The fulcrum.

[The Bonk]

We haven't got one, but i think its only a matter of time until we do.

 

The squad needs a few more bodies in the winter window, and as long as we have a decent season i can see Ashley wanting to bring a big name in during the summer to boost our profile and image across Europe.

 

Arteta would be a good shout, amazing player.

 

A right-winger and left-back on low budget in January, then Arteta and Berbatov in the summer.

 

Sounds good to me, although i wouldn't bother with Berbatov, his attitude stinks, he'd cost a bomb, and he'd be 28 by the summer, i'd rather go for someone younger.

 

 

What? Berbatov's attitude 'stinks'? That's a load of crap. If you were referring to him apparently looking not too happy yesterday, what do you expect? He was sitting on a bench for no good reason (from his perspective). Players want to play, they don't understand the concept of 'resting' unless someone else forces them. Just look at Owen for a prime example of someone who wants to play all the time. So of course he looked like he wasn't having the best time, especially with his team down by 2. And if you weren't referring to yesterday, then I have no idea why you might infer that Berbatov's attitude stinks. He didn't make any noises about leaving Spurs in the summer and since then hasn't said anything in public about his dissatisfaction with the club, if he is even dissatisfied about the club at all.

 

If we miraculously sign him, it'll be a signal of intent to every other f****** club in Europe. If we somehow sign him, we'll have signed a top class player peaking, and someone who could pick any club he chooses in Europe. It would be a brilliant signing.

 

Wanted to play so much he had to be asked 3 times to warm up. 

 

 

 

Didn't want to be on the same pitch as his hero had been unless it was in Black and White. 

[Taylor Swift]

Wanted to play so much he had to be asked 3 times to warm up.

 

And that's just a rumour...

[The Bonk]

Wanted to play so much he had to be asked 3 times to warm up.

 

And that's just a rumour...

 

But, according to The Guardian, 'Jol's words were somewhat undermined by the actions of Tottenham's press officer, who, clearly nervous about the subject, attempted to block questions on Berbatov before Jol overrode him and spoke regardless.'

 

[Parky]

Berbatov is not fulcrum material.

[ChezGiven]

Fulcrumosity 

 

Nice thread Parkenstein.

[The Bonk]

Berbatov is not fulcrum material.

 

His goals sure did help the Spuds pip 5th in the table last year.  Not too mention his excellent play in the box. 

[Parky]

Berbatov is not fulcrum material.

 

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?

[Taylor Swift]

Wanted to play so much he had to be asked 3 times to warm up.

 

And that's just a rumour...

 

But, according to The Guardian, 'Jol's words were somewhat undermined by the actions of Tottenham's press officer, who, clearly nervous about the subject, attempted to block questions on Berbatov before Jol overrode him and spoke regardless.'

 

 

Yes because The Guardian's always right.

 

Anyway, like I give a fuck if Berbatov's attitude 'stinks'. Zoggy's attitude stunk like shit last season yet now he's loved by most of the fans. There's really no point arguing about this, and it'd be stupid for anyone to turn their heads up at a striker of such quality like Berbatov.

 

PS. I'm not back-tracking - before I get accused of that. I still think Berbatov has an exemplary attitude, especially when he's on the pitch (i.e. unselfish, hardworking and gives his all).

[johnnypd]

i don't care if a player's attitude is crap, as long as they do the business on the pitch. i'd rather have talented shitheads than talentless altar boys, bellamy over sibierski even tho the latter is apparently a better person. there is the question of Berbatov not turning up for big games but i'm not sure that is because of a bad attitude. because of the way Berbatov plays he's got another 4 and a half years of his prime and i'd love to have him here.

[Guest Knightrider]

Do we need one?

 

No.

 

There is a changing shift in football at current where the aim is to restore the team back to the "fulcrum" and not any one player, hence why Wenger got rid of Henry, why Rafa would love to peddle Gerrard and why managers like Big Sam try to get their teams to be able to play a number of ways and sign players that can play in a number of roles. If you depend too much on one player it will cost you at one point and given the stakes today and the number of things that can happen to a player injury wise it's unwise to build a team around one player or allow such a player to evolve.

 

Fabregas is important to Arsenal of course but if you look at Hleb and Rosicky, Wenger has players who can fill in for the Spaniard and do the same kind of job for his team. Man Utd have added Tevez and Nani to their squad, players similar to Rooney and Ronaldo respectively. So if they happen to lose such players, their whole game won't crumble as a result.

 

We of all clubs should know the pitfalls of building a team around such a player. Shearer anyone?

 

I remember KK saying he didn't want stars at Newcastle, but a team of stars. He basically meant he wanted his team to be the key player and not any single individual. He wanted this because the opposite had always been our problem.

 

Supermac, KK himself et al.

 

That all changed of course when KK bought Shearer and for 10 years our team rarely changed or evolved despite many managerial changes and players bought and sold. We still played the same way though, or rather through the same one player. It got us some success but even then, the man who put it all together (Sir Bobby) knew if he wanted the team to evolve it would have to be done without Shearer.

 

Chelsea's defence without Terry - falls a part.

 

Chelsea's attack without Drogba - scoreless September.

 

Man Utd without Rooney? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Ronaldo? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Vidic? Clean sheets.

 

Arsenal without Henry? Top of the pile?

 

Liverpool without Gerrard? Not the same.

 

Has anyone ever wondered why managers like Fergie and Wenger would get rid of top players for no real apparent reason? Perhaps they don't want their teams becoming too dependent on one big player or want to evolve their team away from such one big player where everything usually goes through them.

 

I'm happy we don't have such a player.

[Parky]

Do we need one?

 

No.

 

There is a changing shift in football at current where the aim is to restore the team back to the "fulcrum" and not any one player, hence why Wenger got rid of Henry, why Rafa would love to peddle Gerrard and why managers like Big Sam try to get their teams to be able to play a number of ways and sign players that can play in a number of roles. If you depend too much on one player it will cost you at one point and given the stakes today and the number of things that can happen to a player injury wise it's unwise to build a team around one player or allow such a player to evolve.

 

Fabregas is important to Arsenal of course but if you look at Hleb and Rosicky, Wenger has players who can fill in for the Spaniard and do the same kind of job for his team. Man Utd have added Tevez and Nani to their squad, players similar to Rooney and Ronaldo respectively. So if they happen to lose such players, their whole game won't crumble as a result.

 

We of all clubs should know the pitfalls of building a team around such a player. Shearer anyone?

 

I remember KK saying he didn't want stars at Newcastle, but a team of stars. He basically meant he wanted his team to be the key player and not any single individual. He wanted this because the opposite had always been our problem.

 

Supermac, KK himself et al.

 

That all changed of course when KK bought Shearer and for 10 years our team rarely changed or evolved despite many managerial changes and players bought and sold. We still played the same way though, or rather through the same one player. It got us some success but even then, the man who put it all together (Sir Bobby) knew if he wanted the team to evolve it would have to be done without Shearer.

 

Chelsea's defence without Terry - falls a part.

 

Chelsea's attack without Drogba - scoreless September.

 

Man Utd without Rooney? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Ronaldo? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Vidic? Clean sheets.

 

Arsenal without Henry? Top of the pile?

 

Liverpool without Gerrard? Not the same.

 

Has anyone ever wondered why managers like Fergie and Wenger would get rid of top players for no real apparent reason? Perhaps they don't want their teams becoming too dependent on one big player or want to evolve their team away from such one big player where everything usually goes through them.

 

I'm happy we don't have such a player.

 

 

 

Eh?

 

 

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

[Guest Knightrider]

Do we need one?

 

No.

 

There is a changing shift in football at current where the aim is to restore the team back to the "fulcrum" and not any one player, hence why Wenger got rid of Henry, why Rafa would love to peddle Gerrard and why managers like Big Sam try to get their teams to be able to play a number of ways and sign players that can play in a number of roles. If you depend too much on one player it will cost you at one point and given the stakes today and the number of things that can happen to a player injury wise it's unwise to build a team around one player or allow such a player to evolve.

 

Fabregas is important to Arsenal of course but if you look at Hleb and Rosicky, Wenger has players who can fill in for the Spaniard and do the same kind of job for his team. Man Utd have added Tevez and Nani to their squad, players similar to Rooney and Ronaldo respectively. So if they happen to lose such players, their whole game won't crumble as a result.

 

We of all clubs should know the pitfalls of building a team around such a player. Shearer anyone?

 

I remember KK saying he didn't want stars at Newcastle, but a team of stars. He basically meant he wanted his team to be the key player and not any single individual. He wanted this because the opposite had always been our problem.

 

Supermac, KK himself et al.

 

That all changed of course when KK bought Shearer and for 10 years our team rarely changed or evolved despite many managerial changes and players bought and sold. We still played the same way though, or rather through the same one player. It got us some success but even then, the man who put it all together (Sir Bobby) knew if he wanted the team to evolve it would have to be done without Shearer.

 

Chelsea's defence without Terry - falls a part.

 

Chelsea's attack without Drogba - scoreless September.

 

Man Utd without Rooney? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Ronaldo? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Vidic? Clean sheets.

 

Arsenal without Henry? Top of the pile?

 

Liverpool without Gerrard? Not the same.

 

Has anyone ever wondered why managers like Fergie and Wenger would get rid of top players for no real apparent reason? Perhaps they don't want their teams becoming too dependent on one big player or want to evolve their team away from such one big player where everything usually goes through them.

 

I'm happy we don't have such a player.

 

 

 

Eh?

 

 

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

 

Then stop using fancy fucking words fucktards like me struggle with when "playmaker?" would have done.

 

 

[Guest DONTOONER]

Do we need one?

 

No.

 

There is a changing shift in football at current where the aim is to restore the team back to the "fulcrum" aand not any one player, hence why Wenger got rid of Henry, why Rafa would love to peddle Gerrard and why managers like Big Sam try to get their teams to be able to play a number of ways and sign players that can play in a number of roles. If you depend too much on one player it will cost you at one point and given the stakes today and the number of things that can happen to a player injury wise it's unwise to build a team around one player or allow such a player to evolve.

 

Fabregas is important to Arsenal of course but if you look at Hleb and Rosicky, Wenger has players who can fill in for the Spaniard and do the same kind of job for his team. Man Utd have added Tevez and Nani to their squad, players similar to Rooney and Ronaldo respectively. So if they happen to lose such players, their whole game won't crumble as a result.

 

We of all clubs should know the pitfalls of building a team around such a player. Shearer anyone?

 

I remember KK saying he didn't want stars at Newcastle, but a team of stars. He basically meant he wanted his team to be the key player and not any single individual. He wanted this because the opposite had always been our problem.

 

Supermac, KK himself et al.

 

That all changed of course when KK bought Shearer and for 10 years our team rarely changed or evolved despite many managerial changes and players bought and sold. We still played the same way though, or rather through the same one player. It got us some success but even then, the man who put it all together (Sir Bobby) knew if he wanted the team to evolve it would have to be done without Shearer.

 

Chelsea's defence without Terry - falls a part.

 

Chelsea's attack without Drogba - scoreless September.

 

Man Utd without Rooney? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Ronaldo? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Vidic? Clean sheets.

 

Arsenal without Henry? Top of the pile?

 

Liverpool without Gerrard? Not the same.

 

Has anyone ever wondered why managers like Fergie and Wenger would get rid of top players for no real apparent reason? Perhaps they don't want their teams becoming too dependent on one big player or want to evolve their team away from such one big player where everything usually goes through them.

 

I'm happy we don't have such a player.

 

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.

[pedro111]

wtf is a fulcrum?

 

A Russian Multirole fighter developed in the 70's to counter new American fighters such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F-14 Tomcat.

 

MiG-29 Fulcrum

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=27077&rendTypeId=4

[johnnypd]

wtf is a fulcrum?

 

A Russian Multirole fighter developed in the 70's to counter new American fighters such as the F-16 Fighting Falcon, and the F-14 Tomcat.

 

MiG-29 Fulcrum

http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=27077&rendTypeId=4

 

fast, powerful shot, good in the air. we could do with one of them up front.

[Parky]

From that era they were all denotate with f's..

 

 

Flanker, Fulcrum, Foxbat, etc...

[Parky]

Do we need one?

 

No.

 

There is a changing shift in football at current where the aim is to restore the team back to the "fulcrum" aand not any one player, hence why Wenger got rid of Henry, why Rafa would love to peddle Gerrard and why managers like Big Sam try to get their teams to be able to play a number of ways and sign players that can play in a number of roles. If you depend too much on one player it will cost you at one point and given the stakes today and the number of things that can happen to a player injury wise it's unwise to build a team around one player or allow such a player to evolve.

 

Fabregas is important to Arsenal of course but if you look at Hleb and Rosicky, Wenger has players who can fill in for the Spaniard and do the same kind of job for his team. Man Utd have added Tevez and Nani to their squad, players similar to Rooney and Ronaldo respectively. So if they happen to lose such players, their whole game won't crumble as a result.

 

We of all clubs should know the pitfalls of building a team around such a player. Shearer anyone?

 

I remember KK saying he didn't want stars at Newcastle, but a team of stars. He basically meant he wanted his team to be the key player and not any single individual. He wanted this because the opposite had always been our problem.

 

Supermac, KK himself et al.

 

That all changed of course when KK bought Shearer and for 10 years our team rarely changed or evolved despite many managerial changes and players bought and sold. We still played the same way though, or rather through the same one player. It got us some success but even then, the man who put it all together (Sir Bobby) knew if he wanted the team to evolve it would have to be done without Shearer.

 

Chelsea's defence without Terry - falls a part.

 

Chelsea's attack without Drogba - scoreless September.

 

Man Utd without Rooney? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Ronaldo? Keep winning.

Man Utd without Vidic? Clean sheets.

 

Arsenal without Henry? Top of the pile?

 

Liverpool without Gerrard? Not the same.

 

Has anyone ever wondered why managers like Fergie and Wenger would get rid of top players for no real apparent reason? Perhaps they don't want their teams becoming too dependent on one big player or want to evolve their team away from such one big player where everything usually goes through them.

 

I'm happy we don't have such a player.

 

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.

[Keefaz]

We're missing players who can manage a game on the pitch.

 

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.

[Parky]

We're missing players who can manage a game on the pitch.

 

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.

[Keefaz]

We're missing players who can manage a game on the pitch.

 

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.

[Parky]

We're missing players who can manage a game on the pitch.

 

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