Shame it's the sun reporting but I have absolutely no complaints with the figures quoted. I wouldn't have been surprised if we were talking even more.
De Gea Contract Situation
- Thread starter Sassy Colin
- Start date
- Status
He'd be worth every penny, deserves to paid equal to a world class striker.
Yep, our best player last season and this season to date. A good keeper is like gold dust and will earn you many points over the season.
A world class striker should be paid a lot more than a world class keeper. However in this case, because I'm a United fan, I want us to pay Dave whatever the heck he asks for.
Why? Keepers of ddg quality can realistically earn a team between 10 and 15 points a season, can be the difference between a title and second place. Are you old enough to remember Schmeichals 95/96 season?
Strikers can realistically earn a team more than that. The difference is that strikers score, and it's literally impossible to win a match without scoring.
Also I would be old enough to remember if I was watching football then but I wasn't.
Honestly mate, if you had seen that season you would have a different opinion
Then I would have seen that season and been wrong.
Arguing from a position of ignorance? Ok...
Well it wasn't exactly a serious comment, should have dropped a
in there then. I made specific points to highlight my point and all I got in return was a "but man if you'd SEEN it" type of reply.Well it wasn't exactly a serious comment, should have dropped a
You can't argue with him about a season you didn't see.
And the only specific point you made was that you can't win a match without scoring. Which, while technically true, is trite bs because you can't win matches if you can't stop the opposition from scoring either. When your defence is as weak as ours, that makes a top keeper at least as valuable as a top striker. Especially because a big club usually has several of the latter but only one of the former.
It's not trite bs, it's logic. Even if your keeper is world class and on form, the best he could do without goals is 0-0, whereas it's possible to concede and still win 2-1, 3-2, 4-3 etc. As for Schmeichel's 95/96 season, those are a lot rarer than seasons where a forward does the same thing, like Van Persie in our last title win.
Think about it this way: where would Liverpool have finished last season if you'd replaced Suarez with Lambert, and Mignolet with Neuer?
Marketing. Doesn't matter how important or great a keeper is, he will never bring the club as much money as a world class striker/winger/midfielder.
That's probably also the reason why Casillas/Neuer don't earn as much as some of their outfield team mates.
Anyway as far as I am concerned he is our most important player and I hope we pay whatever it takes to keep him!
That's exactly what I mean by trite bs. It's mathematically true, but has little relation to real football. You need to be able to save goals just as much as you need to be able to score them. If your keeper can keep clean sheet after clean sheet, you don't need a great striker, because you'll only need a goal a game.
There's a reason they say title-winning teams are built on great defences, rather than great strikers. You can try and always outscore the opposition, but an inability to stop the opposition scoring actually makes it harder for your team to score goals. Whereas a stingy defence and GK provides a foundation upon which it is easier to build an effective attacking unit.
Some People may say that Di Maria or Rooney are our best players. But based on the last 12 months DDG has been our best player by a mile, give him anything he wants!!! 2nd best keeper in the world IMO!
Yep you'll still need a goal.
"They" a lot of things, I don't put too much stock into cliches. And all your examples end up in the same thing; the team still needs to score goals. You can win when conceding, but you can't win if you don't score. It's as simple as that.
One goal a game is not going to require a world-class striker.
Unlike your entirely abstract maths, that cliche is backed up by the evidence of actual football. The Premier League has never been won by a team with a bad defence. In fact almost every year it has been won by a team with a very good defence.
If you actually want to boil the game down to a formula, it's this: your defence has to be more successful against their attack than their defence is against your attack. The two sides of the game are in balance.
The difference, though, is that a good defence and GK actually helps your strike-force to be better - giving them a solid platform, better service, the confidence to attack freely - whereas no matter how good your striker is at scoring goals, it won't do anything to improve a weak defence.
Last edited:
By that logic you could say conceding 2 goals or less per game wouldn't require a world class goalkeeper. You're going in circles.
Yes, because I'm saying that the two are of equal importance. The fact that there's always an equal argument for the striker as there is for the keeper is precisely my point.
You're the one trying to argue that the top striker is more important than the top keeper, so you're the one who needs to provide a standout argument for strikers over keepers.
I did. Strikers score goals, and you need goals to win. It's shockingly simple and you can't seem to grasp it.
Also we're derailing a thread about De Gea's contract situation so if you care about this enough to keep being wrong feel free to start a thread about it.
outfield players have far bigger impact on the performance of a team than a goalkeeper. One of the reasons why people raving about Neuer in the way they do is, because he is at least in parts playing like a real out-field player, while still being fatastic as goalkeeper. I know that this is said about a lot of GKs, but usually its complete bullshit and with Neuer its not.
So yeah, a top striker/midfielder is usually more important and influencial than a goalkeeper.
So yeah, a top striker/midfielder is usually more important and influencial than a goalkeeper.
Phil Neville : "Joe Hart is better than De Gea"
I grasp it, obviously. You can't win a game 0-0, which is the best a keeper can do. Very clever. What you don't seem to be able to grasp is how little that has to do with actual football. A top keeper still plays behind 10 outfield players. If your keeper can keep clean sheet after clean sheet, the team ahead of him will, more often than not, be able to find that one goal from somewhere, and you will win a lot of matches.
By contrast, very few football teams have ever achieved success over the course of a whole season with a defence that can't keep the opposition out. Realistically, you can only sustain that 'you score three we'll score four' approach for a short length of time.
Liverpool last season is the last time a team made a bid for the title with that approach for a very long time, and even they could only get second place.
Compare that to Mourinho's first spell with Chelsea. That side was built around being defensively impenetrable first and foremost, and they dominated the league.
You've also yet to address the point that big clubs generally have two or three top strikers but only one top GK. That weighs in his favour, financially. If a striker loses form, there's another to replace him. If De Gea went to shit, we'd be in much worse trouble than if Rooney or Van Persie did, because the best we'd have to fall back on would be Lindegaard.
I'm a fan of Hart to be honest.
But no one can seriously....NO ONE.....can say Hart is better than De Gea
That Phil Neville says that is very bizarre
well, but a GK is only one part of a good defence. Good defence isnt a one man show, while attack can be a one man show. There are a couple of attacking player who can create chances or goals all by themselves, while a defence of 4 idiots and one worldbeater will still be leaking goals all the time. For defense its more about the weakest link while for the offense it can be the other way around. Thus if you could chose one worldclass player you´d probably go for a offensive player.
He is considered as the best keeper in the EPL by polish commentators.
Same applies to Russian commentators. They consider him to be the best keeper in the EPL. Long it may continue. If we don't renew his contract by February, I will start to be worried.
Just saw that. You have to just laugh.
What? Did he actually say that?
He worked at the club last season where De Gea was immense
He's in the England set up now, right?
He worked at the club last season where De Gea was immense
He's in the England set up now, right?
Yes I think so.What? Did he actually say that?
He worked at the club last season where De Gea was immense
He's in the England set up now, right?
Give the guy what he wants. He's often our only defense
Yeah, we can't replace him. There's 2 other keepers on his level and both are unattainable.
Deserves as much money as any one else in the team.
Deserves as much money as any one else in the team.
Neville
Sometimes bith of them should be named "The clueless brothers"
Sometimes bith of them should be named "The clueless brothers"
I'm glad Neville is no longer a coach at the club.
Please tell me he didn't say that. That's a sackable offence.
It's a pretty poor comment from Neville, and something I would not expect an ex-United coach, who actually was there when de Gea played, to say. I don't even know on what basis he is better either. The only thing that Hart wins over de Gea is he is more authoritative, but other than that I'd say Dave trumps him in most other aspects.
Phil. Clown.
Clown.Phil Neviile, football genius.
Did P. Nev give any reasons for his idiotic opinion?
- Status