loki679

Did play 29 league games when they won the league in 2012. If it is the Richards of 11/12, it's a no-brainer. What we would get is a poorly-motivated, injury-prone, tactically-limited player who isn't anywhere near his best form though. If we are going to sell Debuchy for £10-12 million, I can think of far worse options than Richard for £3-5 million. The fact that he has proved he has the talent previously would make it a gamble worth taking in my opinion. Would I prefer someone like Aurier? Yes, but the chances of us getting him are pretty low (either because he wouldn't come or we wouldn't spend the money). Is your suggestion that he is poorly motivated based on anything in particular by the way? Why is it a gamble worth taking? I'd rather just keep Debuchy.

Richards inability to follow instructions would be a good thing for us.

Any team with a half decent attack would murder that. Talk about exposing the defence Looks great from an attacking point of view, mind How do the other teams in the league manage without playing 10 defenders?

Yes, Stifler, Grenier is still a possibility.

Look at that guy on the end with his cold, dead eyes ffs. Looks like he's stabbing the happy black dude in the heart and getting a bit turned on by it.

Halfway line then.

Nope. Sounds very much like the club's been sold to him as a shop window.

tl;dr toulon;dijon read Bravo sir.

Fixed it for you. http://i.imgur.com/6YiUpJ3.jpg

Looks like a big game of space invaders

Cisse Gouff HBA De Jong Anita Sissoko Not bad.

Woke up to a signing, an actual proper, good signing! :frantic:

Should have Luuked harder.

what a cunt

Yeah but you're not allowed to talk about anything else or Santoon pisses his nappy.

Are they still going on? Fuck you man. 5 pages on what pocket to have your keys in and we can't have a few posts?

See the above post. As it's near impossible to separate the individual from the context of his team, role, competition they're playing in, etc I think it's risky business giving too much importance to these numbers when comparing them side by side. Statistical analysis has a role to play in football, but you've got to be comparing like for like otherwise the numbers are meaningless. A great example is comparing Demba Ba's pre-Cisse and post-Cisse scoring records with us. If you remove all context, it looks like Ba's form completely dropped. You need the context of knowing he was being played in a wide position to figure out what's really going on. Another example would be Jozy Altidore's scoring record in Holland. The numbers alone are meaningless without context. You can't compare Messi's all-Barca career to Ronaldo's career looking just at the numbers, which is why I'm focusing on their current talent, attitudes, performances. Actually, those stats were derived in context, the article had a whole segment trying to separate Messi's numbers from the impact Barca has had on his numbers. Not to be a jerk, but try reading it during halftime, I'd be curious what you think afterwards. I'll take a look in a few, see what they came up with. But it'll have to be some work of genius to separate out the fact they've played for completely different clubs at different levels, in different countries for their entire careers. Barcelona and Madrid are in the same country for the time being at least But they are different clubs. There's not a single like-for-like factor in their careers. Guess we can't say Ronaldo is better than Dean Whitehead then. We can, because when you add in the context Ronaldo is a better player. If you look at the technique, fitness, etc it's no contest. Stats only work in apples to apples comparisons. For the rest you have to use your brain. Ronaldo, having won less, scored less, assisted less, looked worse, achieved less internationally and been less critically acclaimed is a better player? Bizarre. Possibly you saw some 'context' in the king that we all missed for so long. That's quite the distortion of my premise. You can't compare two sets of numbers derived in different ways and expect a meaningful result. It's basic science and remains true whether you choose to accept it or not. Messi may well be the "better" (whatever that means, given how subjective it is) player. I said as much. But it's not because numbers say so. Ok, i'm sorry the nasty numbers hurt your feelings.

See the above post. As it's near impossible to separate the individual from the context of his team, role, competition they're playing in, etc I think it's risky business giving too much importance to these numbers when comparing them side by side. Statistical analysis has a role to play in football, but you've got to be comparing like for like otherwise the numbers are meaningless. A great example is comparing Demba Ba's pre-Cisse and post-Cisse scoring records with us. If you remove all context, it looks like Ba's form completely dropped. You need the context of knowing he was being played in a wide position to figure out what's really going on. Another example would be Jozy Altidore's scoring record in Holland. The numbers alone are meaningless without context. You can't compare Messi's all-Barca career to Ronaldo's career looking just at the numbers, which is why I'm focusing on their current talent, attitudes, performances. Actually, those stats were derived in context, the article had a whole segment trying to separate Messi's numbers from the impact Barca has had on his numbers. Not to be a jerk, but try reading it during halftime, I'd be curious what you think afterwards. I'll take a look in a few, see what they came up with. But it'll have to be some work of genius to separate out the fact they've played for completely different clubs at different levels, in different countries for their entire careers. Barcelona and Madrid are in the same country for the time being at least But they are different clubs. There's not a single like-for-like factor in their careers. Guess we can't say Ronaldo is better than Dean Whitehead then. We can, because when you add in the context Ronaldo is a better player. If you look at the technique, fitness, etc it's no contest. Stats only work in apples to apples comparisons. For the rest you have to use your brain. Ronaldo, having won less, scored less, assisted less, looked worse, achieved less internationally and been less critically acclaimed is a better player? Bizarre. Possibly you saw some 'context' in the king that we all missed for so long.

It'll be different shirt numbers next or different pant size maybe.

I don't know if he's shit or not. He signed, I don't remember ever seeing him play or hearing about him, he left.

See the above post. As it's near impossible to separate the individual from the context of his team, role, competition they're playing in, etc I think it's risky business giving too much importance to these numbers when comparing them side by side. Statistical analysis has a role to play in football, but you've got to be comparing like for like otherwise the numbers are meaningless. A great example is comparing Demba Ba's pre-Cisse and post-Cisse scoring records with us. If you remove all context, it looks like Ba's form completely dropped. You need the context of knowing he was being played in a wide position to figure out what's really going on. Another example would be Jozy Altidore's scoring record in Holland. The numbers alone are meaningless without context. You can't compare Messi's all-Barca career to Ronaldo's career looking just at the numbers, which is why I'm focusing on their current talent, attitudes, performances. Actually, those stats were derived in context, the article had a whole segment trying to separate Messi's numbers from the impact Barca has had on his numbers. Not to be a jerk, but try reading it during halftime, I'd be curious what you think afterwards. I'll take a look in a few, see what they came up with. But it'll have to be some work of genius to separate out the fact they've played for completely different clubs at different levels, in different countries for their entire careers. Barcelona and Madrid are in the same country for the time being at least But they are different clubs. There's not a single like-for-like factor in their careers. Guess we can't say Ronaldo is better than Dean Whitehead then.

See the above post. As it's near impossible to separate the individual from the context of his team, role, competition they're playing in, etc I think it's risky business giving too much importance to these numbers when comparing them side by side. Statistical analysis has a role to play in football, but you've got to be comparing like for like otherwise the numbers are meaningless. A great example is comparing Demba Ba's pre-Cisse and post-Cisse scoring records with us. If you remove all context, it looks like Ba's form completely dropped. You need the context of knowing he was being played in a wide position to figure out what's really going on. Another example would be Jozy Altidore's scoring record in Holland. The numbers alone are meaningless without context. You can't compare Messi's all-Barca career to Ronaldo's career looking just at the numbers, which is why I'm focusing on their current talent, attitudes, performances. Actually, those stats were derived in context, the article had a whole segment trying to separate Messi's numbers from the impact Barca has had on his numbers. Not to be a jerk, but try reading it during halftime, I'd be curious what you think afterwards. I'll take a look in a few, see what they came up with. But it'll have to be some work of genius to separate out the fact they've played for completely different clubs at different levels, in different countries for their entire careers. Or possibly you could say they've played for different clubs at the same level in the same country? Allied to the numbers we have the evidence of our eyes. Ronaldo is a world class player but Messi is better.

What 'context' would you like?

If Pele can't get it up with her he might as well top himself.

I think you missed this post, Luca.