by Colin the King » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:02 am
Neither of them are top quality players. I thought they both were for a long time, but as we increase in quality it's become evident how vulnerable they actually are. It's sad since we all want homegrown talent (and especially Ned since he's a blue) to thrive but, looking at it objectively, neither has the capability to be a key player once we reach the top. At a push, Ned would probably have gone on to become the better player, but his injuries put paid to that. He was first in the pecking order and it was only when he got a serious injury that Micah stepped in and played fantastically that season. Micah's been a mainstay in the team ever since (five years, hard to believe- must be nearing 200 appearances?) while Ned kept coming back, showing promise and then getting injured again, although most recently, around March, he came in and did quite well for us and was dropped once Zabaleta got back.
If you look at the main attributes of a defender and compare the two-
Pace- Ned is naturally quicker, he always was. Not actually as good running with the ball at his feet but in a foot race, he wins every time. He should utilise it more though.
Aerial Ability- Micah probably edges this. Ned was strong in the air when he wanted to be but missed his header a few times over the years, allowing the striker in to score (see Sunderland's game at the weekend). Even when Micah's having a nightmare, he's nearly always strong and dependable in the air and has scored his fair share too.
Concentration/intelligence- Ned has this sewn up although, honestly, he's prone to having a blonde moment too. His positional sense is better overall, more so at centre half since he's better suited to being there insofar as he's disciplined enough to stay tight and doesn't meander all over the place, intelligence wise though he does miss the glaringly obvious at times and better quality centre halves show up his insufficiencies. Things like squaring up to the runner and conceding acres of space rather than narrowing their options. Micah's poor in every aspect of this, his physicality got him out of a lot of trouble at centre back when he was younger, but at full back he has this habit of going off for a brew and a cake and doesn't come back for half an hour. He never pushes his man away or blocks the incoming cross and concedes WAY too much space on the wing.
Distribution- Again, neither of them are great in this regard. Ned is sensible enough when he keeps it short and can even look composed when he sticks to that, but then he gets a touch of Dunnyitis and feels compelled to launch it 50 yards in the air. Micah rarely does that but what he actually does is worse, by running around with the ball, losing it (often in our half) and upsetting the shape of the side and puts his colleagues under immense pressure. He has it in him to deliver a good cross but rarely, if ever, does.
Tackling- This is where Ned shines way above Micah. He's a fucking superb tackler, precise, clean and firm, while Micah tends to push and shove his way back to having the ball (which often leads to conceding free kicks). If Ned worked on other aspects of his game and fine tuned them to the standard of tackling, then we could talk about being a top player.
That sounds harsh on both of them and over the course of 90 minutes those weaknesses wouldn't always be exposed, but it's when they are that's the problem. Both guys are young enough to make it as top defenders, Ned would be more likely because of his natural athleticism and defensive qualities, but will he ever stay fit long enough? Micah hasn't got the positional awareness or the intelligence to think about consequences (leaving his side exposed, giving away free kicks). But he is very strong physically, good in the air and relatively quick so he has some qualities there to work with. Time will tell for him, but as it stands, he's not going to be a title winning right or centre back. He was the only liability in the side on Saturday and but for Hart, would have been utterly lambasted rather than just criticised.