Jores Okore

[DCJonah]

When did he say he wanted to leave?

Back in November he said he needed to play games and couldn't rule out the possibility of moving in the transfer window.

[sexbelowsound]

 

 

 

 

I'm not so sure. If we hadn't had injuries would he playing now? Let's not forget he was starting to get annoyed about lack of game time, even mentioning in the press about possibly leaving in january in order to play games.

Full credit for signing another gem but I can't agree that he's been managed to perfection, if he was then he wouldn't have been contemplating a move away, he would have been on the same page as the manager, the fact he wasn't shows to me it wasn't a perfect scenario.

He's come in when no other options were available and he's taken his chance to probably become our number 1 defender at the moment.

"Lambert has always said that he believes in him, even if it would require a rental, but that he would not use him until Jores was 110 percent ready. They would not force him" said Nikola Juric.

If that isn't managed to perfection i'm not sure what is.

If it was perfection then okore would have been on the same page.

And if vlaar, senderos and baker had remained fit would we have seen him?

So for Lambert to manage a player to perfection he has to agree with the opinion of the player? The lad had a serious injury and has little experience in the Premier League. He waited his turn as he needed to and even though he has been a revelation, if the other 4 centre backs were fit and playing well I would be happy for him to still be on the bench.

I think if a player is considering leaving its hard to say he's been managed to perfection. If he was still on the bench then we'd be looking at potentially losing a very good defender in Jan. That's not perfection.

 

 

When did he say he was leaving?

 

When did he say he wanted to leave?

Back in November he said he needed to play games and couldn't rule out the possibility of moving in the transfer window.

 

 

On loan......

[Keyblade]

 

 

 

 

I'm not so sure. If we hadn't had injuries would he playing now? Let's not forget he was starting to get annoyed about lack of game time, even mentioning in the press about possibly leaving in january in order to play games.

Full credit for signing another gem but I can't agree that he's been managed to perfection, if he was then he wouldn't have been contemplating a move away, he would have been on the same page as the manager, the fact he wasn't shows to me it wasn't a perfect scenario.

He's come in when no other options were available and he's taken his chance to probably become our number 1 defender at the moment.

"Lambert has always said that he believes in him, even if it would require a rental, but that he would not use him until Jores was 110 percent ready. They would not force him" said Nikola Juric.

If that isn't managed to perfection i'm not sure what is.

If it was perfection then okore would have been on the same page.

And if vlaar, senderos and baker had remained fit would we have seen him?

So for Lambert to manage a player to perfection he has to agree with the opinion of the player? The lad had a serious injury and has little experience in the Premier League. He waited his turn as he needed to and even though he has been a revelation, if the other 4 centre backs were fit and playing well I would be happy for him to still be on the bench.

I think if a player is considering leaving its hard to say he's been managed to perfection. If he was still on the bench then we'd be looking at potentially losing a very good defender in Jan. That's not perfection.

 

 

So what do you do? Drop one of the CBs who on merit don't deserve to be dropped, so you don't risk losing him in January? But in the process, risk playing him earlier than he is ready for? How is that managing him perfectly?

[StefanAVFC]

DCJonah, please explain how Lambert should have managed him better?

 

Rather than twisting things and repeating yourself.

[Keyblade]

 

I can't even see how you can argue that any of Vlaar, Senderos or Baker deserved to be dropped based on their respective performances. Each of them have been very good individually this season. Because we let in a lot of goals? So, which CB do we drop based on that logic? All of them and just play Okore and Clark? Or just one of them? But how do we determine which one to drop as they've all been playing at similar levels? You see how absurd the original suggestion sounds? A result of trying to argue for the sake of it I think.

Absurd to suggest changing players when losing 6 in a row and conceding 12 goals in 7 games? I don't think that's absurd. We played some top teams but also QPR and Everton and the west ham game was a pretty poor defensive display.

 

 

So we lost those games due to bad defensive performances? I thought it was because of Paul Lambert's poor tactics and ineptitude or whatever. In any case, I don't recall and huge defensive errors made during those games which would lead to any of the CBs to be dropped. Where have you ever seen managers changing entire CB pairings because of a bad run of losses?

[DCJonah]

I can't even see how you can argue that any of Vlaar, Senderos or Baker deserved to be dropped based on their respective performances. Each of them have been very good individually this season. Because we let in a lot of goals? So, which CB do we drop based on that logic? All of them and just play Okore and Clark? Or just one of them? But how do we determine which one to drop as they've all been playing at similar levels? You see how absurd the original suggestion sounds? A result of trying to argue for the sake of it I think.

Absurd to suggest changing players when losing 6 in a row and conceding 12 goals in 7 games? I don't think that's absurd. We played some top teams but also QPR and Everton and the west ham game was a pretty poor defensive display.

So we lost those games due to bad defensive performances? I thought it was because of Paul Lambert's poor tactics and ineptitude or whatever. In any case, I don't recall and huge defensive errors made during those games which would lead to any of the CBs to be dropped. Where have you ever seen managers changing entire CB pairings because of a bad run of losses?

I didn't say we lost those games soley down to the defence. But we lost 6 in a row and conceded 12, is it that crazy to think we could have tried something different? After those results i think it's absurd to suggest any player was undroppable.

[StefanAVFC]

Still no answer...

[DCJonah]

Still no answer...

I've answered those who I wish to debate with.

[StefanAVFC]

 

Still no answer...

I've answered those who I wish to debate with.

 

 

'I don't have an answer'

 

FYI, you haven't given an answer to anybody. You've just repeated your twisted arguments over and over again.

 

God forbid Lambert do something right.

Edited December 23, 2014 by StefanAVFC

[Keyblade]

 

 

 

I can't even see how you can argue that any of Vlaar, Senderos or Baker deserved to be dropped based on their respective performances. Each of them have been very good individually this season. Because we let in a lot of goals? So, which CB do we drop based on that logic? All of them and just play Okore and Clark? Or just one of them? But how do we determine which one to drop as they've all been playing at similar levels? You see how absurd the original suggestion sounds? A result of trying to argue for the sake of it I think.

Absurd to suggest changing players when losing 6 in a row and conceding 12 goals in 7 games? I don't think that's absurd. We played some top teams but also QPR and Everton and the west ham game was a pretty poor defensive display.

So we lost those games due to bad defensive performances? I thought it was because of Paul Lambert's poor tactics and ineptitude or whatever. In any case, I don't recall and huge defensive errors made during those games which would lead to any of the CBs to be dropped. Where have you ever seen managers changing entire CB pairings because of a bad run of losses?

I didn't say we lost those games soley down to the defence. But we lost 6 in a row and conceded 12, is it that crazy to think we could have tried something different? After those results i think it's absurd to suggest any player was undroppable.

 

 

Well, by that logic the entire starting XI should have been changed. But no, realistically that is never the case. It wasn't our defence that was the problem anyway, so if anything needed to be changed it was our toothless attack at the time. But that is neither here nor there. What if we weren't on that losing run? What if we won the odd game in those 6 games, would that have changed anything with respect to Okore? Would he have been any more or less ready? Would putting him in the lineup regardless of the defensive situation been managing him perfectly? He's been managed perfectly in that he wasn't rushed into the starting lineup, and given his opportunity when it arose. 

[DCJonah]

My logic doesn't suggest swapping an entire 11. I just don't think it's a crazy thought to give a very promising defender a chance when the team is losing and conceding 2 goals a game.

 

I'm not criticising lambert, I don't think he's done a lot wrong but at the same I can't agree that it was managed to perfection.  With vlaar not signing a new deal, we were putting okore in a situation where he was thinking about other options, that's not perfection.  I think Lambert was probably right to not throw him in straight away but then at the same time I think he was quite fortunate that a few injuries resulted in Okore getting his chance and saved probably a difficult decision to make in January.

[HanoiVillan]

Just to re-state what everyone is saying . . . the defence wasn't the problem in those games, the attack was. Better teams than us have done worse than conceding two late goals against Man City. 

[DCJonah]

Just to re-state what everyone is saying . . . the defence wasn't the problem in those games, the attack was. Better teams than us have done worse than conceding two late goals against Man City. 

 

We let 3 in against arsenal, a game in which if i remember correctly a lot of people were putting the blame on Clark for at least one of the goals.  We then let 3 in against chelsea, 2 against city, 3 against a poor everton side, 2 against QPR, 2 against spurs, who also had some very good chances before we were down to 10 men and the only reason we kept a clean sheet against west ham was because guzan was brilliant and they finished poorly.  

 

There were other issues in those games but not sure how anyone can look at that run and decide it was unthinkable to drop any of our defenders based on that.  We certainly weren't a defensive rock in many games despite a few decent individual performances in our defence.  

[villan-scott]

Let's just be thankful he is now in the side and performing admirably, and fast becoming a fan favourite. He should be first choice no ahead off everybody, including Vlaar, a spine of Guzan, Okore, Sanchez, and Benteke is strong is every sense of the word and one we should look at building around.

 

For the record, I love Okore, his attitude and resilience to come back the way he has.

[StefanAVFC]

So players have to be a defensive rock or a disaster?

[DCJonah]

So players have to be a defensive rock or a disaster?

Yes clearly that's what i've said.

 

Summed up entirely why i didn't bother responding to you the first time round.

[HanoiVillan]

 

Just to re-state what everyone is saying . . . the defence wasn't the problem in those games, the attack was. Better teams than us have done worse than conceding two late goals against Man City. 

 

We let 3 in against arsenal, a game in which if i remember correctly a lot of people were putting the blame on Clark for at least one of the goals (1).  We then let 3 in against chelsea, 2 against city, 3 against a poor everton side, 2 against QPR, 2 against spurs, who also had some very good chances before we were down to 10 men(2) and the only reason we kept a clean sheet against west ham was because guzan was brilliant and they finished poorly.  

 

There were other issues in those games but not sure how anyone can look at that run and decide it was unthinkable to drop any of our defenders based on that.(3)  We certainly weren't a defensive rock in many games despite a few decent individual performances in our defence.  

 

 

1) Clark wasn't in favour at that point and was picked out of necessity. 

 

2) I know how many we conceded - but those are, bar QPR, most of the best teams in the division. 

 

3) None of the centre backs who started those games played badly enough individually to deserve dropping. Simple. 

Edited December 23, 2014 by HanoiVillan

[StefanAVFC]

 

So players have to be a defensive rock or a disaster?

Yes clearly that's what i've said.

 

Summed up entirely why i didn't bother responding to you the first time round.

 

 

Asking the question because you're just repeating yourself and going around in circles.

[DCJonah]

 

 

Just to re-state what everyone is saying . . . the defence wasn't the problem in those games, the attack was. Better teams than us have done worse than conceding two late goals against Man City. 

 

We let 3 in against arsenal, a game in which if i remember correctly a lot of people were putting the blame on Clark for at least one of the goals (1).  We then let 3 in against chelsea, 2 against city, 3 against a poor everton side, 2 against QPR, 2 against spurs, who also had some very good chances before we were down to 10 men(2) and the only reason we kept a clean sheet against west ham was because guzan was brilliant and they finished poorly.  

 

There were other issues in those games but not sure how anyone can look at that run and decide it was unthinkable to drop any of our defenders based on that.(3)  We certainly weren't a defensive rock in many games despite a few decent individual performances in our defence.  

 

 

1) Clark wasn't in favour at that point and was picked out of necessity. 

 

2) I know how many we conceded - but those are, bar QPR, most of the best teams in the division. 

 

3) None of the centre backs who started those games played badly enough individually to deserve dropping. Simple. 

 

 

1) Regardless of why he was picked you said defence wasn't a problem.  Read the Clark thread, it clearly was a problem in that game.

 

2) Good teams or not if we're conceding and losing surely it's not crazy to change the defence.  And Everton and Spurs were certainly not playing like top teams at that point.

 

3) None of them had terrible games but then a defence has to be a unit and that unit was not stopping teams scoring or creating good chances, even though there were some good individual performances.  It wouldn't have been completely unreasonable to have changed the defence at some point.

Edited December 23, 2014 by DCJonah

[dont_do_it_doug.]

You are taking around in circles here.

Perhaps there is a debate to be had that he COULD have started sooner. Regardless, that debate is utterly pointless now. Do something better with your time.