Hinkel

The best in your memory,,,,depending on age i would Have,,Mcgrain,Morris,Mcnamara,Agathe and even Paul Telfer in front of hinkel,,there will be more but i will let the others decide!

 

Fair Dinkum ! I know a forum is a place for debate, but I cant see the case for all this continual outrage at Hinkel. He has had the odd bad game, every player does, but saying that, has been one of the most consistant performers not just this season but since his arrival. As for relying on him as a goal scorer... come on. Danny McGrain and Tommy Boyd played in close to a 1000 games for the club combined... and am pretty sure that they totalled about 10 goals between them in all those games.

RB is not the problem. Wilson is decent cover (indeed can cover both FB roles), and Caddis is still a little way off, but in the frame.

 

I never watched McGrain and Morris who both must've been finished by the early 90's. Since then McNamara and Agathe have a decent claim against Hinkel but for me (this may be unpopular) but I think McNamara was very limited as a full-back - bit of a jack-of-all-trades / master of none. He had a huge amount of heart, commitment, a great reader of the game but as an attacking right-back I don't think he was a patch on Hinkel. Played more like a converted centre-back.

Agathe played like a converted winger although he had one of the best recovery tackles in modern football! His problem was he couldn't cross, and apart from the slide tackles, imo wasn't as good defensively as even Hinkel. Although Agathe was one of MoN's regulars so no doubt will be held with green-tinted specs in peoples memories. He was a bit of a nightmare compared to Hinkel.

Both guys were good but nowhere near Hinkel imo. The other 2 were almost 2 decades ago now.

 

Our full-backs ARE better at attacking than defending but they should still be better at defending than they are. Neither of the two of them seem to be able to stop crosses coming into our box which is one of the most important jobs a full-back can do for a team. Much is made of how many assists Hinkel provides, and that is commendable, but I'd far rather have two full-backs who could nullify opposing wingers and stop crosses going into our box.

I actually think the system we play is a bit irresponsible too. We allow our full-backs to go too far forward and they get caught out of position. Gordon Strachan started it and it seems Tony Mowbray is continuing with it. When you have rotten centre-backs like we do I think it is incumbent on the manager to come up with a system of playing that will give them as much protection as possible. Not allowing our full-backs to go wandering off up the wings would be one such way of providing that protection. Our full-backs are more comfortable going forward so I realise that we would not be allowing them to play to their strengths by telling them to stay further back. However, we simply cannot continue to leave ourselves so open and leak goals the way we presently are.

 

Hinkel (also known as Hinkle) is one of those players who get grudging praise. He falls in the same category as Samaras, no matter how good he plays, he will rarely be praised. I don't understand that mentality. I can understand that someone has favourite player and praises him a bit more than deserved, but * it when a player does well and people won't admit it. Instead they find even slightest error and open whole thread dedicated to it.

Personally I think Hinkel has to work on his defensive aspects, but that doesn't make him "not good enough" or "not Celtic class". To say he's not good enough for Celtic is stupid and narrow-minded. He's by far best right-back in Scotland and would fit into half EPL sides without problem. He's also one of few consistent performers in our team, which also deserves respect.

As I said in another thread, full-backs get help from wingers with their tracking back and preventing players to go down the flanks. Unfortunately, when winger fails, full-back is last line of defence on flank. People concentrate too much on him, while we have hole in heart of our defence with those three idiots who are basically stealing money from the club and not earning a penny from their wages. You might think I'm trying to divert attention to them, but I'm not, I'm simply saying that major problem of Celtic FC lies in our centre-backs.

 

Hinkel could play in most any team and do a decent job (even if he isn't Cole, Johnson, or Alves). He's a player that you'd miss when he's gone. His delivery has been real good this season.

 

He cant defend for *.

 

Interesting you mention Johnson because he's probably worse at defending than Hinkel, although enjoys a lot more pace which can go a long way in defence :icon_mrgreen:

 

Hinkels errors in defence are not slight...he is completely inept....
In attack he is mediocre at best....he's ball control is crap, he's crossing is average at best

The major problem is the defence as a whole.....
In fact some of Caldwells trouble comes from the complete lack of help from Hinkel outside him and having to help Hinkel out and cover his *....

The defense of Hinkel not having wingers tracking back to do his job for him, is another excuse and cop out....

Robson protects Hinkel when he plays on the right and when McGeady plays on the right..if he was asked to protect Hinkel and hold back from his attack..then we'd really be *....

There is a myth that McGeady doesnt track back...the fact is he plays very high up the pitch....he does track back but against a quick counter attack we're * because McGeady will be too far forward and without someone to protect Hinkel the opposition will get a scoring opportunity more often than not

The problem is not McGeady, the problem is Hinkel needs to be covered....

I think Hinkel is over praised because he has a few assists, some people ignore how bad he is at the back every week

 

There was nothing Hinkel could have done about that cross, it was a great cross and Hinkel was in position, if Hinkel was in behind the centre-backs where he would have needed to be to header it it would have been bad defending as he would have been playing people onside etc, nothing we could have done about that goal it beat the centre-backs and they scored. Hinkel wasn't at his best though in the game or last week.

 

:icon_mrgreen:

Another nothing Hinkel could've done excuse....

:icon_mrgreen:

 

He couldn't have, for Hinkel to clear the cross he would have to have been standing in behind were Loovens and Caldwell were standing waiting on the ball. If he was standing in there then people would have moaned that he was out of position and playing people onside. A striker coming through the middle will get to the ball 10/10 times before a full-back.

 

The bottom line is is there was 2 centre halfs there and none of them cleared the ball ,i wouldnt be to harsh on Caldwell either there is an argument if it was a stonewall penalty but the ref gave it but Loovens didnt come out this to well.

 

I love that people are advocating Caddis as a viable replacement for Hinkel. You really think he'd have done better than Hinkel for that cross? What is he, 5'3"?
Caddis might be a decent tackler but he's far too small to be effective in the air, or at holding a player off.

I also can't believe that people are slating Hinkel's crossing. He's far and away one of the best crossers in the SPL, and the stats will back me up on this one.
His defensive ability could definitely improve but it's not as bad some people are making out.

 

Paul Caddis has far superior positional sense than Hinkel IMO, is faster and braver and more courageous in the tackle than Hinkel.

It is a sad state of affairs if we have to play someone on the right like Robson or McGeady to protect Hinkel's *. If Hinkel was any good he would not need protecting, so in effect we have a passenger at right back who is undermining our whole back line.

Cast your mind back to last year's last Old Firm game at Ibrox. It was Hinkel who was culpable for letting the cross come in from which Davis scored the only goal of the game. Hinkel repeatedly allows this to happen from his right flank and we have lost countless vital goals from Hinkel's weaknesses both in the CL, Europa Cup and SPL.

It can't be allowed to go on this year or we can say tatty bye to the league.

 

Paul Caddis is faster aye, but Hinkel's not fatally slow. As for being braver and more courageous, that is hard to quantify, especially given the disparity in first team appearances. The same applies to positional sense. Besides, bravery and courage only count if other areas in your game are up to scratch. McManus is unquestionably brave, but that does not make him a good centerback. You never responded to my point about his height - surely a key aspect in a defender's repertoire?

When did Mowbray say that Robson or McGeady were being played to protect Hinkel exactly? That's some half baked pseudo tactic that someone suggested a few pages back, now apparently gospel?

Of course! Silly me, I forgot that any attacking fullback worth his salt should be able to defend his entire flank all on his own

It is true however that a fullback should try and stop dangerous crosses coming in, but does that mean the 2 CBs should be excused from their duties?

As for kissing the title goodbye, where do you think we'd be without Hinkel's assists this year?

 

I will take your points and answer them one by one shall I ? :icon_mrgreen:

1. Hinkel is fatally slow, he has been ripped a new one by Andy Driver and other speed merchants.

2. Bravery and courage are not hard to quantify. You either have it or you dont. Caddiis has it. Hinkel dozen't period.

When did you last see Hinkel ever go into a tackle with conviction ? Tell me when ?

3.You like to throw red herrings to muddy the debate.

We are not talking about McManus we are talking about Hinkel so please keep on topic if you can.

4. Caddis's height is another red herring.Caddis can spring and jump, and there are other ways of distracting or putting off a bigger opponent.Hinkel is taller but more static and ponderous.

5. Mowbray would not say he was protecting Hinkel publicly because
it would undermine his authority as a manager. His tactics of playing Robson out of position on the right wing speaks for it itself. Robson is there to shore up Hinkel, there can be no other credible reason for playing Robson repeatedly out of position.

6.The CB's are another red herring. The topic is Hinkel and he is not doing his remit as a defending full back properly. He has been guilty of many defensive gaffes this year already, not to mention last year as well.

7.Hinkel's assists are another red herring. Every player has assists and actually Hinkels assists are few this year. His gaffes far outweigh any assists he has made.

 

See when you say 'red herring' do you actually mean 'things that don't fit in to my argument, so I'll just ignore them'? Because it seems that way to me.

How many players in our team can match Driver for pace? Should they all be chucked too? I doubt even McGeady could match him.

Bravery and courage are hard to quantify because they are mental attributes, which are easily changed. Samaras can sometimes raise his game (as he has recently) to be more combatitive at hassling opposing defenders, whereas other times it looks like he is totally uninterested.

Hinkel dove into a tackle with conviction in the last game. He did not win the ball, but what does that matter when you've got conviction and bravery! Right?

So, I can talk about Caddis, Robson, McGeady, and you can bring up Driver, but when I bring up McManus, it's off topic? Seems fair

Are you really trying to tell me that height has no bearing on a person's ability to defend?Regarding Caddis's apparent spring heeled leap - I've never particularly seen this but it matters not how high you can jump, if your opponent is already above you then it won't matter. The matter of Hinkel vs Caddis' aerial ability is a small one anyhow - it is the centerbacks job to clear highballs coming into the box, not the fullbacks, especially given the attacking system in which they are employed.

Really? Is that really what you think?
Robson could be playing there so that he can cut inside and take a shot with his favoured left foot.
Robson could be playing the right flank because a particular team's LB is a weaker defender and playing McGeady against him would reap greater rewards than against their RB.
Robson could be playing the right wing because the opposition might have planned for McGeady to be on the right, and switching would mess with their game plan.
Robson could be playing on the right flank because a particular team prefers to attack down that side, and Robson is better defensively than McGeady is.
Robson could be playing the right flank because, with Fortuné's tendency to drift wide, he would leave a gap in the defence for a left footed player on the right wing to cut inside and drive at the defense. Almost exactly the way Robson did a few weeks ago when he won a penalty!


The performance on our CBs are absolutely not a red herring. Football is a team game, and as such, a players teammates are most definitely relative to the performance on the individual whilst on the pitch. I don't see how you can honestly claim otherwise.


As for assists, Hinkel has provided a lot of assists for us this season and last. And lets not forget about the perfectly good crosses that our forwards missed.


So I repeat, where would we be without Hinkel's assists?

 

Robson could also be playing because TM is puttin him the shop window like he did with donati, i actually think thts the reason hes playing

 

Hinkel is never a defender.

If you actually go back to last season, just watch how may left sided players actually got cross balls into our box and that lead to goals because Hinkel cannot defend.

We have also seen it over the last two weeks against poor SPL teams. Coaches that run youth teams know you must be goal side of your man at all times. Hinkel is always posted missing when it matters. TM should give this advice to Hinkel.

However I would say he can go forward and cause some problems.