In the promotion season, and previously, our success was built on a solid defense, in particular the partnership of Fleming and MacKay, and their understanding with Green. The beauty of the pairing, as it was with Forbes and Stringer, and Watson and Bruce, for example, was that their differing styles complemented each other. As a pairing they were greater than the sum of their parts - as I think both their subsequent lack of success demonstrates.
It's not the argument over the sale of Malky that I'm revisiting though - it's really the differing treatment of the two players that mystifies me. Malky was not given even one second of Premiership football - whereas Fleming has started (if memory serves) every single game. I don't really understand this. What exactly did Malky do so wrong, and Fleming do so right? It can hardly be Malky's attitude - there's never been any criticism of that - and if he were a bad apple would Adie Boothroyd have signed him?
Because on the face of it, if one player were to be sold - why wasn't it Fleming? The preferred pairing this time last year was Fleming and Charlton. Two very similar players. We never saw it in practice - but on paper at least MacKay and Charlton looks a better fit than Fleming and Charlton. The team now lacks a leader - that was MacKay not Fleming. The defense is a shambles - yet MacKay was the organiser not Fleming.
So why sell Mackay instead of Fleming?
Posted By: Winged Eel Creosote, Aug 30, 10:36:05
Written & Designed By Ben Graves 1999-2025