Swalker Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 I've been having this discussion with people now for a few weeks. Konchesky has been slowly getting poorer and has been showing his age. He gets caught out 2 or 3 times a game and isn't much stronger than Berner. When he gets forward he doesn't tend to do much unless he puts a cross in which are decent but he never shows the pace to get back in time. His long range shots are wasteful. What does Konchesky have over Berner except from the price tag?
Kitchandro Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Berner was better in his day than Konchesky is now, but I wager you didn't take much notice of Berner last season. His legs have gone and he isn't up to playing any more than a bit part role. I'm not a big fan of Konchesky, his lack of pace can be hinderence and he's pretty useless going forward. Having said that he's pretty solid most of the time. Now if you want to discuss Ball v Berner, that might be a different matter.
Corky Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Berner of two years ago was one of our best players, but last season he looked off the pace and slower. Konchesky is rightly ahead of him.
Guest NGoloMode Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Berner is finished here as a player sadly.
Fox92 Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 I thought Konchesky started slow, then he seemed to pick up a bit. Ok, I did blame him for West Ham's second goal on Saturday, but I wouldn't say he has exactly been worser than anybody else - bringing Berner is not a good idea in my opinion, but I see your opinion and where you are coming from.
Swalker Posted 1 November 2011 Author Posted 1 November 2011 If not Berner. I thought we would have gone in for Cunningham in the pre season
Burmesefox Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Fookingaida, I dont get this knocking Konch. He's the fans favourite to have a go at and it's just lazy. He does a decent job at left back PLUS he gets forward a lot more so than Pelts (who I think is a great player). The problem is we have no width and so that is left to Pelts and Konch. Konch is improving all the time for me but he is covering a role and a half in my opinion.
cc_star Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Berner didn't fit in last season because pacey full backs were called for So Berner Vs Cunningham, Mee & PVA (who was shit) didn't stand a chance, but seeing as Konch makes massive defensive mistakes every game & offers nothing going forward other than a long diagonal hoof, I think Berner is well worth a look, he would have been better than SSl at LCB too Peltier embarrases Konch everyday of the week & twice on matchdays... Wonder if we can try Pelts or Pantsil there (although Pants has looked shakey too)
Fox92 Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 The problem is we have no width and so that is left to Pelts and Konch. Konch is improving all the time for me but he is covering a role and a half in my opinion. Spot on. Becuase of the lack of width, the full backs have lack of support and they have to play like a wing back at times.
Thracian Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Spot on. Becuase of the lack of width, the full backs have lack of support and they have to play like a wing back at times. That's exactly right and one of our major problems is that neither of our full-backs are good enough as wing-backs. In attacking mode they don't have the pace, the skill or the accuracy necessary for a good final ball. They're both makeweights as attackers. Both try hard enough, no question. But they're just not effective enough or fast enough to recover from attacking positions without proper help.
Swalker Posted 1 November 2011 Author Posted 1 November 2011 * I said he was quality didn't I :scarf:
Kitchandro Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 You picked the wrong night to start this thread
lcfcnoely Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 I've been having this discussion with people now for a few weeks. Konchesky has been slowly getting poorer and has been showing his age. He gets caught out 2 or 3 times a game and isn't much stronger than Berner. When he gets forward he doesn't tend to do much unless he puts a cross in which are decent but he never shows the pace to get back in time. His long range shots are wasteful. What does Konchesky have over Berner except from the price tag? That shot wasnt wasteful haha!
Swalker Posted 1 November 2011 Author Posted 1 November 2011 You picked the wrong night to start this thread . Yeh I know, so useless :frusty: bring back Bruno!!!!!!!!!!!!! :ph34r:
blueredswed Posted 1 November 2011 Posted 1 November 2011 Berner was better in his day than Konchesky is now, but I wager you didn't take much notice of Berner last season. His legs have gone and he isn't up to playing any more than a bit part role. I'm not a big fan of Konchesky, his lack of pace can be hinderence and he's pretty useless going forward. Having said that he's pretty solid most of the time. Now if you want to discuss Ball v Berner, that might be a different matter. Good luck with yore wisdome in the future Konchesky - Burnley 1-0
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.