I know people will say that we needed defenders in the summer due to the 50 goals we conceded last season but was it the right call to recruit in that position over midfield and attack this summer? I would say that that was a poor decision to make, particularly when you are trying to keep hold of your job. The fact of the matter is we needed to at least be somewhat entertaining this season, but we decided to spend most of the money on defenders. Let us be honest, the vast majority of entertainment comes from the midfield and attack. The defence is just another part of the game, but nobody would solely go to watch a team of defenders play against each other. The attack and midfield are where goals are scored and created, and fluid play is generated. The other issue of focusing on defence is the maximum you can get out of that is a draw. They are not going to win you games but just stop you from losing. The attack and midfield, on the other hand, can score goals, which is the actual aim of the game. The 50 goals conceded were not solely down to the defence, but also our inept midfield, which is even worse now that we have to start the likes of McTominay. Improving the midfield would likely have lessened the goals we conceded due to the team's ability to assert itself on games more. Teams should be built on a solid attack and midfield. With only a solid defence, the team is going to struggle to assert itself on games, fail to create chances and goals. Yes, we need defenders eventually, but it was just another bad idea to prioritise it over attack and midfield. I think if we had chosen to sign players for midfield and attack first, we would be seeing more entertaining play and better results (although, obviously not perfect). This would have seemed far more promising.