Check the post!! I don't remember this post has something to do with players. We are already end the discussion. You are just coming back and continue it again. You love to make an argument aren't you.
Bruno Martins Indi
- Thread starter Nozzy
- Start date
Check the post!! I don't remember this post has something to do with players. We are already end the discussion. You are just coming back and continue it again. You love to make an argument aren't you.
I was explaining that while I respected your right to an opinion, I'd never agree with it, and told you exactly why.
Look, feel free to put me on ignore if you don't want to discuss it any further. I'm not making you respond. I've simply told you you're wrong and then told you exactly why you're wrong.
You just can't deal with someone else comment.
I took his post to mean that Zouma will be a first choice at Chelsea. Its unlikely given he's not a first choice at St. Etienne. At the same time he's highly rated and could hit the ground running.
Oh I can deal with someone else's comment. I'm dealing with it by telling you that while I respect your right to hold an opinion and voice it, you're talking absolute bollocks.
I'm also guessing you're about 15 and play a lot of Football Manager/Management sims, and therefore see a squad as a variety of numerical values and statistics, by which you select the best fit for your squad, and play the players with the highest numerical value as first choice, and sign players with a slightly lower numerical value as back up, as having someone of the same numerical value as a starter on the bench is a waste of resources which could be better utilised buying a LRC/AM/F who can cover your RW/LW/CAM/CF if they're out injured.
How close am I?
Last edited:
He reckoned he'd be part of their first team squad. The discussion was between Zouma and Michael Keane, and whether they'd both hold the same role within their respective squads next season.
Great post, completely agree! Try to explain the same thing in different (Vermaelen's) thread.
Absolutely fecking mental, the pair of you. I've never heard anyone else ever suggest this kind of logic, until you two miracle retards suggest it on the same night. Are you the same epically stupid person?
You just can't deal with someone else comment. A simple description of you are. Just because someone else have different opinion with yours that doesn't mean they are stupid or retard. Respect to people comment!! If you don't like our opinion then shvt up and talk to someone else!!
It's a stupid comment. And an idiotic idea.
Answer the question I asked you, you're a 15 year old Football Manager obsessive, right?
I think you are overstepping it really.
Are we even talking about Bruno Martins Indi anymore on this thread? Overall I do not think Martins Indi is good enough would be a poor signing.
I'm really not. You're both talking about squads like it's a build by numbers operation, where you're only allowed a certain amount of players at a certain level. I've literally never heard anyone talk about signing players for a football squad the way you two have talked about it tonight. Lesser players are better for balance than players of as high a quality as the ones you have? Rejecting better players to actively seek lesser ones so they aren't as good as your current squad? Rotation Risk?
What is this madness?
His eyes are like Sakho a bit. Gives same dumb impression after a mistake. This from yesterday's game, I haven't seen him otherwise. Might be a good one for future. Still 22, CBs develop and get into peak a little later generally than forwards.
You do.
I think you two are the same silly person, with the same silly idea. If I was an Admin I'd be checking your IP's.
If I knew how
Too bad with that kind of attitude you will never be an Admin.
Orly?
I think he guy is not ready to be one of them main two CBs at the top level. In fact i think Indi should maybe consider a team that employs a 3-back formation. He is much better as a left back of the three.
Folks ease up on the insults please.
Well, there is a good chance we will line up with 3 at the back at times this season. It suits the players we have and gets our top players in their preferred roles. So, if there was a dutchman that van Gaal brings in (besides a fit Strootman), it looks as though this guy would be the logical choice.
He isn't.
We really do need a top CB.
I am uncertain about our current centre backs. Also losing two of the best centre backs that the club has ever seen, who were also first team starters and not replacing them is madness. I am still unsure about Jones. Positioning he isn't great and we can't afford to be taking risks next season. People saying we should go with the 3 centre backs and get a backup is a risk.
Obviously Hummels and Mangela are the big names. I'd take Miranda for the short term.
We can't afford to go next season with 3 centre backs, who can't stay fit and a back up. We'd be playing Carrick at the back in no time.
I can't see a guy who insult someone just because different opinion can become an Admin.
Not first choice? They started benching him once his move to Chelsea was confirmed.
All this discussion would make sense if the CBs we have werent made of glass btw. Regardless of how highly people rate them, they're just too injury prone atm to go into a season with just these 3 + Keane.
I don't even think Indi was particularly good against Spain. He was following the ball all over the pitch like a headless chicken and was positionally poor.
Perhaps it was his instructions, but I saw him randomly in the centre forward or right back position trying to win the ball on many occasions.
Perhaps it was his instructions, but I saw him randomly in the centre forward or right back position trying to win the ball on many occasions.
Zouma had started 17 games last year 7 as sub and had started in Europe and French Cup. He was banned for 10 games this year. I don't think that can classify as backup.
If most are on here are honest, the only time we see these players are occasional highlights of the CL and tournaments. If I landed from the planet Zar, I wouldn't believe the Spanish keeper is one of the most decorated players in the history of football on that performance.
Too early for me to say and I'm relying on our Dutch supporters to whether they think he's good enough.....
Agreed. When I spot a pain in the behind on here, the first thing I do is note their total number of comments & divide them by the days they've been a full member. It often delivers the conclusion that they are a billy no mates who live on their lap-tops.
And I think they very much put off people from making more regular contributions. Is that what the 'caf' want from their 'moderators'?
I really wanted to avoid commenting on this argument again, but I feel I have to.
This madness? The idea that having 4 brilliants players for two positions possibly upsetting the balance of the team = madness. Really?
I thought it was a widely-held belief that having a settled defence is the ideal scenario. Ideally you would love to be able to go through a season with the same defence and keeper, they would build up a solid understanding and the team would benefit as a result. The reason you cannot do this is because of injuries and general fatigue. So managers freshen it up by rotating. Too much rotation could lead to an unsettled back-line and be a detriment to the team. Look at De Gea and Lindegaard - Fergie rotated them for a while and neither one was able to establish himself as first choice. DDG only hit some consistent top form when he established himself as first choice. If we went out and signed Cavani tomorrow what would you do if we found ourselves playing City in a title decider? Drop Van Persie, drop Rooney or drop Cavani? How do you think they'll react to that?
What you are suggesting is that we have four equally good players while still having two clear first choice defenders. Can you not imagine the two equally good back-ups getting slightly miffed at having to settle for the odd cameo.
Your example of Ferdinand and Vidic being the first choice is also flawed. Yes, they were indeed first choice, up until last season, but they were exceptional players and the back-ups were promising youngsters who weren't on the same level. We didn't have four players on the same level, we had two world class CBs and three promising youngsters. Instead of Evans, Smalling and Jones, imagine our three backs-ups were Hummels, Pique and Chiellini. How would you keep all five of those happy?
A managers job isn't simply to stockpile the best players, it's to build the best squad - and the two aren't the same thing.
EDIT: And I'll repeat once again, that I agree with you that we should be buying another CB. I don't think Evans, Smalling, Jones and Youth Player is good enough for what we should be aiming for. I just really disagree with you taking issue with someone for suggesting that 'rotation risk' (ie, the risk that rotating players to keep everyone happy can lead to a team becoming unbalanced and lose consistency while also hampering the players' own development) is completely unfounded.
He wasn't particularly good, I agree. But obviously he was instructed to apply pressure everywhere he could, he was not following the ball like a headless chicken and he was not positionally poor at all.
Also gave a brilliant pass to Van Persie, who was just standing an inch offside.
Spot on & very well put, both the comment on the CB situation & the situation with our 30 comments a day troll.
When did I mention heaving 4 great defenders or having the players of the standard you suggested as backup? I said there was no issue if the ONE CENTRE BACK WE ADD is as good as the 3 WE ALREADY HAVE, but somehow it would be better if we added a 4th centre back who is worse than what we already have? How does that make sense? That's what I'm arguing against, the idea that this summer we should seek out and deliberately add a worse defender than those we already have, rejecting better players, rather than someone of similar standing, the argument being that Indi is supppsedly too good to be a squad member, so we should sign someone not as good as him. It's a ridiculous notion.
We need another central defender, we agree on that, so what we should do is not sign players as good as we have, but actively go out and look for lesser players. Do you seriously agree with this premise? We shouldn't sign this guy because he's as good as Smalling and Jones, but we should look to sign a worse player instead, because that's what has been suggested that I disagree with.
If a player of similar standing to Evans, Smalling and Jones is available, wants to come, is happy to fight for his place, is financially viable and won't impact our ability to sign the player we need in other areas, why would we turn down the chance to sign him and actively look for someone not as good? The other guy suggested that if we were to sign a top quality centre half (ie Hummels) we should sell Jones and replace him with a lesser player for the squad. Again, how does that make any sense? You don't actively look for worse players than you have if better players are available, and you certainly don't sell the ones you have to deliberately buy worse ones.
I'm not advocating going out and signing 4 world class defenders, or even saying that's an ideal scenario, I've never once said that. I'm saying that turning down the chance to sign this guy because "he's as good as Smalling and Jones, so signing a worse one would be better" is a silly idea. Don't you agree?
Also, I've never suggested we should rotate or not have a settled backline, but having good players in reserve is better than having less good players in reserve. Surely that much is obvious?
Here's a question. You agree we should sign another centre back, so all things being equal (ie availability, impact on spend on other areas unaffected, the player is happy to come and fight for his place etc), what kind of centre back should we go ideally go for? One who is better than what we have, as good as what we have, or worse than what we have?
Last edited:
And who are you?
Get out now! How dare you speak of the name in this thread! Is thread is for ramble of Zouma at St Etienne, Jones/Smalling/Evans at United and two posters of the Caf who have nothing better to do with their time but insult each other over a pointless argument!
Just an average joe, same as you, difference being I'm not a sad bar-steward who lives on here, trolling other users.
Agreed. When I spot a pain in the behind on here, the first thing I do is note their total number of comments & divide them by the days they've been a full member. It often delivers the conclusion that they are a billy no mates who live on their lap-tops.
And I think they very much put off people from making more regular contributions. Is that what the 'caf' want from their 'moderators'?
*Divides own number of posts by days registered here*
*Not sure if safe*
One of whom makes it his reason for living, on every thread he can manage.