Is it just me that thinks we need cover at left back? Yes we missed Golbourne but to me he still has a way to go to being the finished article. I don't see MC Nulty as a viable.option at LB ... so then who? I'd be as concerned about LB as a central defender.
Possibly... I'd still want cover though. Kennedy did better as part of a back three. I'm not yet convinced Golbourne is strong enough.
No. We've got Kennedy who can play there. Noble-Lazarus didn't do a bad job there either, as Scott mentioned. We can dip into the loan market, if we get desperate during the season.
Would have said Golbourne was just about our best player first half of season. Certainly most consistent.
Left backs: Golbourne Kennedy Wiseman RNL McNumpty Right backs: Wiseman Hassell Kennedy O'Brien Cranie(?)
Golbourne is one of the best LB/LWB in this division. He was getting better and better. If he stays fit he is gonna be a great asset. Kennedy, RNL, McNulty for cover, even Wiseman.
Left wing backs: Golbourne, RNL Left backs: Golbourne, Kennedy We cant afford to have 3 players for each position when working within a small budget. Flexibility is the key.
Don't forget Sir Bobby. Maybe not first or even second choice there but has played there and can do a job if needed. Golbourne there with Kennedy at left of a centre three would be my choice.
I wasn't sure if I could count left footed right backs in the right back list or right footed left backs in the left back list.
Kennedy is fine as cover, it's a shame he probably won't get that much playing time next season as I'd expect Golbourne to always start when fit. He'll be like a new signing as well, he was awesome before he got injured.
If you remove Wiseman, RNL and mcnulty from the list you are left with the viable left backs. I would sooner see Bobby at LB than those u have listed.
Awesome? Really? He was getting better. He had some stinkers. He was at his best form when he got injured. This is my concern. Too much expectation of a player who was was only just finding his feet. We missed him because we had to change formation, not because he was awesome. I think he has the potential to be good, but for us to be relying on a relatively established player coming back from a serious injury is a bit worrying.
Golbourne has never had a stinker, IMO. He's not always been awesome, either. But he was easily our most consistent player under Keith, and then our best player under Flicker before the injury. And Perkins can play there, too.