's not just about the defence is it. It's also about the midfield and the forwards. If you've got a midfield and a forward line that constantly give the ball away putting the Defence under massive pressure your going to get nowhere, regardless of the defence. It's obvious that our defence is the best aspect of our team, our record in the elague supports this. However with a midfield like ours constantly giving the ball away and not giving the defence enough protection then the defence will always buckle under the pressure. With a decent midfield that can keep possession and create a few chances to keep the pressure off the defence then that back 4 is more than fine, but under constant pressure there is going to be problems with any defence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tooj Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 It's not just about the defence is it. It's also about the midfield and the forwards. If you've got a midfield and a forward line that constantly give the ball away putting the Defence under massive pressure your going to get nowhere, regardless of the defence. It's obvious that our defence is the best aspect of our team, our record in the elague supports this. However with a midfield like ours constantly giving the ball away and not giving the defence enough protection then the defence will always buckle under the pressure. With a decent midfield that can keep possession and create a few chances to keep the pressure off the defence then that back 4 is more than fine, but under constant pressure there is going to be problems with any defence. Exactly. Look at the defence at times under Robson, full of average at best players yet because we defended from the front as a team it didn't matter anywhere near as much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Having players with genuine pace on the wings and up front always helps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza ladra Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Yes, the defence is of Premier League standard. No, the team is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johnson293 Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 Not sure you can call them premiership standard, when they haven't even completed a full season together in the championship yet (with Simpson). The others were a fairly regular part of the defence that went down last season also. I'm not trying to knock what they've achived this season, and even in this league, its a decent record to keep so many clean sheets in half a season. But unitl we go back up, and they prove they can handel it against Premiership players each week, then no I dont think they can be classed as Premiership standard. We would hope the full season of them playing together, adjusting to the english game (for Enrique and Colocini) and gaining the confidence from the clean sheets/results will have helped them massively as a unit and they can step it up next season though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcmichael Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. No he was not, Bramble made a lot more mistakes than Taylor and Coloccini has made... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. no mention that the team with bramble in worked as a team,defended as a team and attacked as a team whereas last season and this the back 4 does all the defending on its own. any back 4 would struggle in those conditioins especially as they were last season in the prem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UV Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. No he was not, Bramble made a lot more mistakes than Taylor and Coloccini has made... He'd make occasional obvious stupid mistakes which would be remembered for weeks, but he was far more solid throughout the game than either of them. Coloccini's usually too far out of position to make the mistakes Bramble made. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Pot.. Kettle.. What was the relevance of your point exactly..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. No he was not, Bramble made a lot more mistakes than Taylor and Coloccini has made... He'd make occasional obvious stupid mistakes which would be remembered for weeks, but he was far more solid throughout the game than either of them. Coloccini's usually too far out of position to make the mistakes Bramble made. i used to say that all the time about bramble and get slaughtered for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcmichael Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated I therefore wouldn't have thought so.. I appreciate defending is about more than the back five, but the quality of the back five has not improved and whether they will get better protection next season (if we go up) remains very much up in the air (I wouldn't bet on it). It seems to me people are underestimating (if that is even possible) the difference in quality of the opposition midfielders and attackers between the Championship and the Prem.. would you say that last seasons back four was better than hughes,bramble,dabizas,griffin ? Would you say that the quality of attack for mid to lower table teams was the same then as now? I don't think so. The extra money that all Premier league teams have now relative to foreign leagues compared to back then means even the poor teams in the league now are much better than the poor teams were back then player for player. So a like for like comparison of defences is largely irrelevant. The current back four would have been good enough in 2000, but that doesn't mean they're good enough in 2010. Plus Bramble is and was a far better Premiership defender than either Taylor or Coloccini. No he was not, Bramble made a lot more mistakes than Taylor and Coloccini has made... He'd make occasional obvious stupid mistakes which would be remembered for weeks, but he was far more solid throughout the game than either of them. Coloccini's usually too far out of position to make the mistakes Bramble made. I agree on that, but Coloccini is getting there, in my opinion Bramble kept making fatal mistakes throughout his time at Newcastle. However Bramble did perform well when he had a decent defender next to him, Woodgate for an example. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Roger Kint Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Pot.. Kettle.. What was the relevance of your point exactly..? Did you not understand it? Ok well if we had scored 1 goal against Pompey we would have stayed up due to a 1-0 win. If we scored 1 goal against Fulham we would have stayed up due to a 1-1 draw. If we had scored 1 goal at Villa on the last day we would have stayed up thanks to a 1-1 draw. Not scoring in 6 of our last 8 games is extremely relevant wouldnt you say? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Given > Harper Beye > Simpson Bassong > Kadar Yet we got relegated By 1 goal, one of those v Pompey, Fulham, Villa was all we needed. Strange point to make. We conceded 59 in the Prem last season, in 38 matches. We were abysmal, both attacking and defensively. We have lost arguably our three best players from that back 5. What makes you think we will look much better next season, providing we go up, except for the blind hope that we will somehow massively improve elsewhere on the pitch (defensive midfielders who provide real cover, attackers who can hold up the ball effectively and release pressure), which we more than likely won't while Mike Ashley is around? Why do people argue the back 5 is good enough while also arguing that it's not about the back 5, but about the entire team defending and not putting too much pressure on the defense. If defending is not just about the back 5 (which is true), and there is no reason to assume our team defending will be any better (with no investment forthcoming), how can our "defence" (in the broad sense of the word, i.e. not just the back 5) be considered of Premier League standard? I would argue that without significant investment (unlikely) we run a serious risk of doing worse in terms of goal difference next season than we did last season (-19). Please point to the part of my post which has any relevance to what you are saying? Pot.. Kettle.. What was the relevance of your point exactly..? Did you not understand it? Ok well if we had scored 1 goal against Pompey we would have stayed up due to a 1-0 win. If we scored 1 goal against Fulham we would have stayed up due to a 1-1 draw. If we had scored 1 goal at Villa on the last day we would have stayed up thanks to a 1-1 draw. Not scoring in 6 of our last 8 games is extremely relevant wouldnt you say? I understood your point but it makes you look like you are in denial about the root causes of our relegation and wasn't particularly relevant to the discussion about the strength of our defence/back 5, was it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now