Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Well that’s either due to the fact that you don’t pay enough attention when watching Latics or the fact that I watched the goal & build up on a continous loop for about a week afterwards on my sky+
He’s not the most skillful, but may score and set up a few more with the 3-5-2 formation
We’re playing 3-5-2 now??? I’m still having a hard enough time trying to accept this bloody 3-4-3 thing people tell me Bobby played last season & now he’s gone & changed it again :blink: :blink: :blink:[/quote]
Quite.
I find it amazing that people can write off a player’s chances of success for tactical/formation reasons whilst having no clue whatsoever which tactics/formations we actually play.[/quote]
Yeah but Boselli will never suit Bobby’s 1 up front formation ;)
Back to Sammon, I like him coz he’s a grafter & will run through walls all day long but he just doesn’t appear to have that extra bit of nouse needed to be a success in the top flight.
Just as an example, 1 thing sticks in my mind from last season & it’s from the Blackburn game at Ewood Park. In the initial build up to the conrer that Alcaraz scored from, Moses (I think) put in a superb cross. Now you could see what he was gonna do & Sammon should have been hanging off the shoulder of the first centre half so if the cross got past him all he needed to do was knock it in. If you watch him though he hangs back about 4-5 yards from where he needs to be so when the cross does indeed beat the first centre half & he then puts on a bit of a sprint, he’s a yard or 2 away from where he needs to be & the ball skims past him
I’d like to see us keep hold of him & see how he develops over next season though coz a player can always learn somet like thatIn the same sense that I dont care about league 2 I prefer football to be on the telly rather than not.As for the Olympics, I suspect it will get more interesting as it starts, but mainly with the traffic chaos and security problems mounting will make interesting TV viewing.
Am I the only one who thinks the Army on the streets must relate to a terrorist threat?
With a world wide audience and a history of infamous terrorist attacks on it, the Olympics are seen as a potential target wherever they are held.
The UK govt is not doing anything different in relation to deploying troops or surface to air missiles that Greece & China haven’t done in the 2 games held since 2001.
Alot of it is, as yosser says, to act as a deterrent – the missiles on top of tower blocks for instance, I read on the Beeb’s website last week some military analyst saying that they would never be used or need to be used as fighter jets & other things would have been scrambled long before the missiles would be of any use against a threat anywayHe’s not the most skillful, but may score and set up a few more with the 3-5-2 formationWe’re playing 3-5-2 now??? I’m still having a hard enough time trying to accept this bloody 3-4-3 thing people tell me Bobby played last season & now he’s gone & changed it again :blink: :blink: :blink:
I thought we’d already covered this one months ago Tyldesley?In my opinion the 3-4-3 will suit Boselli as the two wide players are wing-backs, not additional forwards/advanced midfielders (or whatever), therefore, their purpose in attack is to get forward and put crosses (both high and low) into the box. Under the old system, the two players who drifted out wide were Rodallega and Moses and they were encouraged to cut inside with the ball and get shots on goal.
With the extra balls into the box, Boselli should get more chances.
Not sure how Boselli and Di Santo would work in a starting lineup; I’ll leave that to the manager. I suspect only one of them will play at a time – with the other sitting on the bench and offering a different type of attacking option.
And as for you being proven totally and completely wrong, I very much doubt you will hold your hands up to that if it happens! ;)
We did have the discussion but I didn’t agree with you – yes more crosses do come into the box in the new system BUT an important cog in it is Di Santo & his ability to graft, drop deep, link up etc.. & none of that appears to be in Boselli’s armoury.
If you lose that from the system then it wouldn’t work as well IMO & you wouldn’t get as many crosses coming in for anyone to get on the end ofAnd as it happens I don’t think that I’ve ever been proved completely & totally wrong so i don’t know how I’d react ;) :P
I know that I’ve said this before but the BBC’s south american football correspondent replied to me in his blog about Boselli (prior to him playing a game for us) that he didn;t think he would be a success as he needs chances creating for him & that he didn’t think Latics would create as many as Estudiantes were doing & that he contributed little outside of the penalty area
From what little we got to see of him I’d say that summary was pretty much spot on so I’m a bit baffled as to why people are saying he is a good hold up, lay off, get on the end of chances player.
I don’t think he’ll suit the new system any more than he suited 4-5-1.
Also some seem to suggest him & Di Santo playing in the same starting line up & with the same formation & I’m not sure how that would work. The 3-4-3 thing needs 2 attacking midfielders in the mould of Maloney & Moses & not strikers playing in those roles – Boselli wouldn’t be suited to that role & whilst Di Santo certainly has more aspects to his game to be able to adapt better to different roles he can’t do what Moses & Maloney do (and their skills are why they’re good in those roles)Anyway, if he is given another crack of the whip I hope he proves me completely & totally wrong
I agree that even by modern footballer’s salaries standards that he isn’t worth anywhere even remotely close to that amount
I was just pointing out that salary & signing on fee aren’t always 2 separate things in terms of a players weekly wageHis agent would no doubt argue that he cost Latics £5mill & has improved since then (you may or disagree with that) & so is worth more as a current transfer fee so in effect he is saving the buying club £8mill in that respect.
As a stab in the dark say Everton were offering £30-£40k a week then the difference between that amount & his demand of £70k is £1.5-£2mill a season. taken over the course of a 3 yr contract that he would argue they have still made a saving over if they’d bought a player of similar standard who was under contract.Its a crud argument coz for my money if a player is worth £X amount a week then that’s what he’s worth, regardless of how much he cost to buy, but football transfer fees & salaries don’t have any grounding in common sense
I normally treat these kinds of report with a pinch of salt but if the story that’s jut been on SSN that Rodallega has priced himself out of a move to Everton by asking for £70k a week is true, then well done to our club management for telling him to f*** off if that was his negotiating position with us. And more fool Fulham if they are prepared to do it.
But Griff is that not why players run down a contract. The new club because no fee is involved end up paying the player a huge signing on fee which probably makes his wages massive.[/quote]
Of course it’s the reason they do it. But it doesn’t mean that anybody then has to agree to his excessive wage demands, does it?
And I don’t see how a big signing-on fee impacts on his wages. They are two separate items.[/quote]
It can have an impact Griff (although I’m not saying that it is in this instance)
Going back to Bobby’s time as a player I remember him turning down Latics offer of a new contract (when his original one had run out) as he said it represented a pay cut. If memory serves me right the local media reported that he was returning to Spain & joining Athletic Bilbao.
Dave Whelan I think said that Bobby hadn’t been offered a reduced deal & that his basic wages had increased but that what he was getting paid into his bank every month through his original contract had included his signing on fee. This time there was no signing on fee so it looked like he was being paid less but technically he wasn’t
Bobby came back for the first day of training (I remember Deehan saying that he wasn’t expecting him) & he signed the same deal he’d been offered prior to the summerSo, possibly, this £70k a week that Rodallega is reputably asking for could include his basic wage plus his signing on fee broken down over the course of the contract – if it happens at one club with one player its bound to be relatively common place
I’m not optimistic nor holding out any great hope that he will turn out to be our 10-15 goal a season person.
he wasn’t suited to the old 4-5-1 set up coz that required a lot of graft that he wasn’t suited to putting in. For all intents & purposes he would still be playing the same role for much of the time – when defending or not in possession he is still the lone front man, its only in possession that it becomes 3 (or more) up front
The only difference with the current set up is that it seems to create more chances but a vital cog in that is the ability of Di Santo to drop deep to receive the ball, create space for others to exploit & lay it off.
Boselli is a striker who gets on the end of chances & doesn’t do all the donkey work that Di Santo & even Sammon get through.
Take out the ability of Di Santo in the build up work & the ability of the team to create the chances for a poacher like Boselli diminishesIf he’s suspected of breaking the law & there’s evidence that means there is a case to answer then he should face the courts just like everybody else irrespective of how much it costs, how much he earns & how little any punishment would be in relation to his wealth.
There’s the argument of whether its in the public interest but the argument that justice has to be seen to be done & that it applies to everybody will always outweigh those of costEdinburgh – to be fair to Terry (& I don’t really want to be) he isn’t quite using the Suarez line of defence (he said that he used a term that isn’t offensive where he is from) whereas Terry is saying that he used it to repeat what he’d thought Ferdinand had accused him of saying in a kind of shock/question way you can’t really put over when typing. That said, I can see where the prosecution solicitor was coming from when he questionned Terry as to whether if you think someone has accused you of saying something offensive the natural reaction is to repeat the phrase!!
Bottom line is that Rangers owe the tax man circa £110m. Which means they owe each person in the UK £2, and I want it back !Exactly – that could pay for my euro millions ticket toneet. If my numbers come up & they’ve not given the cash for a ticket I’m suing em
Again apologies for not doing this quote within a quote lark but:
1) You’re either missing the point or being selective with what I’m saying in regards the previous competitiveness of the Scottish top flight. I acknowledge that Rangers or Celtic have won it the majority of times & you can’t get away from that fact. But a point I made & which you missed or ignored was that in 16 of the 20 years leading up to 1996 one of the old firm finished outside the top 2 & quite regularly finished 4th or 5th. Since that period & since the old firm have syphoned off the majority of the TV cash & been able to bank the champions league riches on offer they are 1st & 2nd every time & the other ckubs are getting further & further away. When was it more competitive 1976-1996 or 1996-2012? In that latter period the other clubs knew they had no chance of coming above either old firm side. In the 20 years before it was a realistic aim & was achieved by many
2) I had a very quick scan at Motherwells attendances for last season in wikipedia. Their average attendance for games not including the old firm was 4975. Their games against Rangers got attendances of 10,092 & 9,063 & against Celtic were 10,440 & 8,760. The away end there holds 5,000 so assuming they were full the increase in home fans attending those games were 490 for the celtic 10,440 game (9.8%) & 142 for the rangers 10,092 game (2.9%). The games later in the season against the pair (again assuming the away ends were full & I accept they may not have been as celtic had the title sealed & rangers challenge died) show a fall in the home attendance of 24% for Celtic & 18% for Rangers. I’ve no doubt they can sell more hospitality from firms looking to impress clients but it appears the average punter is less eager to watch the walkovers that often occur. Yes the increase in attendance for Motherwell in playing Rangers was like playing an extra 2 games against Dunfermline, Kilmarnock & co but that loss in income is insignificant compared to the clubs losing 50& of their support over the course of a whole season. And yes I’m sure the clubs should prefer to have the money than not have the money but its about 8% of their total income for the season & if they are able to be more successful this season then their average attendance for other games will increase & much of that lose will be offset (it needs an average attendance increase of under 500 a game to completely offset it)
3) using the welsh & irish players staying in their domestic leagues isn’t an adequate comparison. Both leagues are in the main part-time, the SPL isn’t. I did say though that I didn’t agree that would happen but I don’t think as many as you think will come down here as i don’t think that many “attractive” clubs will want them & the ymay choose to stay nearer to home
4) you say in your fist point that 1 team has always dominated at one time or another & then you say what the fans are wanting will just make 1 team dominant rather than 2?? :SI can’t be bothered cuting & pastign quotes as it always ends up a reet mess when I try, so:
1) I took you saying “clubs … revelling in their demise” as meaning the people who run them as opposed to the supporters who you mentioned separately. As I said, the fans I can understand despite them probably being more aware than you or me of the financial consequences to their clubs
2) The competitive period I was referring to was the bit I can remember after being born up until shortly after Souness took over as manager of Rangers. Also, your stats don’t really tell the whole story of that perios – In those 11 years before Souness’s first full season 5 of the title winner were non-old firm. furthermore, up until Celtic got their act together (presumably when the satellite TV money deal first kicked in) between 1976-1995 in 16 of those 20 years either Rangers or Celtic finished outside of the top 2. The gap between the winners & those below was always far lower than it is now even if you make it the current 3 points for a win instead of the 2 they used for ages. The point being it was a more competitive league & teams other than Rangers or celtic could go into it without aiming for 3rd at best
3) You missed my point about the hardcore fans. The point being that those going regularly to games other than the old firm fixtures at the moment are their clubs hardcore fans. It is these who are threatening to walk away if Rangers are allowed back in & these are more vital to their clubs than 1 or 2 visits from a few thousand rangers/celtic fans & the small increase in home attendances their visits bring. And the increase is small – look on the telly the next time a club plays an old firm team. The home stands are still half full just like Latics don’t get massively larger number of home fans turning up for games against United, City, Chelsea & co coz most people expect a 1 sided kicking. Those extra that do turn up are the ones who will go if their club starts doing better or has the chance of winning somet. They will get more regularly turning up if they have more of a chance of winning somet than the increase for those old firm games. You do still have the celtic problem but I guess the theory is that some of the players who would have previously been at Rangers will stay within the Scottish game & raise the quality of the other teams. Not saying I agree with that like. And isn’t aiming to come 2nd better than aiming to come 3rd especially up there where that’s the difference between Europe league & champions league & the differing financial rewards available just for qualifying never mind progressing
4) If the club has been liquidated then my own opinion is that they should have to start at the bottom. Just like Newport, Aldershot, Chester etc.. have had to do (although I believe Middlesbrough & Charlton didn’t when they were in s similar situation). if the old club cannot continue to trade then that is that IMO. I don’t see therefore how any punishment other than starting next season in the 3rd div is appropriate whatever the size of the club may be & what the financial repercussions might beThe bit I can’t understand is the revelling in their demise from rival fans and clubs which, in whichever way you look at it, will negatively affect the whole of the SPL financially and in terms of the quality of player in the league.
Exactly this[/quote]
To be fair the only club owner I have seen remotely revelling in Rangers demise is the bloke at Hearts & he’s a bit of an oddity anyway.
Celtic have remained neutral other than the “what’s happening to Rangers doesn’t effect Celtic” quotes at the back end of the season, whilst the others have either criticised the SFA for putting the decision on them or basically said they’re in a lose/lose situation but they have to listen to their own fans who have been telling them they won’t accept the new Rangers being admitted to the SPL & will vote with their feet if they do – those punters are far more important than the twice a year Rangers supporters & the cut of Sky TV money they get after Rangers & Celtic have gobbled up the lions share
As for the fans, I can understand it – they’ve watched both Glasgow clubs absolutely dominate the league for the last 20ish years after a period when that league was quite competitive & there were some decent sides in it (I remember watching Dundee United play Man United in the ECWC in the 80’s & they were superb). They’ve had to stand by & watch them demand the vast majority of the TV deal money & dictate to the others how the voting for decisions in the league is decided, thus ensuring that in effect they can vetoe any change & ensure that it becomes as uncompetitive as its ever been. Then after doing that stand by whilst they make constant claims that they’re too big for the Scottish league & the likes of them & they deserve more money.
After all that (& Edinburgh’s stuff about player poaching etc..) & seeing their clubs on downard spirals they now find out that one of these clubs has been able to achieve all that because they cheated the system & quite possibly the tax man whilst racking up huge debts that they couldn’t pay off. I think I’d revel in it too to be honest
I’d also disagree that whilst it may even the league up, attendances won’t – the people that support these clubs now are the hardcore & most will turn up regardless of who they play. If the league becomes a level playing field & they start to have the chance of success, more people will turn up on a consistant basis to watch a successful side regardless of who they play – look down the english leagues & see clubs who have done successful in league 2 will get better attendances in that season than when they go up & struggle. recent examples include Chesterfield & Rochdale & it happens all the timeIt may become a bleak time for Scottish football if the new club is made to start on div 3 but it’d be a bleak time if they allowed em in the SPL as well coz fans would desert their clubs. Its a lose/lose situation as I said & the clubs who have come out & said they will vote no have, in their eyes, chosen the lesser of 2 evils
