So if you look over the past month or two - Gorrin would definitely have helped us in the three games we lost (Pompey, Bolton, Accrington). I think Gorrin would have played most of the away games and tough home games. And at times, Herbie's defensive deficiencies (and tendency to overplay) were exposed in those games.
But the counterargument would probably be that Gorrin would also have played at Charlton, and there he might have held us back. Our defense was solid enough at the Valley against a toothless attack, and we were glorious in attack......if we'd have had to sacrifice one of our more attacking players to accommodate ARG, then we might have been slightly less glorious.
Against the likes of Cambridge and Burton, he would likely have warmed the bench for most of the 90. Maybe come on to shore things up at the end.
Let's be honest, if the Shrews had any attacking ability, we'd have been in trouble yesterday - because they got in behind us down the flanks an absolute ton. Thankfully they were utterly inept in the final third so we were able to steal the 3 points. But if we could have had ARG shoring us up defensively, instead of the ineffectual Holland, then I think we would have been better placed - because we would have made things tougher for them going forwards AND because his defensive responsibility would have allowed Cam and the Wing Backs to pour forwards with a little more confidence.
I'm not going to argue the general point of gung ho attacking vs. defensive solidity, because I promised I wouldn't and would just roll with it for the rest of the season!
But the one thing that is inarguable is that, because of KR's squad construction, we don't have options. Gung Ho attacking is the only way we can play because you can count the number of players who are talented defensively on one hand.....and most of them weren't available yesterday!
