Guest Knightrider Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I wouldn't draw comparison's between Milner's performance to that of Luque's because Milner operated as the spare man in midfield, not as a striker. His job was to roam the line, Luque's was to get into the box and to occupy their two centre-halfs. He did that, or tried to, and I have no problems with that. However he never once lost his marker or when he did get the ball, control it and make use of it. He didn't show enough spirit to work the role he was given which was of no benefit to the team. He may as well have not played. Milner showed enough spirit to work the role he was given and he is not a floating forward so there aren't many excuses you can provide for Luque, if any at all. If Ameobi was fit and played Luque's role and Luque played Milner's role however, I think we'd have seen a lot more of Luque, although we can only guess as to whether he'd have done well in the role or not. Milner certainly did in parts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I wouldn't draw comparison's between Milner's performance to that of Luque's because Milner operated as the spare man in midfield, not as a striker. His job was to roam the line, Luque's was to get into the box and to occupy their two centre-halfs. He did that, or tried to, and I have no problems with that. However he never once lost his marker or when he did get the ball, control it and make use of it. He didn't show enough spirit to work the role he was given which was of no benefit to the team. He may as well have not played. Milner showed enough spirit to work the role he was given and he is not a floating forward so there aren't many excuses you can provide for Luque, if any at all. If Ameobi was fit and played Luque's role and Luque played Milner's role however, I think we'd have seen a lot more of Luque, although we can only guess as to whether he'd have done well in the role or not. Milner certainly did in parts. Like you say, if we reversed the roles and had Luque doing Milner's job I still don't think he would've done anything. You could see Milner's enthusiasm, his touch was excellent, he ran his socks off and his movement was very good. He put the ball in the back of the net (although offside) and hit the bar. Luque's done nowt to suggest he can do any of those things. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I wouldn't draw comparison's between Milner's performance to that of Luque's because Milner operated as the spare man in midfield, not as a striker. His job was to roam the line, Luque's was to get into the box and to occupy their two centre-halfs. He did that, or tried to, and I have no problems with that. However he never once lost his marker or when he did get the ball, control it and make use of it. He didn't show enough spirit to work the role he was given which was of no benefit to the team. He may as well have not played. Milner showed enough spirit to work the role he was given and he is not a floating forward so there aren't many excuses you can provide for Luque, if any at all. If Ameobi was fit and played Luque's role and Luque played Milner's role however, I think we'd have seen a lot more of Luque, although we can only guess as to whether he'd have done well in the role or not. Milner certainly did in parts. I don't disagree with what you say in terms of comparing them and roles, however since Luque has been here I have seen no indication that he could do that role and I get the feeling some people think if they say it enough it will come true, fact of the matter is he has shown no pace, enthusiasm, hunger or desire since he came here (well particulalry pace) but people keep thinking he will come good and reel out loads of excuses - when did the conclusion - 'he's just not up to the job' become a no no? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Knightrider Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I don't either but we'd have seen far more of him. I'm not making excuses for Luque because I've already stated he was poor, very poor, but I'd like to know Roeder's instructions on the night because Luque did seem very reticent to come away from the zone he was operating in. Whatever his role he failed miserably and while a lot of that was down to the role he was playing and the way the team were playing with that role in mind, i.e. balls in for a true centre-forward to attack, some of the basics from Luque was awful and simply not good enough, regardless of role. Like control, spirit and movement. Had he shown those things and then failed in his role anyway, I'd be saying "hard luck, you tried and give it your best shot and it didn't come off". That would be doing a job for the team which he didn't do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 When greedy selfcentred players like Duff and the rest start passing the ball to Luque and if he doesn't score then come and talk about Luque not being good enough... Duff and the rest of the midfield do NOT understand what the word SERVICE means because any striker without being given the ball is NOT going to SCORE...Not even Alan Shearer would have scored with that kind of selfish play by the midfield players... They were like kids everyone wanting to score himself without thinking for the good of the team...Errr especially Duff...Soooo angry at him... did you ever see luque pulling into space asking for the ball, cos i didnt? luque wasnt interested. an example, perfect ball across the box by duff, and what the hell was luque doing? he shouldve been throwing himself at it. and even greedy midfielders does not give a player bad touch Mate Luque was miles away from that cross...So in other words Duff's cross was inaccurate and that is how he was most of the game last night...His end product was poor... You think Duff would have done better as a lone out and out striker yesterday ? Luque was in no place to recieve the ball, he didnt want it! and yes i do. he may not have great results, but he would make genuine attempts to get the ball and he would actually be able to control a ball. i want luque to succeed, but i cant think of any excuses as the lone striker one simply doesnt account for his apparent lack of football ability. titus looked more like a footballer last night. Also can't a player have an off day in your book ? Shearer never had an off day ? Any player can have a day like that...It was his first 90 minutes game for god sake and to slate him like this as if he has been doing this everytime is plane stupid... i believe ive seen luque in every performance but fulham away, and that most certainly was not an off day. Dyer can be a striker and that proved how stupid SouMess was... an example of a player playing out of position and doing alright. dyer did decent in attack, much better than luque. and again i stress a player should have a good touch wherever he is on the pitch I've watched the entire bloody thing again and my opinion's the same: Duff was great and Luque was pap. If anything, it seems Luque was hiding at times. Duff was absolutely everywhere and if anything probably wasn't selfish enough exactly. watch him 'try' to win a header. he was doing exactly what i used to do when i didnt really want to wina header from a big gk kick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Back to Luque's topic... I don't understand why some of you are making him a scapegoat for our lack of goals last night ? I mean how good was Duff in front of goal when he had the best chance to score and missed it...What about Milner ? Don't get me wrong I am NOT saying by any stretch of imagination that Luque had a decent game...NO...But it is not mainly his fault because: 1) Luque is NOT an out and out striker...He is an attacking midfielder/Left Winger...And that is why we saw him struggling in the role of an out and out striker because he is NOT 2) Service to Luque was CRAP...most of our midfield players looked like not wanting to pass to Luque when on a number of occasions he was available and east to pass the ball to...How on earth do you expect a player playing a role of a LONE striker to score without having the service ? Luque was bought to replace Robert on the left wing but because of his long layoff last season because of injury that left wing position was taken by N'Zogbia...However I can also see Luque playing in the same position Dyer plays...Just behind the striker(s) because he is creative and skillful and can burst from the middle of the park and go foward and score like Dyer used to do... Does anyone think that Ameobi was great in the first leg away to this Lativian side when we only managed to score one goal and that came from none other than our CB Bramble ? Why didn't anyone say something about Ameobi then ? Do you think having the whole 11 players behind the ball would have been no problem for Ameobi last night and he would have actually scored ? Don't get carried away with Ameobi's goal last weekend against Wigan when it was actually all N'Zogbia's work and if the keeper hadn't spilt the ball Amobi wouldn't have had that chance to score and let me tell you even my dog could have scored that one so Luque would have done the same thing... Back to last night's game and I remember few years ago at one game when SouMess had to use Robert as a striker because of injuries and suspension to our other strikers and he did nothing because it was not his natural position... Also how many times when we played 4-5-1 and Shearer was the lone striker, he did sh*t and couldn't get away from his markers even though being the experienced legendary striker of Shearer statue you would have expected better but then some of the idiots here expect a player playing out of his real position like Luque to excel as an out-and-out striker... Of all your posts on this thread, I can agree with that one. No point defending Luque's performance yesterday but those bashing him should also at least have the decency to acknowledge that he isn't an out and out striker especially not one who leads the line, the way he was forced to play yesterday. Luque plays in a 4-3-3 left forward position and since I can't ever see us playing that under Roeder, the only position he can play for us is a forward behind the main striker. Both Milner and Luque were supposed to stay in the box yesterday, its such an irony that the one who did anything but stay in the box is getting rave reviews whereas the one who did stay in the box despite that not being close to his game is getting all the stick. I bet if Luque was to drift out wide and interchange positions with Zoggy the way Milner changed positions with Duff he would have looked great too. Instead he is beeing butchered for following Roeder's instructions. Milner isn't an out and out striker but his work rate, movement and general game was excellent, he put himself about, tried really hard and quite frankly deserves credit - Luque on the other hand doesn't. Oh and I don't think Luque has had any decent games and your defence of him and excuses is beginning to sound like someone clutching at straws. Milner only looked good coz he didn't stay in the box. For all his effort, they were useless as we already have two good wingers in Duff and Zoggy. The only think Milner achieved is mislead people who don't realize that he should have stayed in the box into thinking that he had a good game. Luque would have looked better too if he didnt stay in the box all the time which I'm sure is waht Roeder asked of him. As for Luque not having ant decent games you must have missed out on his performances against Lillestron and PSV, not brilliant but as decent as any of our other players in fact better than most, or maybe you just have selective memory. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Back to Luque's topic... I don't understand why some of you are making him a scapegoat for our lack of goals last night ? I mean how good was Duff in front of goal when he had the best chance to score and missed it...What about Milner ? Don't get me wrong I am NOT saying by any stretch of imagination that Luque had a decent game...NO...But it is not mainly his fault because: 1) Luque is NOT an out and out striker...He is an attacking midfielder/Left Winger...And that is why we saw him struggling in the role of an out and out striker because he is NOT 2) Service to Luque was CRAP...most of our midfield players looked like not wanting to pass to Luque when on a number of occasions he was available and east to pass the ball to...How on earth do you expect a player playing a role of a LONE striker to score without having the service ? Luque was bought to replace Robert on the left wing but because of his long layoff last season because of injury that left wing position was taken by N'Zogbia...However I can also see Luque playing in the same position Dyer plays...Just behind the striker(s) because he is creative and skillful and can burst from the middle of the park and go foward and score like Dyer used to do... Does anyone think that Ameobi was great in the first leg away to this Lativian side when we only managed to score one goal and that came from none other than our CB Bramble ? Why didn't anyone say something about Ameobi then ? Do you think having the whole 11 players behind the ball would have been no problem for Ameobi last night and he would have actually scored ? Don't get carried away with Ameobi's goal last weekend against Wigan when it was actually all N'Zogbia's work and if the keeper hadn't spilt the ball Amobi wouldn't have had that chance to score and let me tell you even my dog could have scored that one so Luque would have done the same thing... Back to last night's game and I remember few years ago at one game when SouMess had to use Robert as a striker because of injuries and suspension to our other strikers and he did nothing because it was not his natural position... Also how many times when we played 4-5-1 and Shearer was the lone striker, he did sh*t and couldn't get away from his markers even though being the experienced legendary striker of Shearer statue you would have expected better but then some of the idiots here expect a player playing out of his real position like Luque to excel as an out-and-out striker... Of all your posts on this thread, I can agree with that one. No point defending Luque's performance yesterday but those bashing him should also at least have the decency to acknowledge that he isn't an out and out striker especially not one who leads the line, the way he was forced to play yesterday. Luque plays in a 4-3-3 left forward position and since I can't ever see us playing that under Roeder, the only position he can play for us is a forward behind the main striker. Both Milner and Luque were supposed to stay in the box yesterday, its such an irony that the one who did anything but stay in the box is getting rave reviews whereas the one who did stay in the box despite that not being close to his game is getting all the stick. I bet if Luque was to drift out wide and interchange positions with Zoggy the way Milner changed positions with Duff he would have looked great too. Instead he is beeing butchered for following Roeder's instructions. Milner isn't an out and out striker but his work rate, movement and general game was excellent, he put himself about, tried really hard and quite frankly deserves credit - Luque on the other hand doesn't. Oh and I don't think Luque has had any decent games and your defence of him and excuses is beginning to sound like someone clutching at straws. As for Luque not having ant decent games you must have missed out on his performances against Lillestron and PSV, not brilliant but as decent as any of our other players in fact better than most, or maybe you just have selective memory. Nope, was there and he was pretty mediocre - as were most mind, but mediocre he was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Oh, one other thing - I've seen quicker snails than him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Milner only looked good coz he didn't stay in the box. For all his effort, they were useless as we already have two good wingers in Duff and Zoggy. The only think Milner achieved is mislead people who don't realize that he should have stayed in the box into thinking that he had a good game. Luque would have looked better too if he didnt stay in the box all the time which I'm sure is waht Roeder asked of him. As for Luque not having ant decent games you must have missed out on his performances against Lillestron and PSV, not brilliant but as decent as any of our other players in fact better than most, or maybe you just have selective memory. Mate, you're deluded. Milner looked good because he had a good game! You think forwards just hang around the box waiting for the ball? Is that what Bellamy does? Is that what Owen does? Milner didn't play as a winger yesterday, he patrolled everywhere in the final third making things happen. That's what a second striker does. And for a player who wasn't in the box, he seemed to be in the box for the best chance in the match when he shot wide from a Duff pull-back: a move that was the result of good movement in the area and not fucking pouting while hiding behind a defender or two. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shotgun Mick Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 The sooner he goes the better, I just hope Roeder feels the same as I cannot think of a single thing Luque brings to our squad. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Back to Luque's topic... I don't understand why some of you are making him a scapegoat for our lack of goals last night ? I mean how good was Duff in front of goal when he had the best chance to score and missed it...What about Milner ? Don't get me wrong I am NOT saying by any stretch of imagination that Luque had a decent game...NO...But it is not mainly his fault because: 1) Luque is NOT an out and out striker...He is an attacking midfielder/Left Winger...And that is why we saw him struggling in the role of an out and out striker because he is NOT 2) Service to Luque was CRAP...most of our midfield players looked like not wanting to pass to Luque when on a number of occasions he was available and east to pass the ball to...How on earth do you expect a player playing a role of a LONE striker to score without having the service ? Luque was bought to replace Robert on the left wing but because of his long layoff last season because of injury that left wing position was taken by N'Zogbia...However I can also see Luque playing in the same position Dyer plays...Just behind the striker(s) because he is creative and skillful and can burst from the middle of the park and go foward and score like Dyer used to do... Does anyone think that Ameobi was great in the first leg away to this Lativian side when we only managed to score one goal and that came from none other than our CB Bramble ? Why didn't anyone say something about Ameobi then ? Do you think having the whole 11 players behind the ball would have been no problem for Ameobi last night and he would have actually scored ? Don't get carried away with Ameobi's goal last weekend against Wigan when it was actually all N'Zogbia's work and if the keeper hadn't spilt the ball Amobi wouldn't have had that chance to score and let me tell you even my dog could have scored that one so Luque would have done the same thing... Back to last night's game and I remember few years ago at one game when SouMess had to use Robert as a striker because of injuries and suspension to our other strikers and he did nothing because it was not his natural position... Also how many times when we played 4-5-1 and Shearer was the lone striker, he did sh*t and couldn't get away from his markers even though being the experienced legendary striker of Shearer statue you would have expected better but then some of the idiots here expect a player playing out of his real position like Luque to excel as an out-and-out striker... Of all your posts on this thread, I can agree with that one. No point defending Luque's performance yesterday but those bashing him should also at least have the decency to acknowledge that he isn't an out and out striker especially not one who leads the line, the way he was forced to play yesterday. Luque plays in a 4-3-3 left forward position and since I can't ever see us playing that under Roeder, the only position he can play for us is a forward behind the main striker. Both Milner and Luque were supposed to stay in the box yesterday, its such an irony that the one who did anything but stay in the box is getting rave reviews whereas the one who did stay in the box despite that not being close to his game is getting all the stick. I bet if Luque was to drift out wide and interchange positions with Zoggy the way Milner changed positions with Duff he would have looked great too. Instead he is beeing butchered for following Roeder's instructions. Milner isn't an out and out striker but his work rate, movement and general game was excellent, he put himself about, tried really hard and quite frankly deserves credit - Luque on the other hand doesn't. Oh and I don't think Luque has had any decent games and your defence of him and excuses is beginning to sound like someone clutching at straws. As for Luque not having ant decent games you must have missed out on his performances against Lillestron and PSV, not brilliant but as decent as any of our other players in fact better than most, or maybe you just have selective memory. Nope, was there and he was pretty mediocre - as were most mind, but mediocre he was. So you are holding Luque up to standards that even most of his teamates has not achieved? As for the snails comment, no reply could be better than a :roll: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Back to Luque's topic... I don't understand why some of you are making him a scapegoat for our lack of goals last night ? I mean how good was Duff in front of goal when he had the best chance to score and missed it...What about Milner ? Don't get me wrong I am NOT saying by any stretch of imagination that Luque had a decent game...NO...But it is not mainly his fault because: 1) Luque is NOT an out and out striker...He is an attacking midfielder/Left Winger...And that is why we saw him struggling in the role of an out and out striker because he is NOT 2) Service to Luque was CRAP...most of our midfield players looked like not wanting to pass to Luque when on a number of occasions he was available and east to pass the ball to...How on earth do you expect a player playing a role of a LONE striker to score without having the service ? Luque was bought to replace Robert on the left wing but because of his long layoff last season because of injury that left wing position was taken by N'Zogbia...However I can also see Luque playing in the same position Dyer plays...Just behind the striker(s) because he is creative and skillful and can burst from the middle of the park and go foward and score like Dyer used to do... Does anyone think that Ameobi was great in the first leg away to this Lativian side when we only managed to score one goal and that came from none other than our CB Bramble ? Why didn't anyone say something about Ameobi then ? Do you think having the whole 11 players behind the ball would have been no problem for Ameobi last night and he would have actually scored ? Don't get carried away with Ameobi's goal last weekend against Wigan when it was actually all N'Zogbia's work and if the keeper hadn't spilt the ball Amobi wouldn't have had that chance to score and let me tell you even my dog could have scored that one so Luque would have done the same thing... Back to last night's game and I remember few years ago at one game when SouMess had to use Robert as a striker because of injuries and suspension to our other strikers and he did nothing because it was not his natural position... Also how many times when we played 4-5-1 and Shearer was the lone striker, he did sh*t and couldn't get away from his markers even though being the experienced legendary striker of Shearer statue you would have expected better but then some of the idiots here expect a player playing out of his real position like Luque to excel as an out-and-out striker... Of all your posts on this thread, I can agree with that one. No point defending Luque's performance yesterday but those bashing him should also at least have the decency to acknowledge that he isn't an out and out striker especially not one who leads the line, the way he was forced to play yesterday. Luque plays in a 4-3-3 left forward position and since I can't ever see us playing that under Roeder, the only position he can play for us is a forward behind the main striker. Both Milner and Luque were supposed to stay in the box yesterday, its such an irony that the one who did anything but stay in the box is getting rave reviews whereas the one who did stay in the box despite that not being close to his game is getting all the stick. I bet if Luque was to drift out wide and interchange positions with Zoggy the way Milner changed positions with Duff he would have looked great too. Instead he is beeing butchered for following Roeder's instructions. Milner isn't an out and out striker but his work rate, movement and general game was excellent, he put himself about, tried really hard and quite frankly deserves credit - Luque on the other hand doesn't. Oh and I don't think Luque has had any decent games and your defence of him and excuses is beginning to sound like someone clutching at straws. As for Luque not having ant decent games you must have missed out on his performances against Lillestron and PSV, not brilliant but as decent as any of our other players in fact better than most, or maybe you just have selective memory. Nope, was there and he was pretty mediocre - as were most mind, but mediocre he was. So you are holding Luque up to standards that even most of his teamates has not achieved? What are you on about - I referred to the games you mentioned - in the Wigan game and last night most of his teamates upped their game at least in patches or improved on what I normally expect - Milner, Duff, Emre, N'Zogbia - WHEREAS Luque just got worse, thus confirming what I said before that I have never seen him have a good game for Newcastle. So you are saying Luque is fast are you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmonkey Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Milner's first touch was dire at times, but its been ignored. How many times did Emre put him through on goal or put him in a good attacking position with a long ball? I remember counting at least 5. Practically every time his first touch either saw him completely miss the ball or miscontrol it. I like Milner, but for me it was disappointing to see him being unable to control balls that you would expect talented players to be able to control. At his age and stage in his career (ie hes not past it or lost everything ala Luque), he should be showing that he has the technical ability to handle balls like that blindfolded. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 alpal and SLK are like a couple of blind men where Luque is concerned tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keefaz Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Milner's first touch was dire at times, but its been ignored. How many times did Emre put him through on goal or put him in a good attacking position with a long ball? I remember counting at least 5. Practically every time his first touch either saw him completely miss the ball or miscontrol it. I like Milner, but for me it was disappointing to see him being unable to control balls that you would expect talented players to be able to control. At his age and stage in his career (ie hes not past it or lost everything ala Luque), he should be showing that he has the technical ability to handle balls like that blindfolded. I remember one where he let the ball drop over his shoulder and couldn't bring it down. But it'd be harsh to criticise that. He general touch on the ball was excellent, imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slugsy Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 alpal and SLK are like a couple of blind men where Luque is concerned tbh. Agreed. blueconfused.gif Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 How bad does Luque have to get for his rent boys to admit he doesn't give a shite about playing for us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gemmill Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 How bad does Luque have to get for his rent boys to admit he doesn't give a shite about playing for us? Coming away from the ground last night, I was satisfied that no one could offer up a defence for his performance. I didn't reckon with "Special"LK.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ohmelads Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Everyone is slating Luque for his performance last night and rightly so, but I would agree with those doubting his commitment and disagree with those doubting his ability. The ability is there, it's Glenn's job to either sell him or get it out of him. He's proven to be a difficult player, nobody can deny that. Glenn has used the phrase "low maintenance player" to describe some of our playing staff, well by the same token he would have to accept that Luque is a "high maintenance player". He would also have to accept that, for the meantime at least, he is stuck with Luque and must make the most of the situation. He must do what Souness couldn't, put the club first and earn his corn. I won't blame him if he gets nothing out of Luque, so long as I believe he's done his best to handle the situation to the club's benefit. It is too late in the transfer window to sell him and his stock has fallen so quickly due to never playing that we would get very little for him anyway. The crucial thing here is that everybody puts the good of the club first. I think we're approaching a situation which will be very similar to that of Robert and Souness, where the player and manager both went on an ego-trip and the club suffered. Luque doesn't have the support of many fans that Robert had, nor does Roeder have the unpopularity that Souness had, but I think we will see definite friction between Albert and Glenn this season. Luque seems to be a fragile player, evidently Souness never did do the research on his character, and it's looking like he'll never make it in a black and white shirt, but that doesn't mean he can't do a job for us, espescially given we only have two other players with experience playing up front. Luque and played up front for Deportivo and Spain and performed well, he has that on his CV and while we're desperate for strikers, he can't be overlooked. I hope Glenn can sort this one out because it's looking like we'll be letting Luque go for next to nothing next year, chalking off yet another massive loss of money by the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Milner's first touch was dire at times, but its been ignored. How many times did Emre put him through on goal or put him in a good attacking position with a long ball? I remember counting at least 5. Practically every time his first touch either saw him completely miss the ball or miscontrol it. I like Milner, but for me it was disappointing to see him being unable to control balls that you would expect talented players to be able to control. At his age and stage in his career (ie hes not past it or lost everything ala Luque), he should be showing that he has the technical ability to handle balls like that blindfolded. I remember one where he let the ball drop over his shoulder and couldn't bring it down. But it'd be harsh to criticise that. He general touch on the ball was excellent, imo. Aye, gross overexaggeration tmonkey from what I saw last night. Thought Milner was pretty good, looked extremely lively and he was involved in a lot of what we did right. That freekick was a pearler, as well. As for Luque, I really can't be arsed to debate on a grandiose level because no fucker ever changes their opinions/listens anyway so it'd be a complete waste of time, but I thought he was played out of position last night and suffered because of it. However, that doesn't account for the numerous shoddy passes and miscontrols that we saw from him. He did win a few balls in the air against Ndeki mind, and could hardly be criticised for "not trying", I thought he was putting more effort in than I've seen from him so far entirely. Still not convinced he'll make it, but I hope he does - although I can't see him getting near a game in his preferred position, which is a real shame. He's obviously not a shite player but on the other hand he's hardly some technical wizard, like others are making him out to be - and he's not all that quick, either. He's similar to Robert in that shooting/crossing is his real strength (haven't really seen it yet, like), but technically he's not brilliant: touch, dribbling, control, etc. I still maintain that he could be useful when played in his correct position, but it will never happen because of N'Zogbia, Duff and now Martins being at the club. The biggest laugh for me is that Souness let a £9.5m player go for near nowt and then brought in quite probably the nearest thing to him for the same fucking price. What a fucking joke that Magnum PI c*nt is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Milner's first touch was dire at times, but its been ignored. How many times did Emre put him through on goal or put him in a good attacking position with a long ball? I remember counting at least 5. Practically every time his first touch either saw him completely miss the ball or miscontrol it. I like Milner, but for me it was disappointing to see him being unable to control balls that you would expect talented players to be able to control. At his age and stage in his career (ie hes not past it or lost everything ala Luque), he should be showing that he has the technical ability to handle balls like that blindfolded. I remember one where he let the ball drop over his shoulder and couldn't bring it down. But it'd be harsh to criticise that. He general touch on the ball was excellent, imo. Aye, gross overexaggeration tmonkey from what I saw last night. Thought Milner was pretty good, looked extremely lively and he was involved in a lot of what we did right. That freekick was a pearler, as well. As for Luque, I really can't be arsed to debate on a grandiose level because no fucker ever changes their opinions/listens anyway so it'd be a complete waste of time, but I thought he was played out of position last night and suffered because of it. However, that doesn't account for the numerous shoddy passes and miscontrols that we saw from him. He did win a few balls in the air against Ndeki mind, and could hardly be criticised for "not trying", I thought he was putting more effort in than I've seen from him so far entirely. Still not convinced he'll make it, but I hope he does - although I can't see him getting near a game in his preferred position, which is a real shame. He's obviously not a shite player but on the other hand he's hardly some technical wizard, like others are making him out to be - and he's not all that quick, either. He's similar to Robert in that shooting/crossing is his real strength (haven't really seen it yet, like), but technically he's not brilliant: touch, dribbling, control, etc. I still maintain that he could be useful when played in his correct position, but it will never happen because of N'Zogbia, Duff and now Martins being at the club. The biggest laugh for me is that Souness let a £9.5m player go for near nowt and then brought in quite probably the nearest thing to him for the same fucking price. What a fucking joke that Magnum PI c*nt is. Eh? What the hell are you on about here? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I think he means Souness replacing Robert with Luque... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I think he means Souness replacing Robert with Luque... Well aye, but it's just such an incredible thing to say. I know not everybody rated Robert but he produced for this club. He had his problems with Souness, but even when that twat was manager Robert changed the way we played when he was eventually selected. Some people have bloody short memories. Robert scored and created more goals than the rest of the midfield combined, comparing his contribution with that of Luque is one of the most ridiculous things I've read. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I think he means Souness replacing Robert with Luque... Well aye, but it's just such an incredible thing to say. I know not everybody rated Robert but he produced for this club. He had his problems with Souness, but even when that twat was manager Robert changed the way we played when he was eventually selected. Some people have bloody short memories. Robert scored and created more goals than the rest of the midfield combined, comparing his contribution with that of Luque is one of the most ridiculous things I've read. Agree totally. I think most people who continue to defend Luque are basing their opinions on snippets they've seen on tv of his time in La Liga rather than on his contributions in black & white. He's looked a poor player almost from day 1. I know he's had a bad injury and he's still settling in etc etc but he's produced virtually nothing when he's had his (limited) chances. Time to bite the bullet and take another big loss on another failure I'm afraid. Wish it had worked out. It hasn't. There's nothing to suggest it will happen. Sell him on for as much as we can as soon as we find someone to fill his shoes. I suggest we could get someone from the Championship to replace Luque's contribution. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gosport Toon Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 I think he means Souness replacing Robert with Luque... Well aye, but it's just such an incredible thing to say. I know not everybody rated Robert but he produced for this club. He had his problems with Souness, but even when that **** was manager Robert changed the way we played when he was eventually selected. Some people have bloody short memories. Robert scored and created more goals than the rest of the midfield combined, comparing his contribution with that of Luque is one of the most ridiculous things I've read. Agree totally. I think most people who continue to defend Luque are basing their opinions on snippets they've seen on tv of his time in La Liga rather than on his contributions in black & white. He's looked a poor player almost from day 1. I know he's had a bad injury and he's still settling in etc etc but he's produced virtually nothing when he's had his (limited) chances. Time to bite the bullet and take another big loss on another failure I'm afraid. Wish it had worked out. It hasn't. There's nothing to suggest it will happen. Sell him on for as much as we can as soon as we find someone to fill his shoes. I suggest we could get someone from the Championship to replace Luque's contribution. Agreed Not too disimilar to us replacing Speed with Butt tbh or when we replaced Sir Les with a succession of expensive flops !!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts