mrmojorisin75

i suspect he won't line up quite as attacking as that at west ham mind, not sure our defence is quite ready to be left to their own devices away from home just yet think it'll perez in for mitrovic as the only change then look to attack more in the next game at home

i'm not on board with "fit to lace the boots" or anything mind, but if you'd put prime lineker in the manyoo teams rooney had played for he'd have scored a hatful

As a footballer yes, as a striker,no. Correct me if I'm wrong but Wiki suggests Rooney's scored more goals than Lineker managed. Can't be that much difference if any at all in Lineker's favour. Rooney also happens to have played in a club team that dominated the division for a massive part of his career tbf, Lineker most certainly did not.

exactly

What in the

Not a chance

Think it's been described that way of Dortmund. I'm guessing it's a German word. Yeah, the other word used in that article was counterpressing which is closer to how we'd describe it. Back to the original hipster accusation imo, just not necessary to use it other than to sound knowledgeable

Shearer coming on Twitter has been a revelation, he just pops up and owns dickheads out of nowhere all the time.

It's interesting that from the descriptions of it in this thread the example that sprung right to mind was Guardiolas Barcelona, which is referenced in that article, yet during the entire period they won everything doing it I never once heard it referred to as Gegenpressing.

You've just said it's a specific system and is entirely different from high pressing but you haven't said how. Seems like you've introduced a new term to most of us today, the least you could do is shine your light of knowledge on those of us sitting in the dark wise one.

Are there any notable examples of teams that have succeeded by gegenpressing then TCD? I heard the word for the first time today so perhaps you can point me to some teams that have used it to good effect and how it's clearly distinct from just playing a pressing game?

Loan for the season please then we'll never have to think about him again.

Bullshit like this sounds like something Pardew would wheel out to sound like he's cleverer than he actually is.

Gegenpressing now huh?

send them to syria, make some room

good god man, it doesn't cost anything to just admit you misread the post "Whoops, my bad. Misread the post." Look at that, so simple, so pure.

His ego would certainly love it. Life doesn't get this good, something will stop it happening.

So it appears we're all in agreement that players are never signed only on the basis of stopping them playing for someone else. Took longer than I'd have liked but still.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise. And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is. Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that. Prove otherwise. Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this? I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny. So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such? Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them. So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas? Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing? I think they sign them to meet quotas and be potentially good backup to their first choices. Not to stop other teams getting them. That's the crux of this. It's pretty fucking obvious to me tbh. I don't get why you think them cynically buying players to meet quotas is any different to them cynically buying players to stop other teams from threatening their place at the top of the table. I'd say Bayern Munich are worse than this than Chelsea tbh. Nigh on every single time a player performs well in the Bundesliga, Bayern will sign them and then not play them. It's just the big teams having the monopoly on players, it's not a mad theory. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. ...and I've made loads of points as to why it thinking it's definitely bullshit is naive, but it's fine, you're not even open to it being possible despite the points made, so there's no point. But you're not open to it not being possible I can conceive that in a very few limited situations it may happen but that's it. You can't be open to having a closed mind on something you don't know for certain man you knacker. I'll take that and run with it. You've lost your fucking shit

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise. And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is. Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that. Prove otherwise. Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this? I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny. So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such? Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them. So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas? Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing? I think they sign them to meet quotas and be potentially good backup to their first choices. Not to stop other teams getting them. That's the crux of this. It's pretty fucking obvious to me tbh. I don't get why you think them cynically buying players to meet quotas is any different to them cynically buying players to stop other teams from threatening their place at the top of the table. I'd say Bayern Munich are worse than this than Chelsea tbh. Nigh on every single time a player performs well in the Bundesliga, Bayern will sign them and then not play them. It's just the big teams having the monopoly on players, it's not a mad theory. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude. ...and I've made loads of points as to why it thinking it's definitely bullshit is naive, but it's fine, you're not even open to it being possible despite the points made, so there's no point. But you're not open to it not being possible I can conceive that in a very few limited situations it may happen but that's it.

It's insane man.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise. And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is. Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that. Prove otherwise. Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this? I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny. So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such? Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them. So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas? Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing? I think they sign them to meet quotas and be potentially good backup to their first choices. Not to stop other teams getting them. That's the crux of this. It's pretty fucking obvious to me tbh. I don't get why you think them cynically buying players to meet quotas is any different to them cynically buying players to stop other teams from threatening their place at the top of the table. I'd say Bayern Munich are worse than this than Chelsea tbh. Nigh on every single time a player performs well in the Bundesliga, Bayern will sign them and then not play them. It's just the big teams having the monopoly on players, it's not a mad theory. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck? Wey it's not even a debate is it, you're just 'it's bullshit' and nothing's going to make you change your mind on that. I've made fucking loads of points as to why the opinion is bullshit dude.

Absolute fucking nonsense man. I agree it goes in other businesses, have never suggested otherwise. And yes the burden of proof fucking applies because you and the other lad are essentially saying something is rotten in Denmark without having to prove why it is. Chelsea paying 26m for Cuadrado and shipping him out on loan is literally no different to us and Cabella. It's as simple as that. Prove otherwise. Again, you're picking examples that I haven't brought up. Where did I say that Cuadrado, or indeed anyone at '20m+' is an example in this? I'm talking about players that are zero risk (for a fucking billionaire remember), that they certainly won't play, who will be a threat to their title challenge should they remain at their club/go to another club. Nothing is rotten either, it's business, I'm just saying that it happens in other businesses and therefore isn't unlikely in football. You're saying that it definitely doesn't happen, based on nothing other than you thinking it doesn't happen. Burden of proof doesn't apply here man. We're talking about the possibility of it happening in football business based on it happening in other businesses, this doesn't come under the code of scientific scrutiny. So unlike this Figures character you're basically talking only of the Sidwells, Delphs, Sinclair's and such? Still don't think it applies. They sign them for quotas and relative cheapness, not to stop other teams getting them. So they cynically sign players they'll never play for cash to meet quotas, rather than just put in some homegrown players that they'll never play to meet quotas? Why bother spending the money if they're not going to play them and it's just to meet quotas? Are you honestly trying to say that incredibly rich clubs don't try to monopolise players? You honestly think that those clubs genuinely believed that players like Parker, Sidwell, Delph, Sinclair etc were going to do anything but sit on the bench and do nothing? I think they sign them to meet quotas and be potentially good backup to their first choices. Not to stop other teams getting them. That's the crux of this. It's pretty fucking obvious to me tbh. I don't get why you think them cynically buying players to meet quotas is any different to them cynically buying players to stop other teams from threatening their place at the top of the table. I'd say Bayern Munich are worse than this than Chelsea tbh. Nigh on every single time a player performs well in the Bundesliga, Bayern will sign them and then not play them. It's just the big teams having the monopoly on players, it's not a mad theory. I didn't say I did dude. I'm arguing a very narrow point that this 'figures' character made that they buy players to stop other teams getting them. It's bullshit and I'll not have it. This is pointless, you're obviously completely set in your ways like. I don't think it's unlikely for reasons I've explained so obviously I don't think it's bullshit like, but I'll stop now, there's no point. The fuck?

He's 20 years old man, and very fucking talented. Let's give him a chance.