All open options! - Page 4

zlatanov · 10-06-2005, 15:34

On what Henrik was saying - what he meant, probably, and I fully agree with that is that both Janku and Cafu are great going forward and not so stable at the back. The main plus of having a Cafu at RB or a Janku at LB is to have them going forward at the expense of the LB or the RB, respectively. You don't have much of a benefit to keep both of them on the field since their major contribution is when they attack while when they defend they are more of a liability at the back, thus with both of them on the field, the whole defence will be unballanced and we will suffer.
What you are proposing, and many others have done so too, can definitely work but only against small teams that come to the SS with the only purpose of somehow getting a 0-0 out of Milan by packing up in defence. Aganst these teams, I believe that we could afford to have two attacking backs on both sides, especially if our midfield is in good shape to provide extra cover for our weakened defence.
Of course Janku can play left back, but this would be suitable only in certain type of games. Apart from that, just because Zambrotta is successful at LB after having played LW for years, I honestly don't see why this should be true for Janku, who is a far more technical player than Zambrotta. The Juve player has always been on the physical side and this, along with his speed, is probably the main reason why he managed to convert to LB so successfully. The same cannot be said about Janku, whose major strength, apart from speed, is his technique on the ball and his ability to improvise while attacking on the wing or from midfield - physical toughness doesn't seem to play such a major role in his game, unlike for example Kaladze or Zambrotta.

Jim_UK · 10-06-2005, 15:38

sorry ... must have got it wrong again.

Maradona (10) · 10-06-2005, 19:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by zlatanov

On what Henrik was saying - what he meant, probably, and I fully agree with that is that both Janku and Cafu are great going forward and not so stable at the back. The main plus of having a Cafu at RB or a Janku at LB is to have them going forward at the expense of the LB or the RB, respectively. You don't have much of a benefit to keep both of them on the field since their major contribution is when they attack while when they defend they are more of a liability at the back, thus with both of them on the field, the whole defence will be unballanced and we will suffer.
What you are proposing, and many others have done so too, can definitely work but only against small teams that come to the SS with the only purpose of somehow getting a 0-0 out of Milan by packing up in defence. Aganst these teams, I believe that we could afford to have two attacking backs on both sides, especially if our midfield is in good shape to provide extra cover for our weakened defence.
.

To be very fast and have the lungs to run for 90 min along that touch line and not just for the first half of the game; to have great tecnique and be devastating in attack and very good defensively; but above all being able to play using your head and not just your legs

http://www.milanmania.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=30

zlatanov · 10-06-2005, 20:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maradona (10)

To be very fast and have the lungs to run for 90 min along that touch line and not just for the first half of the game; to have great tecnique and be devastating in attack and very good defensively; but above all being able to play using your head and not just your legs

http://www.milanmania.com/forums/sho...5&postcount=30

I am honestly not so sure what was so funny - maybe you are implying that I am contradicting myself by calling Cafu first "very good defensively" and now "no so solid at the back". In case this is it, well, I honestly don't see anything wrong about it for "very good" and "not so solid" can and do have a very relative meaning - Cafu can be very good defensively compared to most, if not all, other ATTACKING righ backs, while if you compare him to Maldini, Nesta, Stam, Terry, Cannavaro he IS NOT SO STABLE at the back and even a LIABILITY for we could have someone like Stam there but then we won't be able to create a single sensible attack from the right. So, yeah, Cafu's presence is a liability in defence but he is also a necessity.

I see you are still hurting from the last time you tried to argue with me and ran out of steam in the middle of it.
I will say it again - "One can live next to a library and still be illiterate." Speaking of living proof ... get yourself a mirror.

Maradona (10) · 10-06-2005, 21:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by zlatanov

I see you are still hurting from the last time you tried to argue with me and ran out of steam in the middle of it.
I will say it again - "One can live next to a library and still be illiterate." Speaking of living proof ... get yourself a mirror.

You are talking about the Gilardino thread? I still sticking to my point. If thats not the argument, tell me which one. Exile.

kris · 13-06-2005, 06:23

Update.

Braida have agreed that Sampdoria can borrow Kutusov for one more year. He is still halfowned between us.

Kui · 13-06-2005, 06:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by kris

Update.

Braida have agreed that Sampdoria can borrow Kutusov for one more year. He is still halfowned between us.

Thanks Maste kris! We still have him as an asset. Would you know til how long is he contracted or half owned by us. I'm concerned because I would rather sell him well before his out of contract date is up. No use having a car one cant drive and then end up having it go to someone for free.

10-06-2005, 15:38	#47
Jim_UK Registered User Join Date: 07 2001 Location: England	sorry ... must have got it wrong again. __________________ ... Is watching you ...

13-06-2005, 06:23	#51
kris Jedi Master Join Date: 06 1999 Location: Viking land Fave Players: Past, present and future Milan players	Update. Braida have agreed that Sampdoria can borrow Kutusov for one more year. He is still halfowned between us. __________________ If you are woman, PM me.

10-06-2005, 15:34	#46
zlatanov Moderator Join Date: 07 2003 Location: Nowhere near San Siro :( Fave Players: Zinedine Zidane, Genarro Gattuso, Alessandro Nesta	On what Henrik was saying - what he meant, probably, and I fully agree with that is that both Janku and Cafu are great going forward and not so stable at the back. The main plus of having a Cafu at RB or a Janku at LB is to have them going forward at the expense of the LB or the RB, respectively. You don't have much of a benefit to keep both of them on the field since their major contribution is when they attack while when they defend they are more of a liability at the back, thus with both of them on the field, the whole defence will be unballanced and we will suffer. What you are proposing, and many others have done so too, can definitely work but only against small teams that come to the SS with the only purpose of somehow getting a 0-0 out of Milan by packing up in defence. Aganst these teams, I believe that we could afford to have two attacking backs on both sides, especially if our midfield is in good shape to provide extra cover for our weakened defence. Of course Janku can play left back, but this would be suitable only in certain type of games. Apart from that, just because Zambrotta is successful at LB after having played LW for years, I honestly don't see why this should be true for Janku, who is a far more technical player than Zambrotta. The Juve player has always been on the physical side and this, along with his speed, is probably the main reason why he managed to convert to LB so successfully. The same cannot be said about Janku, whose major strength, apart from speed, is his technique on the ball and his ability to improvise while attacking on the wing or from midfield - physical toughness doesn't seem to play such a major role in his game, unlike for example Kaladze or Zambrotta.