Simon Colyn

[costarg]

1 hour ago, InglewoodJack said:

One thing I’ve been wondering is who is this Shaffenburg player we keep hearing about? 

I think he's the new dual-nat Spanyard we've been talking about, keep up, man.

[Obinna]

This is where I typically try and find meaning in someone's post instead of being a dickhead, but on this occasion it is especially difficult. 

Here goes: @JAVIERF with all due respect, I think you don't know our players as well as you think you do. I think I understand what your philosophy is and how you want us to play, but you don't seem to be judging the attributes of our players correctly. For example, you say Schaffleburg is a better dribbler than Millar and for me this is obviously false. I do think that Schaffleburg has improved his with the ball at his feet, but it is very clear to me that Millar is way better in this regard. Perhaps something is getting lost in translation and you are suggesting Schaffleburg is better at beating his man, which is not necessarily the same thing as being a better "dribbler" as I would define it, because if you beat your man by just pushing the ball beyond the defender and using your speed, which is a very Schaffleburg-like play, there is no "dribble" involved, no fake or body faint to get the defender off balance. Even if this is what you mean, I think Miller beats his man with pure speed just as well as Schaffleburg, if not better, so again it's takes like this which hurt your credibility here. 

Cheers,

Obinna

 

Edited January 6 by Obinna

[JAVIERF]

That's my opiniion and I stick to it,  maybe  I find Shaffenburg a more Italian like players or rioplatense but from what I've seen Shaffenburg is a better dribbler and deceiver with his faints as for Millar he is in my view a pace player and more direct ,  your best dribbler is David who I find very much similar almost alike to Kun Agüero 

[JAVIERF]

Uruguayan argiies itialians dribble past style is like David or Shaffenburg,  with faints ,  Millar I find him a direct attacker ,  with speed power like Hume

[Obinna]

6 minutes ago, JAVIERF said:

That's my opiniion and I stick to it,  maybe  I find Shaffenburg a more Italian like players or rioplatense but from what I've seen Shaffenburg is a better dribbler and deceiver with his faints as for Millar he is in my view a pace player and more direct ,  your best dribbler is David who I find very much similar almost alike to Kun Agüero 

Fair enough. I'll have a closer look myself next time to see if I can catch what you see. Perhaps Schaffleburg has more of these suttle faints than I give him credit for.

[InglewoodJack]

22 hours ago, costarg said:

I think he's the new dual-nat Spanyard we've been talking about, keep up, man.

Spaniard? Sorry, it seems like he’s actually Italian, per our Argentinian expert here. Do we know where his mom was born? Are there any other organizations that are looking out for him? Maybe we should cap tied him (again) to avoid Argentina snatching him, as he very clearly plays in their style. We can’t see it, but real soccer minds would know. 

[Bigandy]

On 1/6/2024 at 11:20 AM, JAVIERF said:

Uruguayan argiies itialians dribble past style is like David or Shaffenburg,  with faints ,  Millar I find him a direct attacker ,  with speed power like Hume

2 highlight packages. 80% of the highlights is shaf knocking the ball long and running onto it. He has one stepover across 2 season highlight reels. I think you don't know how shaf plays if you think he plays with "feints" and millar just knocks the ball into space....... Have you watched either of these guys? 

 

[Obinna]

5 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

2 highlight packages. 80% of the highlights is shaf knocking the ball long and running onto it. He has one stepover across 2 season highlight reels. I think you don't know how shaf plays if you think he plays with "feints" and millar just knocks the ball into space....... Have you watched either of these guys? 

 

Just in the first video I saw one single step over in the 2nd clip and the remainder of the video no faints or stepovers.

[dyslexic nam]

I’m not trying to be a dick but you guys are trying really hard to find some rationale or factoid that supports a pretty dumb take on player selection.  

Edited January 8 by dyslexic nam

[JAVIERF]

Yeah that's the one,  the guy is a trickster,   old fashioned exciting left or right midfielder ,  what I didn't realize is thsr the guy is ambidextrous,   not gonna say he is the new Damien Duff but he is a player we down here cherish as for Jonathan David.   We in Arg Uru Ira and Eso respect tricksters not much pacey strong players we like all round footballers 

Canada All round footballers ( in my opinion / 

Layrea 

Vitoria

Eustaquio

Shaffenburg

David 

Colyn 

Davids

[Unnamed Trialist]

9 hours ago, JAVIERF said:

Yeah that's the one,  the guy is a trickster,   old fashioned exciting left or right midfielder ,  what I didn't realize is thsr the guy is ambidextrous,   not gonna say he is the new Damien Duff but he is a player we down here cherish as for Jonathan David.   We in Arg Uru Ira and Eso respect tricksters not much pacey strong players we like all round footballers 

Canada All round footballers ( in my opinion / 

Layrea 

Vitoria

Eustaquio

Shaffenburg

David 

Colyn 

Davids

Eustaquio is the only player we have remotely close to "total" status.

[dyslexic nam]

43 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Eustaquio is the only player we have remotely close to "total" status.

Of our current crop of players, I think Oso could have made a claim for that in his prime (though obviously to a lesser extent than Staq).  

[Obinna]

Of those players listed I think Laryea actually has a good argument for the most "complete" player.

He can play outside and inside in midfield and defense. He is very good with both feet (moreso than Schaffleburg lol) and is very fast and agile and fit and communicates on the field, as well as leads by example. He has a great engine to boot and a two-way player capable of excellent moments in attack and defense. 

I think Oso and especially Staq are the predictable answers to this question, and I get it, but positionally they are inflexible compared to Laryea. Furthermore, Staq never uses his left foot and doesn't have much pace. Great engine and wand of a right foot, though. Nobody in the NT is better at using the outside of his foot than Staq. 

[Bigandy]

On 1/9/2024 at 8:35 AM, Obinna said:

Of those players listed I think Laryea actually has a good argument for the most "complete" player.

He can play outside and inside in midfield and defense. He is very good with both feet (moreso than Schaffleburg lol) and is very fast and agile and fit and communicates on the field, as well as leads by example. He has a great engine to boot and a two-way player capable of excellent moments in attack and defense. 

I think Oso and especially Staq are the predictable answers to this question, and I get it, but positionally they are inflexible compared to Laryea. Furthermore, Staq never uses his left foot and doesn't have much pace. Great engine and wand of a right foot, though. Nobody in the NT is better at using the outside of his foot than Staq. 

I agree on laryea at the MLS level. However, I think the argument for his completeness comes from his athleticism. Laryea isnt that complete in the sense of his technical ability or being able to have interplay at a higher tempo. Take away laryeas speed and he becomes a pretty poor player. 

staq can close passing lanes, track runners, put in a tackle while also dictating build up play tempo, switch the field, play through balls, shoot, cross, set pieces etc. Theres no part of the match he cant do except win headers against big guys and catch up to incredibly quick players.... 

David could be a shout for a complete striker. He scores all types of goals, Is incredible at closing down passing lanes, is able to be involved in the build up play. maybe not a total footballer, but closeish to a total striker. 

 

[Obinna]

58 minutes ago, Bigandy said:

I agree on laryea at the MLS level. However, I think the argument for his completeness comes from his athleticism. Laryea isnt that complete in the sense of his technical ability or being able to have interplay at a higher tempo. Take away laryeas speed and he becomes a pretty poor player. 

staq can close passing lanes, track runners, put in a tackle while also dictating build up play tempo, switch the field, play through balls, shoot, cross, set pieces etc. Theres no part of the match he cant do except win headers against big guys and catch up to incredibly quick players.... 

David could be a shout for a complete striker. He scores all types of goals, Is incredible at closing down passing lanes, is able to be involved in the build up play. maybe not a total footballer, but closeish to a total striker. 

 

This I disagree with. You could make that argument for many players before you get to Laryea.

When Richie was first called up Herdman specifically lauded his ability to match the speed of play. That's a direct thanks to his technical ability and interplay, no?

You strip away the speed and agility and you still have a smart and technical and two-footed player., but you may have to see past his unorthodox playing style to grasp my perspective here. Once you do, you can clearly see his close control, good first touch, good vision, etc. 

David I agree is a very complete attacker.

I would say Atiba Hutchison is the most complete Canadian player of all time. Can do most/all those things Staq can, but was far more versatile and in his prime had a lot of speed too.

I guess I bring up Hutch to demonstrate how being the heartbeat of the team (Staq) is not necessarily the same thing as being the most complete player in the team. In his prime Hutch was both.

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

This I disagree with. You could make that argument for many players before you get to Laryea.

When Richie was first called up Herdman specifically lauded his ability to match the speed of play. That's a direct thanks to his technical ability and interplay, no?

You strip away the speed and agility and you still have a smart and technical and two-footed player., but you may have to see past his unorthodox playing style to grasp my perspective here. Once you do, you can clearly see his close control, good first touch, good vision, etc. 

David I agree is a very complete attacker.

I would say Atiba Hutchison is the most complete Canadian player of all time. Can do most/all those things Staq can, but was far more versatile and in his prime had a lot of speed too.

I guess I bring up Hutch to demonstrate how being the heartbeat of the team (Staq) is not necessarily the same thing as being the most complete player in the team. In his prime Hutch was both.

Richies great and I love him, but his attacking contributions are quite regularly based on driving down the line and cutting back. Without his athleticism, he cant do that. It's not like his crossing is fantastic so what does he offer offensively without that. A bit of build up play but most of his build up is to find ways to get space out wide to progress the ball. Its not the type of interplay we see with staq and david. He's got a good first touch and ok vision, but theres a reason he didnt succeed as a CM. Its likely the same reason he didnt succeed at NF. His athleticism is a 9/10 and his technical/reading of the game etc is 7/10. Hes still good in those areas, but without his top end athleticism, he doesnt have nearly the same role for CMNT. 

if we are talking about a complete player, richie rely's too much on his athleticism to be complete IMO. Johnston is actually more complete imo. Hes got average athleticism and is often above richie in the depth charts. 

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

Richies great and I love him, but his attacking contributions are quite regularly based on driving down the line and cutting back. Without his athleticism, he cant do that. It's not like his crossing is fantastic so what does he offer offensively without that. A bit of build up play but most of his build up is to find ways to get space out wide to progress the ball. Its not the type of interplay we see with staq and david. He's got a good first touch and ok vision, but theres a reason he didnt succeed as a CM. Its likely the same reason he didnt succeed at NF. His athleticism is a 9/10 and his technical/reading of the game etc is 7/10. Hes still good in those areas, but without his top end athleticism, he doesnt have nearly the same role for CMNT. 

if we are talking about a complete player, richie rely's too much on his athleticism to be complete IMO. Johnston is actually more complete imo. Hes got average athleticism and is often above richie in the depth charts. 

Okay sure, but as you said, he's a 7/10 for technique and reading the game, which is fine, right? To be a well rounded player is to be good in all areas, or not terrible in any one area, wouldn't you say?

Staq, for example, is not good at dribbling past players, nor is Johnston. They don't need to be, mind you, but that's a big hole in their overall game, right?

Shouldn't the most well rounded player be the guy with the least holes in his game?

I should reinforce here that the most "well rounded player" is not necessarily the "best player", at least how I would define it.

[dyslexic nam]

I keep hoping something is happening with Colyn. 

[Bigandy]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Okay sure, but as you said, he's a 7/10 for technique and reading the game, which is fine, right? To be a well rounded player is to be good in all areas, or not terrible in any one area, wouldn't you say?

Staq, for example, is not good at dribbling past players, nor is Johnston. They don't need to be, mind you, but that's a big hole in their overall game, right?

Shouldn't the most well rounded player be the guy with the least holes in his game?

I should reinforce here that the most "well rounded player" is not necessarily the "best player", at least how I would define it.

I agree with how you define well rounded. Just that my assesment of these guys is different. 

Take away staqs athleticism and hes still the same player. He solves problems in a variety of ways. 

Laryea, although proficient (arent all footballers to some degree) in many areas, really needs his athleticism. He relies on his speed to bail him out when hes caught out of position. He relies on his speed to get past his man so that he can play a cut back across goal. etc.

Compare laryea to trippier. Trippier is solid defensively despite not being overly quick. He creates an insane amount of chances because of his technical ability. 

My logic is, take away the best trait of the player in question. How much worse is that player. For laryea, I think he loses his CMNT spot without his speed. For trippier, staq, and david, I think their arsenal is so much better that you take away their best trait and they dont fall too far. 

Davies on the other hand is not a bayern player if he wasnt exceptionally quick. 

Well rounded means you dont rely on one specific trait IMO which laryea and davies do (even if they have other traits). 

[El Diego]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

I agree with how you define well rounded. Just that my assesment of these guys is different. 

Take away staqs athleticism and hes still the same player. He solves problems in a variety of ways. 

Laryea, although proficient (arent all footballers to some degree) in many areas, really needs his athleticism. He relies on his speed to bail him out when hes caught out of position. He relies on his speed to get past his man so that he can play a cut back across goal. etc.

Compare laryea to trippier. Trippier is solid defensively despite not being overly quick. He creates an insane amount of chances because of his technical ability. 

My logic is, take away the best trait of the player in question. How much worse is that player. For laryea, I think he loses his CMNT spot without his speed. For trippier, staq, and david, I think their arsenal is so much better that you take away their best trait and they dont fall too far. 

Davies on the other hand is not a bayern player if he wasnt exceptionally quick. 

Well rounded means you dont rely on one specific trait IMO which laryea and davies do (even if they have other traits). 

I get what you're saying but this is a weird way to look at things. What even is Eustaquio's best trait, his footballing intelligence? If we take that away, is he even a player? Why is Richie getting punished for maximizing his best trait? What are we achieving by ranking guys based on how good they are without their best trait?

[InglewoodJack]

2 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

I keep hoping something is happening with Colyn. 

Only a matter of time

[Bigandy]

16 hours ago, El Diego said:

I get what you're saying but this is a weird way to look at things. What even is Eustaquio's best trait, his footballing intelligence? If we take that away, is he even a player? Why is Richie getting punished for maximizing his best trait? What are we achieving by ranking guys based on how good they are without their best trait?

We are strictly talking about what it means to be well rounded. A guy like robben was a one trick pony. Phenomenal player but hes not well rounded. Richie isnt getting punished for maximizing his best trait. In fact, I think thats exactly what he needs to do and why hes the perfect concacaf style player. 

Well rounded to me means that you could take away his best trait and it wouldnt be that significant as the well rounded player doenst rely on one specific trait. Richie relies on his speed. 

The fact that we dont quite know what staqs best trait is, is the perfect example of why hes well rounded. (Football IQ is required so if you take that away from any player, they no longer can play, so lets focus on more technical or physical skills). 

Take away staqs engine and hes less effective but still the most important palyer for CMNT and our tempo setter. Take away one of his late runs into the box, his long ball switches, his set pieces etc etc. and he's still the most important player for CMNT. 

I would be surprised if anyone thinks that richie without his speed is well rounded and almost as effective when compared to staq being well rounded. 

[Obinna]

1 hour ago, Bigandy said:

Well rounded to me means that you could take away his best trait and it wouldnt be that significant as the well rounded player doenst rely on one specific trait. Richie relies on his speed. 

I would be surprised if anyone thinks that richie without his speed is well rounded and almost as effective when compared to staq being well rounded. 

With all due respect this is a very obtuse way to define well rounded.

Of course we are talking about soccer, not education, but if we were talking education, the A+ math student who scores a minimum of B in every other class would meet the definition of well-rounded.

Conversely, the student who scores A in his math and science but fails his classes in Languages and Literature cannot be considered well-rounded, as per the definition. There are big gaps in his education, or "game" as it were, in the case of soccer. 

I don't mean to be pedandtic here. I try and avoid saying someone is "wrong" for simply having a different perspective, but here it seems you have twisted the definition of well-rounded.

That said, there's some merit to what you are saying and I understand it, but I just disagree with the idea of subtracting a player's best trait when assessing how "well-rounded" he is. Maybe there's a better word than "well-rounded" for that?

And in any case, probably best to move on rather than give people false hope something important is happening with Colyn 

Cheers!

[Bigandy]

35 minutes ago, Obinna said:

With all due respect this is a very obtuse way to define well rounded.

Of course we are talking about soccer, not education, but if we were talking education, the A+ math student who scores a minimum of B in every other class would meet the definition of well-rounded.

Conversely, the student who scores A in his math and science but fails his classes in Languages and Literature cannot be considered well-rounded, as per the definition. There are big gaps in his education, or "game" as it were, in the case of soccer. 

I don't mean to be pedandtic here. I try and avoid saying someone is "wrong" for simply having a different perspective, but here it seems you have twisted the definition of well-rounded.

That said, there's some merit to what you are saying and I understand it, but I just disagree with the idea of subtracting a player's best trait when assessing how "well-rounded" he is. Maybe there's a better word than "well-rounded" for that?

And in any case, probably best to move on rather than give people false hope something important is happening with Colyn 

Cheers!

Your rubric is correct and I agree. However, I dont see richie as a guy who gets all B's or gets all B's with 1 A. 

Richie is an A in athleticism. Hes an A in alot of other areas as well, but hes also a C in some areas. He's not particularly good at crossing, His tactical acumen isnt tremendous, etc. His A in athleticism covers up his C's. For example, he runs into the box and crosses along the ground for a simple tap in. Not a particularly good cross but his speed gets him behind the defensive line so he doesnt have to put in a whipped cross from 30 yards out. Take away his A in speed and he's going to be forced to cross the ball earlier and deeper which will expose his C level crossing. 

Essentially, if you take away richies A in athleticism, is he going to exhibit B's in all areas or will losing his A expose his C's that were being covered up by his A's. 

Why was he not succesful in midfield? Its pretty clear that to maximize richie, you need him out wide. You maximize his speed and hes just not cut out to play CM. He doesnt read the game well enough in a 360 environment. When he has the line to cut the play to 180, hes fantastic. 

 we can disagree if richies A covers up his C's or if hes all B's with 1ish As. 

Then the next part of the debate is - an A in MLS might only be a C in the prem. So when I use A's and C's for richie, Im using your metaphor to show A is top, B is meeting the standard and C is below standard. tight margins as all footballers are proficient in pretty much all areas. 

 

[InglewoodJack]

Some actual Colyn news: he’s starting tonight. Game starts in 15.