Robinson and Colwill.

[North Cardiff Blue]

Remember when people criticised Lee Tomlin and then when a manage actually started him and gave him a chance he dragged us to the playoffs pretty much single handedly.

Taarabt would be benched under Bulut, as would probably Bothroyd, maybe even Whittingham.

At some point you just have to let your #10s and strikers be attacking players and let them do what they do best. Robinson to me has always seemed like a hard worker, he's had loads of injuries recently and if he isn't playing regularly of course he won't look match fit.

Colwill is a player who could potentially win us games by himself, we've seen him score for Wales, vs Liverpool, winner vs QPR and Forest. 15 minutes here or there isn't good enough for a player like him. Give him 10 games to see what he can do, if after that Bulut still isn't happy send him out on loan.

If I were Colwill I'd try and get away for the sake of my career, it looks like he just won't be given a chance here and we will regret it.

I also think that Tanner hasn't improved much, that's not a criticism, I think he was always this good but he was just never given a chance. I posted about a year ago on here and Twitter saying the same thing about Tanner as I'm saying about Colwill now.

OK so you know better than the manager, let's go back to conceding two or three a game and Cowlill playing a nice few moves and tricks and losing 3-1, sack Bulut and start again with a new manager shipping another load of players in and out.

It's tough love from an experienced Manager, give me a better work ethic if you want to play, good on him, this team can't afford any luxury players.

Pep does exactly the same to world-class players, working for the team or warming the bench eventually players like Grealish and Foden get it, and become Premier League and Champions League-winning world-class players.

[Tuerto]

I don't agree, why is it okay for one type of player (defenders) to contribute little as attackers, but not okay for attacking players to contribute little as defenders? It's illogical.

As I said, I'm not naive enough to think that you drop players like Collins, Goutas, McGuinness and Sipios because they don't offer a great deal in an attacking or creative sense, but where is the consistency of thought to a process which does not treat the ten outfield players in the same way?

You use the term "dedicated defender" - the one I'm thinking of here is "out and out defender", why is acceptable to have out and out defenders, but, seemingly, not okay to have out and out attackers?

I agree that the two players concerned could do more defensively, but, watching us at Middlesbrough and then against Watford, it seems to me that Bulut is in danger of cutting off his nose to spite his face - is playing someone like Wintle in such an attacking role giving us more overall than what we lose by having the, apparently, defensively suspect Robinson or Colwill there?

I mentioned before on here that most managers appear to be okay with a 7/4 defensive/attacking make up to their team, Bulut wants an 8/3 split.

Neither player is being asked to defend like a 'Defender' that's not possible. They're just bring asked to work the area that they play in when we are out of possession. Neither of them do in my opinion, although Colwill is putting in a real effort to implement what Bulut wants whenever I have seen him, even if (to me) he looks very unatural at it.

How can all of the players be treated the same way when they all have specialist roles to carry out? It's not a defenders job to play high up the pitch as it isn't an attacking players job to play in the final third. Can you imagine a remit where Bulut asks defenders to offer more in attack just to even things up a bit? When should that happen then? Because to me, itis happening. Fullbacks get forward when it's on, central defenders get up for set pieces, holding midfielders go when we have an over load of players and a defender can step in to cover. Attacking players have to work the top third of play when out of possession. That's their job.

[North Cardiff Blue]

I don't agree, why is it okay for one type of player (defenders) to contribute little as attackers, but not okay for attacking players to contribute little as defenders? It's illogical.

As I said, I'm not naive enough to think that you drop players like Collins, Goutas, McGuinness and Sipios because they don't offer a great deal in an attacking or creative sense, but where is the consistency of thought to a process which does not treat the ten outfield players in the same way?

You use the term "dedicated defender" - the one I'm thinking of here is "out and out defender", why is acceptable to have out and out defenders, but, seemingly, not okay to have out and out attackers?

I agree that the two players concerned could do more defensively, but, watching us at Middlesbrough and then against Watford, it seems to me that Bulut is in danger of cutting off his nose to spite his face - is playing someone like Wintle in such an attacking role giving us more overall than what we lose by having the, apparently, defensively suspect Robinson or Colwill there?

I mentioned before on here that most managers appear to be okay with a 7/4 defensive/attacking make up to their team, Bulut wants an 8/3 split.

He doesn't want to play Wintle there, he is making that clear, he wants to play Colwill or Robinson, but can't trust them to do what the team needs without the ball.

[Tuerto]

He doesn't want to play Wintle there, he is making that clear, he wants to play Colwill or Robinson, but can't trust them to do what the team needs without the ball.

Wintle can't play that role anyway, he's a holding midfielder in essence, he gets the ball and gives it to better footballers. I can't really understand what the problem is really. Two players are being asked to work harder off the ball, yet people seem to be making it sound like what Bulut is asking for is completely unreasonable and outside of their job description. Utter madness. I don't like him naming the players, and it probably doesn't come natural to either player, it doesn't mean that they're lazy.

Colwill is a talented lad, we all know that he has creativity in him, we all know that he can do things that others can't, we all know that he has vision. And it would be of no surprise to me to see him come on in any given game and win it for us.

The reality is though that he is playing for a manager who wants him to defend from the front, not revolutionary stuff really, in order to make him a better player. Thing I'd in order to get away with that type of stuff a player has to offer much more in attack and in terms of creativity in order to be accommodated. Neither of them are doing that at the moment, and that's what the manager wants from them. Get on with it. Some people must had it all there own way in the workplace over the years. This isn't unreasonable.

[StraightOuttaCanton]

I don't agree, why is it okay for one type of player (defenders) to contribute little as attackers, but not okay for attacking players to contribute little as defenders? It's illogical.

As I said, I'm not naive enough to think that you drop players like Collins, Goutas, McGuinness and Sipios because they don't offer a great deal in an attacking or creative sense, but where is the consistency of thought to a process which does not treat the ten outfield players in the same way?

You use the term "dedicated defender" - the one I'm thinking of here is "out and out defender", why is acceptable to have out and out defenders, but, seemingly, not okay to have out and out attackers?

I agree that the two players concerned could do more defensively, but, watching us at Middlesbrough and then against Watford, it seems to me that Bulut is in danger of cutting off his nose to spite his face - is playing someone like Wintle in such an attacking role giving us more overall than what we lose by having the, apparently, defensively suspect Robinson or Colwill there?

I mentioned before on here that most managers appear to be okay with a 7/4 defensive/attacking make up to their team, Bulut wants an 8/3 split.

You say you’re not naive enough, but that is exactly the word I’d use to describe your posts in this thread (which is obviously unlike you).

I think it’s pretty straightforward.. and I don’t think it’s anything to do with ‘splits’ (I’d leave that sort of thinking to rugby). If you have the ball, the other team can’t score so when you don’t have it anywhere on the pitch you work your bollocks off to win it back. When you then marry that attitude with the flair the more creative players bring you probably increase your chances of scoring. You obviously need aptitude too but in my opinion attitude nearly always out trumps aptitude

[Rjk]

They both have until January at least to force their way into the first team through their displays in training and as substitutes. They will both understand what is required so lets see what they can do. I don't tihnk it is beyond either of them, and at least one of them will have a significant part to play by the end of the season.

[the other bob wilson]

You say you’re not naive enough, but that is exactly the word I’d use to describe your posts in this thread (which is obviously unlike you).

I think it’s pretty straightforward.. and I don’t think it’s anything to do with ‘splits’ (I’d leave that sort of thinking to rugby). If you have the ball, the other team can’t score so when you don’t have it anywhere on the pitch you work your bollocks off to win it back. When you then marry that attitude with the flair the more creative players bring you probably increase your chances of scoring. You obviously need aptitude too but in my opinion attitude nearly always out trumps aptitude

You talk about flair players, who were the flair players in the starting eleven which played Watford?

[2b2bdoo]

Remember when people criticised Lee Tomlin and then when a manage actually started him and gave him a chance he dragged us to the playoffs pretty much single handedly.

Taarabt would be benched under Bulut, as would probably Bothroyd, maybe even Whittingham.

At some point you just have to let your #10s and strikers be attacking players and let them do what they do best. Robinson to me has always seemed like a hard worker, he's had loads of injuries recently and if he isn't playing regularly of course he won't look match fit.

Colwill is a player who could potentially win us games by himself, we've seen him score for Wales, vs Liverpool, winner vs QPR and Forest. 15 minutes here or there isn't good enough for a player like him. Give him 10 games to see what he can do, if after that Bulut still isn't happy send him out on loan.

If I were Colwill I'd try and get away for the sake of my career, it looks like he just won't be given a chance here and we will regret it.

I also think that Tanner hasn't improved much, that's not a criticism, I think he was always this good but he was just never given a chance. I posted about a year ago on here and Twitter saying the same thing about Tanner as I'm saying about Colwill now.

I think you’re right, if you want to play someone like Colwill or even Robinson in that 10 role you have to build the whole team around them and allow them to do their thing, even Ramsey was putting in a good shift. Obviously though that number 10 has to be exceptional like a Tabraat, even a Tomlin. Personally I don’t see Colwill at anywhere near that level yet, I guess the previous managers also don’t think we gain enough to compensate for what we lose.

Tanner has shown how you can adapt, Robinson and Colwill just have to do the same.

[Undercoverinwurzelland]

Pushing them to work harder off the ball is fair enough. It's the bluntness we have when they're overlooked and we have a defensive number 10 instead that's annoying people.
He needs to be consistent too (Ugbo, Sawyers).
Hopefully one or both of them can add what he wants to their game with some support from the coaching team.

[Tuerto]

Exactly he got Tanner to do it, it's not hard just takes a bit more fitness and work rate.

That's a really good shout. Tanner has added that bit too his game and so far so good, And he has become a better player.

[the other bob wilson]

I’m saying yes, you need players who work off the ball, but it seems to me that some of you are happy to-have a team that lacks creativity and flair because everyone is working their bollox off - the question is though what do these grafters do when the onus is on them to do something with the ball?

With Ramsey injured, who have we got who can play in the way a number ten is expected to? Who can offer flair down the wings? I don’t see anyone who fits the number ten role if we are not including Robinson and Colwill (a personal view is that Ralls would be a slight improvement on Wintle). On the wing, Tanner is a potential creative outlet, but I reckon his effectiveness as a forward player if he starts is compromised by the amount of defending he’s having to do.

My point is that I think it’s definitely arguable whether the positives we gain by playing a better defender like Wintle ahead of either Robinson and Colwill offsets what we lose by having a team with as little creativity as the ones we had against Middlesbrough and Watford.

[2b2bdoo]

I’m saying yes, you need players who work off the ball, but it seems to me that some of you are happy to-have a team that lacks creativity and flair because everyone is working their bollox off - the question is though what do these grafters do when the onus is on them to do something with the ball?

With Ramsey injured, who have we got who can play in the way a number ten is expected to? Who can offer flair down the wings? I don’t see anyone who fits the number ten role if we are not including Robinson and Colwill (a personal view is that Ralls would be a slight improvement on Wintle). On the wing, Tanner is a potential creative outlet, but I reckon his effectiveness as a forward player if he starts is compromised by the amount of defending he’s having to do.

My point is that I think it’s definitely arguable whether the positives we gain by playing a better defender like Wintle ahead of either Robinson and Colwill offsets what we lose by having a team with as little creativity as the ones we had against Middlesbrough and Watford.

I don’t think we are playing with a 10 since Ramsey injury, I just think Wintle is pressing higher than the others and we are going through the wings more.

I certainly don’t tho l blackburn away is the time to be trying Colwill or Robinson as a 10. Huddersfield home maybe if people really think they are up to it.

[Bald Barry Bastad]

Bob, you're talking about out and out Defenders. And making the case that what Bulut is asking from Robinson and Colwill are the same things as a dedicated defender. He isn't. What he's saying is that when we are out of possession, Colwill and Robinson need to show more urgency in the third they play in to win the ball back, he's not asking them to slot in at fullback, double up as central defenders, just work there area's in order to disrupt the attack at source. I'm not that keen on him calling players out, but in my opinion he's spot on with his observations.

Exactly can't see why people can't see this.

[the other bob wilson]

I don’t think we are playing with a 10 since Ramsey injury, I just think Wintle is pressing higher than the others and we are going through the wings more.

I certainly don’t tho l blackburn away is the time to be trying Colwill or Robinson as a 10. Huddersfield home maybe if people really think they are up to it.

You may be right about Wintle, but then that takes us back to what I said about splits. If Wintle is playing as you say, then that means that we are playing with just three attack minded players and watching Tanner and Grant last week, I wonder if I’m being generous in saying that. When Ramsey was fit, we had another player who maybe wasn’t playing as an out and out attacker, but our striker wasn’t looking as isolated as he did last season, but it had a very 22/23 look to it against Watford. To me, if you play less attack minded players in your team, your chances of scoring have to decrease accordingly.

Finally, I’d think that Robinson has done enough in this division and higher over the last decade to prove he’s capable of playing as a number ten at this level.

[Lord Worcester]

The Rubin Colwill situation fascinates me. I'll pin my colours to the mast straight away and admit I am a huge fan - and quite simply couldn't care if he doesn't track back every single time for 90 mins. Give me what he has got and let the others do the grunt work. Clearly reading this thread more disagree with me than agree - which surprises me. As a young Cardiff academy boy I did think there would be a tendency from the fan base to give a bit of leeway to him - not take it away. But if I was him I would get away from the club at the first opportunity - hard I'm sure given home, family etc etc - but for the sake of his career I would try and find a club and a manager who might just consider the positive, creative things he can do rather than be obsessed with the workaholic, out of possession, tracking back things he can't.

[2b2bdoo]

You may be right about Wintle, but then that takes us back to what I said about splits. If Wintle is playing as you say, then that means that we are playing with just three attack minded players and watching Tanner and Grant last week, I wonder if I’m being generous in saying that. When Ramsey was fit, we had another player who maybe wasn’t playing as an out and out attacker, but our striker wasn’t looking as isolated as he did last season, but it had a very 22/23 look to it against Watford. To me, if you play less attack minded players in your team, your chances of scoring have to decrease accordingly.

Finally, I’d think that Robinson has done enough in this division and higher over the last decade to prove he’s capable of playing as a number ten at this level.

Maybe but he also played in the 3 game win bounce v Coventry, Sunderland and Rotherham. I didn’t see all the Coventry game but many people here complimented how well we played that evening

I agree we miss Ramsey massively but I don’t think the other options including Wintle are up to it if we want to play with a 10.

Huge Robinson fan, but he’s been poor when getting time this season. I’d still try him upfront at some point. Hopefully he just needs a kick up the backside.

[2b2bdoo]

The Rubin Colwill situation fascinates me. I'll pin my colours to the mast straight away and admit I am a huge fan - and quite simply couldn't care if he doesn't track back every single time for 90 mins. Give me what he has got and let the others do the grunt work. Clearly reading this thread more disagree with me than agree - which surprises me. As a young Cardiff academy boy I did think there would be a tendency from the fan base to give a bit of leeway to him - not take it away. But if I was him I would get away from the club at the first opportunity - hard I'm sure given home, family etc etc - but for the sake of his career I would try and find a club and a manager who might just consider the positive, creative things he can do rather than be obsessed with the workaholic, out of possession, tracking back things he can't.

I suppose it depends which way you look at it, if Colwill came from Tranmere academy to us and he was just playing in the U21 I doubt we would be having this conversation. Us fans generally are desperate to have someone come through and make it, he could be a stand out player in time.

[North Cardiff Blue]

The Rubin Colwill situation fascinates me. I'll pin my colours to the mast straight away and admit I am a huge fan - and quite simply couldn't care if he doesn't track back every single time for 90 mins. Give me what he has got and let the others do the grunt work. Clearly reading this thread more disagree with me than agree - which surprises me. As a young Cardiff academy boy I did think there would be a tendency from the fan base to give a bit of leeway to him - not take it away. But if I was him I would get away from the club at the first opportunity - hard I'm sure given home, family etc etc - but for the sake of his career I would try and find a club and a manager who might just consider the positive, creative things he can do rather than be obsessed with the workaholic, out of possession, tracking back things he can't.

That's why Bulut and Pep are football Managers and you are a plumber/pensioner/doctor/whatever, you'd soon get sick of a few nice Colwill goals and losing three one every week.

If Pep likes his players working as hard without the ball as they do with it, that's good enough for me, it's such a simple concept?

[WJ99mobile]

Remember when people criticised Lee Tomlin and then when a manage actually started him and gave him a chance he dragged us to the playoffs pretty much single handedly.

Taarabt would be benched under Bulut, as would probably Bothroyd, maybe even Whittingham.

At some point you just have to let your #10s and strikers be attacking players and let them do what they do best. Robinson to me has always seemed like a hard worker, he's had loads of injuries recently and if he isn't playing regularly of course he won't look match fit.

Colwill is a player who could potentially win us games by himself, we've seen him score for Wales, vs Liverpool, winner vs QPR and Forest. 15 minutes here or there isn't good enough for a player like him. Give him 10 games to see what he can do, if after that Bulut still isn't happy send him out on loan.

If I were Colwill I'd try and get away for the sake of my career, it looks like he just won't be given a chance here and we will regret it.

I also think that Tanner hasn't improved much, that's not a criticism, I think he was always this good but he was just never given a chance. I posted about a year ago on here and Twitter saying the same thing about Tanner as I'm saying about Colwill now.

But that's not how were set up to play. And to say about Bothroyd is laughable when you watch Ugbo

[Lord Worcester]

That's why Bulut and Pep are football Managers and you are a plumber/pensioner/doctor/whatever, you'd soon get sick of a few nice Colwill goals and losing three one every week.

If Pep likes his players working as hard without the ball as they do with it, that's good enough for me, it's such a simple concept?

The classic 'you're not a football manager' argument when someone has a different opinion. And of all the comparisons made the Pep one makes me laugh the most. Got to be honest, I never fully appreciated that if Rubin played we are guaranteed to lose 3-1. Now I know.

[J R Hartley]

Risky game calling players out in public in this way, especially as by own admission he hasn’t spoken to Robinson first to let him know he’s not happy him. Poor form really.

He does have the touch of the Colin’s about him on that nothing is ever his fault and he’ll happily throw the players under the bus first.

[Tuerto]

Risky game calling players out in public in this way, especially as by own admission he hasn’t spoken to Robinson first to let him know he’s not happy him. Poor form really.

He does have the touch of the Colin’s about him on that nothing is ever his fault and he’ll happily throw the players under the bus first.

I don't like him naming players like that, it could blow up in his face.

[Bluebirdman Of Alcathays]

Perhaps Bulut will give Colwill 90 seconds at the end of tomorrow's game to prove him wrong.

[Lord Worcester]

Perhaps Bulut will give Colwill 90 seconds at the end of tomorrow's game to prove him wrong.

He might, but I doubt it.

[D. Advocaat]

I don't agree, why is it okay for one type of player (defenders) to contribute little as attackers, but not okay for attacking players to contribute little as defenders? It's illogical.

As I said, I'm not naive enough to think that you drop players like Collins, Goutas, McGuinness and Sipios because they don't offer a great deal in an attacking or creative sense, but where is the consistency of thought to a process which does not treat the ten outfield players in the same way?

You use the term "dedicated defender" - the one I'm thinking of here is "out and out defender", why is acceptable to have out and out defenders, but, seemingly, not okay to have out and out attackers?

I agree that the two players concerned could do more defensively, but, watching us at Middlesbrough and then against Watford, it seems to me that Bulut is in danger of cutting off his nose to spite his face - is playing someone like Wintle in such an attacking role giving us more overall than what we lose by having the, apparently, defensively suspect Robinson or Colwill there?

I mentioned before on here that most managers appear to be okay with a 7/4 defensive/attacking make up to their team, Bulut wants an 8/3 split.

Over the last couple of games we seem to have regressed to a standard Cardiff City 'keep shape and nick a goal' side. I'd much prefer the entertaining chaos of a free scoring City team playing attacking football, at the risk of conceding goals, than a side based on hard work and grinding out 1-0 wins with a goal from a set piece. Robinson is a proven Championship player with genuine attacking quality and, if fit, he should play.