Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
HankMarvin

Maddison

By HankMarvin, in Transfer Talk

Recommended Posts

Sk4

Sk4

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I don’t think the fee especially with add ons is bad at all. He’s only got a year left, we have very little bargaining power.

Bear in mind that we have to pay Norwich 15% 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inckley fox

inckley fox

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

How are you measuring that then? 

 

All comps: 55 goals, including 21 outside the box and 10 direct freekicks. 

 

image.png.18e67644b3e43bab628195488a183465.png

In what way is he not one of our best ever PL players?

Of course he'll be in that conversation. But, if I wanted to be argumentative, I'd say that there are at least three interpretations of quality in these debates.

 

One is the quality a player shows over the course of their career, by which measure you'd include Mancini, Keown and a whole load of others who did very little for us. Great players who played for Leicester, however inconsequentially. Nobody will include those in their lists. But this notion of a player's quality might also elevate the more apparent contributions of, say, Ferdinand or Collymore, based on them having performed well for us briefly, but in keeping with great pedigree shown elsewhere. Was Collymore one of our best PL players while in a City shirt? No, not for more than 90 minutes or so. Was he one of the best footballers to wear the shirt? Of course. Therefore, bearing in mind he did make quite a positive contribution, this all helps in him being hailed as one of our great PL-era players. So if Maddison goes on to fulfil his potential, it'll naturally help him in being at the fore of these conversations.

 

Another interpretation of greatness is the quality they show while they're at the club. Well, like people say, the stats don't lie. Maddison has shown plenty of quality for us. Those figures won't get ignored, nor will what we saw with our own eyes at times.

 

The third is the quality they show at decisive moments for the club. This is where the likes of Albrighton, Huth, Fuchs, Izzet, Claridge, Walsh and co. truly acquire their 'legendary' status (and I suppose loyalty might also influence that label). They turned up at key moments in our history, and delivered. They were central to our success, and rarely to our failure. In many ways, they did more for us than people who are purely in one or other of the aforementioned categories.

 

Now Maddison does very, very poorly on that final score. He was poor in the second half of the two seasons that we reached 5th. He wasn't picked for the FA Cup Final. His form totally collapsed as we suffered one of the most shocking relegations in our history, while he showed all of the traits - publicly - that got us relegated, in his lack of recognition of there being a serious challenge to overcome. It's striking that he really was a player who didn't turn up at the 'business end' of things. It's actually hard to be sure - in spite of those stunning stats - that he even represented good business, given how costly he ended up being in those critical moments.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Chico1958

Chico1958

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Stuntman_Mike said:

Maddison could find himself having another season in the bottom half if Kane goes Bayern. I don't think it's a particularly exciting move for him if you take away the NFL stadium. Newcastle made more sense to me, if there was interest from them.

Agreed but he wouldn't have got 170k a week from the Geordies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
volpeazzurro

volpeazzurro

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

How are you measuring that then? 

 

All comps: 55 goals, including 21 outside the box and 10 direct freekicks. 

 

image.png.18e67644b3e43bab628195488a183465.png

In what way is he not one of our best ever PL players?

Do you just measure best players on goals and assists then?

 

What about goalkeepers and centre halves, can't they ever figure?

 

Statistics are only ever a part of the story that also relies upon the quality of opposition and the make up and quality of your own team makeup at any particular time. 

 

Strikers for example. We know what a player Vardy is but what about last season? Do you think even Harlaand would have scored a record amount for us last season or would even he struggle without the right service, in the right place at the right time. 

 

These things are always very subjective,  like the Messi, Maradona, Ronaldo, Pele and Best type arguments and very personal opinion based.

 

Maddison is a very good player, but not as good as many make out for me. There may always be a a blue tinted influence for some for example.

 

For some the reason he hasn't played for England more is because he plays for Leicester City, for others, there are sound explainable footballing reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
volpeazzurro

volpeazzurro

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Of course he'll be in that conversation. But, if I wanted to be argumentative, I'd say that there are at least three interpretations of quality in these debates.

 

One is the quality a player shows over the course of their career, by which measure you'd include Mancini, Keown and a whole load of others who did very little for us. Great players who played for Leicester, however inconsequentially. Nobody will include those in their lists. But this notion of a player's quality might also elevate the more apparent contributions of, say, Ferdinand or Collymore, based on them having performed well for us briefly, but in keeping with great pedigree shown elsewhere. Was Collymore one of our best PL players while in a City shirt? No, not for more than 90 minutes or so. Was he one of the best footballers to wear the shirt? Of course. Therefore, bearing in mind he did make quite a positive contribution, this all helps in him being hailed as one of our great PL-era players. So if Maddison goes on to fulfil his potential, it'll naturally help him in being at the fore of these conversations.

 

Another interpretation of greatness is the quality they show while they're at the club. Well, like people say, the stats don't lie. Maddison has shown plenty of quality for us. Those figures won't get ignored, nor will what we saw with our own eyes at times.

 

The third is the quality they show at decisive moments for the club. This is where the likes of Albrighton, Huth, Fuchs, Izzet, Claridge, Walsh and co. truly acquire their 'legendary' status (and I suppose loyalty might also influence that label). They turned up at key moments in our history, and delivered. They were central to our success, and rarely to our failure. In many ways, they did more for us than people who are purely in one or other of the aforementioned categories.

 

Now Maddison does very, very poorly on that final score. He was poor in the second half of the two seasons that we reached 5th. He wasn't picked for the FA Cup Final. His form totally collapsed as we suffered one of the most shocking relegations in our history, while he showed all of the traits - publicly - that got us relegated, in his lack of recognition of there being a serious challenge to overcome. It's striking that he really was a player who didn't turn up at the 'business end' of things. It's actually hard to be sure - in spite of those stunning stats - that he even represented good business, given how costly he ended up being in those critical moments.

Well put.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Les-TA-Jon

Les-TA-Jon

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, inckley fox said:

Of course he'll be in that conversation. But, if I wanted to be argumentative, I'd say that there are at least three interpretations of quality in these debates.

 

One is the quality a player shows over the course of their career, by which measure you'd include Mancini, Keown and a whole load of others who did very little for us. Great players who played for Leicester, however inconsequentially. Nobody will include those in their lists. But this notion of a player's quality might also elevate the more apparent contributions of, say, Ferdinand or Collymore, based on them having performed well for us briefly, but in keeping with great pedigree shown elsewhere. Was Collymore one of our best PL players while in a City shirt? No, not for more than 90 minutes or so. Was he one of the best footballers to wear the shirt? Of course. Therefore, bearing in mind he did make quite a positive contribution, this all helps in him being hailed as one of our great PL-era players. So if Maddison goes on to fulfil his potential, it'll naturally help him in being at the fore of these conversations.

 

Another interpretation of greatness is the quality they show while they're at the club. Well, like people say, the stats don't lie. Maddison has shown plenty of quality for us. Those figures won't get ignored, nor will what we saw with our own eyes at times.

 

The third is the quality they show at decisive moments for the club. This is where the likes of Albrighton, Huth, Fuchs, Izzet, Claridge, Walsh and co. truly acquire their 'legendary' status (and I suppose loyalty might also influence that label). They turned up at key moments in our history, and delivered. They were central to our success, and rarely to our failure. In many ways, they did more for us than people who are purely in one or other of the aforementioned categories.

 

Now Maddison does very, very poorly on that final score. He was poor in the second half of the two seasons that we reached 5th. He wasn't picked for the FA Cup Final. His form totally collapsed as we suffered one of the most shocking relegations in our history, while he showed all of the traits - publicly - that got us relegated, in his lack of recognition of there being a serious challenge to overcome. It's striking that he really was a player who didn't turn up at the 'business end' of things. It's actually hard to be sure - in spite of those stunning stats - that he even represented good business, given how costly he ended up being in those critical moments.

 

5 minutes ago, volpeazzurro said:

Do you just measure best players on goals and assists then?

 

What about goalkeepers and centre halves, can't they ever figure?

 

Statistics are only ever a part of the story that also relies upon the quality of opposition and the make up and quality of your own team makeup at any particular time. 

 

Strikers for example. We know what a player Vardy is but what about last season? Do you think even Harlaand would have scored a record amount for us last season or would even he struggle without the right service, in the right place at the right time. 

 

These things are always very subjective,  like the Messi, Maradona, Ronaldo, Pele and Best type arguments and very personal opinion based.

 

Maddison is a very good player, but not as good as many make out for me. There may always be a a blue tinted influence for some for example.

 

For some the reason he hasn't played for England more is because he plays for Leicester City, for others, there are sound explainable footballing reasons. 

It's really not a particularly complicated debate. 

 

The original premise was simply: "Maddison is among our best ever PL era players" 

 

Given the stats, I think most Leicester fans would agree he belongs in that conversation. I'm not saying he's the best or better than Vardy or Mahrez, just simply saying that he's among our best in the PL era, which I think even the simple analysis of total G+A helps to prove. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Finnegan

Finnegan

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, bovril said:

Perhaps this is harsh but he wouldn't be anywhere near my list of great Leicester players. Potentially one of our most talented for sure, but he certainly contributed to our relegation and leaves without any iconic moments (apart from maybe PSV?). Played very little part in our second greatest trophy win.

 

This is fair. If you were to put a Leicester team of my lifetime together based on nothing but footballing talent, as objectively as possible, Maddison would be in it comfortably*. But he's not really had a truly iconic moment and whilst he was part of a squad that wont he FA Cup, he'll also always be remembered for relegation and two failed attempts at top 4 that we really should have aced.

 

(*oof, can you imagine a front four of Vardy with Barnes, Maddison and Mahrez behind him? Probably Kante and Tielemans, then what, Fuchs, Morgan, Huth, Ricardo and Kasper? Alas.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeaMen Tom

TeaMen Tom

Posted
Posted

One of the online types says the fee has the promise of further installments based on appearances and achievements. Not sure whether this is accurate but if so, that makes a little more sense. Keep in mind this guy was constantly hurt and missed quite a few matches through his entire LCFC career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
los dedos

los dedos

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

This is fair. If you were to put a Leicester team of my lifetime together based on nothing but footballing talent, as objectively as possible, Maddison would be in it comfortably*. But he's not really had a truly iconic moment and whilst he was part of a squad that wont he FA Cup, he'll also always be remembered for relegation and two failed attempts at top 4 that we really should have aced.

 

(*oof, can you imagine a front four of Vardy with Barnes, Maddison and Mahrez behind him? Probably Kante and Tielemans, then what, Fuchs, Morgan, Huth, Ricardo and Kasper? Alas.)

 

Now that's a great back 4 but they're going to need a bit help than a top of his form  Kante .🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites
indierich06

indierich06

Posted
Posted

Feels like Spurs are controlling the narrative a bit here - Maddison full fee likely to be more than £40m, probably closer to £50m with realistic add-ons, and Winks fee is going to be nothing like £10m up front either, probably closer to £5m with promotion-dependent add-ons too. Feels like both deals are likely better for us in reality than on paper.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dames

Dames

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, indierich06 said:

Feels like Spurs are controlling the narrative a bit here - Maddison full fee likely to be more than £40m, probably closer to £50m with realistic add-ons, and Winks fee is going to be nothing like £10m up front either, probably closer to £5m with promotion-dependent add-ons too. Feels like both deals are likely better for us in reality than on paper.

Levy vs Rudkin only one winner in that i'm afraid.. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lambert09

Lambert09

Posted
Posted

i know we needed to get this done…. but i must admit, if they end up getting 100m for kane, they really would have felt more pressure to appease fans and get the deal done. 

 

Probably would have dropped their pants for him at that stage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...