• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Ben Davies

29 is now seen as an age where we should move people on? Tough crowd. We’ve only got another 4 years left before we need move Kane on in that case.
 
Jordinho said:
I just don't buy the idea that Rose is the better player because he charges forward more, runs at his opponent or simply gives them something to think about.

There are times when Davies might play a little too conservative, but injury free and in form he got forward just fine and set up numerous chances and goals.

There's was one game against Liverpool where he really struggled, but he was on his own against Mane AND their right back.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying these are the only reasons he's better! I think his tackling is just as good, if not better than Davies'. I think he's stronger and more aggressive to good effect.
It's not all about what Rose does on the ball that makes the difference for me. I think he lifts both the team and the crowd in a way that Davies doesn't (appreciate it's not the style of ol' Gentle Ben). Those traits shouldn't be under valued.

In short, I don't think Davies best qualities are that much greater than Rose's equivalents, if at all. But the things Rose brings to the team are superior to Davies.
 
Jurgen the German said:
29 is now seen as an age where we should move people on? Tough crowd. We’ve only got another 4 years left before we need move Kane on in that case.
Click to expand...

Depends on the player/position. Id have thought that was obvious.

A Carrickesque maestro who doesnt play with physicallity but instead has superior intelligence and positioning can play well into his 30's without any real deterioration to what he brings to the team.

And "all action" type player, constantly running and sprinting, relying on their physicality to be effective is a completely different scenario.

In this case we have Rose at 29, having had persistent injuries, having played consistently the same way all his career - theres a pretty predictable path ahead of him.

Then its a case of priority. Is it more important to us to keep him as a diminishing resource, in the hope he adds value, or is it better to sell him while he has a high value and move on?
 
FatBloke said:
I think the fact that there are so many people on each side of the argument giving reasoned posts is an indication of why, ideally, we'd keep them both. Unless someone better comes in, obviously.

If only we had the same problem on the right.
Click to expand...
Nail
On
The
Head
 
Jurgen the German said:
29 is now seen as an age where we should move people on? Tough crowd. We’ve only got another 4 years left before we need move Kane on in that case.
Click to expand...
Depends on a lot of factors. What is obvious is that at 29 the player's value will start going down year by year. Making it more expansive to keep them around in a way. If someone is worth £40m this summer that may only be worth £30m next summer. That "cost" should be factored in. Now some players may just be so good, or important to the team, impossible to replace in the transfer market, or just iconic (like Kane hopefully will be) that it still makes sense keeping them. But age changes the equation from a financial perspective.
 
FatBloke said:
I think the fact that there are so many people on each side of the argument giving reasoned posts is an indication of why, ideally, we'd keep them both. Unless someone better comes in, obviously.

If only we had the same problem on the right.
Click to expand...

Interestingly, if we were to sign the supposedly highly-rated Sessegnon, I'm not sure I'd want him in ahead of either Rose or Davies anyway.
 
Ade's folks are ok really said:
Interestingly, if we were to sign the supposedly highly-rated Sessegnon, I'm not sure I'd want him in ahead of either Rose or Davies anyway.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean. TBH, I can't see Sessegnon playing for us in a back four, and even as a wingback I don't think he's as good defensively as Rose. But he's young. The big question for me is whether we get him in as a winger, or at least a WB to be played against lesser opposition.

That said, if anyone can sort out a young FB it's Poch.
 
Poch has a great touch with FBs.

And I dont know where this idea comes from that Sessegnon cant play LB. He can. Its just that he is even better playing further forward.

Not saying he is a brilliant LB now, but he is certainly good enough and with a little time with Poch will improve as well.

If you consider that most games we play we will dominate, pin the other team back and try to break their low block - an overlapping fullback is a really valuable asset.

He could play LB and still be a major attacking asset.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Poch has a great touch with FBs.

And I dont know where this idea comes from that Sessegnon cant play LB. He can. Its just that he is even better playing further forward.

Not saying he is a brilliant LB now, but he is certainly good enough and with a little time with Poch will improve as well.

If you consider that most games we play we will dominate, pin the other team back and try to break their low block - an overlapping fullback is a really valuable asset.

He could play LB and still be a major attacking asset.
Click to expand...
I forgot to add that I've only seen him playing for a pretty woeful Fulham side that was desperate for some attacking talent. Whereas I believe he absolutely tore it up in the Championship (at LB?).
 
FatBloke said:
I forgot to add that I've only seen him playing for a pretty woeful Fulham side that was desperate for some attacking talent. Whereas I believe he absolutely tore it up in the Championship (at LB?).
Click to expand...

Started LB, found himself playing predominantly further forward though as he was so effective.

Which isnt the same as saying he cant play LB, he can.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Youd have to ask why.

Davies wasnt fit most of last season and they still ended up 50/50 on appearances. Likewise the year before.

Did Rose play because he is "first choice whenever available"? Or because he was the only alternative?

Or, rather than falling into the age old Rose vs Davies nonsense - look at links to the like of Digne and Sessegnon.

Isnt it possible we think we can do better than Rose?

Personally I do, but I know thats like saying something negative about Sissoko around here....


(I really like Digne)
Click to expand...

There’s no question rose was first choice last season. If we sold Rose and didn’t replace him then were weaker at left back as far as I’m concerned. Even if we signed Sessegnon were still weaker as he’s still relatively unproven in the premier league despite being a really good young prospect. Davies isn’t a starter for a top 3 level club IMO. Not sure Emirates Marketing Project or Liverpool would be interested in either but they’d take Rose over Davies again IMO.

I think some are still annoyed about what Rose said a few years ago. Don’t remember anyone being unhappy with him or suggesting Davies was the better player before then?
 
Jurgen the German said:
There’s no question rose was first choice last season. If we sold Rose and didn’t replace him then were weaker at left back as far as I’m concerned. Even if we signed Sessegnon were still weaker as he’s still relatively unproven in the premier league despite being a really good young prospect. Davies isn’t a starter for a top 3 level club IMO. Not sure Emirates Marketing Project or Liverpool would be interested in either but they’d take Rose over Davies again IMO.
Click to expand...

Rose made 26 appearances. Davies 27. We know Davies was also carrying an injury that was worse by the end of the season.

You sure theres "no question Rose was first choice"? Because I question it. To the point where I think that statement simply isnt true.

If we sold either and didnt replace them we are weaker, thats just obvious isnt it?

Sessegnon is really hard to call. Im not sure if its obvious we would be weaker/stronger at all. Id suggest Rose is the better defender of the two right now, but Sessegnon the better attacker. And given we spend most of our time attacking...

You rate Rose, obviously, so of course you fancy other teams would go for him. Interesting, IMO, that when Rose declared he was up for bigger and better things nobody actually moved for him...
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Rose made 26 appearances. Davies 27. We know Davies was also carrying an injury that was worse by the end of the season.

You sure theres "no question Rose was first choice"? Because I question it. To the point where I think that statement simply isnt true.

If we sold either and didnt replace them we are weaker, thats just obvious isnt it?

Sessegnon is really hard to call. Im not sure if its obvious we would be weaker/stronger at all. Id suggest Rose is the better defender of the two right now, but Sessegnon the better attacker. And given we spend most of our time attacking...

You rate Rose, obviously, so of course you fancy other teams would go for him. Interesting, IMO, that when Rose declared he was up for bigger and better things nobody actually moved for him...
Click to expand...

People did move for him
He even met a team and they asked if he was still depressed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back