Parky

How can you tell, he's barely played? Or is that your argument? If he doesn't have 15(bare minimum)-20 goals by the end of the season, I'll agree. How many games do you want to give him? I've seen enough of him since he's been back from injury to know he's not the player he once was, that doesn't mean he's shite by any stretch of the imagination but he's not a World class striker anymore, he's a top class finisher with good movement but he's not going to create much for himself anymore. The old Michael Owen would have raced though and put the ball in the back of the net with that chance against Spurs, the Michael Owen of now is a player who struggles to pull away from the likes of Michael Dawson, which means he has to shoot from distance which is something he's never been that good at. Anelka's a better player than him and he's someone I'd like to see here if Owen leaves, he's not a World class player either. Welcome aboard the Anelka train Baggy. I've only been banging on about getting him for a year and a half on here.

Assuming that's what meant by fulcrum, then I think, yes, we could do with one. Owen could do it, but I don't think he has the necessary influence on his team-mates. It looked like Geremi was going to do it but it is clear he can't and Butt is too quiet and can't pass. Well, in that case let's hoy another egg in the basket marked 'Joey Barton', to use a terrific analogy. Btw "Colour of Spring" is the seminal Talk Talk album. blueyes.gif

....people like Butt need replacing before Owen.

Assuming that's what meant by fulcrum, then I think, yes, we could do with one. Owen could do it, but I don't think he has the necessary influence on his team-mates. It looked like Geremi was going to do it but it is clear he can't and Butt is too quiet and can't pass.

Fulcrum is probably a player or a role in the team who could dictate play or control the tempo of the game. Above mention by HTT is a star player......in the KK era we had peter pan still around which was pretty much the Fulcrum but he wasnt the only star in the team obviously. What i mean is when a team gets over reliant on one single player in a certain department the team and would normally fold without him. I know i going to get a bashing for this , but at one point during Bobby era i thought his decision to try sell Shearer was the right choice. Shearer was keeping us ticking at the same time i felt he was holding us (due to the lost mobility) back cause the younger players we had then was only going to look to him when things were not going our way therefore often remained as potential players. It was probably our fault as the fans and the chairman who thought shearer was undroppable therefore the evolution of the team was kinda held back at our peak. I remember at some point we nearly bought bent for 1 million pounds which is 16 times he is worth now.... I mean a good manager normally rids of a player that has too much influence on the team even though his contributions at the same time is tremendous. As there are Pro and Cons having one. (BTW Shearer's my second all time favorite player behind Peter, i would have cry if he left). The big mistake imo during bobby's era was not to get in players that had as much influence as Shearer to keep the team balance(Well he tried with Rivaldo,Klu and maybe others). Without a doubt we had players with charm like nobby, Diabaz possibly Robert and Bellamy but the only Speed ever came close on the influence of the team like Shearer had to keep the team a team. I like the way Sam is handling the team atm, he doesnt big up his players overwhelmingly unlike souness( Owen)and Roeder( Martins) till the point it was a religious cult. If we ever have one star again we need players that are going to compliment the star player not only in terms our qualities on the pitch but in also in terms of leadership as well. Atm the team generally relies on one another and tries to play like a team which leaves alot of space for improvement. Although i do agree with the majority of the crowd that we need a player that can be a Fulcrum to start attacks and i do believe Barton (or emre) might fulfill this role as to what i seen from the man c days. This player doesnt necessarily need a big personality but must have the playing qualities obviously better then his surrounding midfield players and is big enough not to go hiding. (Paul Scholes, Deco,etc). If we could get hold of one ,it would probably significantly improve our game and bring us to the next level. I just loved it when Spurs lost Carrick cause it just proves now that such a player was so hard to come by and so hard to replace. Evidently if we want a team to play like the top teams do, we need to build a team of stars which is what Sam as tried to do at his time at bolton. I say give Sam time if he seem like bringing us in the right direction and i dont mean a few months but probably 3 to 5 years. We're missing players who can manage a game on the pitch.

From that era they were all denotate with f's.. Flanker, Fulcrum, Foxbat, etc...

Rafa will be sacked in the summer he'd be ideal for Hingerland.

Eh? This isn't about the usual red herring and relying on a single player malarkey mate.

His goals sure did help the Spuds pip 5th in the table last year. Not too mention his excellent play in the box. Fulcrumers are normally midfielders although as Berbs does drop off he is a borderline case. Does he tackle tho?

Berbatov is not fulcrum material.

All their play used to go through Carrick. They haven't been as good since he departed. The true worth of the fulcrum in one easy exercise. Spurs £40m later are still not what they were.

Hoddle?

SA won't tolerate a specialist 'playmaker'. I wouldn't say that like. He did have Djorkaeff at Bolton for example. Wasn't he more the withdrawn forward type? Not really sure. Aye, that is the classic position for a playmaker though. I don't see a fulcrum as a specialist playmaker imo...More of an allrounder. Fabregas for instance has grown into a fulcrumite from starting more as just a def player with passing qualities...ie He now scores and sets tempo. It was in response to your comment re: Allardyce and his not tolerating a playmaker. If you're talking about a 'midfield general' then Barton's the nearest we've got. Barton is no fulcrumite.

SA won't tolerate a specialist 'playmaker'. I wouldn't say that like. He did have Djorkaeff at Bolton for example. Wasn't he more the withdrawn forward type? Not really sure. Aye, that is the classic position for a playmaker though. I don't see a fulcrum as a specialist playmaker imo...More of an allrounder. Fabregas for instance has grown into a fulcrumite from starting more as just a def player with passing qualities...ie He now scores and sets tempo. ie Van der Vaart is a playmaker but doesn't imo qualify for full fulcrumosity.

Spurs are a classic example of a team that lost thier fulcrum.

It's a pivot point suspension system, isn't it? It's the holy grail of football.

The touchstone. :giggle:

It is an interesting site if you browse it. I know ref changing and ref choosing was one of Mourinho's main bugbears especially in the Champions League.

SA won't tolerate a specialist 'playmaker'. I wouldn't say that like. He did have Djorkaeff at Bolton for example. Wasn't he more the withdrawn forward type? Not really sure.

He is the epitomy of fulcrumosity.

SA won't tolerate a specialist 'playmaker'.

Surely Gerrard is the monster fulcrum?

Interesting read. What do you make of it Crumpy?

Liverpool have Gerrard, for Arsenal it's Cesc - Chelsea probably Essien/Lampard and ManU it was Ronaldo and sometimes Scholes. Spurs don't currently have one. Man City - Elano Everton - Arteta (even when solidly on the wing a lot goes through him). Do we have one? At the moment it will be a toss up between Emre and Barton (when he gets going). I don't really see them as proper fulcrums as neither are adequately multi-roled. Do we need one? Should we get one at Christmas?