I think you're right. You see, this is how proper teamwork and individuals pulling in the same direction can get things done! Take note Galaxy FO! I'm sure if it were left to those guys to discuss these bugs it would have resulted in our digital marketing department tweeting out a photo of some fans swatting these things off themselves, with the caption "LA Galaxy fans have ANTS in their PANTS!! Do you like to associate digitally...?"
We will have to agree to disagree on this. (Lengthy bedtime reading material below.) Offensively Cole is incredibly wasteful with the ball going forward. In his 71 games and 69 starts for LA he has a total of 2 goals. In his first two seasons and 55 games with us he had only 2 assists. In fact he had more red cards in his first season than goals or assists. Now to be fair he has upped his output this season - still no goals but he has 5 assists, three more than he had in his first two seasons combined. Now is this a new Cole, an anomaly, or a Zlatan effect. Or some combination? I have to think the last two explanations most likely because players don't often suddenly improve in their 19th year of professional play. Cole's overall poor offensive stats might be acceptable if it were made up for at the other end of the field. For example a solid and consistent stay-at-home defender like Dunivant helped the team a lot even if that he didn't score or assist much . But Cole is a player who has spent a good portion of his time in the attacking third. If we assume only an average of say 4 to 7 final third attacks (crosses, passes in or into the box, dribbling in the box, receiving the ball in or near the box) per game the Cole has 300 to 500 of these in his 71 Galaxy games. Let's be conservative and go with the low estimate. That means of 300 final third attacks only 9 ended up with a goal or assist. which corresponds to only 4.2 final third attacks per game. What happened in the other 291? Mostly turnovers, with some blown shots by teammates along the way. Remember these are turnovers with Cole pushed all the way up field, so many, many counter attacks originated in this way. It's not at all unlikely that more of Coles 300-500 attacks ended up in the back of our net than in the opponents. Defensively For Cole there is little defense for his defense. First he is too slow to actually shut down opposing wingers 1v1. He knows this so he usually takes the "safe" approach - laying off 3 or 4 yards so the guy doesn't get past him. Unfortunately this gives the opponent time and space to glance up, find his target andput in a dangerous cross. When those end up in he back of the net very few fans even notice Cole's culpability - instead they point fingers at the defenders in the center. Now often the guy closer to the scorer does share some of the blame. But Cole's inability to be a shutdown defender is the reason we were in the situation in the first place but somehow he is considered blameless. Sins of omission (not blocking the cross) are easier to miss than sins of commission. Now sometimes Cole does go in for the tackle. He succeeds sometimes but more often he either fouls or gets rounded. Either way chaos ensues. Positioning - And as I've pointed out endless times on this board Cole has cost us many goals by making the same positioning mistake over and over. He thinks he needs to be where the action is so when our opponents attack down the opposite of him he regularly drifts all of the way to the center to "help out." That would be great if he limited it to the times when a midfielder has dropped back to fill in the space he would have to vacate. But no, he doesn't seem to pay attention to that. Instead he just leaves the weak side wide, wide open. This is a dream scenario for our opponents to cross to a late arriving weak side runner who can receive the ball in or near the box with no defender within 15 yards. I've posted many a screenshot showing Cole's "over-pinching" seconds before an opponent scores from the open space he had just vacated. Romney, when he plays on the left side is just a good of a crosser of the ball as Cole. And his completion rate is actually probably much better. Even with Cole's recent good run of assists, Romney still has the tiniest of edges on goals+assists/90m (Cole at 0.127 and Romney at 0.130). And I think Romney will just get better and better as long as he plays the left side and not the right. Romney is better defensively - he's faster than Cole and because of this he doesn't drop off as far and puts more pressure on opposing wingers. He makes the "matador defense" mistake much less often than Cole. And Romney is better in the air when defending set pieces in the box. You (and probably most others) will likely never agree -- and it will never happen -- but I believe we would be a better team with Romney replacing Cole. And did I mention that Romney costs us a small fraction of what Cole does? I know we would be better if we used the 400-600k salary differential to pick up a centerback better than Ciani and maybe better than Skjxiojuvk.
I think you are exactly right. Cole is a great story and I love his heart, but this team can't afford to have him on the field. I hate it when he backs 5 yards off a player and lets the cross come in - his job is to stop the cross! We need a lock down left full back (and RB). We also need a more physical presence out there. Cole doesn't scare anyone, and he gets out muscled all the time.
Please try to stay on topic. We're discussing ants right now. And it's spelled Skjajkanuaszosiaytdijitallik.