Jump to content

 

 

Zelalem And The Interpretation Of A Role


Recommended Posts

I thought he was our best midfielder first-half. Lively, ran at defenders, found space, played a few good through-balls (one terrible one!) and actually won the ball back a few times with tackles.

 

''Dross'' is a bit harsh. Waghorn was pretty poor today, but there's not a lot of criticism for him.

 

Perhaps we are all seeing what we want to see (me included)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought he was our best midfielder first-half. Lively, ran at defenders, found space, played a few good through-balls (one terrible one!) and actually won the ball back a few times with tackles.

 

''Dross'' is a bit harsh. Waghorn was pretty poor today, but there's not a lot of criticism for him.

 

Perhaps we are all seeing what we want to see (me included)?

 

I dont think dross is harsh Waghorn wasnt pretty poor, he was dross as well. i see what i see my friend.Sorry,im metronomically challenged. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately the young fella didn't make me eat my words today. Only cemented my view.

 

You are being very kind with that statement.He was dross.

 

I haven't had an opportunity to comment on the excellent OP because I must admit that the term metronome was new to me in a football sense and I wanted to take time to do some research before I made too much of a fool of myself. In addition I did not see the games at Morton or Raith where by all accounts he put in two of his best performances.

 

That said (and at the risk of incurring more of BD's ire) I watched Zelalem as closely as I could today. The first thing to say is that he took a long time to get into the game, so far as I could see he only touched the ball twice in the first 12 minutes and 5 times in the first 20 minutes. He then seemed to hit a bit of a purple patch and on the count in my head completed approx 17 of 20 passes in total before half time, most were forward, some sideways and few backwards. In addition he twice got us out of trouble recovering the ball in the centre circle and recycling the play, if that is the correct terminology. He lost the ball in possession on one occasion. However (as against Raith if reports are to be believed) he started the second half very poorly and although he completed another 3 passes, he lost possession 3 times before being substituted in the 60th minute.

 

So overall he has a very high pass completion rate, as high as 87%; but the vast majority of these passes are short (5-10 yards) and in the middle third, not the danger zone. When he attempts to drive into or pass into the danger zone invariably he loses possession or misplaces the pass.

 

I also noticed that when Holt came on in his place there was a noticeable increase in tempo and dare I say Law also contributed to that with his arrival in the 73rd minute. Now I realise that Zelalem and Holt/Law/Shiels are quite different types of player but it seems to me that Zelalem's somewhat laconic style slows the game down and despite his high pass completion rate, he does little or no damage to the opposition.

 

Talk of him in the same breath as Arteta is badly misplaced IMHO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You are being very kind with that statement.He was dross.

 

Nonsense. Zelalem was our best midfielder by a distance in the first half. Was also unlucky to get hooked in the 2nd. Forward passes, incisive, good movement, closed space down well when the ball was lost and provided a much needed energy, enthusiasm and spark in the midfield.

 

To suggest he was dross makes little to no sense at all. So how did Halliday and Ball do if Zelalem was dross ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't had an opportunity to comment on the excellent OP because I must admit that the term metronome was new to me in a football sense and I wanted to take time to do some research before I made too much of a fool of myself. In addition I did not see the games at Morton or Raith where by all accounts he put in two of his best performances.

 

That said (and at the risk of incurring more of BD's ire) I watched Zelalem as closely as I could today. The first thing to say is that he took a long time to get into the game, so far as I could see he only touched the ball twice in the first 12 minutes and 5 times in the first 20 minutes. He then seemed to hit a bit of a purple patch and on the count in my head completed approx 17 of 20 passes in total before half time, most were forward, some sideways and few backwards. In addition he twice got us out of trouble recovering the ball in the centre circle and recycling the play, if that is the correct terminology. He lost the ball in possession on one occasion. However (as against Raith if reports are to be believed) he started the second half very poorly and although he completed another 3 passes, he lost possession 3 times before being substituted in the 60th minute.

 

So overall he has a very high pass completion rate, as high as 87%; but the vast majority of these passes are short (5-10 yards) and in the middle third, not the danger zone. When he attempts to drive into or pass into the danger zone invariably he loses possession or misplaces the pass.

 

I also noticed that when Holt came on in his place there was a noticeable increase in tempo and dare I say Law also contributed to that with his arrival in the 73rd minute. Now I realise that Zelalem and Holt/Law/Shiels are quite different types of player but it seems to me that Zelalem's somewhat laconic style slows the game down and despite his high pass completion rate, he does little or no damage to the opposition.

 

Talk of him in the same breath as Arteta is badly misplaced IMHO.

 

Lol. Law ? Again ? You are absolutely JOKING BH. The only thing Law did was shadow a Killie player as he broke beyond halfway on a counter attack, allowing the CH to step up to challenge whilst, yet again for the umpteenth time, Law abdicated his responsibilities as he is a shitebag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought he was our best midfielder first-half. Lively, ran at defenders, found space, played a few good through-balls (one terrible one!) and actually won the ball back a few times with tackles.

''Dross'' is a bit harsh. Waghorn was pretty poor today, but there's not a lot of criticism for him.

Perhaps we are all seeing what we want to see (me included)?

 

I must disagree. I actually wanted to like him today, but to me he was getting to the stage where his confidence was dropping because he was so ineffective, Miller was getting annoyed with him as were the crowd. a couple of through balls he attempted were poor to say the least. If Holt stays fit I cant see him being in the side too often. I wont miss him.

Link to post
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.