Seeing as fullbacks are the hot topic right now, I'm going to tell you why I think, and have always thought, that Frazer Richardson should be our first choice right-back. A good fullback should have the following abilities: - Providing a physical obstruction to opposition attacking players by shepherding them towards an area where they exert less influence. Either "jockeying" them into a dead end out wide, or encouraging them to cut inside onto their weaker foot. - Marking wingers and other attacking players, but also being wary of marking too tightly and being dragged out of position. - Making good, clean tackles and quick dispossessions. - Maintaining tactical discipline with the rest of the back line. - Good stamina, work rate and pace. These defensive responsibilities should be considered to be top priority, and more important than attacking flair which should be considered a bonus. Fullback is probably the most complex position, and therefore requires intelligence and a level head. The above qualities rely on a player's ability to make the right decisions and take a good position on the pitch. He must be able to anticipate when he's going to need to stick tight to an opposition player, and pick his forward runs carefully. These qualities come with experience and, despite what some silly people on here have tried to tell me in the past, that is an important thing for a fullback to have. In relation to the above qualities, Richardson is the complete package. He's an intelligent player who very rarely gets caught out, and he imposes himself physically more than Clyne can. Clyne is an exciting player with bags of attacking ability, but he certainly can't match Richardson from a defensive perspective. The impression he's given me so far is that he'll have quite a mixed season, adding to our attacks with his pace and dribbling ability, but probably giving opposition wingers too much time and space as well. Richardson would play a quieter and more subtle role, which is why I think he's a bit underrated, but we can be sure that he will be reliable and consistent, and will not make mistakes. Richardson does have attacking qualities as well. He may not have the pace or dribbling ability of Clyne, and we won't often see him getting into scoring positions like Clyne did yesterday, but he does tend to have a good pass completion record, and he's often demonstrated his excellent crossing ability. He picks his forward runs wisely and doesn't abandon his post. For a team fighting a relegation battle, I think that is by far the most important thing. Clyne is a luxury player. Richardson is a far safer bet.
Was very solid and level-headed yesterday (and has been in the past). Clyne was way more effective on the left in attack and just as capable defensively. So it made us stronger in attack and defence. These two must start. Fox was our weak link defensively last season as well He also crosses very well from deep which means he doesn't need to over commit to help the attack.
Certainly no worse than Fox or a fit Seaborne. Think they've all had a few howlers in their time but I'd put Fraser above those two. Would be interesting to see how he copes under more pressure - I think my answer might well still be the same
FR should keep his place as we will need his more physical style against Everton who once again looked very good yesterday. Also his crossing and delivery is good ESP for The Legend Would keep Clyne at LB as he looks more assured than Foxy
He did well to slot in to the game considering he was making his Premiership debut. Richardson is much more comfortable with the ball at his feet and happy to maraud forward in contrast to Fox. If Clyne is comfortable at left back then Richardson may well be a regular starter.
Richardson's weakness is that once he's beaten, he's beaten. He's really slow on the turn and isn't great at blocking crosses. The rest of his game is good-he got 10 assists last season I believe and didn't take any set pieces-unlike Fox "the assist machine". Would be good for Lambert to have Richardson playing.
I really like Richardson - its a pity he`s prone to injury. It would be great to get a full season out of him.
Thanks for taking up the mantle Joe and posting that. A well written piece. Just a couple of points I'd raise on it as highlighted: In the modern game, showing a wide player inside can be dangerous, especially as so many wingers play on their "wrong foot side". Years ago, it was sensible to show a winger inside on to their wrong foot; today that can be dangerous I believe showing them wide is the safer option. I'm not so sure that Clyne is a "luxury". He has incredible pace that will allow him to recover, and he proved this against Arsenal by making a few tackles when tracking back into our box. They had success on that side when he was already back in position, but we were overloaded by Arsenal on that side. For a few years I played as a full back, and it's a great position to play unless you come up against a real speed demon. I am not disagreeing with you singing the virtues of Richardson as I really rate him too, I think we have two good options at Right back. So far, he delivers a better cross than Clyne and don't underestimate his attacking prowess; I recall several games last year when he got right to the bye line and I've yet to see Clyne do that. If Clyne can continue at left back in the same form as yesterday, then we will be quids in.
I say he's a bit of a luxury because he's all technical ability, but not so much physical or mental. He certainly can chase back, but with better intelligence, awareness, anticipation and positioning, he'd have less chasing to do. These are things that come with experience. He's also a bit lightweight and can be shrugged off easier when giving chase. As an impact player when we need an extra attacking option, he'd be great. The best thing about him is that he's young and will surely mature into a top player.
Were in a fortunate position where by we have two very good full backs that have different playing styles and both of them can slot into the team at any time.
Not sure I agree with Clyne being the answer at left back, he was very good offensively but Villas right back was very inexperienced. Defensively however he looked uncomfortable when sliding in, no idea if anyone else noticed it but he looked like he'd struggle defensively if he actually had to do any defending.
I'm sure we'll get a proper left-back in January. Then I'd like to see Richardson and new guy as first choice fullbacks, and Clyne as a useful sub.
I think Clyne is a super full back. I can't see him being a sub for us anytime soon. Richardson is a pretty decent right back. He can certainly cross the ball well and he is a pretty good passer of the ball as well.
Richardson is a better right back than Clyne however is he better at left back???? For me how we finished yesterday will have to be the answer until at least January. The thing is you notice Clyne because of his energy. You don't notice Richardson because he just does the simple things brilliantly well without any tricks. I prefer the latter and you cannot argue with his assists last year. To keep Butterfield out with his equally good deep cross was a story in itself. I think Clyne will be one for the future however I think he needs to learn to do the basics as a second nature before the flamboyance. Try to learn the 'no fuss' Benali before trying to be Ashley Cole. Remins me of Wayne Bridge in the early days. However Bridge was left wing until he learnt to defend a little better. Bale the other way round. lol
Trying not to be too picky, but I think Bale was actually a left sided midfielder that Saints converted to an LB. Spurs just put him back in his original role. Someone mentioned the other day of Saints huge stock of manufactured midfielders and strikers. It's not for the want of trying to make some defenders though, especially when we're trying to convert them from being further up the field. The problem is, the more skilful players tend to play further up the pitch and Saints place an awful lot of a player's development on skill.
