(02-06-2023, 01:42 PM)TBP Wrote:(01-06-2023, 06:21 PM)DeepBlue Wrote: Not sure the level we were at when we signed players really defines those players as being of that level for their whole career.
Aizlewood for instance had Welsh U23 caps and I suggest if you think he wasn't good enough to play in Div 2 then you should try saying that to his face. Sullivan had 150+ div 1 appearances behind him, and Tait's best seasons were with us in Div 2 so can hardly be called a Div 4 defender. Don't know much about McLaughlin, but he was at Swindon for several years and didn't they use to yoyo between Div 3 & Div in the 70s'.
And they all had played a major part in our Div 3 championship season the year before, which means they were good enough to get promotion to Div 2 so could be called too good for Div 3.
Yes, they were getting old and needed replacing but that was a good side in the Hateley year, and these defenders played their part in that, and don't deserve to be called a Div 4 defence just because they were not as good as the midfield or attack.
If we had had a div 4 defence then surely we would have gone down. The fact that we didn't says they were good enough for Div 2.
Surely it's already been established on this thread that the strike force kept them up. If I remember rightly, they won 4-3 at Cambridge, who did go down.
We were never in relegation trouble that year, we finished 16th 7 points clear of the relegation group.
Our 'div 4' defence put us 15th= for goals conceded , 21 goals fewer conceded that Swansea who went down, and only 11 goals more than Newcastle who finished third. They were an average div 2 defence playing behind an above average attack, but did OK. Plenty did worse.
So I still can't see any way that calling those players a div 4 defence is not an insult to some of the best servants this club has had.