a bit harsh, imvho. even Dawson's most dedicated advocates will concede that he's not a fit for this system, but to suggest that his positional sense and reading of the game were 'glaring flaws' is a bit much. he was too slow for it, simple as.
it also strikes me as slightly odd - and this is not a complaint; these are good times and I'll never encourage bitching - that Toby knocks long diagonals left and right, and gets no flack for it, whatsoever. They are, admittedly, a bit better than Daws' were, but at least when Dawson did it, there was usually no one showing for the ball, whereas we currently have far greater ability to build from the back and less need for it when put under a bit of pressure. And while it's true that he wasn't as good on the ball as our current centerhalfs, Vertonghen was/is brilliant with it at his feet, yet he still made as many goal-costing errors under AVB/Tim as Dawson did.
Again, i'm not suggesting that either Toby or Verts now need criticism for such things, but it seemed to me that folks always felt (and apparently still do feel) oddly compelled to have a go at Michael Dawson.* I never quite got that.
*and, obviously, some still feel oddly compelled to defend him.
) were that when they didn't hit the man they were over hit and went out of play. At the very least they relieved the pressure on the defence and gave them time to re-organise. For our defence at that time that was often the best way of getting some breathing space.
Did you just quote yourself and respond to your point with an alternative view??
