I'll wait 'till I see him in a shirt. That's how pessimistic I have become over the years.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Football Thread 2012/13 |OT2| @agent_89: My sources tell me the season has started
- Thread starter elseanio
- Start date
- Status
I'll wait 'till I see him in a shirt. That's how pessimistic I have become over the years.
90TilInfinity
Member
When it rains, it pours.
He's really young, there's loads of time for him to blossom into that role.I want Borini to be our pure goal scorer.
For some reason I thought Huntelaar was 27. You're right, that is a lot of money for a 29 year old, it's almost at RVP price, which was enormous. If he'd give us 2 or 3 seasons of 20 goals in the league though I'd say it's a worthy outlay. Again, we've got young strikers, but we need an experienced, proven finisher.
hahaha
bonesmccoy
Banned
In my FM'12 game last night, Liverpool signed Emile Heskey on a free transfer.
:lol
Carroll would be so much more effective if he didn't like to drift out of the 18 yard box so much.
After Aurora, The Daily Show played a selection of clips where Fox News and Republican politicians said, "it would be disgusting and disrespectful to have a debate on gun laws now. Don't let the liberal agenda turn this event into a politicized one."
America is fucked up.
Don't ban me
Agree. Someone get Fergie on the phone
MarshMellow96
Member
My brother lives in Edinburgh - I could get Marius aliūkas's number for Fergie if you'd like? Or do you like exchanging platitudes?
I can only facepalm at their stance on gun laws. Republicans are messed up. Don't they want to make abortion/birth control illegal or something?
Anyway, never seen Huntelaar play but I can tell you right now, he wouldn't start for Newcastle reserves.
Hunterlaar is better than RVP. Im serious.
I don't rate RVP as highly as others do. He's a pretty daft signing by Man United.
Selling Carroll would pay for him and probably see more short-term benefits than big Andy.
I saw Moses play as a school boy. He played against my schools first team as a 15 year old. He was the
laziest person on the pitch, but absolutely amazing when he received the ball. Head and shoulders above everyone else playing. Single handily demolished my school's side. Very curious and looking forward to see how his career develops.
laziest person on the pitch, but absolutely amazing when he received the ball. Head and shoulders above everyone else playing. Single handily demolished my school's side. Very curious and looking forward to see how his career develops.
Who's bringing the lube
Broder Salsa
Banned
Borriello was constantly played over Huntelaar, that should tell you something.
Seen some seriously shocking bad matches from him, especially remember Ajax against Copenhagen, so awesome with all the chances he managed to fuck up and miss, wouldn't mind Liverpool getting him.
Seen some seriously shocking bad matches from him, especially remember Ajax against Copenhagen, so awesome with all the chances he managed to fuck up and miss, wouldn't mind Liverpool getting him.
Roland Garros
Banned
So no?
...
Borriello was constantly played over Huntelaar, that should tell you something.
Seen some seriously shocking bad matches from him, especially remember Ajax against Copenhagen, so awesome with all the chances he managed to fuck up and miss, wouldn't mind Liverpool getting him.
more recently, he's been absolutely awful against belgium. his footwork is embarrassing.
Gareth Bale
Member
Do any of you remember Teeside Tintin? I'd forgotten how funny that used to be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow6sXKn62hY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOpEKChkIuA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow6sXKn62hY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOpEKChkIuA
That's because he was probably 23 at the time.
Rofl got me in stitches.
I kind of agree. He isn't a better player, but he is a better striker.
fucking lol
We need a few more games to find our feet. Pre-season didn't do us any good seeing us how Welbeck, Rooney and Young were all at the Euro's and haven't really had enough games with our new signings to start working together effectively.
Yes! A compilation of all the GI Joe PSA overdubs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogEtfIdgjpY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogEtfIdgjpY&feature=related
Deep down inside he couldn't handle the thought of cold, rainy nights at the Britannia.
First Dawson, now Huddlestone.
Arjen
Member
Bingo.
Carroll > Huntelaar > RVP
Wenger - We will only sign special players
Bad luck Sahin.
http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/wenger-we-will-only-sign-special-players
Bad luck Sahin.
Everything is coming up Milhouse. I hope it was due to a financial issue and not a medical one.
In trophies won in the last seven years?
Metalmurphy
Member
So... Hulk in Zenit for 50.000.000€
:/
That's 2 players in 2 days. Hopefully Moutinho will stay.
:/
That's 2 players in 2 days. Hopefully Moutinho will stay.
Ok, so I told Kermit I'd type out my logic as to how I can justify my prior comments about the Fletcher transfer, and my comments regarding the Rodwell one.
To clarify, I believe Fletcher is a good signing, even for £14 million because Sunderland are a team that put in the most crosses in the league (or close to), and Fletcher was one of the best finishers in the league last season, especially from crosses. The two fit together like a glove, and because of that I expect Fletcher to get a modest goal tally over the course of his contract and justify the fee.
Now Kermit tweeted me, obviously emotionally enraged by the supposed inconsistency between my appreciation for this transfer, but my scolding of the Rodwell one. So I'll expand on why he's wrong to compare the two.
Rodwell doesn't offer the immediate benefit that Fletcher does. Fletcher was one of the best finishers in the league, as I said, Rodwell's not particularly proficient in any one area, and certainly not in the area City need to strengthen. He's not a top defender capable of filling in for the centre backs, nor is he the midfield steel that City seemingly need, his mistake against Southampton proving that he isn't yet that reliable figure that City require in the middle (but he's young, so I wouldn't read too much into that).
Secondly whilst you could argue that Rodwell has five years to blossom into a player that could offer the return on the financial investment, the wage factor alone would mean that such a thing would be a tall order. We obviously don't know for sure how much he's on, but given the club's wage structure, and what the Echo reported him to be on, I'd wager that it isn't short change, and that puts him at the trough of a steep slope already.
There is the 'potential' factor to examine, but from what my many Everton friends and family tell me, they don't think Rodwell will turn into the player people perhaps thought he would a few years ago. He's stagnated at Everton, through injury, and through Moyes' perhaps archaic method of treating youngsters, but he's stagnated nonetheless. I don't doubt that playing him, and training him alongside top players is going to improve him, but I don't think that's enough to get him to where City need and expect him to be, which brings me onto my last point, the one which negates the comparison between the two deals that Kermit is so eager to make...
Sunderland are buying Fletcher to secure mid table stability, City are a team that are hoping, and almost expecting to dominate football, both domestically and across Europe. The expectations and boundaries by which we judge both signings must shift accordingly; do I think Fletcher will get the goals to keep Sunderland safe and ticking for a good few years? Yes. Do I think Rodwell will develop into a midfielder that's capable of anchoring a side who's dominating Europe? No. And thus I'm not sure it's fair to suggest I'm being overwhelmingly biased towards Sunderland for painting the Fletcher signing in a positive light, whilst being pessimistic about the Rodwell deal.
To clarify, I believe Fletcher is a good signing, even for £14 million because Sunderland are a team that put in the most crosses in the league (or close to), and Fletcher was one of the best finishers in the league last season, especially from crosses. The two fit together like a glove, and because of that I expect Fletcher to get a modest goal tally over the course of his contract and justify the fee.
Now Kermit tweeted me, obviously emotionally enraged by the supposed inconsistency between my appreciation for this transfer, but my scolding of the Rodwell one. So I'll expand on why he's wrong to compare the two.
Rodwell doesn't offer the immediate benefit that Fletcher does. Fletcher was one of the best finishers in the league, as I said, Rodwell's not particularly proficient in any one area, and certainly not in the area City need to strengthen. He's not a top defender capable of filling in for the centre backs, nor is he the midfield steel that City seemingly need, his mistake against Southampton proving that he isn't yet that reliable figure that City require in the middle (but he's young, so I wouldn't read too much into that).
Secondly whilst you could argue that Rodwell has five years to blossom into a player that could offer the return on the financial investment, the wage factor alone would mean that such a thing would be a tall order. We obviously don't know for sure how much he's on, but given the club's wage structure, and what the Echo reported him to be on, I'd wager that it isn't short change, and that puts him at the trough of a steep slope already.
There is the 'potential' factor to examine, but from what my many Everton friends and family tell me, they don't think Rodwell will turn into the player people perhaps thought he would a few years ago. He's stagnated at Everton, through injury, and through Moyes' perhaps archaic method of treating youngsters, but he's stagnated nonetheless. I don't doubt that playing him, and training him alongside top players is going to improve him, but I don't think that's enough to get him to where City need and expect him to be, which brings me onto my last point, the one which negates the comparison between the two deals that Kermit is so eager to make...
Sunderland are buying Fletcher to secure mid table stability, City are a team that are hoping, and almost expecting to dominate football, both domestically and across Europe. The expectations and boundaries by which we judge both signings must shift accordingly; do I think Fletcher will get the goals to keep Sunderland safe and ticking for a good few years? Yes. Do I think Rodwell will develop into a midfielder that's capable of anchoring a side who's dominating Europe? No. And thus I'm not sure it's fair to suggest I'm being overwhelmingly biased towards Sunderland for painting the Fletcher signing in a positive light, whilst being pessimistic about the Rodwell deal.
Wat. Really?
How on earth did Sky not pick the Chelsea-Newcastle game tomorrow? I can't stand ESPN.
They don't always get first choice.
This isn't the Korean Romance channel.
edit: Fletcher is £12m. Less than that wankstain Gyan. But because Gyan was foreign no one gave a shit.
Eh, what's the source?
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked