Micah..

[stumpy_mcfc]

I would even go so far as to say I would prefer Bobby Manc gave another player his 1st team debut rather than play Micah again.

Classic examples and quotes of people whose whole sense of perspective has been lost because they have developed a severe dislike (and that is being kind) of a player.

He has to go? Where exactly do you think he would go? The Championship? Div 1? Cos I would place my mortgage on clubs challenging for the Champions League being very interested in signing him.

You are sick of seeing him at City? Sick of seeing him at City? Why, because you think he hasn't been playing well? I presume you hold the same complete disregard for Lescott and Barry last season and several others? Or is it just Richards that stirs the ire in you that much? Why's that?

And, hmmm, yeah, a lot of managers do seem to pick him. Strange that. Perhaps they are just sadists.

And the best of the lot, someone would rather see a player, any player, they have never seen or heard of, a mythical player who has never played a first team game, play in the next game than Richards. It doesn't matter who it is, because this person has such a severe dislike of Richards.

As I've said, a complete lack of perspective that, perversely, seems to be reserved for just this single player.

Sad stuff. Some people just haven't got the ability to separate their base emotions from their judgement.

Well said sir ... It seems that folks think we are in a position just to discard and for what? We need to coach players and from I see and hear Mancini is trying to do that.

 

[Damocles]

I completely disagree regarding the central assumption of your argument

i.e. a 'footballing brain' cannot be learnt, yet skills can.

All experience of watching professional footballers develop over the years suggest that it is the other way around.

Of course, some skills can be taught. Tackling can be improved, passing made better, etc but the basic technique of a professional footballer is pretty much set in stone by the time they are twenty. Any improvement in technique and 'skills' past that age is negligible.

Where as, time and again, you will see players, especially defenders, improve their game significantly as they progress through their twenties. Decision making becomes clearer, experience comes into play, coaching makes its mark and they become experienced 'wily' pros.

I don't like using obvious examples because you can drag them up to illustrate whatever you like, but someone like Titus Bramble screams out here.

His decision making and concentration was a national joke during the early part of his career. Now he is a very competent top flight defender. You can go through dozens of other defenders who have improved in a less drastic or public manner to Bramble as their career progressed. It's virtually a given that every defender (and other players) improves the mental and decision making aspect of their game as they progress.

Far from being the one part of the game that cannot be taught, I would counter that it is the one part pf the game that can be most improved by teaching.

Of course, not every player starts from the same position. Alan Hansen most probably might have been a cleverer defender than Richards at 21, making better decisions. But he is acknowledged as one of the cleverest defenders this country has seen in 30 years. He also lacked a lot of attributes that Richards has. Attributes that most certainly cannot be taught.

Now, I'm not saying Richards will ever get to the level of Hansen when it comes to mastering the art of defending. Then again, not many have.

But, unless you are suggesting that Richards is the lowest of the low when it comes to professional footballer and their ability to take teaching on board (and if you are then that would back up what I am saying imo), then it must be ludicrous to suggest that his decision making and that side of his game cannot improve.

To suggest that football intelligence cannot be taught whereas other aspects of the game can, well to me that seems ridiculous and a prime example of a view/statement being made purely because your view of the player is coloured and out of kilter.

I agree with your main point here JMA. Alan Hansen said the other day on MOTD (referring to Walcott) that a footballing brain cannot be taught and is something that you are born with. I simply couldn't disagree more, Paul Scholes would also be a good person to point to for this point.

I've mentioned this in the past, but I have a theory that a wing back isn't actually any good until he is in his late twenties, as positional sense can only really be picked up through experience playing against many different types of players.

I put in another post that it is a shame that Micah tends to make his highest profile mistakes in the late stages of the game which give him very little time on the pitch to go through the process of learning how to deal with it. The fact that all of his most noticable mistakes are late on, point to either a lack of fitness or a lack of concentration. Obviously, just looking at Micah and watching him play shows you that he is fit enough, so it must be mental; something that Mancini has already identified and is stated to be working on with him.

When you are learning something, you very rarely pass with flying colours each and every time. For most of us, it takes time, patience and determination. Micah will make mistakes because he's young, learning and a bit stupid at times. However, he has all of the qualities needed for a top right back, his only major weakness is his lack of concentration.

 

[gio's side step]

there is a difference between skills and abilities. Skills, are things which can be learned, like, tackling, playing one touch/two touch football, heading, etc, however 'reading the game' using a football brain is an ability. Not all players have one. The majority don't. However, the majority are not brain dead when it comes down to it either. Some are far cleverer, i.e. the Alan Hansen type, who don't require pace, they know when to leave the ball, when to step up, they see a picture in front of them, they intercept, but most importantly, and there are better examples than Hansen, they DONT give away cheap free kicks. Why? Because they are smart. They know it takes more discipline and EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE to not go diving in. Arousal is high, its easy to think 'ill twat him', 'take him down', 'give him a nudge', much harder, to stand on your feet.

I completely disagree regarding the central assumption of your argument

i.e. a 'footballing brain' cannot be learnt, yet skills can.

All experience of watching professional footballers develop over the years suggest that it is the other way around.

Of course, some skills can be taught. Tackling can be improved, passing made better, etc but the basic technique of a professional footballer is pretty much set in stone by the time they are twenty. Any improvement in technique and 'skills' past that age is negligible.

Where as, time and again, you will see players, especially defenders, improve their game significantly as they progress through their twenties. Decision making becomes clearer, experience comes into play, coaching makes its mark and they become experienced 'wily' pros.

I don't like using obvious examples because you can drag them up to illustrate whatever you like, but someone like Titus Bramble screams out here.

His decision making and concentration was a national joke during the early part of his career. Now he is a very competent top flight defender. You can go through dozens of other defenders who have improved in a less drastic or public manner to Bramble as their career progressed. It's virtually a given that every defender (and other players) improves the mental and decision making aspect of their game as they progress.

Far from being the one part of the game that cannot be taught, I would counter that it is the one part pf the game that can be most improved by teaching.

Of course, not every player starts from the same position. Alan Hansen most probably might have been a cleverer defender than Richards at 21, making better decisions. But he is acknowledged as one of the cleverest defenders this country has seen in 30 years. He also lacked a lot of attributes that Richards has. Attributes that most certainly cannot be taught.

Now, I'm not saying Richards will ever get to the level of Hansen when it comes to mastering the art of defending. Then again, not many have.

But, unless you are suggesting that Richards is the lowest of the low when it comes to professional footballer and their ability to take teaching on board (and if you are then that would back up what I am saying imo), then it must be ludicrous to suggest that his decision making and that side of his game cannot improve.

To suggest that football intelligence cannot be taught whereas other aspects of the game can, well to me that seems ridiculous and a prime example of a view/statement being made purely because your view of the player is coloured and out of kilter.

You should read again what I say. I am talking about the distinction between skills and abilities. We appear to differ in our perception of the latter. I am certainly suggesting that a football brain is an ability not a skill. Abilities cannot be learned. Fundamental rule of skill acquisition and psychology. You appear to be suggesting a having a football brain is a skill. If not, then I've read wrong, thus I apologise. I referred to many different characteristics. You will get sport psychologists saying emotional intelligence can be improved, but I am very cynical about this. Certainly not a great deal or enough to make a fundamental difference anyway. Discipline, again, itself can be taught, but in Richards case, it hasnt been. Or it has been, and he simply isnt able to take it on board. The football brain part, certainly relates to 'reading the game' more than the other things I mentioned (which he's shit at). 'Reading the game' cannot be taught or learned. Again I completely disagree about relating this to 'experience'. I'm not saying players dont draw on previous experiences as they become more experienced, however, some players, i.e Hansen, Baresi, see the game differently, at a young age. They don't see defending as a mere 'marking a player', 'tackling a player', or 'heading the ball', rather if the defensive line or shape were an orchestra, they use their football brain to conduct it. Richards is a classic case, of a player with an extremely limited football brain. Because his football brain is naturally limited, he often finds himself the wrong side (not goal side), ball watching (linked to poor concentration), arousal levels being higher than emotional intelligence (again related to a lack of a football brain).

Completely disagree about Bramble. He is equally as prone to an error as he has ever been. Might have developed (which wasnt hard considering during his time at Newcastle he was making a mistake EVERY single game), however, he still has lapses in concentration, enough to prevent him from being an top international defender. Defenders may gain experience, and improve decision making with age, but not all defenders go from having a virtually zero football brain, to having either an adequate one, or one at all. Richards does have those skills required to be a competent defender. However, we are looking for more than that now. Contrast him with Kompany, who does have a football brain, is equally as strong and quick. But has more composure, class, concentration, all because he is a. emotionally more intelligence and b. reads the game better.

The conclusion here, is Richards will never be a top level international defender, nor will we progress any further with him in our first team.

 

[halpo123]

you haven`t seen the penalty incident!!!! mr fuckin know it all hasn`t seen the penalty incident.Thought you were a big blue ffs

I'll dress myself in sackcloth and ashes and flagellate myself with wet branches in punishment.

I am very sorry to you, personally, and to Manchester City fans everywhere.

I have let my club down and my forum down.

I am very, very sorry everyone. I will not go away with my family again.

thats okay then ,just dont let it happen again or you really will lose all credibilty

 

[Cambridgeblue]

Classic examples and quotes of people whose whole sense of perspective has been lost because they have developed a severe dislike (and that is being kind) of a player.

He has to go? Where exactly do you think he would go? The Championship? Div 1? Cos I would place my mortgage on clubs challenging for the Champions League being very interested in signing him.

You are sick of seeing him at City? Sick of seeing him at City? Why, because you think he hasn't been playing well? I presume you hold the same complete disregard for Lescott and Barry last season and several others? Or is it just Richards that stirs the ire in you that much? Why's that?

And, hmmm, yeah, a lot of managers do seem to pick him. Strange that. Perhaps they are just sadists.

And the best of the lot, someone would rather see a player, any player, they have never seen or heard of, a mythical player who has never played a first team game, play in the next game than Richards. It doesn't matter who it is, because this person has such a severe dislike of Richards.

As I've said, a complete lack of perspective that, perversely, seems to be reserved for just this single player.

Sad stuff. Some people just haven't got the ability to separate their base emotions from their judgement.

Well said sir ... It seems that folks think we are in a position just to discard and for what? We need to coach players and from I see and hear Mancini is trying to do that.

But it has to be a meritocracy or the whole thing falls apart... you can't favour one player over the others when he has been given numerous chances to prove himself and has failed.

I'm not saying sell him necessarily but let someone else take him on loan and take the risks for his inconsistant performances. We cannot afford to have him in our first team squad as things currently stand because he is too much of a liability. There is no way that Ned should have been farmed out instead of Micah as Ned has very rarely put a foot wrong imho.

 

[gio's side step]

I completely disagree regarding the central assumption of your argument

i.e. a 'footballing brain' cannot be learnt, yet skills can.

All experience of watching professional footballers develop over the years suggest that it is the other way around.

Of course, some skills can be taught. Tackling can be improved, passing made better, etc but the basic technique of a professional footballer is pretty much set in stone by the time they are twenty. Any improvement in technique and 'skills' past that age is negligible.

Where as, time and again, you will see players, especially defenders, improve their game significantly as they progress through their twenties. Decision making becomes clearer, experience comes into play, coaching makes its mark and they become experienced 'wily' pros.

I don't like using obvious examples because you can drag them up to illustrate whatever you like, but someone like Titus Bramble screams out here.

His decision making and concentration was a national joke during the early part of his career. Now he is a very competent top flight defender. You can go through dozens of other defenders who have improved in a less drastic or public manner to Bramble as their career progressed. It's virtually a given that every defender (and other players) improves the mental and decision making aspect of their game as they progress.

Far from being the one part of the game that cannot be taught, I would counter that it is the one part pf the game that can be most improved by teaching.

Of course, not every player starts from the same position. Alan Hansen most probably might have been a cleverer defender than Richards at 21, making better decisions. But he is acknowledged as one of the cleverest defenders this country has seen in 30 years. He also lacked a lot of attributes that Richards has. Attributes that most certainly cannot be taught.

Now, I'm not saying Richards will ever get to the level of Hansen when it comes to mastering the art of defending. Then again, not many have.

But, unless you are suggesting that Richards is the lowest of the low when it comes to professional footballer and their ability to take teaching on board (and if you are then that would back up what I am saying imo), then it must be ludicrous to suggest that his decision making and that side of his game cannot improve.

To suggest that football intelligence cannot be taught whereas other aspects of the game can, well to me that seems ridiculous and a prime example of a view/statement being made purely because your view of the player is coloured and out of kilter.

I agree with your main point here JMA. Alan Hansen said the other day on MOTD (referring to Walcott) that a footballing brain cannot be taught and is something that you are born with. I simply couldn't disagree more, Paul Scholes would also be a good person to point to for this point.

I've mentioned this in the past, but I have a theory that a wing back isn't actually any good until he is in his late twenties, as positional sense can only really be picked up through experience playing against many different types of players.

I put in another post that it is a shame that Micah tends to make his highest profile mistakes in the late stages of the game which give him very little time on the pitch to go through the process of learning how to deal with it. The fact that all of his most noticable mistakes are late on, point to either a lack of fitness or a lack of concentration. Obviously, just looking at Micah and watching him play shows you that he is fit enough, so it must be mental; something that Mancini has already identified and is stated to be working on with him.

When you are learning something, you very rarely pass with flying colours each and every time. For most of us, it takes time, patience and determination. Micah will make mistakes because he's young, learning and a bit stupid at times. However, he has all of the qualities needed for a top right back, his only major weakness is his lack of concentration.

With all due respect, Hansen is correct. A football brain cannot be taught because its an ability. Abilities are not skills. They are not learned. Have no idea whatsoever why you are referring to Scholes. Scholes has always had a football brain. Probably the best football brain of any midfield player this country has produced for years. Do not believe his poor tackles are mistimed. Any top level pro who has played against him will tell you this.

 

[levets]

If your delighted with Richards you must watch the game in Braille,He got mullered against Spurs and was poor for the penalty Sunday.RB is no way his position,he's a better CB,he wont get near when Boateng is fit
Appologies if you didn't see the Spurs game either

I did see the Spurs game. He gave the ball away a few times early on but then settled and had a decent game. Lescott was much the same against Liverpool.

He does make occasional mistakes and I acknowledge that if we are to have any chance of a tilt at the title we can't afford error prone players. You get players who are strong and you get players who are quick but you very rarely get players who are both. He is. I wouldnt' be surprised if he ended up at centre half.

I don't mind you and the likes of gio making constructive comments like this, that's what the forum's for. And if Boateng's back he may well be first choice. I haven't seen enough of him yet to know for sure.

But I think people are looking at Richards far too closely and waiting for him to make errors. And I can't stand the mindless abuse, usually containing the phrases "fat arse", "brain dead" and "bling". He'd be in my team ahead of Zabaleta any day. Zabaleta has a slim arse but he can't run so he gets done by pacy fullbacks, or brings them down.

Zabaleta has a slim arse but he can't run so he gets done by pacy fullbacks, or brings them down.
===================================

Agree with this... Zabba is an even bigger liability in my opinion. The reason successive managers prefer Richards is because Richards can head the ball and has more presence..

 

[Unknown_Genius]

I did see the Spurs game. He gave the ball away a few times early on but then settled and had a decent game. Lescott was much the same against Liverpool.

He does make occasional mistakes and I acknowledge that if we are to have any chance of a tilt at the title we can't afford error prone players. You get players who are strong and you get players who are quick but you very rarely get players who are both. He is. I wouldnt' be surprised if he ended up at centre half.

I don't mind you and the likes of gio making constructive comments like this, that's what the forum's for. And if Boateng's back he may well be first choice. I haven't seen enough of him yet to know for sure.

But I think people are looking at Richards far too closely and waiting for him to make errors. And I can't stand the mindless abuse, usually containing the phrases "fat arse", "brain dead" and "bling". He'd be in my team ahead of Zabaleta any day. Zabaleta has a slim arse but he can't run so he gets done by pacy fullbacks, or brings them down.

Zabaleta has a slim arse but he can't run so he gets done by pacy fullbacks, or brings them down.
===================================

Agree with this... Zabba is an even bigger liability in my opinion. The reason successive managers prefer Richards is because Richards can head the ball and has more presence..

I partly agree with that. I think Richards does get the nod most times over Zabaleta because of his physical presence. If Boateng isn't back for the Blackburn game, I can see Richards starting, because of Blackburn's aerial threat. However I disagree he's a bigger liability, even though he is a liability defensively. Zabaleta offers more attacking than Richards, he can put in a quality cross, and is more technically gifted. One of my big gripes with Richards, is that he never puts in a good cross, he always takes the easy pass, which is usually backwards, slowing down the attacking move. Set-pieces provide his best chance to attack, and even then, he never uses his strength and leap to the best.

 

[Didsbury Dave]

I partly agree with that. I think Richards does get the nod most times over Zabaleta because of his physical presence.

Partly, but it's mainly his pace.

If you have a slow fullback and a pacy winger you're in big trouble.

 

[nu774ll]

How was Micah not sent off sunday? considering he was last man??