The on topic thread

[NUFC Tiger]

Yep, Saints did very well in the market and i'm sure they'll replace Schneiderlin with a likeminded player at half the price or buy Will Hughes. I find it ridiculous at the lack of talent generally (not just English) coming through the English academies. United produce a hell of a lot of footballers who go on to have good careers in the EPL and the lower divisions (more than other club in England) but haven't produced a genuine star since 92 (although they're very high hopes on James Wilson).

I don't like the fact that the FA dictate to the clubs what they should be doing whilst doing sfa themselves. City brought in a whole bunch of experts (from Barca i think) to help them transform from a middle-lower table epl club to a top 4 club and it clearly worked. Why wouldn't the FA get a dutch, German, French and spanish FA member/strategist/coach to help them transform youth football in England.

It astounds me.

Yeah, I've generally felt that the English FA has seemed out of touch on a whole range of things and this would be another that doesn't surprise me.

Perhaps the thing that is in most need of an overhaul is the FA itself (are they elected to the board by the public/members or self appointed?).

I had a quick look on the wiki page and it's quite startling to think that none of the current board of directors (of about a dozen members) haven't played professional football. While I don't think playing the game professionally necessarily gives a person the qualifications to excel as a Board Member, surely having someone with a playing background on the board would help bring some valuable insights to the governing body?

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Yeah, I've generally felt that the English FA has seemed out of touch on a whole range of things and this would be another that doesn't surprise me.

Perhaps the thing that is in most need of an overhaul is the FA itself (are they elected to the board by the public/members or self appointed?).

I had a quick look on the wiki page and it's quite startling to think that none of the current board of directors (of about a dozen members) haven't played professional football. While I don't think playing the game professionally necessarily gives a person the qualifications to excel as a Board Member, surely having someone with a playing background on the board would help bring some valuable insights to the governing body?

I think the FA has always been a bit of an old boys club or at least they give that impression.

 

[ADL9798]

Under the proposed rules Fabregas would be classed as a foreign player. Bale and Sterling would be classed as local players but no club could claim them as a club trained player.

"A player will have to have been registered with his club from the age of 15 - down from 18 - to qualify as 'home-grown'."

"At least two home-grown players must also be 'club-trained' players - defined as any player, irrespective of nationality, that has been registered for three years at their club from the age of 15."

Sterling & Ibe both signed for us when they were 15 so unless I'm misinterpreting the 2 statements above, I'm pretty sure they would qualify as 'club trained'. Flanagan too obviously. I can't see it being a criteria that will adversely affect too many PL clubs though, most sides would already have academy trained players taking 1-2 of the 25 squad spaces as it is.

 

[chef]

Apparently according to Rob Beasley(pretty good tracked record with Chelsea, Joses plant) we've got a £10m price tag on Cech and PSG, Inter and RM are keen and we won't sell to EPL clubs. Make of it what you will.

 

[Cruyff14]

Gerrard can be far more important to Liverpool than Giggs was to United at the same age because he is simply a better footballer and always was. The only difference is that Giggs was prepared to take on a smaller role, a bench role where he wont start many games and may spend games just sitting on the bench and not coming on at all.

Gerrard isnt prepared to do that. He still wants to play. So he will go to LA and do just that.

Also the year Giggs won that PFA was ridiculous and everybody knows it. Only United fans think he deserved it that year. Gerrard should have won it but they gave it to Giggs more for a lifetime achievement award. It was bullshit.

Except he isn't because he's been utter tripe for the most part for a while now.

Gigs was dominating at CM. Can't say the same about Gerrard.

Try replying without Liverpool glasses on for a change. It's getting boring.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Cruyff goes BANG!

 

[jod23]

Except he isn't because he's been utter tripe for the most part for a while now.

Gigs was dominating at CM. Can't say the same about Gerrard.

Try replying without Liverpool glasses on for a change. It's getting boring.

Giggs was far from dominating. Gerrard hasnt dominated either at 35.

 

[ADL9798]

Gerrard can be far more important to Liverpool than Giggs was to United at the same age because he is simply a better footballer and always was. The only difference is that Giggs was prepared to take on a smaller role, a bench role where he wont start many games and may spend games just sitting on the bench and not coming on at all.

Gerrard isnt prepared to do that. He still wants to play. So he will go to LA and do just that.

Also the year Giggs won that PFA was ridiculous and everybody knows it. Only United fans think he deserved it that year. Gerrard should have won it but they gave it to Giggs more for a lifetime achievement award. It was bullshit.

I'm pretty sure there's already a thread for this..

The way I look at it is that if in some alternate universe Giggs had spent his career at Liverpool and Gerrard had been at United, United probably would have won a couple more trophies, but Liverpool would have won absolutely nothing.

Giggs has been a very good player over the journey, but his extreme longevity has lead to him being overrated relative to his actual ability - much like Dustin Fletcher in the AFL.

Giggs has played in sides which have won more trophies yes, but does that mean he's been a better player or that he individually has had a better career than Gerrard? I don't think so.

Gerrard vs Scholes is debatable, both players have strengths and weaknesses and for every 1 thing that Gerrard can do which Scholes can't, there's something which Scholes can do which Gerrard can't. Ryan Giggs however, isn't in the discussion with those 2 in my opinion.

 

[Stan_Darsh72]

It shows Gerrards weakness he was a blood and guts, thunder and lightning player he could not adapt in old age nor could his ego handle the fact that his body slowed down.

Scholes was scoring against Barca and being a key member of a side that won 3 titles in a row and had 3 very good champions league campaigns as a 34 year old.

 

[Cruyff14]

Giggs was far from dominating. Gerrard hasnt dominated either at 35.

He was doing very well despite being a dinosaur. We can't say the same about Gerrard.

I'm pretty sure there's already a thread for this..

The way I look at it is that if in some alternate universe Giggs had spent his career at Liverpool and Gerrard had been at United, United probably would have won a couple more trophies, but Liverpool would have won absolutely nothing.

Giggs has been a very good player over the journey, but his extreme longevity has lead to him being overrated relative to his actual ability - much like Dustin Fletcher in the AFL.

Giggs has played in sides which have won more trophies yes, but does that mean he's been a better player or that he individually has had a better career than Gerrard? I don't think so.

Gerrard vs Scholes is debatable, both players have strengths and weaknesses and for every 1 thing that Gerrard can do which Scholes can't, there's something which Scholes can do which Gerrard can't. Ryan Giggs however, isn't in the discussion with those 2 in my opinion.

Agree with this for the majority.

Lampard can be thrown into that conversation too, and while he technically was not as good, his peak was longer than both. Think he often gets neglected.

 

[Shoei]

Lampard would have been at Arsenal and John Terry at United at the end of 2003 if it wasn't for that campaigner Abramovich.

 

[Zidane98]

Apparently according to Rob Beasley(pretty good tracked record with Chelsea, Joses plant) we've got a £10m price tag on Cech and PSG, Inter and RM are keen and we won't sell to EPL clubs. Make of it what you will.

They'd be stupid to pay that price tag when every man and his dog knows Cech wants out, doesn't have much time left on his contract and is 33 years old. The time to cash in on him was the January transfer window when a number of clubs were keen. I would be very surprised if you got more than 6-7 million for him.

PSG were kind enough to donate 48 million to you for Luiz' services though so who knows!!!

 

[Shoei]

Cech for 10m isn't too bad depending on his wages.

Realistically he could play until 40.....(don't know what his injury history is like).

Would have him at Arsenal and he'd probably start too.

 

[chef]

They'd be stupid to pay that price tag when every man and his dog knows Cech wants out, doesn't have much time left on his contract and is 33 years old. The time to cash in on him was the January transfer window when a number of clubs were keen. I would be very surprised if you got more than 6-7 million for him.

PSG were kind enough to donate 48 million to you for Luiz' services though so who knows!!!

Would have been a dumb move to sell in January in my opinion.

He was keen to stay for one last title challenge, would have still gotten the same amount for him, would have weaken our squad and we would have had to buy another keeper at an inflated(January prices) amount.

 

[Cruyff14]

Would do it, 10m is cheap.

 

[chef]

Cech for 10m isn't too bad depending on his wages.

Realistically he could play until 40.....(don't know what his injury history is like).

Would have him at Arsenal and he'd probably start too.

He's had the skull fracture(not a problem now he wears a helmet) and a dislocated shoulder last season. Can't remember to much more.

 

[chef]

Lampard would have been at Arsenal and John Terry at United at the end of 2003 if it wasn't for that campaigner Abramovich.

Thats a shame

 

[Shoei]

He's had the skull fracture(not a problem now he wears a helmet) and a dislocated shoulder last season. Can't remember to much more.

Yeah he didn't strike me as the kind of player that has been injured a lot. His body should hold up well into his 30's.

Thats a shame

Vieira Pires Lampard Ljungberg Fabregas Gilberto Silva, Henry, Bergkamp,

What could have been......

 

[moomba]

"A player will have to have been registered with his club from the age of 15 - down from 18 - to qualify as 'home-grown'."

"At least two home-grown players must also be 'club-trained' players - defined as any player, irrespective of nationality, that has been registered for three years at their club from the age of 15."

Sterling & Ibe both signed for us when they were 15 so unless I'm misinterpreting the 2 statements above, I'm pretty sure they would qualify as 'club trained'. Flanagan too obviously. I can't see it being a criteria that will adversely affect too many PL clubs though, most sides would already have academy trained players taking 1-2 of the 25 squad spaces as it is.

I'll have to re-read the FA statement but I'm pretty sure it specified three years prior to the 18th birthday. If that is the case both Sterling and Ibe wouldnt be club trained. It would also rule out most non English players as you can't sign a pro contract until 16, and clubs will be reluctant to recruit foreign players without the security of a contract.

 

[chef]

Yeah he didn't strike me as the kind of player that has been injured a lot. His body should hold up well into his 30's.

Yep, still got a lot of good football in him.

 

[moomba]

I'm always wary of keepers that have significant time out. I guess Cech has played a bit, but I recall Cudicini going from possibly the second best keeper in the league to total calamity in the space of a year or so.

To be fair, Cech has still looked quality when I've seen him this year.

But for £10m I'm not so sure.

 

[chef]

I'm always wary of keepers that have significant time out. I guess Cech has played a bit, but I recall Cudicini going from possibly the second best keeper in the league to total calamity in the space of a year or so.

To be fair, Cech has still looked quality when I've seen him this year.

But for £10m I'm not so sure.

Cudicini was back up and didn't play for about 5 years though

 

[moomba]

Didnt realise he stayed at Chelsea that long. Still have doubts about a keeper that hasnt been playing much.

You have lose something when you don't play for a sustained period.

 

[glenferry23]

Didnt realise he stayed at Chelsea that long. Still have doubts about a keeper that hasnt been playing much.

You have lose something when you don't play for a sustained period.

Some sharpness/reactions etc can be lost I agree. There's only so much training you can do, but I believe around £10m us well worth it for a keeper of Cech's calibre.

Not that Mourinho would ever sell to Wenger, but some speculation is he wants to stay in London.

 

[Magma]

cech is worth at least double 10mil

he'll be a roma player. if they dont sign him then they're kidding themselves. de sanctis is a complete liability.