Insua

[Mattimetal]

Want him to succeed at the club - think it's unfair to sell him now, we don't know how much he's grown as a player in a year, and he's comfortable on the ball and an accomplished dribbler too. We need defenders that can run from the back and pass the ball with confidence... As well as defend obviously!

[RedReet]

Want him to succeed at the club - think it's unfair to sell him now, we don't know how much he's grown as a player in a year, and he's comfortable on the ball and an accomplished dribbler too. We need defenders that can run from the back and pass the ball with confidence... As well as defend obviously!

In his first handful of appearances he liked to take on a player and was quite successful at it. Whether it was confidence or instruction, we hardly seen it at all in his last year.

[el matador]

I think most of the strong criticism comes from people like you that saw that he made defensive mistakes. The problem as I see it is that you and many others don't really understand that he is an attacking fullback and not a defensive one.

His job was to create width in attack as much as it was defending his part of the left side. The manager wanted it that way. He wanted attacking fullbacks like Insua, Johnson and Aurelio. He wanted the defensive midfielders and the central defenders to cover when the fullbacks attacked. He wanted the attacking player on the left/right to cover when the fullbacks attacked.

Kuyt for example is excellent doing it. Probably a big part of the reason to why Rafa moved him out wide on the right. He could by that way get the best out of Johnson. Then you look at our left side. No Kuyt type of player, no Mascherano that covered on the right side and even played right fullback a few times. Carragher was also covering the right side.

Compare our right and left side when it comes down to defending.

Carragher, Johnson, Mascherano and Kuyt. That is the right side.

Skrtel/Agger, Insua, Lucas, Benayoun/Riera. That is the left side.

Now you start to see a big difference. Now you are starting to see the whole picture and not just a part of it. Suddenly you see how strong our right side was compared to our left.

Defending isn't only down to one player, it is a team game and that left side wasn't balanced at all. It wasn't strong enough neither in attack or defence. Our right side was probably the best balanced in the league.

The left side didn't as I said have a Kuyt type of player that could help out the left fullback when he attacked. It didn't had a strong enough left sided central defender when Agger was out injured.

We all know that Skrtel's positional sense isn't the best around. That makes a big difference when it comes down to helping out an attacking fullback.

Insua is a very good attacking fullback. If Kenny want that type of fullback then he should offer Insua a new deal.

The fullback position is also probably the most difficult position. You need to be strong in defence, good crosser and be be able to get past your man.

If you look at all the left fullbacks we been linked with then no one of them is under 23 years old. It takes time for a fullback to learn everything he need to learn.

Arn... mate this comes across as being slightly egotistical. I understand that rafa wanted him to be a width providing full back but defensively he cost us a lot of points that season. He was getting ripped apart by journeymen and just too many times he was an absolute liability in defence.

He was good going forward but at a club like Liverpool its not enough. Yes he was and still is young and hopefully that year away has helped him mature into a decent fullback.

[saj]

Was he any good in turkey? See he had 19 appearances.

I doubt many watched a lot of the Süper Lig. From what I remember he was affected by a change in manager and a policy where they decided not to play loan players. Obviously difficult to know if his previous performances caused the policy shift or not.

Hagi stated that he was not going to play any of the loan players so from January onwards, he hardly played.

[Exiled_red]

Some stats from 2009-10 regarding Insua (Premiership games only)

In the 31 games he played (considering his time on the pitch only) we conceded 28 goals and kept 13 clean sheets.

In the first half of the season we were experimenting with an attacking fullback system, which many people agreed didn't really work, and which a number of people (players, manager and coaches) must all take some responsibility. In this first half of the season when Insua played we conceded 20 goals in 16 games and kept 5 clean sheets.

After addressing the problems suffered in the first half of the season and developing a more solid base in the second half of the season in the games Insua played we conceded 8 goals in 15 games keeping 8 clean sheets.

In the games that Insua didn't play we conceded 5 goals in 7 games, although the majority (4) of these games took place in the latter part of the season where the defence was more organised. An additional 2 goals were conceded in games Insua played after he was taken off the pitch. Meaning in total that season we conceded 35 goals in 38 games.

My interpretation of these stats would be that they suggest that Insua is a capable fullback if used in an appropriate system. I think that alot of the problems people attribute to Insua could perhaps have been due to the system employed in the early part of the season. I think that alot was asked of Insua particularly as he was such a young fullback and was given so much responsibility (as both a defender and as someone expected to provide width from left back). Of course the stats don't tell us how many mistakes he made (or other defenders for that matter) or how many goals were as a consequence of these mistakes, but I think that there is enough in there to suggest he could be part of a strong defensive unit. One final point I think that when making comparisons with the other young fullbacks who came through last season (Flanagan and Robinson) we should consider that for the most part they were just expected to do a job defensively and weren't under as much pressure to get forward and support the attack as Insua was (at least for the first half of the 2009-10 season).

[RedReet]

Some stats from 2009-10 regarding Insua (Premiership games only)

In the 31 games he played (considering his time on the pitch only) we conceded 28 goals and kept 13 clean sheets.

In the first half of the season we were experimenting with an attacking fullback system, which many people agreed didn't really work, and which a number of people (players, manager and coaches) must all take some responsibility. In this first half of the season when Insua played we conceded 20 goals in 16 games and kept 5 clean sheets.

After addressing the problems suffered in the first half of the season and developing a more solid base in the second half of the season in the games Insua played we conceded 8 goals in 15 games keeping 8 clean sheets.

In the games that Insua didn't play we conceded 5 goals in 7 games, although the majority (4) of these games took place in the latter part of the season where the defence was more organised. An additional 2 goals were conceded in games Insua played after he was taken off the pitch. Meaning in total that season we conceded 35 goals in 38 games.

My interpretation of these stats would be that they suggest that Insua is a capable fullback if used in an appropriate system. I think that alot of the problems people attribute to Insua could perhaps have been due to the system employed in the early part of the season. I think that alot was asked of Insua particularly as he was such a young fullback and was given so much responsibility (as both a defender and as someone expected to provide width from left back). Of course the stats don't tell us how many mistakes he made (or other defenders for that matter) or how many goals were as a consequence of these mistakes, but I think that there is enough in there to suggest he could be part of a strong defensive unit. One final point I think that when making comparisons with the other young fullbacks who came through last season (Flanagan and Robinson) we should consider that for the most part they were just expected to do a job defensively and weren't under as much pressure to get forward and support the attack as Insua was (at least for the first half of the 2009-10 season).

That completely sums it up for me. There was no guarantee that he would go on to be a world beater, but there was more than enough evidence to suggest he could do a job at least in a functioning team.

[Arn]

Some stats from 2009-10 regarding Insua (Premiership games only)

In the 31 games he played (considering his time on the pitch only) we conceded 28 goals and kept 13 clean sheets.

In the first half of the season we were experimenting with an attacking fullback system, which many people agreed didn't really work, and which a number of people (players, manager and coaches) must all take some responsibility. In this first half of the season when Insua played we conceded 20 goals in 16 games and kept 5 clean sheets.

After addressing the problems suffered in the first half of the season and developing a more solid base in the second half of the season in the games Insua played we conceded 8 goals in 15 games keeping 8 clean sheets.

In the games that Insua didn't play we conceded 5 goals in 7 games, although the majority (4) of these games took place in the latter part of the season where the defence was more organised. An additional 2 goals were conceded in games Insua played after he was taken off the pitch. Meaning in total that season we conceded 35 goals in 38 games.

My interpretation of these stats would be that they suggest that Insua is a capable fullback if used in an appropriate system. I think that alot of the problems people attribute to Insua could perhaps have been due to the system employed in the early part of the season. I think that alot was asked of Insua particularly as he was such a young fullback and was given so much responsibility (as both a defender and as someone expected to provide width from left back). Of course the stats don't tell us how many mistakes he made (or other defenders for that matter) or how many goals were as a consequence of these mistakes, but I think that there is enough in there to suggest he could be part of a strong defensive unit. One final point I think that when making comparisons with the other young fullbacks who came through last season (Flanagan and Robinson) we should consider that for the most part they were just expected to do a job defensively and weren't under as much pressure to get forward and support the attack as Insua was (at least for the first half of the 2009-10 season).

To say that he was ripped to pieces etc is garbage. If you look back at that season and watch some games again then you would probably discover that Carra was ripped to pieces so to say at least as much as Insua. You would find Skrtel out of position very often and Johnson leaving big holes of space behind him when he attacked down the right.

The difference was that we had players that could cover the space behind Johnson. We didn't had that cover on the left. Insua was very often forced to defend almost the whole left side because players like Riera and Benayoun didn't care about tracking back very often.

The stats above only proves how much bull**** it is to say that he was ripped to pieces. You can only laugh about that.

What evidence do the ripped to pieces brigade have? I would say no evidence at all. They can only say that he was ripped to pieces but can't back up their point at all.

[RichC]

So essentially the tactics laid out by the then manager were flawed ?

[Arn]

So essentially the tactics laid out by the then manager were flawed ?

That was a part of it. Gillett and Hicks being another part. The Jovetic thing etc. The injuries being another part.

When you play a very attacking system then you need excellent pass and move type of players. Agger being out a lot as usual meant a lot more hoof than it should have been.

It should have been Agger taking care of the passing from the defence instead it ended up very often being Carra/Skrtel/Kyrgiakos hoofing the ball.

We missed a good back up to Agger big time and still do. If we want a good pass and move system to work then the central defenders must be able to deliver a quick pass without any problem.

[Exiled_red]

So essentially the tactics laid out by the then manager were flawed ?

I think for the first half of the season they were a problem and didn't work well with the players we had (that's not to say they wouldn't work with differnt players...). There was definately a change of tactics part way through that season, after which the defensive side of the team worked better as a unit and conceeding less goals. Obviously individual errors will come in under every system but some systems do make them more likely IMO.

[cled the red]

That was a part of it. Gillett and Hicks being another part. The Jovetic thing etc. The injuries being another part.

When you play a very attacking system then you need excellent pass and move type of players. Agger being out a lot as usual meant a lot more hoof than it should have been.

It should have been Agger taking care of the passing from the defence instead it ended up very often being Carra/Skrtel/Kyrgiakos hoofing the ball.

We missed a good back up to Agger big time and still do. If we want a good pass and move system to work then the central defenders must be able to deliver a quick pass without any problem.

I agree - George and Tom as a defensive partnership left massive gaps for the ball over the top and their lack of pace meant that teams picked us off at will!!

[Resu]

According to his agent Roma is interested.

[Shaggy]

MsBiancaLohan Bianca
Emiliano Insua looks set to join AS Roma. £3m
8 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

[Shaggy]

Interestingly, here's a pic of the above tweeter

Prob not safe for work

[Gaz]

Interestingly, here's a pic of the above tweeter

Prob not safe for work

Been following her for a while, can't think why