Glen Johnson

[Gerry_A_Trick]

Yes, yes, yes, I know you're thinking behind it. It's fundamentally flawed though, as I, and some others, have tried to tell you.

But as I said, we ain't going to agree...

There is a world of difference between Babbel and Johnson by the way. Or at least the Johnson I've seen play for us.

 

[Richey]

Full BACKS should first and foremost be attacking!?! Can't be right.

 

[Gerry_A_Trick]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395569#msg1395569 date=1315410037]
That was much kinder than I would have put it Gerry.
[/quote]

Yeah, you're right. It's actually one of the most mental statements I've ever seen on here. And he's been saying pretty much the same thing for about 5 years.

 

[Modo]

How many games has he played this season?
Exactly.
How about letting him get fit, play a couple of games and judge him afterwards.

 

[Red Mullet]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395571#msg1395571 date=1315410451]

as for primary objectives, that is winning the game and that can't happen if you don't score.
[/quote]
So do we need a keeper then?

Yes, that was a little facetious but the point still stands. An individual defenders primary role is to defend. A teams' primary objective is to win.

 

[Gary25]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.

 

[Rosco]

This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place

 

[Modo]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395582#msg1395582 date=1315411434]
This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place
[/quote] crude to say the least. Bordering on unfair.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.

 

[Gary25]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395582#msg1395582 date=1315411434]
This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place


[/quote]

there are a whole hold of reasons for our conceeding more and scoring less in the past couple of years as well you know you posted these ridiculous stats.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395600#msg1395600 date=1315413829]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...
[/quote][quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395600#msg1395600 date=1315413829]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...
[/quote]

it's not worth pursuing this further, this forum can, and has knocked johnson's capacity to defend but to bring johnson's attacking prowess in question is just silly, attacking is what johnson does.

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395601#msg1395601 date=1315413872]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395582#msg1395582 date=1315411434]
This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place


[/quote]

there are a whole hold of reasons for our conceeding more and scoring less in the past couple of years as well you know you posted these ridiculous stats.
[/quote]

So is it just a complete coincidence that when we played two fullbacks that couldn't defend in 09/10 and 10/11 we had two bad defensive years ?

 

[Gary25]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395604#msg1395604 date=1315414116]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395600#msg1395600 date=1315413829]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...
[/quote][quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395600#msg1395600 date=1315413829]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...
[/quote]

it's not worth pursuing this further, this forum can, and has knocked johnson's capacity to defend but to bring johnson's attacking prowess in question is just silly, attacking is what johnson does.
[/quote]

But can you back up your claims that Johnson's good going forward in terms of assists/goals? I know he's scored a few times for us but i wouldn't say he's shit hot going forward either. Granted he's quick and has a bit of skill but his final delivery is pretty shit.

Truth be told i'm of the opinion Johnson fans tend to point to his attacking strengths in the hope it overshadows his poor defensive game.

You're not the only one...one of my best mates(fellow Red) fucking loves Glen Johnson, we're forever arguing about his worth.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395605#msg1395605 date=1315414232]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395601#msg1395601 date=1315413872]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395582#msg1395582 date=1315411434]
This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place


[/quote]

there are a whole hold of reasons for our conceeding more and scoring less in the past couple of years as well you know you posted these ridiculous stats.
[/quote]

So is it just a complete coincidence that when we played two fullbacks that couldn't defend in 09/10 and 10/11 we had two bad defensive years ?
[/quote]

johnson came into a team where there wasn't a consistent centre back pairing, and the excellent defensive sheild of alonso had fucked off to spain.

 

[spider-Neil]

[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395606#msg1395606 date=1315414561]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395604#msg1395604 date=1315414116]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395600#msg1395600 date=1315413829]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...
[/quote][quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395600#msg1395600 date=1315413829]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395596#msg1395596 date=1315413564]
[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395580#msg1395580 date=1315411169]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395565#msg1395565 date=1315409638]
[quote author=Gerry_A_Trick link=topic=46780.msg1395504#msg1395504 date=1315404613]
I'm making the assumption that Kelly and Flanagan are our future. It seems that way, but if not, then be all means keep Johnson. If both Kelly and Flanagan are not deemed good enough, I think we do need to invest in a right back, one that's a consistently good defender.

I'm not all that into full backs that aren't great defenders, for me defending comes first, and any attacking options are a bonus. For all Johnson's plus points, and all the benifits he brings to our attack, as well as relieving pressure on our defence, he's not as good defensively as we need, in my opinion anyway.
[/quote]

I'm of the opinion that fullbacks have to provide width, sure I don't want a fullback that is all over the place at the back but I want a fullback first and foremost to be attacking. we have players who offer next to nothing in an attacking sense so that balance has to be addressed especially if we are going to utilise midfielders in wide areas who aren't wingers. that said, I'm fine with what kenny does (whether he picks kelly or johnson).
[/quote]

What a load of old shit. A full back is known as a defender hence he should be able to do that before anything else.

Besides, can you tell me what Johnson brings to our attacking play...is he a good crosser? Can he pick a pass? No.
[/quote]

johnson can't pass or cross? okay, I'll leave it there.
[/quote]

Tell me what he's produced by way of killer passes/crosses...
[/quote]

it's not worth pursuing this further, this forum can, and has knocked johnson's capacity to defend but to bring johnson's attacking prowess in question is just silly, attacking is what johnson does.
[/quote]

But can you back up your claims that Johnson's good going forward in terms of assists/goals? I know he's scored a few times for us but i wouldn't say he's shit hot going forward either. Granted he's quick and has a bit of skill but his final delivery is pretty shit.

Truth be told i'm of the opinion Johnson fans tend to point to his attacking strengths in the hope it overshadows is poor defensive game.

You're not the only one...one of my best mates(fellow Red) fucking loves Glen Johnson, we're forever arguing about his worth.
[/quote]

assists and goals doesn't tell the who story, it's about providing width, it's about acting as a decoy for the wide midfielder, it's about stretching teams, all the things we need to do to WIN GAMES.
anyway, I've said my peace all that remains is kenny's decision with regards to who starts at right back. I've said who I want to see so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Fabio]

Yeah


We play wingers with width now so johnson forays forward aren't essential anymore

 

[Rosco]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395607#msg1395607 date=1315414728]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395605#msg1395605 date=1315414232]
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395601#msg1395601 date=1315413872]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395582#msg1395582 date=1315411434]
This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place


[/quote]

there are a whole hold of reasons for our conceeding more and scoring less in the past couple of years as well you know you posted these ridiculous stats.
[/quote]

So is it just a complete coincidence that when we played two fullbacks that couldn't defend in 09/10 and 10/11 we had two bad defensive years ?
[/quote]

johnson came into a team where there wasn't a consistent centre back pairing, and the excellent defensive sheild of alonso had fucked off to spain.
[/quote]

And made it considerably worse.

 

[Modo]

[quote author=Fabio link=topic=46780.msg1395612#msg1395612 date=1315415947]
Yeah


We play wingers with width now so johnson forays forward aren't essential anymore
[/quote]

Not essential? OK.
Doesn't the current champions play with two wingers and two quite adventurous fullbacks?
I'm talking Nani-Evra, Valencia-Rafael

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=46780.msg1395410#msg1395410 date=1315390674]
johnson has demonstrated that he can defend, I will go further and say that ashley cole johnson's age was at a similar level defensive and added defensive solidity later in his career.
[/quote]

Come on Neil, Skrtel was exceptional for his first year and showed he could defend consistently (the season we finished 2nd, which he played most of) yet you still berate him as an accident waiting to happen and as "always having a penalty in him", despite him giving away about one in his entire Liverpool career. So why do you then say, with regards to Johnson, that he has "demonstrated that he can defend"?

Btw, they're both the same age, Skrtel and Johnson, yet you've already condemned Skrtel pretty much as a joke and more or less last in the pecking order. Funny that.

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=Rosco link=topic=46780.msg1395582#msg1395582 date=1315411434]
This is crude but it still illustrates the point quite well - he's a liability and we'd be better off with a fullback who can defend.


This season without Johnson:

Scored 6, conceded 2. +4 . 3rd place


With Glen Johnson:

2010/11 - Scored 59, conceded 44. +15. 6th place
2009/10 - Scored 61, conceded 35. +26. 7th place

Without super attacking fullbacks:

2008/09 - Scored 77, conceded 27. +50 2nd place
2007/08 - Scored 67, conceded 28. +39. 4th place
2006/07 - Scored 57, conceded 27. +30. 3rd place
[/quote]

I thought Super-whooper Johnson helped us score more goals, what with him being a rampaging fullback and all? While helping us maintain possession as a means of defence? No? Ok.

 

[Skullflower]

i love seeing johnson in our team. one of our top players.

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=Skullflower link=topic=46780.msg1395623#msg1395623 date=1315418387]
i love seeing johnson in our team. one of our top players.
[/quote]

Yeah but do you love seeing at right back because he's one of our top defenders?

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=Modo link=topic=46780.msg1395617#msg1395617 date=1315417197]
[quote author=Fabio link=topic=46780.msg1395612#msg1395612 date=1315415947]
Yeah


We play wingers with width now so johnson forays forward aren't essential anymore
[/quote]

Not essential? OK.
Doesn't the current champions play with two wingers and two quite adventurous fullbacks?
I'm talking Nani-Evra, Valencia-Rafael
[/quote]

They do yeah, but Evra and Rafael can defend, consistently enough anyway.

 

[Modo]

Wow you guys have really turned on him.
I'll be checking this thread when he's back in the team. Hopefully against Stoke.

 

[mark1975]

[quote author=Modo link=topic=46780.msg1395627#msg1395627 date=1315418897]
Wow you guys have really turned on him.
I'll be checking this thread when he's back in the team. Hopefully against Stoke.
[/quote]

Yeah so will I Modo, it doesn't matter whether it's Stoke or whoever, the accidents will come because he's a shit fullback.

Bit rich anyway, coming from someone ripping into an 18yr old right back in the Stoke thread on the back of a few poor games, while Glen Jo has been inconsistent for years.

 

[Hansern]

Johnson is one of the most improved players under Kenny and Clarke.
He's a valuble member of our team.

 

[Modo]

[quote author=mark1975 link=topic=46780.msg1395628#msg1395628 date=1315419135]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=46780.msg1395627#msg1395627 date=1315418897]
Wow you guys have really turned on him.
I'll be checking this thread when he's back in the team. Hopefully against Stoke.
[/quote]

Yeah so will I Modo, it doesn't matter whether it's Stoke or whoever, the accidents will come because he's a shit fullback.

Bit rich anyway, coming from someone ripping into an 18yr old right back in the Stoke thread on the back of a few poor games, while Glen Jo has been inconsistent for years.
[/quote]

I'm just calling it as I see it with regards to Flanno.
Not good enough...yet.

 

[Gary25]

[quote author=Modo link=topic=46780.msg1395627#msg1395627 date=1315418897]
Wow you guys have really turned on him.
I'll be checking this thread when he's back in the team. Hopefully against Stoke.
[/quote]

When you're a Skrtel critic for seemingly being a poor defender whilst at the same time making stupid comments like a 'full back should be able to attack first and foremost' then it's natural people will question you.

 

[Modo]

[quote author=Gary25 link=topic=46780.msg1395635#msg1395635 date=1315419428]
[quote author=Modo link=topic=46780.msg1395627#msg1395627 date=1315418897]
Wow you guys have really turned on him.
I'll be checking this thread when he's back in the team. Hopefully against Stoke.
[/quote]

When you're a Skrtel critic for seemingly being a poor defender whilst at the same time making stupid comments like a 'full back should be able to attack first and foremost' then it's natural people will question you.
[/quote]
I have no quarrel with Skrts. Kinda like him. Wouldn't mind Cahill though.
If Glenjo and Kelly are unavailable against the mighty Stoke, then I guess Flanno will play.