That,s his dna though. I actually thi nk he is our best cb atm, never hides and wears his heart on his sleeve. For every rash tackle, he makes up for it with decisive ones. He is what he is, and I am grateful he plays for us.He was more disciplined 2nd half that final challenge for the free kick aside. I think there is a really good defender in there but I just think he needs to hold off on the rash challenges
That,s his dna though. I actually thi nk he is our best cb atm, never hides and wears his heart on his sleeve. For every rash tackle, he makes up for it with decisive ones. He is what he is, and I am grateful he plays for us.
He has his faults but you realise how good he is when he's not there - eg Leicester.
Puyol was pretty reckless at times
Puyol was 10x the defender Otamendi will ever be, and when he did last-gasp stuff it was because it genuinely had to be done, not because he couldn't resist.
Our best natural centre back by a damn mile(Reckon Sagna would be v good there) and it's about damn time we started appreciating him.
No, no, no, no.
Otamendi wouldn't have stopped a single goal we conceded against Leicester. We conceded vs Leicester because the team wasn't compact enough and we lost the second balls - that's why Guardiola had them do 2 hours a day practising defending that. That's why he mentioned it in his interview with Henry, in his pre-match press conference and in his post-match press conference.
1st goal, ball drops to Mahrez in acres of space in midfield - nothing to do with Otamendi's absence, everything to do with the team being too spread out.
2nd goal, ball drops to King because the team is too spread out.
3rd goal, Vardy is much faster than Otamendi anyway, if he can't keep up with Costa vs. Chelsea he's got no chance vs. Vardy.
4th goal, Stones back pass, nothing he'd have done to stop it.
I didn't say Otamendi would have prevented all of Leicester's goals. I said we missed him badly, which we did.
Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagreeThat's not good enough. If he doesn't shake off the recklessness then he will be out the door. Guardiola's entire defensive thinking revolves around having calm defenders who stick to the tasks assigned to them and don't do things like gamble on a tackle and leave gaping holes if they miss.
Look at the prototypical Guardiola defenders from his career so far, and none of them are gamblers like Otamendi.
It might be what you like about Otamendi, the fact he makes up for the bad tackles with a good one, but Pep won't keep him around if he carries on like that.
Fair enough, we will have to agree to disagree
If by "missed him badly" you mean "he wouldn't have made a single bit of difference", then yes I agree.
I think you're causing an argument when there really isn't one to be had.
It's a bit disingenuous to leap from me saying we missed him to "he wouldn't have made a single bit of difference" just because hypothetically he might not have prevented the goals.
Would he have played better than Kolarov? I believe so. Would he have played better than Stones? I believe so. That doesn't mean I think Otamendi would have saved the day and turned a heavy defeat into a rousing victory.
You're being a bit contrary for the sake of being a smart arse.