Davis and the curse of aftertiming.

[david in sweden]

He had a sloppy game in some aspects, but I do like Davis.

For me he's one of the first names on the team sheet, but for some reason he's always the player people seem to pass up on just to get Gaston shoe-horned in there!

 

He's a leader and an organiser. He will be key for how we do this year.

 

 

For me too, but ...if you've spent £12 million on a player and are paying him £30 K /week, you have to play him sometimes regardless of form / fitness / fickleness .

 

Steve Davis is regarded by some as " less of a talent " because in the end ....we only paid Rangers £800K. I know which man I think was the best deal !

[Whitey Grandad]

Clattenburg would have blown up for the push on Johnson if Long had scored IMHO.

 

Of course he would have. Liverpool at Anfield innit.

[Rasiak-9-]

Steven Davis has been a good player for us but I do sometimes think at times that there's a risk of a 'reverse Ramirez syndrome' whereby we end up swinging the pendulum too far the other way insofar as we overplay Davis' ability because we're only expecting an 'unfashionable' player who cost £800k from Rangers.

 

He's a small chap, can't really beat a man and unfortunately, doesn't really have the skill and composure needed for situations like the one vs. Liverpool. Although he's great at hussling and a valuable part of our pressing game, football is played with the ball as well as without, and the position Davis is supposed to play is essentially, not far off a number 10 role, and a number 10 absolutely HAS to be able to bury chances like that when arriving late in the box. Lampard for example would have gobbled up that chance no problem, side-foot or instep.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that whilst Davis has been superb and an absolute bargain, lets not go too crazy. There is, I'm sorry to say, a cap on how far players like Cork and Davis can take us.

[Aziz Yebda]

I'm fairly sure Taider would have either scored this chance or looked sexier missing