Manwell Pablo Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Don't apologise for your confusion, just stop being confused. Again, no I didn't say Izzet should be in the team instead of McManaman or Palmer. Not only that but I repeated my point over and over again to make it clear for you, although clearly some sort of linguistic lump hammer is needed for that. I'll try again: You cannot judge a player by how many caps he wins for England because plenty of players such as x, y and z were clearly not good enough - and yet were selected. And players who we KNOW were not as good as Izzet have been more successful than him - and, indeed, more successful than ANY England players - on the international scene. If the comparison is ONLY of like-for-like players, then that's yet another case of you moving the goalposts when your argument falls apart, then ignoring absolutely anything that adversely affects your argument. McManaman: If we're playing him in a central role, Izzet is better. If he's out wide, Guppy is better. Batty: Not all that good. He didn't win the Premier League with Blackburn - he only played five games that season which wasn't enough for a medal. His only career silverware at ANY level was a Charity Shield medal. Not every side plays the holding midfield role, so I would argue that you may only need ONE from Wise / Batty / Butt / Ince / Sherwood in your squad, as opposed to all or nearly all of them. No, obviously I wouldn't play Izzet in a defensive midfield role, but neither would I play Batty. At all. Incorrect, he won the league with Leeds, astonished that even with your obvious abusing of Wikipedia you still get shit like this wrong. But moving on, so you wouldn't play Izzet holding, lets discount Wise next a man still playing in the heart beat of Chelsea's midfield (a side who released Izzet, due to him not being good enough) in 1998 culminating in a cup winners cup (after winning the FA cup the year before) he was just as good going forwards and getting you a goal as he was breaking up the play, quite box to box I'd say, played for a better side, won more trophies, made more apperances and scored more goals,. And he was back up for England his entire career, he was better than Izzet till he hit his mid 30's. This is a man who didn't even get a cap between 96 and 99 by the way. EDIT: Sorry I meant to laugh at the fact you think Guppy was better than Macca , That's why it's highlighted
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Don't apologise for your confusion, just stop being confused. hahaha I'd love to, your not making it very easy though!
inckley fox Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Incorrect, he won the league with Leeds, astonished that even with your obvious abusing of Wikipedia you still get shit like this wrong. But moving on, so you wouldn't play Izzet holding, lets discount Wise next a man still playing in the heart beat of Chelsea's midfield (a side who released Izzet, due to him not being good enough) in 1998 culminating in a cup winners cup (after winning the FA cup the year before) he was just as good going forwards and getting you a goal as he was breaking up the play, quite box to box I'd say, played for a better side, won more trophies, made more apperances and scored more goals,. And he was back up for England his entire career, he was better than Izzet till he hit his mid 30's. This is a man who didn't even get a cap between 96 and 99 by the way. Well, no, if I'd used Wikipedia I would have got that right, wouldn't I? And Wise did get 21 caps either side of 1996-99 by the way (I did get that from Wikipedia, sorry if it hurts), so don't twist the facts. You're conveniently glossing over the fact that Batty wasn't chasing titles all of his career, as you erroneously claimed. And he certainly wasn't in the late 1990s. Izzet, on the other hand, picked up two League Cups in that time. Why discount Wise? He was notoriously disappointing in an England shirt and was 34 come the end of the 1990s. Just because a player does well at club level doesn't mean he'll do well for his country (see John Barnes) and just because Izzet was let go by Chelsea doesn't mean he would never be good enough to play for them. You seem to be labouring under the fairly spectacular misapprehension that whenever a football manager does something it is automatically correct. So are you claiming that we needed five holding players in our squad (this happened once when Wise, Butt, Sherwood, Batty and Ince were all called up)? Was Izzet not in the same league as Ince, aged 32, Wise, aged 34? Or Rob Lee as he approached his mid-30s? Or Sherwood, Redknapp, Barmby? Or the washed-up Gazza who played his final game in 98? Is that what you're saying, in all seriousness? On a final note, Wise last played for England less than a year before he signed for Leicester. If you ever actually saw him play for Leicester, alongside Izzet, in his mid-30s (up to which point, you claim, he was better than Izzet) then you would know which of the two should have been in competition for an England shirt.
Guest Col city fan Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Is the Inckley Fox/Pablo show STILL going? How many pages now?
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Well, no, if I'd used Wikipedia I would have got that right, wouldn't I? And Wise did get 21 caps either side of 1996-99 by the way (I did get that from Wikipedia, sorry if it hurts), so don't twist the facts. You're conveniently glossing over the fact that Batty wasn't chasing titles all of his career, as you erroneously claimed. And he certainly wasn't in the late 1990s. Izzet, on the other hand, picked up two League Cups in that time. Why discount Wise? He was notoriously disappointing in an England shirt and was 34 come the end of the 1990s. Just because a player does well at club level doesn't mean he'll do well for his country (see John Barnes) and just because Izzet was let go by Chelsea doesn't mean he would never be good enough to play for them. You seem to be labouring under the fairly spectacular misapprehension that whenever a football manager does something it is automatically correct. So are you claiming that we needed five holding players in our squad (this happened once when Wise, Butt, Sherwood, Batty and Ince were all called up)? Was Izzet not in the same league as Ince, aged 32, Wise, aged 34? Or Rob Lee as he approached his mid-30s? Or Sherwood, Redknapp, Barmby? Or the washed-up Gazza who played his final game in 98? Is that what you're saying, in all seriousness? On a final note, Wise last played for England less than a year before he signed for Leicester. If you ever actually saw him play for Leicester, alongside Izzet, in his mid-30s (up to which point, you claim, he was better than Izzet) then you would know which of the two should have been in competition for an England shirt. I am not twisting facts, I said he didn't get a cap between 1996 and 1999, we're talking 1998 it's a very relevant statistic, he was however capped 21 times either side in the space of 10 years this is hardly a regular is it. Hardly, every team he ever played for ended up in the top 4 during his tenure there. I'm not glossing over anything. He certainly got much closer than Izzet. Yes indeed, see Izzets international record for Turkey where he was poor on the few occasions he got in the team, sadly you've got to select on club form when you've got nothing else to go on, and you cannot deny, Wise was the better candidate. I disagree with him being the answer to our left wing problem in the early 00's he wasn't fit for purpose but even then he was still a better candidate on the left wing than Izzet. We'll come on to the one at a time, as I've already told you, Wise was far from a "holding" midfield he created and scored enough to prove that. Next we have Nicky Butt, again, more of an old fashioned no frill centre mid than a "holding" midfielder, and do I really need to go into all the trophies and appearances made for Manchester United and still ended up with a fairly meagre amount of England caps during his career, despite the fact he always did reasonably well for his country (certainly better than Izzet for Turkey) EDIT: And you can slate football managers, like or not most of them know more than you and me put together that's why their paid to do what they do.
inckley fox Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 I am not twisting facts, I said he didn't get a cap between 1996 and 1999, we're talking 1998 it's a very relevant statistic, he was however capped 21 times either side in the space of 10 years this is hardly a regular is it. Hardly, every team he ever played for ended up in the top 4 during his tenure there. I'm not glossing over anything. He certainly got much closer than Izzet. Yes indeed, see Izzets international record for Turkey where he was poor on the few occasions he got in the team, sadly you've got to select on club form when you've got nothing else to go on, and you cannot deny, Wise was the better candidate. I disagree with him being the answer to our left wing problem in the early 00's he wasn't fit for purpose but even then he was still a better candidate on the left wing than Izzet. We'll come on to the one at a time, as I've already told you, Wise was far from a "holding" midfield he created and scored enough to prove that. Next we have Nicky Butt, again, more of an old fashioned no frill centre mid than a "holding" midfielder, and do I really need to go into all the trophies and appearances made for Manchester United and still ended up with a fairly meagre amount of England caps during his career, despite the fact he always did reasonably well for his country (certainly better than Izzet for Turkey) EDIT: And you can slate football managers, like or not most of them know more than you and me put together that's why their paid to do what they do. Was Butt good enough for England? Debatable, based on 30 or 40 caps. They achieved nothing with him in the side and he ended up, still below 30, with a very poor Newcastle side and getting relegated with Birmingham. Was Izzet good enough for England? Debatable based on no caps. My point is that we had a large number of ball-winning / holding midfielders in the squad in the late 90s; not so many creative players. Did those players do well enough to justify our faith in them? Well, maybe not if results were anything to go by. And on top of that a huge number of debuts were given to all sorts of players who were not obviously better than Izzet. I liked Nicky Butt. But if you had taken him out of most England squads from 1998-2004 and replaced him with Izzet, I'm not sure we would have been much worse off. As for Muzzy's Turkey career: He opted for Turkey in 2000, his career was over by 2004. He did well enough to get a place in a World Cup squad and won praise for a couple of his other appearances. But this was a very short window of time, during which he went through two relegations and a season outside of the top flight, while fighting for a place with a national team whose native language he didn't even speak. Had he been given a break in 1997, when England should have been starting to consider his credentials, then it may well have been different. But, that said, a 3rd place WC medal and a SF against Brazil remains more than any English player could lay claim to.
inckley fox Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Sorry I meant to laugh at the fact you think Guppy was better than Macca , That's why it's highlighted McManaman was a talented player - overrated and meek, but talented. However he never looked the part for England. Once that became clear it would have been worth giving Guppy a fair crack of the whip. I honestly believe he could have done well with a Shearer or a Sheringham to aim for. Likewise when we played McManaman in a more central role, and that didn't work either, I'd have sooner given Muzzy a go. Like I keep saying, that England side failed. We got something wrong. It's not unthinkable that one of our notorious under-performers should have been replaced by one his rivals. And, again, the best team in the country doesn't consist of its eleven finest individuals: Leicester were a top half side back then and several of its players were in contention for England (Guppy, Heskey, Izzet). It's a shame you don't feel that any of those could have done any better than a bunch of proven failures. Especially when, of course, Theo Zagorakis (of all people) did. Just goes to show, doesn't it...?
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Was Butt good enough for England? Debatable, based on 30 or 40 caps. They achieved nothing with him in the side and he ended up, still below 30, with a very poor Newcastle side and getting relegated with Birmingham. Was Izzet good enough for England? Debatable based on no caps. My point is that we had a large number of ball-winning / holding midfielders in the squad in the late 90s; not so many creative players. Did those players do well enough to justify our faith in them? Well, maybe not if results were anything to go by. And on top of that a huge number of debuts were given to all sorts of players who were not obviously better than Izzet. I liked Nicky Butt. But if you had taken him out of most England squads from 1998-2004 and replaced him with Izzet, I'm not sure we would have been much worse off. As for Muzzy's Turkey career: He opted for Turkey in 2000, his career was over by 2004. He did well enough to get a place in a World Cup squad and won praise for a couple of his other appearances. But this was a very short window of time, during which he went through two relegations and a season outside of the top flight, while fighting for a place with a national team whose native language he didn't even speak. Had he been given a break in 1997, when England should have been starting to consider his credentials, then it may well have been different. But, that said, a 3rd place WC medal and a SF against Brazil remains more than any English player could lay claim to. You could say the same about any England player. Shearer, Beckham, they were still world class. And wasn't Izzet playing for a piss poor side and relegated before the age of 30? Twice? No we didn't, we had what were a lot of older school Centre Midfielders, who in your incorrect opinion were out and out battlers and ball winners, in reality, the only one was a proper modern day holding player was Batty. The rest, Ince, Butt, Wise, and Lee (who was a converted winger and was far far from a defensive player) Could all score and create goals, in the case of Lee and Wise, at a much better rate than Izzet, internationally despite their piss poor records (which is good given according to you, they played for a weaker side ) and a club level, so your whole argument is based on nothing. This is ignoring that players like Beckham and Scholes were the players actually starting in Izzets position so it's no wonder, he never got a look in. It's a stupid arguement. One you've gone from saying is a certainty (see signature) to one that is now debatable, so you're already retreating. You seem to have a problem understanding that Izzet did nothing to get Turkey to the semi final apart from sit on his arse and his achievement was that great in his own mind he forgot that he had even played in a World Cup semi final. Live on international TV. Nikos Dabizas got a European Champions medal would you rather he played in front of John Terry? As for Muzzy Turkey career it was a failure end of story despite your excuses.
Manwell Pablo Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 McManaman was a talented player - overrated and meek, but talented. However he never looked the part for England. Once that became clear it would have been worth giving Guppy a fair crack of the whip. I honestly believe he could have done well with a Shearer or a Sheringham to aim for. Likewise when we played McManaman in a more central role, and that didn't work either, I'd have sooner given Muzzy a go. Like I keep saying, that England side failed. We got something wrong. It's not unthinkable that one of our notorious under-performers should have been replaced by one his rivals. And, again, the best team in the country doesn't consist of its eleven finest individuals: Leicester were a top half side back then and several of its players were in contention for England (Guppy, Heskey, Izzet). It's a shame you don't feel that any of those could have done any better than a bunch of proven failures. Especially when, of course, Theo Zagorakis (of all people) did. Just goes to show, doesn't it...? Guppy was nowhere near good enough for England and nowhere near as good as Macca. Their incomparable. One played for Real Mardrid and Liverppol and the other played for Celtic and Leicester. It's embarrassing to make the comparison. You can give the "under rated" "over rated" under achieving lines all you want, you pick your best players and try and make a team out of them. They couldn't and didn't, Heskey was one of those proven failures (although fully deserved his caps), Guppy only played because we tried every man and his dog on the left wing at that time and wasn't good enough. And Izzet couldn't even attract attention from Turkey in 1998 and couldn't hold down a place in the side when he did get his chance, make all the excuses for him you want, they're the simple facts. It's nice that you think they could of taken the international scene by storm but you've got several layers of blue tinted spectacles on here. You wont find many Leicester fans thinking Izzet should of played for England, you throw it out to the wider English football audience you'll just get laughed at. Rightly so as well.
inckley fox Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 You could say the same about any England player. Shearer, Beckham, they were still world class. And wasn't Izzet playing for a piss poor side and relegated before the age of 30? Twice? No we didn't, we had what were a lot of older school Centre Midfielders, who in your incorrect opinion were out and out battlers and ball winners, in reality, the only one was a proper modern day holding player was Batty. The rest, Ince, Butt, Wise, and Lee (who was a converted winger and was far far from a defensive player) Could all score and create goals, in the case of Lee and Wise, at a much better rate than Izzet, internationally despite their piss poor records (which is good given according to you, they played for a weaker side ) and a club level, so your whole argument is based on nothing. This is ignoring that players like Beckham and Scholes were the players actually starting in Izzets position so it's no wonder, he never got a look in. It's a stupid arguement. One you've gone from saying is a certainty (see signature) to one that is now debatable, so you're already retreating. You seem to have a problem understanding that Izzet did nothing to get Turkey to the semi final apart from sit on his arse and his achievement was that great in his own mind he forgot that he had even played in a World Cup semi final. Live on international TV. Nikos Dabizas got a European Champions medal would you rather he played in front of John Terry? As for Muzzy Turkey career it was a failure end of story despite your excuses. 1. His Turkey career was a failure. All he got was a 3rd place WC medal. As I say, more than any of our lot managed. 2. Lee, Ince, Butt and Wise could all score and create goals at a better rate than Muzzy at club level... Err - no. Izzet had 15 assists in 1999-00, more than any of them (and you can add Scholes to that list too). Steve Guppy, by the way, did better than all of them (including McManaman and Scholes) for assists every year from 1997-2000. Second best in the PL in 1997-98. Contrary to what you remember, they were both pretty decent. 3. Izzet was relegated twice, much like Nicky Butt at the end of his career (Newcastle and Birmingham). I mentioned assists before - when Muzzy was relegated with City in 2004-05 he also got the most assists of any English player in the Premier League. 4. No, none of it is ignoring the fact that Scholes and Beckham were rightly in the England team. As you full well know, I have been referring to the players on the fringes of the squad, not the first choice eleven.
MrsJohnMurphy Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 I'd let them do what they want and say what they want all day about me for 200k a week. Fvcking overpaid nonces Saying that. Konchesky in his prime a much better player than Whitlow in his prime. A premier league XI of 1995 would get merked by a prem league xi of 2013 Okay so the England team of Euro 96 would get "merked" by the team of Euro 2012.....mmmmmm.... 1 Seaman 2 G. Neville 3 Pearce 4 Ince 5 Adams (c) 6 Southgate 7 Platt 8 Gascoigne 9 Shearer 10 Sheringham 11 Anderton 12 Howey 13 Flowers 14 Barmby 15 Redknapp 16 Campbell 17 McManaman 18 Ferdinand 19 P. Neville 20 Stone 21 Fowler 22 Walker Or 1 Hart 2 Johnson 3 Cole 4 Gerrard (c) 5 Kelly 6 Terry 7 Walcott 8 Henderson 9 Carroll 10 Rooney 11 Young 12 Baines 13 Green 14 Jones 15 Lescott 16 Milner 17 Parker 18 Jagielka 19 Downing 20 Chamberlain 21 Defoe 22 Welbeck 23 Butland
MrsJohnMurphy Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Whooaa... thats a long post, guess thats what happens when you copy and paste from wikipedia.
inckley fox Posted 13 August 2013 Posted 13 August 2013 Guppy was nowhere near good enough for England and nowhere near as good as Macca. Their incomparable. One played for Real Mardrid and Liverppol and the other played for Celtic and Leicester. It's embarrassing to make the comparison. You can give the "under rated" "over rated" under achieving lines all you want, you pick your best players and try and make a team out of them. They couldn't and didn't, Heskey was one of those proven failures (although fully deserved his caps), Guppy only played because we tried every man and his dog on the left wing at that time and wasn't good enough. And Izzet couldn't even attract attention from Turkey in 1998 and couldn't hold down a place in the side when he did get his chance, make all the excuses for him you want, they're the simple facts. It's nice that you think they could of taken the international scene by storm but you've got several layers of blue tinted spectacles on here. You wont find many Leicester fans thinking Izzet should of played for England, you throw it out to the wider English football audience you'll just get laughed at. Rightly so as well. Let's get this straight. (a) You are saying that the England side of 1997-2000 (one that achieved nothing) had their selection policy spot on. (b) You think that Barmby, Ince (over 30 and on the decline), Gazza (by then way past it), Wise (aged 31-34), Butt, Batty, Sherwood, McManaman, Anderton, Parlour, Redknapp, Lee, Wilcox, Ripley and Hendrie ALL deserved a chance ahead of Izzet in those years. And I'm not saying Izzet should have clocked up 30 caps (not 'taking the scene by storm', or whatever the words were that you tried to put into my mouth) - just that for ONE OR TWO games it might have been worth trying him out. © Despite the fact that our international side repeatedly underperformed and Izzet, near the top of the assists chart in two of his PL seasons and the star man of a consistently top half side, was hyped by much of the press as a valid alternative - you still think it's 'laughable' to suggest we should have given him an outing for England. (d) Guppy only played because we'd tried 'every man and his dog'. As I said, he got more assists in the Premier League than ALL of the players mentioned above, every season from 1997-2000. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the guys who were selecting our team, and ended up leaving the job as unequivocal failures, made a mistake? (e) Managing an international side is all about picking the eleven best players and 'making the best of it'. Wow. If I would - as you imply - find myself 'laughed at' for arguing that Muzzy Izzet was better than Lee Hendrie or Jason Wilcox, then you would almost certainly be hollered out of town for that one. I think I've already quoted Alf Ramsey, but I'll repeat it just in case - "These aren't the best eleven players in England, but they are the best team". Did you know Spain won a World Cup and two European Cups without Raul? How many people back then thought Busquets was a better player than him? In Spain the manager isn't even known as a manager, but rather a 'selector'. Why? Because it's a lot more complicated a job than you seem to think.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 Let's get this straight. (a) You are saying that the England side of 1997-2000 (one that achieved nothing) had their selection policy spot on. (b) You think that Barmby, Ince (over 30 and on the decline), Gazza (by then way past it), Wise (aged 31-34), Butt, Batty, Sherwood, McManaman, Anderton, Parlour, Redknapp, Lee, Wilcox, Ripley and Hendrie ALL deserved a chance ahead of Izzet in those years. And I'm not saying Izzet should have clocked up 30 caps (not 'taking the scene by storm', or whatever the words were that you tried to put into my mouth) - just that for ONE OR TWO games it might have been worth trying him out. © Despite the fact that our international side repeatedly underperformed and Izzet, near the top of the assists chart in two of his PL seasons and the star man of a consistently top half side, was hyped by much of the press as a valid alternative - you still think it's 'laughable' to suggest we should have given him an outing for England. (d) Guppy only played because we'd tried 'every man and his dog'. As I said, he got more assists in the Premier League than ALL of the players mentioned above, every season from 1997-2000. Has it occurred to you that perhaps the guys who were selecting our team, and ended up leaving the job as unequivocal failures, made a mistake? (e) Managing an international side is all about picking the eleven best players and 'making the best of it'. Wow. If I would - as you imply - find myself 'laughed at' for arguing that Muzzy Izzet was better than Lee Hendrie or Jason Wilcox, then you would almost certainly be hollered out of town for that one. I think I've already quoted Alf Ramsey, but I'll repeat it just in case - "These aren't the best eleven players in England, but they are the best team". Did you know Spain won a World Cup and two European Cups without Raul? How many people back then thought Busquets was a better player than him? In Spain the manager isn't even known as a manager, but rather a 'selector'. Why? Because it's a lot more complicated a job than you seem to think. Well no there are a lot of players who shouldn't of been capped (although you've again mentioned some very good ones there, again, Hendrie was very good at Villa, AND JASON WILCOX WAS A WINGER STOP SAYING HE SHOULD OF PLAYED INSTEAD OF WINGERS ) who managed to get one or two caps, and if Izzet had hung around long enough he could well of picked up one up and become one of them but then we were talking playing i.e making some sort of meaningful contribution I thought. If you want to talk about whether he was worthy of picking up a cap as a 75th minute friendly away to Albania then it's not really here nor there is it, the whole discussion is a waste of time. And Izzet was touted, by anyone, until 2000, not even Turkey. No one even mentioned him, rightly so as well. So yes it is laughable. Ah the old assist charts, you do know what an official assist is, why they both have so many, and why at international level they wouldn't get a chance to provide that amount? Guppy got a cap anyway and got a place in the squad a few times so unless your arguing he should of started I dunno what your trying to say? That he should of started regularly? Genuinely confused? I'd like to see your assist charts from 1997-98 in regards to Izzet, just out of interest, I'm sure he'd of got a few, but Wise and Lee had better over Premier League career stats, not just one season, which means very little, but over a decent length of time. Also the fact that Izzet is a luxury player and will offer you next to nothing going back (the fact that we played 4-4-2 with him in the middle being one of the contributing factors to our woeful defensive record in 03-04) should be taken into account, where as these players like Wise and Lee will, and will continue to have a similar contribution going forwards despite that. Butt and Hendrie will only get you about one in 8-12 but then there's the graft on top of that and the breaking up of the play, they do BOTH jobs not just the one which is predominately what you need in international football formation pending. Yes, you pick the best players, for that position ****ing obviously I'm not implying you play Mardonna at centre back am I, and make a team out of it. You may make the odd change for tactical reasons i.e playing a bigger striker and a small man leaving another striker smaller striker with a better goals ratio than him on the bench, but mainly, you pick your best player. Busquets played because he was the best Spanish DMC available. Raul didn't play because Torres and Villa were better than him, what a ****ing stupid example!
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 1. His Turkey career was a failure. All he got was a 3rd place WC medal. As I say, more than any of our lot managed. 2. Lee, Ince, Butt and Wise could all score and create goals at a better rate than Muzzy at club level... Err - no. Izzet had 15 assists in 1999-00, more than any of them (and you can add Scholes to that list too). Steve Guppy, by the way, did better than all of them (including McManaman and Scholes) for assists every year from 1997-2000. Second best in the PL in 1997-98. Contrary to what you remember, they were both pretty decent. 3. Izzet was relegated twice, much like Nicky Butt at the end of his career (Newcastle and Birmingham). I mentioned assists before - when Muzzy was relegated with City in 2004-05 he also got the most assists of any English player in the Premier League. 4. No, none of it is ignoring the fact that Scholes and Beckham were rightly in the England team. As you full well know, I have been referring to the players on the fringes of the squad, not the first choice eleven. 1. So what your saying is Dabizas should of played for England as well then? 2. Never said they weren't, I'm saying the weren't international class. They could whip at set piece into our huge centre backs and strikers certainly, that's one of the main reasons we did so well for so many years, horrible to watch but effective. 15 is a huge amount though I'd find that an interesting stat if true so where you getting it from? Other teams played football differently, there is a reason why next to no one uses assist statistics when analyzing or selecting teams, it means nothing. Downing finished with 0 a couple of seasons ago but when analysed he could of got about 8 if other players had made the most of the openings he'd created. 3. Really I don't even remember him playing that much for Birmingham 4. Well even fringe, I don't think there's a single player taken to a major tournament in center midfield I'd of swapped with Muzzy, sadly.
inckley fox Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 Yes, you pick the best players, for that position ****ing obviously I'm not implying you play Mardonna at centre back am I, and make a team out of it. You may make the odd change for tactical reasons i.e playing a bigger striker and a small man leaving another striker smaller striker with a better goals ratio than him on the bench, but mainly, you pick your best player. Busquets played because he was the best Spanish DMC available. Raul didn't play because Torres and Villa were better than him, what a ****ing stupid example! No it isn't. It was as a matter of policy that Raul, still classed by many as the best attacking midfielder / support man in Spain, was no longer played. In fact he was stripped of the captaincy, dropped from the squad all together and never picked again. Half of Spain was in outrage. But they went and won the next tournament, and the one after that... International football, or successful international football, is full of managers doing the same thing. And very few people thought Busquets was the best DMC available back in 2010, ahead of Senna. You pick the best team, not the best eleven players. McManaman wasn't working within that team so Guppy was worth a go; the likes of Ince, Lee, Wise and Parlour were past it, so Izzet was worth a go. And Lee Hendrie was never as good a player as Muzzy Izzet. If it can be a fact that football is better now than ten or fifteen years ago, then that is DEFINITELY a fact.
inckley fox Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 1. So what your saying is Dabizas should of played for England as well then? 2. Never said they weren't, I'm saying the weren't international class. They could whip at set piece into our huge centre backs and strikers certainly, that's one of the main reasons we did so well for so many years, horrible to watch but effective. 15 is a huge amount though I'd find that an interesting stat if true so where you getting it from? Other teams played football differently, there is a reason why next to no one uses assist statistics when analyzing or selecting teams, it means nothing. Downing finished with 0 a couple of seasons ago but when analysed he could of got about 8 if other players had made the most of the openings he'd created. 3. Really I don't even remember him playing that much for Birmingham 4. Well even fringe, I don't think there's a single player taken to a major tournament in center midfield I'd of swapped with Muzzy, sadly. 1. Obviously Dabizas shouldn't have and couldn't have played for England. Unlike Izzet he wasn't one of the outstanding players in his position in the league. However, I am demonstrating that sides that win tournaments and players who excel in tournaments are not necessarily the best in the league. 2. So, out of curiosity, in your world where things are divided into world class and not world class, were Dabizas and Zagorakis (winners of a European Cup and, in the case of the latter, Player of Euro 04) not world class, but Nicky Butt (who never won anything) was? Once again, like most things, it's far less simple than you would have it. You are confusing the quality of footballers with what they can do - and actually do do - for an international side. 3. Okay, we went down in 03-04, not 04-05. It's very noticeable that when something ruins your argument you ignore it in favour of correcting minor stats (e.g. 40 caps vs. 30, 2005 vs. 2004, Semi Final vs. Quarter Final). If I applied the same finicky logic to your sentence structure and ability to argue coherently then we'd be here all year. 4. And you wouldn't have swapped a single player taken to a major tournament for Muzzy? Not in 2000? Not Ince (aged 32, by then playing under Robson under Boro and not doing a great job of it), Wise (34, set to join and be a complete failure for Leicester a year later - alongside the clearly superior Izzet) or Barmby (simply not all that good)? You do know that we didn't win that tournament, don't you? And you do know that the next manager to come in complained about the lack of youth in the side; subsequently dropping all of the above because we were clearly never going to win anything with dinosaurs like Ince or Wise in our side. It's hearing your arguments that reminds me just how England came to be so spectacularly unsuccessful in the first place: Pick the best eleven players rather than the best team, and play everyone until they are 100 years old, ignoring pretty much everyone who doesn't play for a major team in the process. Unless they're Lee Hendrie, of course, who was great.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 No it isn't. It was as a matter of policy that Raul, still classed by many as the best attacking midfielder / support man in Spain, was no longer played. In fact he was stripped of the captaincy, dropped from the squad all together and never picked again. Half of Spain was in outrage. But they went and won the next tournament, and the one after that... International football, or successful international football, is full of managers doing the same thing. And very few people thought Busquets was the best DMC available back in 2010, ahead of Senna. You pick the best team, not the best eleven players. McManaman wasn't working within that team so Guppy was worth a go; the likes of Ince, Lee, Wise and Parlour were past it, so Izzet was worth a go. And Lee Hendrie was never as good a player as Muzzy Izzet. If it can be a fact that football is better now than ten or fifteen years ago, then that is DEFINITELY a fact. Of course they were upset he was a legend but he wasn't the best player for the job. So he was better than Andres Iniesta, Xavi, Torres, Silva, Villa in your opinion then? Wasn't he? He'd been playing for Spain and Barcelona for two years pretty consistantly in 2010 so all of those people who didn't think he was the best option must have been pretty pissed of for 24 months! Your knowledge is appauling! Yeah but they weren't past it though, that's the thing. And yes he was. For several years. He was a very very good player at Villa, I know he was shite for us.
inckley fox Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 Oh - and did you say Izzet was a 'luxury' player and one of the main reasons why we conceded so many goals in 03-04? A 'luxury' player - seriously?! Did you ever see him play and see how much work he got through? Yes, of course, Izzet was to blame for our defensive record in 03-04. Not Steve Howey, Nikos Dabizas, Matt Heath, the ageing Elliott / Taggart / Sinclair, Craig Hignett / John Curtis at right back but Izzet. And it must have been the 4-4-2 that was to blame (even though he'd been key to our promotion the previous season in precisely the same formation).
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 1. Obviously Dabizas shouldn't have and couldn't have played for England. Unlike Izzet he wasn't one of the outstanding players in his position in the league. However, I am demonstrating that sides that win tournaments and players who excel in tournaments are not necessarily the best in the league. 2. So, out of curiosity, in your world where things are divided into world class and not world class, were Dabizas and Zagorakis (winners of a European Cup and, in the case of the latter, Player of Euro 04) not world class, but Nicky Butt (who never won anything) was? Once again, like most things, it's far less simple than you would have it. You are confusing the quality of footballers with what they can do - and actually do do - for an international side. 3. Okay, we went down in 03-04, not 04-05. It's very noticeable that when something ruins your argument you ignore it in favour of correcting minor stats (e.g. 40 caps vs. 30, 2005 vs. 2004, Semi Final vs. Quarter Final). If I applied the same finicky logic to your sentence structure and ability to argue coherently then we'd be here all year. 4. And you wouldn't have swapped a single player taken to a major tournament for Muzzy? Not in 2000? Not Ince (aged 32, by then playing under Robson under Boro and not doing a great job of it), Wise (34, set to join and be a complete failure for Leicester a year later - alongside the clearly superior Izzet) or Barmby (simply not all that good)? You do know that we didn't win that tournament, don't you? And you do know that the next manager to come in complained about the lack of youth in the side; subsequently dropping all of the above because we were clearly never going to win anything with dinosaurs like Ince or Wise in our side. It's hearing your arguments that reminds me just how England came to be so spectacularly unsuccessful in the first place: Pick the best eleven players rather than the best team, and play everyone until they are 100 years old, ignoring pretty much everyone who doesn't play for a major team in the process. Unless they're Lee Hendrie, of course, who was great. 1. Right so your point about Izzet finishing 3rd is worthless then....thank you 2. Incorrect in most instances international sides are in most cases full of players who have done well see, France, Spain, Italy, Brasil, Germany, Argentina, Portugal etc etc You have managed to pick the freak example in Greece! 3, This is a football forum not an English class my friend and im wasting enough time replying to you never mind checking my replys, and rather my knowledge be right rather than my spelling! and I have replied to thisa) I've asked for the stats already in the post (not provided, again) and pointed out the fact that he played without his chums Savage and Lennon was one of the reasons we shipped a stupid amount of goals! 4. Ince no (dinosaur he was 32) it's amazing that you're quite eager to dismiss club form when it suits you but when you need it to slate a midfielder who always played well in an England shirt your quite quick to bring it out? Wise no he was playing left wing which he was better suited to do than Izzet, Barmby was better, when fit a very good player. You do know Turkey didn't win it? You do know Izzet again struggled to get in their side and barely played. I'm not comparing them to genuine world class players who win things, I'm comparing them to Turkish bench warmer you have a over inflated opinion of because he played for Leicester. We didn't have a perfect midfield but if you think Izzet was the answer your wrong.
inckley fox Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 Of course they were upset he was a legend but he wasn't the best player for the job. So he was better than Andres Iniesta, Xavi, Torres, Silva, Villa in your opinion then? Wasn't he? He'd been playing for Spain and Barcelona for two years pretty consistantly in 2010 so all of those people who didn't think he was the best option must have been pretty pissed of for 24 months! Your knowledge is appauling! Yeah but they weren't past it though, that's the thing. And yes he was. For several years. He was a very very good player at Villa, I know he was shite for us. Busquets played consistently for Spain from 2008 onwards? No, he didn't. And he wasn't consistently in the first team for Barcelona until 09/10 either. And Raul was far more highly rated at the age of 30, in 2008, than David Silva or David Villa (both, at that point, still at Valencia). Ince and Wise weren't past it in 2000? Our miserable failure at the tournament - and Ince's poor form for Boro the preceding season / Wise's poor form for us a year later - suggest otherwise. Hendrie was better than Izzet? What?! He wasn't a regular for them until 1998, never won a trophy for them (save the Intertoto Cup) and they consistently finished in a similar position to Leicester every year. If you saw any of the matches between us over that period, you'd have been very clear about who the better player was, and it wasn't Hendrie. Oh - and you know he was only 30 when he played for us don't you? It's not like we got him when his career was clearly done and dusted. He was a player who showed promise and didn't deliver on it.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 Oh - and did you say Izzet was a 'luxury' player and one of the main reasons why we conceded so many goals in 03-04? A 'luxury' player - seriously?! Did you ever see him play and see how much work he got through? Yes, of course, Izzet was to blame for our defensive record in 03-04. Not Steve Howey, Nikos Dabizas, Matt Heath, the ageing Elliott / Taggart / Sinclair, Craig Hignett / John Curtis at right back but Izzet. And it must have been the 4-4-2 that was to blame (even though he'd been key to our promotion the previous season in precisely the same formation). One of the reasons, not the only reason, our defence was crap I wont argue that, Deny it if you want without decent cover from the likes of Lennon and Savage our midfield had holes you can't lay it all at the defenses door, Izzet was not a great defensive player.
inckley fox Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 One of the reasons, not the only reason, our defence was crap I wont argue that, Deny it if you want without decent cover from the likes of Lennon and Savage our midfield had holes you can't lay it all at the defenses door, Izzet was not a great defensive player. I might be more inclined, if I were to blame our midfield and not our defence, to look at our defensive midfielders at the time, rather than a man employed to make goals. I think Adams said 'with Izzet we're a good side, without him we're not'. You really are getting desperate if you think he was a 'luxury' player who cost us goals that season.
Manwell Pablo Posted 14 August 2013 Posted 14 August 2013 Busquets played consistently for Spain from 2008 onwards? No, he didn't. And he wasn't consistently in the first team for Barcelona until 09/10 either. And Raul was far more highly rated at the age of 30, in 2008, than David Silva or David Villa (both, at that point, still at Valencia). Ince and Wise weren't past it in 2000? Our miserable failure at the tournament - and Ince's poor form for Boro the preceding season / Wise's poor form for us a year later - suggest otherwise. Hendrie was better than Izzet? What?! He wasn't a regular for them until 1998, never won a trophy for them (save the Intertoto Cup) and they consistently finished in a similar position to Leicester every year. If you saw any of the matches between us over that period, you'd have been very clear about who the better player was, and it wasn't Hendrie. Oh - and you know he was only 30 when he played for us don't you? It's not like we got him when his career was clearly done and dusted. He was a player who showed promise and didn't deliver on it. Can you make your mind up please? Are we talking 2008 and 2010 because you keep swapping years to suit your argument! You said Busquets instead of Raul, that was 2010. not 2008. And Busquets was getting on the pitch consistantly, not starting every game granted but I didn't say that, from 2008, and was a popular figure in Spain. I don't think you'd of found many a Spaniard saying he shouldn't of been in the 2010 squad. So you're wrong No he didn't, but he was excellent in 1998, was probably one of Villas better players, played better than Izzet, showed a fantastic amount of promise, that lead to his ONLY England cap. So what's your point? He aged badly granted, I didn't see him taking Izzets place in the England squad when he was 30 so you have absolutely no point......again
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.