thenige Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Often, a CB pairong is more than the sum of it's parts. Colo's best performances come when he is partnered with Williamson. Somehow they complement each other in a way that makes their performances better. Totally agree with this. Colo and Taylor just don't seem to look comfortable together in comparison. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theregulars Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor's also a more capable defender. Not at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor's also a more capable defender. Than Williamson? Debatable. Both are decent enough like. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor clearly has the better attributes. I'm not a big fan of his, but he's far more capable than Williamson, who'll always have big limitations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor clearly has the better attributes. I'm not a big fan of his, but he's far more capable than Williamson, who'll always have big limitations. Debatable, again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 What's important is who works best with Colo though I quite agree. But remember, we've conceded 9 goals in the last 3 games in which Coloccini and Williamson have been paired from the start. Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor clearly has the better attributes. Does he fuck. Taylor is better physically, but Williamson is "clearly" streets ahead when it comes to general positional-sense and reading of the game. Taylor is borderline Championship-standard in both of those aspects at times, and they are arguably the most important elements of a central defender's game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilko Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 They both have big limitations, but when you consider which one is more reliable and which one compliments Coloccini better then you'd be daft not to be choosing Williamson. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 What's important is who works best with Colo though I quite agree. But remember, we've conceded 9 goals in the last 3 games in which Coloccini and Williamson have been paired from the start. Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. And? Even the best defenders in the world would concede goals with Smith and Nolan as the partnership infront of them. It says nothing about either defender. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 They both have big limitations, but when you consider which one is more reliable and which one compliments Coloccini better then you'd be daft not to be choosing Williamson. We don't really know how Taylor and Coloccini will operate together at this level. Coloccini is almost a different player to the one we saw in 08-09. Hopefully Taylor is better, too. One thing's for sure, Mike Williamson did Ok yesterday, but he isn't the answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 What's important is who works best with Colo though I quite agree. But remember, we've conceded 9 goals in the last 3 games in which Coloccini and Williamson have been paired from the start. Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. And? Even the best defenders in the world would concede goals with Smith and Nolan as the partnership infront of them. It says nothing about either defender. Their performances against Stevenage and Bolton say a fair bit more than nothing. Not nearly as much had Tiote been there, but still. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JH Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 What's important is who works best with Colo though I quite agree. But remember, we've conceded 9 goals in the last 3 games in which Coloccini and Williamson have been paired from the start. Not saying that Taylor is ideal, either. But he's got a lot more going for him. And? Even the best defenders in the world would concede goals with Smith and Nolan as the partnership infront of them. It says nothing about either defender. Their performances against Stevenage and Bolton say a fair bit more than nothing. Not nearly as much had Tiote been there, but still. What about the good performances this season? You can't just pick out two bad games and say that it says something about their partnership. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I can pick more than two. They looked mostly good, but there's room for improvement. Taylor and Coloccini should be given a chance, and will be. Because if they can click, we'll be sorted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Talyor is dreadful and a total prick. That is way Pardew is playing him. Taylor's not a bad player at all. Not a good one either unfortunately. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I've never seen a match when Taylor and Colo have looked right together. I've seen both Taylor and Williamson make mistakes, but when Taylor makes mistakes he tends to point where should have been to defer the blame. Taylor doesn't seem to know whether he wants to be a hoofer or a ball player, and he's good at neither. Williamson, imo, is a good hoofer, and complements Coloccini a lot better than Taylor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
magorific Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I've never seen a match when Taylor and Colo have looked right together. I've seen both Taylor and Williamson make mistakes, but when Taylor makes mistakes he tends to point where should have been to defer the blame. Taylor doesn't seem to know whether he wants to be a hoofer or a ball player, and he's good at neither. Williamson, imo, is a good hoofer, and complements Coloccini a lot better than Taylor. Such a good hoofer that he has been utterly embarrassed by the no-frills Jason Roberts and the cloggers of Stevenage this season (I won't mention Kevin Davies, as far better players than Williamson have struggled against him)? If Taylor had made basic ricks like Williamson did against Blackburn, Stevenage and Wigan (those who'd have us believe he is positionally fantastic should have another look at N'Zogbia's two goals), he'd be unconditionally slaughtered on here. Yes, Taylor was at fault against Man City, but so was the whole back four, and he didn't screw up as blatantly as Williamson has done either side of Christmas. Yes, Taylor is no great shakes himself - and should concentrat more on defending and less on arm-waving and badge-kissing. But if anyone can name me any truly costly mistakes he has made since the middle of the relegation season, then enlighten me. He was at least as good in the first half of last season as Williamson was in the second. My basic point is that Williamson is bizarrely over-rated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I've never seen a match when Taylor and Colo have looked right together. I've seen both Taylor and Williamson make mistakes, but when Taylor makes mistakes he tends to point where should have been to defer the blame. Taylor doesn't seem to know whether he wants to be a hoofer or a ball player, and he's good at neither. Williamson, imo, is a good hoofer, and complements Coloccini a lot better than Taylor. Such a good hoofer that he has been utterly embarrassed by the no-frills Jason Roberts and the cloggers of Stevenage this season (I won't mention Kevin Davies, as far better players than Williamson have struggled against him)? If Taylor had made basic ricks like Williamson did against Blackburn, Stevenage and Wigan (those who'd have us believe he is positionally fantastic should have another look at N'Zogbia's two goals), he'd be unconditionally slaughtered on here. Yes, Taylor was at fault against Man City, but so was the whole back four, and he didn't screw up as blatantly as Williamson has done either side of Christmas. Yes, Taylor is no great shakes himself - and should concentrat more on defending and less on arm-waving and badge-kissing. But if anyone can name me any truly costly mistakes he has made since the middle of the relegation season, then enlighten me. He was at least as good in the first half of last season as Williamson was in the second. My basic point is that Williamson is bizarrely over-rated. So why is the whole defence to blame when Taylor was at fault against Man City, but only Williamson is against Blackburn and Bolton? Colo was just as much a part of those errors, and ended up getting sent off because he was bossed against Elmander. As for the Wigan match, the positioning was fine, it was the fact he had to cover for the naively attacking Perch that was the problem, especially as Guthrie wasn't getting back either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Still think its Williamson that commands the line for the offside trap, we never seem to get it right/play it when Steven Taylor is at CB. Probably because Taylor has to draw it out on his arm so he'll understand it, and he's rubbed it off on his sweaty forehead after 10 minutes of grunting and howling at the moon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cajun Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I don't understand the Ronaldo Williamson thing. When just talking about Taylor it's normally really slagging him off. When just talking about Williamson he is decent. When comparing both Taylor is clearly the better of the two??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor is the more capable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 They both have big limitations, but when you consider which one is more reliable and which one compliments Coloccini better then you'd be daft not to be choosing Williamson. We don't really know how Taylor and Coloccini will operate together at this level. Coloccini is almost a different player to the one we saw in 08-09. Hopefully Taylor is better, too. One thing's for sure, Mike Williamson did Ok yesterday, but he isn't the answer. Until we have the luxury of spending significantly on another centre-back (which we don't, there are infinitely more pressing tasks re: imports)... he is. Williamson's prone to the odd error but he's fine for where we're at. That's unless we can unearth another Bassong, for instance, but i don't suppose there's much chance of that. Is there anything left of Vetere's scouting network at the club? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Still think its Williamson that commands the line for the offside trap, we never seem to get it right/play it when Steven Taylor is at CB. Probably because Taylor has to draw it out on his arm so he'll understand it, and he's rubbed it off on his sweaty forehead after 10 minutes of grunting and howling at the moon. he'd need another set of arms to raise. He is to busy using his current ones for handball and pointing at where he should be. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest firetotheworks Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor is the more capable. That's the type of things Andy Gray says when a player has been shit for a while. We know that Bramble is capable of excellence, but we also know he's prone to massively fucking up, it's an extreme example, but it's there to show you that a player being capable of something matters little, when their form isn't consistent enough. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ponsaelius Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Taylor is better physically and technically. He has far more natural attributes to be a superior defender to Williamson. Yet Williamson simply looks like a better defender, go figure. Saylor has been stuck at the same point of development for about 4 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 In terms of solidity, there's not a lot between them. 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