In the beginning there was Martinez, sort of, and Swansea didn't have a defense worth a damn in the Championship. Then along came Sousa and made it into a proper duck's ar*e in a thunderstorm, because he had to. Very impressive it was too. They all knew what they were doing, how they were doing it and they knew exactly what everyone else was doing too. But it took him quite a few games as I recall. Then along came Rodgers. He kept it going although he was of course more focussed on the forward midfield, the defense stayed well organized and efficient. The record clean sheets in the Championship is testament to that. I speak as an ex LB, CB, DM, in other words a park football defensive utility player who wasn't very good. I am the guy who when the midfielder bursts through and lays on a wonderful through ball is busy watching the defenders and wondering what they thought they were doing, and what they were supposed to be doing. Then we come to Laudrup. Un-loved and disregarded, seen only as a source of attacking personnel, it sort of held up for the first season, but it was frankly dreadful most of last season. I thought when Monk came in he would prioritize sorting out the defense, but he didn't, and on reflection that was right. There wasn't time and he needed to get points in a hurry, it worked, so he definately got it right. I remember the Inter Milan Champions League winning team in their 2nd leg against Barcelona, they played the technically very difficult ripple defense. I watched the game through twice (OK, only TV pictures so you don't see everything) but I didn't see a single defender put a foot wrong. Not once, they operated the system perfectly. I think it was the finest defensive performance I have ever seen. I ask myself, would a Swansea defense have been capable of that? The Sousa defence, yes nearly. The Laudrup defense? You're having a laugh. Being able to operate the ripple defense when needed is a powerful tool. It enables you to shutdown the game when you need, keep it quiet, and discourage the opposition. There are other techniques that are equally useful and the guys need to know them, have practised them, and be able to slip in and out them during a game as required - and do that smoothly as a unit. Which one should be used depends on the strengths of the opposition. There is a bit more to it than a flat back four or a back three. Defensive organization at the top level is these days a complex and growing subject, more reminicent of the intricacy of American Football than what we we saw back in 80s football. Clearly Monk will be working to get the Swansea defense into proper shape. That takes drill and competitive games, and it won't happen in a hurry. I wouldn't expect to see a decent product much before Christmas, and that would be the same whether any players had left or not. That is one reason I wasn't fussed about Ben Davies going. He has not played in a well organized defense and I have no idea whether he has the self-discipline required, at least we know that Neil Taylor can (could) do that job. Davies seemed to spend most of his time up field in some games, more of an AM than full back. Pochettino will not stand for a lack of discipline and young Ben might be in for some torrid times in the dressing room. A proper defense is much more than the sum of the parts and functions as a unit in a way that AMs and strikers do not. Yes it is good to have wing backs, but the first duty of a full back is to defend, and he should only be going up field with parameters that his team mates know and are well versed in. That doesn't mean it shouldn't happen frequently, but it must be done in an organized way. The defense should almost never be in the position of operating that interesting Swansea formation of "the flat back one", i.e. Ash Williams trying desperately to hold it up while his team mates, caught far behind the play, struggled desperately to get back into position. That will happen occasionally, it should not be happening all the time. It was truly dreadful sometimes. I am not surprised that Williams swore at Laudrup, I would have. For the same reasons I have never been quite convinced by Chico. Yes he is a very good player and has class, but he lacked that core feeling of 'sureness' that you want with defenders, especially CBs. I alternated between thinking he was absolutely bloody marvellous, and Oh Gawd! Like Ben Davies, I am not at all sure how well he would fit into a solid unit. It is interesting that he has gone off to Lekhwiya and not a 'proper' club. I suspect that other clubs share my doubts and I do wonder if it would really have been possible to make the Swansea defense into what it should be with Chico at its centre. Fabianski seems to me an improvement on Vorm, even first season Vorm. Vorm's great weakness was that he could not dominate his area, and Fabianski apparently can do that. It makes a huge difference to play in front of a keeper who covers territory up to nearly the 18 yard line, not the 6 yard line, and it is a very important part of what you want a keeper to do. If you are going to play wing backs then you do need a dominating keeper, and most definately if one of your CBs goes off on sorties. It means that when defenders go up field, he can function closer behind the back four, (three, oh sh*t, two), and to some extent cover for them when they get caught out. I know that Fabianski's distribution is said to be weak, but if you list the important qualities of goalkeepers that's not high on the most manager's list. Like big knockers, nice if its included but other things are more important. PS I remember a Nottingham Forrest fan saying of Sousa's Swansea that they didn't really attack, more sort of defended a higher and higher line until the ball fell over the goal line. It made me laugh.
