tmonkey

Two stunners by Roman.

“And I can say that because he’s an international player – not someone who belongs to one of the bottom four battling relegation." Suggests it's a player currently at a bottom four club who shouldn't be with them. Immediate thoughts are Zog and Scott Parker (Tiote's replacement if we're being pessimistic?). Fingers crossed it's Zog and not Ireland.

6 foot 7 goalkeeper, a local lad who has had a very good season for Celtic judging by their forums. Pretty much sounds like someone we should be looking to build our future defense around.

Putting aside the shoddy tomato ketchup, I'd be happy with this, assuming we get a reasonable fee for the supposedly wantaway Enrique (£10m?).

Personally thought Ginola was miles better than Robert. The gap in ability and quality between the two was night and day, like Zidane and N'Zogbia or something. Ones a good all round footballer every time he's on the ball, the other looks class if you look at the highlights because you see the one great attempt he pulls off and not the 5 or 6 attempts it took for him to get there. Although he was class for what he was, Robert to me was an extremely hit-and-miss winger, a percentages player, and a limited one at that. Most of his crosses hit the first man, the majority of his shots were wild, and he'd run into brick walls more often than not. His crossing and shooting were great when he pulled it off, but his passing and creativity outside of smacking the ball in from wide areas or free kicks was non-existent imo, added to which he was an exceptionally selfish player on the ball. With Ginola the all-round play was at a much higher level - first touch, dribbling, awareness, passing, vision, etc, on top of which Ginola was a better pass-and-move type of player (hence why better teams wanted him when he was at his best). The only area where Robert trumps Ginola is effort in continuously trying to create or score something out of the blue even when the chips were down. Ginola did spend a few too many games being happy to play it simple, but then that leads me to my next point. IMO Robert had it easier than Ginola. I think alot of our fans are overly harsh on Ginola after the midway point of 95/96 as for me his form suffered due to what happened to the mechanics of the team he was in. In the first half of that season we had Gillespie on the other flank stretching the opposition, leaving Ginola with more space and one-on-ones against opposition fullbacks, hence why he murdered teams week in week out for the most part (or if he was quiet it wasn't a big problem as Gillespie was murdering teams on the other flank) - as soon as Gillespie's knee went we had a lopsided team with our width coming solely from Ginola, and so the spotlight fell on David. It's effectively the same as what Jonas has had to go through in previous seasons when he was being doubled up on every game with absolutely noone on the other flank to "help out" (prior to Enrique improving and helping him out regarding the doubling-up). It's clearly so much easier for teams to nullfily a single winger who isn't Messi. I remember Ginola constantly having to drift infield to get away from markers whilst Asprilla was doing sod all down the right (can't remember if Lee was played out of position there a few times?). Although I'd argue that despite the balance issues the team Ginola was in was more talented than Sir Bobby's, Robert still had the luxury of being in a well balanced side for a longer period of time (Nobby providing quality width on the other flank and Bellamy/Dyer stretching teams, etc), and so I'd argue that it was harder for Ginola to play well on a regular basis because of this whereas this wasn't as big an issue for Robert (hence why he did more than Ginola stats-wise during his time here).

African Cup of Nations next season too. We really need to sign a backup player and move Smith on.

So true. What a winner n all. Lush. http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj82/greendaygirl123_trecool/Die%20Nationamannschaft/ballackangry.gif

Given Beye Woodgate Howey Enrique Tiote Lee Gillespie Ginola Beardsley Cole

I don't think it's an ideal combination in a 4-4-2, where you really want one of the CMs to get forward into the penalty area. Barton is more of a playmaker. I don't think Barton lacks flair, it's just that he tends to set up chances rather than get on the end of them. We had this situation with Parker and Emre, where they ended up playing side by side a lot of the time. One of Barton's best games this season imo was away to Everton alongside Tiote. Frequently drifted into an attacking midfield position and looked a real threat because he was able to "play football" with Ben Arfa. At the same time, the goal against Villa early on in the season is an example of what Barton can do in terms of his ranged shooting, something we do lack. Personally think a Tiote Barton partnership could be an excellent one, and it would differ completely to the Emre-Parker experiment primarily because we'd not have the problem with roles that those two had. Emre-Parker was a confused partnership because Roeder tried to turn Parker into a box-to-box midfielder whilst having Emre holding, which was a waste of their respective talents. With this it's very simple - Tiote is the defensive midfielder, Barton is the attacking one. The main problem with Barton though is that he's such a hit-and-miss player. If he's finding the opposition with every other pass (as sometimes happens) and generally being slow/sloppy/unfocused, then we'll have no creativity down the middle. However, two good strikers, Ben Arfa down the left, and a good right winger, and I think we'd see far more from Barton than we have so far. This season he's played a good number of quality through balls and long ranged passes, most of which have been wasted by the likes of Shola and Lovenkrands, so if we could bring in strikers like Gervinho/Gameiro/etc, decent footballers with a bit of pace, it could make a big difference to how effective Barton is as a CM. The unreliability might be the dealbreaker though. Hence why I would definitely be glad to see us bring in another CM with some creativity. Ideally two, with Smith being moved on and a backup DM for Tiote coming.

I dunno, it'd be pretty high up on my priorities too, especially if Barton remains on the right - there's acres of space ahead of him that remain permanently unexploited because of his lack of attacking presence, and it's not as he's Paolo Maldini in the defensive stakes either to compensate. A good squad player to have for sure, but in terms of active contribution to the team going forward or defensively I don't think he has enough in either department to hold a first team slot. Agreed. Simpson is utter gash going forward. Hate the way he runs with the ball too, both feet flat and waddling like a duck.

Why? Best is in the same boat as Nolan for me. Mediocre player who has done OK in a few games and so has decent stats, but is still...mediocre. We can't build a team around players of that calibre because the truth is they just suck when they aren't putting the ball in the back of the net. Because they're in the team, we're overly reliant on a handful of good players (Colo, Jonas, Barton, Tiote, Enrique) to carry everyone else as they're the only ones remotely comfortable on the ball. As soon as a couple of them aren't performing, the entire team turns to s*** because the others (including Nolan and Best) are gash in their general play. It's especially telling when Barton has an off game (which is pretty often tbh) because we have sod all creativity coming from anyone else. Our aim this summer should be to reduce the ratio of mediocre players we have and increase the number of good ones so that we have a team which is actually comfortable on the ball on top of being able to score goals/stretch teams/etc, without being completely reliant on a few players to carry others. Nolan would be the first on my list to go beause we'd probably be able to rob someone blind given the amount of goals he's picked up this year, on top of which I have absolutely no faith in him maintaining his current (shocking) levels of fitness into his early 30's. The guy can barely run at times, I don't remember Lampard or Scholes looking like this when they were in their late 20's. Who knows what state he'll be in for next season after a whole summer of more chainsmoking and McD's. Let someone else worry about it for £8m.

I'll be happy with £12m.

Needs to lose his position in the first team next season. Alongside Ameobi, Lovenkrands, Best, etc etc.

Two first team strikers, Barton or Ben Arfa in the middle, a new right winger. We'd probably be shitting all over Liverpool.

When I was in nursery school and complained about something not being fair, the teacher replied "life's not fair". I fully understand what she meant everytime I see Ameobi play.

Lovenkrands

Ameobi

Liverpool are such a bunch of cunts.

Maybe this white kit is the equivalent of the infamous cloaking ManU Grey away kit..."my eyes, these colours do nothing". http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRW1y_RfD4RmZt2QMA-SdNd7BK-FwGxUp9fIYi8791DVgFlWRVfWg

Crazy from Jose.

Fluke. Shit happens.

I fully agree with you that Messi is not a complete player, but by that line of reasoning, neither were Zidane. If Messi lack what you describe then surely Zidane must lack the pace/agression/goalscoring virtues that messi possess? Not trying to be clever or anything just genuinly want you to elaborate on what you think constitutes being a "complete player"? Well, I think the context may have been lost here (or I needed to be more specific). By "player" of course I mean attacking creative player. Zidane, to state the obvious, wasn't a striker, or a central midfileder, or a centreback, or a goalkeeper, so I'd not expect him to have attributes that (imo) would be relevant to those positions. Instead I'm calling him a complete player within the context of him being an attacking/creative playmaker. Of course, that's just my opinion of what a "complete player" is, and I'm sure others would argue different things as to what constitutes a "complete player". To back up what I'm saying, I'd argue that imo Jonathan Woodgate was a "complete defender" when he was at his peak for us, or Baresi was for Milan. That doesn't mean they could dribble with the ball out of defence like Lucio, or play wonderfully accurate crossfield diagonal passes like Pique often does today, or burst forward like Cafu/Carlos/Zanetti/etc, but that they were exceptional in all areas relevant to their position as centrebacks (leadership, reading, positioning, tackling, whatever). Hence, within that context, the "complete player" aspect for me means the ability to do all the things required of them for their position. As stated, Zidane and Maradona could dribble past players, turn them, trick opponents, flick the ball on with exceptional accuracy, play perfectly weighted through balls or ranged passes on a regular basis, shoot with good accuracy/technique from various ranges, control the ball adeptly under intense pressure, and take excellent set pieces. Although Messi is better than Zidane at a couple of those things, mainly dribbling with extreme bursts of pace, I think he's lacking in other areas by comparison. That's not to say he can't play a peach of a pass now and again, but that he'd need many attempts to get it right because it's not his natural strength. If I can use an analogy without meaning to be condescending, I'd like to use Rooney vs Beardsley. I'm not comparing the two players at all here or looking to argue who was better/more complete/etc, rather I just want to focus on one attribute to highlight the difference between "good ability" and natural ability. Lets say in a fictional world both of them were in the same position on the pitch with the ball at feet, 40 yards from goal, in a match against the same quality opposition who's defence are playing a slightly high line but with the keeper off his line. In front of them is Andy Cole, just about to peal off and make a darting run off the shoulder of the last defender. The through ball needed to put Andy in on goal would have to be perfectly weighted/flighted with the correct type of spin for the surface to avoid it running through to the keeper, as well as deadly accurate to avoid being intercepted by the defenders. If both Rooney and Beardsley were given 10 opportunities to play that perfectly weighted pass, I think Rooney would overhit or underhit or have his pass intercepted the majority of times, probably even all of them, because that's fitting with what happens in real life (alot of the time Rooney's ideas are excellent, and he's lauded for trying something creative, but most of the time the application is wrong, something which tends to be ignored). Beardo on the other hand would be able to play a successful pass more often than not, because he's naturally gifted in this one area. It's just something he's able to do well on a regular basis. Imo this is how I see it for Messi. He's Rooney in the above example - yes, maybe he can play a good ball sometimes, but more often than not he'll get it wrong, even if the idea or vision or speed of thought are excellent. I appreciate that your arguement that Messi is alot better than Zidane was at dribbling + scoring could be used here to say that Zidane was merely a "good" dribbler whilst Messi's is the standard for "great", but I'd argue that here we have different types of dribbling ability/style/effectiveness at play. Zidane may not have been as explosive, direct or as quick as Messi is, but then he was a different type of attacking playmaker, and regardless of what Messi is like, Zidane was still an excellent dribbler with the ball who could beat players and trick them to create space in different ways. So for dribbling, they were both gifted dribblers with great control/technique, albeit with different styles, but for passing/creativity/crossing/ranged shooting/set pieces/etc, I'd say Zidane/Maradona were excellent or gifted in these areas whereas Messi is merely "good". For example, what happens if we compare Ronaldinho to Messi? There's no way Messi is anything like as good as Ronaldinho when it comes to combining tricks with dribbling. Messi is very basic by comparison, he'll get the ball, cut inside with two exceptionally quick touches and be off. I don't think he could do half the things Ronaldinho could on the ball, not in a competitive game. So are we to say Ronaldinho was the better dribbler? No, of course not. As with Zidane, it's just a different style of playing. Even if one is more effective than the other, they're both still world class/legendary dribblers. So styles are a different matter whereas not being proficient at a particular part of the game that would be useful or required for a player in a specific position is a negative trait. So when Messi is marked tightly by a top class, highly organised team in a massively important game, my point from the start was that so far he's shown he can't do anything other than look very ordinary because the other parts of his game aren't up to the same standards (yet). I hope that makes things a bit clearer, and fwiw this is all opinion that is liable to change anyway. As Tooj says he could well change his game and improve in other areas. E.g. I certainly don't remember Ryan Giggs being anything like as good as he is today in his passing/creativity/vision back when he was a an exceptional winger who did nothing but run past everyone for fun.

Zidane at his best from about 99 till 2004 was brilliant in nearly every game he played in. Personally I don't think a direct comparison between him and Messi works because they were/are so different. It's like comparing Xavi and Messi, apples and oranges, i.e. two distinctly different players, because of the way they played and the roles they had in their respective teams. Much of the brilliance of Zidane, like Xavi, came in the middle of the park, or in nothing areas out wide, where you could really appreciate his touch, control, ability to trick the opposition/change direction, and vision/passing ability. At his core, he was a great teamplayer who could turn a tight situation where nothing was happening into a teammate (fullback, striker, etc) running with the ball clean through into space or in on goal. This style is primarily what made him arguably the best player in modern times at performing in the big games at the highest levels - he thrived on being closed down quickly, man marked, trailed, etc, as it meant he could drift and then create space for others. Arguably the only downside with him was that he could drift in and out of matches, but the fact that he could top this play off with amazing technical ability in the final end (with both feet), resulting in great goals scored from all kinds of angles and ranges and brilliantly weighted through balls/crosses/free kicks/etc, makes him an all time great imo. The stats might not back it up, but he really was the perfect big game player. Regarding Messi, he is obviously the best player of this generation and is exceptional on a week in, week out basis, and probably the most effective individual attacking player ever at club level. However, I think there are a few issues to consider with him. Firstly, I think he can be read and can be marked out of games. He struggled last year against Inter, who shut him out completely, he struggled the year before against Chelsea (and in the final against ManU). In those games he was up against players who read him easily, kept up with him, teams organised enough to double up effectively, and generally reduced him to cameo appearances almost. He regularly struggles at international level too where he looks nothing like the player he is for Barca every other week. In short, I think there are some teams with world class defensive players who can deal with him, and a whole bunch of others who can't - how good he looks depends on who he's up against. If he had to play Chelsea or Germany every week, he'd probably have a good game every five or six times with quiet games making up the rest. If he had to play Madrid or Arsenal every week, he'd run riot. I think this season, without there being an international competition, will be one where he does the latter and just rapes everyone, maybe even ManU in the CL Final give how s*** they've looked, but the point still stands - he's very much "stoppable". Secondly, leading on from the first point, I think he's a tad one dimensional and overrated in areas outside of his direct dirbbling/scoring. I've not seen him put a good cross in in ages, and although some might argue that's because he doesn't need to, I can't help but think it's probably because he's just not very good at them. Same applies for free kicks and set pieces, they're not his forté (unlike Maradona). His through balls are highly overrated, he usually gets the weighting wrong and even then it's usually the same old 90 degree angled slide rule that he keeps trying. His passing range and vision in general are very limited - when you watch Barcelona play most of the time it's Xavi playing a wonderfully weighted curling through ball, never Messi. I think this is why he tends to be so quiet/anonymous for Argentina and in those few disappointing big games he's had in the CL - if he can't dribble at will past a team, he'll not do much else other than a very basic pass-n-move game. Similarly, although his finishing is excellent, he's not a player who'll be scoring from outside the box too often, nor would I expect him to be scoring awkwardly acrobatic goals anytime soon (can't ever see him scoring that Zidane volley for example on his left foot, let alone his right - again, this isn't about a comparison between the players but a comment on Messi's all round technical ability). I would also bring up something that has been mentioned before in that many of the all time greats were lauded because they carried average teams to great achievements - Maradona of course is most associated with Napoli and the '86 Argentina side, however Zidane imo also carried the 2000+ French side who looked dogshit whenever he wasn't in it, e.g. 2004 (and they've looked turd ever since he retired too). Even the 2006 World Cup, that French side was all about Zidane - when he started "playing", the entire team played. So far, with Messi, he's looked poor for a talented but disjointed Argentina side when they've relied on him to carry them. One has to wonder how he'd fare in a Barca side without Xavi and Iniesta running rings around the opposition. It's still early days for him though. So the point I'm trying to make here, if any, is that whilst Messi is probably the most effective solo attacking outlet ever (at club level) and certainly the best player in the world, a phenomenal talent, he's by no means a complete player, which is what Zidane and Maradona were, nor have his achievements matched what some of those he's being compared to have done, even if what he's done already is damn impressive for a 23 year old. If there is someone to compare him to, I'd argue that the original Ronaldo at his peak would serve as a good comparison, even if he was an out-n-out striker, as they're both explosive attacking players with great pace on the ball and the ability to change direction at the drop of a shoulder (and I'd also argue the original Ronaldo at his peak was the better player too).

How many clubs are there in the Affelay division?