Libor Kozák

[VillanousOne]

Benteke seemed to be positioned as a creative forward drifting deep and flicking on headers, he had three people slamming into him everytime he got the ball as he is no longer an unknown.
 

Kozak playing off Benteke would never work but considering that - he still managed to look a threat and create chances.

Benteke should have been the one to come off but he's our golden balls so it will never happen.

I really though Kozak looked wank when he first joined but now i am starting to see good things from him and Tonev. As a sub for Benteke or even Gabby he is a good back up player - and deserves to get more chances.

Edited November 26, 2013 by VillanousOne

[Big_John_10]

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

I certainly interpret this post as very harsh criticism of Kozak. Are you at all surprised people react to a post like that? Maybe you should take some time reading your post before your post it. Instead of arguing with people who react to what seemed a idiotic post until you explained it further.

What's idiotic about it?

I don't think he offered much.

I think the result justified his substitution and I clearly explained why we improved when he went off.

[Big_John_10]

Benteke seemed to be positioned as a creative forward drifting deep and flicking on headers, he had three people slamming into him everytime he got the ball as he is no longer an unknown.

Kozak playing off Benteke would never work but considering that - he still managed to look a threat and create chances.

Benteke should have been the one to come off but he's our golden balls so it will never happen.

I really though Kozak looked wank when he first joined but now i am starting to see good things from him and Tonev. As a sub for Benteke or even Gabby he is a good back up player - and deserves to get more chances.

We got two goals and got a good result.

Why should benteke have gone off?

[turnbull]

I wonder why Benteke's miscued 1st half shot made it into the match highlights on AVTV when Lubor's bar hitter didn't?

[mikeyp102]

Libor looked better, but I still don't think we'll see him at his best until we are putting better balls into the box

[heid3ster]

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

 

Kozak's off the ball movement was excellent yesterday. For that volley as an example, he got himself into a good position to get onto Benteke's flick (which to me was encouraging, showed a good chance that those two can start linking up if they continue to play together), took it down with an excellent touch, and was inches away from a great finish. I thought he read the game well yesterday, held the ball up well, made some good runs. He looked far more likely to score and I think he was unlucky to be subbed off.

[samjp26]

Benteke seemed to be positioned as a creative forward drifting deep and flicking on headers, he had three people slamming into him everytime he got the ball as he is no longer an unknown.

Kozak playing off Benteke would never work but considering that - he still managed to look a threat and create chances.

Benteke should have been the one to come off but he's our golden balls so it will never happen.

I really though Kozak looked wank when he first joined but now i am starting to see good things from him and Tonev. As a sub for Benteke or even Gabby he is a good back up player - and deserves to get more chances.

We got two goals and got a good result.

Why should benteke have gone off?

 

 

 

We got two goals and got a good result.

 

Why should Kozak have gone off?

Edited November 26, 2013 by samjp26

[Big_John_10]

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

Kozak's off the ball movement was excellent yesterday. For that volley as an example, he got himself into a good position to get onto Benteke's flick (which to me was encouraging, showed a good chance that those two can start linking up if they continue to play together), took it down with an excellent touch, and was inches away from a great finish. I thought he read the game well yesterday, held the ball up well, made some good runs. He looked far more likely to score and I think he was unlucky to be subbed off.

If he's off the ball movement was excellent then why did we have to resort to hoofing it forward so much? I don't think either forward had great movement yesterday.

Benteke seemed to be positioned as a creative forward drifting deep and flicking on headers, he had three people slamming into him everytime he got the ball as he is no longer an unknown.

Kozak playing off Benteke would never work but considering that - he still managed to look a threat and create chances.

Benteke should have been the one to come off but he's our golden balls so it will never happen.

I really though Kozak looked wank when he first joined but now i am starting to see good things from him and Tonev. As a sub for Benteke or even Gabby he is a good back up player - and deserves to get more chances.

We got two goals and got a good result.

Why should benteke have gone off?

We got two goals and got a good result.

Why should Kozak have gone off?

Good response

[Isa]

Probably the same reason we have been hoofing it all season even when Kozak hasn't been playing?

Edited November 26, 2013 by Isa

[Electric Avenue]

I can't dislike Kozak. He works like a Trojan.

[heid3ster]

 

If he's off the ball movement was excellent then why did we have to resort to hoofing it forward so much? I don't think either forward had great movement yesterday.

 

It's a puzzling question in many ways. His movement has no correlation to how we play the ball out of defense, since his movement only becomes important once we've got the ball in the opposition half and are in an attacking position. So it doesn't matter if the ball gets to the opposition half via a long pass from defense, or dribbling down the sidelines, or passing through the middle. Additionally, I think people are starting to see what they want to see in regards to hoofing. We did play some long balls out of defense yesterday, yes, but we also played out of the back frequently, and down the wings, and in fact all of our best chances came from crosses in from the wings, including the two we scored from.

 

You asked "what did he do apart from the volley" and I answered that. If your contention is that Kozak's off the ball movement wasn't very good then I'd gently suggest that you perhaps weren't watching him very closely.

[Big_John_10]

I don't see anything in his off the ball movement to suggest it's excellent. The long ball is not always played from defence. Quite a few times our full backs put a high ball into the box from a deep wide position due to no other options.

What was so good about his movement? He didn't work channels, he didn't curl runs into gaps to show through balls and he didn't really drop deep to collect the ball.

As you clearly watched him closely please explain why his movement was excellent and share some examples.

Edited November 26, 2013 by Big_John_10

[Skruff]

 

 

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

I certainly interpret this post as very harsh criticism of Kozak. Are you at all surprised people react to a post like that? Maybe you should take some time reading your post before your post it. Instead of arguing with people who react to what seemed a idiotic post until you explained it further.

What's idiotic about it?

I don't think he offered much.

I think the result justified his substitution and I clearly explained why we improved when he went off.

 

Because(by how I read your post) it sounded like he was entirely at fault for the uptil then miserable game and that he was very very very poor (Read: Apart from the volley what did he do? No surprise we _instantly_ looked better when _he_  was subbed), Even though there were plenty of players far worse then him on the pitch and up until the substitution he was playing better then what Benteke did. I agree that it was a good and justified substitution, I don't think Benteke and Kozak will work as a pair either, it has to be either one of them playing not both. Even though the substitution was justified it doesn't make what I see as unjustified criticism ok. That's what I thought it was an idiotic post. Fair enough explanation?

[vandaq]

Looked fairly good last night

[Big_John_10]

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

I certainly interpret this post as very harsh criticism of Kozak. Are you at all surprised people react to a post like that? Maybe you should take some time reading your post before your post it. Instead of arguing with people who react to what seemed a idiotic post until you explained it further.

What's idiotic about it?

I don't think he offered much.

I think the result justified his substitution and I clearly explained why we improved when he went off.

Because(by how I read your post) it sounded like he was entirely at fault for the uptil then miserable game and that he was very very very poor (Read: Apart from the volley what did he do? No surprise we _instantly_ looked better when _he_ was subbed), Even though there were plenty of players far worse then him on the pitch and up until the substitution he was playing better then what Benteke did. I agree that it was a good and justified substitution, I don't think Benteke and Kozak will work as a pair either, it has to be either one of them playing not both. Even though the substitution was justified it doesn't make what I see as unjustified criticism ok. That's what I thought it was an idiotic post. Fair enough explanation?

So it was justified to sub him but me saying we were better when he was subbed is not?

I didn't say he was entirely at fault so you've interpreted what ever you wanted to from my post. I find that quite idiotic.

I keep hearing he played well. What did he do apart from the volley? Tell me what he did in that half that made it a good performance.

[smetrov]

 

 

 

 

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

I certainly interpret this post as very harsh criticism of Kozak. Are you at all surprised people react to a post like that? Maybe you should take some time reading your post before your post it. Instead of arguing with people who react to what seemed a idiotic post until you explained it further.

What's idiotic about it?

I don't think he offered much.

I think the result justified his substitution and I clearly explained why we improved when he went off.

Because(by how I read your post) it sounded like he was entirely at fault for the uptil then miserable game and that he was very very very poor (Read: Apart from the volley what did he do? No surprise we _instantly_ looked better when _he_ was subbed), Even though there were plenty of players far worse then him on the pitch and up until the substitution he was playing better then what Benteke did. I agree that it was a good and justified substitution, I don't think Benteke and Kozak will work as a pair either, it has to be either one of them playing not both. Even though the substitution was justified it doesn't make what I see as unjustified criticism ok. That's what I thought it was an idiotic post. Fair enough explanation?

So it was justified to sub him but me saying we were better when he was subbed is not?

I didn't say he was entirely at fault so you've interpreted what ever you wanted to from my post. I find that quite idiotic.

I keep hearing he played well. What did he do apart from the volley? Tell me what he did in that half that made it a good performance.

 

 

I tend to think of him of him as a battering ram - rather than a striker who will score delightful goals - or get you out of the seat, with a jinking run through the middle. That suits at the moment, as he can play that battering ram role, no matter how poorly the rest of the team are playing. He ground down the defenders against man city - almost into submission - was always in the thick of things against Cardiff. - Gotta be honest I would have preferred another CB or a AM - that said he here now - and is very raw in terms of prem experience - yet he has 2 goals in what 5 or 6 starts......(we've had Worse !!!)  

[Big_John_10]

Apart from the volley what did he do?

No surprise we instantly look better when he was subbed.

I don't think we'd have got back in the game if he'd stayed on over benteke.

I certainly interpret this post as very harsh criticism of Kozak. Are you at all surprised people react to a post like that? Maybe you should take some time reading your post before your post it. Instead of arguing with people who react to what seemed a idiotic post until you explained it further.

What's idiotic about it?

I don't think he offered much.

I think the result justified his substitution and I clearly explained why we improved when he went off.

Because(by how I read your post) it sounded like he was entirely at fault for the uptil then miserable game and that he was very very very poor (Read: Apart from the volley what did he do? No surprise we _instantly_ looked better when _he_ was subbed), Even though there were plenty of players far worse then him on the pitch and up until the substitution he was playing better then what Benteke did. I agree that it was a good and justified substitution, I don't think Benteke and Kozak will work as a pair either, it has to be either one of them playing not both. Even though the substitution was justified it doesn't make what I see as unjustified criticism ok. That's what I thought it was an idiotic post. Fair enough explanation?

So it was justified to sub him but me saying we were better when he was subbed is not?

I didn't say he was entirely at fault so you've interpreted what ever you wanted to from my post. I find that quite idiotic.

I keep hearing he played well. What did he do apart from the volley? Tell me what he did in that half that made it a good performance.

I tend to think of him of him as a battering ram - rather than a striker who will score delightful goals - or get you out of the seat, with a jinking run through the middle. That suits at the moment, as he can play that battering ram role, no matter how poorly the rest of the team are playing. He ground down the defenders against man city - almost into submission - was always in the thick of things against Cardiff. - Gotta be honest I would have preferred another CB or a AM - that said he here now - and is very raw in terms of prem experience - yet he has 2 goals in what 5 or 6 starts......(we've had Worse !!!)

I actually thought he had a good game against city and he took his goal against Cardiff very well but there's some seriously low expectations if that performance yesterday was considered good.

[Skruff]

So it was justified to sub him but me saying we were better when he was subbed is not?

I didn't say he was entirely at fault so you've interpreted what ever you wanted to from my post. I find that quite idiotic.

I keep hearing he played well. What did he do apart from the volley? Tell me what he did in that half that made it a good performance.

 

Well saying that we were better when was subbed is toning down what you originally said by a fair bit.

If you don't understand why the sentence "Apart from the volley what did he do? No surprise we instantly looked better when _he_ was subbed" could be interpreted as that I'm happy to call myself a idiot or excuse myself as lost in translation.

I've said why I thought he was playing fairly well as has several other posters, theres no point in repeating that. Go back a read if you like.

[rodigan]

bringing on weimann and gabby, recereated a proven attacking midfield 3 that has been the core of our success over the last six months, with each player adding their part and playing off the other one....

 

makes absolute sense to me to recreate that three, notwithstanding that individually, libor may have been playing better than benteke...

 

at this stage, its not really a case of who is the better of the two. benteke is the incumbent in the no 1 position and last season made the position his own, and libor will need to take his chances and consistently put in better performances to ahve a chance of dislodging benteke. if he gets to that position, he will have to keep his game at a sufficiently high level to keep his starting place...

 

i, for one, would be thrilled if the competition was for who is the better player, rather than who is the least bad player... two big strikers playing out of their skin would be a great luxury to have...

[heid3ster]

What was so good about his movement? He didn't work channels, he didn't curl runs into gaps to show through balls and he didn't really drop deep to collect the ball.

As you clearly watched him closely please explain why his movement was excellent and share some examples.

 

Yes, he did all of those things -- worked the channels, curled runs into the gaps (the example I have already given for how he moved in to make himself available for that volley is a perfect example of that -- Kozak's movement leading up to that volley was our singularly best attacking move in the first half), and he dropped deep to collect the ball. He also hassled defenders, snuck in behind defenders to intercept, laid off chances for others (several of which were spurned). Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I've shared examples already and you've disregarded them, so I'm not going to bother trawling through the game and pick out a highlights reel for you.

 

Kozak also had a 69% pass completion rate -- not awesome, but well ahead of Benteke's woeful 47%, which was lower even than Guzan's. He had more touches of the ball in his 57 minutes on the pitch than Benteke did for the full 90. He retained possession well, he held the ball up better than just about anyone else on the pitch, and he linked up well with teammates as well.

 

Benteke played better when Gabby and Andi came on, which didn't surprise me because he's already used to playing with those guys, it's a system he's comfortable in. But he still didn't offer much of a threat and I didn't think he looked likely to score. I am not surprised or annoyed that Lambert kept him on, he's our star man and we all know he can score even when he's playing badly. But I also wouldn't have been too disappointed if he'd subbed Benteke off and kept Kozak on, I thought Kozak looked promising and had a goal in him yesterday.