Mike Williamson (now managing MK Dons)

[alexf]

my eyes!

[Ronaldo]

I think we should put this to a vote. Let's say both will be fit for an important game coming up; Williamson or Taylor? For all those saying Williamson's better I've yet to hear anyone make a case as to why Williamson a better defender other than mentioning his leadership or awareness of his weaknesses.

[Deuce]

I'd say Williamson simply because he's the hot hand. Taylor hasn't played since the City game and Williamson has performed rather well since joining the starting XI.

[Ronaldo]

When I said 'fit' I meant both would be match fit, hypothetically.

[LRD]

All things considered, MYM should be the only permanent fixture in 2 to 3 seasons. The rest are no long-term solutions.

 

Shame that we can't look that far ahead in bringing in better players when it takes time to build up a defensive partnership.

 

For now the form player/ partnership should get the nod.

[Deuce]

I'd go with Big Mike until he struggles. He and MYM seem to have a nice balance at the moment.

[LRD]

The two partnerships that seem to have a decent understanding are Willo-MYM and Taylor-Colo. Anything else out of these two combinations, we are regularly at risk of heart seizures.

[Cronky]

I think we should put this to a vote. Let's say both will be fit for an important game coming up; Williamson or Taylor? For all those saying Williamson's better I've yet to hear anyone make a case as to why Williamson a better defender other than mentioning his leadership or awareness of his weaknesses.

 

Does somebody want to explain to me what Mike Williamson does better than Taylor, apart from keep his gob shut in the local press?

 

I'll repeat a point I've made before. Despite his power and athleticism, Taylor does not seem to impose himself enough on the game. He tends to back off, staying goalside to avoid getting beaten, relying on blocking rather than intercepting or tackling.

 

In terms of general ability, Williamson probably doesn't have anything over Taylor. (His distribution may be a bit better, but both are poor so I won't labour that point) In fact Taylor is stronger and quicker. But in terms of his style of defending, Williamson is much more pro-active. Crucially, he gets closer to his opponent. He's less worried about making mistakes and takes more initiative.

[Ronaldo]

Forgive me Cronky but I thought you just implied that Williamson distributes the ball better than Taylor.

[Unbelievable]

I think MYM will be Colo's replacement, but what he needs is an upgrade of Taylor next to him. Someone who is comfortable on the ball but is designated to do the basics very well, can compete with a physical CF, good in the air,  will be positionally sound and allow MYM to go out and try to win the ball, covering behind him. 

 

Not impossible to find if you are willing to spend the money on it. Unfortunately, we aren't.

 

Sounds exactly like the player Kinnear decided to cancel the transfer for this summer just gone..

[Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast]

It's too early to say whether Willo is the answer to our defensive problems but we've conceded only 5 goals in 4 matches (didn't count Everton) when he was playing and 11 in 6 when he wasn't.

[Guest palnese]

It's too early to say whether Willo is the answer to our defensive problems but we've conceded only 5 goals in 4 matches (didn't count Everton) when he was playing and 11 in 6 when he wasn't.

 

It really isn't. He's not the answer and never will be.

[TRon]

The two partnerships that seem to have a decent understanding are Willo-MYM and Taylor-Colo. Anything else out of these two combinations, we are regularly at risk of heart seizures.

 

Colo and Williamson usually do well as a pair too. If Taylor and Williamson are considered the big defenders amongst our group of CBs it's a toss up between the two. Taylor is more aggressive but Mike is probably steadier. I'd go with Wilo until he loses form.

[Guest DebuchyAndTheBeast]

It's too early to say whether Willo is the answer to our defensive problems but we've conceded only 5 goals in 4 matches (didn't count Everton) when he was playing and 11 in 6 when he wasn't.

 

It really isn't. He's not the answer and never will be.

 

I'm only stating the facts. We only conceded 2 goals with Willo against the 3rd and 5th best attacks in the league whereas we shipped in 3 against a Steve Bruce side, without him. 

[LRD]

Aye, stats prove that a team's defence is entirely about the defenders, particularly the CBs.

[Al Moody]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2491905/Life-perspective-Newcastles-Williamson-talks-balancing-family-life-professional-career-centre-backs-remarkable-resurgence-continues.html

 

 

[Guest firetotheworks]

I think we should put this to a vote. Let's say both will be fit for an important game coming up; Williamson or Taylor? For all those saying Williamson's better I've yet to hear anyone make a case as to why Williamson a better defender other than mentioning his leadership or awareness of his weaknesses.

 

It's not just what Williamson has, it's what Taylor doesn't. Rightly or wrongly, I've got it into my head that Taylor makes basic errors (usually in picking up players or being too gung ho) and then blames others.

 

You also have to take injuries into account. Say Taylor has had a run of games and we have an important game, I'd play him. Say Taylor is coming straight back from injury and is fit for an important game as his first game back, I'd go with Williamson. I honestly would.

[Elliottman]

I think we should put this to a vote. Let's say both will be fit for an important game coming up; Williamson or Taylor? For all those saying Williamson's better I've yet to hear anyone make a case as to why Williamson a better defender other than mentioning his leadership or awareness of his weaknesses.

 

It's not just what Williamson has, it's what Taylor doesn't. Rightly or wrongly, I've got it into my head that Taylor makes basic errors (usually in picking up players or being too gung ho) and then blames others.

 

You also have to take injuries into account. Say Taylor has had a run of games and we have an important game, I'd play him. Say Taylor is coming straight back from injury and is fit for an important game as his first game back, I'd go with Williamson. I honestly would.

 

Williamson also makes basic errors and is dreadful on the ball. That being said, he's in good form at the moment and even though I wouldnt want to see him in there long term, well played to the lad. I thought he was done here. Seems like a decent honest enough bloke too.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Disagree that he makes basic errors tbh. Not that it matters if the end result is the same, but he's generally beaten by lack of ability  or mobility than losing a marker or being too rash.

[nufc4eva]

I think we should put this to a vote. Let's say both will be fit for an important game coming up; Williamson or Taylor? For all those saying Williamson's better I've yet to hear anyone make a case as to why Williamson a better defender other than mentioning his leadership or awareness of his weaknesses.

 

It's not just what Williamson has, it's what Taylor doesn't. Rightly or wrongly, I've got it into my head that Taylor makes basic errors (usually in picking up players or being too gung ho) and then blames others.

 

You also have to take injuries into account. Say Taylor has had a run of games and we have an important game, I'd play him. Say Taylor is coming straight back from injury and is fit for an important game as his first game back, I'd go with Williamson. I honestly would.

 

Taylor is better with ball at his feet, but that's all. Williamson is better at positioning himself and basic defending just absolute garbage when expected to do anything with the ball. He has played well when back in team tbh

[Elliottman]

Disagree that he makes basic errors tbh. Not that it matters if the end result is the same, but he's generally beaten by lack of ability  or mobility than losing a marker or being too rash.

 

Well depends what you class as an error I suppose. Getting the ball in 30 yards of space and launching it upfield without taking a moment to compose youself is an error. Off the top of my head, Cardiff he made an error that lead to a goal. But like I say, I'm not getting on his back, he's doing well. He does a job as a squad player. He'll more than likely play more than Taylor too due to Taylor's glass shell.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Disagree that he makes basic errors tbh. Not that it matters if the end result is the same, but he's generally beaten by lack of ability  or mobility than losing a marker or being too rash.

 

Well depends what you class as an error I suppose. Getting the ball in 30 yards of space and launching it upfield without taking a moment to compose youself is an error. Off the top of my head, Cardiff he made an error that lead to a goal. But like I say, I'm not getting on his back, he's doing well. He does a job as a squad player. He'll more than likely play more than Taylor too due to Taylor's glass shell.

 

Tbf, Mike Williamson trying to pass it out of defense is much more likely to result in an error. He's covering for his lack of ability by launching it and although I get pissed off, I get pissed off by the fact that he's starting for us, rather than get directly pissed off by him.

[BrettNUFC]

Neither are them are the answer as we all know, but this moment in time even if Taylor was fit, you'd have to keep Willo in the side ahead of him. He's hardly put a foot wrong bar his air kick at Cardiff. Also the fact he hasn't even had a stable CB partner makes his form even better, he's adapted to each player put alongside him and that's a big positive.

[Al Moody]

At the moment I'm picking Williamson over Taylor any day of the week. But mainly on a Saturday.

[Ryan_Taylor]

Shouldn't be dropped for Taylor. At all.