Adama Traore

[Rob182]

You could come up with a what if for any situation. what if we'd won because of him? what if we'd picked a few more points up and that encouraged a real go in January spending?

 

what ifs are pointless. the fact remains that we lost important games with the same useless players being picked.  q

The fact remains that we've lost important games and yet you haven't been calling for other non-playing players to play like you have been for Adama, and I'd say to a lesser extent Grealish.

You'd have had much of the same responses if you'd brought up this 'They MuSt Be bEtTEr tHaN WhAT iS cURreNTLy plAyING!!!1111!1!11' argument in other players threads, say Green, Davies, Hepburn-Murphy etc.

As mole as said. Adama has been picked, but because he's been recovering from injury at times + lacking match fitness + new to the Prem + shown much more 'potential' than actual ability to influence our results positively (that's considering his attacking ability and his negatives too) = he's not been picked more.

[Zatman]

9 minutes ago, Rob182 said:

 

As mole as said. Adama has been picked, but because he's been recovering from injury at times + lacking match fitness + new to the Prem + shown much more 'potential' than actual ability to influence our results positively (that's considering his attacking ability and his negatives too) = he's not been picked more.

thats all well and good but he has more assists than any other player in that position we currently have including Gil, Sinclair and Bacuna. He actually has more than them 3 combined

[DCJonah]

Something wrong with yours caps button?

Why would I be calling for the same of all players? I know you've struggled to keep up but my sole argument isn't 'it can't be worse'

I've seen what Adama is capable of in a few performances. Trust me, if other players had showed glimpes like that I'd be calling for them. I've seen what Adama did last season, I've read the glowing reports about his potential when we signed him. Again, if this was the case for others that we have I'd be just as enthusiastic about them getting a start. 

Hope that makes more sense for you. I'm sure  you'll ignore it though.

[DCJonah]

27 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Why would he play himtherwise?

Its pretty clear it was coming back from injury, combined with him not being Messi yet and also us actually doing OK without him until being a goal down at Norwich, as to why he wasn't started in those games.

He could have started him and maybe we would have won those games. That's massively debatable. The point is that it wasn't ridiculous or crazy to not start him as you claim, there was a combination of perfectly legitimate reasons why he didn't.

But I understand you've formulated your opinion and all the reasoning in the world isn't going to make you reconsider that, so on that note I can't be arsed to carry this on anymore.

Oh and you're going to reconsider your stance? No I can't be arsed to carry on the discussion with you either. I'm sure you'll be cheering on Sinclair and Richardson starting again Saturday. Stick with those proven winners eh. 

[a m ole]

2 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Oh and you're going to reconsider your stance? No I can't be arsed to carry on the discussion with you either. I'm sure you'll be cheering on Sinclair and Richardson starting again Saturday. Stick with those proven winners eh. 

proving that you totally missed my point, as I can't stand those players.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

but he played them 2 in the must win Norwich game at Carrow Road while Traore, Grealish and even Gil(who I dont rate but is better than them 2 clowns) were on the bench

The Norwich game was on December 28th, a gameday when traditionally lots of managers rotate their first XI's. This season almost nobody else did, but that's an anomaly. Garde came from a country where there is nowhere near the same fixture density in mid-winter, with players he openly stated he felt weren't well conditioned, and decided to rotate the team.

With hindsight, it was a mistake. We should have run the better players into the ground, because the others were just too shit. But I can see the logic of his decision - it isn't hard, frankly - and I certainly don't think it 'proves' he preferred Richardson and Sinclair when those players warmed the bench (if that) nearly every other week.

[DCJonah]

I'd imagine Sherwood would be called a many abusive names if he had picked Richardson as an attacking winger. Yet when Garde did it there was logic. I'd love to know what logic, when was the last time Richardson played in that position or last time he played well?

[a m ole]

Deflecting to Sherwood.

The squad were tired after that West Ham game. It was a hard fought draw. 48 hours later, it wasn't ridiculous to rotate - and I can say this despite saying at the time I wasn't happy with it but I can understand why. it's called having some perspective. 

Edited April 13, 2016 by a m ole

[DCJonah]

For those saying the logic was because he was returning from injury, Garde spoke about him on the 21st November and on the 17th December.  We played norwich on the 28th December. In those 2 interviews published in the mail, he didn't mention injury or fitness he just spoke about how he didn't think he was ready. 

Quite clear Garde didn't pick him because he didn't rate him, and preferred those he picked. I think that's completely worthy of criticism. 

[a m ole]

'Not ready'? sounds like the words you'd use when someone needs to get up to speed after missing weeks out for an injury.

Also you're still not getting that the point is he was coming back from injury AND Garde didn't think he was quite good enough to warrant putting him straight in, in the circumstances, which is understandable.

And somewhat validated in that Adama played over half an hour in both those games and while he played well, didn't do anything groundbreaking that could save even a point.

Edited April 13, 2016 by a m ole

[DCJonah]

He didn't use those words. He mentions nothing about fitness. 

[a m ole]

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

He didn't use those words. He mentions nothing about fitness. 

DCJonah: "he didn't think he was ready. "

you **** quoted the article!

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, Zatman said:

thats all well and good but he has more assists than any other player in that position we currently have including Gil, Sinclair and Bacuna. He actually has more than them 3 combined

By which logic, Sinclair is our top scorer and should therefore play every game

[DCJonah]

14 minutes ago, a m ole said:

DCJonah: "He didn't think he was ready. "

you **** quoted the article!

He didn't think he was ready in ability thought I made that clear by specifically saying he didn't mention fitness or injury. I didn't quote the article I summed up what he was saying.

[DCJonah]

27 minutes ago, a m ole said:

'Not ready'? sounds like the words you'd use when someone needs to gpeed after missing weeks out for an injury.

Also you're still not getting that the point is he was coming back from injury AND Garde didn't think he was quite good enough to warrant putting him straight in, in the circumstances, which is understandable.

And somewhat validated in that Adama played over half an hour in both those games and while he played well, didn't do anything groundbreaking that could save even a point.

Validated by losing both games? And keep losing and getting sacked? Yeah complelty validated. I guess it doesn't take much to be validated in your eyes.

And he created our only goal against Sunderland which tied the game at that point

Edited April 13, 2016 by DCJonah

[bobzy]

3 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Validated by losing both games? And keep losing and getting sacked? Yeah complelty validated. I guess it doesn't take much to be validated in your eyes.

Adama Traore has been involved in 10 games this season - we've got 1 point from those games (and he wasn't on the pitch when that point-saving goal was scored).

 

Edit:  Just using the same sort of logic that was applied in the CARLES GIL thread.

Edited April 13, 2016 by bobzy

[itdoesntmatterwhatthissay]

On 4/10/2016 at 15:32, Heretic said:

If true, I wonder why the United fans used to sing 'you've signed the wrong Ronaldo'?

When he arrived he was more famous for doing the Riverdance stepovers than anything else. He developed into the superb player he is when he was at United.

He was know for that but mostly because it highlighted him losing the ball. He also did some amazing things both on and off the ball at least once in any 5 minute period. 
Plus I knew who he was well before United bought him, Traore isn't anywhere near as special. But yes, you're right, good management is vital!

I have and still do watch most United games, Ronaldo was something special and you could tell that. Traore is too but he's at least a few years behind Ronaldo in reading of the game and technique, I suspect that's why we haven't seen a lot of him despite him needing games to develop.

[a m ole]

16 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Validated by losing both games? And keep losing and getting sacked? Yeah complelty validated. I guess it doesn't take much to be validated in your eyes.

And he created our only goal against Sunderland which tied the game at that point

What the **** are you talking about? Validated his decision not to start him as when he did come on he didn't do anything remarkable that had he started the result would have been any different.

Let's simplify this: 

• Adama played in BOTH of those games for OVER HALF AN HOUR and we still lost BOTH games with no evidence that had he played for longer or from the start the result would have been in any way different. He got a great assist in one game but we still lost and conceded two goals while he was on the pitch - he was pretty good but not good enough that you can conclusively say that he should have started considering that he was recently injured and not match fit. And thus - it was not crazy or idiotic to try to bring him in slowly.

 

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, DCJonah said:

I'd imagine Sherwood would be called a many abusive names if he had picked Richardson as an attacking winger. Yet when Garde did it there was logic. I'd love to know what logic, when was the last time Richardson played in that position or last time he played well?

At first I assumed this wasn't a response to me, because I sure as **** didn't say anything about playing Richardson as an attacking winger, but looking back through the thread I can't see anybody else justifying that either, so I guess you were responding to me?

In which case I have no clue what you're talking about. Obviously there's a difference between a] seeing the logic of rotating the squad 48 hours after another game, and b] seeing the logic of specifically choosing Kieran Richardson as a winger. Since I said a] and not b], I'm a bit lost why you're talking about b]. Or were you actually responding to someone else?

[bobzy]

There's nothing there.  It's just the usual crap being spouted.