Yohan Cabaye (now sporting coordinator at Paris Saint-Germain)

[madras]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

 

That's kind of the point I was making by saying that we're now on the other end of hindsight. What would also say is that the strategy needs to be adjusted depending on our ambition. I think it either didn't change to suit it, we thought that the transfer policy already matched the ambition, or we didn't have any ambition. I think the second one is close to the truth.

[madras]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

 

That's kind of the point I was making by saying that we're now on the other end of hindsight. What would also say is that the strategy needs to be adjusted depending on our ambition. I think it either didn't change to suit it, we thought that the transfer policy already matched the ambition, or we didn't have any ambition. I think the second one is close to the truth.

i'd have thought when the plan works we can be more ambitious (ie more money coming in means we can spend more), that plan also entails selling to invest aswell and it seems like we are as stubborn in our selling (good) as we are in buying. two sides to the same coin.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

 

That's kind of the point I was making by saying that we're now on the other end of hindsight. What would also say is that the strategy needs to be adjusted depending on our ambition. I think it either didn't change to suit it, we thought that the transfer policy already matched the ambition, or we didn't have any ambition. I think the second one is close to the truth.

i'd have thought when the plan works we can be more ambitious (ie more money coming in means we can spend more), that plan also entails selling to invest aswell and it seems like we are as stubborn in our selling (good) as we are in buying. two sides to the same coin.

 

That's the point though, if finishing 5th isn't the plan working, then what is? By that ideal, we should have been more ambitious and that meant spending more money as wisely as we had done the previous summer.

[madras]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

 

That's kind of the point I was making by saying that we're now on the other end of hindsight. What would also say is that the strategy needs to be adjusted depending on our ambition. I think it either didn't change to suit it, we thought that the transfer policy already matched the ambition, or we didn't have any ambition. I think the second one is close to the truth.

i'd have thought when the plan works we can be more ambitious (ie more money coming in means we can spend more), that plan also entails selling to invest aswell and it seems like we are as stubborn in our selling (good) as we are in buying. two sides to the same coin.

 

That's the point though, if finishing 5th isn't the plan working, then what is? By that ideal, we should have been more ambitious and that meant spending more money as wisely as we had done the previous summer.

thats why i asked about de jong, douglas and debuchy last summer. was it lack of money or just not getting the right deal ? fwiw i think with no proof whatsoever that twente would have accpeted our rumoured upped bid and he'd have come had supercalifrajilisticborussiamonchengladbach not bid higher.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

 

That's kind of the point I was making by saying that we're now on the other end of hindsight. What would also say is that the strategy needs to be adjusted depending on our ambition. I think it either didn't change to suit it, we thought that the transfer policy already matched the ambition, or we didn't have any ambition. I think the second one is close to the truth.

i'd have thought when the plan works we can be more ambitious (ie more money coming in means we can spend more), that plan also entails selling to invest aswell and it seems like we are as stubborn in our selling (good) as we are in buying. two sides to the same coin.

 

That's the point though, if finishing 5th isn't the plan working, then what is? By that ideal, we should have been more ambitious and that meant spending more money as wisely as we had done the previous summer.

thats why i asked about de jong, douglas and debuchy last summer. was it lack of money or just not getting the right deal ? fwiw i think with no proof whatsoever that twente would have accpeted our rumoured upped bid and he'd have come had supercalifrajilisticborussiamonchengladbach not bid higher.

 

I do think that we tried, yes. I don't think the amount that we have maybe saved on Debuchy, or could potentially save on Douglas has been worth it, though. The striker situation was an odd one. We looked to strengthen and give us a plan B, or from the long ball tactics we've been playing, possibly a new plan A, but I think more effort should have been invested into getting Debuchy and Douglas. Taylor cannot be counted upon because of injuries and Williamson isn't good enough and neither is Simpson. Of course, we know this, Pardew, Llambias and Ashley know this.

 

Unfortunately, one or two of those three, probably Llambias and Ashley put all of their ideas regarding value and price into money and not the potential impact that approaching things that way has on results. Either that, or they thought, again, that we could see ourselves through to January, similar to the way that Best and Guthrie took up the baton when we needed them last season. Again, it's all risky.

[madras]

Well yeah, there was definitely scepticism about the transfers and in particular only signing Ba as the Carroll replacement. The club were proven right, they backed their scouting team and it worked out as well as could be hoped.

 

This summer they were happy to keep the money and take no risks, only to find out that they actually took the ultimate risk and it's failed.

 

Without doubt. There's an argument to say that we're on the other end of the same hindsight that we had back then as well. I don't know if Ashley thought that the risk from last time vindicated the risk this time. Weirdly, in the same way that relegation was good for us in that we stayed grounded, perhaps finishing 5th has been bad for us in that we've got carried away with thinking that operating in risk is in any way sustainable.

do you think we were realistically in for douglas, debuchy and de jong last summer ? for me that was the same transfer strategy as the summer before. when it pays off it's good, when it doesn't you look a mug but it's wrong to praise one and slag off the other as the same formula is being used regardless.

 

That's kind of the point I was making by saying that we're now on the other end of hindsight. What would also say is that the strategy needs to be adjusted depending on our ambition. I think it either didn't change to suit it, we thought that the transfer policy already matched the ambition, or we didn't have any ambition. I think the second one is close to the truth.

i'd have thought when the plan works we can be more ambitious (ie more money coming in means we can spend more), that plan also entails selling to invest aswell and it seems like we are as stubborn in our selling (good) as we are in buying. two sides to the same coin.

 

That's the point though, if finishing 5th isn't the plan working, then what is? By that ideal, we should have been more ambitious and that meant spending more money as wisely as we had done the previous summer.

thats why i asked about de jong, douglas and debuchy last summer. was it lack of money or just not getting the right deal ? fwiw i think with no proof whatsoever that twente would have accpeted our rumoured upped bid and he'd have come had supercalifrajilisticborussiamonchengladbach not bid higher.

 

I do think that we tried, yes. I don't think the amount that we have maybe saved on Debuchy, or could potentially save on Douglas has been worth it, though. The striker situation was an odd one. We looked to strengthen and give us a plan B, or from the long ball tactics we've been playing, possibly a new plan A, but I think more effort should have been invested into getting Debuchy and Douglas. Taylor cannot be counted upon because of injuries and Williamson isn't good enough and neither is Simpson. Of course, we know this, Pardew, Llambias and Ashley know this.

 

Unfortunately, one or two of those three, probably Llambias and Ashley put all of their ideas regarding value and price into money and not the potential impact that approaching things that way has on results. Either that, or they thought, again, that we could see ourselves through to January, similar to the way that Best and Guthrie took up the baton when we needed them last season. Again, it's all risky.

that's  how i see it.

 

i'd love to know how much lille wanted for debuchy as the player himself seemed to intimate  that they had moved the goal posts, would we not stump an extra half mill, was it it an extra mill or more ?

[Zero]

I remember someone said Debuchys deal was abandoned because Lille wants to milk out more money from us AFTER a fee was agreed.  It is probably a prinicple issue.

 

In fact I don't think Debuchy is the missing piece we needed most. The other positions are.

[AY]

I somehow think Marveaux is a better no 10 than Cabs. Yo is more like Pirlo, a playmaker with great passing but cant go past players. Marveaux should be behind Cisse and Cabs and Anita sitting deeper. Dont know where Tiote fits in though 

[Guest firetotheworks]

He doesn't. At least at the moment.

[Mole_Toonfan]

I somehow think Marveaux is a better no 10 than Cabs. Yo is more like Pirlo, a playmaker with great passing but cant go past players. Marveaux should be behind Cisse and Cabs and Anita sitting deeper. Dont know where Tiote fits in though 

 

I agree i think Pards likes Cabaye more because of the added work rate and arguably higher consistency with Tiote and Anita behind him, arguably with Santon and Debuchy bombing forward i can't blame him for wanting that extra bit of security.

 

Considering Tiote's form though i would definitely look at alternatives/competition and Sissoko would be great honestly.

[Ketsbaia]

Tiote the destroyer, Cabaye the metronome and Anita/Sissoko the box-to-box player.

[Guest bimpy474]

Tiote the destroyer, Cabaye the metronome and Anita/Sissoko the box-to-box player.

 

I like this 

[Gallowgate Toon]

I think Anita can be our destroyer over Tiote, in the majority of matches. I know he's been played as a box-to-box midfielder for us but his strengths (central positioning, speed, intelligence and passing) really lie as the furthest back midfielder IMO. Tiote can still be a really useful player for us still but I think his 'purple' status is under threat, he's more of a specialised player in my eyes.

[AY]

Tiote the destroyer, Cabaye the metronome and Anita/Sissoko the box-to-box player.

 

I like this 

 

Yep, Anita has the legs to make late runs to the box. Dont know if he can score though

[Guest loven Mag 11]

Erm were you asleep when he fired that volley home in europe, marra?

[nufc4eva]

I think Anita can be our destroyer over Tiote, in the majority of matches. I know he's been played as a box-to-box midfielder for us but his strengths (central positioning, speed, intelligence and passing) really lie as the furthest back midfielder IMO. Tiote can still be a really useful player for us still but I think his 'purple' status is under threat, he's more of a specialised player in my eyes.

 

Anita is in no way a destroyer, we need someone like Tiote in there just sitting when our full backs run on and breaking up play. Unfortunately Anita/Cabaye are no replacement for Tiote in that respect no matter what some think of Tiote these days

[Tiresias]

I'm not convinced of the importance of the destroyer in the modern game tbh, oo often conceding dangerous pieces etc, better a high pursuing midfield and ball playing cbs

[Mole_Toonfan]

I'm not convinced of the importance of the destroyer in the modern game tbh, oo often conceding dangerous pieces etc, better a high pursuing midfield and ball playing cbs

 

i would much prefer a driving midfielder with physical presence like Sissoko alongside Anita with Anita playing a role like Arteta does for Arsenal than Anita alongside a pure destroyer like Tiote.

 

To me a midfield of Anita-Sissoko-Cabaye has more balance to it, they can all pass, defend, tackle, intercept, create and can all chip in with goals too.

 

Most midfields are going in this direction i would like to see us go that direction too.

 

 

[Gallowgate Toon]

I think Anita can be our destroyer over Tiote, in the majority of matches. I know he's been played as a box-to-box midfielder for us but his strengths (central positioning, speed, intelligence and passing) really lie as the furthest back midfielder IMO. Tiote can still be a really useful player for us still but I think his 'purple' status is under threat, he's more of a specialised player in my eyes.

 

Anita is in no way a destroyer, we need someone like Tiote in there just sitting when our full backs run on and breaking up play. Unfortunately Anita/Cabaye are no replacement for Tiote in that respect no matter what some think of Tiote these days

 

Saying 'destroyer' makes it sound like you need some physical player, you don't. In actual fact, Anita is our most experienced defensive midfielder and from what I've seen, is our best. He might not have Tiote's power but he's far cleverer, much quicker and has more consistent distribution. I think he'd be an excellent sitter for us and would contribute far more in terms of retaining possession too.

[AY]

Erm were you asleep when he fired that volley home in europe, marra?

 

No, but I also remember certain midfielder (who looks a bit like Mr T) who scored once against Arsenal. Cant really say he is a goalscoring midfielder can you?

[Guest loven Mag 11]

I would still trust Anita to get in goalscoring positions far more often than Tiote. There completely different styles of player anyway, so its a terrible comparison tbh

[Tiresias]

Our best midfield will be cabs Anita and mar from now on, a nice mix of three different styles imo

[Ronaldo]

I do hope Anita develops to the extent that we're comfortable playing him instead of Tiote and letting him sit deep as he isn't a box-to-box player at all.

 

I hate the idea of playing a destroyer at home against most of the league, let alone one as limited as Tiote. I hope Cheick does himself a little more justice this half of the season and we can move him on for a decent wedge in the summer.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Anita looks weak as anything. Good ball player but no similarities to Tiote at all.

 

As much as Tiote has had a bad season, I really think we miss someone with genuine physical presence in midfield. In this league athleticism is just as important as ability.