comment by Clay (U21628)
posted 19 seconds ago
So peks are you suggesting that you can only be world class for a while?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
all players have a peak period during their career's , when they're at their best..obviously
Obviously
--------------
Mbappe is world class right now. He's 18.
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by peks-Grandmaster B (U6618)
posted 1 second ago
england haven't had a player of isco's class since that drunken lunatic gazza
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isco's game compliments Spain's style and international football. Gerrard and Lamparf were easily in Isco's class. Their game was tailored to the way prem football is player though. You put isco in Liverpool or Chelseas team from 2004-2010 and he wouldn't have made the same impact as those two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said.
"Beckham was world-class" doesn't make any sense.
It does.
Case in point: She is/was beautiful.
It is not any less accurate than she is/was a beautiful person.
I am all for grammatical rigour but let's not be so antediluvian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is less accurate, because the statement, "She is beautiful," is relatively unambiguous. Thanks to its use in common parlance, the vast majority of people would directly interpret that statement as, "She is an aesthetically beautiful person."
"Beckham was world-class," is more ambiguous. World-class at what?
A world-class crosser of the ball? Undoubtedly.
A world-class right winger? Many would say so, myself included.
A world-class player? Debatable, because that class would be open to include the consideration of players in many more positions.
What does "Beckham was world class" mean?
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 12 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
coggy
showing us his english language skillz
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, it seems it is 'kick-in-the-mud' time.
In that case, i am out. Let's leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand, DB was certainly world-class for a time. To state otherwise is just silly.
I think only Southgate can tell us what he really means by that lazy phrase but i don't agree.
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, it seems it is 'kick-in-the-mud' time.
In that case, i am out. Let's leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand, DB was certainly world-class for a time. To state otherwise is just silly.
I think only Southgate can tell us what he really means by that lazy phrase but i don't agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Southgate wasn't quite so lazy if he stated England have "no world-class players."
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, it seems it is 'kick-in-the-mud' time.
In that case, i am out. Let's leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand, DB was certainly world-class for a time. To state otherwise is just silly.
I think only Southgate can tell us what he really means by that lazy phrase but i don't agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Southgate wasn't quite so lazy if he stated England have "no world-class players."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with Southgate?
comment by Clay (U21628)
posted 8 minutes ago
So peks are you suggesting that you can only be world class for a while?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No player has ever been world class for his entire career.
Our so called best player since 1990 (Gazza) was past his best after only about 6-7 years at or near the top.
Problem with England ain't the player's, its the structure above them starting with the manager. These player's are better than what they show at tournament's and with decent coaching they would show it. The Golden generation was a massive waste, again a decent manager and i seriously believe Euro 04 or WC06 could have been won, if not both.
Southgate's quote is just another example of why we are so bad, even if they aren't world class you don't say that publicly while managing them, Jose once told Lamps he was the world's best even tho it was totally false.
Red Cog
As it happens, I don't agree with the (still ambiguous) statement that England has "no world-class players".
It's all too subjective for my liking, but just for fun, I'd put Kane firmly in the elite 'world group' of strikers, and probably consider him a world-class player right now.
I don't think he'd look out of place playing for any top side in world football.
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 22 minutes ago
Red Cog
As it happens, I don't agree with the (still ambiguous) statement that England has "no world-class players".
It's all too subjective for my liking, but just for fun, I'd put Kane firmly in the elite 'world group' of strikers, and probably consider him a world-class player right now.
I don't think he'd look out of place playing for any top side in world football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just came on to say Kane is world class. He scored 29 Premier League goals last season in what is one of the most demanding leagues in the world. That's with him being injured for nearly two months of the season.
I think Alli is not yet world class but will become world class if he reaches his potential. The same goes for Rashford.
Amusing how England do not have any world class players, but teams like France are filled up with them. yeh right. France v Luxembourg 0-0.
I think that measuring strikers is very subjective and difficult.
For instance, most leagues on the continent are fought between 2-3 teams at best, whereas the PL can be fought by 6 or more teams. This makes it a far more difficult league to score consistently in.
Looking at current transfer fees, which would indicate a players standing in football, rightly or wrongly, then Kane would expect to me sold for in excess of a minimum £150m which clearly puts him in the upper echelon of players on the World stage.
As for who is better, Kane is only just reaching his prime years and can expect to be a top marksman for another 5-6 years at least.
When has the PL ever been thought between 6 or more teams?
Most years we usually barely have a title race, let alone one involving multiple teams.
The last 3 seasons have been virtual processions, no matter how much Spurs like to celebrate 'putting the pressure on'.
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
I think that measuring strikers is very subjective and difficult.
For instance, most leagues on the continent are fought between 2-3 teams at best, whereas the PL can be fought by 6 or more teams. This makes it a far more difficult league to score consistently in.
Looking at current transfer fees, which would indicate a players standing in football, rightly or wrongly, then Kane would expect to me sold for in excess of a minimum £150m which clearly puts him in the upper echelon of players on the World stage.
As for who is better, Kane is only just reaching his prime years and can expect to be a top marksman for another 5-6 years at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
Blackburn, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Leicester.
Well United, Chelsea, City & Arsenal have been in the mix over the past 5 or so seasons, as have Liverpool and Spurs, throw in Everton and you have at least 7 teams competing at the top of the league season in, season out. Where else do you get that?
My comment re 6 teams is that generally the top 6 or so over the past 5-6 years has nearly always featured the same teams, except for Leicester.
In the PL most teams are capable of winning even against "superior" opposition, this is a rarity in the Bundesliga, La Liga, Seria A etc. In those leagues 2-3 teams have dominated consistently over the years.
Barca, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern etc.
As for processions, where were Chelsea two years ago? Leicester will never see those heights again in the next 20 years. United have been off the pace for a few years, Arsenal have been dicing with the Europa positions for several years, finally achieving their goal this season.
Liverpool, like Spurs have been building and cementing their place at the top table.
City have the capability to blow everyone away, but never quite manage it consistently.
I'd consider Kane world class (or at least on the cusp of it). Alli and Rashford could be within the next few years.
I think the world class players England have had since 2000 have been Campbell, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Scholes, Lampard, Beckham, Gerrard, Owen, Rooney and now Kane.
I agree with what another poster said that Rose and Walker are world class, amongst the best in their positions in Europe over the last year or two.
ENGLAND HAVE NO WORLD CLASS PLAYERS
...... or manager.
Just do your job Garerh.
comment by Comrade Corbyn (U21629)
posted 49 minutes ago
ENGLAND HAVE NO WORLD CLASS PLAYERS
...... or manager.
Just do your job Garerh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep....get us qualified
Then we'll worry about the inevitable early group crash and burn - followed by an early Sports Direct sale of England stuff
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 23 hours, 13 minutes ago
Well United, Chelsea, City & Arsenal have been in the mix over the past 5 or so seasons, as have Liverpool and Spurs, throw in Everton and you have at least 7 teams competing at the top of the league season in, season out. Where else do you get that?
My comment re 6 teams is that generally the top 6 or so over the past 5-6 years has nearly always featured the same teams, except for Leicester.
In the PL most teams are capable of winning even against "superior" opposition, this is a rarity in the Bundesliga, La Liga, Seria A etc. In those leagues 2-3 teams have dominated consistently over the years.
Barca, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern etc.
As for processions, where were Chelsea two years ago? Leicester will never see those heights again in the next 20 years. United have been off the pace for a few years, Arsenal have been dicing with the Europa positions for several years, finally achieving their goal this season.
Liverpool, like Spurs have been building and cementing their place at the top table.
City have the capability to blow everyone away, but never quite manage it consistently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless a team is within 4-5 points of the eventual champions then they are not competing. They are just making up the numbers and CL/EL scraps.
Don't Man City have one of the worst records in the big games lol.
Sign in if you want to comment
ENGLAND HAVE NO WORLD CLASS PLAYERS
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 3/9/17
comment by Clay (U21628)
posted 19 seconds ago
So peks are you suggesting that you can only be world class for a while?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
all players have a peak period during their career's , when they're at their best..obviously
posted on 3/9/17
Obviously
--------------
Mbappe is world class right now. He's 18.
posted on 3/9/17
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Greatteamswinit4times- a terrible enemy (U6008)
posted 36 minutes ago
comment by peks-Grandmaster B (U6618)
posted 1 second ago
england haven't had a player of isco's class since that drunken lunatic gazza
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Isco's game compliments Spain's style and international football. Gerrard and Lamparf were easily in Isco's class. Their game was tailored to the way prem football is player though. You put isco in Liverpool or Chelseas team from 2004-2010 and he wouldn't have made the same impact as those two.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said.
"Beckham was world-class" doesn't make any sense.
It does.
Case in point: She is/was beautiful.
It is not any less accurate than she is/was a beautiful person.
I am all for grammatical rigour but let's not be so antediluvian.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is less accurate, because the statement, "She is beautiful," is relatively unambiguous. Thanks to its use in common parlance, the vast majority of people would directly interpret that statement as, "She is an aesthetically beautiful person."
"Beckham was world-class," is more ambiguous. World-class at what?
A world-class crosser of the ball? Undoubtedly.
A world-class right winger? Many would say so, myself included.
A world-class player? Debatable, because that class would be open to include the consideration of players in many more positions.
What does "Beckham was world class" mean?
posted on 3/9/17
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
posted on 3/9/17
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 12 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
coggy
showing us his english language skillz
posted on 3/9/17
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
posted on 3/9/17
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, it seems it is 'kick-in-the-mud' time.
In that case, i am out. Let's leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand, DB was certainly world-class for a time. To state otherwise is just silly.
I think only Southgate can tell us what he really means by that lazy phrase but i don't agree.
posted on 3/9/17
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, it seems it is 'kick-in-the-mud' time.
In that case, i am out. Let's leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand, DB was certainly world-class for a time. To state otherwise is just silly.
I think only Southgate can tell us what he really means by that lazy phrase but i don't agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Southgate wasn't quite so lazy if he stated England have "no world-class players."
posted on 3/9/17
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by The_Red_Cognoscente (U9741)
posted 5 seconds ago
It really isn't.
This is not the forum for this but look up 'nominal adjectives'. Then get back to me.
That is simply what the use of 'world-class' in that instance means.
It is GCSE english stuff really.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grow up and tell me what "Beckham was world-class" means.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, it seems it is 'kick-in-the-mud' time.
In that case, i am out. Let's leave it at that.
Back to the topic at hand, DB was certainly world-class for a time. To state otherwise is just silly.
I think only Southgate can tell us what he really means by that lazy phrase but i don't agree.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Southgate wasn't quite so lazy if he stated England have "no world-class players."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with Southgate?
posted on 3/9/17
comment by Clay (U21628)
posted 8 minutes ago
So peks are you suggesting that you can only be world class for a while?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No player has ever been world class for his entire career.
Our so called best player since 1990 (Gazza) was past his best after only about 6-7 years at or near the top.
posted on 3/9/17
Problem with England ain't the player's, its the structure above them starting with the manager. These player's are better than what they show at tournament's and with decent coaching they would show it. The Golden generation was a massive waste, again a decent manager and i seriously believe Euro 04 or WC06 could have been won, if not both.
Southgate's quote is just another example of why we are so bad, even if they aren't world class you don't say that publicly while managing them, Jose once told Lamps he was the world's best even tho it was totally false.
posted on 3/9/17
Red Cog
As it happens, I don't agree with the (still ambiguous) statement that England has "no world-class players".
It's all too subjective for my liking, but just for fun, I'd put Kane firmly in the elite 'world group' of strikers, and probably consider him a world-class player right now.
I don't think he'd look out of place playing for any top side in world football.
posted on 3/9/17
comment by rossobianchi (U17054)
posted 22 minutes ago
Red Cog
As it happens, I don't agree with the (still ambiguous) statement that England has "no world-class players".
It's all too subjective for my liking, but just for fun, I'd put Kane firmly in the elite 'world group' of strikers, and probably consider him a world-class player right now.
I don't think he'd look out of place playing for any top side in world football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I just came on to say Kane is world class. He scored 29 Premier League goals last season in what is one of the most demanding leagues in the world. That's with him being injured for nearly two months of the season.
I think Alli is not yet world class but will become world class if he reaches his potential. The same goes for Rashford.
posted on 3/9/17
Amusing how England do not have any world class players, but teams like France are filled up with them. yeh right. France v Luxembourg 0-0.
posted on 3/9/17
I think that measuring strikers is very subjective and difficult.
For instance, most leagues on the continent are fought between 2-3 teams at best, whereas the PL can be fought by 6 or more teams. This makes it a far more difficult league to score consistently in.
Looking at current transfer fees, which would indicate a players standing in football, rightly or wrongly, then Kane would expect to me sold for in excess of a minimum £150m which clearly puts him in the upper echelon of players on the World stage.
As for who is better, Kane is only just reaching his prime years and can expect to be a top marksman for another 5-6 years at least.
posted on 4/9/17
When has the PL ever been thought between 6 or more teams?
Most years we usually barely have a title race, let alone one involving multiple teams.
The last 3 seasons have been virtual processions, no matter how much Spurs like to celebrate 'putting the pressure on'.
posted on 4/9/17
*fought
posted on 4/9/17
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
I think that measuring strikers is very subjective and difficult.
For instance, most leagues on the continent are fought between 2-3 teams at best, whereas the PL can be fought by 6 or more teams. This makes it a far more difficult league to score consistently in.
Looking at current transfer fees, which would indicate a players standing in football, rightly or wrongly, then Kane would expect to me sold for in excess of a minimum £150m which clearly puts him in the upper echelon of players on the World stage.
As for who is better, Kane is only just reaching his prime years and can expect to be a top marksman for another 5-6 years at least.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Really?
Blackburn, United, Arsenal, Chelsea, City, Leicester.
posted on 4/9/17
Well United, Chelsea, City & Arsenal have been in the mix over the past 5 or so seasons, as have Liverpool and Spurs, throw in Everton and you have at least 7 teams competing at the top of the league season in, season out. Where else do you get that?
My comment re 6 teams is that generally the top 6 or so over the past 5-6 years has nearly always featured the same teams, except for Leicester.
In the PL most teams are capable of winning even against "superior" opposition, this is a rarity in the Bundesliga, La Liga, Seria A etc. In those leagues 2-3 teams have dominated consistently over the years.
Barca, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern etc.
As for processions, where were Chelsea two years ago? Leicester will never see those heights again in the next 20 years. United have been off the pace for a few years, Arsenal have been dicing with the Europa positions for several years, finally achieving their goal this season.
Liverpool, like Spurs have been building and cementing their place at the top table.
City have the capability to blow everyone away, but never quite manage it consistently.
posted on 4/9/17
I'd consider Kane world class (or at least on the cusp of it). Alli and Rashford could be within the next few years.
I think the world class players England have had since 2000 have been Campbell, Cole, Terry, Ferdinand, Scholes, Lampard, Beckham, Gerrard, Owen, Rooney and now Kane.
posted on 4/9/17
I agree with what another poster said that Rose and Walker are world class, amongst the best in their positions in Europe over the last year or two.
posted on 5/9/17
ENGLAND HAVE NO WORLD CLASS PLAYERS
...... or manager.
Just do your job Garerh.
posted on 5/9/17
comment by Comrade Corbyn (U21629)
posted 49 minutes ago
ENGLAND HAVE NO WORLD CLASS PLAYERS
...... or manager.
Just do your job Garerh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep....get us qualified
Then we'll worry about the inevitable early group crash and burn - followed by an early Sports Direct sale of England stuff
posted on 5/9/17
comment by GeniusGreaves Optimist Supreme (U1302)
posted 23 hours, 13 minutes ago
Well United, Chelsea, City & Arsenal have been in the mix over the past 5 or so seasons, as have Liverpool and Spurs, throw in Everton and you have at least 7 teams competing at the top of the league season in, season out. Where else do you get that?
My comment re 6 teams is that generally the top 6 or so over the past 5-6 years has nearly always featured the same teams, except for Leicester.
In the PL most teams are capable of winning even against "superior" opposition, this is a rarity in the Bundesliga, La Liga, Seria A etc. In those leagues 2-3 teams have dominated consistently over the years.
Barca, Real Madrid, Juventus, Bayern etc.
As for processions, where were Chelsea two years ago? Leicester will never see those heights again in the next 20 years. United have been off the pace for a few years, Arsenal have been dicing with the Europa positions for several years, finally achieving their goal this season.
Liverpool, like Spurs have been building and cementing their place at the top table.
City have the capability to blow everyone away, but never quite manage it consistently.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless a team is within 4-5 points of the eventual champions then they are not competing. They are just making up the numbers and CL/EL scraps.
posted on 5/9/17
Don't Man City have one of the worst records in the big games lol.
Page 6 of 6
6