Paul Konchesky?! Who let you in?

[Neil Young]

I recall thinking yesterday there were at least two from quite near the byline (well, inside the 18 yard line, but outside the box, if you see what I mean).

Trouble is, today I can only remember one of them - the cross that Reina punched away a millisecond before Jerome made contact.

[DannyMan2006]

These crosses that came in from his side, were they from deep within our half, or near the halfway line? I can't recall...i seem to feel that they were from closer to the halfway line...is that not Jova territory, or is Konchesky supposed to defend the halfway line and leave the CB's exposed to threats down the wing?

They were from deep.

One of the best chances they had came when he was covering the wide man and was tight on him. Poulsen was dropping off the second Brum attacker in case the one in possession got past Konchesky.

The Brum player in possession then laid the ball back. Poulsen attempted to close the secondary attacker down but couldn''t quite get there in time, so the cross went in. Inept marking by the CB's meant Brum had a free header and Pepe produced a wonder save.

So Konchesky stopped his man getting the ball in, and therefore did his job. Poulsen too did his job as he had to compensate in case Konchesky was beaten one on one, in reality it was a problem team wise that we did not have enough players in effective positions.

We tended to have plenty in the box, but not enough in other places on the pitch. For example, in one free headed effort Jerome was next to three red shirts and all three failed to pick him up. Bad marking, but not only that - there was no need for three players to mark him. Two, yes. Three? No. That third player should be elsewhere - maybe even helping the other defenders to close the crossing chances down.

All in all, the reason Brum got crosses in was not down to one man. Team problem.

[danperkins]

Any news on his injury?

[DannyMan2006]

Any news on his injury?

Should be fine for thursday according to the Official site.

[danperkins]

Should be fine for thursday according to the Official site.

Brilliant thanks mate, thats good news at least with the crock that is Fabio Aurelio and Agger being roasted at LB we're actually gonna need Paul Konchesky, haha never thought i'd say that. Thought he had solid debut actually, but shaky in first half but got better as game went on, used the ball well too.

[Neil Young]

They were from deep.

One of the best chances they had came when he was covering the wide man and was tight on him. Poulsen was dropping off the second Brum attacker in case the one in possession got past Konchesky.

The Brum player in possession then laid the ball back. Poulsen attempted to close the secondary attacker down but couldn''t quite get there in time, so the cross went in. Inept marking by the CB's meant Brum had a free header and Pepe produced a wonder save.

So Konchesky stopped his man getting the ball in, and therefore did his job. Poulsen too did his job as he had to compensate in case Konchesky was beaten one on one, in reality it was a problem team wise that we did not have enough players in effective positions.

We tended to have plenty in the box, but not enough in other places on the pitch. For example, in one free headed effort Jerome was next to three red shirts and all three failed to pick him up. Bad marking, but not only that - there was no need for three players to mark him. Two, yes. Three? No. That third player should be elsewhere - maybe even helping the other defenders to close the crossing chances down.

All in all, the reason Brum got crosses in was not down to one man. Team problem.

Of course it's a team problem, it's a team game. Still, it's interesting to compare the thoughts of an international full back who played for ages in what many Arsenal fans regard as their best ever defence with your analysis of the role.

My point though was to question the idea Konchesky's performance was any more of a cause for optimism than anyone else's in a red shirt yesterday. For me it wasn't.

[DannyMan2006]

Of course it's a team problem, it's a team game. Still, it's interesting to compare the thoughts of an international full back who played for ages in what many Arsenal fans regard as their best ever defence with your analysis of the role.

My point though was to question the idea Konchesky's performance was any more of a cause for optimism than anyone else's in a red shirt yesterday. For me it wasn't.

I don't think you understand mine of Dixons point.

Dixon is talking about the one on one between the full back and the winger. A full backs job is to first and foremost prevent the winger getting the cross in. Konchesky did that. He did what Dixon asked of any full back. He did what Insua failed so miserably at last season.

Birmingham got crosses in because the winger had support. Konchesky can only mark one player, hence I said it wasn't entirely his fault crosses came in.

-----

On another point entirely, Dixons view is old and out dated anyway. Now days Full backs are also asked to be an attacking outlet, not players who sit on the half way line and hold a line, like for the most part they tended to do in Dixons day.

So keeping a winger in check is not their only requirement. And that also opens it up elsewhere. Because when the comment of stop the crosses coming in it was derived from the duel of winger v full back. One on one.

Now days a defender has to deal with overlapping full backs who are sometimes even more skilled and pacier than the actual wingers in front of them.

So sometimes stopping a winger getting a cross in is no longer good enough.

----------

On another point again, this change in full back mentality has also forced a change in the mentality of a winger. Back in the day a winger with no defensive qualities would have been a shoe in if they were the best attacking choice. But attacking full backs has meant they have also had to adapt and improve the other side of their game.

The game stays the same, but it is always evolving.

[BigChief]

As always, because he had a good game and some people here had already written him off (Shaggy / Neil / etc), there has to be SOMETHING he did wrong.

Yes the crosses were from deeper areas and there was atrocious marking in the middle by Skrtel and dare I say it Carra. Reina was covering our CBs' arses more than our FBs'. Konch also had a useless turd like Jovanovic who was allegedly playing football down the same wing as him.

[Shaggy]

I'm surprised you can sit down to post what with you blowing your load so often. Testimonial load blower

[Mostar]

http://www.lfconline.com/news/tmnw/konchesky_injury_latest_558228/index.shtml

Paul Konchesky has shrugged off his injury.

Konchesky was subsituted after 79 minutes on Sunday because he felt a problem in his hamstring. However, the subsitution was purely precautionary and the left-back should be fit for Thursday's Europa League game with Steaua Bucharest.

"He hasn't played for a couple of weeks and he started to feel his hamstring a little bit so we took him off as a precaution and put Daniel Agger on," said Roy Hodgson.

"I thought he did well in his first game for us. He was very competent and it bodes well for the future."

[Pablo]

Nice one, although I wish other players new this secret way off instantly fixing an injury with a simple shrug. Definitely a trick Konk should pass onto our medical team.

[BigChief]

http://www.lfconline.com/news/tmnw/k...28/index.shtml

Paul Konchesky has shrugged off his injury.

"I thought he did well in his first game for us. He was very competent and it bodes well for the future."

Haha, Roy - testimonial loadblower!

[Shaggy]

What? Roy is talking about Brum, not the testimonial. At least Roy waited until the first real game, eh.

[BigChief]

What? Roy is talking about Brum, not the testimonial. At least Roy waited until the first real game, eh.

Ah right, my mistake. I should know better.

[Neil Young]

As always, because he had a good game and some people here had already written him off (Shaggy / Neil / etc), there has to be SOMETHING he did wrong.

Yes the crosses were from deeper areas and there was atrocious marking in the middle by Skrtel and dare I say it Carra. Reina was covering our CBs' arses more than our FBs'. Konch also had a useless turd like Jovanovic who was allegedly playing football down the same wing as him.

Are you quite sure about that? Perhaps we have different definitions of 'deep'.

No-one is saying other players didn't play as badly and some were certainly worse. I just happen not to think his performance merits any praise either.