weller54 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 I think your been a bit two piccy, you should of let it go before righting this. Two write Oz!!
Bryn Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Look guys, I know I am being 'pedantic', but I am just about getting used to 'would of' 'could of' and 'should of', which I now know actually mean 'would have', 'could have', and 'should have'. Then I have to contend with things like 'he is to slow', 'he is to old', and stuff like that. In circumstances where someone wishes to get the point across that something is 'beyond what is desirable' or 'acceptable', in relation perhaps to slowness, the phrase should be 'he is TOO slow' FFS. Just to let you guys in on another little secret 'too' should also be when trying to signify an addition, or perhaps when wishing to say 'also', for example: 'he too is slow', which means 'he is too slow as well'. That could be a bit confusing, how about 'he plays for Leicester too', which means 'as well'. The number '2' when written as a word is spelt 'two'. 'Those two play for Leicester too, but they are both too slow and should go to another club'. Did you notice I have sneaked another word into that sentance which sounds just the same but is used in a different way. 'To' is used in lots of different ways which are always different to the way 'two' and 'too' are used. Primarily 'to' is used when signifying a direction or movement, such as 'he is going to the next match', or 'he is going to Braunstone'. You spelled sentence wrong.
sulfoxide Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 You spelled sentence wrong.what about there, their & they're? Just saying...
foxfanazer Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Really can't put my finger on what's going wrong for him. It appears that he just can't get up to speed with the English style of football. Needs to start doing the basics right when he gets his chances
The Railway Man Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 As people have said, clearly a great player but looks like he can't be arsed and far far too slow for the way we set out to play. He'd probably look better in a team like Swansea or Spurs rather than a team whose game is based on fast counter attack.
foxfanazer Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 As people have said, clearly a great player but looks like he can't be arsed and far far too slow for the way we set out to play. He'd probably look better in a team like Swansea or Spurs rather than a team whose game is based on fast counter attack. Agree in some ways although Cambiasso managed to be effective in our system despit his age. Probably an unfair comparison as he actually covered more ground than anyone at times
MC Prussian Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 He didn't perform too well on Tuesday, but so did the majority of his teammates around him. Having said that, it's an odd rat's tail - I suppose the rest of the squad on Tuesday were expecting a bit more influence coming from him, acting as the leader in the middle of the park (which he didn't for most part). I really want him to do better and become an integral part of this squad, but his dilemma is a mixture of both his current lack of adaptation to the demands in the Premier League (and cup competitions), when faced with opposition that tracks down relentlessly quick at times, as well as having to get by the more established midfield duo Drinkwater/Kanté that has deservedly earned the plaudits and rarely set a foot wrong so far. And as far as I can tell, Ranieri has shown no signs of wanting to change his formation, so two CMs it is and Inler has get past one of them first. It's a tough one. Still, I think he'll come good. We'll be glad to have such a backup in more demanding times (or during our tough run-in with fixtures in November/December).
The Railway Man Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Agree in some ways although Cambiasso managed to be effective in our system despit his age. Probably an unfair comparison as he actually covered more ground than anyone at times Cambiasso though despite his age was able to get the ball down and get it away quickly, often forwards, Inler looks totally incapable of doing this. We shouldn't compare the two though, Inler isn't in the same league as Cambiasso and never was.
foxfanazer Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Cambiasso though despite his age was able to get the ball down and get it away quickly, often forwards, Inler looks totally incapable of doing this. We shouldn't compare the two though, Inler isn't in the same league as Cambiasso and never was. No this is true. Cambiasso would have his next pass planned before he even had the ball. Inler is still deciding after he's lost it
Len Finsbury Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 You have to wonder why we signed him in the first place! I think it was to increase our following in Switzerland!
Oxfordfox83 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 He didn't perform too well on Tuesday, but so did the majority of his teammates around him. Having said that, it's an odd rat's tail - I suppose the rest of the squad on Tuesday were expecting a bit more influence coming from him, acting as the leader in the middle of the park (which he didn't for most part). I really want him to do better and become an integral part of this squad, but his current dilemma is a mixture of both his current lack of adaption to the demands in the Premier League (and cup competitions), when faced with opposition that tracks down relentlessly quick at times, as well as the more established midfield duo Drinkwater/Kanté that has rarely set a foot wrong. And so far, Ranieri has shown no signs of wanting to change his formation, so two CMs it is and Inler has get past one of them first. It's a tough one. Still, I think he'll come good. We'll be glad to have such a backup in more demanding times (or during our tough run-in with fixtures in November/December). This hits the nail on the head for me. He hasn't done it yet, but obviously has class. He may get to the stage where we decide he's not going to make it, and we'll move him on, or he will find his feet and become an important player for us. In either case, he's a decent back up in the meantime.
MC Prussian Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 I think it was to increase our following in Switzerland! Tell me all about it - no one really cared when we were in the Championship or League One! I've been trying to maintain my stance for so long, always getting flak for my support of this club! Proud that I stood by for so long, witnessing all these ups and downs in the past 15 to 20 years - the people over here that have started to follow us now are largely Premier League or Gökhan Inler fans (be it from Napoli or Switzerland) and not thorough Leicester City fans (though that might come across as a bit condescending - it's not meant that way).
Thracian Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Inler's not in the top three as a midfielder at City and won't be in the top four if Matty James returns fit and well. He's a warm league footballer. I'd perhaps describe him as a poor man's Glen Hoddle but that would be "poor" as in "bereft" in terms of doing justice to his vision of the long ball and making his ideas materialise. Unfortunately for Inler in his quest for selection, this is the 21st century and footballing poseurs are all but obsolete in the Premiership where the game is intense, where runners have to be tracked and where everyone is expected to do the dirty work as well as looking cultured on the ball. Even with that last phrase the word "looking" is the key because I don't see anything genuinely cultured in seeing a 40-yard pass to a blue shirt delivered as a 35 yard pass to the opposition. We're trying to build something exciting at Leicester and somehow that seems to require we have a big, expensive squad that increasingly seems to serve no purpose other than to keep supplementary footballers in a job. Of course there are exceptions and of course we need back up. But I still don't understand why we need a whole bloody team-full plus extras - and certainly not if a good many of them are makeweights. It's economic lunacy. I've tried to open my mind up to the notion of our playing the first team in the Premiership and our reserves in the Cup but it always ends up disappointing because we've no chance of winning anything so there's no point at all in playing or having our fans waste their money on viewing "pretend" football. And especially when the pretence isn't even well-disguised but a group of people trundling through the motions. I've said it before. Modern League Cup football is a con - a total waste of time and a competition simply designed to keep periphery players warm in case the first team get desperate enough to need them. It should be billed as reserves football and cost a nominal fiver to watch. The very idea of having reserve players being paid obscene sums of money to do next to nothing by way of providing football entertainment just takes the piss out of the poor and needy. Most of the Premiership's surplus players should actually be playing first team football regularly - as the best of a secondary bunch - but for other clubs themselves seeking to set a higher standard to offer greater entertainment value. They shouldn't be sitting at home or on ever longer benches watching the chosen few. But the football authorities do nothing to help, quite the opposite. They allow ever more match-disturbing substitutions thus encouraging more effectively idle footballers or reducing everyone from full-time footballers playing 90 minutes to part-time footballers playing portions of an hour or 30 minutes etc. And all this while some at least half-decent players could be boosting The Championship or even division one and while notable prospects like Chilwell could be getting real experience playing real and regular football at the highest level they can cope with. . .
Dickov22 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Why is he so slow though? That's his main problem
Fox92 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 I raise you Glenn Whelan and Charlie Adam. Or Darren Fletcher and James Morrison. And what? He might look good in a Stoke team, for example, as they aren't as fast as us. Remember we play a counter-attacking style. And that's what I was referring too. Morrison, Adams, Whelan etc might not look good in our central midfield. Inler is just too slow for us.
Dickov22 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Look guys, I know I am being 'pedantic', but I am just about getting used to 'would of' 'could of' and 'should of', which I now know actually mean 'would have', 'could have', and 'should have'. Then I have to contend with things like 'he is to slow', 'he is to old', and stuff like that. In circumstances where someone wishes to get the point across that something is 'beyond what is desirable' or 'acceptable', in relation perhaps to slowness, the phrase should be 'he is TOO slow' FFS. Just to let you guys in on another little secret 'too' should also be when trying to signify an addition, or perhaps when wishing to say 'also', for example: 'he too is slow', which means 'he is too slow as well'. That could be a bit confusing, how about 'he plays for Leicester too', which means 'as well'. The number '2' when written as a word is spelt 'two'. 'Those two play for Leicester too, but they are both too slow and should go to another club'. Did you notice I have sneaked another word into that sentance which sounds just the same but is used in a different way. 'To' is used in lots of different ways which are always different to the way 'two' and 'too' are used. Primarily 'to' is used when signifying a direction or movement, such as 'he is going to the next match', or 'he is going to Braunstone'. Well said. There, they're and their seems a problem for a lot of people also.
The Railway Man Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 I've said it before. Modern League Cup football is a con - a total waste of time and a competition simply designed to keep periphery players warm in case the first team get desperate enough to need them. It should be billed as reserves football and cost a nominal fiver to watch. That depends on the team, Man City have put close to a first team out in every round, Liverpool had most first teamers in, Chelsea played a first team. Don't judge everyone by our own standards. Ironically it now looks more likely that the top sides (Arsenal apart) will put out the strong sides and the lower ones put out reserves, a complete reversal of years ago. (I agree with the rest of your post though, and unfortunately get ready for even more of it, the stockpiling of players will only become worse as the clubs get more and more money to spend)
Countryfox Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Inler's not in the top three as a midfielder at City and won't be in the top four if Matty James returns fit and well. He's a warm league footballer. I'd perhaps describe him as a poor man's Glen Hoddle but that would be "poor" as in "bereft" in terms of doing justice to his vision of the long ball and making his ideas materialise. Unfortunately for Inler in his quest for selection, this is the 21st century and footballing poseurs are all but obsolete in the Premiership where the game is intense, where runners have to be tracked and where everyone is expected to do the dirty work as well as looking cultured on the ball. Even with that last phrase the word "looking" is the key because I don't see anything genuinely cultured in seeing a 40-yard pass to a blue shirt delivered as a 35 yard pass to the opposition. We're trying to build something exciting at Leicester and somehow that seems to require we have a big, expensive squad that increasingly seems to serve no purpose other than to keep second-grade footballers in a job. Of course there are exceptions and of course we need back up. But I still don't understand why we need a whole bloody team-full plus extras - and certainly not if a good many of them are makeweights. It's economic lunacy. I've tried to open my mind up to the notion of our playing the first team in the Premiership and our reserves in the Cup but it always ends up disappointing because we've no chance of winning anything so there's no point at all in playing or having our fans waste their money on viewing "pretend" football. And especially when the pretence isn't even well-disguised but a group of people trundling through the motions. I've said it before. Modern League Cup football is a con - a total waste of time and a competition simply designed to keep periphery players warm in case the first team get desperate enough to need them. It should be billed as reserves football and cost a nominal fiver to watch. The very idea of having reserve players being paid obscene sums of money to do next to nothing by way of providing football entertainment just takes the piss out of the poor and needy. Most of the Premiership's surplus players should actually be playing first team football regularly - as the best of a secondary bunch - but for other clubs themselves seeking to set a higher standard to offer greater entertainment value. They shouldn't be sitting at home or on ever longer benches watching the chosen few. But the football authorities do nothing to help, quite the opposite. They allow ever more match-disturbing substitutions thus encouraging more effectively idle footballers or reducing everyone from full-time footballers playing 90 minutes to part-time footballers playing portions of an hour or 30 minutes etc. And all this while some at least half-decent players could be boosting The Championship or even division one and while notable prospects like Chilwell could be getting real experience playing real and regular football at the highest level they can cope with. . . Errr ... quite right . I was just about to type exactly the same thing ! Two minds and all that ...
Jazzy_Jeff Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 In a two - he does not fit in with our style of play. However, if we were to play some of the bigger boys effectively playing 4-4-2 we will get torn a new one. Stick him in front of Huth & Morgan, let Kante and Drinkwater press and he can pick up the pieces. I'm confident he will still play a big part in our season.
sdb Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 No this is true. Cambiasso would have his next pass planned before he even had the ball. Inler is still deciding after he's lost it Pretty accurate (if a touch harsh) assessment of things. Nicely put!
foxfanazer Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Pretty accurate (if a touch harsh) assessment of things. Nicely put!Sounds bitchier than I intended it to be
Bettsj2 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 Is anyone else genuinely confused about how shit he actually looks for us?
AKCJ Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 It makes me laugh when people say "Inler is too slow" before going on to wet their knickers over the prospect of Matty 'i've seen milk turn quicker' James. Inler will have his time. I think he'll be best implemented against the bigger teams away from home.
Bettsj2 Posted 29 October 2015 Posted 29 October 2015 It makes me laugh when people say "Inler is too slow" before going on to wet their knickers over the prospect of Matty 'i've seen milk turn quicker' James. Inler will have his time. I think he'll be best implemented against the bigger teams away from home. He just gives the ball away all the time. I dont get it? For the Swiss at Wembley he didnt give it away at all and was spraying passes left, right and centre with either foot. When he gets on the ball for us its as if his feet are shaped like toblerone.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.