Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 6,735
- Location
- On another planet
lol 
** Summer Transfer Window 2011/12 Season Rumours/Signings **
- Thread starter Tummy
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,459
- Location
- Cornwall
Of course you did.
Look at it another way.
Despite the mass of defensive midfielders at City how many flair players do THEY have.
Or Arsenal?
Or Chelsea?
Or Spurs?
Despite how sick you are or how good your crystal ball is, the best team in the world (by miles) just happens to be packed with flair players.
Just like United was the last time they won the champions league.
Even boring old 10 men behind the ball Inter had quite a few flair players.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 23,162
- Location
- stat city
Is it confirmed that the next "special one" is on his way to Chelsea? He just resigned at Porto.
I still think it's a bit of a shame United didn't hold on to Hargreaves, if they could have only gotten him fit
Having seen a pic of him on a "summer transfers" story the other day I felt the same. It must be so frustrating to know that you had the world at your feet in the prime years of your career at one of the biggest clubs in the world, only to have injury's that you could do nothing about keeping you out.
I know he has earn't a lot of money in the process but in all honesty I think he would have preferred to play and earn nothing. I hope he manages to get something of a career going again somewhere.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 23,162
- Location
- stat city
Who would want him now though after only playing like 10 minutes since 2008.
If he signs on a pay per play deal when why not? he gets nothing if he isn't fit to play and if he does get fit to play and can still perform at even 80% of his previous best he will still be of use to someone.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Because if he missed 80% of the season, then you need another player for the role, and you don't need some backup player, you need a first team player. So what happens, Hargreaves gets fit, you pay him, and bench the other first team guy you have on 100k a week for him to play?
Consistancy is what makes teams good, not having a great player(not that I think he is) playing 2 games every 3 months, the team will simply be better playing a less good player in almost every game as everyone else will be used to how that guy plays.
What makes teams work in terms of business and not making a massive loss is not randomly employing extra people on massive wages for no reason.
HArgreaves is a bad idea any way you look at it.
I'm confused are you saying that City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs have more flair players than United and are better for it?
As for United in 2008 and the amount of flair players we had then I count Rooney, Tevez & Ronaldo in the first XI and Nani as part of the squad, Now we still have Rooney, Hernandez has replaced Tevez (not sure whether you'd agree with that?) and Nani has replaced Ronaldo (obviously we're worse of in that comparison but what could we do, Ronaldo wanted to leave) so effectively we've lost a flair player from the bench.
Of course the flip side of that is we've gained the Da Silva twins (I'd say for full backs they've got a bit of flair about them) and even though I want to I wont mention Valencia as that will get us onto a completely different argument yet again
I'm hoping it was just a holiday pic and convincing myself not to think anything into it
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 41,459
- Location
- Cornwall
That picture's a fake
I hope
I hope
I'm confused are you saying that City, Arsenal, Chelsea and Spurs have more flair players than United and are better for it?
As for United in 2008 and the amount of flair players we had then I count Rooney, Tevez & Ronaldo in the first XI and Nani as part of the squad, Now we still have Rooney, Hernandez has replaced Tevez (not sure whether you'd agree with that?) and Nani has replaced Ronaldo (obviously we're worse of in that comparison but what could we do, Ronaldo wanted to leave) so effectively we've lost a flair player from the bench.
Of course the flip side of that is we've gained the Da Silva twins (I'd say for full backs they've got a bit of flair about them) and even though I want to I wont mention Valencia as that will get us onto a completely different argument yet again
Its not just the amount is it, its the quality as well.
Having a solid workman like team is not good enough, last season was a freak season, he got away with it, testament to that is the (hopefully true) reports of the dross he is trying to get shot of and the players he is trying to get in.
Ferguson knows its not good enough, and can see the way things need to go (at last) in Fergie we trust eh?
On a side note, the Porto guy who looks like he is going to take over at Chelsea?
What can he possibly know about football eh? 33 years old, never played the game........
(I know the back story behind Villas Boas )
Just goes to show that it has NOTHING to do with playing the game, or experience when it comes to management, its about what's upstairs and nothing else.
What can he possibly know about football eh? 33 years old, never played the game........
(I know the back story behind Villas Boas
)Just goes to show that it has NOTHING to do with playing the game, or experience when it comes to management, its about what's upstairs and nothing else.
I'm hoping it was just a holiday pic and convincing myself not to think anything into it
That picture's a fake
I'm not blown away by the prospect of signing Downing but equally I can't think of many realistic wingers we could sign who are better than him and/or as suitable.
We need somebody that's going to give us natural width and provide Carroll with decent delivery into the box, which Downing can provide. All the other wide players we're being linked with - whether N'Zogbia or even Mata - don't/won't do that. If we can sign a 2nd winger then great but the priority should be a Downing type wide player imo.
Yes and as you know the back story you'll know that a person who has been studying football coaching since the age of 17 and spent 7 years working with Mourinho is pretty lacking in football experience and exactly like a random armchair fan coming off the street with a few "Get on lads!"On a side note, the Porto guy who looks like he is going to take over at Chelsea?
What can he possibly know about football eh? 33 years old, never played the game........
(I know the back story behind Villas Boas
Just goes to show that it has NOTHING to do with playing the game, or experience when it comes to management, its about what's upstairs and nothing else.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 19,616
- Location
- LU7
Got any links to show proof? I'm sure De Gea and Young will sign but at the moment only 33% of them have actually agreed a move publicly.
Obviously you aren't going to play the guy if he can only play that often. Jesus Christ. And you did read the bit about PAY TO PLAY right? If he doesn't play then the team aren't paying massive wages and if he does play then I doubt he'd be demanding much as he knows he is an unknown quantity at this point. In addition, he isn't going to get played the very instant get gets fit, maybe he gets a game here and there to give the 1st choice a break. At this stage he knows he can't command a 1st team place or expect to be considered an automatic choice for the 1st team even if he gets fit. If he goes anywhere it'll be on the understanding that he can get himself fit and then, once that's happened, get a few games here and there.
He isn't going to get a contract at any of the big clubs but I see no reason why he couldn't get in at somewhere like Bolton, Blackburn, etc on a small contract. Managers will take a punt if he manages to get his fitness back.
Hargreaves is a bad idea any way YOU look at it. But frankly that's hardly surprising.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Yay, get to accuse another person if lack of reading comprehension.
If you have Hargreaves but have NO IDEA if he'll play, you also need a first team member of the squad for the same position. So you'll be paying THAT person, not hargreaves, the guy Hargreaves will displace if he is infact ever fit.
So Hargreaves gets fit, you play him, therefore you pay him..... and for him to play the other guy you're already paying 100k a week for, sits on the bench.
Likewise the guy sitting on the bench actually plays 9/10 games in the season, the entire squad is completely used to playing with him, they aren't used to playing with Owen "never plays" Hargreaves, so he's actually less useful anyway.
So what purpose does Hargreaves serve, literally none, at all. If a guy is completely and utterly unreliable, you HAVE TO HAVE a first team player who is reliable and you'll have to pay that guy, and you'd have to drop that guy for Hargreaves to play.
SO again, whats the point? Every now and then, instead of having say one defensive midfielder, lets say Diarra, some weeks you can bench him, play Hargreaves and pay 200k a week for two guys to share one job.
Basically its utterly pointless, I think you'll also find pay to play deals are rather more, pay to be available for first team deals rather than actually pay to play deals.
If you take Rooney out of the team and play him once every 10 games, he simply won't be as good in that single game, as if he was playing every game.
As for resting players, how useful is it to NEED to rest a player, and be unable to because the Hargreaves isn't fit that week.
Any single position in every team at every club in the world has a first team guy, and they try to have a back up guy, no one plans to have a guy who they might be able to use now and then, possibly, its horrific business and not good for football.
Again, Bolton, Blackburn, would NEED a first team player, and NEED a backup, and then what, every 10 games pay one extra guy 100k, or 5k, to play with a team of players he isn't gelled with, while two players sit on the bench for essentially no reason?
If you have Hargreaves but have NO IDEA if he'll play, you also need a first team member of the squad for the same position. So you'll be paying THAT person, not hargreaves, the guy Hargreaves will displace if he is infact ever fit.
So Hargreaves gets fit, you play him, therefore you pay him..... and for him to play the other guy you're already paying 100k a week for, sits on the bench.
Likewise the guy sitting on the bench actually plays 9/10 games in the season, the entire squad is completely used to playing with him, they aren't used to playing with Owen "never plays" Hargreaves, so he's actually less useful anyway.
So what purpose does Hargreaves serve, literally none, at all. If a guy is completely and utterly unreliable, you HAVE TO HAVE a first team player who is reliable and you'll have to pay that guy, and you'd have to drop that guy for Hargreaves to play.
SO again, whats the point? Every now and then, instead of having say one defensive midfielder, lets say Diarra, some weeks you can bench him, play Hargreaves and pay 200k a week for two guys to share one job.
Basically its utterly pointless, I think you'll also find pay to play deals are rather more, pay to be available for first team deals rather than actually pay to play deals.
If you take Rooney out of the team and play him once every 10 games, he simply won't be as good in that single game, as if he was playing every game.
As for resting players, how useful is it to NEED to rest a player, and be unable to because the Hargreaves isn't fit that week.
Any single position in every team at every club in the world has a first team guy, and they try to have a back up guy, no one plans to have a guy who they might be able to use now and then, possibly, its horrific business and not good for football.
Again, Bolton, Blackburn, would NEED a first team player, and NEED a backup, and then what, every 10 games pay one extra guy 100k, or 5k, to play with a team of players he isn't gelled with, while two players sit on the bench for essentially no reason?
- Status