Sparkes should we keep playing him?

[Pompey1984+1]

goals conceded league one to date

Bolton 24
Portsmouth 25
Stevenage 25
Derby 26
Peterborough 28

everyone else 29 or above

Definitely a substandard defence

I didn't say our defence was sub standard I said one player was. I think the defence has, mainly, coped well with the loss of Poole. Just like with any team there is a weak spot.

I am sure he is very pleased to be singled out for the attention, glad i dont work for you Walter, must have been fun doing good work for 51 weeks of the year, making a cock up and being lambasted and potentially replaced for it

We havent scored in a while, best buy a whole new front line too

As per usual a typical reply from your good self. I would think the player himself knows that he hasn't been a good full back. As for signaling him out that was done before he came here. Exeter dropped him from the team and replaced him with another left back. They then told him he was no longer required and they would not be renewing his contract. Whether our club signed him as an out and out left back I wouldn't know, although it does appear that as they didn't sign anyone else as cover for that position so it would appear they did. They may well have been attracted by his other attributes which I have noted in these posts.

So would I be wrong in your eyes to 'single him out' and say that I think he would make a good wing back at this level? Also could I ask you that do you think Sparkes is a good full back, as a specialist in this position in defending?

You keep saying this stuff about Sparked and that the club failed to recruit a proper left back in the summer:

Olgivie is our first choice left back is he not?

Would you, or would you not agree that at most clubs your secondutesu choice for any position is not going to be as refined as your first choice in any given position?

Would, or would you not agree that it is sensible to look for qualities in your back up there are different to your first choice in any given position?

Bearing in mind the above, do you not think that Sparkes, the back up left back has done an admirable job in his extended run in the side?

OR

Do you think the club should have two first choice players in each position? If this was the case how do you keep them both happy and sharp? How do you afford two first choices? How do you get two first choices to sign given that they are going to have to miss out more often than not?

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what you think we should have done? Who should we have signed that was better than Sparkes, and happy to play second fiddle to Ogilvie, or we need someone better than Ogilvie.

Currently the club has one fit right back - we are soon to have 3 fit left backs with a 4th (Vincent) in the building. Irrespective of what you think of their ability - do you not think that is a fairly well stocked position?

If Sparkes was signed as a full back then I don't think his was a good signing. Do I think the 'covering' player should be as good as the 'first choice'? Firstly Mousinho said the aim was to have two players for each position and no one is guaranteed a first team place, secondly there is absolutely no contest between Ogilvie and Sparkes who is first choice as left full back. Would players of Sparkes age commit to signing as a 'back up' player if they are ambitious. I do agree with you that it is sensible for the club to look for players that have other attributes not at the club already. Sparkes is better than Ogilvie going forward but nowhere near as good in defending. So what I am saying, to be clear, is that if Sparkes was signed as a full back then I believe the club is at fault. On the other hand if Sparkes was signed to give us a wider attacking threat choice then it was a good signing, but it left us weak in the defensive area. You never answered my question as to whether you thought Sparkes is a good full back but I will answer yours. No I don't think Sparkes has an admirable job at full back. When all the players are fit that play in the left back berth I am not so sure we will be reasonably stocked. We know we have Sparkes but we don't know how Vincent will cope. Until he is playing and tested we will not know.

I couldn't name names of who we should have signed as a left back. If the aim was to have two players for every position then players signing would be signing to fight it out with the present incumbant of any given position to become the first choice. I would dispute that we did actually have two players for every position anyway. You are right about the right back spot and we could well have a problem in that position, but then I think there are potential problems all around the team.

I refer to my previous answer, I dont think he is the god awful full back he is being made out to be. He has played for a lot of the season and for a lot of the seaon we havent conceded goals, is that by luck even though he is in the team? Are all the goals we have conceded recently been directly attributable to Sparkes, was Shaugnessy playing out of the back and getting caught in the box and them scoring down to Sparkes? were the 2 goals from corners at the weekend down to sparkes??

you say there are potential problems all around the pitch?? not naming names as to who is sub standard on the rest of the pitch??

Although those goals may not be directly attributed to Sparkes you’ve got to look at the defence as a whole. Let’s be honest here we tolerated his defensive weakness’s because of his goal contributions. These have dried up now so hence my post can we really afford to play him ?

You mean we kept winning, and now we aren't some feel the need to blame someone?
[/quote
That’s your interpretation!!

He won a penalty at the weekend - that should have been another goal contribution. There was a few games back where a goal should have been scored from his cross. The contributions have dried up because others aren't finding the net...

[jam tomorrow]

goals conceded league one to date

Bolton 24
Portsmouth 25
Stevenage 25
Derby 26
Peterborough 28

everyone else 29 or above

Definitely a substandard defence

I didn't say our defence was sub standard I said one player was. I think the defence has, mainly, coped well with the loss of Poole. Just like with any team there is a weak spot.

I am sure he is very pleased to be singled out for the attention, glad i dont work for you Walter, must have been fun doing good work for 51 weeks of the year, making a cock up and being lambasted and potentially replaced for it

We havent scored in a while, best buy a whole new front line too

As per usual a typical reply from your good self. I would think the player himself knows that he hasn't been a good full back. As for signaling him out that was done before he came here. Exeter dropped him from the team and replaced him with another left back. They then told him he was no longer required and they would not be renewing his contract. Whether our club signed him as an out and out left back I wouldn't know, although it does appear that as they didn't sign anyone else as cover for that position so it would appear they did. They may well have been attracted by his other attributes which I have noted in these posts.

So would I be wrong in your eyes to 'single him out' and say that I think he would make a good wing back at this level? Also could I ask you that do you think Sparkes is a good full back, as a specialist in this position in defending?

You keep saying this stuff about Sparked and that the club failed to recruit a proper left back in the summer:

Olgivie is our first choice left back is he not?

Would you, or would you not agree that at most clubs your secondutesu choice for any position is not going to be as refined as your first choice in any given position?

Would, or would you not agree that it is sensible to look for qualities in your back up there are different to your first choice in any given position?

Bearing in mind the above, do you not think that Sparkes, the back up left back has done an admirable job in his extended run in the side?

OR

Do you think the club should have two first choice players in each position? If this was the case how do you keep them both happy and sharp? How do you afford two first choices? How do you get two first choices to sign given that they are going to have to miss out more often than not?

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what you think we should have done? Who should we have signed that was better than Sparkes, and happy to play second fiddle to Ogilvie, or we need someone better than Ogilvie.

Currently the club has one fit right back - we are soon to have 3 fit left backs with a 4th (Vincent) in the building. Irrespective of what you think of their ability - do you not think that is a fairly well stocked position?

If Sparkes was signed as a full back then I don't think his was a good signing. Do I think the 'covering' player should be as good as the 'first choice'? Firstly Mousinho said the aim was to have two players for each position and no one is guaranteed a first team place, secondly there is absolutely no contest between Ogilvie and Sparkes who is first choice as left full back. Would players of Sparkes age commit to signing as a 'back up' player if they are ambitious. I do agree with you that it is sensible for the club to look for players that have other attributes not at the club already. Sparkes is better than Ogilvie going forward but nowhere near as good in defending. So what I am saying, to be clear, is that if Sparkes was signed as a full back then I believe the club is at fault. On the other hand if Sparkes was signed to give us a wider attacking threat choice then it was a good signing, but it left us weak in the defensive area. You never answered my question as to whether you thought Sparkes is a good full back but I will answer yours. No I don't think Sparkes has an admirable job at full back. When all the players are fit that play in the left back berth I am not so sure we will be reasonably stocked. We know we have Sparkes but we don't know how Vincent will cope. Until he is playing and tested we will not know.

I couldn't name names of who we should have signed as a left back. If the aim was to have two players for every position then players signing would be signing to fight it out with the present incumbant of any given position to become the first choice. I would dispute that we did actually have two players for every position anyway. You are right about the right back spot and we could well have a problem in that position, but then I think there are potential problems all around the team.

I refer to my previous answer, I dont think he is the god awful full back he is being made out to be. He has played for a lot of the season and for a lot of the seaon we havent conceded goals, is that by luck even though he is in the team? Are all the goals we have conceded recently been directly attributable to Sparkes, was Shaugnessy playing out of the back and getting caught in the box and them scoring down to Sparkes? were the 2 goals from corners at the weekend down to sparkes??

you say there are potential problems all around the pitch?? not naming names as to who is sub standard on the rest of the pitch??

Although those goals may not be directly attributed to Sparkes you’ve got to look at the defence as a whole. Let’s be honest here we tolerated his defensive weakness’s because of his goal contributions. These have dried up now so hence my post can we really afford to play him ?

You mean we kept winning, and now we aren't some feel the need to blame someone?
[/quote
That’s your interpretation!!

He won a penalty at the weekend - that should have been another goal contribution. There was a few games back where a goal should have been scored from his cross. The contributions have dried up because others aren't finding the net...

Oh so your blaming someone else now?

[Portchesterblue2]

goals conceded league one to date

Bolton 24
Portsmouth 25
Stevenage 25
Derby 26
Peterborough 28

everyone else 29 or above

Definitely a substandard defence

I didn't say our defence was sub standard I said one player was. I think the defence has, mainly, coped well with the loss of Poole. Just like with any team there is a weak spot.

I am sure he is very pleased to be singled out for the attention, glad i dont work for you Walter, must have been fun doing good work for 51 weeks of the year, making a cock up and being lambasted and potentially replaced for it

We havent scored in a while, best buy a whole new front line too

As per usual a typical reply from your good self. I would think the player himself knows that he hasn't been a good full back. As for signaling him out that was done before he came here. Exeter dropped him from the team and replaced him with another left back. They then told him he was no longer required and they would not be renewing his contract. Whether our club signed him as an out and out left back I wouldn't know, although it does appear that as they didn't sign anyone else as cover for that position so it would appear they did. They may well have been attracted by his other attributes which I have noted in these posts.

So would I be wrong in your eyes to 'single him out' and say that I think he would make a good wing back at this level? Also could I ask you that do you think Sparkes is a good full back, as a specialist in this position in defending?

You keep saying this stuff about Sparked and that the club failed to recruit a proper left back in the summer:

Olgivie is our first choice left back is he not?

Would you, or would you not agree that at most clubs your secondutesu choice for any position is not going to be as refined as your first choice in any given position?

Would, or would you not agree that it is sensible to look for qualities in your back up there are different to your first choice in any given position?

Bearing in mind the above, do you not think that Sparkes, the back up left back has done an admirable job in his extended run in the side?

OR

Do you think the club should have two first choice players in each position? If this was the case how do you keep them both happy and sharp? How do you afford two first choices? How do you get two first choices to sign given that they are going to have to miss out more often than not?

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what you think we should have done? Who should we have signed that was better than Sparkes, and happy to play second fiddle to Ogilvie, or we need someone better than Ogilvie.

Currently the club has one fit right back - we are soon to have 3 fit left backs with a 4th (Vincent) in the building. Irrespective of what you think of their ability - do you not think that is a fairly well stocked position?

If Sparkes was signed as a full back then I don't think his was a good signing. Do I think the 'covering' player should be as good as the 'first choice'? Firstly Mousinho said the aim was to have two players for each position and no one is guaranteed a first team place, secondly there is absolutely no contest between Ogilvie and Sparkes who is first choice as left full back. Would players of Sparkes age commit to signing as a 'back up' player if they are ambitious. I do agree with you that it is sensible for the club to look for players that have other attributes not at the club already. Sparkes is better than Ogilvie going forward but nowhere near as good in defending. So what I am saying, to be clear, is that if Sparkes was signed as a full back then I believe the club is at fault. On the other hand if Sparkes was signed to give us a wider attacking threat choice then it was a good signing, but it left us weak in the defensive area. You never answered my question as to whether you thought Sparkes is a good full back but I will answer yours. No I don't think Sparkes has an admirable job at full back. When all the players are fit that play in the left back berth I am not so sure we will be reasonably stocked. We know we have Sparkes but we don't know how Vincent will cope. Until he is playing and tested we will not know.

I couldn't name names of who we should have signed as a left back. If the aim was to have two players for every position then players signing would be signing to fight it out with the present incumbant of any given position to become the first choice. I would dispute that we did actually have two players for every position anyway. You are right about the right back spot and we could well have a problem in that position, but then I think there are potential problems all around the team.

I refer to my previous answer, I dont think he is the god awful full back he is being made out to be. He has played for a lot of the season and for a lot of the seaon we havent conceded goals, is that by luck even though he is in the team? Are all the goals we have conceded recently been directly attributable to Sparkes, was Shaugnessy playing out of the back and getting caught in the box and them scoring down to Sparkes? were the 2 goals from corners at the weekend down to sparkes??

you say there are potential problems all around the pitch?? not naming names as to who is sub standard on the rest of the pitch??

Although those goals may not be directly attributed to Sparkes you’ve got to look at the defence as a whole. Let’s be honest here we tolerated his defensive weakness’s because of his goal contributions. These have dried up now so hence my post can we really afford to play him ?

so which is it Jam ?? we have to look at the defence as a whole or we blame sparkes ?? cant have it both ways

[jam tomorrow]

goals conceded league one to date

Bolton 24
Portsmouth 25
Stevenage 25
Derby 26
Peterborough 28

everyone else 29 or above

Definitely a substandard defence

I didn't say our defence was sub standard I said one player was. I think the defence has, mainly, coped well with the loss of Poole. Just like with any team there is a weak spot.

I am sure he is very pleased to be singled out for the attention, glad i dont work for you Walter, must have been fun doing good work for 51 weeks of the year, making a cock up and being lambasted and potentially replaced for it

We havent scored in a while, best buy a whole new front line too

As per usual a typical reply from your good self. I would think the player himself knows that he hasn't been a good full back. As for signaling him out that was done before he came here. Exeter dropped him from the team and replaced him with another left back. They then told him he was no longer required and they would not be renewing his contract. Whether our club signed him as an out and out left back I wouldn't know, although it does appear that as they didn't sign anyone else as cover for that position so it would appear they did. They may well have been attracted by his other attributes which I have noted in these posts.

So would I be wrong in your eyes to 'single him out' and say that I think he would make a good wing back at this level? Also could I ask you that do you think Sparkes is a good full back, as a specialist in this position in defending?

You keep saying this stuff about Sparked and that the club failed to recruit a proper left back in the summer:

Olgivie is our first choice left back is he not?

Would you, or would you not agree that at most clubs your secondutesu choice for any position is not going to be as refined as your first choice in any given position?

Would, or would you not agree that it is sensible to look for qualities in your back up there are different to your first choice in any given position?

Bearing in mind the above, do you not think that Sparkes, the back up left back has done an admirable job in his extended run in the side?

OR

Do you think the club should have two first choice players in each position? If this was the case how do you keep them both happy and sharp? How do you afford two first choices? How do you get two first choices to sign given that they are going to have to miss out more often than not?

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what you think we should have done? Who should we have signed that was better than Sparkes, and happy to play second fiddle to Ogilvie, or we need someone better than Ogilvie.

Currently the club has one fit right back - we are soon to have 3 fit left backs with a 4th (Vincent) in the building. Irrespective of what you think of their ability - do you not think that is a fairly well stocked position?

If Sparkes was signed as a full back then I don't think his was a good signing. Do I think the 'covering' player should be as good as the 'first choice'? Firstly Mousinho said the aim was to have two players for each position and no one is guaranteed a first team place, secondly there is absolutely no contest between Ogilvie and Sparkes who is first choice as left full back. Would players of Sparkes age commit to signing as a 'back up' player if they are ambitious. I do agree with you that it is sensible for the club to look for players that have other attributes not at the club already. Sparkes is better than Ogilvie going forward but nowhere near as good in defending. So what I am saying, to be clear, is that if Sparkes was signed as a full back then I believe the club is at fault. On the other hand if Sparkes was signed to give us a wider attacking threat choice then it was a good signing, but it left us weak in the defensive area. You never answered my question as to whether you thought Sparkes is a good full back but I will answer yours. No I don't think Sparkes has an admirable job at full back. When all the players are fit that play in the left back berth I am not so sure we will be reasonably stocked. We know we have Sparkes but we don't know how Vincent will cope. Until he is playing and tested we will not know.

I couldn't name names of who we should have signed as a left back. If the aim was to have two players for every position then players signing would be signing to fight it out with the present incumbant of any given position to become the first choice. I would dispute that we did actually have two players for every position anyway. You are right about the right back spot and we could well have a problem in that position, but then I think there are potential problems all around the team.

I refer to my previous answer, I dont think he is the god awful full back he is being made out to be. He has played for a lot of the season and for a lot of the seaon we havent conceded goals, is that by luck even though he is in the team? Are all the goals we have conceded recently been directly attributable to Sparkes, was Shaugnessy playing out of the back and getting caught in the box and them scoring down to Sparkes? were the 2 goals from corners at the weekend down to sparkes??

you say there are potential problems all around the pitch?? not naming names as to who is sub standard on the rest of the pitch??

Although those goals may not be directly attributed to Sparkes you’ve got to look at the defence as a whole. Let’s be honest here we tolerated his defensive weakness’s because of his goal contributions. These have dried up now so hence my post can we really afford to play him ?

so which is it Jam ?? we have to look at the defence as a whole or we blame sparkes ?? cant have it both ways

Look at the defence as a whole and improve it, not blaming (your words) if that means replacing Sparkes then the team is more important than the player

[phat_chris]

I'd argue that if we are looking to improve the defence as a whole then replacing Poole is of greater importance. We clearly miss his skills both in the role of building from the back and in his organisational skills in defence. Bringing in someone to fill that gap would also allow us to move to 3 centre backs and allow Sparks to play as a wingback. When Ogilvie returns he can fill the role of left back in a 4 or the left centre back of a 3.

For me it's far more important to address the key areas that need to be filled (CB, CF, AM) with what limited funds we have available, than to add more depth to a position we already have cover for.

[jam tomorrow]

I'd argue that if we are looking to improve the defence as a whole then replacing Poole is of greater importance. We clearly miss his skills both in the role of building from the back and in his organisational skills in defence. Bringing in someone to fill that gap would also allow us to move to 3 centre backs and allow Sparks to play as a wingback. When Ogilvie returns he can fill the role of left back in a 4 or the left centre back of a 3.

For me it's far more important to address the key areas that need to be filled (CB, CF, AM) with what limited funds we have available, than to add more depth to a position we already have cover for.

That’s a good and practical response if we can get a Poole equivalent then all well and good, hopefully it should resolve the issues once settled. In the meantime we have no Ogilvie and still have a shaky defence so let’s hope we get someone in PDQ.

[Pompey1984+1]

I'd argue that if we are looking to improve the defence as a whole then replacing Poole is of greater importance. We clearly miss his skills both in the role of building from the back and in his organisational skills in defence. Bringing in someone to fill that gap would also allow us to move to 3 centre backs and allow Sparks to play as a wingback. When Ogilvie returns he can fill the role of left back in a 4 or the left centre back of a 3.

For me it's far more important to address the key areas that need to be filled (CB, CF, AM) with what limited funds we have available, than to add more depth to a position we already have cover for.

Like the club have said they are looking at, with the exception of a forward, they have said they want someone who can play across the three in behind.

[Blue Walter]

goals conceded league one to date

Bolton 24
Portsmouth 25
Stevenage 25
Derby 26
Peterborough 28

everyone else 29 or above

Definitely a substandard defence

I didn't say our defence was sub standard I said one player was. I think the defence has, mainly, coped well with the loss of Poole. Just like with any team there is a weak spot.

I am sure he is very pleased to be singled out for the attention, glad i dont work for you Walter, must have been fun doing good work for 51 weeks of the year, making a cock up and being lambasted and potentially replaced for it

We havent scored in a while, best buy a whole new front line too

As per usual a typical reply from your good self. I would think the player himself knows that he hasn't been a good full back. As for signaling him out that was done before he came here. Exeter dropped him from the team and replaced him with another left back. They then told him he was no longer required and they would not be renewing his contract. Whether our club signed him as an out and out left back I wouldn't know, although it does appear that as they didn't sign anyone else as cover for that position so it would appear they did. They may well have been attracted by his other attributes which I have noted in these posts.

So would I be wrong in your eyes to 'single him out' and say that I think he would make a good wing back at this level? Also could I ask you that do you think Sparkes is a good full back, as a specialist in this position in defending?

You keep saying this stuff about Sparked and that the club failed to recruit a proper left back in the summer:

Olgivie is our first choice left back is he not?

Would you, or would you not agree that at most clubs your secondutesu choice for any position is not going to be as refined as your first choice in any given position?

Would, or would you not agree that it is sensible to look for qualities in your back up there are different to your first choice in any given position?

Bearing in mind the above, do you not think that Sparkes, the back up left back has done an admirable job in his extended run in the side?

OR

Do you think the club should have two first choice players in each position? If this was the case how do you keep them both happy and sharp? How do you afford two first choices? How do you get two first choices to sign given that they are going to have to miss out more often than not?

I'm genuinely intrigued as to what you think we should have done? Who should we have signed that was better than Sparkes, and happy to play second fiddle to Ogilvie, or we need someone better than Ogilvie.

Currently the club has one fit right back - we are soon to have 3 fit left backs with a 4th (Vincent) in the building. Irrespective of what you think of their ability - do you not think that is a fairly well stocked position?

If Sparkes was signed as a full back then I don't think his was a good signing. Do I think the 'covering' player should be as good as the 'first choice'? Firstly Mousinho said the aim was to have two players for each position and no one is guaranteed a first team place, secondly there is absolutely no contest between Ogilvie and Sparkes who is first choice as left full back. Would players of Sparkes age commit to signing as a 'back up' player if they are ambitious. I do agree with you that it is sensible for the club to look for players that have other attributes not at the club already. Sparkes is better than Ogilvie going forward but nowhere near as good in defending. So what I am saying, to be clear, is that if Sparkes was signed as a full back then I believe the club is at fault. On the other hand if Sparkes was signed to give us a wider attacking threat choice then it was a good signing, but it left us weak in the defensive area. You never answered my question as to whether you thought Sparkes is a good full back but I will answer yours. No I don't think Sparkes has an admirable job at full back. When all the players are fit that play in the left back berth I am not so sure we will be reasonably stocked. We know we have Sparkes but we don't know how Vincent will cope. Until he is playing and tested we will not know.

I couldn't name names of who we should have signed as a left back. If the aim was to have two players for every position then players signing would be signing to fight it out with the present incumbant of any given position to become the first choice. I would dispute that we did actually have two players for every position anyway. You are right about the right back spot and we could well have a problem in that position, but then I think there are potential problems all around the team.

I refer to my previous answer, I dont think he is the god awful full back he is being made out to be. He has played for a lot of the season and for a lot of the seaon we havent conceded goals, is that by luck even though he is in the team? Are all the goals we have conceded recently been directly attributable to Sparkes, was Shaugnessy playing out of the back and getting caught in the box and them scoring down to Sparkes? were the 2 goals from corners at the weekend down to sparkes??

you say there are potential problems all around the pitch?? not naming names as to who is sub standard on the rest of the pitch??

Firstly, apologies for saying you never answered my question. You did and you must have posted it while I was writing my blurb. So I do beg your pardon for that.

I don't actually think we are miles apart here really, although we disagree on how bad (or not so bad) Sparkes is in his defensive role. Hume must be totally fed up up at not being given a chance at full back because he can see what we can. From what I have seen of Hume I think he does a reasonable job there but not so good going forward. Obviously Mousinho doesn't rate him at all by keeping on persevering with Sparkes. The point I was making is that, in my opinion, Sparkes is not dependable enough to play as a defensive full back so therefore I suggested that better use of his talents may lie at wing back. I wonder whether Sparkes worries his fellow defenders which is draining their confidence or the defensive frailties collectively is affecting Sparkes into making more mistakes. The whole team is suffering from a lack of confidence and, as I mentioned on another thread, this is the type of period that will tell us how good Mousinho is where he now needs to lift the team and get them on track again.

I don't think Sparkes is to blame for all the goals we are conceding but he is the weakest link defensively and I wonder whether that contributes towards the collective defence insecurity.

[Pompey1984+1]

The big elephant in the room here is, do we really play with defensive full backs? Personally I'd say not, JM wants them to push on past the wingers.

[Blue Walter]

The big elephant in the room here is, do we really play with defensive full backs? Personally I'd say not, JM wants them to push on past the wingers.

If that is the case maybe they should do more defending.

[Mickemo]

The big elephant in the room here is, do we really play with defensive full backs? Personally I'd say not, JM wants them to push on past the wingers.

If that is the case maybe they should do more defending.

At what cost - do you think we will create more or less opportunities for our front 3 that way?

I think the balance between Full Backs defending and attacking has been about right this season.

I agree individual errors have cost us a number of goals this season but they aren’t limited to Left Back are they!

[Blue Walter]

The big elephant in the room here is, do we really play with defensive full backs? Personally I'd say not, JM wants them to push on past the wingers.

If that is the case maybe they should do more defending.

At what cost - do you think we will create more or less opportunities for our front 3 that way?

I think the balance between Full Backs defending and attacking has been about right this season.

I agree individual errors have cost us a number of goals this season but they aren’t limited to Left Back are they!

I haven't put the blame squarely on the left back position have I?What I have said is that position is currently our weakest link. I disagree that the balance has been right either, perhaps from the right side it has because Rafferty is a good full back at this level. If Sparkes is seen as a chance creating player, where he has created the most 'assists' by any Pompey player so far this season, then play him in a position where he excels. Whether or not you see him as a good defender or not is the question and I happen to think he isn't. I think he is great going forward but we also need defensive stability. I agree that goals against us have come from a mixture of indidual mistakes and not entirely down to one player, which is what I have said. Because I happen to have said that I think Sparkes is our weakest defensive player some people choose to say that I am blaming him entirely, which I haven't.

[Mickemo]

The big elephant in the room here is, do we really play with defensive full backs? Personally I'd say not, JM wants them to push on past the wingers.

If that is the case maybe they should do more defending.

At what cost - do you think we will create more or less opportunities for our front 3 that way?

I think the balance between Full Backs defending and attacking has been about right this season.

I agree individual errors have cost us a number of goals this season but they aren’t limited to Left Back are they!

I haven't put the blame squarely on the left back position have I?What I have said is that position is currently our weakest link. I disagree that the balance has been right either, perhaps from the right side it has because Rafferty is a good full back at this level. If Sparkes is seen as a chance creating player, where he has created the most 'assists' by any Pompey player so far this season, then play him in a position where he excels. Whether or not you see him as a good defender or not is the question and I happen to think he isn't. I think he is great going forward but we also need defensive stability. I agree that goals against us have come from a mixture of indidual mistakes and not entirely down to one player, which is what I have said. Because I happen to have said that I think Sparkes is our weakest defensive player some people choose to say that I am blaming him entirely, which I haven't.

I don’t disagree with him being our weakest link defensively but the errors have happened right across the defence.

You have an unusual way of expressing that you don’t blame him entirely - the title of this thread is telling don’t you think.

I maintain my view that the full back balance between defence and attack - if anything we’ve been a little too risk averse for my liking at FP in recent games ( I get why that is though)

Now a question for you, who would YOU have played instead of Sparkes at LB noting Ogilvie has been out injured for most of the season and also acknowledging that Hume like Sparkes is better when attacking??

[Blue Walter]

The big elephant in the room here is, do we really play with defensive full backs? Personally I'd say not, JM wants them to push on past the wingers.

If that is the case maybe they should do more defending.

At what cost - do you think we will create more or less opportunities for our front 3 that way?

I think the balance between Full Backs defending and attacking has been about right this season.

I agree individual errors have cost us a number of goals this season but they aren’t limited to Left Back are they!

I haven't put the blame squarely on the left back position have I?What I have said is that position is currently our weakest link. I disagree that the balance has been right either, perhaps from the right side it has because Rafferty is a good full back at this level. If Sparkes is seen as a chance creating player, where he has created the most 'assists' by any Pompey player so far this season, then play him in a position where he excels. Whether or not you see him as a good defender or not is the question and I happen to think he isn't. I think he is great going forward but we also need defensive stability. I agree that goals against us have come from a mixture of indidual mistakes and not entirely down to one player, which is what I have said. Because I happen to have said that I think Sparkes is our weakest defensive player some people choose to say that I am blaming him entirely, which I haven't.

I don’t disagree with him being our weakest link defensively but the errors have happened right across the defence.

You have an unusual way of expressing that you don’t blame him entirely - the title of this thread is telling don’t you think.

I maintain my view that the full back balance between defence and attack - if anything we’ve been a little too risk averse for my liking at FP in recent games ( I get why that is though)

Now a question for you, who would YOU have played instead of Sparkes at LB noting Ogilvie has been out injured for most of the season and also acknowledging that Hume like Sparkes is better when attacking??

We have had Hume on the books who is a full back but obviously not being considered so that means Sparkes is the only option. I think an option would have been is play to our strengths, such as it is, which is playing a different way to use Sparkes best attribute. We have become predictable with a weakness in that left side area which teams have exploited so a change of system may well achieve two things. Playing wing backs would certainly give the opposition something new to discover about out team but also utilising Sparkes best asset. Releasing him from defence, to a degree, and using his services from his excellent crossing ability may be a way out until Ogilvie is fit enough to return. If its successful maybe Ogilvie will be the one kicking his heels.

I don't know why you keep reminding me that Sparkes is not the only one to have made mistakes because this is something I have acknowledged myself, plenty of times. Also I don't think I have a 'strange way of expressing myself" on my views at all. I have never said it has all been down to one player and I never titled the thread. The thread author asked the question and I have answered with my view. Other posters on here will read my posts and decipher them in the way that suits them. This is a debating platform so disagreement is inevitable but misrepresentation of views is not good for a civilised exchange of views. I am fully aware that people will disagree with me, especially when I have the audacity to disagree with the general stream of views, but good healthy disagreement is better than just nodding your head.

[GreenBlue]

but good healthy disagreement is better than just nodding your head.

Oh no it isn't...