Is it just me that finds it impossible to criticise defenders?

[LiamOT]

This isn't the first or last time but I'll give the scenario I've just had.

My Colchester team has just beaten Watford 3-1 in the Premier League at Home.

Their goal was entirely the fault of my defender Daniele Rugani. Strange because he's my best defender and is usually reliable.

At 2-1, he nearly cost us again with a shocking mistake leaving a one-on-one which Hennessey fortunately saved. So after that I quickly subbed him off.

Went on to get a penalty and kill the game.

Now.

Everyone on in the team had a rating between 6.9 to 7.5. Rugani finished with a 6.2, justified with his two awful mistakes.

Surely this is the right time to have a private chat and criticise his performance. I go Assertive and say "your defender was good enough blah blah blah" and he reacts by saying something along the lines of "I don't think anyone was good enough in that game so picking my out is unfair".

really?

This isn't the first time. I've tried to criticise defenders but they always give the same ignorant response.

Attackers, Midfielders and Goalkeepers are the only ones in my save that can take criticism when it's due and not give a silly response.

 

[louiscfc]

Yeah the whole player interaction things needs a major overhaul in my opinion. Particularly the team meetings which make no sense at all.

 

[Spleen]

I've often noticed that if a defender makes a goal-giving error, their rating will go to 5.9 or worse, but sometimes if you leave them on, their rating gradually creeps back up - often to 7.0 or higher by the end of the game. The way I read that is that they defended very well to make up for the error, and if they'd not made the mistake they would have a rating of 8.0 or higher. Which means that it would have been a mistake to take them off. I don't give them a dressing down afterwards if they had a generally good game but made one error - everyone makes mistakes.

That said, your guy made two and I probably would have hooked him as well. Maybe he's just weak-minded and can't take criticism. I've had problems with members of the back four objecting to being singled out, so I generally reserve it for someone who a) has an absolute stinker b) is disposable.

One other thing - 6.9 is a poor rating to finish a game with if a player has been on the winning side. If a scout is doing match reports on a player and he has a 6.9 game, he reports something like "X had a below-par game" - I can't remember the exact words, but a 6.9 game definitely always comes with a criticism like "he gave away a succession of free kicks" or "his inability to find his teammates ensured a poor day at the office". Whereas 7.0 results in a positive report and something like "his shooting was fairly accurate". So if other defenders had 6.9s, Rugani is not wrong to say that other players weren't good enough, even if he was the one who made the fatal error.