Please Register to access the whole of the site and to post on the forums.
Discussion in 'Spurs Chat' started by OmarsComing, Jan 31, 2012.
I said the same on Monday so fuck off yeah!?
I thought my explanation was pretty comprehensive. Teamplay means just that. It's not all eye catching candy, it's generally being an intrinsic part of continual retaining and moving of the ball. I provided the stat to demonstrate just how often Ekotto made himself available and then successfully rotated the ball into our possession, thereby helping to maintain our domination of the ball.
I agree with you that he tried to make sensible choices when crossing but rarely succeeded and I also mentioned that at times he did stupid things (his touch was poor a couple of times and resulted in him fouling etc) and that is why I didn't mark him higher than a 6 despite his very significant contribution to our possession (and therefore control) in this game.
You seem to be as guilty of closing your eyes to Walker's defensive misdemeanours as you claim I am to his heroic deeds. Twice in the second half he allowed Moses(I think) to get past him by just not positioning himself in a proper way, and he also allowed Moses (again i Think it was him) to shoot by diving to the floor instead of jockeying him properly. And that wasn't even a tough game against very threatening players.
In recent weeks he has made several major errors, at least four of which directly influenced or were the root cause of goals (Swansea, Chelsea, ManC, Wolves). During this time his offensive contribution has been minimal.
And unlike Ekotto, who at least facilitates possession by generally seeing loads of ball and involving himself in give and goes frequently, Walker sees a lot less and is a lot less assured on the ball.
I'm not sure what to say about your "he trapped a ball really well" remark. Great. After experiencing what 6,7 8 ? years of the best level football coaching this country has to offer he can trap a ball. Do I start adding a mark for trapping a ball ?
In general, in that game, walker contributed less positive influence than any other player IMO, bar Friedal and King. So sorry, it may seem like my mark was pre-ordained but it wasn't, which is why he doesn't always get the lowest mark, but lately I think he;'s contributed very little and made big mistakes, so I've certainly not been impressed and my marks have reflected this.
Why don't you explain to me how on your ratings Walker gets marked higher than Kranjcar & Adebayor ?
Which assessments do you think were a bit irrational ?
For me the King performance was the scariest thing to come out of that game. Following on from City, it really hammered home that he is not the force he was.
That moment where he was outpaced by their player (can't even remember who) was horrible. He has always had a slightly odd running gait, but he just looked slower than ever before.
The City thing was evidence of this also.
We seriously need to buy a new partner for Kaboul in the summer. Or maybe Caulker.
Why the hell didn't we recall Caulker from Swansea ?
Because he contributed more to the game. Kranjcar was good in the first half but very poor in the second half. Adebayor was pretty much a non threat in the entire game. Just to be clear AGAIN....I'm talking about this game, so your middle paragraph is pretty irrelevant really.
Amazing how you can remember the two examples of bad defending but cant remember for definite who it was that got past him, but have no recollection of what I meant by the 'trapping', otherwise known as controlling the ball into a position that advanced his options, ie back inside the full back who was trying to cut the ball off. But no to answer your question you shouldn't start giving out marks for trapping the ball, just like you shouldn't award your marks using the following criteria:
20 touches = 4 (standard Defoe mark)
30 touches = 5
40 touches = 6 (unless scoring a goal then maybe 6.5)
50 touches = 7 (or if your name is Dawson, 6 standard mark)
And so on etc etc amen.
There was a similar example on the Paul Trevillion strip 'You are the Ref' and the goal was ruled out by the ref.
Sorry I can't remember why
Ungentlemanly conduct or some such.
Clearly Harry thinks he needs a full season at Swansea before he can challenge for a place in our team. He'll learn a lot more these next six months by playing every week for Swansea than he will by playing reserve friendlies and sitting on our bench or in the stands.
Agree that King's starting to look dodgy for the first time ever, I really hope he can snap out of it but I fear that the injury has finally caught up with him and he's starting to decline more rapidly.
Maybe we had a deadline to recall him and when it looked like Bassong wasn't going anywhere we missed it. Then maybe had to panic a bit and get in Nelsen as cover. Maybe it was decided to leave him there for a full season where he is playing every week rather than come back to the bench.
Please explain to me how Walker contributed more to the game than Kranjcar ?
We've done the autopsy on my my one point swing to Ekotto, but you haven't really explained what Walker did that "contributed more to the game" than Kranjcar.
I need to understand the integrity of your ratings, only if it's based on trapping the ball, Kranjcar definitely trapped it more than Walker and on numerous occasions he used that trap to facilitate "controlling the ball into a position that advanced his options"
Because you are in the minority rating Walker's contribution as more than Kranjcar's, seriously suggesting you are either bringing a pre-conceived notion to the ratings table or you were taking a piss(s) for the 30 extra traps that Kranjcar did than Walker.
Normal trap = 0.03
Trap from big long pass = 7
That post is a bit pre-conceived, I didn't even use the word 'trapping' originally, so if you could be more clear that would be better.
This isn't about me explaining Kranjcar/Walker, although maybe it was because I don't like Kranjcar's poor fitting shirt, or that he has allowed his hair to grow a bit long.
This is about your pre-assessed ratings before the game that Walker is going to be marked more harshly than others because he's not one of your faves.
Comparing Kranjcar to Walker and explaining the ratings? Bit silly isn't it? Not quite the same as 2 full backs. Think that made you look a bit silly.
OK, explain why, relative to their individual remits within the framework of the group, why you deemed Kranjcar worse than Walker ? I assumed you'd realise I wasn't asking you to explain how Walker was a better full back than Kranjcar.
Well you're not always very clear, and I'm certain that Kranjcar would get a higher mark than Walker from you if he was to play full back.
Kranjcar put us in more trouble through his laziness and all round poor show in the second half by losing his man and not closing down than Walker did. You gave two examples of people who you 'thought, might have' beaten Walker because he didn't Jockey them properly. Well, Niko layed someone in for a free shot on goal with a terrible backpass and lost the ball about 4 times in the second half in the space of about 10 minutes alone which allowed Wigan a run at the exposed full back, whether it was Walker or Livermore in the later stages.
The worst part about it was the pathetic wave of apology that he constantly gave, he should have pulled himself together and tried to not let it happen again. Having said that he was probably blowing out his arse come the second half.
Cannot believe no-one has bit over the King comment, BC must be gnashing his teeth in fury about that :lol:
I think Walker's biggest problem is intelligence but I think his technique is fine. He's a very passionate player and his tenacity and will to win are to be admired in one so young.
Hopefully with age and experience he'll learn to be a bit more composed and improve his decision making but he definitely has the raw materials required to be a success.
Also think the King thing is being over played and would like to see him in a few more games before writing him off. I thought he was excellent against City until the very end and hadn't put a foot wrong all game - Kaboul may catch the eye more but King's positioning, composure, brain and technique still put him in a different league against the very best.
Amazing how you noticed and detailed all the things that Kranjcar did wrong, but didn't seem to give him any credit for all the stuff he did right, which included covering a lot of ground, and actually being back trying to defend on occasions - certainly more than Bale who had an identical role. And his apologising for his mistake seems to have annoyed you more than the actual mistake, when I don't see what else he should do but put his hand up and apologise after making one.
Kranjcar actually saw twice/three times as much ball as Lennon does when he plays in a similar position. He was involved in the build up to several chances and was generally far more involved in the game than Lennon usually is. It's all about opinions, and I don't want Kranjcar playing every week, but I like some of what he gives a team that wants to play passing, possession football.
Also IMO that is Ekotto's saving grace, because, as I have said many times, I don't think he is a great defender, and I don't think he's really a great attacker, but he is a very comfortable footballer who is usually very involved in the game and our team inter play.
Walker's game IMO doesn't really contribute overly to this. His game is a bit like Lennon's, based heavily on pace and running up and down in quite straight lines (I generalise - he does veer sometimes). There is a place for it, and for me we have no choice but to play Walker, even when Corluka was here, but tuesday Walker saw less ball than anyone on our side, didn't defend well on a few occasions (first half when they nearly got in but for a mis control was another that I seem to recall - he possibly wasn't alone - I've only seen it live, which is why I couldn't remember all the Wigan players involved in stuff) and didn't contribute much at all going forward, despite Lennon not being there to complicate things. Least effective player relative to his remit IMO, therefore lowest mark.
The whole thing about pre-conceived notions effecting ratings is a bit of a misnomer. If you don't rate a player generally it is for a perceived reason(s), if he continues to display the things that make you not rate him generally then what are you supposed to do. If Walker has a good game I hope I'll say so, but I really think he was the least impressive player overall on Tuesday in regards to what his remit was. And for a few weeks now he's been pretty poor both defensively and offensively, really not impressing at either, so I have been continually unimpressed and marked accordingly.
He was directly at fault for two goals at City. One against Chelsea, one against Swansea. Now if the rest of the time he's really involved and contributing majorly to the teams ability to win then you take a view about mistakes and the learning process. But I don't believe his the great attacking force most seem to believe either. His game is pretty one dimensional (based solely on speed) and he hasn't even used that to much noticeable effect in the last what 4,5,6 more ? games, has he ?
Do you not think the intelligence thing is one of the most important factors though Steve. I mean Ekotto can be fucking lax sometimes but the fact that he has that bit of footballing nous saves him.
It's not just intelligence but composure under pressure. Walker just seems to lack a bit of it.
Walker is tenacious and I have said that previously and that is a good quality but tenacity and speed aren't enough at the level we are now aspiring to be IMO.
If it wasn't for intelligence King would be gone now. It's that ability to read that is compensating for everything else diminishing isn't it ?
I think you get your favourites and your bete noires - we all do a bit - and your interpretation of player's performances show that you're looking through that lense.
That isn't to say that what you point out isn't the case, lot's of times, but if the same critical approach were taken to every player, or lack of criticism in some cases, then we could paint anyone in the same way as you do Dawson, Walker, Kaboul or Dawson.
Again that isn't to say there isn't a degree of truth in what you say, and also that often you've swam against the tide and got more of the truth - imo - than the people who don't engage their critical faculties at all and just go with the flow. But it is to say that about that truth, my opinion is that you sometimes construct an elaborate exaggeration, something which at it's heart is based on a truth, but in its entirety is a misrepresentation of how things really are.
In other words you're an iconoclast, but in being so - and maybe in the course of having to so often defend opposite positions - your view on certain players seems to veer to the opposite extreme.
See what sloth says below.
In BC The Movie, when the Usual Suspects are chucking things at the screen, that line will be delivered by Joe Pesci.
Separate names with a comma.