Ross Barkley

[smg]

5 hours ago, villalad21 said:

Rich man's Conor

I might be ill, this is the second time in a week I have agreed with you.

[Keyblade]

On 07/02/2021 at 09:40, dont_do_it_doug. said:

I mean honestly you only need to watch the first 5 minutes of the extended highlights from yesterday to see exactly why he is rated as highly as he is. 

I like Ramsey's potential, but he's nowhere near that level yet. 

Players progress at different rates. Scary thing about Barkley is that he was at a higher level than he's currently at when he was Ramsey's age.

[sne]

1 minute ago, MaVilla said:

so....not willing to commit himself to the cause 100% to earn a move?, in fear of getting injured and not earning the move?, both of which could lead to a move not being earned?, rather than committing and trying to earn a move at the risk of getting injured and not earning a move?, so the dilemma is to play within himself and maybe earn a move?, or commit and get injured and not earn a move?, or to commit to effort and do well and earn a move?, or possibly hope he does enough by not doing enough to possible earn a move?, but by over thinking it and not committing 100% that may paradoxically actually lead to the move not being earned?, or should he just take the red pill and go down the rabbit hole and give 100% knowing there is a risk of not earning the move but it may be his best chance to earn the move?

 

 

Yeah the answer should of course be to go for it and fight like a beast to earn a move (or a spot at Chelsea but I think that ship has sailed) unless he want's to end up at somewhere like Newcastle on old merits and name.

I get that he might be scared of picking up another injury considering his history and the situation he's in but I hope that's it's just down to him being a fair bit away from fitness rather than him holding back. Impossible to know since the result would likely look about the same.

[gurru991]

2 hours ago, lexicon said:

If they're asking that much they must want to keep him - half that would be right IMO. 

I don't think they want to keep him at all, he is not making Tuchel's  Chelsea team any time soon. I think some one has tossed out a number & the press have ran with it. 

There is no denying his talent but he has always struggled with consistency.

As to making the England squad, who knows what Southgate is thinking. He struggled to recognize that Jack is a baller but thinks Winks is mustard.

[lexicon]

1 minute ago, gurru991 said:

I don't think they want to keep him at all, he is not making Tuchel's  Chelsea team any time soon. I think some one has tossed out a number & the press have ran with it. 

There is no denying his talent but he has always struggled with consistency.

As to making the England squad, who knows what Southgate is thinking. He struggled to recognize that Jack is a baller but thinks Winks is mustard.

I don't think they do either - it's just a nonsense figure from what I can tell. 

[JAMAICAN-VILLAN]

28 minutes ago, gurru991 said:

I don't think they want to keep him at all, he is not making Tuchel's  Chelsea team any time soon. I think some one has tossed out a number & the press have ran with it. 

There is no denying his talent but he has always struggled with consistency.

As to making the England squad, who knows what Southgate is thinking. He struggled to recognize that Jack is a baller but thinks Winks is mustard.

Funnily enough, watching Chelsea yesterday, I thought they were quite boring.

No one really driving through the middle etc.

I criticise him quite a lot, however it must be said, If Deano and the board decide he is worth spending good money on, at seasons end, I'll be ok with that.

As afterall, they seem to know what they are doing.

[QldVilla]

6 hours ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

You're rather confusing here. You said "You only get match fit by playing." Then said "You can only get so fit on the training pitch, the rest is game time.". I'd say throwing him in is pretty much what you're saying? 

You can call the fitness whatever you like, base fitness if that pleases you. Point is that there are absolutely obviously differences in fitness and what times a player should be exposed to first team football. Anyone that's ever played football knows this. 

Not sure what is confusing, it’s the basis for the theory and methodology of training and adaptation. You can undertake aerobic, anaerobic or anaerobic glycolic training on the training pitch ( base fitness), but you can’t replicate the intensity of match fitness on the training pitch. 
 

PS base fitness isn’t my term, read some books on fitness for sport, base fitness will jump off the page at least 100 times.

[gurru991]

3 hours ago, JAMAICAN-VILLAN said:

Funnily enough, watching Chelsea yesterday, I thought they were quite boring.

No one really driving through the middle etc.

I criticise him quite a lot, however it must be said, If Deano and the board decide he is worth spending good money on, at seasons end, I'll be ok with that.

As afterall, they seem to know what they are doing.

They certainly do whereas I find I'm wrong time after time.  

I just don't think Barkley or Loftus-Cheek fit into that Chelsea team. 

[pacbuddies]

For £40m I would send him back. Not worth more than £10m IMO based on the fact we got McGinn for £2.5m.

[picicata]

For £40m I would expect far more than that which Ross offers.

[Laughable Chimp]

Was looking through Barkley's attempted tackling stats and saw that his season with us so far is indeed an anomaly in this regard. He's been averaging 0.8 attempted tackles per 90 this season for us, far below the average amount of attempted tackles he's put in at other seasons for Everton and Chelsea.

If we assume that attempted tackles could be some kind of proxy for aggresion or work rate, it at least tells us his lethargic play for us right now is not how he usually has been before.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

8 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Players progress at different rates. Scary thing about Barkley is that he was at a higher level than he's currently at when he was Ramsey's age.

He has been an England player of the year candidate at least twice to my knowledge. This is from 2014:

https://www.thefa.com/news/2014/Dec/30/england-player-of-the-year-contender-ross-barkley

Quote

His positive approach has given fans much to be excited about and his driving runs from deep have often given England another attacking dimension.

Against Ecuador in the pre-World Cup friendly, he laid on for Rickie Lambert to score in the 2-2 draw.

Barkley was the first man off the bench in the opening two World Cup games, against Italy and Uruguay, and then started against Costa Rica.

His club career has derailed at Chelsea, so it was always going to take time. Game time.

It seems obvious that he's a player who needs an arm round him too? 

Edited February 8, 2021 by dont_do_it_doug.

[KenjiOgiwara]

10 hours ago, QldVilla said:

Not sure what is confusing, it’s the basis for the theory and methodology of training and adaptation. You can undertake aerobic, anaerobic or anaerobic glycolic training on the training pitch ( base fitness), but you can’t replicate the intensity of match fitness on the training pitch. 
 

PS base fitness isn’t my term, read some books on fitness for sport, base fitness will jump off the page at least 100 times.

1) What's confusing is that you are saying you can't have degrees of match fitness. Which you absolutely obviously can. You can differentiate and give grades of fitness quite easily. VO2 Max is one. So when a player isn't there or any where close to it, you shouldn't let him get there by playing first team league matches. You can if it's just minor tweaks and rust to get there, but when it's obvious he's some distance from it, it makes no sense. 

2) Fair enough. I'll keep the term in mind. 

[QldVilla]

24 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

1) What's confusing is that you are saying you can't have degrees of match fitness. Which you absolutely obviously can. You can differentiate and give grades of fitness quite easily. VO2 Max is one. So when a player isn't there or any where close to it, you shouldn't let him get there by playing first team league matches. You can if it's just minor tweaks and rust to get there, but when it's obvious he's some distance from it, it makes no sense. 

2) Fair enough. I'll keep the term in mind. 

 There's degrees of fitness, not degrees of match fitness, your either match fit, or your not. When Barkley had 7-8 weeks off injured, he lost technically 20-24 weeks of fitness. So when he started training again he was maybe 50% fit, it will take 4-6 months for him to get back to close to full-fitness, hence his match fitness will get him through maybe 20-30 minutes of football before standards decline. Why, because he doesn't have the base to maintain his match fitness throughout the game.

He would be more effective coming off the bench, but instead they have him operating at 75-80% during a game. Hence why he's not tracking back etc and doing more, because he would be gassed in the first 20-25minutes.

I agree with your sentiment, just not the terminology.

[KenjiOgiwara]

26 minutes ago, QldVilla said:

 There's degrees of fitness, not degrees of match fitness, your either match fit, or your not. When Barkley had 7-8 weeks off injured, he lost technically 20-24 weeks of fitness. So when he started training again he was maybe 50% fit, it will take 4-6 months for him to get back to close to full-fitness, hence his match fitness will get him through maybe 20-30 minutes of football before standards decline. Why, because he doesn't have the base to maintain his match fitness throughout the game.

He would be more effective coming off the bench, but instead they have him operating at 75-80% during a game. Hence why he's not tracking back etc and doing more, because he would be gassed in the first 20-25minutes.

I agree with your sentiment, just not the terminology.

I can almost agree with that I think. I'd still argue there's degrees of match fitness, i.e.  a level you're fit enough to play matches and contribute, but still have a level to go before you're at 100%, but we're getting into silly terrain here, so lets leave it! 

[KenjiOgiwara]

8 hours ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

He has been an England player of the year candidate at least twice to my knowledge. This is from 2014:

https://www.thefa.com/news/2014/Dec/30/england-player-of-the-year-contender-ross-barkley

His club career has derailed at Chelsea, so it was always going to take time. Game time.

It seems obvious that he's a player who needs an arm round him too? 

I am not so sure here. It's one of two to me. Either he's not fit yet, thus he shouldn't be playing. OR he's fit, but he doesn't have it in him to do proper work. In that case he's just a luxury player we can do without. 

[villa89]

11 hours ago, pacbuddies said:

Not worth more than £10m IMO based on the fact we got McGinn for £2.5m.

Nobody is worth more than £10m if you compare it to getting McGinn for £2.5m.  

[Rolta]

15 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

I am not so sure here. It's one of two to me. Either he's not fit yet, thus he shouldn't be playing. OR he's fit, but he doesn't have it in him to do proper work. In that case he's just a luxury player we can do without. 

Yet he's been a matchwinner for us a couple of times and when the team are playing well, he's had an important role in his play with Jack/Watkins/Traore and whoever else. His footwork is sublime at times. Personally, I think he's looked a bit leggier since his injury, but he's also had good moments since then and has often played a massive part in our good play. Why does everything have to be so black and white?

Before his injury I don't remember many doubts about him. For me, I think he had a really bad game against Leeds, but was much better in the other games and didn't look as leggy as he has at times recently post injury. But Ramsay hasn't made an impact on a game even close to Barkley's level in his opportunities so far, and the same goes for Hourihane. I imagine if we had a better squad we might have given him an opportunity to rest during this busy period.

I like Barkley—I think he has a lot to offer.

[KenjiOgiwara]

15 minutes ago, Rolta said:

Yet he's been a matchwinner for us a couple of times and when the team are playing well, he's had an important role in his play with Jack/Watkins/Traore and whoever else. His footwork is sublime at times. Personally, I think he's looked a bit leggier since his injury, but he's also had good moments since then and has often played a massive part in our good play. Why does everything have to be so black and white?

Before his injury I don't remember many doubts about him. For me, I think he had a really bad game against Leeds, but was much better in the other games and didn't look as leggy as he has at times recently post injury. But Ramsay hasn't made an impact on a game even close to Barkley's level in his opportunities so far, and the same goes for Hourihane. I imagine if we had a better squad we might have given him an opportunity to rest during this busy period.

I like Barkley—I think he has a lot to offer.

You're making up a scenario which is not here. I'm being very nuanced about it. I've said I think he looks good on the ball. It's absolutely clear you can see where the Barkley hype train once started, but he also looks absolutely dead on his feet defensively. I'm not impressed by him scoring 3 goals in 15 matches or so, when all he pretty much does is stroll around as a second striker. Everyone looks to work harder than him. 

I have no problems with you liking him, but that's not what's argued here. 

[Rolta]

20 minutes ago, KenjiOgiwara said:

You're making up a scenario which is not here. I'm being very nuanced about it. I've said I think he looks good on the ball. It's absolutely clear you can see where the Barkley hype train once started, but he also looks absolutely dead on his feet defensively. I'm not impressed by him scoring 3 goals in 15 matches or so, when all he pretty much does is stroll around as a second striker. Everyone looks to work harder than him. 

I have no problems with you liking him, but that's not what's argued here. 

Is 'If he's not fit he shouldn't be playing; if he is fit, he's luxury' actually nuanced? I don't think it is at all. And that's what I was responding to (I might have missed some of your other posts, but, as I say, I had bolded the bit I was responding to).