tmonkey

Plus significant reduction in the wage bill, plus you'd expect there to be a reduction in the (alleged) continued payments to other clubs of transfer fees for players no longer at the club, plus the future income we should be getting from sponsorship deals that in recent years had (allegedly) been spent up front by the club, plus the staggered payments for players we've recently sold (Milner, Bassong, Martins, Duff, Given, Zog).

In all honesty, if Colo did make the final squad and did get to play in the World Cup, I'd be more worried about his stock going down after a bad game or two. He's been class for us this year, but there's still this nagging suspicion that higher calibre strikers than the ones we've been facing on a weekly basis in the Championship might not be so forgiving. Eto'o, Raúl, Real Ronaldo, Forlán, Villa, Torres, Van Nistelrooy. well to be fair ,when Colo played for Depor he played against some of those mentioned ,as well as other top class strikers week in week out and didn`t look out of place at all in that time. That's what I meant, these are the forwards he faced while at Deportivo. And it's not like they leaked goals like there was no tomorrow, Deportivo were a solid defensive side. Heck, Real Madrid never won at Riazor during the years Coloccini was there and I'm talking about a side that had more stars than probably most national teams he'd face at the WC and they shut them out often. It's a fair point (to an extent - we know that Depor fans liked him, but you have to take into account the possibility that they've ignored his failings because both he and the team overall had done alright for them, along with other factors like maybe expectation/pressure being lower?). But the last time he was up against those sorts of strikers he just looked very poor by the time the season ended, with certain flaws being established as being part of his game (too easily turned, not able to do anything to make up lost ground, etc etc - which is why so often the £10m price tag or "international centreback" tag were brought up that year) - e.g. Torres who left him for dead at will whenever we played Liverpool. If he was genuinely good for Deportivo, and it's not a case of him being exposed whilst with us in a league where defenders aren't able to "hide" and where possibly expectations/pressures are higher for defenders to be good at certain things than others, then that bodes well for him and for us if we keep him. But from what we've seen in a Newcastle shirt, those aforementioned flaws in some areas of his defensive game were targeted and exposed over the course of a season in the Premiership. Having just had a season in the Championship against mediocre players which has clearly rebuilt his confidence, I'm not sure it'd be wise for Maradona to throw him in in such high stake games where the pressure to perform is going to be intense and any costly mistake will be highlighted.

In all honesty, if Colo did make the final squad and did get to play in the World Cup, I'd be more worried about his stock going down after a bad game or two. He's been class for us this year, but there's still this nagging suspicion that higher calibre strikers than the ones we've been facing on a weekly basis in the Championship might not be so forgiving. Actually, on that note, maybe it'd be good if he did play. If he's good, we either have a highly confident, international calibre, groovy/classy centreback in our lineup for the start of next season, or we make a decent chunk of our money back should we sell (and move on to someone more physically suited to Premiership football hopefully). If he's bad and looks like 'Colo the Clown', then at least we "find out" before the Premiership season kicks off which might enable us to ship him out to some desperate punter, instead of starting the season with someone who we think is going to be a rock for us before realising in September that oh noes, he really is shit, just as the shit starts hitting the fan.

the one thing you didn't mention there, and it was something i was wondering about actually, is villas all round game outside the box - i.e. he's not likely to be playing in a standard 4-4-2 at barca and anyone in that team has to have a lot to their game, he can't just be a striker i mean the midfield have good workrate as well as their other abilities, the forwards can all play as well as score as they're mostly not traditional forwards, villa is more of a traditional striker i've simply not seen enough of villa to say he's got an all round game in terms of being able to play as well as tear defences up for arse paper anyone? On paper, Valencia have an excellent side. Every time I see them play on Sky though, it's always Villa who seems to be pulling the strings for them. Always looks a sound footballer, very sharp, and has enough ability to trick/beat a player when wide or having dropped off. He'll add some quality finishing power for them, that much is obvious, but I think he'll have no problems fitting in at Barca and contributing to their attacking play by linking up with the likes of Xavi, Iniesta, Messi, etc. The downside with Barca signing him imo, aside from as VI says his age, is that although he's relatively "nifty" (one of those players who can be be deceptively quick at times), with Ibrahimovich up front and Messi operating a bit deeper, or Pedro mixed in somewhere, they'll lack the genuine powerful/pacy running up front of an Eto'o or Henry from 2 seasons ago. Villa's not the type of naturally athletic player able to carry the ball over a distance. Maybe that won't matter if they're scoring for fun, but then again who knows. It's possible that they've suffered this year without Eto'o's pace and with Henry having diminished quite a bit, but it's been masked and covered for by Messi's phenomenal form.

Gerrard on form is better than Lampard when it comes to direct attacking play imo. Lampard has never, and will never, be able to single handedly drive a team forward in the way Gerrard has done for a long while at Liverpool (especially before Torres' arrival). Gerrard has just had a bad season along with being in a team that has stagnated, and is surrounded by dross unless Torres is fit. Lampard is the better passer of the ball and the better international standard player given that he's less inclined to lose the ball cheaply, but beyond that, he's merely perfected playing for one of the strongest and most stable teams in Europe. He has had one of the best defences in club football behind him for ages, some of the best defensive/hard working midfielders alongside/behind him for ages (including Makelele who used to be a one man brick wall almost), hard working wingers on either side with good ability to supply for ages (bar Duff's final year or two there), and top class strikers capable of playing on their own in front of him for ages. He's pretty much had the luxury of doing whatever he pleases on the pitch, and that's exactly how he plays for Chelsea - half the time he's in the opposition's penalty box, a luxury most central midfielders elsewhere can't afford (besides the superior Nolan of course). And given that he is someone who can stick the ball away well, and does have good passing ability, it's only expected that he'd have great stats every season playing for Chelsea given how s*** so many teams in the Premiership are. So he's a class act for what he is, but I'm just not sure he's anything else beyond that. He's been poor for England whenever England have come up against a technically decent team, both in friendlies and in the major competitions, something that is often blamed on the team as a whole, or his midfield partner (Gerrard usually, who's been s*** at international level in all fairness). But added to this string of poor performances, both he and Chelsea have consistently come up short in the Champions League. He's usually very anonymous in those top end games, and the quality passing we see every week against the West Hams and the Wigans isn't there. I therefore find it hard to come to any conclusion other than him being a very good, well drilled, exceptionally consistent player who just doesn't have the physical tools or the natural ability to be effective at the very top levels. I.e. great player to have for season-long domestic competitions, but not sure you'd want him in a one-off knockout match against someone who can keep the ball for fun. He's in the form of his life right now though, and has supposedly made some adjustments to his play, so maybe we'll see something different this year. Wouldn't want to bet my house on it though. I remember there being a similar wankathon over him around 2005-2006. He then had a mediocre World Cup, looked out of his depth/useless in a number of games, missed a penalty, and the wankathon died down and disappeared completely. Until 5-6 months later when he was scoring a hatful against open Premiership sides again and running riot against midfielders like Nicky Butt and Nigel Quashie.

IMO Lampard was a culpable part of a midfield that simply lacked the ability to hold onto the ball against Portugal/France, something which Svenn got the stick for (i.e. tactics being blamed) when really it was the selection that was the problem (i.e. Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham being in the same team resulted in there being too many midfielders who specialised in end product and long balls but who weren't suited to maintaining possession, relieving pressure by carrying the ball, etc). That lack of ability to hold onto the ball was the difference between beating the likes of France and Portugal, who were there for the taking, and losing to them in somewhat embarassing fashions in terms of overall performance (and not scoreline). Although Lampard popped up with a few goals, I still think he went missing big time the rest of the time, and failed to do his primary job as a central midfield (bit similar to the debates surrounded Nolan - only useful when he's scoring, useless when not). Hargreaves in 2006 managed to keep the ball under pressure, which in turn provided some relief for the team. He essentially stood up and made himself count when it mattered. Made a big difference having someone like that in midfield, because instead of having a long ball donkey kicking it away to an opposition player (or playing it immediately to a teammate who didn't want the ball), or someone going completely missing and hiding, we had a player who took on some of the responsibility of relieving some of the pressure, carrying the ball forward, creating some space for others, challenging affectively and winning tackles, etc. First midfielder in ages to do a good job against a good side at a vital stage of a major competition. Butt was, as Pele says, our best player in 2002, but that's not saying much given how poor everyone else was (it was more a case of he didn't play badly, as opposed to actually playing well imo), and more importantly he was pretty poor (as was everyone else) against 10 man Brazil. Therefore I still say that Hargreaves is the only midfielder we've had this decade who didn't go missing in general play when it mattered.

Carrick has been dogshit all season - visibly so. Suprised at how poor he's looked on a consistent basis this year. Must be a confidence issue, because his passing has gone to pot this year, and that's pretty much all he's about. Wonder if Hargreaves is fit again and whether he's still any good. He's the only English central midfielder who's actually looked good at international level in a major tournament this decade.

Has Torres been mentioned already? Maybe Messi or VI or someone who watches La Liga regularly can comment/correct here, but imo the key with signing Spanish strikers is to make sure they've get stand-out attributes that will serve them well in the Premiership (Torres is fast and relatively powerful for example). Strikers like Xisco (when he was at Deportivo) are to be found aplenty in La Liga, and for the most part compared to Premiership defenders they're either not fast enough, not strong enough, or not skillful enough to adapt to playing in this country. Watching a mid table team for example, it's easy to see how alot of Spanish strikers make it through their system - they have decent movement, decent technical ability, half decent finishing, all of which suit the style of play and the types of defenders you get there (e.g. Coloccini). That sort of striker however wouldn't work in the Premiership in a team where long balls and physical battles are part of the game (even in sides capable of playing decent football), and without pace or a high degree of ability to compensate they simply won't make it because Premiership teams won't fashion the types of chances they're used to having created for them. Hence the high percentage of flops from La Liga. Fernando Morientes is probably a better high calibre example of the type of striker you'd find in La Liga. Just didn't have a stand-out attributes his team needed from him to enable him to adapt to Premiership football.

They were 3-0 up in the second leg with an injured/unfit Rooney up front, and no Rooney for some of the second half. With a fit Rooney, I think they would've finished Bayern off once they were 3-0 up, yes. So back at ya. Thought Rooney had a decent first leg myself. His team losing 2-1 doesn't necessarily mean he himself played badly, though I'd agree it wasn't a great night by his standards.

So Rooney's been the better player because he might have played well in matches he wasn't involved in. Where exactly did you get that from what I've posted? I'm referring to Rooney looking better overall in the CL for ManU in those games he did play in (4 goals against Milan in the KO stages being the two standout performances) than Drogba did in the same competition for Chelsea (2 goals against a virtually eliminated Athletico in the group stages). As for the "ManU would be in the final" comment, point is he's ManU's key/star player, and looked in good form for them at that stage of the competition - without him they're not the same team, hence why they were unable to finish Bayern off.

Rooney. I'd give it to him on the basis of having had a bigger impact in the CL this year. As much as I dislike saying this, ManU would most likely have been in the CL final had he not damaged his ankle.

I just want to see good football from the best players in the world with the best team winning it. Would hate for a Jose Mourinho or Greece 2004 type team to win it. Shit football served up with a "win at all costs, who gives a fuck about entertainment" mentality. If England play well, I hope we win, if not, then anyone else who is actually looking to entertain and attack with a bit of flair instead of boring everyone to death.

The entire Greek economy.

At this stage in his career if a rival CL hopeful isn't interested in paying a decent fee + his chunky wages, then clubs like ours should run a mile due to the considerable risk of being lumbered with a has-been on a big contract. Would therefore fall into the exact same category as the likes of Owen and Duff back when we signed them (and suffered the consequences).

You won't be saying that though when 20k turn up to see the second uneviling of the Owen!!! :idiot2:

If we could land Owen on a 5 year contract, and tempt him with 100k per week wages (expensive, yes, but that's the price on the ticket for a natural goalscorer!), who knows, we could easily be in Europe within a few years. Possibly even next season - if you take our points tally in the Championship, divide it by two, add on additional points that Owen would win us (I'd say 20), we'd have 75 points. That's 4th spot in the Premiership next season right there. Come on Ashley, make it happen!

Jonas was far from s*** in our relegation season. He had the flaw of awful end product, but that alone surely can't define his performances, otherwise you're ignoring the rest of the time when he was the only outfield player actually doing anything. He was frequently driving the team forward, maintaining possession, passing it to teammates, winning free kicks and corners, all in a team full of players who either couldn't control/pass the ball (Butt, Martins, Ameobi), or just hid for 90 minutes (Nolan, Duff, Owen). He was essentially the closest thing to a playmaker we had in that team, someone who did nothing in the final third himself but contributed a significant amount in the middle of the pitch. He was also our best player on a number of occassions when we faced the bigger teams. The Old Trafford performance wasn't entirely a one off - iirc he performed well against Arsenal at the Emirates too (down the right wing), but it's not remembered much or was overlooked because it was a 3-0 defeat or something along those lines, hence his efforts were meaningless. Similarly there were other good performances against top end teams, and that's down to him maintaining possession and beating a player or two when in tight situations. Irrespective of what came at the end of it, against a top team those aren't easy things to do, and whilst the rest of our players were treating the ball like hot coal because they lacked any ability to do anything else, he was single handedly driving the team forward and winning free kicks. I'm expecting him to be the same next as he was the last time he was in the Premiership. If we're getting creativity and end product from other players, particularly the opposite flank, then he'll be very useful (similar to that brief spell when we had Zog on the other wing, prior to Kinnear shitting all over that). If there's f*** all coming from the rest of the team and we're looking toothless/clueless every game, then he'll be of little use, and will get more stick than others because of his poor end product/balance when having to cross or shoot. Would like to add however that imo he often doesn't put half the effort in that alot of people say he does. He's a gangly player so jogging back to help is easy, but quite often when we have the ball you see him standing there or walking when he should be at least jogging forwards and making an effort to create space for the team. In an ideal world, we'd have someone challenging him for a first team sport just to make sure he genuinely does put the effort in to keep his place in the team - similar to the effort he puts in for Argentina.

But I'm not expecting Messi to win the Champions League single handedly, or score 3 goals every game, nor am I judging Zidane's career based on winners medals. It's about performances during their respective peaks. Zidane went through a lengthy period where he was consistently good on a regular basis, including many big games in the big competitions. That's not to say that he was great every single game, or that he never had his off days where he was anonymous - just that in a good number of big games against top sides, for both club and country, he was often exceptionally good, so much so that the opposition teams couldn't shut him out. His all round game meant that he could pull the strings, create space, create openings, create chances, change direction, etc, none of which relied on him dribbling past players or scoring goals (which he could also do) - which meant he was difficult to double up on, etc. Messi clearly is the best in the world, I'm not disputing that, and he's still young so could improve (although given his physique and his game being based alot around pace, it's not unreasonable to say this might possibly be his peak). But if he's being shut out and made to play a very basic game whereby he's pretty quiet, surely therefore it's unwarranted to call him the best player ever? Which is entirely what this thread is about.

And conversely, everytime he has a great game ... ... It work both ways. This is a thread about Messi right now being the best player ever based on some sensational performances against decent teams and a very good season overall. A fair number on here wanted to wait to see how he'd perform against stronger sides in the big games in the high stake competitions, since that's the level where those players he's being compared to/proclaimed to be better than have already performed during their respective peaks. Given that Messi has again disappointed in a game of this magnitude and has been easily contained, and given that some of us specifically said we'd wait to see his performances against better teams in the latter stages of this competition (as well as the World Cup), I can't see how it's anything but reasonable within the context of this thread to point out using actual performances why an opinion was voiced in the first place. I apologise if this comes across as "rubbing it in your face", but then there's no other way of voicing an opinion and then backing it up with real examples/performances without some people getting their knickers in a twist about it. I'm sure if he flops in the World Cup, this thread will be bumped, and rightfully so. And similarly, if he does a Maradona and drags Argentina to WC glory, then there'll also be more wankathon threads, or this will be bumped. Since noone is being quoted or ridiculed for their opinions, it's all nothing but reasonable.

... "I know he's great 'n all and the best in the world right now, but he does seem to lack the all-round game that Zidane, Maradona, etc, had. If he can't dribble at a defence at will and therefore tear them apart, if he's being marked tightly and closed down fast by good calibre defenders, he's not going to do much else." What exactly are you disputing, given the context of this thread?

Bumped again. Also get the impression that he's a little bit predictable. He always wants to come in on the inside, onto his left foot, and doesn't seem to want to attack the other side.

Fucking hell Jose really is the evil anti-football manager.

No way is that handball. It's directly at his stomach.

Alves

Yet again, chance created by Xavi.