Kolarov (merged)

[Mancio]

My view is pretty simple. Micah is the best overall. Kolarov is best for games where we don't need defensive brilliance and is adequate for games which require a strong defence but where he's not up against a pacy winger. Clichy is better otherwise. Zaba is immense and love having him as a squad player and I trust him to provide decent defensive cover on either flank and ain't half bad going forward on the right either and makes a lot of decent overlapping runs.

i agree with almost this all. but , believe me mate , you are seriously overrating richards.

 

[zeven]

If Kolarov is that bad as a defender, how come he was a vital part of the best defense in europe last year?

And dont tell me, you can have the best defence, with one of the worst fullbacks around.

 

[Skashion]

i agree with almost this all. but , believe me mate , you are seriously overrating richards.

I don't believe you I'm afraid. I don't value your opinion because I do not trust you to make an impartial assessment. I'm also wary of the fact that you most likely have never seen him in the flesh, whereas I spend forty-five minutes every home game within talking distance of him. I'm also wary of the fact that you probably never watched him before Mancini came here. I'm also wary that you said his final ball is poor and yet he's made more assists than Kolarov whose final balls we both rate...

In case you haven't noticed, I'm wary of your judgement. I'm just making you aware of that.

 

[Mancio]

i agree with almost this all. but , believe me mate , you are seriously overrating richards.

I don't believe you I'm afraid. I don't value your opinion because I do not trust you to make an impartial assessment. I'm also wary of the fact that you most likely have never seen him in the flesh, whereas I spend forty-five minutes every home game within talking distance of him. I'm also wary of the fact that you probably never watched him before Mancini came here. I'm also wary that you said his final ball is poor and yet he's made more assists than Kolarov whose final balls we both rate...

In case you haven't noticed, I'm wary of your judgement. I'm just making you aware of that.

the bolded part is out of my understanding mate, we can agree or disagree on anything , it's normal i think . what really i can't understand is why the hell should'nt i be impartial ??

 

[Marvin]

If Kolarov is that bad as a defender, how come he was a vital part of the best defense in europe last year?

And dont tell me, you can have the best defence, with one of the worst fullbacks around.

Kolarov got the sponsors mom and was my mom as well and that says so much for a full back to get that award in such a good attacking team.

However I think he is a very good defender as well.

He had a couple of poor games after a lengthy absence but that can happen to anyone.

 

[MC ID]

I think i'd agree with most people that Clichy is the better player, but I really do rate Kolarov and I think he's a great character. Personally I'd like to see him in our midfield at some point, i'm sure we did this once and it went quite well, he has the passing and attacking ability for such a role. Oh, and most importantly it would mean hopefully for chances to see his cannon.

 

[Marvin]

Kolarov has 10 league starts to Clichy's 17, but Kolarov was injured for a month.

I don't know who is better. City did well to buy two good left backs.

 

[bennyboy]

kolorov stats.

For games played his stats for assists and goals scored must be pretty impressive.
Saw some stat on here the other week where Silva had the best for assists,Kolorov must run him close though percentage wise though.

 

[The_Mo]

Why are we arguing when we can just sit back and admire the qualities of both. In some games we will definitely need Clichy (quick wingers), and in others we can play Kolarov. One is better at defending than the other. And the other one is better at attacking.

 

[Skashion]

the bolded part is out of my understanding mate, we can agree or disagree on anything , it's normal i think . what really i can't understand is why the hell should'nt i be impartial ??

You should be impartial but I don't think you are. I think you're biased towards players Mancini has signed because you're a Mancini fan more than a City fan. I am a City fan and only think about the interests of City. I like Mancini, more than any other manager we've had while I've been alive, but the end of the day if he leaves I'm staying right here. You've followed him here because you like Mancini. I don't really understand that but I won't judge you for it but what it does mean is that I will always think that you're letting that get in the way of your judgement. What it boils down to is that if Mancini had signed Richards and Kolarov had been here before Mancini arrived, you'd be saying Richards is the better player.