Is Coloccini still a certain starter, whenever he is fit?

Firstly, have we realised that chopping and changing formations on a regular basis isn't going to help? 4-3-3 and then 4-4-2, the players aren't even playing well in them some of you are suggesting a new formation??? Besides, there are glaring weaknesses in that formation too. We're suggesting an attack of Cabaye HBA Ba/Cisse??? A 3 man attack , 5 defenders and 2 DMs? How is that even any attack? HBA would be surrounded by defenders, they could take him out of the game by placing 1 DM or two on him the entire game. To be honest with you, if we ever played this formation, we would eventually switch back to 4-4-2 for sure(haven't we always). If I remember correctly, the last time we played 5-3-2 was against Wigan away last season, look what happened there. (4-0 down in first half)

Back to the topic, I am of the belief that Colo should be the first name on the teamsheet. The reason is because he is that good(that much is obvious). Willo, for his height and decent defending abilities, is prone to the glaring error and is obviously nowhere near the attacking threat Colo is(skill on the ball, technique, vision).. Willo is a very long player, and can defend crosses well enough, but on the deck he is only average(he has been playing well though). As for Saylor, he is a rock, I like the way he defends, reminds me of a younger John Terry(back when Terry was good) Colo and Saylor is our best partnership, even against bigger teams like Stoke. Having two big strikers doesn't mean they'll head-juggle the ball all the way into our goal, and that is why Colo's reading will be much appreciated.

Off-topic: The one major knock on Willo for me is, for his size, he can't get power and direction on his headers. Colo is a much better finesse header of the ball, so is Saylor even though Saylor missed that free header against Norwich. If Willo could improve on that, he could really be a decent 3rd CB for us.

Also, CAN WE STOP THAT ****ING SETPIECE THAT NEVER WORKS

 

You seem to forget he's our captain and inspirational leader on the pitch. He starts whenever he's fit.

 

Coloccini is an intelligent bloke, and Pards wouldn't have made him captain if he couldn't get the lads together, but he's not the only inspirational player in the side, and if it's a tactical decision, you should consider dropping your captian. Being captain doesn't automatically gaurantee you a start. Alan Smith was our captain at one point, and he was on the bench. Nolan was dropped at times when he was captain, and Nolan was a very big figure in the dressing room.

Saylor has never been captain, or vice captain, and he communicates extremely well with the back four, and was as good as a capatain vs Norwich. Worked very hard, made himself very vocal.

IMO there are some games where the Saylor and Willo partnership could be beneficial, and it would be worth starting in certain games.

 

Colo gets better finesse on his heads, but Willo wins more. And I don't think Colo is more of an attacking threat tbh. He's better on the ball, and links up better with the side, but it's not as if he creates things that often. He'll have a flash of brilliance 2/3 times a season, where he'll skin a player, and be a part of an attacking move that scores a goal. Willo does get a few assists a season from flick ons. He assisted the goal vs Sunderland, and he won a pen for us yesterday. Plus he seems to find Shola and Ba very well from long balls.

And I never said tems like Stoke have nothing else in their locker than ball juggling, but their ability in the air, and their physical threat, can really **** us over.

I personally think if Colo was playing instead of Willo vs Norwich, that we would have conceded. Both Saylor and Willo made vital aerial challenges. Willo's height came in very handy.

There are pro's and con's to the games. It's a difficult decision, and I suppose it will come down to what tactical move Pards makes. I know that there's more to a game then winning headers, so we'll just have to see.

All I'm saying is I think it's a bit silly to think that any player is a certain starter when fit. It depends on tactics.

 

I still think Colo's a much better threat in attack than Willo though. Going forward on setpieces he has better technique and can connect with the ball better with his feet, also when intercepting balls higher up the pitch(near halfway line) he could bring it forward and dish the ball better. Even the distribution from the back, we have no worries when Colo has the ball, compared to when Willo has the ball we'll be screaming "CLEAR IT!", which he does most of the time. And that in itself is also one of the factors, with Colo he could better participate in the pass build-up than Willo, whom you would expect totally no nonsense from.

As for the Stoke comment, it was more to everyone here who's discussing it.

 

Exactly, not only do I not see the same gulf in aerial ability that some seem to see between him and Willo, the difference he makes in our attack is invaluable. Even from starting the ball from the back. The reasons our performances have been so bad is because our central midfield have hardly had a touch of the ball. It's either gone sideways to a full back then down the wing, or straight over the top with a long ball. This is why we need Colo.

 

Yes, but some attributes are needed at certian times, and against certain sides, Willo's aerial ability and height could be more useful than Colo's comfort on the ball.

Colo can strike a ball quite well, but, depsite coming close a couple of times, he never scored at all last season. He's a better passer than Willo is, and has better technique, but Willo's history speaks for itself.

He's made goals through flick ons, and against Norwich he won headers around the opponents box and knocked them down well, and we came close.

Sorry, but despite Colo being far more technical, Willo serves us better in attack due to Pardew's likeness for the long ball/crosses into the box method that we sometimes use.

I'd definitely pick Colo over Willo in most games, if not all, but all I'm saying is that it's worth considering.

 

There is definitely a gulf mate. Coloccini's placement of headers is better, but Willo wins more and can fight off a threat better. His height and presence can put players off.

Willo should be better in the air for a man of 6ft 4, and stronger, but that doesn't mean he is poor in the air overall. He's still a significantly better aerial player than Colo or Perch.

And the point you made at the end, Coloccini wont change much. We played like we have in a few games this season without him, like we have plenty of times with him. Coloccini does play some great passes along the ground, but it's silly to say that Coloccini would have that much of an effect over our performances.

Cabaye was in the middle in a 4-4-2, and in that position, all he was doing was trying to play lob balls or search for a player in space. There was no movement or clever play. We were poor because we had certain players below fitness, and also because our style was so flat and predictable. When we changed our style, we became a lot more threatening.

We played great in the 2nd half against Everton, and against Norwich yesterday for 60+ mins or so, all without Coloccini. I'd say the absence of Tiote has played more of a role in our poor performances, due to his ability to break up play, and I believe that's why we've been a bit too flat and dull, as we need to get up the pitch HBA, Ba and Cisse, so hopefully they could get the ball in the oppositions half, make some magic and score, and if they fail, the midfield is back.

With Tiote, we more often are able to play are way through teams, and if we get caught out, Tiote makes vital challenges in certain areas, and his presence breaks up the opposition.

Tiote has been more of a loss IMO.

 

Don't think he does.

Over the Wall (Raylor) is out for an indefinite period due to a serious knee injury.

Here's a little something for you, somebody you were talking about recently. He was at the game on Sunday.

 

I think Colo makes up for his weaknesses with anticipation. I just can't think of a scenario where I'd rather Willo playing if Colo was fit and available.

 

Willo's an able deputy but Colo is #1.

 

Tash you're flogging a dead horse here. Colo plays regardless of tactics or opposition. There is no circumstance in which he should ever be dropped. The only conceivable circumstance would be a dramatic run of bad form (virtually impossible he's so good) or fitness. Otherwise he simply has to start.

 

He started all the games in our relegation season. I want his fitness from that season, and form from current years.