Konchesky to the RS

Brownie · August 27, 2010

stinger said:
He's pretty good. He keep surprising me with amount of space he covers (as he is not getting any younger), he's smart, he controls the tempo well, good passer and takes a responsibiluity. He's not Alonso or Arteta, but at the moment he would improve them for sure.

Fair enough, I can't argue with that really. I've just always seen him as a very limited player. He's intelligent on the ball and can find a man with a pass, but that's about it. When he tries to be genuinely creative he ****s it up and gives the ball away, likewise if you put him under pressure he isn't skilful enough to get out of it.

I think it's just a bit of a pet hate of mine. It irritates me when people automatically assume that players like him must be good footballers because of their size, when in fact it's perfectly possible to be small and [Poor language removed].

Rook · August 27, 2010

Brownie said:
Do you rate Murphy stinger? I know you're mainly just saying that they don't really have a ball playing midfielder like him, but do you actually think he's good?

He's good but the midfield is built around him sort of like what we have with Arteta (not saying Murphy is anywhere near as good as 'teta though). It would be similar to putting Arteta on Arsenal. He'd still be the same player but not as effective b/c he wouldn't have the ball as much.

stinger · August 27, 2010

Brownie said:
Fair enough, I can't argue with that really. I've just always seen him as a very limited player. He's intelligent on the ball and can find a man with a pass, but that's about it. When he tries to be genuinely creative he ****s it up and gives the ball away, likewise if you put him under pressure he isn't skilful enough to get out of it.

I think it's just a bit of a pet hate of mine. It irritates me when people automatically assume that players like him must be good footballers because of their size, when in fact it's perfectly possible to be small and [Poor language removed].

That's a good point, which is a similar important issue for many deep lying playmakers. They are better, if they keep things relatively simple and keep rythm of the game, more aften than not they should leave high risk high reward creative aspects to players spending most of their attacking duties in final 3rd.

ToxtethBlue · August 27, 2010

I'd say he's a similar level player to the likes of Bullard and Osman. He's hardworking, decent technically, a smart passer and intelligent.

It depends on how Liverpool want to use him, if he's considering pushing Gerrard behind the striker then Murphy would bring better balance to the team than the likes of Lucas and Poulsen would.

In the long term though, he isn't going to bring all that much to the table, he's just a decent player. I still think it was a bad decision to get rid of Aquilani, granted, he struggled at times last season, but given that he can cover both Gerrard and Cole's positions and has creative qualities, he could be useful for them, he could completely flop aswell but it's worth the risk.

I'd rather give a player like him a go than Murphy.

stinger · August 27, 2010

Yeah, it's difficult to understand why they did loan out Aquilani. Although he was struggling to play as deep lying playmaker, as his defensive game wasn't good enough. Of course he didn't play much and would do better, if used more, but have a feeling he would have a tough time to correct this weakness.

Brownie · August 27, 2010

That's my point tho Tixxy, if you compare him to Bullard and Osman, I think he's worse. Bullard can keep the ball, works hard, technically decent, but added to that he's also quite a powerful player, with a better range of passing and a good shot on him. Likewise Osman has the same qualities as Murphy, but he also has tricky feet and can beat a man. I just don't see much in Murphy's game, there's not a lot there.

On Aquilani, I think it's an absolute joke. There's no way he's been loaned out to get game time so that he can come back to Liverpool fresh and ready. They're trying to sell him. He hasn't been given a chance at all, despite the fact that the few times he has actually played, he's looked like their most creative player. I really don't get it.

stinger · August 27, 2010

to be honest, I would take Murphy over Osman/Bullard any day. He's more balanced out of 3, doesn't have a technique like Osman or set pieces execution like Bullard, but is decent or above decent in almost everything.

chicoazul · August 27, 2010

stinger said:
to be honest, I would take Murphy over Osman/Bullard any day. He's more balanced out of 3, doesn't have a technique like Osman or set pieces execution like Bullard, but is decent or above decent in almost everything.

Present day? I'd have Osman every day of the week and thrice on the Sabbath dear boy.