Christ, where to begin?
Feel free to point out where I said Fred is on par with Kante. We were merely discussing the obvious inclusion of players who's key asset is the same as Freds in successful teams, Kante being an obvious choice. Though I understand why you chose not to continue that discussion and went for the strawman instead. Unless of course you're going to argue that Kante is a wonderfully technical player?
Secondly, Henderson is a fantastic player who is obviously superior? Speaking of laughable defences...
Yes. He wanted Sanchez because he had been world class. Not because he was a limited player that just ran about a bit, but because he had the ability to change games. Are you now denying that Sanchez was an excellent player? Pep wanted him for the abilities he had seen in him. Whether Sanchez was actually still capable of delivering it is irrelevant to the discussion. Again, the conflation is unsurprising. Peps interest in Fred wasn't because he thought he was the next Kroos. It's because he values a players ability to win the ball back quickly and effectively and more the ball on swiftly. If you want to offer up a different reason why he was interested in Fred then feel free. I imagine this will go on the pile of points ignored. No comparisons, no stats, no examples. It wasn't the barometer, it was one point of many that was listed that you are now desperately clinging to because you think it might be somewhere you can hold your ground.
bloody hell. Your attempt at getting in your high horse is... interesting.
you brought up Henderson and Kante, both of which I pointed out are far superior players, and yes, both do have better quality on the ball. Love it when people fire in the strawman
As I pointed out earlier, and you ignored... you do need work rate, but you need far more than just that. If you just value these “key assets“ as you call them, then there is little value of Fred, as you need much much more to be a good midfielder, the likes of which City, Liverpool and Man United title winning teams had/ have. Fred clearly wouldn’t get in any of those teams as a starter.
I’m sure he could have played instead of Cleverly or Djemba x 2. But not instead of the likes of Keane, Scholes, Butt, P.Neville, Johnstone (what an underrated player he was by the way), Hargreaves, Carrick, Ince, Fletcher, Robson and many others who I can’t remember off the top of my head. Yes P.Neville was a more effective midfielder than Fred.
point missed on Sanchez and Pep’s signings. whoosh. No one would deny Sanchez was fantastic at Arsenal for a number of seasons
Sanchez was a disaster, and would likely have been a disaster at City. In retrospect, we can all see this. The rot had set in at Arsenal already.
“Whether Sanchez was actually still capable of delivering it is irrelevant to the discussion.”
I would suggest that’s highly relevant when deciding whether to buy a player and pay him a massive wage.
Come on. Thanks
But you put so much faith in Pep and his transfers/ wanted list that you blindly take that as fact that the said player should be a good transfer. You can’t use the same standard to praise Fred (because he was wanted by City) when we have another clear example of a player (wanted by City) who was a busted flush.
as I said previously, Pep had bought many duds. So did the greatest manager of all time, our very own Fergie. Just because a manager has an interest in a player, doesn’t mean that’s a barometer of how good they are, it’s laughable - still you persist.
Fergie bough the likes of Djemba x 2, Klebson and Liam Miller - doesn’t make them good players. Pep bought the likes of Nolito, Angelino, Danilo, has Mendy been worth €50m? That’s not just at city, he has many other poor signings. That’s not a criticism of Pep, all managers make bad signings - it’s why their ‘interest’ in a player has no substance when evaluating that players subsequent performance. Hopefully that’s clear.