O/T Olympic Football 2012

[The Moonlit Knight]

I did see the other posts.

I just don't see how what you said had any relevance. What is more impressive, making your debut at 19 in a squad including Gardner and Thelwell or making your debut at 20 in a squad including the players we have now?

The debate on how good King was back then is obviously not going anywhere though, we clearly just remember what happened back then differently.

The post I responded to was "They seem to forget that King was hardly any better at that age.". That's why I brought King up.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

i know what comes next so not gonna fall for your bait

Don't worry, I'll be waiting for the first time you slag off a player/manager who has had praise from fellow pros at some point. Because according to you if fellow pros etc. rate a player then it invalidates an ordinary fans opinion right?

 

[braineclipse]

Yeah, maybe I expect too much and they have been hyped too far and sold for too much money

I just expect to see that one is a Modric type, one is a Parker type, one is like Scholes, one is like Fabregas or Thudd or Gerrard or whatever... it seems that they are all quite good but not brilliant at anything and none are really dribblers or shooters or passers or tacklers... they are just adept at everything - maybe that is the new school of teaching, making players good at everything but brilliant at nothing.

You remember that kid at Everton that played a few times as an attacking midfielder type? Can't think of his name now, but he blew me away and I just thought WOW HE IS GOING TO BE HUGE after seeing about 30 seconds of him on the ball - the way he takes the ball down, turns and drives at players, commits players, makes things happen, a real danger

These other guys just seem nice and fine and good but...



I mean, are any of them worth big money, you could find the same 'tidy passer' in any league in the world for £3m

To be a central midfielder in the Premiership (especially as part of a two man midfield) you have to have a wide range of qualities and it's difficult to find someone who is good enough at everything while outstanding at some things. One of the reasons why central midfielders generally break through a bit later than some of the other positions. I remember Fletcher at Manu looking distinctly average for a long time before actually stepping it up into becoming a key player for them. Carrick was 24 when we bought him, before that he didn't have much Premiership experience.

The kid at Everton is Ross Barkley? I haven't seen him myself, but remember him being linked to the big clubs already.

There are exceptions of course, Fabregas broke through disgustingly early.

 

[Roy1983]

Don't worry, I'll be waiting for the first time you slag off a player/manager who has had praise from fellow pros at some point. Because according to you if fellow pros etc. rate a player then it invalidates an ordinary fans opinion right?

TMK have you really got a little file of who's who guide to who's said what on here for easy reference?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I agree with the first part. I don't think Ramsey is the best out of that lot, promising players, but he makes way too many poor passes in my opinion. Will probably come good though.

At 20-21 I don't think Lampard or Gerrard were that outstanding either, were they? It's all about who can make that step up to become class, very few players are already there at that age.

Better than this lot to be fair. Gerrard was a Liverpool regular at 19 wasn't he? And that was a decent Liverpool side too. Lampard was sold to Chelsea for quite a chunk of change when he was still quite young and had he not broken his leg he'd have been a West Ham regular younger than he was IMHO.

But it's unfair to compare this crop to the likes of Gerrard and Lampard who, like them or loathe them, were exceptional talents and even at the age of 20 were breaking into the England team. It truly was a wasted golden generation. The likes of Ferdinand, Gerrard and Lampard were better at 20 than the majority of players in the top flight!

 

[braineclipse]

The post I responded to was "They seem to forget that King was hardly any better at that age.". That's why I brought King up.

I don't disagree with you bringing up King.

I just don't see the relevance of saying that King broke through at 19 while Caulker now is 20 and will be 21 at some point during this season when they were breaking into squads of completely different quality. Were we much better back then than Swansea were last season for example? Wouldn't a more relevant comparison be how both Caulker and King broke into mid table PL sides at 19?

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

TMK have you really got a little file of who's who guide to who's said what on here for easy reference?

Yes, and I've just started my Spaceman section.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

I don't disagree with you bringing up King.

I just don't see the relevance of saying that King broke through at 19 while Caulker now is 20 and will be 21 at some point during this season when they were breaking into squads of completely different quality. Were we much better back then than Swansea were last season for example? Wouldn't a more relevant comparison be how both Caulker and King broke into mid table PL sides at 19?

We're at cross points. My point is that King was a better player at 19 than Caulker is now.

 

[Roy1983]

Yes, and I've just started my Spaceman section.

You must have a big house

 

[braineclipse]

We're at cross points. My point is that King was a better player at 19 than Caulker is now.

Yeah. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that Caulker is outstanding, just that he's very talented and has a lot of potential. I remember someone saying something along the lines of "why buy Vertonghen when we have Caulker?" and I don't disagree with you that some people on here surely overrate him. But I still think he has a lot of potential. It's not exactly commonplace for a 19/20 year old to be a regular centre back in a good mid table Premiership side.

Of course he has a (fairly long) way to go to become a top class centre back.

 

[spurspinter1]

The game confirmed my opinion that we shouldn't be in for Sturridge, capable of some amazing stuff but is also a massive burden. GB were cruising and replaced Sordell with him, he was shooting at every opportunity and going for speculative cross field passes when a simple pass would do.

Today, as a result of him not playing a team game imo GB were at 1-1 and Butland had to make a good save, Sturridge went on to score a terrific volley and it came together in the end. But he won't be scoring goals like that every game, he'll be wasting opportunitys and, in my eyes he's like a taller but not any stronger version of Defoe, not what we need at all, we've already got Defoe...

 

[Rorschach]

It's strange - watching players like Tom Cleverley, Aaron Ramsey, Jordan Henderson, Jack Cork... they are all neat and tidy but none of them really make me go WOW!

Ramsey is probably the best, most cultured, but is extremely one-paced so when he gets there, he can't burst clear and seal the deal.

Maybe Cleverley is like Lampard, lots of short passes, triangles, hard work, neat and tidy, then pops up with a well timed goal...

They are all good, but none of them make me think "I WISH WE HAD HIM!"

I guess they are a step above Livermore and Jenas, but not ten steps above.

Joe Allen is another but at least he has a defined "type" - neat, continuity, recycling... the others all seem to be good at everything but brilliant at nothing IMO - this new generation


PS - I just hit a keyboard short cut and my screen has rotated by 90 degrees
How do I get it back to zero degrees FFS?!

That's a good post (especially for a person who just fell over) but I do disagree on Ramsey. I think he's poor. Personally I like the guy but as a player he has too many well below average performances.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

The game confirmed my opinion that we shouldn't be in for Sturridge, capable of some amazing stuff but is also a massive burden. GB were cruising and replaced Sordell with him, he was shooting at every opportunity and going for speculative cross field passes when a simple pass would do.

Today, as a result of him not playing a team game imo GB were at 1-1 and Butland had to make a good save, Sturridge went on to score a terrific volley and it came together in the end. But he won't be scoring goals like that every game, he'll be wasting opportunitys and, in my eyes he's like a taller but not any stronger version of Defoe, not what we need at all, we've already got Defoe...

I haven't seen much of him down the centre, but my personal opinion is that Sturridge isn't suited to being the central forward in a 4-3-3.

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

You must have a big house

I've rented a data centre.

 

[Jordinho]

Switzerland defender Morganella expelled from London2012 squad for sending racist tweet after defeat to South Korea

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

How much do you need to see a player to actually judge him though? One end of the scale is watching a few youtube clips, the other is filing a comprehensive scouting report, following the player from match to match and watching his off the ball movements and awareness throughout the 90 minutes.

You're the one who seemingly has problems with people saying that Damiao would be a good transfer target on the basis that they haven't seen him much, so surely you've got a subjective checklist in terms of minutes watched before it's ok to declare he'd be a good signing right?

Edit: I should point out I'm not deliberatly trying to wind you up or anything, I'm actually curious as to how much you believe to need to see a player play etc etc

My opinion, of course.

I think it can vary from player to player, and player type as well.

For example, a keeper is pretty easy to judge because its easy to see what they do/dont do and you will be looking for simple things to rate (catching/communication/concentration/command of the box/distribution...) I dont imagine it would take too long to judge a keeper, maybe a few games?

Otherwise I would suggest when you can explain in reasonable detail HOW a player plays, then you have seen enough to judge him. If you could sit and explain to me the attributes Leandro has, how fast is he? How does he shoot? Is his touch good? Can he handle physical players? and go on to explain how he moves, what positions he takes, what sort of service he enjoys then I would suggest you have seen enough of him to judge how effective he might be in our team or our league.

If all you have done is sat through 5 minutes of his greatest moments on grainy YouTube then I would suggest thats not likely enough to be able to form a rounded opinion of him. Same goes probably for a couple of matches as well - unless he see's a huge amount of the ball and displays his full reportoire of attributes.

Given that he has only 9 caps for Brazil and plays domestically in Brazil I think its not exactly likely people have seen enough of him to really judge his ability.

Edit : And apologies, I hadnt seen your post until now.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Caulker looks raw to me and not ready for our team.

I think he certainly looks like he will be good enough, but from what I saw of him at Swansea he is still a bit of a passenger. There were plenty of occasions where rather than take ownership of the ball he would look to Williams to take over.

When he had little choice he did well, but he did seem to avoid situations quite a lot.

Id like to have seen him step up a little more to be convinced he is ready

 

[Jordinho]

Caulker ended in the top 10 of number of passes completed in the PL last season. As a player I think he is ready, what's missing is experience (leadership, reading ofthe game, all the little fouls top CBs do and get away it).

 

[The Moonlit Knight]

Yeah. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Just to be clear I'm not saying that Caulker is outstanding, just that he's very talented and has a lot of potential. I remember someone saying something along the lines of "why buy Vertonghen when we have Caulker?" and I don't disagree with you that some people on here surely overrate him. But I still think he has a lot of potential. It's not exactly commonplace for a 19/20 year old to be a regular centre back in a good mid table Premiership side.

Of course he has a (fairly long) way to go to become a top class centre back.

So you disagree that King at 19 was better than Caulker at 20? In that case how do you rate King at that age in relation to Caulker? The same, or inferior?

 

[braineclipse]

So you disagree that King at 19 was better than Caulker at 20? In that case how do you rate King at that age in relation to Caulker? The same, or inferior?

Not what I meant, but since you ask I would rate them about the same. Unlike you I didn't think King was the finished article at 19, one of the reasons he was played in central midfield as well. Similarly to someone else in this thread I thought the time he spent next to Naybet really helped him, of course that might have happened even if Naybet hadn't been there, but that was when (for me) he matured into a top class centre back.

Caulker has a (long) way to go, and the odds are against him getting to a similar level as far from all talented youngsters manage to reach their potential. He does have all the raw ingredients though.