Darron Gibson - is he good enough for Everton?

He'll be a top player...



for a mid table team. I'll be shocked if he's still at the club in a couple of years. I don't think he will get enough chances and at some point will want to move on to secure first team place. I don't see how he can get ahead of the other midfielders we currently have (and lets face it, this isn't the best midfield we have had in the last 10 years, so if he can't break into this side then chances are he's probably never going to make it as a first team regular).

Good backup player, but that's about it.
 
acnumber9 said:
The whole Darren Fletcher thing is very boring now. Not all players progress the way Fletcher did. He is the exception to the rule. If a player looks average at 22 then more often than not that player will simply be average.

I can't think of a single game he's started where United's performance hasn't been average
Click to expand...

There have been a lot of players in world football who in their early 20's looked average but by their mid 20's were unbelieveably good. You could be right in Gibsons case but i still believe CMF is the hardest position in football and probably more worse for top clubs because they are expected to boss the game and spray passes around consistantly, but to be consistant you have to have some experience/run in the team - two things Gibson hasnt achieved.
 
I reckon Gibson would suit playing for Chelsea rather than us.
 
I think he is a good squad player, young and learning, and shooting balls.
 
Devilton said:
Chelsea already have a Gibson. His name is Frank Lampard.
Click to expand...

Exactly, He'd be a good Lampard backup.. whereas here the Midfield set up is different, we are alot more gung ho in our overrall approach so the midfield can look alot more stretched.. which doesn't suit Gibson.
 
OneUnited24 said:
There have been a lot of players in world football who in their early 20's looked average but by their mid 20's were unbelieveably good. You could be right in Gibsons case but i still believe CMF is the hardest position in football and probably more worse for top clubs because they are expected to boss the game and spray passes around consistantly, but to be consistant you have to have some experience/run in the team - two things Gibson hasnt achieved.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there have been but my point is the majority don't. Gibson could fall into either but odds are he'll struggle to make the step up. People need to understand that very few players progress like Fletcher did.
 
Nothing wrong with a bit of hope.
 
acnumber9 said:
T..... He is the exception to the rule.........
Click to expand...
Very wrong. He is infact the norm. Most talented young midfielders who are not outstanding ala Fabregas or Iniesta tend to take until almost age 24 before they start coming good and showing their talent consistently. & they need loads of games to do this or it might not happened for them till the reach 25 even. Problem is Loads of fans though have this misguided idea that midfielders show their best qualities by age 22. The fact is, those who do, are the very special talents of the Fabregas ilk. Who are few indeed.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Very wrong. He is infact the norm. Most talented young midfielders who are not outsanding ala Fabregas or Iniesta tend to take until almost age 24 before the start coming good and showing their talent consistently. Loads of fans though have this misguided idea that midfielders show their best qualities by age 22. The fact is, those who do, are the very special talents of the Fabregas ilk.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the majority of average 22 year old players become top class?
 
acnumber9 said:
Are you saying that the majority of average 22 year old players become top class?
Click to expand...
Bullshit. I'm clearly saying the vast majority of midfielders who have talent are average at age 22 and only start to show their class 2 years later. Only the truly exceptional midfield talents are class at age 22.

Which is not remotely close to what you're implying.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Bullshit. I'm clearly saying the vast majority of midfielders who have talent are average at age 22 and only start to show their class 2 years later. Only the truly exceptional midfield talents are class at age 22.

Which is not remotely close to what you're implying.
Click to expand...

Most players who are average at 22 will still be average for the remainder of their career. That's what makes Fletcher the exception to the rule, along with others. Shame you can't grasp that.

Who are these players you're talking about anyway? I'd wager most where better than Gibson currently is.
 
acnumber9 said:
Most players who are average at 22 will still be average for the remainder of their career. .
Click to expand...
That has no relevance at all to the development of midfielders. In case you hadn't noticed.

acnumber9 said:
That's what makes Fletcher the exception to the rule, along with others.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. Fletcher is a midfielder & midfielders develop differently to players who play other roles on the field. Just like goalkeepers. So he doesn't fall into the category of 'most players'' or 'an exception to the role'' in any shape or form.


acnumber9 said:
Shame you can't grasp that.
Click to expand...
I have no need to grasp inaccurate bullshit. It's a shame YOU can't grasp that.

acnumber9 said:
Who are these players you're talking about anyway? I'd wager most where better than Gibson currently is.
Click to expand...
I take it you never saw the likes of Xavi or Ballack aged 22. Carrick too. None of them were remotely outstanding at Gibson's age and they'd played many more games than he has by that stage. they were just average to decent.

Then take a look at their career paths after that stage.

I even remember on here sighting Ballack as an example as to why Fletcher was likely to go on and prove many of his doubters wrong back in the day. A thing that was laughed at back then but has largely been proven right.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
That has no relevance at all to the development of midfielders. In case you hadn't noticed.


Bullshit. Fletcher is a midfielder & midfielders develop differently to players who play other roles on the field. Just like goalkeepers. So he doesn't fall into the category of 'most players'' or 'an exception to the role'' in any shape or form.


I have no need to grasp inaccurate bullshit. It's a shame YOU can't grasp that.

I take it you never saw the likes of Xavi or Ballack aged 22. Carrick too. None of them were remotely outstanding at Gibson's age and they'd played many more games than he has by that stage. they were just average to decent.

Then take a look at their career paths after that stage.
Click to expand...
In 2002, Xavi became an integral part of van Gaal's team!

2000–01: 36 games, 2 goals
2001-02: 52 games, 4 goals
2002-03: 44 games, 3 goals

The Barcelona side he was in wasn't that great however, with Barcelona largely on the fringes never really challenging for the title.

Ballack was on the fringes of the legendary Kaiserslautern side that won the 1. Bundesliga title the season after getting promoted from 2. Bundesliga. He made 16 appearances in 1997-98 and 37 in 1998-99. Not a minor thing at all. Ballack then made his big move to Leverkusen which pretty much made him who he was.

If anything, these two were really good midfielders for their age and making a solid number of appearances for decent sides.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
That has no relevance at all to the development of midfielders. In case you hadn't noticed.


Bullshit. Fletcher is a midfielder & midfielders develop differently to players who play other roles on the field. Just like goalkeepers. So he doesn't fall into the category of 'most players'' or 'an exception to the role'' in any shape or form.


I have no need to grasp inaccurate bullshit. It's a shame YOU can't grasp that.

I take it you never saw the likes of Xavi or Ballack aged 22. Carrick too. None of them were remotely outstanding at Gibson's age and they'd played many more games than he has by that stage. they were just average to decent.

Then take a look at their career paths after that stage.

I even remember on here sighting Ballack as an example as to why Fletcher was likely to go on and prove many of his doubters wrong back in the day. A thing that was laughed at back then but has largely been proven right.
Click to expand...

You make up your own arguements. My point is people are wrong to constantly use Fletcher as reason for not doubting Gibson. The point I'm making is it is rare for a player to progress at the rate Fletcher did. I can't be arsed with your retarded ramblings anymore.

One last thing Xavi was clearly a better player than Gibson t the same age. Can't commen on Ballack as he was older when I first saw him play.
 
IMO darren has a lot to learn and he is still too young to command a midfield as a robson/keane type player.

I think he will make it at the very top of the game and playing beside scholes and the like cant do him any harm at all.

Just look at fletcheys developemt for example. Year on year he has become more important for us and I expect gibson to do the same.

Its simply not fair to expect him to perform like Roy Keane every game. He will get there but time and experience is the road he will have to take.

How many younsters command midfields in the top leagues around ? Very few if any.

I Believe
 
x42bn6 said:
In 2002, Xavi became an integral part of van Gaal's team!

2000–01: 36 games, 2 goals
2001-02: 52 games, 4 goals
2002-03: 44 games, 3 goals

The Barcelona side he was in wasn't that great however, with Barcelona largely on the fringes never really challenging for the title.

Ballack was on the fringes of the legendary Kaiserslautern side that won the 1. Bundesliga title the season after getting promoted from 2. Bundesliga. He made 16 appearances in 1997-98 and 37 in 1998-99. Not a minor thing at all. Ballack then made his big move to Leverkusen which pretty much made him who he was.

If anything, these two were really good midfielders for their age and making a solid number of appearances for decent sides.
Click to expand...

Facts are often a hinderence where the Cheif's opinions are concerned.
 
McGrathsipan said:
IMO darren has a lot to learn and he is still too young to command a midfield as a robson/keane type player.

I think he will make it at the very top of the game and playing beside scholes and the like cant do him any harm at all.

Just look at fletcheys developemt for example. Year on year he has become more important for us and I expect gibson to do the same.

Its simply not fair to expect him to perform like Roy Keane every game. He will get there but time and experience is the road he will have to take.

How many younsters command midfields in the top leagues around ? Very few if any.

I Believe
Click to expand...

Or Keiran Richardson's.
 
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:
Bullshit. I'm clearly saying the vast majority of midfielders who have talent are average at age 22 and only start to show their class 2 years later. Only the truly exceptional midfield talents are class at age 22.

Which is not remotely close to what you're implying.
Click to expand...

So you think Gibson has enough talent to make it?

I like your optimism chief, but I can't see Gibson ever becoming good enough.
 
x42bn6 said:
In 2002, Xavi became an integral part of van Gaal's team!

2000–01: 36 games, 2 goals
2001-02: 52 games, 4 goals
2002-03: 44 games, 3 goals.
Click to expand...
Did you watch him play? Or are you just pulling wiki stats? Xavi was Van Gaal favorite but was one of the least liked or ranked of the home based contingent at the time, by the Barca fans.

x42bn6 said:
The Barcelona side he was in wasn't that great however, with Barcelona largely on the fringes never really challenging for the title.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? Van Gaal won the Spanish title 2 times and finished second 2 times.

x42bn6 said:
Ballack was on the fringes of the legendary Kaiserslautern side that won the 1. Bundesliga title the season after getting promoted from 2. Bundesliga. He made 16 appearances in 1997-98 and 37 in 1998-99. Not a minor thing at all.
Click to expand...
What does any of that have to do with how he was actually playing? Ballack at Kaiserlautern was no better than Fletcher was for us. The only difference being he wasn't in a midfield that was exposing him the way ours with a past it Keane and an off from Scholes was.

x42bn6 said:
If anything, these two were really good midfielders for their age and making a solid number of appearances for decent sides.
Click to expand...
No they weren't. By the time Van Gaal left for example some of the hierachy at Barca were thinking of getting rid of Xavi, while as for Ballack, he only became the Ballack every one knows at Leverkursen. He was dead average at Kaiserslautern.
 
Maybe Xavi and Ballack weren't liked but they were integral parts to their team. Few young midfielders nowadays are integral to their team.

Xavi and Ballack showed glimpses of talent at that age. So did Richardson.

I personally don't think Gibson will become a key player like Fletcher - a useful option perhaps but I'm not holding my breath.

Fletcher was also relatively forced into games by our rubbish midfield at the time - Fletcher, Smith, Djemba-twins anyone? Gibson isn't getting as many games.

And yes, van Gaal won the Liga twice but that was outside of the ranges I've listed. He won them during 1997-2000, when Xavi was still on the fringes.
 
Scholesy said:
So you think Gibson has enough talent to make it? .
Click to expand...
Yes. Whether he will wait for the opportunity or be availed it is an entirely different matter. Fletcher for example was helped greatly by the decline of Scholes and Keane. Which enabled him to get loads of games. If he had the type of competition Gibson has ahead of him now, he'd probably have just lost heart and moved on by now.

Scholesy said:
I like your optimism chief, but I can't see Gibson ever becoming good enough.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Nothing is guaranteed. I just prefer to wait and see when it comes to midfielders. Gibson has shown in flashes there is something about him that makes Fergie pick him. To write him off when he doesn't even play regularly is strange. Given how old he is, and the fact SAF has faith in him and picks him often enough for match day squads.
 
Really don't think he's good enough...

But then again, I said that about Fletcher for a good 3 years...and he turned out alright...
 
x42bn6 said:
Maybe Xavi and Ballack weren't liked but they were integral parts to their teams.....
Click to expand...
So wiki claims. The reality is very different. For Xavi, ala Fletcher he kept being picked because of the manager''s faith in him rather than how good he was playing, while Ballack was just there to be a destroyer and to add legs to the side. He was no better than Carragher back then.

x42bn6 said:
And yes, van Gaal won the Liga twice but that was outside of the ranges I've listed. He won them during 1997-2000, when Xavi was still on the fringes.
Click to expand...
After that they came second 2 times then Van Gaal left though. & Xavi never became truly appreciated by Barca fans until Rijkaard arrived. That is why I was saying midfielders develop differently from other outfield players. Very few are truly superb before age 23 onwards. Yet fans tend to judge all midfielders by the standards of a few.
 
Fletcher was always technically very good. I just looked at that thread you highlighted Chief from years ago, and these comments stand out from the first page:

"just needs to improve his physical attributes but is a decent passer of the ball and has moe potential then richardson."

"if he can put on a bit of muscle to improve his speed and power i reckon he could develop into a very good player."

"Fletch will come good, he just needs to improve his physical attriubutes."

Combine this with playing on the wing, where it helps if you are physical, and its no suprise he was getting some criticism.

He has since improved his physical side of his game, and is therefore a much better player.

Gibson isn't technically very good and therefore I can't see him being here for a long time.
 
Scholesy said:
Fletcher was always technically very good. I just looked at that thread you highlighted Chief from years ago, and these comments stand out from the first page:

"just needs to improve his physical attributes but is a decent passer of the ball and has moe potential then richardson."

"if he can put on a bit of muscle to improve his speed and power i reckon he could develop into a very good player."

"Fletch will come good, he just needs to improve his physical attriubutes."
Click to expand...
Why did you miss out the majority of the rest that rated him worse than people are rating Gibson in this thread?

Scholesy said:
Combine this with playing on the wing, where it helps if you are physical, and its no suprise he was getting some criticism.
Click to expand...
Dude I've seen loads of players with worse physical condition than Fletcher be absolute monsters on the wing. Fletcher's one problem was he was young and still developing. Thus his passing wasn't great and neither was his physic. The same problems Gibson has now. With far less games to iron them out.


Scholesy said:
Gibson isn't technically very good and therefore I can't see him being here for a long time.
Click to expand...
Gibson is technically good enough. Better than Fletcher was at his age. The difference is Fletcher played more regularly. If he had played as infrequently as Gibson, you'd not remember his earlier first team days as fondly.

People on here forgot that at the time he was being labelled a player not worth of lacing Nicky Butt's boots and one with 'no identity on the pitch''. Even Gibson hasn't been given that last diss yet.
 
I think there may be several younger players on our books who could surpass him next season, Anderson and Cleverley for two.
 
Gibson's a better passer than Fletcher.
 
You've just not seen it yet. He can hit a long pass a lot better than Fletcher, he's just not up to the pace yet.
 
Gibson may have a 'wider' range of passing than Fletcher (even thats extremly debatable) but to say hes a better passer considering he gives the ball away so often under even minimal pressure is rather odd.....id wager Fletcher completes far more passes per game than Gibson and he certainly dosnt lose posession needlessy as often as Gibson does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.