Haydos Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Wow. Don't get me wrong, having Knocky in the team is great, and he often raises the team in a way noone else currently can. But Izzet is comfortably the best player we've had since I started watching in 1991, and the only convincing argument I've heard for anyone else is for Lennon. He said prospect.
Guest MattP Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Can't believe some of what is written in here. Not a single one of our current squad would be anywhere near the best side we had under MON. Im a fan of Kasper, Morgan, Drinks etc but they are miles away from the Kellers, Elliotts and Parkers in terms of footballing ability.
Guest Col city fan Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 I missed gary macs era really, the closest i ever seen to parker was steve thompson (in pure passing range) but parker was still streets ahead. One of my favourite ever city players, the way some seem to think of him a lesser player than izzet or lennon is quite laughable. I would imagine izzet owes a bit of his career development to garry. Garry Mac was a sublime player. I was lucky enough to see him play when I was a kid and even then I could see his natural ability. He was very Glenn Hoddle esque.... One of those players that just seem to have more time with the ball to ping it about at will.
Karljohn Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Impey a bad buy?! Really? Yes really, goal ratio of 1 in 76! Only remember him doing two things, one cross for muzzy at Grimsby for the overhead, and then kissing a pensioner in the filbert St end after he scored one of his two goals for us!
dmayne7 Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Yes really, goal ratio of 1 in 76! Only remember him doing two things, one cross for muzzy at Grimsby for the overhead, and then kissing a pensioner in the filbert St end after he scored one of his two goals for us! He played a wingback so he was hardly going to score loads of goals was he? Guppy, who took some set pieces and had more games further forward only bagged 9 in 150 so not great either. You going to tell me that you didn't rate him either? The fact Impey played for us for 6 years in that side tells you that he was a decent player.
Bayfox Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 Garry Mac was a sublime player. I was lucky enough to see him play when I was a kid and even then I could see his natural ability. He was very Glenn Hoddle esque.... One of those players that just seem to have more time with the ball to ping it about at will. you must be around the same age as me. I caught the end of gary macs time here and even tho I had only just started going down the football you could tell he was class. Gutted when he left. Wish we had been able to hold on to him for a bit of the little era. was so pleased for him when he had that twilight period at liverpool.
stud2012 Posted 18 November 2013 Posted 18 November 2013 The transfer budget O'Neill worked with was fantastic 95-96 -450,000 96-97 -6.5m 97-98 -1.1m 98-99 -7.8m 99-00 +9m A net spend of around 7 million! Simply can't argue with the success he had working with that budget.
suffolk fox Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Not one player now would be in that side.End of. Agree 100% even Schmechiel would not have displaced either Keller or Tim Flowers great keepers both.
Bert Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Why is everyone being so mean to Andy ImpeyGreat player, could play a few positions, had a great whip on him and just got on with his game.
Bert Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Agree RE Drinkwater & Parker. Drinky is doing bits for us in the championship but Parker was class, one of the best players never to have played for England in my opinion. Especially when you consider some of the players we've had represent us. Only his Pace stopped him becoming a real top class footballer.
Guest MattP Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Spot on Bert. Had Parker been Spanish or Italian he would have been regarded as ten times the player he was, one of the original football quarterbacks. Was still fantastic for us and that was in his real later years.
Bayfox Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Parker v Stoke, awesome night, was at the front clinging to the rails, quality.
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Agree RE Drinkwater & Parker. Drinky is doing bits for us in the championship but Parker was class, one of the best players never to have played for England in my opinion. Especially when you consider some of the players we've had represent us. Only his Pace stopped him becoming a real top class footballer. I have literally no idea why people are comparing Drinkwater with Parker. It shows how little some of the forum seem to really know about football. They are/were two completely different players. Parker was a playmaker. Similar to Robert Koren in his pomp. Some other bod (Lennon) would win the ball, lay it off to Parker, who would then ping the ball about for fun. Drinkwater is more of a stopper. A poor man's Lennon if you like. Creatively he offers little. His range of passing is minimal in terms of killer balls. Drinkwater is young, fit and has an engine on him. He'll run all day and tackle with the best of em. Parker was slower, more methodical BUT a far more dangerous player than Drinkwater. He was one of the best passers of the ball I've seen in a City shirt AND he could score goals. Comparing Parker with Drinkwater makes no sense. They are completely different players.
GingerrrFox Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 I have literally no idea why people are comparing Drinkwater with Parker. It shows how little some of the forum seem to really know about football. They are/were two completely different players. Parker was a playmaker. Similar to Robert Koren in his pomp. Some other bod (Lennon) would win the ball, lay it off to Parker, who would then ping the ball about for fun. Drinkwater is more of a stopper. A poor man's Lennon if you like. Creatively he offers little. His range of passing is minimal in terms of killer balls. Drinkwater is young, fit and has an engine on him. He'll run all day and tackle with the best of em. Parker was slower, more methodical BUT a far more dangerous player than Drinkwater. He was one of the best passers of the ball I've seen in a City shirt AND he could score goals. Comparing Parker with Drinkwater makes no sense. They are completely different players. "Drinkwater is more of a stopper". If anyone needs to learn more about football it is you with comments like that Col. Drinkwater is a deep lying playmaker in the Paul Scholes mould. It's obvious who he's emulated his playing style on from his time at Manchester United and it certainly isn't Roy Keane.
absolutelegend Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Maybe Lloyd if we played 442, but if a MON style 352 then I can't see any current players getting in. Wes would be the closest for me.
dmayne7 Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Maybe Lloyd, none of the others. Flowers Walsh Elliott Taggart Grayson Guppy Parker Lennon Izzet Those players aren't even from the same era
davieG Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 The question is not whether any would be better or as good as the likes of Izzet, Lennon, Walsh, Flowers et al but would they be better back than the likes of....... Julian Watts Spencer Prior Sascha Lenhart Lawrie Duffield Graham Fenton Arnar Gunnlaughsson Phil Gilcrist All signed by MON Or even the likes of..... Steve Corica Richard Smith Lee Philpott David Lowe Phil Gee Brian Carey Mark Blake Franz Carr Jimmy Willis Franck Rolling Neil Lewis Jamie Lawrence Colin Hill Jordan Stewart All used by MON although eventually sold. Because they all got in 'MON'S team' at some point and for a fair number of games in some instances.
Dan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 I have literally no idea why people are comparing Drinkwater with Parker. It shows how little some of the forum seem to really know about football. They are/were two completely different players. Parker was a playmaker. Similar to Robert Koren in his pomp. Some other bod (Lennon) would win the ball, lay it off to Parker, who would then ping the ball about for fun. Drinkwater is more of a stopper. A poor man's Lennon if you like. Creatively he offers little. His range of passing is minimal in terms of killer balls. Drinkwater is young, fit and has an engine on him. He'll run all day and tackle with the best of em. Parker was slower, more methodical BUT a far more dangerous player than Drinkwater. He was one of the best passers of the ball I've seen in a City shirt AND he could score goals. Comparing Parker with Drinkwater makes no sense. They are completely different players. I'm amazed that someone who's been craving a 'stopper' as it were, now sees Drinkwater as that man? He isn't like that. Definite deep-lying playmaker. He's like a younger Wellens with potential to be better, and that isn't a criticism as Wellens was quality for us in his first two years.
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 I'm amazed that someone who's been craving a 'stopper' as it were, now sees Drinkwater as that man? He isn't like that. Definite deep-lying playmaker. He's like a younger Wellens with potential to be better, and that isn't a criticism as Wellens was quality for us in his first two years. Be amazed..What I've been asking for is a 'proper' stopper. A proper defensive-minded midfield man. Drinkwater is being used as a 'stopper', the fella to get his toe-in to make tackles in the midfield. That's been the role he's been given, he's just not very good at it. As for him being a 'Playmaker' (with comparisons being made to Parker?).. Nah This is one of the features of a Nigel Pearson midfield, when compared to a MON midfield. Both Drinkwater and King are now expected to occupy a dual-role. They are both 'box to box' midfielders. MON's midfield was completely different. Lennon held, giving Izzett the time to get forward and Parker stayed central as a genuine playmaker. That's why it worked. They were A. Very good players and MUCH better than our current crop, and B. They were played in exactly the right way.
Happy Fox Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 That is what I am frustrated with we have all box-box midfielders no playmakers okay knockaert could realise that however he is being deployed on the wing which isn't his best position imo.
fleckneymike Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 None of our current squad would have gotten into MON's first team. Into the squad? Maybe Morgan and Knocky. That's it. Morgan I agree as a squad player, don't think MON would have fancied Knocky in that 352. I think we forget just how good some of those players were and over estimate how good some of these current lot are. Ian Marshall was a fine player, Elliott was a cut above, Tags is better than Morgan, Zagorakis couldn't break into that midfield trio. Top 10 in the Prem is great no matter what era you're looking at.
fleckneymike Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Whilst we're lamenting great players from the past, Mark Draper from that Little Prem side. What a ****ing player.
Corky Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Wonder if Savage would've played as much had Scott Taylor been fit from 1997 onwards, because he was a great little player, ran with the ball and a tidy finisher. Savage seemed to take his role, as Parker was winding down and Izzet/ Lennon was the preferred two in CM.
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Morgan I agree as a squad player, don't think MON would have fancied Knocky in that 352. I think we forget just how good some of those players were and over estimate how good some of these current lot are. Ian Marshall was a fine player, Elliott was a cut above, Tags is better than Morgan, Zagorakis couldn't break into that midfield trio. Top 10 in the Prem is great no matter what era you're looking at. Spot on. And you really do have to have seen both squads and managers to make an informed comparison. Lest we forget, although Pearson has done better for City than any manager in recent years, he's won NOTHING yet. Apart from League 1 which, fair play, was an exciting and successful season. We look to be going in the right direction. But Pearson has done nothing yet in comparison to MON's time at the club.
Guest Col city fan Posted 19 November 2013 Posted 19 November 2013 Whilst we're lamenting great players from the past, Mark Draper from that Little Prem side. What a ****ing player. A player that flattered to deceive somewhat Mike? I always thought that Draper could actually be much better than he was for City. Again, he was one of those central midfielders who seemed to 'glide' over the pitch. But I'm not sure he ever really achieved his full potential?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.