5 Dec 2011

ALDRIDGE: "At times, Skrtel has looked like an accident waiting to happen..."

Martin Skrtel is a star performer in Liverpool's defence at the moment, and he's kept defensive stalwart Jamie Carragher out of the team with his solid, assured performances. However, according to Liverpool legend John Aldridge, Skrtel's form has been a concern in the past, and he has a theory about why the Slovakian is currently playing so well.

Speaking on LFC TV, Aldridge, who scored 63 goals in 104 appearances for Liverpool, observed:

"At times when Skrtel has played with Jamie, he's looked like an accident waiting to happen, especially when he dives in and lunges in.

"I think he knows now though; they're all fighting for those two spots and he's staying on his feet because he knows if slips up, Jamie will be straight back in".

I think Aldo is right here - Skrtel does have a tendency to lunge in sometimes, but he's recently managed to keep that in check. It could also be that he's just timing his tackles correctly these days, and a success rate of 93% would seem to suggest that's the case.

Whatever the reason, Liverpool currently have the best defensive record in the league, which is surefire proof that Skrtel is doing a great job at the moment.

As Aldo says though, any slip-ups could see the Slovakian replaced by Carra, or even Sebastian Coates, who was very impressive against Chelsea last week, and Aldo agrees:

"Coates had a really good game the other night [against Chelsea]. I thought he as absolutely faultless at the back. It's great to see".

Jaimie Kanwar


  1. Hardly has anything to do with the fact that with Carra in the side we have to play 10 yards deeper whereas playing with the faster, better Daniel Agger allows Skrtel to attack the ball higher up the pitch before it bounces and causes bedlam?


    Oh, alright then...

  2. I defended Skrtel whenever he was criticized, as it was obvious to me that his bad spells came during times when entire team underperformed (Benitez's last season+Hodgson period), while before that the Carra-Skrtel duo had been rock solid for two seasons.

  3. Skrtel is a good Premier League CH big, strong in the air and gets involved, now again like all big CH they look clumsy when lunging in, his game has improved 10 fold under Kenny even driving runs from out of defence more composed and should have at least 5 goals this season.

  4. Aldo, to me Carra our record own goal scorer is more an accident waiting to happen....he's slow and having the worst technical ability in the squad..

  5. I've long said that I wanted Skrtel gone asap (along with Carragher) but I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised by this current run of performances. It will take a bit longer to convince me that he is definitely a changed man and doesn't need replacing, but I definitely would be happy to give him the benefit of the doubt and stick with him as long as those bone-headed mistakes don't begin to creep back into his game again

  6. So Skrtel has changed his game out of fear Carra might get back in.  So when Agger was on the bench waiting to get into the team Skrtel thought to himself "Who the F@#K is Agger?!" Aldo as with most of our former players who flopped terribly with regards to coaching and management is talking absolute rubbish.  A combination of Felderkirks and Tornike Khomerikis posts make Aldos biased pro Carra views look amateur.

  7. Agree, Jay. I'm still not convinced he's the long-term solution, but I'm happy to be proven wrong.

  8. Yes, Aldo is definitely heavily biased in favour of Carra, but then he is always biased towards any Liverpudlian player.

  9. I wholeheartedly agree - why are the vast majority of our former players such seriously piss-poor pundits? Granted, the lads who work for LFC TV are obliged to toe the company line and so Gillespie will naturally spout utter bollocks because he needs the pay-cheque. David Fairclough, although definitely having in intimate knowledge of the club's various hierarchies, is a little close-minded and dismissive too. Next time you watch one of the phone-in shows on which Fairclough is a guest, check out the amount of times he's asked for his opinion on a player and he shoots back an auto-response of "Not for me, no..."

    But with all of them, there does seem to be an embarrassing myopia and bias, or perhaps a fear of saying the wrong thing and being ostricised like Collymore.

    The saddest part is that Gary Neville appears to be putting all of them to shame. English television was crying out for someone who would just deliver decent unbiased football analysis and it appears to have come in the unlikely guise of a rat in a suit.

  10. rat in a suit lol. i agree he is surprisingly fair considering but if we are talking best analysis its definately jamie redknapp for me. 

  11. I think you're right about toeing the company line, but there are plenty of ex-players out there who tell it like it is. John Barnes doesn't mince his words, neither does Graeme Souness. Aldo can also be cutting, even when he's on LFC TV. Roy Evans is another one who often says what he feels. Surprisingly, I find it's the older ex-players like Ian St. John, and as you said, David Fairclough who toe the line the most.

    I think you're a little unfair on Gillespie. I personally think he's a great commentator on the game; he's fair, not always biased, and he seems to say what he thinks. For example, in he recently accused Evra of being a liar on LFC TV, and this was after the club had said that no one would be making any further public comment on the issue; he also argued that Luis Suarez was a risky signing, and went against the pro-Carra bias and argued that he had 'no god-given right' to get back into the first XI etc.

    I really enjoy hearing what ex-players have to say.

  12. I think my main problems with Gillespie stem from the fact that he seems intent on eradicating the notion of free-kicks and penalties from the game of football. "If that's a foul then I don't know what the game is coming to..." If you had a shot of vodka every time he says that in commentary, you'd be dead by half-time.

    He also has the deluded opinion that Charlie Adam is better than Xabi Alonso, but this seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with Adam's Caledonian heritage. Oh no.

    As you say, John Barnes doesn't mince his words, which is a blessed relief really because that would be one unholy pile of shit-mince. As host of the mercifully short-lived yet imaginatively-monikered 'The John Barnes Show', he dismissed the commonly-held belief that a good interviewer keeps his questions short.

    Souness, although reasonably honest, tends to jump wildly between the mindsets that what he's watching is 'SENSATIONALLY FANTASTIC!' or 'MANIC-DEPRESSINGLY GODAWFUL!' He invariably comes across as whiney or naive depending on what day you get him on.

    Roy Evans is a good bloke. I like him a lot and I've got a lot of time for him. You're right about him - he's one of the good ones and he knows what he's talking about.

    Ian St John is essentially 'geriatric comic relief'. Constantly a beat behind everyone else with the pained expression of a man in the bothersome throes of advanced incontinence. I'm well aware how disrespectful this sounds and I apologise for it, but as someone who pays good money to watch football on television, I feel I'm entitled to criticise. Granted, St John's critique might seem a little unfair, but the man is 73.

    Let me clarify however that none of this makes me dislike the ex-players as people. They all show admirable passion for the club and they all possess a genuine love for Liverpool that shines through in everything they say. As players for the club, or as backroom staff and managers, they are all wonderful and rank alongside the absolute legends of the club - indeed, they've made the club what it is.

    It's a telling characteristic of Kenny Dalgish that he generally
    displays an emotional detachment to sentimentality - a characteristic
    that these pundits sadly lack.

    I just feel that we should expect more from pundits - people who are paid to tell us things that we don't know. They should at the very least NOT tell us things that we, as supporters, know are flawed or potentially detrimental to the club's performances on the pitch. We all watch footballers who are paid to play a game that we, as supporters, love but don't have the talent to play for ourselves. Is it a stretch to expect well-paid pundits to offer us something that we can't do for ourselves?

  13. !00% agree with the entire post.  Your last paragraph more or less sums up modern media in general....mouth pieces for their pay masters. 

    Thinking is bad, coming up with your own conclusion is bad and the experts are always right.  We should Shut up and be happy as the comfort we have long desired is now mandatory.

  14. ...And so inadvertently discriminates against the non Liverpudlian on the grounds of where they were born.  I wouldn't necessarily call this discrimination but it does, I feel, live in the same street.

  15. Totally agree. LFC TV is quite discriminatory in that regard too. Most of the guests are Liverpudlians; the majority of callers who get through to ask questions on the air are Scousers; Almost all of the interviews done with youth players are conducted with homegrown players. It's very insular and small-minded, much like the club was before Gerard Houllier took over and started changing things for the better.

  16. He's been ok the past few games but Chelsea's goal when Sturridge scored in the league was dwn to Skrtel, anyway im not a fan think Aldridge is right and there will always be a big mistake in Skrtel. I would rather see Coates been given a chance he was emmense against Chavski in the cup.

  17. Maybe we should offer Skrtel to Bolton n like 5mill for Gary Cahill

  18. Aldridge is the master of hindsight. How he is apundit is beyond me, even if only on local radio, the guy talks shite all the time.

  19. Well said Aldo. You really speak the Liverpool language. I hope fans can see this.

  20. Yes we can see it - we just can't understand it what with the abundance of 'bollocks' that accompanies it.