I think he had a couple of awkward moments on Sunday when he was slow on the turn. Against someone like Nani, he'll have major problems. On the offensive side, he was good, but still lacks a bit of confidence. But once he is not overawed by his more illustrious teammates, he'll be fine.
Walker..
- Thread starter dynamoSpurs
- Start date
EastLondonYid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2010
- 7,837
- 16,145
Whats your problem....this forum is all about voicing opinions....i don't rate Corluka very much and think he is DOSY.you rate him i don't ...get over it, not rating someone is part and parcel of footy fans through generations, what is you fucking problem...
oh and just to add....apart from no pace, Corluka IMO, doesn't have bottle, he fails to sense danger, can't head a ball and yes IMO is a dosy slow waste of time, his only real use is hiding behind azza and being a mate to Luka...now is that slagging enough off for you....jog on :grin:
felmani26
SC Supporter
- Jan 1, 2008
- 24,708
- 43,919
Whilst defensively naive, Walker should continue to be regarded as first choice at home but perhaps Corluka away from home against a top 10 opponent.
He has the attributes to make it at the highest level and his defensive awareness will come with age and experience but it also depends on what system we adopt and who is ahead of him on the right hand side - a 442 with Lennon simply won't work as they will both attack the same space and neither currently possess great footballing intellect to interact effectively. However, if it is a VdV/Kranjcar then this will make it very hard for the opposition to defend against and should in theory result in space for Walker to exploit with his pace and utilise his already very capable crossing ability.
He has the attributes to make it at the highest level and his defensive awareness will come with age and experience but it also depends on what system we adopt and who is ahead of him on the right hand side - a 442 with Lennon simply won't work as they will both attack the same space and neither currently possess great footballing intellect to interact effectively. However, if it is a VdV/Kranjcar then this will make it very hard for the opposition to defend against and should in theory result in space for Walker to exploit with his pace and utilise his already very capable crossing ability.
EastLondonYid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2010
- 7,837
- 16,145
On what evidence do you think Charlie is better against the top 10? he was on the pitch when we conceeded the 8 goals against the 2 manc teams...did very little to stop the rout, be it at home or away!
teddy_sheringham_125
Well-Known Member
- Jul 15, 2008
- 1,383
- 843
He was part of a 4 man defence on Sunday that completely shut Liverpool out. If he was weak then that wouldn't have happened, no matter how good the other three were. It's interesting as I was at the game on Sunday and thought he was excellent. I came back and expected to see everyone signing his praises on here, but they weren't, maybe I missed something? For me, his performance on Sunday showed how he is ready and justifiably our first choice right back.
tRiKS
Ledley's No.1 fan
- Jun 6, 2005
- 6,854
- 142
he won't. it'll be jones or smalling. jones especailly would be a world class RB
felmani26
SC Supporter
- Jan 1, 2008
- 24,708
- 43,919
Traditionally, Corluka has not been a weak link in our defending and is generally solid against the top 6 and whilst I have concerns about what he brings us offensively I think it's fair to say that he is currently a better defender than Walker.
Yes he was involved in the side that conceded 8 goals but do you think the scoreline would have been drastically altered if Walker was playing?
Bus-Conductor
SC Supporter
- Oct 19, 2004
- 39,837
- 50,713
I'm working on the premise that the more teams nearly score, the more likely they are to actually score.
EastLondonYid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2010
- 7,837
- 16,145
Can't prove either way if Walker would have made a difference...but Corluka was on the field and was poor,....oh and do you know that walker has played in 3 full games and the first half against man u ...and in those games we have conceeded no goals, i admit he is young and needs to brush up on his defending, but for me,Charlie is not good enough.
Fergie at man u has realised that to compete at the very top you have to have young pacey players,football has become quicker and quicker, and that is what we have in Walker...charlie is far too slow and lacks any urgency.
felmani26
SC Supporter
- Jan 1, 2008
- 24,708
- 43,919
Don't get me wrong, i'm not Corluka's biggest fan as his limitations in making anything meaningful offensively irritates me but I can't ignore the fact that i've rarely seen him be turned completely inside and out from an opposing winger/forward and that Walker is very suspect on a one on one situation and in keeping line with the rest of the back four.
Like I said, Walker should be first choice at home as we should in theory have the majority of posession whoever we play but away from home when we might need to soak up a bit of pressure then as of now, I would choose Corluka - in time he will be deemed back up to Walker.
agrdavidsfan
Ledley's Knee!
- Aug 25, 2005
- 10,918
- 13,352
Not sure of him tbh
Defensively I'm really not sure
I'd like to see him right mid!
Defensively I'm really not sure
I'd like to see him right mid!
EastLondonYid
Well-Known Member
- Jan 26, 2010
- 7,837
- 16,145
Don't agree......our record away to the likes of chelsea ,man u and arsenal (when they were good) are poor, and thats going there and not having a real go, we did 2nd half at the Emirates and tore them a new one, going to these places with Corluka etc has never really worked, i would sooner go and attack them, the best form of defence is attack, and i think we are good enough to adopt this policy, teams who go to OT and Chelsea and don't have a go,usually come away with nothing, and i don't believe Corluka is good at defending in any case!
thekneaf
Well-Known Member
- Jan 18, 2011
- 1,937
- 3,888
I seem to remember talk of Walker having prospects as a CB when he arrived from Sheffield Utd. I can imagine this was based on his stature rather than his defensive abilities but would few games at CB in the lower grade games (Carling, Europa) help his development? At CB he would have to concentrate on positioning and attacking wouldn't be a real option.
ShelfSide18
Well-Known Member
- Aug 23, 2006
- 8,386
- 3,122
I mentioned in the match ratings thread how it was more the dynamics of his play that was so effective rather than his actual play (if that makes any sense) on Sunday. His pace and willingness to get forward actively occupied Enrique and forced him onto the back foot which stifled their left hand side superbly. With Walkers pace we could also afford to play a higher line in defence which rendered Andy Carroll useless, as he is far more effective winning balls closer to the goal than we allowed him too. This obviously left a fair amount of space in behind but because of our excellent aggressive pressing we didn't allow them the opportunity to spring Suarez at all, and the only player likely too got sent off after half hour - and perhaps Adams frustration at being pressed so well lead to his early bath?
The point I am making is that just by virtue of his pace and instinct to get forward it affected our tactics and system, Charlie is a better footballer and defender, but the team sits deeper as a result, and he can't afford to get forward like Walker can. I've always been a fan of Charlie, and only recently I said I would prefer Charlie every time but I am starting to see the huge benefits fast, attacking full backs give a team.
As for Walker himself, he's certainly not the beat defender around, and he will get caught out, and going forward I think his intelligence and delivery will be hit and miss but he is young and he will learn quickly playing regularly. Ultimately I think Walker, whilst being the type of player we need, probably won't be the actual player we want, but I'd love to be proved wrong on that. For now I think we should use both Charlie and Walker to suit the respective situations we will come up against, because they both offer us something different to suit different tactical arrangements.
The point I am making is that just by virtue of his pace and instinct to get forward it affected our tactics and system, Charlie is a better footballer and defender, but the team sits deeper as a result, and he can't afford to get forward like Walker can. I've always been a fan of Charlie, and only recently I said I would prefer Charlie every time but I am starting to see the huge benefits fast, attacking full backs give a team.
As for Walker himself, he's certainly not the beat defender around, and he will get caught out, and going forward I think his intelligence and delivery will be hit and miss but he is young and he will learn quickly playing regularly. Ultimately I think Walker, whilst being the type of player we need, probably won't be the actual player we want, but I'd love to be proved wrong on that. For now I think we should use both Charlie and Walker to suit the respective situations we will come up against, because they both offer us something different to suit different tactical arrangements.
Real_madyidd
The best username, unless you are a fucking idiot.
- Oct 25, 2004
- 18,802
- 12,479
The reverse is true.
felmani26
SC Supporter
- Jan 1, 2008
- 24,708
- 43,919
But that's a tad harsh to single out a performance against those teams and attribute all our play down to a right back. It's quite conceivable that even with Walker playing it may not have translated into a more attacking team threat and that it actually might have impacted on the likes of Lennon who was starting at the time in that they both attack the same space but this is all subjective either way.
Similar threads
