Sabre wrote:For instance, I'm with you when you rate Gerrard a lot, but then you should also admit how many times Crouch touched a ball that later on Gerrad converted in a goal. Second chances that Crouch has provided to the team have been countless, and for that only he can be useful through out a season. Not to mention he has scored a decent amount of goals too. He doesn't deserve to be dropped under any circunstances. Maybe not playing that much I agree, but never be dropped.
Instead, you keep Bellamy, when there are lots of players like him or better. He's not a great finisher, he is not a good header, he's pacy but there are other with more pace, and he has a decent abillity but there are others more skilled. The positional strenght that Crouch provides and the strenght, power and workrate Kuyt provides though are not easily found in other top league players.
So bring Tevez and Anelka if you think one of them is going to be the prolific striker many are wishing, but don't drop the two players that are less easily replaceable in their roles.
I think you have a good eye for footballers Stu, but I also think that once you decide a player is not of your liking, you exagerate the campaing against them.
I'm only disagreeing in the 25% of your squad, because when it comes to goal, defence and midfield, I think you're spot on. I like Woodgate too, and I liked him in Spain. He's quality as Cannavaro aswell, although he was unlucky with injuries
Ciggy wrote:Sabre wrote:Ashton if you like might join,
Dean Ashton will not be joining Liverpool in the near future cause he's not good enough.
If Rafa played our forwards as forwards and not having them playing in midfield most of the time, we probably wouldnt need any new forwards.
I worry that if we do buy a world class striker say Eto (in my dreams) even he would struggle to get 15 goals a season.
Someone said the other day if Cisse goes to Bolton he will score more than any of our forwards will next season.
You have to ask yourself why it wouldnt be a suprise if this did happen, and if we can see the problem why cant Rafa, we can have all the possesion in the world passing it around the back 4 but if they arnt doing anything with it whats the point?
I think we where dire last season, we where boring to watch and very predictable.
I hope to god next season wont be the same the shackles need to come off ecspecially away from home otherwise we can kiss the league good bye.
Sabre wrote:Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.
But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.
Sabre wrote:Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.
But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.
Stu.Murph wrote:What thewould you know?
Sabre wrote:Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.
But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.
Bamaga man wrote:Sabre wrote:Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.
But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.
Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored thoughbut he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.
As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.
Stu.Murph wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Sabre wrote:Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.
But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.
Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored thoughbut he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.
As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.
See this is what annoys me. Players don't "get it" then "lose it".
You either have it, or you don't. Its as simple as that. Players only start to become past it when their legs start to go for whatever reason, players with vision will always have that vision, players with skill will always have that skill, players with bottle will always have that bottle. They'll never gain something they don't have and they don't lose the ability to do things they can do.
I've said a million times, circumstances don't dictate a players ability to do something. Players do the same things all the time. They don't read the game great in one match and then read it poorly in the next, then read it poorly in the one after.
If you watch Steven Gerrard, even when he's not playing particuarly well, he's still great in the tackle, he's still a very good passer and he's still very athletic. Players ability doesn't change overnight... yes players can have a bad game where they don't show their ability and do things they don't usually do, they're human, not robots.
I said it year ago about Fowler. Fowler never "lost it" the way people said he did what so ever. He was simply playing in a different environment, with different players who didn't suit his game and didn't get the best out of him.
Alot of people under estimate what McManaman done for Fowler's game aswell as McAteer, Jones, Evans (by the style of football played) and Bjornebye with the consistent cross, supply and quality flying into the box.
The point of the arguement is, I find it very silly and very tedious having to explain that players either have an ability to do something, or they don't. They don't "learn how to do such and such".
When players become professionals, they're pretty much set in their ways, they're already moulded into a certain type of player. Yes some attributes many improve ever ever so slightly as they gain experience but they don't improve by much at all and you're only talking about maybe 7 or 8 attributes increasing by very little amounts. When you say a player has potential, or is raw, it doesn't mean they are Sissoko and need to learn to do this... or needs to learn to do that... because he's good at everything else, Sissoko will never be a play maker, he'll never improve his passing game, when a player has potential, they can already do everything they are good at. They just need to learn how and when to use the attributes they have.
Frank Lampard and Jamie Carragher are two perfect examples of this. Nothing more than good players who fool the majority into thinking they are world class because they've got their own games down to a tee. They know exactly what they are good at and know exactly how to play to their strengths under the managers they are currently with.
If you watched Steven Gerrard as a child, he's always been "the same player", he's always been a fan of the "glory pass" he's always been able to strike a ball and he was always going to be a professional because of his attitude. His ability to strike a ball was something I seen in the reserves about a year before he came through, yet we didn't start to see that regularly untill his third season as a professional.
Bad Bob wrote:Stu.Murph wrote:Bamaga man wrote:Sabre wrote:Can anyone sum me up some questions about Anelka's loan spell in Anfield? I have only "snapshots" as in "images" about his game here, and I had the idea he was unimpressive again,and with not a great performance.
But Saint says he was a good player, and Stu defends him a lot, so was it a good loan spell after all? Also, I don't remember how he left, was up to LFC signing him up at the end of season and didn't despite the good job? I hadn't an insight about fan's crowd back then.
Anelka for me did enough to warrent a permanent signing. I remember watching him against Newcastle at Anfield and he was very direct. He ran at the defence, took players on did everyting you could ask for in a striker. I dont think he scored thoughbut he did look class on a few occasions for us, he looked as if he had the desire to play for us.
As for now, I'm not so sure. Like I said before I'd of taken him then but I'm not so sure now.
See this is what annoys me. Players don't "get it" then "lose it".
You either have it, or you don't. Its as simple as that. Players only start to become past it when their legs start to go for whatever reason, players with vision will always have that vision, players with skill will always have that skill, players with bottle will always have that bottle. They'll never gain something they don't have and they don't lose the ability to do things they can do.
I've said a million times, circumstances don't dictate a players ability to do something. Players do the same things all the time. They don't read the game great in one match and then read it poorly in the next, then read it poorly in the one after.
If you watch Steven Gerrard, even when he's not playing particuarly well, he's still great in the tackle, he's still a very good passer and he's still very athletic. Players ability doesn't change overnight... yes players can have a bad game where they don't show their ability and do things they don't usually do, they're human, not robots.
I said it year ago about Fowler. Fowler never "lost it" the way people said he did what so ever. He was simply playing in a different environment, with different players who didn't suit his game and didn't get the best out of him.
Alot of people under estimate what McManaman done for Fowler's game aswell as McAteer, Jones, Evans (by the style of football played) and Bjornebye with the consistent cross, supply and quality flying into the box.
The point of the arguement is, I find it very silly and very tedious having to explain that players either have an ability to do something, or they don't. They don't "learn how to do such and such".
When players become professionals, they're pretty much set in their ways, they're already moulded into a certain type of player. Yes some attributes many improve ever ever so slightly as they gain experience but they don't improve by much at all and you're only talking about maybe 7 or 8 attributes increasing by very little amounts. When you say a player has potential, or is raw, it doesn't mean they are Sissoko and need to learn to do this... or needs to learn to do that... because he's good at everything else, Sissoko will never be a play maker, he'll never improve his passing game, when a player has potential, they can already do everything they are good at. They just need to learn how and when to use the attributes they have.
Frank Lampard and Jamie Carragher are two perfect examples of this. Nothing more than good players who fool the majority into thinking they are world class because they've got their own games down to a tee. They know exactly what they are good at and know exactly how to play to their strengths under the managers they are currently with.
If you watched Steven Gerrard as a child, he's always been "the same player", he's always been a fan of the "glory pass" he's always been able to strike a ball and he was always going to be a professional because of his attitude. His ability to strike a ball was something I seen in the reserves about a year before he came through, yet we didn't start to see that regularly untill his third season as a professional.
Okay but what about mentality, Stu? Do players with natural talent go off the boil because they're psychology toward the game changes? I personally haven't seen enough of Anelka to comment but I know quite a few who think he hasn't done much since his loan spell with us because he doesn't have the proper mentality anymore (ie. he's become merely a skilled journeyman who can't be ar.sed mentally turning up every week). Where does that enter the equation?
Return to Liverpool FC - General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: leeroy74 and 59 guests