Hughesy Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Do you acknowledge that within a team there are players of a different level? Not everyone within a top ten team is necessarily a 'top ten' player. They are merely playing in a top ten team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Nguyen Van Falk Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 His first full season in the EPL isn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Do you acknowledge that within a team there are players of a different level? Not everyone within a top ten team is necessarily a 'top ten' player. They are merely playing in a top ten team. Of course some are better than others. But Coloccini and Williamson have been our first choice pairing pretty much all season, and we've been in the top half of the league most of the time (more than 75% of the time in fact). I therefore can't quite see how you can claim he's not good enough to be a first choice centre half for a top ten side. What more proof can there be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wullie Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 The whole "he's a top 4/top 6/Premiership/Championship" player argument is fundamentally flawed really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Poor Dave battling away there I'd help out, but you're painting the argument pretty simply. Williamson is a top ten player because he's spent the majority of the season playing well in a top ten team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Do you acknowledge that within a team there are players of a different level? Not everyone within a top ten team is necessarily a 'top ten' player. They are merely playing in a top ten team. Of course some are better than others. But Coloccini and Williamson have been our first choice pairing pretty much all season, and we've been in the top half of the league most of the time (more than 75% of the time in fact). I therefore can't quite see how you can claim he's not good enough to be a first choice centre half for a top ten side. What more proof can there be? What happens if we finish 15th? Is he then automatically a top 15 team defender? My assessment is based on the fact that looking at his strengths and weaknesses, looking at his performances this season, looking at other central defenders' performances and my past experiences of central defenders over the years I have watched football, I do not think he is good enough to be a top ten defender. I would be very very surprised if he remains a regular part of a top ten PL team in the coming years, whether with NUFC or someone else. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hanshithispantz Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I would say he's a top 12 player, maybe even top 11? Top 10 however is highly debateable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I would say he's a top 12 player, maybe even top 11? Top 10 however is highly debateable. I reckon 14th. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Top dog. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I just think our season confirms that he's good enough for where we're hoping to be about now, seeing as he's played a huge part in it and we're already there or thereabouts. If we want to go for Europe then perhaps an upgrade is necessary, but we need some strikers before even thinking about it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElDiablo Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 The thing with Williamson is, as opposed to Taylor, I think he'll learn from that and take no chances next time. He was caught out, but he's been solid enough all season. It's not like this stuff is happening every week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I just think our season confirms that he's good enough for where we're hoping to be about now, seeing as he's played a huge part in it and we're already there or thereabouts. If we want to go for Europe then perhaps an upgrade is necessary, but we need some strikers before even thinking about it. I'd probably agree with that assessment. If we are to challenge for top 8 next season, I think we would find it hard with him in the team. But I agree that his replacement is not a priority. I just don't think he has the attributes to be the ball playing centre half or the physical centre half (to further stereotype players) and I just can't see him getting any better. Would be interesting to analyse the goals we have conceded and work out how many he has been 'responsible' for. I seem to remember a few. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BooBoo Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 One thing which is strange for a centre back with a bit of height is that he has never looked remotely like scoring from a corner/ free kick. Offers no threat whatsoever in such situations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hughesy Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 That's part of the reason I don't rate him that highly. He is not aerially dominant or physically strong enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tachikoma Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 One thing which is strange for a centre back with a bit of height is that he has never looked remotely like scoring from a corner/ free kick. Offers no threat whatsoever in such situations. He gets on the end of those quite often, actually. He's just terrible at directing them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Fuck me is this the SMB on Newcastle-Online? Knee jerk city on here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
afar Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 What the hell's going on here. Anyway one thing's for sure we need to upgrade from him and Taylor for next season. I've got 2 strikers, 1 CB, 1 young cover DM as the team needs, plus of course any replacement for any players we are stupid enough to sell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magorific Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 FWIW Williamson has had a better season in the PL than that c*** Taylor has managed in 7 attempts. As late as February, you were saying Williamson was utter gash and Taylor had to replace him, having said you'd rather have Taylor than Joleon Lescott playing alongside Colo. Link me to this post in February, please. Complete lies, btw. And what on earth has Joleon Lescott got to do with Mike Williamson? Stop mentioning him. He's another shocking defender, just like your pal. Here you go: Jan 17: Taylor's also a more capable defender (than Williamson). Jan 17: Taylor clearly has the better attributes. I'm not a big fan of his, but he's far more capable than Williamson. Jan 17: Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. Feb 7: Lescott has ability but he's not an ideal partner for Coloccini. Rather have Saylor alongside Colo. Feb 7: He (Williamson) can and will be dropped the second Saylor is fit. And rightly so. Feb 15: It's been years since Taylor's been shown up like Williamson was against Arsenal. Feb 19: Taylor's far better in the air. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flip Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Williamson is good enough if we want to live in mediocrity. If not, he shouldn't start. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 We need better than williamson if we're going to progress, we have more pressing concerns in the summer though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 FWIW Williamson has had a better season in the PL than that c*** Taylor has managed in 7 attempts. As late as February, you were saying Williamson was utter gash and Taylor had to replace him, having said you'd rather have Taylor than Joleon Lescott playing alongside Colo. Link me to this post in February, please. Complete lies, btw. And what on earth has Joleon Lescott got to do with Mike Williamson? Stop mentioning him. He's another shocking defender, just like your pal. Here you go: Jan 17: Taylor's also a more capable defender (than Williamson). Jan 17: Taylor clearly has the better attributes. I'm not a big fan of his, but he's far more capable than Williamson. Jan 17: Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. Feb 7: Lescott has ability but he's not an ideal partner for Coloccini. Rather have Saylor alongside Colo. Feb 7: He (Williamson) can and will be dropped the second Saylor is fit. And rightly so. Feb 15: It's been years since Taylor's been shown up like Williamson was against Arsenal. Feb 19: Taylor's far better in the air. Right. And where is 'utter gash'? I maintain most of what i've said there. Although obviously i've changed my mind about the pecking order, given that Williamson's really stepped up and Taylor looks worse than ever. Just stop it, seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dinotheprehistoricgeordie Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 Love how people don't seem to realize that we're going to be nothing but mediocre for the next few years. Williamson is a decent cb, who at his age can only get better. He's not world class but I'd rather invest in a few strikers and a fullback before even considering another cb. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magorific Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 We need better than williamson if we're going to progress, we have more pressing concerns in the summer though. FWIW Williamson has had a better season in the PL than that c*** Taylor has managed in 7 attempts. As late as February, you were saying Williamson was utter gash and Taylor had to replace him, having said you'd rather have Taylor than Joleon Lescott playing alongside Colo. Link me to this post in February, please. Complete lies, btw. And what on earth has Joleon Lescott got to do with Mike Williamson? Stop mentioning him. He's another shocking defender, just like your pal. Here you go: Jan 17: Taylor's also a more capable defender (than Williamson). Jan 17: Taylor clearly has the better attributes. I'm not a big fan of his, but he's far more capable than Williamson. Jan 17: Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. Feb 7: Lescott has ability but he's not an ideal partner for Coloccini. Rather have Saylor alongside Colo. Feb 7: He (Williamson) can and will be dropped the second Saylor is fit. And rightly so. Feb 15: It's been years since Taylor's been shown up like Williamson was against Arsenal. Feb 19: Taylor's far better in the air. Right. And where is 'utter gash'? I maintain most of what i've said there. Although obviously i've changed my mind about the pecking order, given that Williamson's really stepped up and Taylor looks worse than ever. Just stop it, seriously. You asked for links. You got 'em. Seriously, you can't shout the odds - as you routinely do on here (often in the most patronising manner possible) - and then whine when people point out the inconsistencies in your arguments. So now it's ok for you to change your mind on a player, yet how many times have you come out with "I told you so weeks/months/years ago" when other people on here do the same? You also said Williamson was "weak", "very, very poor on the ball" and "as slow as they come". If I misconstrued that as you believing he was utter gash, my apologies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 You didn't misconstrue anything. You fabricated a quote to support your own stupid arguement. And yes, Williamson is basically all of the above. But he's also proved himself - especially over the last few months - to be a good defender, unlike your mate. Enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magorific Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 You didn't misconstrue anything. You fabricated a quote to support your own stupid arguement. And yes, Williamson is basically all of the above. But he's also proved himself - especially over the last few months - to be a good defender, unlike your mate. Enough. Jesus wept. Did I use quotes when I summised (look it up) your opinion of Williamson? No. So quit whining, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now