Guest ttfn Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I'll take Savage, Buzzer, Stan and Dickov's accurate assessment over your biased nonsense any day of the week. iyo
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I'll take Savage, Buzzer, Stan and Dickov's accurate assessment over your biased nonsense any day of the week. My bias nonsense? lol lol lol lol This coming from someone who blames cambiasso for everything to avoid admitting he got it completely wrong in the summer? It's quite clear that Simpson is at fault, not Cambiasso. Cambiasso is on the attack at the time, play breaks down and Lampard becomes the support striker. As play moves forward, Simpson is nowhere near the right back position. Wes moves across to cover it, Wasyl moves across to cover Wes. At this point, there's a gap between Wasyl and Konchesky, that Lampard has positioned himself in. Two options, either Simpson fills it, or Konch comes forward and Schlupp covers him. Wasyl shouts for Lampard to be picked up, Simpson ignores it and moves to occupy the same area as Wasyl. At this point, Simpson has made himself completely redundant and given their striker a tap in. Where does the fullback ignoring his positioning and then ignoring the attempts to organise the defence become the midfields fault? The only one whose opinions on football are remotely respectable in there is Stan, and I don't see any post agreeing with you by him... 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. Pot kettle comes to mind, as does practise what you preach colchester, practise what you preach.
cc_star 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. Regardless of who never picked up who. Konchesky was the only player who could see the ball and Lampard but he never got the pressure on, if he'd have left his man then it may have been different But we can't get too hung up about Lampard ghosting and scoring He's done this against the best players in the world his whole career & none of those players had an answer for it either
Dan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 It's a collective effort. A total lack of organisation. How can you have nearly your entire team in your own box yet Lampard's got no-one within 5 yards of him?
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 It's a collective effort. A total lack of organisation. How can you have nearly your entire team in your own box yet Lampard's got no-one within 5 yards of him? Thing is it's not disorganised through poor organisation, Wasyl is directing people and it gets ignored. Watch it back - he's pointing at Lampard and screaming while he takes up his position. He then just gets ignored by all of them.
RowlattsFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Lampard didn't realy ghost in on this occasion though, he was left unmarked for a lengthy time before Nasri picked him out.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 My bias nonsense? lol lol lol lol This coming from someone who blames cambiasso for everything to avoid admitting he got it completely wrong in the summer? It's quite clear that Simpson is at fault, not Cambiasso. Cambiasso is on the attack at the time, play breaks down and Lampard becomes the support striker. As play moves forward, Simpson is nowhere near the right back position. Wes moves across to cover it, Wasyl moves across to cover Wes. At this point, there's a gap between Wasyl and Konchesky, that Lampard has positioned himself in. Two options, either Simpson fills it, or Konch comes forward and Schlupp covers him. Wasyl shouts for Lampard to be picked up, Simpson ignores it and moves to occupy the same area as Wasyl. At this point, Simpson has made himself completely redundant and given their striker a tap in. Where does the fullback ignoring his positioning and then ignoring the attempts to organise the defence become the midfields fault? The only one whose opinions on football are remotely respectable in there is Stan, and I don't see any post agreeing with you by him... Pot kettle comes to mind, as does practise what you preach colchester, practise what you preach. What did I get wrong over the summer? That the team needed a tough-tackling, defensive midfielder? And Cattermole came to mind? What's wrong with that? It's blatantly clear that we needed exactly that type of player. I said it initially, now many are agreeing. And that Cambiasso might not be 'all that'? Wait and see? As far as I can see, we are bottom of the division, five points adrift and Cambiasso, though ok, has hardly pulled up any trees has he? We are currently joint bottom in terms of goals conceded, playing sides in which Esteban has featured throughout and has been torn apart (as have the rest of them in a 4-4-2). No, the error has been made by yourself (no surprise there) and others who claimed that Cambiasso would somehow be our saviour and that we didn't need a DM. A proper DM. A stronger, fitter, tougher midfield bloke to support the defence. But I'm genuinely not surprised you couldn't see this actually. I have no idea, even now, what style of football you'd have the club play? I've gone out on a limb, again, and suggested what I think we should do. And feel pretty much correct. You simply dance in the shadows, skirt round the edges and call people 'morons' when they don't agree with you. I'm yet to see something, anything, which makes me think , 'Yep, the Doctor really does know his football. No offence, but you just seem to criticise others whilst making no real point of your own. Which is boring. Try a bit harder and I'll try to agree more often. You are giving me nothing to agree with currently.
NewburyFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 For me Simpson is primarily to blame for not picking Lampard up. Wes has been dragged out of position to RB and Simpson should've been covering him at CB. Cambiasso was pretty much where I'd expect him to be as the defensive midfielder, which is around the penalty spot. I think it was harsh for Savage to find fault with Konch and Jeff. Konchesky was marking Silva at the back post and Jeff was marking Sagna, as they both should be. If Konchesky had gone with Lampard and the ball had fallen to Silva to tap home then he would've been to blame there, so he couldn't win. It was just terrible organisation all round and it keeps hurting us, quite surprising given that Nigel was a CB.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 What did I get wrong over the summer? That the team needed a tough-tackling, defensive midfielder? And Cattermole came to mind? What's wrong with that? It's blatantly clear that we needed exactly that type of player. I said it initially, now many are agreeing. And that Cambiasso might not be 'all that'? Wait and see? As far as I can see, we are bottom of the division, five points adrift and Cambiasso, though ok, has hardly pulled up any trees has he? We are currently joint bottom in terms of goals conceded, playing sides in which Esteban has featured throughout and has been torn apart (as have the rest of them in a 4-4-2). No, the error has been made by yourself (no surprise there) and others who claimed that Cambiasso would somehow be our saviour and that we didn't need a DM. A proper DM. A stronger, fitter, tougher midfield bloke to support the defence. But I'm genuinely not surprised you couldn't see this actually. I have no idea, even now, what style of football you'd have the club play? I've gone out on a limb, again, and suggested what I think we should do. And feel pretty much correct. You simply dance in the shadows, skirt round the edges and call people 'morons' when they don't agree with you. I'm yet to see something, anything, which makes me think , 'Yep, the Doctor really does know his football. No offence, but you just seem to criticise others whilst making no real point of your own. Which is boring. Try a bit harder and I'll try to agree more often. You are giving me nothing to agree with currently. That Cattermole would be a better signing than Cambiasso. Given Cambiasso is regularly our best player, only behind Ulloa in the scoring charts for us and his introduction was the big turning point in one of our two wins this season, seems fairly clear he's been a good signing. Certainly he's been one of few bright sparks in the past 11 games. We've not been torn apart, certainly not through the middle. Look at yesterday - cross. Look at last weekend - set-piece and a cross. Liverpool - Set Piece and two crosses. QPR - Set piece and two crosses. Southampton - cross, long hail-mary over the top of the defence West Brom - cross. Swansea - through the centre and a cross. Newcastle - Counter down the wing. Burnley - cross and a set-piece. Crystal palace - two set-pieces. Man Utd - Cross, through the middle, cross. Since Cambiasso came in we've conceded 22 goals. 19 of them have come down the wings/set pieces, only two have seen us opened through the middle. Take it to the full season - Arsenal - through the middle, Chelsea - two down the wing and cut inside. Everton - set-piece and a cross. 27 goals, 23 from the wings/set pieces Defending the midfield has not been our problem, our problem has been defending crosses. We don't need a strong DM, we need centre-backs and a keeper that can command the box and defend crosses. High intensity pressuring and counter - like we played in the first 5 games, like we played all of last season.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 That Cattermole would be a better signing than Cambiasso. Given Cambiasso is regularly our best player, only behind Ulloa in the scoring charts for us and his introduction was the big turning point in one of our two wins this season, seems fairly clear he's been a good signing. Certainly he's been one of few bright sparks in the past 11 games. We've not been torn apart, certainly not through the middle. Look at yesterday - cross. Look at last weekend - set-piece and a cross. Liverpool - Set Piece and two crosses. QPR - Set piece and two crosses. Southampton - cross, long hail-mary over the top of the defence West Brom - cross. Swansea - through the centre and a cross. Newcastle - Counter down the wing. Burnley - cross and a set-piece. Crystal palace - two set-pieces. Man Utd - Cross, through the middle, cross. Since Cambiasso came in we've conceded 22 goals. 19 of them have come down the wings/set pieces, only two have seen us opened through the middle. Take it to the full season - Arsenal - through the middle, Chelsea - two down the wing and cut inside. Everton - set-piece and a cross. 27 goals, 23 from the wings/set pieces Defending the midfield has not been our problem, our problem has been defending crosses. We don't need a strong DM, we need centre-backs and a keeper that can command the box and defend crosses. High intensity pressuring and counter - like we played in the first 5 games, like we played all of last season. That's a better post. We'll have to agree to disagree. You say change the defence. I say, whatever defence we play, we'll concede if they aren't supported enough. Yesterday being a great example. Our midfield three effectively enabled the defence to shut out City, apart from the one error.Cattermole was the example of a DM who I thought we could possibly get. He knows his position, he plays it, he ain't a great footballer but that's not the point. He does what he does, generally quite effectively. My belief is that the team could have benefited per se from such a player, more than it benefits from having Cambiasso in the side. Whether this was true or not, who knows? We didn't sign him (or equivalent). What is fact is that having Cambiasso in, however 'good' he may have been, has not enabled the TEAM to be in a better position than it is in. Which is in a dog-shite position. THAT was my fear, and my point.
The Doctor Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 That's a better post. We'll have to agree to disagree. You say change the defence. I say, whatever defence we play, we'll concede if they aren't supported enough. Yesterday being a great example. Our midfield three effectively enabled the defence to shut out City, apart from the one error. Cattermole was the example of a DM who I thought we could possibly get. He knows his position, he plays it, he ain't a great footballer but that's not the point. He does what he does, generally quite effectively. My belief is that the team could have benefited per se from such a player, more than it benefits from having Cambiasso in the side. Whether this was true or not, who knows? We didn't sign him (or equivalent). What is fact is that having Cambiasso in, however 'good' he may have been, has not enabled the TEAM to be in a better position than it is in. Which is in a dog-shite position. THAT was my fear, and my point. But it's not about the defence being supported - players are back there, but when we lose most first balls and rarely get the second ball either, having the players on the edge of the box marked will make no difference - we're conceding because we're coming off second whenever a cross is lobbed into our box, we either don't look like winning the header (Fers goal vs QPR), the defence gets itself woefully out of shape and leaves people free (Yesterday, Bony vs Swansea) or we put it on a plate for people (Wes's Layoff to Gerrard vs Liverpool). A Defensive midfielder wouldn't stop the crosses coming in - Lennon did because he moved out wide when the wing backs bombed forward, not because that's where a defensive midfielder traditionally plays - and the organisation in front of the defence is irrelevant if the defence can't do anything with the first bite. Because the rest haven't been good enough, not because of Cambiasso. Look back at QPR - he put Vardy through one-on-one enough times to jump straight to the top of the assists chart if Vardy could have finished. Cambiasso has been our main creator, but the attack can't finish - that's not due to him, and the wings are brittle as the bones of a malnourished stick-insect - again not Cambiassos fault, nor is it his fault that our keeper is more afraid of crosses than Count Dawkins. We've got weak-links in the side, but they're not Cambiassos presence, he's been one of the few strong sections of the team.
Bert Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Regardless of who was at fault. Wasyl pointed out the danger and no one picked up on it. The warning signs were there and it's not like it was some young lad we know nothing about it was one of the best midfielders ever to grace the league.
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Regardless of who was at fault. Wasyl pointed out the danger and no one picked up on it. The warning signs were there and it's not like it was some young lad we know nothing about it was one of the best midfielders ever to grace the league. That about sums it up Bert..Fair play
Dickov22 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. 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. If Robbie Savage and col agreeing with you is your best defence, well that says it all. Yep, Robbie Savage knows less than you, you're right.
MC Prussian Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Yep, Robbie Savage knows less than you, you're right. Robbie Savage knows a lot. He usually talks more than that, though. In any case, I don't regard him as a credible pundit. He's more show than anything. Just like Shearer, albeit slightly more articulate.
st albans fox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Funnily enough, as soon as we lost the ball the other side of the half way line and they played it forward early, I was worried. It was the first time they had got goal side of our midfield in the middle third. Why EC felt the need to be committing at that stage of a possible attack I'm not sure. Playing with MJ, they seemed to take turns to get forward. I assume he was tasked with holding yesterday but again wouldn't be certain. I guess it depends what the tactics were. If he was supposed to be holding then he is at fault. Otherwise it's the tactics. Once they have broken past our midfield, I'm not going to lay any further blame at his door. There were enough defenders to cope with a man loitering inside the box. Lampard didn't hold back and allow EC to re engage him and I doubt EC felt the need to get back towards our six yard box when nasri could have cut the ball back to the edge of the area. (As silva had done earlier for toure).
Guest Col city fan Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Funnily enough, as soon as we lost the ball the other side of the half way line and they played it forward early, I was worried. It was the first time they had got goal side of our midfield in the middle third. Why EC felt the need to be committing at that stage of a possible attack I'm not sure. Playing with MJ, they seemed to take turns to get forward. I assume he was tasked with holding yesterday but again wouldn't be certain. I guess it depends what the tactics were. If he was supposed to be holding then he is at fault. Otherwise it's the tactics. Once they have broken past our midfield, I'm not going to lay any further blame at his door. There were enough defenders to cope with a man loitering inside the box. Lampard didn't hold back and allow EC to re engage him and I doubt EC felt the need to get back towards our six yard box when nasri could have cut the ball back to the edge of the area. (As silva had done earlier for toure). How many times has our defence 'looked shaky' this season? I think this is an important point. If Cambiasso, with all his experience, didn't 'feel the need' (as you say) to track a player like Lampard back further than the edge of the penalty area then more fool him? Unfortunately, Lampard gambled. Cambiasso didn't. That's how I see that footage. Maybe the ball shouldn't have come across? But we know they have been. So you take the chance it will. As Lampard did. Yet again, there was literally no-one anywhere near him. He could have juggled the ball for five seconds, and STILL got a free shot at goal.
Dawko Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I concur. Should give the armband to Cambiasso - Morgan looks up to him, so does everybody else. You're right. Cambiasso is Captain in everything but name. He is the one who is directing everyone, the only one showing any passion and skill in my opinion.
Dickov22 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Robbie Savage knows a lot. He usually talks more than that, though. In any case, I don't regard him as a credible pundit. He's more show than anything. Just like Shearer, albeit slightly more articulate. I used to think that, but I download the 606 podcast now weekly. I think he talks a lot of sense and also knows his stuff when it comes to Leicester.
ScouseFox Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 yeah I love how he tells all our players, all their players, all the officials and even the physios when they're on exactly how to do their jobs.
AKCJ Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I'd say that if one particular player is to blame then it's Konchesky. He should have spotted the danger. However, Schlupp, Simpson, Cambiasso, Morgan and Wasyl all make mistakes as well.
Dickov22 Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 I think we can all agree it was pathetic defending which we are now all used to. Sigh
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Nah that didn't happen lad, it was a pretty good game and they certainly didn't play us like that. We were unlucky to lose, by their standards Man City were very poor. Well put Col. Good, glad to hear it. An over the top commentator then.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 One of the real worries is the form of Burnley! How people underestimated them! Absolutely. They were being laughed at by some posters on here, prior to the start of the season, and now those posters have vanished, as if by magic. QPR, are picking up some points, while we cannot. It really doesn't look good for us. It seems like we may be putting some effort in now, but the real damage was caused by bringing in a lack of quality, by and large. The January window appears likely to be a struggle, both to find, and convince such players to come here, when it looks more than likely we will be relegated.
Gary Eatfood Posted 14 December 2014 Posted 14 December 2014 Absolutely. They were being laughed at by some posters on here, prior to the start of the season, and now those posters have vanished, as if by magic. QPR, are picking up some points, while we cannot. It really doesn't look good for us. It seems like we may be putting some effort in now, but the real damage was caused by bringing in a lack of quality, by and large. The January window appears likely to be a struggle, both to find, and convince such players to come here, when it looks more than likely we will be relegated. Still another 9 points to play for before January is here. A couple of wins and those players might view us as a more attractive proposition.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.