Laurent Robert

[alpal78]

Ginola was the more skillful dribbler but I'd take Robert's crosses anyday. They were as good as it get, pace and with just the right bend on them

[Guest BooBoo]

On form, Ginola trounced Robert. However as often said, Ginola was only on form really for his first 6 months at NUFC.

[Guest dazzanufc1892]

and ginola did his best to fuck off at the first possibility when barca came knocking. robert, didnt want to leave

[tmonkey]

Personally thought Ginola was miles better than Robert. The gap in ability and quality between the two was night and day, like Zidane and N'Zogbia or something. Ones a good all round footballer every time he's on the ball, the other looks class if you look at the highlights because you see the one great attempt he pulls off and not the 5 or 6 attempts it took for him to get there.

 

Although he was class for what he was, Robert to me was an extremely hit-and-miss winger, a percentages player, and a limited one at that. Most of his crosses hit the first man, the majority of his shots were wild, and he'd run into brick walls more often than not. His crossing and shooting were great when he pulled it off, but his passing and creativity outside of smacking the ball in from wide areas or free kicks was non-existent imo, added to which he was an exceptionally selfish player on the ball. With Ginola the all-round play was at a much higher level - first touch, dribbling, awareness, passing, vision, etc, on top of which Ginola was a better pass-and-move type of player (hence why better teams wanted him when he was at his best).

 

The only area where Robert trumps Ginola is effort in continuously trying to create or score something out of the blue even when the chips were down. Ginola did spend a few too many games being happy to play it simple, but then that leads me to my next point.

 

IMO Robert had it easier than Ginola. I think alot of our fans are overly harsh on Ginola after the midway point of 95/96 as for me his form suffered due to what happened to the mechanics of the team he was in. In the first half of that season we had Gillespie on the other flank stretching the opposition, leaving Ginola with more space and one-on-ones against opposition fullbacks, hence why he murdered teams week in week out for the most part (or if he was quiet it wasn't a big problem as Gillespie was murdering teams on the other flank) - as soon as Gillespie's knee went we had a lopsided team with our width coming solely from Ginola, and so the spotlight fell on David. It's effectively the same as what Jonas has had to go through in previous seasons when he was being doubled up on every game with absolutely noone on the other flank to "help out" (prior to Enrique improving and helping him out regarding the doubling-up). It's clearly so much easier for teams to nullfily a single winger who isn't Messi. I remember Ginola constantly having to drift infield to get away from markers whilst Asprilla was doing sod all down the right (can't remember if Lee was played out of position there a few times?). Although I'd argue that despite the balance issues the team Ginola was in was more talented than Sir Bobby's, Robert still had the luxury of being in a well balanced side for a longer period of time (Nobby providing quality width on the other flank and Bellamy/Dyer stretching teams, etc), and so I'd argue that it was harder for Ginola to play well on a regular basis because of this whereas this wasn't as big an issue for Robert (hence why he did more than Ginola stats-wise during his time here).

[Ronaldo]

What an absolute load of s****. Different types of player anyway.

 

Harder for Ginola. f*** off.

[Mr. Snrub]

This is why I'm so excited about Ben Arfa, I can see glimpses of both Ginola and Robert in his game.

 

Very elegant on the ball but also able to produce a moment of magic out of nothing aswell as having a thunderous left peg.

[Guest neesy111]

Ginola better to watch.

 

Robert provided more to the team in assists and goals which is what counts basically imo.

[Cronky]

Personally thought Ginola was miles better than Robert. The gap in ability and quality between the two was night and day, like Zidane and N'Zogbia or something. Ones a good all round footballer every time he's on the ball, the other looks class if you look at the highlights because you see the one great attempt he pulls off and not the 5 or 6 attempts it took for him to get there.

 

Although he was class for what he was, Robert to me was an extremely hit-and-miss winger, a percentages player, and a limited one at that. Most of his crosses hit the first man, the majority of his shots were wild, and he'd run into brick walls more often than not. His crossing and shooting were great when he pulled it off, but his passing and creativity outside of smacking the ball in from wide areas or free kicks was non-existent imo, added to which he was an exceptionally selfish player on the ball. With Ginola the all-round play was at a much higher level - first touch, dribbling, awareness, passing, vision, etc, on top of which Ginola was a better pass-and-move type of player (hence why better teams wanted him when he was at his best).

 

The only area where Robert trumps Ginola is effort in continuously trying to create or score something out of the blue even when the chips were down. Ginola did spend a few too many games being happy to play it simple, but then that leads me to my next point.

 

IMO Robert had it easier than Ginola. I think alot of our fans are overly harsh on Ginola after the midway point of 95/96 as for me his form suffered due to what happened to the mechanics of the team he was in. In the first half of that season we had Gillespie on the other flank stretching the opposition, leaving Ginola with more space and one-on-ones against opposition fullbacks, hence why he murdered teams week in week out for the most part (or if he was quiet it wasn't a big problem as Gillespie was murdering teams on the other flank) - as soon as Gillespie's knee went we had a lopsided team with our width coming solely from Ginola, and so the spotlight fell on David. It's effectively the same as what Jonas has had to go through in previous seasons when he was being doubled up on every game with absolutely noone on the other flank to "help out" (prior to Enrique improving and helping him out regarding the doubling-up). It's clearly so much easier for teams to nullfily a single winger who isn't Messi. I remember Ginola constantly having to drift infield to get away from markers whilst Asprilla was doing sod all down the right (can't remember if Lee was played out of position there a few times?). Although I'd argue that despite the balance issues the team Ginola was in was more talented than Sir Bobby's, Robert still had the luxury of being in a well balanced side for a longer period of time (Nobby providing quality width on the other flank and Bellamy/Dyer stretching teams, etc), and so I'd argue that it was harder for Ginola to play well on a regular basis because of this whereas this wasn't as big an issue for Robert (hence why he did more than Ginola stats-wise during his time here).

 

I’d agree – there was far more to Ginola’s game.

 

That side was beautifully balanced going forward, and you’re right in saying that Asprilla’s arrival and Gillespie’s absence disrupted that. I seem to remember that Beardsley was the one moved out right, and we lost that brilliant partnership that he had with Les. I don’t remember Ginola in particular being affected, but we were certainly weakened as an attacking force in general, and that would have impacted on his play.

 

[Mick]

On form, Ginola trounced Robert. However as often said, Ginola was only on form really for his first 6 months at NUFC.

 

Ginola was rarely the same player after his sending off at Arsenal.

[Dinho lad]

more to Ginola's game, but Robert was deadlier.

[alpal78]

Personally thought Ginola was miles better than Robert. The gap in ability and quality between the two was night and day, like Zidane and N'Zogbia or something. Ones a good all round footballer every time he's on the ball, the other looks class if you look at the highlights because you see the one great attempt he pulls off and not the 5 or 6 attempts it took for him to get there.

 

Although he was class for what he was, Robert to me was an extremely hit-and-miss winger, a percentages player, and a limited one at that. Most of his crosses hit the first man, the majority of his shots were wild, and he'd run into brick walls more often than not. His crossing and shooting were great when he pulled it off, but his passing and creativity outside of smacking the ball in from wide areas or free kicks was non-existent imo, added to which he was an exceptionally selfish player on the ball. With Ginola the all-round play was at a much higher level - first touch, dribbling, awareness, passing, vision, etc, on top of which Ginola was a better pass-and-move type of player (hence why better teams wanted him when he was at his best).

 

The only area where Robert trumps Ginola is effort in continuously trying to create or score something out of the blue even when the chips were down. Ginola did spend a few too many games being happy to play it simple, but then that leads me to my next point.

 

IMO Robert had it easier than Ginola. I think alot of our fans are overly harsh on Ginola after the midway point of 95/96 as for me his form suffered due to what happened to the mechanics of the team he was in. In the first half of that season we had Gillespie on the other flank stretching the opposition, leaving Ginola with more space and one-on-ones against opposition fullbacks, hence why he murdered teams week in week out for the most part (or if he was quiet it wasn't a big problem as Gillespie was murdering teams on the other flank) - as soon as Gillespie's knee went we had a lopsided team with our width coming solely from Ginola, and so the spotlight fell on David. It's effectively the same as what Jonas has had to go through in previous seasons when he was being doubled up on every game with absolutely noone on the other flank to "help out" (prior to Enrique improving and helping him out regarding the doubling-up). It's clearly so much easier for teams to nullfily a single winger who isn't Messi. I remember Ginola constantly having to drift infield to get away from markers whilst Asprilla was doing sod all down the right (can't remember if Lee was played out of position there a few times?). Although I'd argue that despite the balance issues the team Ginola was in was more talented than Sir Bobby's, Robert still had the luxury of being in a well balanced side for a longer period of time (Nobby providing quality width on the other flank and Bellamy/Dyer stretching teams, etc), and so I'd argue that it was harder for Ginola to play well on a regular basis because of this whereas this wasn't as big an issue for Robert (hence why he did more than Ginola stats-wise during his time here).

 

I think you exaggerate the "percentage player" part. Sure he is not gonna hit all those crossess and shots perfectly and some will inevitably hit the first person but what matters is that in a game, percentage or no percentage, he would get at least a few good deadly crosses in (that is just begging to be put in) and a few shots on target.  Goals win you games so that's what matters in the end, everythig else is mostly secondary. If all his crossess and shots were good, then he'd be f***ing better than Messi, you're asking for a player that would easily create like 100 assists per season!

[Mick]

It's in the twitter thread but it should also be in here as not everybody reads every thread.

 

LRobertOfficial Laurent Robert

Who wants help me to 300 followers

[Fenham Mag]

Olly Bernard said it wasn't him.

[Mick]

Olly Bernard said it wasn't him.

 

Warren Barton think it is, unless he's another piss take.