Liverpool FC Forum

by **mkingdom** » Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:22 pm

He looks out of his depth, and still can't believe LFC actually bought him. Same goes for me actually.

Insua looks twice as good, ten years younger (ish) and with one or two more seasons could be a class LB for the next ten years for us. Instead we pay £4m for someone who is at best average. Hopefully Aurelio is fit now and can stay so for longer than the warm up, and he can play LB.

Along with Poulsen, Konchesky is a terrible signing.

by **metalhead** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:57 pm

the sooner we get aurelio fit the better

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:00 pm

The difference when fabio came on for konchesky was there for all to see , Defensively , distribution and all round quality . Konchesky should be a back up to aurelio when fit .

by **NANNY RED** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:02 pm

Scottbot wrote:
bavlondon wrote:Sorry but he is better than Insua how?

He isn't. Insua was poor, Konchesky unfortunately, is terrible.

Im agreeing with you alot lately Scott :laugh:

by **metalhead** » Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:03 pm

Igor Zidane wrote:The difference when fabio came on for konchesky was there for all to see , Defensively , distribution and all round quality . Konchesky should be a back up to aurelio when fit .

agree, I hope Roy sees the light, unfortunately he won't

by **SouthCoastShankly** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:16 am

I think his start has been rocky, nervous in fact, but against Blackburn he looked good IMO.

How any here can say Insua was better is beyond me.

by **bigmick** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 9:38 am

Yes I thought he was good against Blackburn too. He's been criticised sometimes for things which clearly weren't his fault, but I think the majority of that is because Roy signed him rather than his actual play. He was even criticised for Evertons first goal, despite the fact it was Lucas who first gave the ball away with a silly header when ought to have pulled it down, Lucas who missed the tackle when the fella breezed past him, and despite the fact konchesky got the block on the cross. As the resulting ricochet bounced in the direction of a totally unmarked Cahill, course it was Konchesky's fault

..

Like most of the subjects on the board though it is pointless debating them right now until people have calmed down a bit so I haven't bothered. He did well yesterday though, and would have had a goalline clearance to his name had it not hit Carra. No doubt people will blame that one on him as well, despite Benjani walking past Skyrtel and carra losing both the ball and Diouff. Konchesky is unfortunately for him guilty by association, but fortunately for us he is a good solid left back as well.

by **Benny The Noon** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:59 am

Will disagree about him being solid - he is constantly getting caught out of position by an opposition right mid or winger . Despite Johnsons poor form most of the oppositions best attacks and a number of goals have come from our left side when konchesky has slipped inside too much and left the space the size of the mersey tunnel for them to exploit . It is happening every single game .

by **Waldo** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:09 am

Headless chicken - get rid!!

by **RED BEERGOGGLES** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:32 am

Konchesky for the last 15 minutes of Yesterdays match wasted possession on numerous occasions ,against better opponents this would have been devastating ,he also made some loose passes which surrendered our possession and put us on the back foot
Solid I think not .... he's not my idea of a competent defender and I still feel throughout the course of the season this will become apparent to all .....

by **NANNY RED** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:39 am

bigmick wrote:He's been criticised sometimes for things which clearly weren't his fault, but I think the majority of that is because Roy signed him rather than his actual play.

Could be said both ways there Mick , Some thinking he is good because Roy signed him. and just wont admit it, :;):

by **maguskwt** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:53 pm

NANNY RED wrote:
bigmick wrote:He's been criticised sometimes for things which clearly weren't his fault, but I think the majority of that is because Roy signed him rather than his actual play.

Could be said both ways there Mick , Some thinking he is good because Roy signed him. and just wont admit it,

by **woof woof !** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 12:58 pm

bigmick wrote:Yes I thought he was good against Blackburn too. He's been criticised sometimes for things which clearly weren't his fault, but I think the majority of that is because Roy signed him rather than his actual play.

On the other hand it could be that those that criticise him just happen to think he's not good enough and there actually isn't a conspiracy to denigrate a player because Roy signed him, lets face it most people seem pleased with Meireles.

Will agree that Konchesky has sometimes been wrongly blamed for things that weren't his fault but having said that for me he's still far from convincing.

by **stmichael** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:10 pm

bottom line is, it was an awful piece of business to sign this guy on a 4 year contract at 29, especially as quite he is quite clearly nowhere near liverpool standard. the left back position as a whole has been a joke since riise left, and even he was poor in his last 18 months at the club.

if only aurelio could stay fit for more than 5 minutes.

by **Thommo's perm** » Mon Oct 25, 2010 1:38 pm

I think hes over awed at the minute and struggling to find his feet. maybe he will sttle down in the next few games? Hopefully he will do his job and become more steady than he is now

Liverpool FC Forum

PAUL KONCHESKY - Official Thread

Who is online