Not One Player's Fault

There’s a lazy tendency to point a finger at one centre-half when the defence concedes. To be fair, it’s an easy narrative. But blaming one man for a team's defensive problems doesn’t stand up to a little scrutiny.

Context matters more than soundbites

If recruitment is the issue, the obvious question is why no replacement was brought in during January when funds were apparently available. That’s a fair gripe, but it’s a club-level decision — not the single player’s fault. Managers and the recruitment team decide priorities and budgets, and we fans don’t see all of that. You can argue those choices, but you can’t pin them on the man playing the shirt.

It’s rarely just one mistake

Look at the Livingston game — as you said, the player conceded free kicks that led to goals, but there was time to organise the defence after those set-pieces. Who missed the pass down the channel? Who got under the ball for the first? Who failed to pick up the runner for the second? Those are collective failings. A centre-half can be culpable, of course, but usually the cause is higher up the pitch or elsewhere in the defensive structure.

Selection and hierarchy

We also have to accept the manager’s view. If Rohl keeps picking him, there’s a reason — training performance, tactical fit, squad balance or even European registration considerations. Fans can suspect a player is only there for a quota, and that might be true in some cases, but selection for domestic matches suggests the manager still trusts him in certain scenarios.

So yes, question recruitment and ask for accountability. But don’t let single-match chatter turn into the myth that one defender is solely responsible for systemic problems. Football is messy. Blame can be shared, and often should be.

Written by Angus1812: 7 March 2026