Babylon Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Yes your right babs as usual sign bench players better than we have we are stronger. So strong we hold up the prem. Sorry did not realise you was happy to be cannon fodder. Did you once manage or do you manage England? A stronger squad to me is one that can fight. Whats your idea one without a limp wrist lol Yes I am right. Perhaps you are confusing the words squad and starting 11. You were simply just wrong, if you sign better bench players than the ones you have your squad IS stronger. If you want to talk about starting 11 then state the starting 11 and we can have a completely different discussion.
hackneyfox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Yes I am right. Perhaps you are confusing the words squad and starting 11. You were simply just wrong, if you sign better bench players than the ones you have your squad IS stronger. If you want to talk about starting 11 then state the starting 11 and we can have a completely different discussion. Bit pedantic, it was clear what he meant.
Babylon Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Bit pedantic, it was clear what he meant. Sorry it wasn't clear as your squad is completely different to your starting 11. I repeated what he said and he had the chance to clarify but chose to throw a load of shit about.
The other Ollie Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 We are going to be such a good Championship side Thats the spirit !!
davieG Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Not twitter but notworth starting a thread on Former Chelsea star Michael Essien rejects Leicester or Burnley switch for MLS side Dallas MICHAEL ESSIEN has no intention of returning to the Premier League and instead will sign for MLS side FC Dallas. Published: 14:48, Wed, January 21, 2015By JOE SHORT GETTY Michael Essien is eyeing a switch to FC Dallas in MarchFormer Chelsea ace Essien, who joined Italian giants Milan 12 months ago, is available to discuss a move away from the San Siro. He has offers from both Leicester City and Burnley to come back to England, while new West Brom manager Tony Pulis is reportedly interested in the defensive midfielder. But Italian newspaper Gazzetta dell Sport claim the 32-year-old will snub the Premier League for Major League Soccer. Dallas are favourites to land Essien, who boasts two Premier League titles and four FA Cup winners medals from his eight seasons at Chelsea. As for Leicester and Burley, the two clubs must act fast to find a replacement target for Essien as the January transfer window nears its conclusion.
Miquel The Work Geordie Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 If we could've kept Essien fit, good Lord that would've been a signing.
AKCJ Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Jesus Christ. That'd have been a stunning signing.
Guest Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 WTF were Burnley going to pay him with? Rumour has it Dyche has 2 pound notes. But he's reluctant to part with either as he's using them for bookmarks after misunderstanding what they were.
Finn Claw II Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Essien is never 32. It'd be a creaking middle with him and cambiassso.
TOMBlcfc Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Imagine if you said a few years ago we'd have a team which included Schwarzer, Cambiasso and Essien. Hell even Albrighton was incredibly hyped to be the next big thing! [emoji23]
inckley fox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Yes I am right. Perhaps you are confusing the words squad and starting 11. You were simply just wrong, if you sign better bench players than the ones you have your squad IS stronger. If you want to talk about starting 11 then state the starting 11 and we can have a completely different discussion. I can't let you get away with this one Babylon. You argued with me in the summer that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with our summer transfer policy and that we were significantly improving on our squad, failing to take into account that some players were getting older (Konchesky, Wasilewski), others were on their way out (Dyer) and we were introducing few players who would represent an immediate improvement coming in. I pointed out that successful spending when sides go up - such as the last time we went up and didn't come straight back down, both at 2nd tier and top tier level, involves improving the starting 11 (e.g. Izzet, Marshall, Prior, Keller in 96, and Wellens, Weale in 09) not padding out the rest of the squad. I hadn't brought up this impassioned defence of our summer spending because I thought 'well, we're all wrong sometimes, there's no point in making people admit it'. But I find it remarkable that, as we look at another player designed to bolster our options rather than strengthen our first team, you still insist on suggesting that this is the right way forward. So you haven't learned from one of those very rare instances when you were clearly, demonstrably wrong.
sylofox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Yes I am right. Perhaps you are confusing the words squad and starting 11. You were simply just wrong, if you sign better bench players than the ones you have your squad IS stronger. If you want to talk about starting 11 then state the starting 11 and we can have a completely different discussion. As I said you are so right. We don't have a strong first 11 and you think we are stronger getting bench players. So a 25 man squad all no better. That is not a stronger squad it is 25 players the same or not as good as what you already have. Bring in 5 first choice players your sqaud is stronger. Still added the numbers but better players than you had. Strengthen from the front not the rear or middle. What point bringing in a player that is bench at best. Yes Hamer as kasper had done great and our back up was poor. And id we need to cover a place through injury now at the right price yes. But in the summer we should have spent the money on first team first choice players. Not on squad players just bulking out. You only get stronger buying better than you have not buying subs to bulk out.
sylofox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 I can't let you get away with this one Babylon. You argued with me in the summer that there was nothing whatsoever wrong with our summer transfer policy and that we were significantly improving on our squad, failing to take into account that some players were getting older (Konchesky, Wasilewski), others were on their way out (Dyer) and we were introducing few players who would represent an immediate improvement coming in. I pointed out that successful spending when sides go up - such as the last time we went up and didn't come straight back down, both at 2nd tier and top tier level, involves improving the starting 11 (e.g. Izzet, Marshall, Prior, Keller in 96, and Wellens, Weale in 09) not padding out the rest of the squad. I hadn't brought up this impassioned defence of our summer spending because I thought 'well, we're all wrong sometimes, there's no point in making people admit it'. But I find it remarkable that, as we look at another player designed to bolster our options rather than strengthen our first team, you still insist on suggesting that this is the right way forward. So you haven't learned from one of those very rare instances when you were clearly, demonstrably wrong. So glad someone agrees buying subs does not strengthen the squad. FFS thought I was going mad. TY
Finn Claw II Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Logic wise improving first 11 will improve the squad as the old first 11 were better than the old subs (presumably). Improving the squad should logically at best bring your subs up to the standard of the old first 11. Each achieve different means. First 11 is more a decision of overall quality while squad is about risk. E.g. if Chelsea sold Cech would they need to sign a keeper better than courtios? I'm not sure they would. As for us, hamer was sensible but should we have signed more first team, probably.
sylofox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Logic wise improving first 11 will improve the squad as the old first 11 were better than the old subs (presumably). Improving the squad should logically at best bring your subs up to the standard of the old first 11. Each achieve different means. First 11 is more a decision of overall quality while squad is about risk. E.g. if Chelsea sold Cech would they need to sign a keeper better than courtios? I'm not sure they would. As for us, hamer was sensible but should we have signed more first team, probably. My point is if you are chelsea man city buying a sub that is a prospect fine. Our first 11 was not strong enough and I said that in the summer. No I don't want nige gone I am not anti but will say if I think he is wrong. Not slagging him off not sure the summer was all his fault hence robinson going. But a club in our shoes going up needs to improve the first team that will then improve the bench.
sylofox Posted 21 January 2015 Posted 21 January 2015 Anyway won't post here again as this should be Twitter rumours and none of this is.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.