In modern football players tend to change clubs far more than the old days. But the ones who reach the top level and consequently signed by top clubs (according to stats it’s a rare case they to come up through the ranks of a top club) make in general fewer steps in their career (just a couple of) i.e. from their youth club to a mediocre one, in some top level league and then to a top club competing for titles. Indeed Daniel Agger falls into the latter category.
In the previous section I used the term ‘top club’. It’s sunlight clear to all football fans this term is under great dispute and can raise the most passionate feelings and arguments, in the sense: how you could brand a club as a top one? I also used the ‘competing for titles’ condition but it’s a bit ambiguous, for only winning titles it’s a certain and commonly accepted measure. Besides, conditions in hand which could grace a club with the top status are suggested to be club history (again in the sense of accumulated titles) and of course the brute force of financing ability.
I’d like to introduce a different equivalent condition: to be a so called ‘terminal station’ in the career of top players you purchased at least until the time of their inevitable physical decline will have come. Actually in real world there exists the ‘it takes two’ factor, so you have to take into account a player’s will, i.e. it happens all the time money and/or other motivations to lure a player wanting out (Torres example) . It’s a matter of pride to accept that and in this occasion to make the most of it. However if such is the case it’s crucial to publicly announce that the player’s desire to move on fuelled your decision to sell. Think that the aforementioned condition fits well to all regarded as top clubs.
Finally in simple words you don’t even think to sell anyone who you judge by footy reasoning, can do a good job for you and he doesn’t want out. Sadly Daniel Agger falls into again (given that BR never pointed out that Agger let him down in any way regarding his future with us).
Having said that, I want to make it clear, this is the first time some of BR words sounded annoying to me and I’m fully backing all his handling so far (first judging the potential of the team, a time consuming process, and then strengthening it) and looking forward to the new season under him in a really positive way.
I’d be glad to read your thoughts fellow reds.
Daniel Agger's case revisited
posted on 9/8/12
I honestly think we could find a good replacement. He has been injured for us throughout his career, and we still have had the best defensive records when he missed whole seasons.
Papadopoulos, Musacchio , Kjaer, Godin and Granqvist could all replace him in my opinion.
...and we have Coates, Kelly, Wilson, Wisdom...
posted on 9/8/12
I'd take £23m and Adam Johnson but it's not wise to sell your best players when you've just come 8th and he is certainly one of our best players.
posted on 9/8/12
Let's take a look to the 'improves the club' argument. BR has quoted Agger is top class. Why he'd accept to lose him? The only thing I can think is cash. So have to concede the rumours about the 'first sell, then buy' policy from our owners and the worst, the highly unsettling feeling that everyone's dispensable.
posted on 9/8/12
(U11943)
It means nothing of the sort. Do you honestly think that we've put on the transfer list or something. We have not gone up to city and said "do you want to buy agger."
They came to us. Nothing to do with a sell to buy which is not the case anyway.
posted on 9/8/12
Why he'd accept to lose him?
-----
They'll have set a price on him where they know they can improve the team with that money, in that case it is sell to buy as he'd have to be replaced, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to sell to buy in the general sense.
posted on 9/8/12
Why he'd accept to lose him?
-----
They'll have set a price on him where they know they can improve the team with that money, in that case it is sell to buy as he'd have to be replaced, but it doesn't necessarily mean we have to sell to buy in the general sense.
---
The reason why top clubs don't sell their top rated players unless they want out:
I think is so difficult to assemble a football team (needs time, smartness, work, luck to say a few) that you don't even think to take a succesful piece apart (Agger-Skrtel pair) especially when you have a lot to do in other parts and Agger himself so perfectly fits your footy plan.
posted on 9/8/12
especially when you have a lot to do in other parts and Agger himself so perfectly fits your footy plan.
---------
Well he fits into half the footy plan.
posted on 9/8/12
#DontSellAgger..........is gaining momentum on twitter.
posted on 9/8/12
i cant believe we would actually sell him.... there is no guarantee that what we buy to replace him would be a success!! ...see Torres and Carroll
posted on 9/8/12
I cant believe hes actually gonna consider selling Agger i rather he sell skrtel than agger to be honest. The way things are looking is that were probally gonna finish round about the same place but we shall see i make a proper assessment at the end of the transfer window.