lgfualol Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Thought Drinkwater was great. Looked a lot better than his previous prem games. . King Cambi and Drinkwater are a good outfit.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Let's be honest though, Cambiasso can have the game of his life but if he's at fault for the goal in a game where we lost by one goal, it's irrelevant how well he's played. Collectively it was poor defending which is a common theme, but I'd say it's his man and he doesn't track him. Cambiasso's mistake. I wouldn't bother arguing with folk on here. Well no, he's at the left centre back position, where Simpson should be - Simpson has to pick him up. I don't expect you or col to understand that because you're both a bit simple and don't understand football but in this goal he's not a runner from midfield, he's playing as a striker, which makes him the centre backs man: wasyls man normally, but Wes is covering Simpson, Wasyl covering Wes and so Simpson should be covering Wasyl and picking up the striker. He doesn't and the striker scores.
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Well no, he's at the left centre back position, where Simpson should be - Simpson has to pick him up. I don't expect you or col to understand that because you're both a bit simple and don't understand football but in this goal he's not a runner from midfield, he's playing as a striker, which makes him the centre backs man: wasyls man normally, but Wes is covering Simpson, Wasyl covering Wes and so Simpson should be covering Wasyl and picking up the striker. He doesn't and the striker scores. But Cambiasso's head dropped? How can you possibly explain that without him being the one directly responsible for the goal?
ScouseFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 like I said it's mainly wes's fault for letting someone as good as nasri turn, then run, then get in the box and then cross it. criminal.
Dickov22 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Well no, he's at the left centre back position, where Simpson should be - Simpson has to pick him up. I don't expect you or col to understand that because you're both a bit simple and don't understand football but in this goal he's not a runner from midfield, he's playing as a striker, which makes him the centre backs man: wasyls man normally, but Wes is covering Simpson, Wasyl covering Wes and so Simpson should be covering Wasyl and picking up the striker. He doesn't and the striker scores. Thanks for the insults. Watch the game back, and watch where Lampard runs from. The centre circle. He's a midfielder and should therefore be tracked by a midfielder. Yes, there's fault with the whole back line of ours. All pointing at each other, no one taking responsibility. But it was Cambiasso's man.
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 One thing I would say is that as much as the move to 4-1-4-1 made us look more solid our record of scoring in games where we play anything other than 4-4-2 is dreadful. Aside from the Manchester United game, we have scored 1 goal all season playing anything other than 4-4-2 (Ulloa at Stoke). If we play 3 in central midfield then King absolutely has to be one of them. His role has changed over the last few years but we all know how effective he can be breaking into the box supporting a striker. In fact, his best goalscoring season was under Sven when we were playing 4-3-3 precisely for that reason.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 But Cambiasso's head dropped? How can you possibly explain that without him being the one directly responsible for the goal? I'm no psychologist, but probably because his team conceded a goal? Thanks for the insults. Watch the game back, and watch where Lampard runs from. The centre circle. He's a midfielder and should therefore be tracked by a midfielder. Yes, there's fault with the whole back line of ours. All pointing at each other, no one taking responsibility. But it was Cambiasso's man. Eh, if you don't want to be called a moron, don't act like one. Because we were on the attack, he takes up a position on the halfway line, like a striker. He starts pushing forward the moment they win the ball back, like a striker. If because he was on the halfway line when they won the ball, that makes it a run from midfield, then every goal a striker gets from a counter attack is a midfielders goal. He positioned himself the way Nugent did last season, as a support striker. It's quite clearly Simpsons fault for being woefully out of position and putting Wes up against nasri, then ignoring wasyls attempts to organise the defence
ScouseFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I'm no psychologist, but probably because his team conceded a goal? WRONG! It's because he personally conceded a goal. Silly you.
Dickov22 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I'm no psychologist, but probably because his team conceded a goal? Eh, if you don't want to be called a moron, don't act like one. Because we were on the attack, he takes up a position on the halfway line, like a striker. He starts pushing forward the moment they win the ball back, like a striker. If because he was on the halfway line when they won the ball, that makes it a run from midfield, then every goal a striker gets from a counter attack is a midfielders goal. He positioned himself the way Nugent did last season, as a support striker. It's quite clearly Simpsons fault for being woefully out of position and putting Wes up against nasri, then ignoring wasyls attempts to organise the defence So just because we have a difference of opinion over who was culpable for the goal, I'm a moron? And don't make out I have some kind of vendetta against Cambiasso; I gave him a 7, better than most. I think he was at fault for the goal, along with the whole defence. But mainly him.
Number 6 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Worst thing about the goal is I watched lampard stroll in to edge of 6 yard box. No one looked at him once. Atrocious.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 So just because we have a difference of opinion over who was culpable for the goal, I'm a moron? And don't make out I have some kind of vendetta against Cambiasso; I gave him a 7, better than most. I think he was at fault for the goal, along with the whole defence. But mainly him. No, that you think that a strikers goal is a midfielders goal because it came from a counter makes you a moron.
Bettsj2 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I'm no psychologist, but probably because his team conceded a goal? Eh, if you don't want to be called a moron, don't act like one. Because we were on the attack, he takes up a position on the halfway line, like a striker. He starts pushing forward the moment they win the ball back, like a striker. If because he was on the halfway line when they won the ball, that makes it a run from midfield, then every goal a striker gets from a counter attack is a midfielders goal. He positioned himself the way Nugent did last season, as a support striker. It's quite clearly Simpsons fault for being woefully out of position and putting Wes up against nasri, then ignoring wasyls attempts to organise the defence Simpson had to cover that space and not Lampard. If Nasri went past Morgan, Simpson would have to engage. Morgan followed Nasri out there. Mahrez or another midfielder should really have covered him to prevent the defence losing its shape. Once in that situation, Was as the central defender needed to take responsibility for loose players in the box by either, engaging himself or passing Lampard on to the covering midfielder (Cambiasso). On that one occassion 5 of our players didnt really do what they should. You cant really lay the blame at one player.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 So just because we have a difference of opinion over who was culpable for the goal, I'm a moron? And don't make out I have some kind of vendetta against Cambiasso; I gave him a 7, better than most. I think he was at fault for the goal, along with the whole defence. But mainly him.Spot on buddy.Its clear as crystal. Those that don't see it, don't want to see it. Its a 'defensive' problem yes, but it started in the central area. It's the usual suspects dismissing it isn't it? No surprise there. Don't forget that Cambiasso is still world class and Mahrez sensational. Etc etc etc.. They use 'moron' simply to deflect any sort of argument. Ive seen it a thousand times.
Fez of Mahrez Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Half the team are culpable for ball-watching but Konchesky is the one who can see both the ball and Lampard as the cross is about to come in. He's the one best placed to do something about it.
Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Half the team are culpable for ball-watching but Konchesky is the one who can see both the ball and Lampard as the cross is about to come in. He's the one best placed to do something about it. Yeah but did Konchesky's head drop when the ball went in?
MC Prussian Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Spot on buddy. Its clear as crystal. Those that don't see it, don't want to see it. Its a 'defensive' problem yes, but it started in the central area. It's the usual suspects dismissing it isn't it? No surprise there. Don't forget that Cambiasso is still world class and Mahrez sensational. Etc etc etc.. They use 'moron' simply to deflect any sort of argument. Ive seen it a thousand times. No, it really isn't. You'll get several opinions on the same incident, a majority of them agreeing on one scenario. And then there is you.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 No, it really isn't. You'll get several opinions on the same incident, a majority of them agreeing on one scenario. And then there is you. No, I'm sorry. I've said there were a series of defensive errors involved. But its clear where it started, was clearly stated on MOTD and clear where and how it finished. If you choose not to see that, its your problem, not mine. Coming from a bloke that only two weeks ago stated that Esteban Cambiasso is still world class, I'm not surprised. What a berk...
Dickov22 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 No, it really isn't. You'll get several opinions on the same incident, a majority of them agreeing on one scenario. And then there is you. It's all about opinions. MOTD picked out Cambiasso. So does Col, so do I, so do other posters Stan and Buzzerb. We're all morons though according to 'the Doctor'
saabrian Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Did King play today? I saw his name in the starting XI but I'm struggling to remember if he touched the ball. I'm glad Drinkwater got a run.
Number 6 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Disagree that a striker is badly needed. For me we need a quality number 10. Would allow Ulloa to stay in the box where he has proven to be dangerous. Some quality out wide would be useful too.
ARTY_FOX Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 King played well again imo..... You probably don't remember because he was calm on the ball and didn't do anything silly
RowlattsFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 We need to merge ulloa and vardy, we can't play them both but we need Vardy's pace and ulloa's better goal instinct.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Simpson had to cover that space and not Lampard. If Nasri went past Morgan, Simpson would have to engage. Morgan followed Nasri out there. Mahrez or another midfielder should really have covered him to prevent the defence losing its shape. Once in that situation, Was as the central defender needed to take responsibility for loose players in the box by either, engaging himself or passing Lampard on to the covering midfielder (Cambiasso). On that one occassion 5 of our players didnt really do what they should. You cant really lay the blame at one player. No, he didn't - Wasyl had that space covered - if Nasri beat Morgan, he comes up against Wasyl. It doesn't take two in that space, Simpson has to drop back and pick up Lampard. Wasyl did take responsibility, ordering them around, and ordering Simpson back to pick up Lampard. Konchesky should have come forward, but he did have a player right behind him. The goal is predominately Simpsons fault. It's all about opinions. MOTD picked out Cambiasso. So does Col, so do I, so do other posters Stan and Buzzerb. We're all morons though according to 'the Doctor' If Robbie Savage and col agreeing with you is your best defence, well that says it all.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 No, he didn't - Wasyl had that space covered - if Nasri beat Morgan, he comes up against Wasyl. It doesn't take two in that space, Simpson has to drop back and pick up Lampard. If Robbie Savage and col agreeing with you is your best defence, well that says it all. I'll take Savage, Buzzer, Stan and Dickov's accurate assessment over your biased nonsense any day of the week. You really are posting some utter turd this season and must try harder than this. It's only fair to the forum that you actually think, a little, before you write.
RowlattsFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Something's gone wrong if your right back is having to cover the centre of the goal 6 yards out when the ball is coming from the right. Plenty of mistakes but for me Konchesky should spot the danger and leave his man at the back post to cover the Central region. He has plenty of time to see it. It's a goal when any player could have done something better to stop it happening.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.