2nd Striker

Alek M

Da manic one
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
6,550
Location
M A C E D O N I A
If SAF uses 4-4-2 as a standard formation next year, who should be alongside Rudd. If SAF decides to buy a player in EPL four players come to mind.

Alan Smith - Great talent that may be finessed by SAF. I ve always wanted to see him as a <img src="graemlins/devil.gif" border="0" alt="[Devil]" />
Harry Kewel - What a strike on Sunday.
Damion Duff - May not be stricly a striker, but could we turn him into one.
James Beattie - Nobody talks about him, but 23 goals this season (12 last year), one less than Rudd. Does he have the potential?

What do you think about these, any better, yet affordable and likable? I would go with Alan Smith.
 
Originally posted by Alek M:
<strong>If SAF uses 4-4-2 as a standard formation next year, who should be alongside Rudd. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You would choose Alan Smith ahead of Ole?

:rolleyes:

Last season - Ole & Ruud - 62 goals - most prolific pair in the whole of Europe.

Comprendez? ;)
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, Livvie they pull the trigger, but someone has to load the gun!! At Leeds who loads the gun? Not saying Smith is good or shit really.
 
Originally posted by Waz:
<strong>Yeah, Livvie they pull the trigger, but someone has to load the gun!! At Leeds who loads the gun? Not saying Smith is good or shit really.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Beckham - Giggs - Veron - Keane - Scholes can pull the trigger for us.

Don't care who pulls it for Leeds.
Click to expand...
 
We've just spent two years adapting to a modified formation and strategy, what makes you think we're going to change it back when it's starting to bear fruit??
 
Load the gun... pull the trigger... are we still talking about football ?
Anyway, Ole is only good as a sub, Forlan should start.
 
WEEEEEEEEEEEEEE HAVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEE ONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE! OLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>Comprendez? ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

You've spelt that wrong.

It's: ¿Comprendes?

And even then, the word is incorrect, it should be:

¿Entiendes?

;)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>

You would choose Alan Smith ahead of Ole?

:rolleyes:

Last season - Ole & Ruud - 62 goals - most prolific pair in the whole of Europe.

Comprendez? ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>


As a pure striker yes. Have Ole on the right since it seems that SAF likes that position for him.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Gazza:
<strong>We've just spent two years adapting to a modified formation and strategy, what makes you think we're going to change it back when it's starting to bear fruit??</strong><hr></blockquote>

You are correct about that, but I think that we could be even more effective with 2 strikers ahead. Look at the midfield we have, becks, veron, scholes, they can feed so many deadly balls. Look what we have achieved with one pure striker, can you imagine what we could do with 2?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by CremboMan:
<strong> Forland should start.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't know what is the deal with him. It seems that he has so much potential and he can be a great stiker, but SAF never playes him. Unless Giggs leaves, I don't think there is plenty of space for him to play.
Click to expand...
 
i'm :confused: :confused: :confused:

the 2nd striker that we are looking for should be 1) a target man(backup to Ruud) or
2) someone that can play with Ruud???
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>

You've spelt that wrong.

It's: ¿Comprendes?

And even then, the word is incorrect, it should be:

¿Entiendes?

;) </strong><hr></blockquote>


¿Comprendes? means the same as ¿entiendes?
Click to expand...
 
I think we need someone with EXTREME pace, im talking about Michael Owen pace here. Obviously Liverpool would never sell him (he is unlikely to leave too). Well...who has his pace in world football today? look no further!

EMILE MPENZA!
 
Originally posted by Alek M:
<strong>

You are correct about that, but I think that we could be even more effective with 2 strikers ahead. Look at the midfield we have, becks, veron, scholes, they can feed so many deadly balls. Look what we have achieved with one pure striker, can you imagine what we could do with 2?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Cant phrase this better, but to be honest, what you think really doesnt matter to Sir Alex Ferguson. He's settled on 451 so deal with it - there is no '2nd striker' so to speak.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>

You've spelt that wrong.

It's: ¿Comprendes?

And even then, the word is incorrect, it should be:

¿Entiendes?

;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

"¿Comprendes?" is not incorrect, only is less usual than "¿Entiendes?.

Of course, "Entender" is more easy to pronounce for a British, so I recommend it, except for visits to gay pubs.

In spaniard gay slang, a cuestion like "¿Entiendes?", may mean "Are you gay?", (I noticed it a couple of times that I answered "yes", with a bit embarrasing consecuences <img src="graemlins/nervous.gif" border="0" alt="[Nervous]" /> )

¿Comprendez?
Click to expand...
 
I don't know where all this talk of playing 2 out and out stikers comes from? I can't even remember the last United team to play that way.
Cantona and Sheringham both played very deep at times and in a free role behind one striker...just like Giggs or Scholes does today.
Even the fabled partnership of Yorke and Cole had Cole as the leading point of attack with Yorke playing a freeer role.

Too much is made of this formation nonsense. I could see the point of the argument if we moved away from 4 at the back; I'm sorry, but regardless of what it says on Andy Gray's crappy computer line-up thingy, United are playing the same way now they were 5 years ago.
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>

You've spelt that wrong.

It's: ¿Comprendes?

And even then, the word is incorrect, it should be:

¿Entiendes?

;) </strong><hr></blockquote>


I don't want to be unkind Weaste, but has anyone ever told you how pedantic you are? (Did I spell it right? ;) )

My use of the word was a little hint of sarcasm based on the same usage in last year's Big Brother by Tim "I'm a Celebrity get me out of here" Culley.

(Not that I'd have known any different mind).
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Alek M:
<strong>If SAF uses 4-4-2 as a standard formation next year, who should be alongside Rudd. If SAF decides to buy a player in EPL four players come to mind.

Alan Smith - Great talent that may be finessed by SAF. I ve always wanted to see him as a <img src="graemlins/devil.gif" border="0" alt="[Devil]" />
Harry Kewel - What a strike on Sunday.
Damion Duff - May not be stricly a striker, but could we turn him into one.
James Beattie - Nobody talks about him, but 23 goals this season (12 last year), one less than Rudd. Does he have the potential?

What do you think about these, any better, yet affordable and likable? I would go with Alan Smith.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Kewell is the one most suitable for us. He is versatile to play on LW or the forward behind Ruud. He also has great ball skill and speed.

Duff is a LW. Beattie is a tower forward who can only cover Ruud, not play together with him. Sorry but I never rate Alan Smith. Simply speaking, Smith has limited skill, with a red-card record much more outstanding than his scoring record in his life.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Enrique Deschamps:
<strong>¿Comprendes? means the same as ¿entiendes?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I beg to differ, there is a slight but important difference in the meaning. Yes, both mean "understand", but one is really "comprehend" in english, the other "you know".

Comprender therefore is used for understanding of concepts, ie. deep mental understanding. Entender on the othr hand is used for facts or statements, ie. knowing something but not having a conceptual understanding of it.

As far as I understand! ;)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Snatcho:
<strong>In spaniard gay slang, a cuestion like "¿Entiendes?", may mean "Are you gay?", (I noticed it a couple of times that I answered "yes", with a bit embarrasing consecuences <img src="graemlins/nervous.gif" border="0" alt="[Nervous]" /> )</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>

I beg to differ, there is a slight but important difference in the meaning. Yes, both mean "understand", but one is really "comprehend" in english, the other "you know".

Comprender therefore is used for understanding of concepts, ie. deep mental understanding. Entender on the othr hand is used for facts or statements, ie. knowing something but not having a conceptual understanding of it.

As far as I understand! ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't agree at all, although I must admit that we are getting in a too subtile degree for most readers, who may be interested in these fascinating shades of spanish terms only to just enough degree to ask for a beer in Mallorca. ;)

Weaste, I think that you are a bit biased for the english meaning of similar english terms of "comprender", like "comprehension", which have a more intellectual, paedagogic (correct?) significance.

Originally, "comprender" comes from term "comprehendo", which might mean "contain", "embrace", and, of course "understand". In classical spanish had a bit more "feeling", "emotive", nuance: "Comprendo tu pesar"= "I understand your sadness"

In the other hand, "entender" came from latin term "intendo" = "going to, having tendence to", which is related to english terms like "intention", "intently", and had a more volitive (correct?) and intellectual nuance, and also a more social, frivolous one.

Officially, both terms are absolute synonymous, but it's true that, in last decades, "comprender" is being more used in psycollogical and educational, environments, probably because of that paedagogycal and psycollogical gibberish which comes, mainly, from U.S.A., which includes a lot of terms like "comprehension test", "I.Q.", etcetera.

If you are (or have been) in an spaniard university environment, it's posible that you have intuited that current "intellectual" nuance in "comprender", which is usual in every field of doctrine, except for Phylosophy.

And of course, I'm just talking about "spaniard" spanish. But I've noticed that overseas relatively cultivated spanish is not as different in these slight nuances as may be overseas (relatively) cultivated english.

Woaw, this post has been pure football! <img src="graemlins/yawn.gif" border="0" alt="[Yawn]" />
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Snatcho:
<strong>

I don't agree at all, although I must admit that we are getting in a too subtile degree for most readers, who may be interested in these fascinating shades of spanish terms only to just enough degree to ask for a beer in Mallorca. ;)

Weaste, I think that you are a bit biased for the english meaning of similar english terms of "comprender", like "comprehension", which have a more intellectual, paedagogic (correct?) significance.

Originally, "comprender" comes from term "comprehendo", which might mean "contain", "embrace", and, of course "understand". In classical spanish had a bit more "feeling", "emotive", nuance: "Comprendo tu pesar"= "I understand your sadness"

In the other hand, "entender" came from latin term "intendo" = "going to, having tendence to", which is related to english terms like "intention", "intently", and had a more volitive (correct?) and intellectual nuance, and also a more social, frivolous one.

Officially, both terms are absolute synonymous, but it's true that, in last decades, "comprender" is being more used in psycollogical and educational, environments, probably because of that paedagogycal and psycollogical gibberish which comes, mainly, from U.S.A., which includes a lot of terms like "comprehension test", "I.Q.", etcetera.

If you are (or have been) in an spaniard university environment, it's posible that you have intuited that current "intellectual" nuance in "comprender", which is usual in every field of doctrine, except for Phylosophy.

And of course, I'm just talking about "spaniard" spanish. But I've noticed that overseas relatively cultivated spanish is not as different in these slight nuances as may be overseas (relatively) cultivated english.

Woaw, this post has been pure football! <img src="graemlins/yawn.gif" border="0" alt="[Yawn]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Mi mujer dice:

en frances entend significa oir, por tanto entender tiene que ver más con la emisión del mensaje y comprender con la recepción de éste.
Además, los sinónimos no existen por pura economia del lenguaje.
Click to expand...
 
That wasn't me BTW. That was her, she typed that! Her CAF debut :eek:

She studied languages, even translated the TV series Black Adder into the Spanish version, and she agrees with the both of us. How I do not know. :)
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>That wasn't me BTW. That was her, she typed that! Her CAF debut :eek:

She studied languages, even translated the TV series Black Adder into the Spanish version, and she agrees with the both of us. How I do not know. :) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Does she have a name or do we call her "her" ?
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by redpie:
<strong>
Even the fabled partnership of Yorke and Cole had Cole as the leading point of attack with Yorke playing a freeer role.

</strong><hr></blockquote>


The times of those two dicent strikers got me thinking of the effectivness we could do with two great strikers. Also, since Leeds may have a huge sale I was exploring the option if any of their players is worth considersing, along with Bettie and Duff.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>


I don't want to be unkind Weaste, but has anyone ever told you how pedantic you are? (Did I spell it right? ;) )

</strong><hr></blockquote>

I believe the admited that himself in the Man Utd forum :)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Alek M:
<strong>


The times of those two dicent strikers got me thinking of the effectivness we could do with two great strikers. </strong><hr></blockquote>


You should have watched some of last season's games - Ruud played with some little Norwegian lad. They did quite well - I thought I might have mentioned it. Best strike pair in Europe in fact. I wonder what happened to him.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by CremboMan:
<strong>

Does she have a name or do we call her "her" ?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, she does have a name, it's MrsWeasteDevil ;)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by WeasteDevil:
<strong>

Yeah, she does have a name, it's MrsWeasteDevil ;) </strong><hr></blockquote>

Saint MrsWeasteDevil
Click to expand...
 
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laugh Out Loud]" />
 
Originally posted by giggzy:
<strong>She's a figmant of Weaste's imagination. <img src="graemlins/angel.gif" border="0" alt="[Angel]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

She was speaking about the daft difference between understand and understand and relating it to French. I know nothing of French! Did I dream about French? ;)
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Livvie20:
<strong>


You should have watched some of last season's games - Ruud played with some little Norwegian lad. They did quite well - I thought I might have mentioned it. Best strike pair in Europe in fact. I wonder what happened to him.</strong><hr></blockquote>

y'know what Ole's missus did?...she only took that dusty old painting he keeps in the attic and went and sold it at Bowlers sunday car-boot sale at Trafford Park!

I'll swear, the lad has visibly aged 10 years since Christmas.

Though didn't he recently have a nipper, all those 3 AM digs in the ribs..."It's your turn...Zzzz..." can take there toll. Well, it's either that or the Dorian Gray theory...and Ole does have a mean streak in him...baby-faced assassin indeed!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.