Didier Zokora tonight

[gibbs131]

These stats don't tell the story. Zokora completed loads of 5 yard passes. But then he would try the "Hollywood" ball when he had simple options open. The "passes" that others didn't complete were mainly crosses or "final" balls that need to be played to get goals. The FACT is that Zokora makes poor pass selection to often.

When I read his passing stats were good, I was thinking...

3....2....1....GENERIC STATS CAN LIE answer.

Admit it, you would have been the first in here to scoff at his stats had they been poor.

 

[jagster213]

Zokora was good, passing was terrible though. Changing the subject, did anyone see Lennon last night? Apparantley he was playing....... Someone needs to put a rocket up that kids ass, lazy shite. Third goal was entirely his fault for not tracking back, and every time they attacked down our right hand side, he lost his man and they were 2 on 1 with Chimbo every time. Also, I reckon someone needs to teach him to cross, lightning pace gets you no-where if you can't pass the ball properly.

 

[gibbs131]

Zokora was good, passing was terrible though. Changing the subject, did anyone see Lennon last night? Apparantley he was playing....... Someone needs to put a rocket up that kids ass, lazy shite. Third goal was entirely his fault for not tracking back, and every time they attacked down our right hand side, he lost his man and they were 2 on 1 with Chimbo every time. Also, I reckon someone needs to teach him to cross, lightning pace gets you no-where if you can't pass the ball properly.

IOt takes about 3 full games to get that Premier spark. He'll be motoring soon. He did disappear though.

 

[Real_madyidd]

please define then compare those two phrases as they seem to be different but also mean the same.

Are you setting me homework?

The hollywood ball would be the unexpected 35 yard plus ball that would set up a shot. Some players should really not bother trying these passes.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=i41kIJTO7NE

Had that been Zokora, Bergkamp would not have got the ball and we would all be moaning about why the fuck Zokora tried that.

A final pass, is far more simple and can be done by anyone. However, due to how close the goal is there is a bloody good chance that a defender will get to the ball.

So, no, they don't mean the same.

 

[Real_madyidd]

When I read his passing stats were good, I was thinking...

3....2....1....GENERIC STATS CAN LIE answer.

Admit it, you would have been the first in here to scoff at his stats had they been poor.

Hold on gibbs, first of all I think I should point out that I think he played well.

And NO, I would not have been "the first in here to scoff" since I would have also pointed out how crap those stats were.

Zokora tackled well and played short passes well. That is what we bought him for. We should not expect long "carrickesque" passes from him though.

 

[jimbo]

My opinion of Zokora is not very high as we all know, but I thought he had a good game last night. I still think he does a lot wrong going forwards, but defensively he was much sounder.

The trouble is, I think he and probably Huddlestone as well really need a 3 man central midfield. We don't play that way and with 4 strikers of the quality we have can't afford to play that way. I've always held the belief that the midfield is the most important area if you're going to be successful in the Premier League and our central midfield is weak, not from a lack of individual quality necessarily, but from a lack of collective quality. We need to find a top central pairing and I think that is going to mean bringing someone else in. Who they would play with though is up for debate, Jenas would most certainly be up there.

 

[joey55]

joey? Your thoughts?

You know I like your posts and agree with you on lots of stuff, but surely today you can see you ran your mouth a little too quickly last night? And, yes we're still waiting for the tackling stats, which will be more interesting still. Possibly not in the way you want though.

Bill you should read my past posts on Zokoras passing accuracy or even ask B-C the guy who called me a muppet. I never expect to see him with passing accuracy of less than 85% (i know his game far too well). I know full well that he rarely gives a pass away and it is somehting I've complained about many times. We can't afford a Makelele type player in a 442, as we will have trouble breaking teams down. We need a players who can take hold of the game and make things happen, especially when there are 10 men behind the ball. The midfield had a lot of possession last night, but didn't use it particuarly well.

I said I'd hold my hands up if i was wrong, but the stats only show I was right. I would never have suggested the Hudd will have a higher passing accuracy than Zokora, so your % stat is worthless. Again i'm sure B-C will back me up here and if he is prepared to vouch for me then you'll know it's the truth! I said the Hudd would have played more passes and made as many tackles. The stats show I was rigth on both accounts. I didn't say the Hudd had a good game, I gave his perfformance 5/10.

Who ran their mouth too quickly? Me last night or you today? :wink: . I'm not sad or pathetic, just very observant when I watch games. If people genuinley think Zokora was so good then perhaps they should post some clips of his good work and show me what they mean.

Over all balls played Hudd 103 Zokora 76
Passes Hudd 64 Zokora 56
Tackles Hudd 4 Zokora 4
Assists Hudd 1 Zokora 0
Key passes Hudd 4 Zokora 1
Clearances Hudd 2 Zokora 1

Bill? Your thoughts?

I don't think anyone is claiming Zokora showed any quality last night, but they are saying he put the tackles in and made himself abvailable. I was saying that I think this only happened towards the end, when we were pressing and he was sitting deeper. Therefore it stuck in peoples memories (something i've said before about Zokora) and therefore they thought he had a better game than he did. I thought that if you take the match as a whole the Hudd would have done as much if not more of the work, but it was spread out and therefore less noticeable. It would seem I was right. If a player does a number of eye catching things in a short space of time it can really effect how people view his performace. Can you honestly say you watched the game last night and thought Zokora was even decent for the first hour?

 

[joey55]

Hold on gibbs, first of all I think I should point out that I think he played well.

And NO, I would not have been "the first in here to scoff" since I would have also pointed out how crap those stats were.

Zokora tackled well and played short passes well. That is what we bought him for. We should not expect long "carrickesque" passes from him though.

But how can we be effective in a 442 with that kind of player? If you look at any of the top Prem sides that play 442, both the CMs have an all round game, with a good mix a passing, will create and score goals. I don't see how we are suppossed to compete unless we have the same. It's okay to tackle well and pass simply in a 433/451 ala Makelele, but look how poor Makelele is in a 442.

 

[gibbs131]

Bill you should read my past posts on Zokoras passing accuracy or even ask B-C the guy who called me a muppet. I never expect to see him with passing accuracy of less than 85% (i know his game far too well). I know full well that he rarely gives a pass away and it is somehting I've complained about many times. We can't afford a Makelele type player in a 442, as we will have trouble breaking teams down. We need a players who can take hold of the game and make things happen, especially when there are 10 men behind the ball. The midfield had a lot of possession last night, but didn't use it particuarly well.

I said I'd hold my hands up if i was wrong, but the stats only show I was right. I would never have suggested the Hudd will have a higher passing accuracy than Zokora, so your % stat is worthless. Again i'm sure B-C will back me up here and if he is prepared to vouch for me then you'll know it's the truth! I said the Hudd would have played more passes and made as many tackles. The stats show I was rigth on both accounts. I didn't say the Hudd had a good game, I gave his perfformance 5/10.

Who ran their mouth too quickly? Me last night or you today? :wink: . I'm not sad or pathetic, just very observant when I watch games. If people genuinley think Zokora was so good then perhaps they should post some clips of his good work and show me what they mean.

Over all balls played Hudd 103 Zokora 76
Passes Hudd 64 Zokora 56
Tackles Hudd 4 Zokora 4
Assists Hudd 1 Zokora 0
Key passes Hudd 4 Zokora 1
Clearances Hudd 2 Zokora 1

Bill? Your thoughts?

I don't think anyone is claiming Zokora showed any quality last night, but they are saying he put the tackles in and made himself abvailable. I was saying that I think this only happened towards the end, when we were pressing and he was sitting deeper. Therefore it stuck in peoples memories (something i've said before about Zokora) and therefore they thought he had a better game than he did. I thought that if you take the match as a whole the Hudd would have done as much if not more of the work, but it was spread out and therefore less noticeable. It would seem I was right. If a player does a number of eye catching things in a short space of time it can really effect how people view his performace. Can you honestly say you watched the game last night and thought Zokora was even decent for the first hour?

You know we scored 4 goals right? And had a lot of corners?

How can lots of possession in the midfield and 4 goals to show for it be not doing very well? Not to mention the missed chances they provided.

Zok is showing good form. Is there a distance covered stat? Or a bust a gut to break up counter attack stat? Or a cover for Bale/Kaboul for when they break forward out of defence stat?

Lol. He played ANOTHER great game for us and you can't admit it. He made TT and Lennon look like they didn't exist.

Your not doing very well remark should be directed to the set piece defending. Something which is not a gift...It is gleaned. From coaches or over time/experience.

 

[joey55]

You know we scored 4 goals right? And had a lot of corners?

How can lots of possession in the midfield and 4 goals to show for it be not doing very well? Not to mention the missed chances they provided.

But how did our goals come? And have ackowleged the chances created by our CM. The key pass stat is a count of the passes our CM made that led to chacnes on goal. The Hudd created 4 chances and Zokora 1. Yet I still gave Zokora the same rating as the Hudd.

Btw why are you back here? I got suspended from COYS (which seeing as they won't reinstate me, suggests I'm banned) because of a post I made to you.

 

[gibbs131]

But how did our goals come? And have ackowleged the chances created by our CM. The key pass stat is a count of the passes our CM made that led to chacnes on goal. The Hudd created 4 chances and Zokora 1. Yet I still gave Zokora the same rating as the Hudd.

Btw why are you back here? I got suspended from COYS (which seeing as they won't reinstate me, suggests I'm banned) because of a post I made to you.

Haha. Why am I here? It's one of the many places I get info from on Spurs.

It's just I can't start threads here apparently. I posted one today, a thread commenting on how great that picture was of Kaboul in mid air with Jol. It got deleted. :clap:

http://images.teamtalk.com/07/10/247/Younes_Kaboul_578459.jpg


I think most are angry with me for being right. Now that Hughton and Seggers complete lack of impact from the training ground is apparent for everyone to see, I am getting serious backlash.

 

[Real_madyidd]

But how can we be effective in a 442 with that kind of player? If you look at any of the top Prem sides that play 442, both the CMs have an all round game, with a good mix a passing, will create and score goals. I don't see how we are suppossed to compete unless we have the same. It's okay to tackle well and pass simply in a 433/451 ala Makelele, but look how poor Makelele is in a 442.

Dude, I never said we could be Effective in a 442 with that type of player!!

 

[gibbs131]

Dude, I never said we could be Effective in a 442 with that type of player!!

Exactly. I said recently that i would rather Hud start over Zokora. But when I see Zok having a good game, I am not going to pretend it didn't happen like Joey.

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Bill you should read my past posts on Zokoras passing accuracy or even ask B-C the guy who called me a muppet. I never expect to see him with passing accuracy of less than 85% (i know his game far too well). I know full well that he rarely gives a pass away and it is somehting I've complained about many times. We can't afford a Makelele type player in a 442, as we will have trouble breaking teams down. We need a players who can take hold of the game and make things happen, especially when there are 10 men behind the ball. The midfield had a lot of possession last night, but didn't use it particuarly well.

I said I'd hold my hands up if i was wrong, but the stats only show I was right. I would never have suggested the Hudd will have a higher passing accuracy than Zokora, so your % stat is worthless. Again i'm sure B-C will back me up here and if he is prepared to vouch for me then you'll know it's the truth! I said the Hudd would have played more passes and made as many tackles. The stats show I was rigth on both accounts. I didn't say the Hudd had a good game, I gave his perfformance 5/10.

Who ran their mouth too quickly? Me last night or you today? :wink: . I'm not sad or pathetic, just very observant when I watch games. If people genuinley think Zokora was so good then perhaps they should post some clips of his good work and show me what they mean.

Over all balls played Hudd 103 Zokora 76
Passes Hudd 64 Zokora 56
Tackles Hudd 4 Zokora 4
Assists Hudd 1 Zokora 0
Key passes Hudd 4 Zokora 1
Clearances Hudd 2 Zokora 1

Bill? Your thoughts?

I don't think anyone is claiming Zokora showed any quality last night, but they are saying he put the tackles in and made himself abvailable. I was saying that I think this only happened towards the end, when we were pressing and he was sitting deeper. Therefore it stuck in peoples memories (something i've said before about Zokora) and therefore they thought he had a better game than he did. I thought that if you take the match as a whole the Hudd would have done as much if not more of the work, but it was spread out and therefore less noticeable. It would seem I was right. If a player does a number of eye catching things in a short space of time it can really effect how people view his performace. Can you honestly say you watched the game last night and thought Zokora was even decent for the first hour?

Great post, as usual, joey.

The stats you post are very enlightening (and show perhaps I was as guilty if not moreso of mouth-running, for which I apologise) and I really get what you say about his style of play. However, would it not be fair to say that our/Jol's play is all about us getting and maintaining possession? In this way, short passes are just as crucial, if not moreso, than the 'Hollywood Balls'.

Hence why Carrick was so effective for us (no idea on the stats but must have been 90% pass completion and predominantly sideways balls of 5-10 yards).

I don't know what to make of your Hudd Vs Zoko 'good work was spread out' comment. I might just trust you on that. For what difference it makes I'm not sure. While we might want a consistent level of effort/attempts, Italian football shows that changes of pace/pressure are an essential part of the game. Who knows?

Generally, what do you think of Zokora's covering? I'd say it was reasonably good. He should really be there to drop into the backline when Kaboul dances off merrily, but so should Hudd. Zoko Pops also seems to have learnt to cut down on the number of silly shots from 40 yards that he is so inept at. Other than that, I wonder if his failings are more down to not being in a settled midfield. All the players you mention: Campo (who I wanted us to go for in the summer), Makelele, etc, were at their best alongside players they know and knew where to distribute to. So too, Carrick. I wonder if this isn't a bigger difference than the fact he is playing in a 4-4-2 (as let's face it, it is quite a flexible 4-4-2).

Do you really believe Makelele would have been no good in a 4-4-2 at Zokora's age? Surely not? It's hardly asking him to play with his wrong foot. Just because he would be better in a midfield 3, doesn't mean he can only play that way. Yes, it restricts his potential, but it's like saying Steed can't play on the left or JJ on the right. In fact, sorry, it makes less sense than either.

To answer your final question, I thought Zokora was as decent as any in the 1st hour. With the game so stretched, many other central midfielders (less athletic) would have been puffed by the time we got to 60 minutes. The very fact you acknowledge he looked better at the end demonstrates what he brings to our side. The rest of the midfield looked buggered, just when we needed them most. His chase back to rescue Bale's semi-mistake is evidence of this. His athleticism was useful to us.

Having said all this, I do agree that he wouldn't be in a top 4 (or even 6) team and when everyones fit and in form, I wouldn't have him in my squad. But he is currently one of our most important players and we need him.

I just despair when he gets such a repeated bashing on here. Especially when he has a decent game.

 

[SpurSince57]

I think it's partly a reaction to some of the ridiculous praise he was getting last season, Bill. Apart from one blinder after we went down to ten men against Bolton he was OK at best, and sometimes pretty poor. Some people were raving about that pass he made to Lennon against Blackburn and that chip at Bolton the other week, but how often does he do stuff like that? Either they were flukes, or we should be seeing a lot more of it. The same goes for his tackling. We've seen him put in some beautiful crisp tackles, so why did he have the lowest percentage of all our midfielders last season?

And it's partly that he simply isn't as good as Carrick, nor anywhere near. B-C got very huffy when I called him a dud the other week, but if he's meant to be the bloke our play revolves around, then dud he is. There was widespread dismay when he went down with malaria before the Besiktas game, but we managed perfectly well without him. We managed perfectly well when he was suspended, too. If the team plays just fine (or better) in his absence, then pivotal he ain't.

 

[Bill_Oddie]

Absolutely. Far from pivotal. Just not terrible. I remember this time last season he was very well liked, then he nose-dived, and only regained some form in the last month or two of the season.

I suppose its sad in many ways as we all called the fact that he simply isn't good enough to drive us into the top 4 long ago. As you say, if our play is supposed to revolve around him then thats a disaster. I suppose I see him more as a cog, and as such he does fine. It's hardly his fault that we needed a playmaker/midfield general to be ahead of him in the pecking order.

 

[Berbati]

I share Joey55's scepticism about Zokora's performance on Monday.

He and the Hudd should get 5 imo.

 

[sloth]

I think it's partly a reaction to some of the ridiculous praise he was getting last season, Bill. Apart from one blinder after we went down to ten men against Bolton he was OK at best, and sometimes pretty poor. Some people were raving about that pass he made to Lennon against Blackburn and that chip at Bolton the other week, but how often does he do stuff like that? Either they were flukes, or we should be seeing a lot more of it. The same goes for his tackling. We've seen him put in some beautiful crisp tackles, so why did he have the lowest percentage of all our midfielders last season?

And it's partly that he simply isn't as good as Carrick, nor anywhere near. B-C got very huffy when I called him a dud the other week, but if he's meant to be the bloke our play revolves around, then dud he is. There was widespread dismay when he went down with malaria before the Besiktas game, but we managed perfectly well without him. We managed perfectly well when he was suspended, too. If the team plays just fine (or better) in his absence, then pivotal he ain't.

What ridiculous praise???? He was praised when he did well.

All the hyperbole has been reserved for those wanting to do him down. Even you, while not the worst culprit, do your usual chipping away at the edges thing...

Faint praise full of caveats when he does well: "Some people were raving... ...either they were flukes or we should be seeing much more of it."

Understating his contributions, but only by a little: "He was OK at best"

Mis-stating the expectations against which you then judge him: "if he's meant to be the bloke our play revolves around, then dud he is"

And then trying to justify it all by saying it's reaction to others over-enthusiasm: "I think it's partly a reaction to some of the ridiculous praise he was getting last season"

What a load of :bs:Who were you reacting to this time SS?

DZ had a good season last year, played some very good games but with some notable exceptions. In the games he's played this year he's also played very well and though some profess surprise at his performances against Bolton and Villa in truth he's merely carried on from where he left off. He's also had some poor games this season but in those games he was no poorer than anyone else. Truth is, there is a debate going on, but on this occasion only one side is being either fair or rational and, to paraphrase you, on that side you're not.

 

[SpurSince57]

He was praised when he did well. And some were praising him when he didn't do that well. Some of that praise went way over the top, and a great deal of it was being expressed over his eye-catching runs and little else. There was also a good deal of denial, some of it in the face of video evidence.

So it's irrational to complain that he's not putting in nearly as many tackles as he should, but rational to hang out the bunting for an apparently one-off pass? If so, I'm happy to be called irrational.

 

[sloth]

He was praised when he did well. And some were praising him when he didn't do that well. Some of that praise went way over the top, and a great deal of it was being expressed over his eye-catching runs and little else. There was also a good deal of denial, some of it in the face of video evidence.

Maybe some people sometimes, but that in no way characterises the majority of the support DZ receives and you know it. Besides which misplaced enthusiasm is rarely as poisonous as the negative shite which characterises the majority of the criticism thrown his way. And i mean the majority. The dumbass thing is that a) it's coming from those who should know better, and b) it's root lies not in DZ but an ignorant desire to save face when confronted with the evidence.

So it's irrational to complain that he's not putting in nearly as many tackles as he should, but rational to hang out the bunting for an apparently one-off pass? If so, I'm happy to be called irrational.

And there you go again... really SS it's beneath you. If one of your former pupils ever came out with a straw man of an argument like that you'd have had their guts for garters :-|
Rubbish!