BartonFox Posted 7 November 2006 Share Posted 7 November 2006 You're not spot on about Campbell - his problem was what I've touched on before - he was steady but never outstanding at anything. Give me a player who was steady in the Premiership anytime over some kid who hasn't got the ability to play in the lower reaches of the CCC. Porter is an excellent passer, long or short, who can retain possession in any team and possession is vital in modern football - always has been really. Excellent is way too complimentary, shame he can't beat a man, or get a cross in or win a tackle or defend, but hey ho. I seem to recall you rooting for Sylla in the team the other day?. Sorry but I'll stick to my own judgement where players are concerned cos that lad, nice a guy as he is, will never make an effective right winger. You are right I have been championing Sylla, and each time I have added the caveat that he isn't my ideal choice, but when faced with Low, Maybury, Stearman or even Hughes (who I like) he is by far and away our best option as a right midfielder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 7 November 2006 Author Share Posted 7 November 2006 Give me a player who was steady in the Premiership anytime over some kid who hasn't got the ability to play in the lower reaches of the CCC. Excellent is way too complimentary, shame he can't beat a man, or get a cross in or win a tackle or defend, but hey ho. You are right I have been championing Sylla, and each time I have added the caveat that he isn't my ideal choice, but when faced with Low, Maybury, Stearman or even Hughes (who I like) he is by far and away our best option as a right midfielder. We do have a predicament there, granted. But no goals in 16 months and 30-odd appearances doesn't convince me one bit, despite his noted improvement. Nor will his technique ever allow him to be a regular scorer. Whether he'd beat the other four named I've never concerned myself with cos I wouldn't contemplate playing any of them on the right wing. As for Porter, he's done okay on the wing but I've said before he's not a winger but an attacking midfield player. He was moved from the wing during his reserves days because he's not got the pace to beat people on the flanks but is excellent at distributing the ball in all directions from the centre. Presumably Kelly played him on the flank cos that's where the need was, to acclimatise him and because he knows the job. He's done alright too - far better than anyone else playing out of position. But attacking midfield is where he belongs. Hughes's place basically so we're not going to be in agreement on that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The People's Hero Posted 8 November 2006 Share Posted 8 November 2006 Thracian - you slag off Sylla for his poor technique which you claim is inexcusable, yet regularly champion Hammond's cause. Hammond is quite frankly, technically the weakest player I've ever seen. He can control it further than I can kick it and his shooting, well, let's not go there. The fact is, whilst you make some good points, you're constantly contradicting yourself. You talk about CL's and RK's chosen men, but you're just as bad yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 8 November 2006 Author Share Posted 8 November 2006 Thracian - you slag off Sylla for his poor technique which you claim is inexcusable, yet regularly champion Hammond's cause. Hammond is quite frankly, technically the weakest player I've ever seen. He can control it further than I can kick it and his shooting, well, let's not go there. The fact is, whilst you make some good points, you're constantly contradicting yourself. You talk about CL's and RK's chosen men, but you're just as bad yourself. No contradiction whatsoever. Hammond has scored six first team goals for the - and would have scored nine I think but for those he had unfairly disallowed plus he won a penalty which resulted in a goal. He has also made a few goals and scored/made some others in the reserves. Sylla has not scored once in the first team or even the Reserves from memory. Nor has he made many. Not only that but while I'm quite sure Sylla is a good athlete in a straight line he slows down dramatically when in possession whereas Hammond can and does attack the opposition. I think Hammond might benefit from a wider role - with more space to run into - and this would also enable us to add another specialist striker. So that's my reasoning - and it has nothing to do with Chosen Men. I would never voluntarily choose Hammond as a right sided midfielder/cum winger. I simply think he's perhaps the best of only two or three options (still green Gradel and midfielder Porter being the others). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BartonFox Posted 8 November 2006 Share Posted 8 November 2006 No contradiction whatsoever. Hammond has scored six first team goals for the - and would have scored nine I think but for those he had unfairly disallowed plus he won a penalty which resulted in a goal. He has also made a few goals and scored/made some others in the reserves. Sylla has not scored once in the first team or even the Reserves from memory. Nor has he made many. Not only that but while I'm quite sure Sylla is a good athlete in a straight line he slows down dramatically when in possession whereas Hammond can and does attack the opposition. I think Hammond might benefit from a wider role - with more space to run into - and this would also enable us to add another specialist striker. So that's my reasoning - and it has nothing to do with Chosen Men. I would never voluntarily choose Hammond as a right sided midfielder/cum winger. I simply think he's perhaps the best of only two or three options (still green Gradel and midfielder Porter being the others). You see that still makes no sense whatsoever. Hammond can't control or pass the ball, so why on earth would you want to play him out wide? The opposition full backs would retain possession at will either through his woeful touch or a throw-in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 8 November 2006 Author Share Posted 8 November 2006 You see that still makes no sense whatsoever. Hammond can't control or pass the ball, so why on earth would you want to play him out wide? The opposition full backs would retain possession at will either through his woeful touch or a throw-in. I could never convince a cynic so I won't bother trying. Hammond is a valuable player both in himself and in the weight he can take off others. Not the perfect answer by any means but far, far better than Sylla or Low and the options of Stearman/Hughes don't even bear considering. PS: Frank Large couldn't control or pass a ball but he caused havoc and was a City hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Finn Claw Posted 8 November 2006 Share Posted 8 November 2006 If every team in the League had a billionaire owner one of them would finish as champions and one would be bottom. Nothing will ever negate the value of signing good but contrasting footballers, getting them really fit. playing to their indivdidual strengths, developing a good spirit and making sure you deal with any weaknesses promptly. But things aren't equal, if every club could fill a 65,000 capacity stadium one would finish top and one bottom. If they all played the exactly the same 11 players one would finish top and one bottom.. Money isn't everything (look at Newcastle), but Liverpool, Man Utd and Chelsea all spend big and look at where they are in the league. If you plotted a Venn diagram of league positions & player (inc wages) expenditure in the last 5 years, there would be a massive overlap. Money doesn't guarantee sauces but it certainly helps if money doesn’t matter then why care about our debt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.