Poll Dann or Cahill
- Thread starter Modo
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Prefix for Poll Threads
- Status
Re: Re: Dann or Cahill
[quote author=Modo link=topic=46385.msg1377813#msg1377813 date=1313050577]
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=46385.msg1377798#msg1377798 date=1313049328]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=46385.msg1377350#msg1377350 date=1312980633]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=46385.msg1377321#msg1377321 date=1312977041]
If Cahill wasn't good in the air then there would be no point us having any interest in him.
That has to be part of his list of pro's.
[/quote]
Id say that he's good in the air but not as good as Dann. So therefore I left it out of the pros.
[/quote]
I would say Dann is one of the weaker CB's in the league when it comes to heading. How many times have you seen him play Modo?
Molbystwin, it was Roger Johnson who got injured in the League Cup final against Arsenal not Dann and indeed Johnson was magnificent that day.
[/quote]
Of course I've seen him play but it's strange that your saying that heading is one of his weaker traits, cause every thing I've read about him on the net says that his main strength is his aerial ability.
[/quote]
Well I saw him regularly when he was at Coventry and quite often for Birmingham and although he is OK aerially he certainly is no Roger Johnson, Vidic, Terry, Dawson etc. I know he must have scored a header at some stage but I can't remember him scoring one.
[quote author=Modo link=topic=46385.msg1377813#msg1377813 date=1313050577]
[quote author=Pesam link=topic=46385.msg1377798#msg1377798 date=1313049328]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=46385.msg1377350#msg1377350 date=1312980633]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=46385.msg1377321#msg1377321 date=1312977041]
If Cahill wasn't good in the air then there would be no point us having any interest in him.
That has to be part of his list of pro's.
[/quote]
Id say that he's good in the air but not as good as Dann. So therefore I left it out of the pros.
[/quote]
I would say Dann is one of the weaker CB's in the league when it comes to heading. How many times have you seen him play Modo?
Molbystwin, it was Roger Johnson who got injured in the League Cup final against Arsenal not Dann and indeed Johnson was magnificent that day.
[/quote]
Of course I've seen him play but it's strange that your saying that heading is one of his weaker traits, cause every thing I've read about him on the net says that his main strength is his aerial ability.
[/quote]
Well I saw him regularly when he was at Coventry and quite often for Birmingham and although he is OK aerially he certainly is no Roger Johnson, Vidic, Terry, Dawson etc. I know he must have scored a header at some stage but I can't remember him scoring one.
he looks shite to me. we need a monster and i dont reckon anyone would call him that.
There's no point buying another centre back just for some depth because of our injury issues, if we're gonna buy one we should buy one who gives us something we lack. I've heard people say Dann/Cahill are better than Skrtel/Carra/Agger, based on what? A couple of seasons standing out for mediocre sides that are constantly under the cosh? Not that that's not a good measure, but hailing them as better than what we've got seems a bit wide of the mark, they seem much of a muchness and not much different and it's certainly debatable if they're 'better'.
We need a player who's commanding aerially, if neither of these lads are then you have to ask why the fuck we're bothering.
We need a player who's commanding aerially, if neither of these lads are then you have to ask why the fuck we're bothering.
yep.
T
the_khl
Guest
[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=46385.msg1377847#msg1377847 date=1313052921]
There's no point buying another centre back just for some depth because of our injury issues, if we're gonna buy one we should buy one who gives us something we lack. I've heard people say Dann/Cahill are better than Skrtel/Carra/Agger, based on what? A couple of seasons standing out for mediocre sides that are constantly under the cosh? Not that that's not a good measure, but hailing them as better than what we've got seems a bit wide of the mark, they seem much of a muchness and not much different and it's certainly debatable if they're 'better'.
We need a player who's commanding aerially, if neither of these lads are then you have to ask why the fuck we're bothering.
[/quote]
This is a very good post and one I agree wholeheartedly with. I've been arguing the same viewpoints with regards to posters claiming Dann was already the better defender. I'm not saying that he's not got potential etc. but there's some way from playing regularly good with Birmingham and then do the same at Liverpool.
The likes of Subotic, Hummels etc. are a different breed as they've already won silverware and been the best in their position throughout a whole Season in the competitive Bundesliga.
There's no point buying another centre back just for some depth because of our injury issues, if we're gonna buy one we should buy one who gives us something we lack. I've heard people say Dann/Cahill are better than Skrtel/Carra/Agger, based on what? A couple of seasons standing out for mediocre sides that are constantly under the cosh? Not that that's not a good measure, but hailing them as better than what we've got seems a bit wide of the mark, they seem much of a muchness and not much different and it's certainly debatable if they're 'better'.
We need a player who's commanding aerially, if neither of these lads are then you have to ask why the fuck we're bothering.
[/quote]
This is a very good post and one I agree wholeheartedly with. I've been arguing the same viewpoints with regards to posters claiming Dann was already the better defender. I'm not saying that he's not got potential etc. but there's some way from playing regularly good with Birmingham and then do the same at Liverpool.
The likes of Subotic, Hummels etc. are a different breed as they've already won silverware and been the best in their position throughout a whole Season in the competitive Bundesliga.
[quote author=Mystic link=topic=46385.msg1377880#msg1377880 date=1313055723]
It won't happen but in an ideal world we'd have Subotic =(
[/quote]
Yeah, that would be great. Have wanted us to sign him for the last 12 months but you are, unfortunately, exactly right: it won't happen.
It won't happen but in an ideal world we'd have Subotic =(
[/quote]
Yeah, that would be great. Have wanted us to sign him for the last 12 months but you are, unfortunately, exactly right: it won't happen.
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=46385.msg1377749#msg1377749 date=1313032367]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46385.msg1377498#msg1377498 date=1312993849]
I've yet to be convinced that the new CB has to be a monster in the air TBH. I suspect Jocky and Lawrenson would be the majority choice as the CB duo for our All-Time XI and neither was much cop at heading the ball, which was probably played more through the air in those days than it is now.
[/quote]
Maybe the definition of a "monster in the air" needs to be clarified but, for all intents and purposes, I'd disagree with this quite strongly.
Sami had a lot of qualities but it's no co-incidence that since he left or - as Del points out - since he stopped being a regular, we've been conceding from set pieces. Not even just set pieces - everytime a ball gets off the earths surface we've looked decidedly vulnerable and leaked goals horribly. Citing Jocky and Lawrenson isn't really fair cause they were playing in a much better team and the opposition didn't attack anywhere near as readily. Nor, importantly, were set pieces such a problem because the ball was completely different and couldn't be whipped in with such venom and dip.
I'll also comment that a number of us who watched them play picked Jocky and Sami as our preferred CB partnership. 😉 Just to rekindle that debate and all.
[/quote]
Saying I'm not convinced we need "a monster in the air" was an attempt to strike a balance. Of course I'm not saying aerial ability is not important in a CB, but what I was - and still am - saying is that it isn't so important that it should outweigh everything else. Our new signing would need to be competent in the air but IMO not necessarily outstanding.
That brings me to your second para.which, characteristically cogent as it is, doesn't convince me. Conceding straight away that Sami had a lot of qualities, your argument then seems to me to ignore the others and still place overmuch emphasis just on heading the ball. IMO those other things Sami brought to the team - reading the game, organising the back four, sheer physical strength - are as important, hence their absence has been as damaging, as Sami's aerial power. I don't accept that the comparison with Jocky and Lawrenson is an unfair one - when we WERE attacked in their day (and incidentally I don't remember it happening as rarely as you imply) such attacks came more often through the air than they do now. Fair point about the different properties of the ball being used at the time, but IMO that's balanced out (to say the least) by the greater frequency then of aerial attacks overall.
I loved the big Finn and in many ways would far rather vote him into the All-Time XI than Lawrenson, but I simply can't break up that Hansen-Lawrenson combo, the footballing equivalent of peaches and cream. It's a close-run thing all right, but if the whole of LFC's support could be canvassed I'd be willing to bet you'd end up in a (quite possibly sizeable) minority.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46385.msg1377498#msg1377498 date=1312993849]
I've yet to be convinced that the new CB has to be a monster in the air TBH. I suspect Jocky and Lawrenson would be the majority choice as the CB duo for our All-Time XI and neither was much cop at heading the ball, which was probably played more through the air in those days than it is now.
[/quote]
Maybe the definition of a "monster in the air" needs to be clarified but, for all intents and purposes, I'd disagree with this quite strongly.
Sami had a lot of qualities but it's no co-incidence that since he left or - as Del points out - since he stopped being a regular, we've been conceding from set pieces. Not even just set pieces - everytime a ball gets off the earths surface we've looked decidedly vulnerable and leaked goals horribly. Citing Jocky and Lawrenson isn't really fair cause they were playing in a much better team and the opposition didn't attack anywhere near as readily. Nor, importantly, were set pieces such a problem because the ball was completely different and couldn't be whipped in with such venom and dip.
I'll also comment that a number of us who watched them play picked Jocky and Sami as our preferred CB partnership. 😉 Just to rekindle that debate and all.
[/quote]
Saying I'm not convinced we need "a monster in the air" was an attempt to strike a balance. Of course I'm not saying aerial ability is not important in a CB, but what I was - and still am - saying is that it isn't so important that it should outweigh everything else. Our new signing would need to be competent in the air but IMO not necessarily outstanding.
That brings me to your second para.which, characteristically cogent as it is, doesn't convince me. Conceding straight away that Sami had a lot of qualities, your argument then seems to me to ignore the others and still place overmuch emphasis just on heading the ball. IMO those other things Sami brought to the team - reading the game, organising the back four, sheer physical strength - are as important, hence their absence has been as damaging, as Sami's aerial power. I don't accept that the comparison with Jocky and Lawrenson is an unfair one - when we WERE attacked in their day (and incidentally I don't remember it happening as rarely as you imply) such attacks came more often through the air than they do now. Fair point about the different properties of the ball being used at the time, but IMO that's balanced out (to say the least) by the greater frequency then of aerial attacks overall.
I loved the big Finn and in many ways would far rather vote him into the All-Time XI than Lawrenson, but I simply can't break up that Hansen-Lawrenson combo, the footballing equivalent of peaches and cream. It's a close-run thing all right, but if the whole of LFC's support could be canvassed I'd be willing to bet you'd end up in a (quite possibly sizeable) minority.
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=46385.msg1378137#msg1378137 date=1313073197]
OptaJoe Opta Sports
35% - Of the 856 headed clearances made by R Johnson/S Dann in the last 2 PL seasons, Dann made 296 of them, just over a third. Sidekick.
[/quote]
And I wouldn't be surprised if the left back Ridgewell cleared as many headers as Dann because he's better in the air too.
OptaJoe Opta Sports
35% - Of the 856 headed clearances made by R Johnson/S Dann in the last 2 PL seasons, Dann made 296 of them, just over a third. Sidekick.
[/quote]
And I wouldn't be surprised if the left back Ridgewell cleared as many headers as Dann because he's better in the air too.
I doubt it, but it may be that he's seen more as a fullback option at the moment, especially since he's done so well when he's played there.
Pesam would make a great Scout, if he was ever interested in a career switch!
I'm not particularly keen on either player, as they are both certainly (In my opinion only of course) not an improvement on what we have. But if you put a gun against my head, i'd choose Cahill.
I still don't see why we can't sit tight and see how the market plays out in this front. We have one more season to make this signing and make it right!
We have a squad to get back to the top and attract top talent. Why should we fill our boots with average players now, especially when we have better players in the current squad?
I'm not particularly keen on either player, as they are both certainly (In my opinion only of course) not an improvement on what we have. But if you put a gun against my head, i'd choose Cahill.
I still don't see why we can't sit tight and see how the market plays out in this front. We have one more season to make this signing and make it right!
We have a squad to get back to the top and attract top talent. Why should we fill our boots with average players now, especially when we have better players in the current squad?
S
Squiggles
Guest
[quote author=737Max link=topic=46385.msg1378216#msg1378216 date=1313079129]
Can we not just buy Per Mertasacker and be done with the whole Cahill/Dann arguement?
[/quote]
Second that.
Can we not just buy Per Mertasacker and be done with the whole Cahill/Dann arguement?
[/quote]
Second that.
[quote author=Squiggles link=topic=46385.msg1378270#msg1378270 date=1313085695]
[quote author=737Max link=topic=46385.msg1378216#msg1378216 date=1313079129]
Can we not just buy Per Mertasacker and be done with the whole Cahill/Dann arguement?
[/quote]
Second that.
[/quote]
Thirded. Mertesacker is on the market, Werder president said that he promised the player that they will "listen to reasonable offers". He is starting German national team CB entering his prime. Similar qualities (and shortcomings) to Sami - dominant in the air, good reading of the game, physically strong, slow. Should be a no-brainer.
[quote author=737Max link=topic=46385.msg1378216#msg1378216 date=1313079129]
Can we not just buy Per Mertasacker and be done with the whole Cahill/Dann arguement?
[/quote]
Second that.
[/quote]
Thirded. Mertesacker is on the market, Werder president said that he promised the player that they will "listen to reasonable offers". He is starting German national team CB entering his prime. Similar qualities (and shortcomings) to Sami - dominant in the air, good reading of the game, physically strong, slow. Should be a no-brainer.
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46385.msg1378058#msg1378058 date=1313068797]
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=46385.msg1377749#msg1377749 date=1313032367]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46385.msg1377498#msg1377498 date=1312993849]
I've yet to be convinced that the new CB has to be a monster in the air TBH. I suspect Jocky and Lawrenson would be the majority choice as the CB duo for our All-Time XI and neither was much cop at heading the ball, which was probably played more through the air in those days than it is now.
[/quote]
Maybe the definition of a "monster in the air" needs to be clarified but, for all intents and purposes, I'd disagree with this quite strongly.
Sami had a lot of qualities but it's no co-incidence that since he left or - as Del points out - since he stopped being a regular, we've been conceding from set pieces. Not even just set pieces - everytime a ball gets off the earths surface we've looked decidedly vulnerable and leaked goals horribly. Citing Jocky and Lawrenson isn't really fair cause they were playing in a much better team and the opposition didn't attack anywhere near as readily. Nor, importantly, were set pieces such a problem because the ball was completely different and couldn't be whipped in with such venom and dip.
I'll also comment that a number of us who watched them play picked Jocky and Sami as our preferred CB partnership. 😉 Just to rekindle that debate and all.
[/quote]
Saying I'm not convinced we need "a monster in the air" was an attempt to strike a balance. Of course I'm not saying aerial ability is not important in a CB, but what I was - and still am - saying is that it isn't so important that it should outweigh everything else. Our new signing would need to be competent in the air but IMO not necessarily outstanding.
That brings me to your second para.which, characteristically cogent as it is, doesn't convince me. Conceding straight away that Sami had a lot of qualities, your argument then seems to me to ignore the others and still place overmuch emphasis just on heading the ball. IMO those other things Sami brought to the team - reading the game, organising the back four, sheer physical strength - are as important, hence their absence has been as damaging, as Sami's aerial power. I don't accept that the comparison with Jocky and Lawrenson is an unfair one - when we WERE attacked in their day (and incidentally I don't remember it happening as rarely as you imply) such attacks came more often through the air than they do now. Fair point about the different properties of the ball being used at the time, but IMO that's balanced out (to say the least) by the greater frequency then of aerial attacks overall.
I loved the big Finn and in many ways would far rather vote him into the All-Time XI than Lawrenson, but I simply can't break up that Hansen-Lawrenson combo, the footballing equivalent of peaches and cream. It's a close-run thing all right, but if the whole of LFC's support could be canvassed I'd be willing to bet you'd end up in a (quite possibly sizeable) minority.
[/quote]
That's an excellent post Jules. Your point on my raising Sami's many qualities and then concentrating on only one is spot on - I did actually think about it when I was writing the post but then left it as is.
I certainly don't think that we should look for a monster in the air at the expense of all else. However, our backline is a little differnt to what it was in Sami's day. Both Skrtel and Agger are significantly quicker than what H + H were (or Carra for that matter) and Agger has grown significantly in his passing over the last two seasons. Absolutely I would love to have someone who read the game as well as Sami, who could play the defense splitting pass as well as him or was as strong in the tackle as he was. However, given the strengths of our other CB's (and weaknesses) the primary quality has to be, IMO, strength in the air. If he isn't dominant in that aspect then what's the point? We don't want to get a CB for the sake of getting him or because he's available. We want a CB who's going to fill (as well as possible) our major short fall and that's arial ability.
If he's 6"5 and can clean up everything that leaves the ground but can't move sideways, misses every tackle and colour blind when passing then I'll happily say he shouldn't get a look in. By the same token, however, if he's as fast as they come, reads the game well, can bring the ball out of the back but no better in the air than Skrtel then what's the point? We sign another good CB who solve the problems we've got.
First priority is he's got to be great in the air - then everything else can be evaluated.
As for Sami and Lawrenson; it is tight but I think there's a little bit of misty red tint for some of our old time performers at times. Sami, IMO, was better.
[quote author=Wizardry link=topic=46385.msg1377749#msg1377749 date=1313032367]
[quote author=Judge Jules link=topic=46385.msg1377498#msg1377498 date=1312993849]
I've yet to be convinced that the new CB has to be a monster in the air TBH. I suspect Jocky and Lawrenson would be the majority choice as the CB duo for our All-Time XI and neither was much cop at heading the ball, which was probably played more through the air in those days than it is now.
[/quote]
Maybe the definition of a "monster in the air" needs to be clarified but, for all intents and purposes, I'd disagree with this quite strongly.
Sami had a lot of qualities but it's no co-incidence that since he left or - as Del points out - since he stopped being a regular, we've been conceding from set pieces. Not even just set pieces - everytime a ball gets off the earths surface we've looked decidedly vulnerable and leaked goals horribly. Citing Jocky and Lawrenson isn't really fair cause they were playing in a much better team and the opposition didn't attack anywhere near as readily. Nor, importantly, were set pieces such a problem because the ball was completely different and couldn't be whipped in with such venom and dip.
I'll also comment that a number of us who watched them play picked Jocky and Sami as our preferred CB partnership. 😉 Just to rekindle that debate and all.
[/quote]
Saying I'm not convinced we need "a monster in the air" was an attempt to strike a balance. Of course I'm not saying aerial ability is not important in a CB, but what I was - and still am - saying is that it isn't so important that it should outweigh everything else. Our new signing would need to be competent in the air but IMO not necessarily outstanding.
That brings me to your second para.which, characteristically cogent as it is, doesn't convince me. Conceding straight away that Sami had a lot of qualities, your argument then seems to me to ignore the others and still place overmuch emphasis just on heading the ball. IMO those other things Sami brought to the team - reading the game, organising the back four, sheer physical strength - are as important, hence their absence has been as damaging, as Sami's aerial power. I don't accept that the comparison with Jocky and Lawrenson is an unfair one - when we WERE attacked in their day (and incidentally I don't remember it happening as rarely as you imply) such attacks came more often through the air than they do now. Fair point about the different properties of the ball being used at the time, but IMO that's balanced out (to say the least) by the greater frequency then of aerial attacks overall.
I loved the big Finn and in many ways would far rather vote him into the All-Time XI than Lawrenson, but I simply can't break up that Hansen-Lawrenson combo, the footballing equivalent of peaches and cream. It's a close-run thing all right, but if the whole of LFC's support could be canvassed I'd be willing to bet you'd end up in a (quite possibly sizeable) minority.
[/quote]
That's an excellent post Jules. Your point on my raising Sami's many qualities and then concentrating on only one is spot on - I did actually think about it when I was writing the post but then left it as is.
I certainly don't think that we should look for a monster in the air at the expense of all else. However, our backline is a little differnt to what it was in Sami's day. Both Skrtel and Agger are significantly quicker than what H + H were (or Carra for that matter) and Agger has grown significantly in his passing over the last two seasons. Absolutely I would love to have someone who read the game as well as Sami, who could play the defense splitting pass as well as him or was as strong in the tackle as he was. However, given the strengths of our other CB's (and weaknesses) the primary quality has to be, IMO, strength in the air. If he isn't dominant in that aspect then what's the point? We don't want to get a CB for the sake of getting him or because he's available. We want a CB who's going to fill (as well as possible) our major short fall and that's arial ability.
If he's 6"5 and can clean up everything that leaves the ground but can't move sideways, misses every tackle and colour blind when passing then I'll happily say he shouldn't get a look in. By the same token, however, if he's as fast as they come, reads the game well, can bring the ball out of the back but no better in the air than Skrtel then what's the point? We sign another good CB who solve the problems we've got.
First priority is he's got to be great in the air - then everything else can be evaluated.
As for Sami and Lawrenson; it is tight but I think there's a little bit of misty red tint for some of our old time performers at times. Sami, IMO, was better.
Forgive my quiffing, but I strongly suspect we'll get Dann. Just call it a hunch...
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=46385.msg1378641#msg1378641 date=1313150247]
Forgive my quiffing, but I strongly suspect we'll get Dann. Just call it a hunch...
[/quote]
yep.
Forgive my quiffing, but I strongly suspect we'll get Dann. Just call it a hunch...
[/quote]
yep.
[quote author=FoxForceFive link=topic=46385.msg1378641#msg1378641 date=1313150247]
Forgive my quiffing, but I strongly suspect we'll get Dann. Just call it a hunch...
[/quote]
That means you knw more than you are letting on Foxy....spill the beans
Forgive my quiffing, but I strongly suspect we'll get Dann. Just call it a hunch...
[/quote]
That means you knw more than you are letting on Foxy....spill the beans
Info I've been told he is still defo Arsenal bound.
- Status
