Robinson and Colwill.

[Trigger]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

Sounds fair enough to me. I like this guy.

Yea don't get the fuss. It's pretty basic stuff to expect work rate at this level, he isn't saying they have to defend like maldini.

I like Robinson in particular but neither are anywhere near effective enough going forward where you can forgive them not doing the basics off the ball.

[Dave Blue]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

Bulut’s bull is wearing thin. I don’t want to watch a team with no interest in winning at home against a team on their arse.

[Bald Barry Bastad]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

Colwill has to work harder but equally we shouldn't be playing 3 DM's at home to Rotherham!

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

As has been mentioned earlier, Bulut's logic does not make sense here. If he is saying that, essentially, he wants eleven defenders when we don't have the ball, shouldn't it follow that he wants ten attackers (forget about the keeper!) when we do have it?

Based on what's been seen of him so far, Jamilu Collins doesn't contribute much in an attacking sense, Goutas and McGuinness only contribute from an attacking viewpoint from set pieces and Siopis (who's scored just twice in over three hundred career appearances) does not offer much going forward. The notion that any one of these (especially Collins as the only specialist left back we have currently) be left out because they don't score enough goals is ludicrous and yet, using Bulut's argument regarding Robinson and Colwill, isn't that what he should be doing?

[EastbourneBlue]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

As ever its always the flair players who get criticised, but the more defensive/lesser players never get criticised for their lack of creativity

Surely there's a balance to be found between attack and defence? We know Wintle won't provide the creative force that Robinson or Colwill will, that puts a lot of pressure on the wingers to provide and also puts a lot of pressure on the defence if we can't get a goal/play in the opponent's half

Suspect he knows there’s little point in laying down the challenge for Wintle as he’s performing at his best. Maybe he thinks he can get from from Robbo and Colwill.

Besides, the journalists just keep asking Bulut the same thing every week so what else is he meant to say.

Can see Robbo leaving though

[Tuerto]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

As has been mentioned earlier, Bulut's logic does not make sense here. If he is saying that, essentially, he wants eleven defenders when we don't have the ball, shouldn't it follow that he wants ten attackers (forget about the keeper!) when we do have it?

Based on what's been seen of him so far, Jamilu Collins doesn't contribute much in an attacking sense, Goutas and McGuinness only contribute from an attacking viewpoint from set pieces and Siopis (who's scored just twice in over three hundred career appearances) does not offer much going forward. The notion that any one of these (especially Collins as the only specialist left back we have currently) be left out because they don't score enough goals is ludicrous and yet, using Bulut's argument regarding Robinson and Colwill, isn't that what he should be doing?

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.

[North Cardiff Blue]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

league 2 my arse, he was winning games and playing enough at this level 2 years ago as a teenager, he's been running games for Wales u21 and we had offers from league one clubs in the summer which we turned down

If we sent him to Wrexham he would be a film star they would probably make a whole episode for the documentary, it would triple his value and probably raise his profile and confidence.

Great player, but if the Manager won't play him because of his work rate, it would be better to go out on loan and improve, he should have a word with Tanner, he was criticised and came back strong and kept the shirt!

Colwill is definitely good enough but does he have the right attitude to fight back and impress the Manager?

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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.

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.

[North Cardiff Blue]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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

[Doucas]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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.

[North Cardiff Blue]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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]

Re: Robinson and Colwill.

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