comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 1 minute ago
Perisic isn't a stand out whenever I have seen him, not sure why United would want him.
Plays off the left if I am correct and would push the more exciting Martial down the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just about being exciting
It's about offering balance and Perisic is a proper touch line hogger rather than someone always coming inside
By opening up the pitch by being so far left (like Corbyn) it allows more space for Pogba and co to operate in
Thinking about it Inter have a decent front 3 at the minute Perisic, Icardi and Candreva, I'd take all 3 of them to be honest.
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 4 minutes ago
And I haven't blamed our form on our striker at all - I have blamed it on our manager and how to chose to utilise our striker. Please learn to read properly in future
_________________
Actually you blamed the striker and didn't even mention the manager in the post I responded to.
----------------
Not true. You only copied and pasted half of the post and missed out that bit where I mentioned that Jose was tempted to play direct to Ibra. As I said, learn to read properly. I placed the blame on how we played firmly at Jose's feet.
____________________
Irrelevant. This sentence is clear:-
"The main problem in that is that Ibra started most games. Whilst he is technically superb, he did slow a lot of our attacks down (as did Pogba)."
You are clearly criticising the player here and I don't get why you are even denying it.
How would jose going "direct" lead to Ibra "slowing our play down" anyway?
The striker can only slow down the play if you are building attacks with passing - not going direct.
Make your mind up!
---------------------
I am not criticising the player - I am criticising the way he was utilised for the most part of the season. We did play some nice football with Ibra in the team, despite the fact he often slowed the attacks down, but when we started struggling for results, Jose decided to go direct to Ibra. As I said at the start, the main problem was Ibra's presence in the team. If he wasn't in the team then we would have played a faster attacking game when Jose was trying to play expansive football and then he wouldn't have had the option of going more direct when we were struggling for results. Its really not that hard to understand.
I am just glad the bit about “already agreed terms” is just speculation.
Because as from what I can tell the club have not agreed a fee, if it were Chelsea and it was not speculation, then surely we’d be in breach of some rules?
On the other hand I can hope the rumour is true, he has agreed terms with a club and it’s not Chelsea. That would be ok by me.
Its really not that hard to understand.
_______________
It's also not what you said.
At varying stages of htis season you have blamed Ibra for our problems. First, we created loads of chances and it was Ibra's fault that we weren't taking them.
Now, it is Ibra's mere presence in the team that led to the team playing poorly because we were somehow both more direct AND slower because of Ibra (which makes no sense at all).
Once you even said that Ibra missed "at least" ten shots/chances against Burnley alone...So which is it? Shots or chances? Or are they the same thing?
There has been a clear trend in your criticism of Ibra all season, which you are now trying to make out is actually a criticism of Jose...somehow.
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 9 minutes ago
Its really not that hard to understand.
_______________
It's also not what you said.
At varying stages of htis season you have blamed Ibra for our problems. First, we created loads of chances and it was Ibra's fault that we weren't taking them.
Now, it is Ibra's mere presence in the team that led to the team playing poorly because we were somehow both more direct AND slower because of Ibra (which makes no sense at all).
Once you even said that Ibra missed "at least" ten shots/chances against Burnley alone...So which is it? Shots or chances? Or are they the same thing?
There has been a clear trend in your criticism of Ibra all season, which you are now trying to make out is actually a criticism of Jose...somehow.
----------------------------
I can't criticise Ibra's performances. Overall, he has been superb. Especially considering his age. He did have a spell where he was off form and couldn't hit a cow's @rse with a banjo and I thought he should have been dropped for Rashford. But that was a criticism of Jose rather than Ibra. All players have spells of bad form. I just think that Jose could have switched him out sooner.
As I have already explained, when Jose had us playing expansive football, Ibra often slowed out attacks down. When the results didn't come, Jose went more direct as he had that option with Ibra. Overall, I don't feel that Ibra's presence in the team helps our style of play or brings out the qualities of the other attacking players in our squad. I think that we will see a more fluid style with a more mobile striker leading the line.
Not sure why you have dragged up the Burnley game, but he did miss at least 10 shots. It was actually 12 - here you go - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37737710.
What is this confusion between shots/chances? You have totally lost me there.
In conclusion, I haven't been critical of Ibra all season. I have in fact praised his performance levels very highly on several occasions. To do what he did last season at 35 is incredible. However, I don't think that his presence befits us as a team. It was the same with RVN; he was a great striker, but we didn't win as much with him in the team acting as the main focal point of our attack.
Mourinho or Chelsea?
Both dumped him, wonder who he still likes the best.
However, I don't think that his presence befits us as a team.
.............
Me neither. Great player but at the wrong end of his career for us.
No one really criticised him for having the touch of Rooney last season, despite him often losing the ball after his first touch.
having the touch of Rooney last season
--------------------------
Steady on, VC! That was uncalled for.
What is this confusion between shots/chances? You have totally lost me there.
_________________
You said ages ago that Ibra missed "at least 10 shots/chances" against Burnley - as if shots and chances are the same thing.
Those were your own words...hence the confusion between shots and chances! I don't need to explain the difference...You are not Hafi!
I just raised this point as an example of why I feel you have exaggerated his negative impact throughout the season. I.e. suggesting that Ibra had missed 10 chances in one match is another example of this imo.
I was just backing up my point with evidence - i.e. something you had written previously.
omment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
having the touch of Rooney last season
--------------------------
Steady on, VC! That was uncalled for.
...............
Sadly it was true though.
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 8 minutes ago
What is this confusion between shots/chances? You have totally lost me there.
_________________
You said ages ago that Ibra missed "at least 10 shots/chances" against Burnley - as if shots and chances are the same thing.
Those were your own words...hence the confusion between shots and chances! I don't need to explain the difference...You are not Hafi!
I just raised this point as an example of why I feel you have exaggerated his negative impact throughout the season. I.e. suggesting that Ibra had missed 10 chances in one match is another example of this imo.
I was just backing up my point with evidence - i.e. something you had written previously.
------
Well then I expect I meant that he had at least 10 shots and chances (combined) against Burnley. Not that they are the same thing. Did that rally need explaining? As the link I provided shows, he actually had 12 shots that game (not including chances). So there wasn't any exaggeration was there? If any thing I was being kind to Ibra.
Anything else you are confused about?
Well then I expect I meant that he had at least 10 shots and chances (combined) against Burnley. Not that they are the same thing. Did that rally need explaining?
________________
I don't believe that's what you meant in the context of the thread at the time. I think you are retrospectively trying to rationalise that comment. You even admit that you don't recall what you meant yourself...
"Anything else you are confused about?"
_______________
Not confused about anything. Apparently I recall what you said better than you do...it's just a slow day for football and any diversion from editing contracts is a welcome one. Thanks for asking though.
So what do you think that I meant? That he missed 10 shots and 10 chances? A combined total of 20?
Can't you two just get on?
No, in the context of the thread you seemed to be saying that Ibra had missed at least 10 opportunities to score against Burnley. I think you started by saying he could have had 10 more goals to his name...someone (don't recall who) said that was an exaggeration and you replied that he missed "10 chances/shots" in that game alone.
I.e. you seemed to be lumping chances and shots together as being the same in a Hafi-esque manner.
Anything else you are confused about?
Ok, so you agree that I said he had 10 chances/shots against Burnley. He actually had 12 shots. What are you banging on about? Where is the exaggeration?
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Can't you two just get on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VC: always the peacemaker, always the voice of reason.
Redmisy, just done a quick google and I think that this is the previous post that you are referring to:
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted on 17/2/17
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
think it was against burnley you guys peppered their goal for the entire 90 and it finished 0-0?
Ibra was pretty poor in that one. One for the big occasion
-------------
Yep, he had at least 10 shots/chances that game.
Phenom said that Ibra had a poor game against Burnley. I agreed and said that Ibra had at least 10 shots/chances that game. The stats show that he had 12 shots against Burnley. Where exactly is the exaggeration?
As usual, you have failed to properly read/comprehend what has been posted.
Oh, here is the thread that I originally made my comment on should you wish to go back and read it properly this time.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/comments/viewAllComments/363225/1
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Can't you two just get on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VC: always the peacemaker, always the voice of reason.
.....................
It is the watered down version of Myself and Robb.
We need some insults.
I think we'll get Morata and Chelsea will sign Lukaku.
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we'll get Morata and Chelsea will sign Lukaku.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please god no
I want to like Morata and his YouTube clips aren't that bad. But he seems like a Sutton when we really need a Shearer
I'm still unsure on Morata. He's got a good all round game but I don't know if he's capable of being our main man in a league season. He's got a decent strike rate, to be fair, based on minutes played. But then it needs to be considered that he's playing in far better teams than us.
Until he's really given the chance to be the main man at a top club I guess we'll never know.
Lukaku would represent less of a gamble given he's proven himself capable of consistently scoring goals.
We should go all out for Kane.
100-125m. Can't see a player better suited to us.
Sign in if you want to comment
Lukaku
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 6/6/17
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 1 minute ago
Perisic isn't a stand out whenever I have seen him, not sure why United would want him.
Plays off the left if I am correct and would push the more exciting Martial down the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not just about being exciting
It's about offering balance and Perisic is a proper touch line hogger rather than someone always coming inside
By opening up the pitch by being so far left (like Corbyn) it allows more space for Pogba and co to operate in
posted on 6/6/17
Thinking about it Inter have a decent front 3 at the minute Perisic, Icardi and Candreva, I'd take all 3 of them to be honest.
posted on 6/6/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 4 minutes ago
And I haven't blamed our form on our striker at all - I have blamed it on our manager and how to chose to utilise our striker. Please learn to read properly in future
_________________
Actually you blamed the striker and didn't even mention the manager in the post I responded to.
----------------
Not true. You only copied and pasted half of the post and missed out that bit where I mentioned that Jose was tempted to play direct to Ibra. As I said, learn to read properly. I placed the blame on how we played firmly at Jose's feet.
____________________
Irrelevant. This sentence is clear:-
"The main problem in that is that Ibra started most games. Whilst he is technically superb, he did slow a lot of our attacks down (as did Pogba)."
You are clearly criticising the player here and I don't get why you are even denying it.
How would jose going "direct" lead to Ibra "slowing our play down" anyway?
The striker can only slow down the play if you are building attacks with passing - not going direct.
Make your mind up!
---------------------
I am not criticising the player - I am criticising the way he was utilised for the most part of the season. We did play some nice football with Ibra in the team, despite the fact he often slowed the attacks down, but when we started struggling for results, Jose decided to go direct to Ibra. As I said at the start, the main problem was Ibra's presence in the team. If he wasn't in the team then we would have played a faster attacking game when Jose was trying to play expansive football and then he wouldn't have had the option of going more direct when we were struggling for results. Its really not that hard to understand.
posted on 6/6/17
I am just glad the bit about “already agreed terms” is just speculation.
Because as from what I can tell the club have not agreed a fee, if it were Chelsea and it was not speculation, then surely we’d be in breach of some rules?
On the other hand I can hope the rumour is true, he has agreed terms with a club and it’s not Chelsea. That would be ok by me.
posted on 6/6/17
Its really not that hard to understand.
_______________
It's also not what you said.
At varying stages of htis season you have blamed Ibra for our problems. First, we created loads of chances and it was Ibra's fault that we weren't taking them.
Now, it is Ibra's mere presence in the team that led to the team playing poorly because we were somehow both more direct AND slower because of Ibra (which makes no sense at all).
Once you even said that Ibra missed "at least" ten shots/chances against Burnley alone...So which is it? Shots or chances? Or are they the same thing?
There has been a clear trend in your criticism of Ibra all season, which you are now trying to make out is actually a criticism of Jose...somehow.
posted on 6/6/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 9 minutes ago
Its really not that hard to understand.
_______________
It's also not what you said.
At varying stages of htis season you have blamed Ibra for our problems. First, we created loads of chances and it was Ibra's fault that we weren't taking them.
Now, it is Ibra's mere presence in the team that led to the team playing poorly because we were somehow both more direct AND slower because of Ibra (which makes no sense at all).
Once you even said that Ibra missed "at least" ten shots/chances against Burnley alone...So which is it? Shots or chances? Or are they the same thing?
There has been a clear trend in your criticism of Ibra all season, which you are now trying to make out is actually a criticism of Jose...somehow.
----------------------------
I can't criticise Ibra's performances. Overall, he has been superb. Especially considering his age. He did have a spell where he was off form and couldn't hit a cow's @rse with a banjo and I thought he should have been dropped for Rashford. But that was a criticism of Jose rather than Ibra. All players have spells of bad form. I just think that Jose could have switched him out sooner.
As I have already explained, when Jose had us playing expansive football, Ibra often slowed out attacks down. When the results didn't come, Jose went more direct as he had that option with Ibra. Overall, I don't feel that Ibra's presence in the team helps our style of play or brings out the qualities of the other attacking players in our squad. I think that we will see a more fluid style with a more mobile striker leading the line.
Not sure why you have dragged up the Burnley game, but he did miss at least 10 shots. It was actually 12 - here you go - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/37737710.
What is this confusion between shots/chances? You have totally lost me there.
In conclusion, I haven't been critical of Ibra all season. I have in fact praised his performance levels very highly on several occasions. To do what he did last season at 35 is incredible. However, I don't think that his presence befits us as a team. It was the same with RVN; he was a great striker, but we didn't win as much with him in the team acting as the main focal point of our attack.
posted on 6/6/17
Mourinho or Chelsea?
Both dumped him, wonder who he still likes the best.
posted on 6/6/17
However, I don't think that his presence befits us as a team.
.............
Me neither. Great player but at the wrong end of his career for us.
No one really criticised him for having the touch of Rooney last season, despite him often losing the ball after his first touch.
posted on 6/6/17
having the touch of Rooney last season
--------------------------
Steady on, VC! That was uncalled for.
posted on 6/6/17
What is this confusion between shots/chances? You have totally lost me there.
_________________
You said ages ago that Ibra missed "at least 10 shots/chances" against Burnley - as if shots and chances are the same thing.
Those were your own words...hence the confusion between shots and chances! I don't need to explain the difference...You are not Hafi!
I just raised this point as an example of why I feel you have exaggerated his negative impact throughout the season. I.e. suggesting that Ibra had missed 10 chances in one match is another example of this imo.
I was just backing up my point with evidence - i.e. something you had written previously.
posted on 6/6/17
omment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 5 minutes ago
having the touch of Rooney last season
--------------------------
Steady on, VC! That was uncalled for.
...............
Sadly it was true though.
posted on 6/6/17
comment by redmisty (U7556)
posted 8 minutes ago
What is this confusion between shots/chances? You have totally lost me there.
_________________
You said ages ago that Ibra missed "at least 10 shots/chances" against Burnley - as if shots and chances are the same thing.
Those were your own words...hence the confusion between shots and chances! I don't need to explain the difference...You are not Hafi!
I just raised this point as an example of why I feel you have exaggerated his negative impact throughout the season. I.e. suggesting that Ibra had missed 10 chances in one match is another example of this imo.
I was just backing up my point with evidence - i.e. something you had written previously.
------
Well then I expect I meant that he had at least 10 shots and chances (combined) against Burnley. Not that they are the same thing. Did that rally need explaining? As the link I provided shows, he actually had 12 shots that game (not including chances). So there wasn't any exaggeration was there? If any thing I was being kind to Ibra.
Anything else you are confused about?
posted on 6/6/17
Well then I expect I meant that he had at least 10 shots and chances (combined) against Burnley. Not that they are the same thing. Did that rally need explaining?
________________
I don't believe that's what you meant in the context of the thread at the time. I think you are retrospectively trying to rationalise that comment. You even admit that you don't recall what you meant yourself...
"Anything else you are confused about?"
_______________
Not confused about anything. Apparently I recall what you said better than you do...it's just a slow day for football and any diversion from editing contracts is a welcome one. Thanks for asking though.
posted on 6/6/17
So what do you think that I meant? That he missed 10 shots and 10 chances? A combined total of 20?
posted on 6/6/17
Can't you two just get on?
posted on 6/6/17
No, in the context of the thread you seemed to be saying that Ibra had missed at least 10 opportunities to score against Burnley. I think you started by saying he could have had 10 more goals to his name...someone (don't recall who) said that was an exaggeration and you replied that he missed "10 chances/shots" in that game alone.
I.e. you seemed to be lumping chances and shots together as being the same in a Hafi-esque manner.
Anything else you are confused about?
posted on 6/6/17
Ok, so you agree that I said he had 10 chances/shots against Burnley. He actually had 12 shots. What are you banging on about? Where is the exaggeration?
posted on 6/6/17
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Can't you two just get on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VC: always the peacemaker, always the voice of reason.
posted on 6/6/17
Redmisy, just done a quick google and I think that this is the previous post that you are referring to:
comment by Elvis (U7425)
posted on 17/2/17
comment by Phenom (U20037)
posted 1 minute ago
think it was against burnley you guys peppered their goal for the entire 90 and it finished 0-0?
Ibra was pretty poor in that one. One for the big occasion
-------------
Yep, he had at least 10 shots/chances that game.
Phenom said that Ibra had a poor game against Burnley. I agreed and said that Ibra had at least 10 shots/chances that game. The stats show that he had 12 shots against Burnley. Where exactly is the exaggeration?
As usual, you have failed to properly read/comprehend what has been posted.
posted on 6/6/17
Oh, here is the thread that I originally made my comment on should you wish to go back and read it properly this time.
http://www.ja606.co.uk/comments/viewAllComments/363225/1
posted on 6/6/17
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 23 minutes ago
comment by Vidicschin (U3584)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
Can't you two just get on?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VC: always the peacemaker, always the voice of reason.
.....................
It is the watered down version of Myself and Robb.
We need some insults.
posted on 6/6/17
I think we'll get Morata and Chelsea will sign Lukaku.
posted on 6/6/17
comment by Zlatan The King Ibrahimovic (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think we'll get Morata and Chelsea will sign Lukaku.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Please god no
I want to like Morata and his YouTube clips aren't that bad. But he seems like a Sutton when we really need a Shearer
posted on 6/6/17
I'm still unsure on Morata. He's got a good all round game but I don't know if he's capable of being our main man in a league season. He's got a decent strike rate, to be fair, based on minutes played. But then it needs to be considered that he's playing in far better teams than us.
Until he's really given the chance to be the main man at a top club I guess we'll never know.
Lukaku would represent less of a gamble given he's proven himself capable of consistently scoring goals.
posted on 6/6/17
We should go all out for Kane.
100-125m. Can't see a player better suited to us.
Page 6 of 7
6 | 7