The Neviller
New Member
He's played more first team football than Smalling or Jones had before they came to us, was his point.Zouma wasnt even starting for St Etienne. He was a backup
He's played more first team football than Smalling or Jones had before they came to us, was his point.Zouma wasnt even starting for St Etienne. He was a backup
How is the notion that having players of equal ability is better than having two of that ability and two worse 'shit"? You've said it's better to have 3 players the same and a younger, lesser player as number 4 rather than have 4 who are all as good as each other. How does that make any sense?
And finally you are respecting my opinion. I'm already respect yours and I was waiting you respect mine. See that's what happen if you are willing to read someone else posts. At least you understand what I'm saying. It's not like I'm asking you to agree with me.
I was explaining that while I respected your right to an opinion, I'd never agree with it, and told you exactly why.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.
He's played more first team football than Smalling or Jones had before they came to us, was his point.
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.You just can't deal with someone else comment.
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.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.
Great post, completely agree! Try to explain the same thing in different (Vermaelen's) thread.Yeah, if you play football manager, doing rotation won't giving any effect that much or that's even better for having 4 equally level centre backs in that game.
But we are in real life. It's better to settle the pair centre backs without doing rotation. It's better to give them chances to prove themself, who knows that 1 worse michael keane would be great one if he is given a chance. Jones, Smalling and Evans are very good defenders. Smalling and Jones haven't get their chance to prove themself to play one full season as a centre back with us. What so special about Rio and Vidic is they understand each other and I heard the media questioning them about did they do telepathy during the game. It's about experiences and playing together. Let Jones, Smalling and Evans to play together. If Jones, Smalling are not good enough then we can sign a better one next summer.
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?
It's a stupid comment. And an idiotic idea.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!!
I think you are overstepping it really.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?
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?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.
You do.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?
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.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
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.
Orly?Too bad with that kind of attitude you will never be an Admin.
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.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.
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.
Orly?
Zouma wasnt even starting for St Etienne. He was a backup
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.Zouma wasnt even starting for St Etienne. He was a backup
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.
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.I can't see a guy who insult someone just because different opinion can become an Admin.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.
And who are you?Spot on & very well put, both the comment on the CB situation & the situation with our 30 comments a day troll.
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!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.
Just an average joe, same as you, difference being I'm not a sad bar-steward who lives on here, trolling other users.And who are you?
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'?