The Mail Bag
The Value of Tim Cahill
Comments (22)
I have been seeing more and more people who want Tim Cahill benched. I am a bit bewildered by this. The only explanation I can think of for this is that those who don't want Cahill in the squad don't understand what exactly the Cahill role is.
The main difference between Tim Cahill and the average attacking midfielder is that Cahill defends from the top. He is there to stop the other team's plays from starting. This makes him as valuable to our defense as he is to our offense. The average attacking midfielder plays more forward than other midfielders, coming back for defense only when necessary.
Attacking midfielders can be judged based on their quality in setting up goals and how many they score themselves. That is only part of Cahill's game. While he can be criticized for his lack of offensive production this year, he is as far as anyone from being out of the squad and rightfully so. His all-around ability is imperative to the team's success.
If you don't think he has been playing the Cahill role up to par, I don't have a problem with that. I completely disagree with you but it is not you who I am directing this toward. To those who say that Cahill should be dropped because of a relative lack of offensive production: I don't think you understand what it is that he does for this team.
Pat Finegan, Posted 11/04/2010 at 07:18:22
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
I stated a similar opinion on a comment on Friday. I also added that Tim has had an admittedly below par season but sometimes (not all) he has played three different positions in one match, which is simply ridiculous & any football fan/player will tell you is even harder to make an impact from..
Cahill is usually the man who sets the tempo for our games by harrasing defenders and generally being a nuisance. I'm a big Cahill fan & agree that, when people usually ask for him to be dropped, they don't understand or see what he gives the team.
Cahill is usually the man who sets the tempo for our games by harrasing defenders and generally being a nuisance. I'm a big Cahill fan & agree that, when people usually ask for him to be dropped, they don't understand or see what he gives the team.
I can't advocate giving an automatic starting place to any player — let alone one who's had less than a handful of influential performances this season.
What Cahill does well, he does well. What he doesn't do well, he is abysmal at... even his effort has been questionable this season.
And to suggest that people don't understand the attacking midfield role because they want him used on merit is arrogant nonsense...
What Cahill does well, he does well. What he doesn't do well, he is abysmal at... even his effort has been questionable this season.
And to suggest that people don't understand the attacking midfield role because they want him used on merit is arrogant nonsense...
The defensive forward is an interesting point but I can't say I agree Cahill is one. His tackling and harassing just usually results in a yellow card. I really like the guy but he simply does not deserve to start on current form. Neither does Neville.
James, I think he's talking about defending from set plays more than anything else. Cahill is nearly always the one to head the ball clear from corners and free kicks in our box.
I wrote an article on here a few days ago and in it I implied that age will catch up with Tim. As with us all.
His style is combative and he plays on the edge — look at the foul stats both for and against. He will by definition pick up injuries and more as he gets older.
That said, last year, particularly in the 4-6-0 era when we were so good, his running and willingness to chase lost causes was an inspiration some in the squad would do well to follow.
So, my conclusion is that no player is an automatic choice, Tim has not done as well as he has previously, but he is right up there in my eyes as a God along with Bracey and the minimum he deserves on here is a bit of respect.
His style is combative and he plays on the edge — look at the foul stats both for and against. He will by definition pick up injuries and more as he gets older.
That said, last year, particularly in the 4-6-0 era when we were so good, his running and willingness to chase lost causes was an inspiration some in the squad would do well to follow.
So, my conclusion is that no player is an automatic choice, Tim has not done as well as he has previously, but he is right up there in my eyes as a God along with Bracey and the minimum he deserves on here is a bit of respect.
We are a better side when Cahill plays. The style he plays means he will always pick up bookings. He is the strongest player in the team and the most abrasive, the opposition hate playing against him. Stick with him, there will come a time when he doesn't play all the time... but not yet.
In the long run Cahill needs to become a squad player. Nothing wrong with this, he is a good player with limitations, and he, as a squad player, will start 15 or so games, while being used as an impact sub. This is hardly 'benching him', in fact at 30 years old, this is probably the best way we can get more out of him. He is the style of player who could play until he's 35/36, but to do this he cannot play for 90 minutes 45 times a season.
Bergkamp, Scholes and Giggs are 3 players that have done this, and their respective clubs have rested them.
We now have Bily, Osman, Gosling and Rodwell who can all play where Cahill can play. All of them have different characteristics. So it isn't a matter of dropping Cahill, its called rotation.
I believe next season our primary midfield should be Arteta, Fellaini with Bily ahead of them. Pienaar and an other out wide.
We then have the option of Cahill coming on late in games (when he is far more effective, as defenders are tired and find it more difficult to pick up his runs).
Its a good position to be in.
Bergkamp, Scholes and Giggs are 3 players that have done this, and their respective clubs have rested them.
We now have Bily, Osman, Gosling and Rodwell who can all play where Cahill can play. All of them have different characteristics. So it isn't a matter of dropping Cahill, its called rotation.
I believe next season our primary midfield should be Arteta, Fellaini with Bily ahead of them. Pienaar and an other out wide.
We then have the option of Cahill coming on late in games (when he is far more effective, as defenders are tired and find it more difficult to pick up his runs).
Its a good position to be in.
Just because people say Cahill should become a squad member as against an automatic choice (as he is now) doesn't mean they don't respect him.
I have the utmost respect for what Tim Cahill has done for Everton FC, both on and off the pitch. However, I also believe that, as the standard of our squad has improved, he should be used more and more as a sub as there are other players who are simply better than him.
I agree he should play certain games, particularly the ones against the better opposition, as his chasing and closing down of defenders is priceless in these games.However, I refuse to accept that we need to worry about the opposition when we are playing the weaker sides.
Last week against West Ham illustrates my point as to why TC should not play every week. Firstly for some bizare reason Moyes had him playing in a deep lying midfield role — TC is many things but a player capable of playing this position he is not. Rodwell was on the bench and would have offered more in this position; secondly, if we wanted to play with TC further forward then I believe Yakubu would have offered more against this standard of opposition.
As I say, it's not about a lack of resect for Tim Cahill, it's about the current strength of our squad.
I have the utmost respect for what Tim Cahill has done for Everton FC, both on and off the pitch. However, I also believe that, as the standard of our squad has improved, he should be used more and more as a sub as there are other players who are simply better than him.
I agree he should play certain games, particularly the ones against the better opposition, as his chasing and closing down of defenders is priceless in these games.However, I refuse to accept that we need to worry about the opposition when we are playing the weaker sides.
Last week against West Ham illustrates my point as to why TC should not play every week. Firstly for some bizare reason Moyes had him playing in a deep lying midfield role — TC is many things but a player capable of playing this position he is not. Rodwell was on the bench and would have offered more in this position; secondly, if we wanted to play with TC further forward then I believe Yakubu would have offered more against this standard of opposition.
As I say, it's not about a lack of resect for Tim Cahill, it's about the current strength of our squad.
James and Ian Tunstead, defending from the top and breaking up plays were supposed to be 2 separate thoughts. I think I accidentally deleted a sentence or something.
Mike, I know those who say he should be a squad player have respect for him and what he has done for Everton. I just don't think we would be as good without someone playing the Cahill role. As far as what you said about playing him against better teams, that's a good point. In my opinion, he is still effective enough to play every game he's healthy for.
Ciaran, I'm not saying he should be playing on merit. I don't advocate playing people on merit either, the players who give us the best chance to win are the ones that should be playing. The role he plays in the squad makes us far better as a team, that is why he should be in the squad. With regards to his supposed lack of effort, I think that's a little ridiculous. I can't remember ever seeing Cahill slack off.
Mike, I know those who say he should be a squad player have respect for him and what he has done for Everton. I just don't think we would be as good without someone playing the Cahill role. As far as what you said about playing him against better teams, that's a good point. In my opinion, he is still effective enough to play every game he's healthy for.
Ciaran, I'm not saying he should be playing on merit. I don't advocate playing people on merit either, the players who give us the best chance to win are the ones that should be playing. The role he plays in the squad makes us far better as a team, that is why he should be in the squad. With regards to his supposed lack of effort, I think that's a little ridiculous. I can't remember ever seeing Cahill slack off.
Fran, too right, take it with a fluid 4-5-1 formation you will be happy because i think that is the way forward.
Pat F, apropos your view on Tim Cahill, I am in complete agreement and completely in awe of his detractors' total lack of football nous.
I could say that on his worst days he contributes 10 times more to the team effort than half dozen others. I could say that but I won't. I have given up trying to educate some on this site. Long before Donavon's arrival, I said that when a real right midfielder arrived, only then would some of you see what rubbish we have had in that position. Similarly, I defended Lucas Neill against his many detractors. Now they have gone these so-called 'experts' see what we miss.
I could say that on his worst days he contributes 10 times more to the team effort than half dozen others. I could say that but I won't. I have given up trying to educate some on this site. Long before Donavon's arrival, I said that when a real right midfielder arrived, only then would some of you see what rubbish we have had in that position. Similarly, I defended Lucas Neill against his many detractors. Now they have gone these so-called 'experts' see what we miss.
In Cahill's case, we already have seen that when he is injured our overall results and performance plummet... It really does baffle me as to how he can be nationally and internationally praised yet still have local critics.
Pretty accurate, Pat. The only thing I am not in agreement with is the comment about his lack of "offence production". He simply doesn't get the credit he deserves with regards to setting up many of our goals this year. If you watch closely he has played a part in around 75% of all goals this year. Not bad considering he is supposedly having a lacklustre year.
Peter, I'm not saying Cahill hasn't been a solid offensive player. When I say that he has had a relatively poor offensive season, I am comparing him to the Tim Cahill of the past few years, not other offensive players. I don't think there is much arguing that Cahill was better on offense last year (for the part of the season when we had strikers) and the couple years before that.
Pat / Dick,
I appreciate your views and agree with many of the points you make. I repeat, I am certainly no Cahill basher — he more than any other player has been the reason for the improvement in our standing over the 'Moyes Era'.
However, I still maintain that as our squad has undoubtedly improved so the need to play Cahill in every game has diminished. We all know Tim's qualities but even his most ardent fans must accept that he has some fairly basic inadequacies in his game, such as passing and tackling. He makes up for these with his non-stop running, effort and offensive capabilities. I remain steadfast in my belief that if Moyes wanted to play TC in a deep-lying midfield role against a poor West Ham side then there were better players to play in this position — Rodwell or Osman. What would have been wrong with giving Cahill a rest and using him from the bench if necessary? — surely doing this would keep him fresher and fitter for the games that he is needed in against the top sides?
I appreciate your views and agree with many of the points you make. I repeat, I am certainly no Cahill basher — he more than any other player has been the reason for the improvement in our standing over the 'Moyes Era'.
However, I still maintain that as our squad has undoubtedly improved so the need to play Cahill in every game has diminished. We all know Tim's qualities but even his most ardent fans must accept that he has some fairly basic inadequacies in his game, such as passing and tackling. He makes up for these with his non-stop running, effort and offensive capabilities. I remain steadfast in my belief that if Moyes wanted to play TC in a deep-lying midfield role against a poor West Ham side then there were better players to play in this position — Rodwell or Osman. What would have been wrong with giving Cahill a rest and using him from the bench if necessary? — surely doing this would keep him fresher and fitter for the games that he is needed in against the top sides?
I see where you're coming from Mike. The disagreement here comes down to the fact that I think Cahill has enough quality to play every game whereas you feel that he is only useful against superior opponents. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.
I agree with you that Cahill should be playing just behind the striker. I don't think he was used properly against West Ham. I think he should have been in the squad in his natural role.
I agree with you that Cahill should be playing just behind the striker. I don't think he was used properly against West Ham. I think he should have been in the squad in his natural role.
Tim Cahill may not have bagged a bag of goals this year but the continued knocking he cops here is out of control.
Who would you rather we put in? It's not as though we have an abundance of attacking options. Shall we put the Yak in or call back Vaughan... bloody hell, Cahill isn't going that bad.
He has given his all for this club and has proved himself time and time again for Everton and Australia that he is a big game player and lacks the ego. He is in my side every time.
He isn't young now and for his ongoing career he may be a great impact sub. But at the moment we don't have the depth to leave him out.
Who would you rather we put in? It's not as though we have an abundance of attacking options. Shall we put the Yak in or call back Vaughan... bloody hell, Cahill isn't going that bad.
He has given his all for this club and has proved himself time and time again for Everton and Australia that he is a big game player and lacks the ego. He is in my side every time.
He isn't young now and for his ongoing career he may be a great impact sub. But at the moment we don't have the depth to leave him out.
Pat, just to clarify I totally agree that a fully fit and in-form Tim Cahill should play every game he can as the support striker.
Maybe I did not explain well enough, my bone of contention is that given our increased squad quality, we do not have to play him in every game when he is clearly not as fit / on form (maybe both ?) as he should be.
In the big games I would play him irrespective of form as his enthusiasm and commitment more than compensate. Against weaker opposition we do not need this aspect within our gameplan.
Moyes certainly cocked up with his formation against West Ham as I don't believe Tim has anything to offer in the role he was deployed.
In summary I think we concur regarding Cahill in many ways, I just think he should be taken out of the team when he is not playing well — this I think would benefit both him and the team.
Maybe I did not explain well enough, my bone of contention is that given our increased squad quality, we do not have to play him in every game when he is clearly not as fit / on form (maybe both ?) as he should be.
In the big games I would play him irrespective of form as his enthusiasm and commitment more than compensate. Against weaker opposition we do not need this aspect within our gameplan.
Moyes certainly cocked up with his formation against West Ham as I don't believe Tim has anything to offer in the role he was deployed.
In summary I think we concur regarding Cahill in many ways, I just think he should be taken out of the team when he is not playing well — this I think would benefit both him and the team.
Thanks for educating us Dick... You'd play Cahill in every game even though he's been mostly poor this season...
Education eh!
Education eh!
Skimmed the responses so this may have been said, but I'm one of the people who wants someone else in the role supporting the striker, certainly as first choice, my vision of next season would have Cahill playing there occasionally, or as a rotation option.
As for failing to understand what he offers, that's silly. You refer to it as the 'Cahill role' which may indeed be to defend from the front, but really it can be seen as the 'Bergkamp' role (when I was a kid it was the 'Beardsley' role). Its basically supposed to be the most attacking, creative role in the team, and yes, I want someone more creative and skilfull in that role. By your logic we could pick centre backs who can't really defend but look good going forward.
I really don't want to slag Cahill off, I want him at the club and heavily involved, but the fact that its him in that role, rather than a genuinely creative skilfull player shows we've still got some way to go.
As for failing to understand what he offers, that's silly. You refer to it as the 'Cahill role' which may indeed be to defend from the front, but really it can be seen as the 'Bergkamp' role (when I was a kid it was the 'Beardsley' role). Its basically supposed to be the most attacking, creative role in the team, and yes, I want someone more creative and skilfull in that role. By your logic we could pick centre backs who can't really defend but look good going forward.
I really don't want to slag Cahill off, I want him at the club and heavily involved, but the fact that its him in that role, rather than a genuinely creative skilfull player shows we've still got some way to go.
Wow, just got to Dick's response... Lucas Neill? What we're missing?
Although to be fair you were the only person who realised we needed a right winger, I don't know why no-one else ever thought of that.
Although to be fair you were the only person who realised we needed a right winger, I don't know why no-one else ever thought of that.
Ciaran, I don't think Cahill has been MOSTLY poor this season. In fact I believe he has been MOSTLY great with a few exceptions, but hey, it's only a matter of opinion not fact, and we are both entitled to it.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
1 Posted 11/04/2010 at 12:56:47
Report abuse
I put it down to the amount of games he's played, combined with the amount of travelling that he does when he plays for Australia, and this year will be no different in World Cup year. As an Evertonian and at a risk of pissing off our antipodean cousins, I wish Australia hadn't qualified so he could lie on a beach all summer and recharge his batteries for 2010-11.