Jump to content
IGNORED

Djibril Sidibé


Recommended Posts

I think he had a very easy game yesterday. He was up against no-one when attacking and the had the most cover he will get this season and yet still conceded a good chance. 

I don't think he is a bad player at all, but he isn't anything to get carried away by. 

On balance, last week I think he was made to look worse due to the ineptitude of Walcott, so he wasn't as bad as he first appeared then either. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yesterday showed he's a wing-back, not a full back.  He can defend ok 1v1, but he lacks the concentration and ability to track runners when the ball is on the other side of the pitch.  He needs the extra cover of 3 cbs, and the main reason to have him on the pitch is for charging forward, which again he can afford to do with 3 behind him.  I know it came undone a bit at the end, but I would go 3 at the back again, he'll give us an outlet when we're under the kosh and provides really good balance to our usual left hand bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bailey said:

I think he had a very easy game yesterday. He was up against no-one when attacking and the had the most cover he will get this season and yet still conceded a good chance. 

I don't think he is a bad player at all, but he isn't anything to get carried away by. 

On balance, last week I think he was made to look worse due to the ineptitude of Walcott, so he wasn't as bad as he first appeared then either. 

And don’t forget made to last ditch tackles in the middle of the area, with Holgate Keane and Mina nowhere to be seen, without him we would have been out the game long before their last minute goal. 
He made playing as wingback look easy he defended against their LB and when we  won the ball back he broke at speed leaving their left sided players in his wake which made it look like he had no one marking him, it’s because he out thought and run them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, chicagoblue said:

Yesterday showed he's a wing-back, not a full back.  He can defend ok 1v1, but he lacks the concentration and ability to track runners when the ball is on the other side of the pitch.  He needs the extra cover of 3 cbs, and the main reason to have him on the pitch is for charging forward, which again he can afford to do with 3 behind him.  I know it came undone a bit at the end, but I would go 3 at the back again, he'll give us an outlet when we're under the kosh and provides really good balance to our usual left hand bias.

That’s rubbish he covered the 3 CH play it back and your see, we could have done much better if Digne had the ability to take the game to Leicester in the same way as he did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chicagoblue said:

Yesterday showed he's a wing-back, not a full back.  He can defend ok 1v1, but he lacks the concentration and ability to track runners when the ball is on the other side of the pitch.  He needs the extra cover of 3 cbs, and the main reason to have him on the pitch is for charging forward, which again he can afford to do with 3 behind him.  I know it came undone a bit at the end, but I would go 3 at the back again, he'll give us an outlet when we're under the kosh and provides really good balance to our usual left hand bias.

A wing back and a full back are just the same mate.
The only difference is a wing back is what people call a full back who can’t defend. So is basically not a good enough full back. 

That’s no my opinion on this player by the way, jury is still out for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, StevO said:

A wing back and a full back are just the same mate.
The only difference is a wing back is what people call a full back who can’t defend. So is basically not a good enough full back. 

That’s no my opinion on this player by the way, jury is still out for me. 

Maybe it's just semantics, but if I hear a player is a full back I think he plays in a 4, bias towards defending.  Ex A is Tony Hibbert

If a player is a wing-back he primarily plays in a back 3/5 and has a bias toward attacking.  Ex B is Adama Traore

I'm being a bit extreme with those examples, but I see two broad categories.  Sure there's overlap, and the best wide defenders can do both jobs, but that's the exception.  Can you imagine a Tony Hibbert in a back 5?  Or Traore in a back 4?  Seemed to me that putting Sidibe in a 5 gave him a license to really exploit the space in front.  When he's a in 4 I'm constantly nervous that the opposite will exploit the gap he vacates.  At least a back 3 give you some cover for that.  The other option there would be a super mobile DM (Gana type) who would instinctively slide over and cover, we don't seem to have that right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

That’s rubbish he covered the 3 CH play it back and your see, we could have done much better if Digne had the ability to take the game to Leicester in the same way as he did. 

Nail on head here. Digne was really really poor. Sidibe put some really good balls in that were begging to be put in. Moved us up the pitch nicely and we lacked that on the left completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 3-4-3 will work best with Richarlison wide right and Bernard wide left - Digne isn’t an athletic powerhouse and still needs to link up with someone and pass around them, which Bernard and him can do. Richarlison can cut inside and open that side of the pitch for sidibe to bomb on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chicagoblue said:

Maybe it's just semantics, but if I hear a player is a full back I think he plays in a 4, bias towards defending.  Ex A is Tony Hibbert

If a player is a wing-back he primarily plays in a back 3/5 and has a bias toward attacking.  Ex B is Adama Traore

I'm being a bit extreme with those examples, but I see two broad categories.  Sure there's overlap, and the best wide defenders can do both jobs, but that's the exception.  Can you imagine a Tony Hibbert in a back 5?  Or Traore in a back 4?  Seemed to me that putting Sidibe in a 5 gave him a license to really exploit the space in front.  When he's a in 4 I'm constantly nervous that the opposite will exploit the gap he vacates.  At least a back 3 give you some cover for that.  The other option there would be a super mobile DM (Gana type) who would instinctively slide over and cover, we don't seem to have that right now.

A good full back can both attack and defend. There should never be an excuse for a full back to only have one side of the game. As I said, a wing back is just an excuse for a defender who can’t defend. 

Traore is no defender. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, StevO said:

A good full back can both attack and defend. There should never be an excuse for a full back to only have one side of the game. As I said, a wing back is just an excuse for a defender who can’t defend. 

Traore is no defender. 

Traore isn’t even much of a footballer tbh. He’s an athlete. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I‘be not been impressed with Sidibe at all. I know that’ll split opinions but for me the most important aspect of a defender is that they can defend. My opinion of him is that he can’t as he switches off too often and lunges in frequently. His attacking play is ok but nothing more. I would love him to prove me wrong but I’m confident he won’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, barryj said:

I‘be not been impressed with Sidibe at all. I know that’ll split opinions but for me the most important aspect of a defender is that they can defend. My opinion of him is that he can’t as he switches off too often and lunges in frequently. His attacking play is ok but nothing more. I would love him to prove me wrong but I’m confident he won’t. 

Maybe he will get better the more he plays

He's aggressive I like that but I agree he does need to improve defensively. If he can keep lunging in similar to Wan Bissaka and win the ball I'll be happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, chicagoblue said:

Probably clocked Madison taking one quick step sideways.  He's never looked rapid in a straight line.

Well I’ve never thought Maddison was blessed with pace so to see him out sprint sidibe ( according to stats ) was a surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Romey 1878 said:

It's absolutely no coincidence that every time he's played the opposition have gone for him over and over.

Exactly this. I’d have loved nothing more than him to have turned out to be a great player but it simply isn’t the case. He’s regularly caught out of position and looks clumsy in almost all tackles. An example was his best tackle yesterday that was with the outside of his foot. He just doesn’t have the  natural instinct of a defender. How he managed  to get sucked in to the centre (see 1st min yesterday) when we have three CBs is beyond me. As for their second goal he was a spectator. He was again out of position so that a 50 yard pass could be taken in and controlled by Mane with no pressure. After that he just watches the goal unfold. He not the only one that deserves heavy criticism but he’s directly responsible for lots of goals we’ve conceded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...