Kolarov

[Seosa]

Damn straight about Dzeko. Why put on two wingers, Clichy and Johnson and have them aim for the giant dwarf Tevez?

Zabaleta did not challenge his counter part even once. Yes, I watched the whole thing with that in mind - he didn't challenge a single time. Anyone seeing Richards being equally timid? I doubt it. Richards is like a fucking force of nature, equally terrifying as Toure when he gets his speed up.

If I could only replace ONE of the fullbacks yesterday, it would be Zabaleta for Richards. Zab's attacking play was atrocious. While Kolarov's attacking play was non-existent. Not sure which is worse.

Zabs was one of our best players yet you would've dropped him and kept Kolarov on? Jesus wept...

Explain to me exactly how Zab was one of our best players? Because other than your opinion I saw no evidence of it watching the game. 3 times, now. His defending was ok, his forward runs were non existent and his crossing was poor.

Jesus wept for the blind.

His defending was superb, Kolarov's was pathetic. His attacking isn't his strong point but he did a job, Kolarov's is vastly overrated. Would Micah have offered a better attacking option? Yes. Defensively they are both superb, but the simple matter is Kolarov's only contribution was his goal, Clichy has to be our No.1 left back. A Defender's job is in the name, he must be able to defend, his attacking play comes 2nd although he must do it well. Kolarov's defensive skills are inept and his attacking play may have excelled in Italy but not over here, even against an Italian side. I'm not using Kolarov as a scapegoat, I'm simply pointing out his weaknesses.

 

[Asa's left peg]

Was'nt Zabs best all round game but still did well. He was left isolated in the first half and they got at him. It was a difficult night for him but he came through it. The block and interceptions on the edge of our box in the second half were vital and although not as strong as Mica he has a better defensive brain, especially against european opposition.
As for attacking - he got forward quite a lot in the second half and won the free kick for the goal.
He'll never be world class - but he very rarey lets us down.

 

[Comrade Buka]

His defending was superb, Kolarov's was pathetic. His attacking isn't his strong point 1.) but he did a job, Kolarov's is vastly overrated. Would Micah have offered a better attacking option? 2.) Yes. Defensively they are both superb, but the simple matter is Kolarov's only contribution was his goal, Clichy has to be our No.1 left back. 3.) A Defender's job is in the name, he must be able to defend, his attacking play comes 2nd although he must do it well. Kolarov's defensive skills are inept and his attacking play may have excelled in Italy but not over here, even against an Italian side. 4.) I'm not using Kolarov as a scapegoat, I'm simply pointing out his weaknesses.

So you can actually make an argument, instead of that snide Jesus wept. Good for you.

1. His attacking was shite. If you can't tell that from watching the game again I can only assume you are wearing Zab tinted glass. Feel free to refer us to a quality cross that Zab put in.

However, Kolarovs attacking was even more shite. Well, actually, it was non existent. 2 crosses in 74 minutes is just embarrassing.

2. Damn straight he would. My reasoning is: If you can only pick ONE of our fullbacks that could have made a difference in the game, that would be Richards. I rate him as our best fullback. Clichy is close second, but Richards is stronger going forward. Obviously, if I had the choice to pick both I would have. Playing with two defensive minded fullbacks at home is overly cautious. And we suffered for it.

3. A central defenders job is to defend. A fullbacks job is to defend AND attack. Especially when you are playing with no natural wingers and the middle of the park is completely congested. In the modern game, the fullbacks offer an attacking option. If we were playing Barcelona away I could see why defensive duties would be the more pressing quality. But we did not, we played Napoli at home. A game we should win. A tough game, sure, but still a must win for us.

4. I am not using Zab nor Kolarov as a scapegoat. It's not their job to pick the team. I believe that's the managers job. Correct me if I am wrong.

5. When you attack through the middle for the main part of the game and it fails, you have to change it up much earlier. 74th minute just isn't good enough. Especially when Platt says "we lack width" in half time. Simply not good enough. We went stale in the 50th minute or there about. it's the manager's job to mix it up.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

His defending was superb, Kolarov's was pathetic. His attacking isn't his strong point 1.) but he did a job, Kolarov's is vastly overrated. Would Micah have offered a better attacking option? 2.) Yes. Defensively they are both superb, but the simple matter is Kolarov's only contribution was his goal, Clichy has to be our No.1 left back. 3.) A Defender's job is in the name, he must be able to defend, his attacking play comes 2nd although he must do it well. Kolarov's defensive skills are inept and his attacking play may have excelled in Italy but not over here, even against an Italian side. 4.) I'm not using Kolarov as a scapegoat, I'm simply pointing out his weaknesses.

So you can actually make an argument, instead of that snide Jesus wept. Good for you.

1. His attacking was shite. If you can't tell that from watching the game again I can only assume you are wearing Zab tinted glass. Feel free to refer us to a quality cross that Zab put in.

However, Kolarovs attacking was even more shite. Well, actually, it was non existent. 2 crosses in 74 minutes is just embarrassing.

2. Damn straight he would. My reasoning is: If you can only pick ONE of our fullbacks that could have made a difference in the game, that would be Richards. I rate him as our best fullback. Clichy is close second, but Richards is stronger going forward. Obviously, if I had the choice to pick both I would have. Playing with two defensive minded fullbacks at home is overly cautious. And we suffered for it.

3. A central defenders job is to defend. A fullbacks job is to defend AND attack. Especially when you are playing with no natural wingers and the middle of the park is completely congested. In the modern game, the fullbacks offer an attacking option. If we were playing Barcelona away I could see why defensive duties would be the more pressing quality. But we did not, we played Napoli at home. A game we should win. A tough game, sure, but still a must win for us.

4. I am not using Zab nor Kolarov as a scapegoat. It's not their job to pick the team. I believe that's the managers job. Correct me if I am wrong.

5. When you attack through the middle for the main part of the game and it fails, you have to change it up much earlier. 74th minute just isn't good enough. Especially when Platt says "we lack width" in half time. Simply not good enough. We went stale in the 50th minute or there about. it's the manager's job to mix it up.

You know your football, mate. That's exactly as I saw it too. We all commented that the full backs were the wrong selections at kick off, itwas obvious as the game progressed that the congestion int he middle was causing us problems. The changes he made were the right ones but he only made them at 1-0 down. Should have been much earlier.

 

[Danamy]

His defending was superb, Kolarov's was pathetic. His attacking isn't his strong point 1.) but he did a job, Kolarov's is vastly overrated. Would Micah have offered a better attacking option? 2.) Yes. Defensively they are both superb, but the simple matter is Kolarov's only contribution was his goal, Clichy has to be our No.1 left back. 3.) A Defender's job is in the name, he must be able to defend, his attacking play comes 2nd although he must do it well. Kolarov's defensive skills are inept and his attacking play may have excelled in Italy but not over here, even against an Italian side. 4.) I'm not using Kolarov as a scapegoat, I'm simply pointing out his weaknesses.

So you can actually make an argument, instead of that snide Jesus wept. Good for you.

1. His attacking was shite. If you can't tell that from watching the game again I can only assume you are wearing Zab tinted glass. Feel free to refer us to a quality cross that Zab put in.

However, Kolarovs attacking was even more shite. Well, actually, it was non existent. 2 crosses in 74 minutes is just embarrassing.

2. Damn straight he would. My reasoning is: If you can only pick ONE of our fullbacks that could have made a difference in the game, that would be Richards. I rate him as our best fullback. Clichy is close second, but Richards is stronger going forward. Obviously, if I had the choice to pick both I would have. Playing with two defensive minded fullbacks at home is overly cautious. And we suffered for it.

3. A central defenders job is to defend. A fullbacks job is to defend AND attack. Especially when you are playing with no natural wingers and the middle of the park is completely congested. In the modern game, the fullbacks offer an attacking option. If we were playing Barcelona away I could see why defensive duties would be the more pressing quality. But we did not, we played Napoli at home. A game we should win. A tough game, sure, but still a must win for us.

4. I am not using Zab nor Kolarov as a scapegoat. It's not their job to pick the team. I believe that's the managers job. Correct me if I am wrong.

5. When you attack through the middle for the main part of the game and it fails, you have to change it up much earlier. 74th minute just isn't good enough. Especially when Platt says "we lack width" in half time. Simply not good enough. We went stale in the 50th minute or there about. it's the manager's job to mix it up.

Good post but be careful as some posters will be sharpening the pitchforks as we speak

 

[Tricky_Trev]

We all love Zab, but he only helps the team if he's got a winger infront of him (Johnson), as he can't be relied upon to provide ALL our width down the right. As soon as i saw how Napoli had set up, i wanted Zab to be subbed off. It was still the 1st minute of the match, but why waste time with ineffective tactics? Make the tactical change straight away, explain to Zab, "i didn't think they'd set up so narrow. It's nothing personal, i just think Micah can get in behind them." Then win the game.

 

[shikariblue]

His defending was superb, Kolarov's was pathetic. His attacking isn't his strong point 1.) but he did a job, Kolarov's is vastly overrated. Would Micah have offered a better attacking option? 2.) Yes. Defensively they are both superb, but the simple matter is Kolarov's only contribution was his goal, Clichy has to be our No.1 left back. 3.) A Defender's job is in the name, he must be able to defend, his attacking play comes 2nd although he must do it well. Kolarov's defensive skills are inept and his attacking play may have excelled in Italy but not over here, even against an Italian side. 4.) I'm not using Kolarov as a scapegoat, I'm simply pointing out his weaknesses.

So you can actually make an argument, instead of that snide Jesus wept. Good for you.

1. His attacking was shite. If you can't tell that from watching the game again I can only assume you are wearing Zab tinted glass. Feel free to refer us to a quality cross that Zab put in.

However, Kolarovs attacking was even more shite. Well, actually, it was non existent. 2 crosses in 74 minutes is just embarrassing.

2. Damn straight he would. My reasoning is: If you can only pick ONE of our fullbacks that could have made a difference in the game, that would be Richards. I rate him as our best fullback. Clichy is close second, but Richards is stronger going forward. Obviously, if I had the choice to pick both I would have. Playing with two defensive minded fullbacks at home is overly cautious. And we suffered for it.

3. A central defenders job is to defend. A fullbacks job is to defend AND attack. Especially when you are playing with no natural wingers and the middle of the park is completely congested. In the modern game, the fullbacks offer an attacking option. If we were playing Barcelona away I could see why defensive duties would be the more pressing quality. But we did not, we played Napoli at home. A game we should win. A tough game, sure, but still a must win for us.

4. I am not using Zab nor Kolarov as a scapegoat. It's not their job to pick the team. I believe that's the managers job. Correct me if I am wrong.

5. When you attack through the middle for the main part of the game and it fails, you have to change it up much earlier. 74th minute just isn't good enough. Especially when Platt says "we lack width" in half time. Simply not good enough. We went stale in the 50th minute or there about. it's the manager's job to mix it up.

You know your football, mate. That's exactly as I saw it too. We all commented that the full backs were the wrong selections at kick off, itwas obvious as the game progressed that the congestion int he middle was causing us problems. The changes he made were the right ones but he only made them at 1-0 down. Should have been much earlier.

Definatly 1-1 seeing as Kolorov scored and was brought off first.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Definatly 1-1 seeing as Kolorov scored and was brought off first.

Yes it was, but the subs were ready to come on on the touchline when Kolorov scored. So it was going 1-0 down which triggered the change. Credit to the manager for waiting until after the freekick to bring Kolorov off. That worked.

 

[Comrade Buka]

Good post but be careful as some posters will be sharpening the pitchforks as we speak

Bring it on I say. I am up for a good argument any time. The facts about the Napoli game are there for everyone to see. Download the game and watch it. There is no denying our fullbacks offered little to nothing going forward. "He did a good job" is not a fact based argument. It's an opinion, unless you substantiate that opinion with facts.

There is also no denying the changes were made too late. I thought Mancini would make a sub in half time after hearing Platt's comment. But alas...

 

[Didsbury Dave]

Good post but be careful as some posters will be sharpening the pitchforks as we speak

Bring it on I say. I am up for a good argument any time. The facts about the Napoli game are there for everyone to see. Download the game and watch it. There is no denying our fullbacks offered little to nothing going forward. "He did a good job" is not a fact based argument. It's an opinion, unless you substantiate that opinion with facts.

There is also no denying the changes were made too late. I thought Mancini would make a sub in half time after hearing Platt's comment. But alas...

Looks like The Cabal has a new member. Welcome to Blue Moon mate. Free thinkers always welcome.