Summer transfer window 2021

[Sam-AVFC]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

yes it is.

but you have just focused on play making.....in those positions, i would focus on defending....that said.....I would not expect a CDM to have the touch or ball control of say  Jack Grealish.

If you want the very Best, you need to study Busquets, who can do both.....but not all CDM's are that good, so compromise needs to be employed....doesn't mean lesser versions who are still great are not out there or would suffice.

They ONLY have to be better than Luiz or Nakamba, for us to improve........we are not targeting a champions league place.

They're all good defenders, I don't debate that. I just disagree with your assertion that they're all strong defensively and can "scheme".

[TRO]

15 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Absolutely. I also noticed a few occasions on the weekend where it happened just as easily with Nakamba there because he pressed way to aggressively and they waltzed through. I often don't think McGinn or Luiz work anywhere near hard enough to get back when they have been passed either.

For me most of the problems seem to come from lack of positional discipline and the player tasked with sitting there not doing so, rather than inability to close a player down or tackle. I like to think with the addition of Buendia pressing from the front and a fast winger like Bailey then Luiz could be absolutely lethal staying deep (ie no wandering) and playing longer passes.

Luiz didn't improve near as much as I expected last season, but I think he was the victim of playing a double pivot where neither of them would stay back. I thought he was way better in a 4-3-3 as he knew he was expected to sit and we also saw much more of him coming deep to get the ball. Add to that Barkley being in front...

So, How do you think we can protect our defence from marauding opposition gaining easy access to them?

I agree with you about positional play, but with the right amount of discipline that can be remedied.... but you still have to apply your presence in such circumstances otherwise you get brushed aside...I have seen that too.

Luiz, went backwards from the decent play he mustered post covid lockdown 2019/20

I am not sure about the Barkley mitigation.....I accept defending starts from the front, but I also believe the kernel of it, comes from Midfield.....I am not asking for big brutes, I am asking for tenacious, Industrious, rats, with a first touch, who can keep the ball and rob the ball in equal measure...players who can read danger and cut it out and also, scheme to get start attacks......I don't see much of that in our current crop, I see bits and pieces, but no consistency.

I think Ollie does a very decent job of closing down, probably the only one up front who does with any affect.

My point is, we cannot rely on Ollie and Emi M to keep our goal safe......We need a General in the middle to orchestrate our tempo and organise a response to any danger.....Mortimer, Bremner, Cowans......what a mix that was, but they all do both, not just one job.

 

[TRO]

14 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

They're all good defenders, I don't debate that. I just disagree with your assertion that they're all strong defensively and can "scheme".

so what are you saying as long as they can scheme or play make, to hell with the densive duties?

by the way, you never answered my question.....what do you propose we should do the stop marauding raids through our midfield in future?....how do you counter it.?

[Sam-AVFC]

Just now, TRO said:

so what are you saying as long as they can scheme or play make, to hell with the densive duties?

by the way, you never answered my question.....what do you propose we should do the stop marauding raids through our midfield in future?....how do you counter it.?

No, I was responding to your post where you made a list of players in the league that are strong defensively and good playmakers. A list I disagreed with. Maybe try reading from the start again.

Which question didn't I answer? The one where the first word of my post was an answer, or the one that you asked 2 minutes ago and no one else has posted in the thread since? If it's the latter, my answer is already in the post you quoted.

[TRO]

33 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I'm surprised you don't see a number 6 as a CB considering how long you've been following the game!

You have no reason to be surprised....I see a No 4 & 5 as Centre backs.....but they can put any number on their shirts, squad numbers dictate that.

No6 for me is a CDM.....but there are always exceptions in football.

considering how long, I have been following the game, I'm surprised you can't see my point.....unless of course you simply disagree, which we could have made much shorter, in our responses.

 

[Sam-AVFC]

1 minute ago, TRO said:

You have no reason to be surprised....I see a No 4 & 5 as Centre backs.....but they can put any number on their shirts, squad numbers dictate that.

No6 for me is a CDM.....but there are always exceptions in football.

considering how long, I have been following the game, I'm surprised you can't see my point.....unless of course you simply disagree, which we could have made much shorter, in our responses.

 

I simply meant because I thought historically number 4s were DMs in British football, 6 at CBs with this reversed in Europe. There's no slight, so try not to take it so badly.

I mean my first post was literally saying I disagreed with your interpretation of certain players that you were using to support the point there are loads of midfielders in the PL that are strong as playmakers and defensively. Obviously we disagree on that, whether or not we agree to.

Then you started asking me a load of other questions, which I politely answered for you. Now you seem too be getting a bit shitty for some reason so I'll leave you to your afternoon nap.

[TRO]

6 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

No, I was responding to your post where you made a list of players in the league that are strong defensively and good playmakers. A list I disagreed with. Maybe try reading from the start again.

Which question didn't I answer? The one where the first word of my post was an answer, or the one that you asked 2 minutes ago and no one else has posted in the thread since? If it's the latter, my answer is already in the post you quoted.

I didn't say they were "good" playmakers, you are indulging in semantics......They can start attacks, was my definition, if thats play making fine, if it isn't your definition, dismiss it.

 

[Rich192]

Let’s look at the positives. If Jack leaves, our front three will be BBW. 
 

[Sam-AVFC]

Just now, TRO said:

I didn't say they were "good" playmakers, you are indulging in semantics......They can start attacks, was my definition, if thats play making fine, if it isn't your definition, dismiss it.

Can't you remember responding to a post saying Smith is likely to prioritise a a playmaker by saying "That is precisely the player I seek"?

I'd recommend writing less and trying to remember what it was, as it's pretty tiring to debate with someone who can't remember their own words or be bothered to check their original post to make sure they aren't mistaken.

[TRO]

1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I simply meant because I thought historically number 4s were DMs in British football, 6 at CBs with this reversed in Europe. There's no slight, so try not to take it so badly.

I mean my first post was literally saying I disagreed with your interpretation of certain players that you were using to support the point there are loads of midfielders in the PL that are strong as playmakers and defensively. Obviously we disagree on that, whether or not we agree to.

Then you started asking me a load of other questions, which I politely answered for you. Now you seem too be getting a bit shitty for some reason so I'll leave you to your afternoon nap.

no you started getty shitty and my mood mirrored yours...lets get it right.

Oh...and I still don't see where you have answered the question?....perhaps, I will have a lie down as you say, and you can think of one meantime.

[Sam-AVFC]

Just now, TRO said:

no you started getty shitty and my mood mirrored yours...lets get it right.

Oh...and I still don't see where you have answered the question?....perhaps, I will have a lie down as you say, and you can think of one meantime.

I really didn't, I thought we were having a good natured debate! 

I answered every question you asked, whether or not you like or can understand the answer.

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

Can't you remember responding to a post saying Smith is likely to prioritise a a playmaker by saying "That is precisely the player I seek"?

I'd recommend writing less and trying to remember what it was, as it's pretty tiring to debate with someone who can't remember their own words or be bothered to check their original post to make sure they aren't mistaken.

I recommend you understand what I am saying, instead of applying your own agenda/interpretation and losing track of the point.

That answer was NOT to that question.

I was saying the player I seek can do both.......stop attacks and start attacks.

I thinks its you who needs a nap.

 

 

[Sam-AVFC]

Just now, TRO said:

I recommend you understand what I am saying, instead of applying your own agenda/interpretation and losing track of the point.

That answer was NOT to that question.

I was saying the player I seek can do both.......stop attacks and start attacks.

I thinks its you who needs a nap.

 

 

I know you did and I simply pointed out that I disagree the players you listed can do both, which may be why people disagree over how easy it is to find those players.

We can only interpret what is written down. I think what you're actually asking me to do is understand what you were thinking.

Anyway, shall we call it a day? There are enough pages of you taking non existent slights and arguing with people in this thread without me contributing to it.

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I really didn't, I thought we were having a good natured debate! 

I answered every question you asked, whether or not you like or can understand the answer.

oh and"judging how long you have been following football", ( or words to that effect) you questioned my thinking....is that not shitty?

whats that got to do with anything?

Sam you the question of I will repeat.....how do you propose to stop marauding raiders getting through our midfield.....I have still not seen an answer, despite your contrary responses.

If you can't answer that, which was central to the original debate about CDM's....we need to drop it mate.

[RichiBoi11]

Guys I think you need to dorp it anyway. This can't be good for your blood pressures.

[Sam-AVFC]

Just now, TRO said:

oh and"judging how long you have been following football", ( or words to that effect) you questioned my thinking....is that not shitty?

Sorry if you took that as a slight, it wasn't. 

20 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I simply meant because I thought historically number 4s were DMs in British football, 6 at CBs with this reversed in Europe. 

 

[Sam-AVFC]

1 minute ago, RichiBoi11 said:

Guys I think you need to dorp it anyway. This can't be good for your blood pressures.

I think you're vastly over estimating how annoyed I am! When someone goes for me for no discernible reason and I know they're easy to wind up, I just can't help myself. I know it's childish, but there ya go. 

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I think you're vastly over estimating how annoyed I am! When someone goes for me for no discernible reason and I know they're easy to wind up, I just can't help myself. I know it's childish, but there ya go. 

I enjoyed it, wound up, you are having a laugh.....but yes, its childish.

Edited July 28, 2021 by TRO

[RichiBoi11]

1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I think you're vastly over estimating how annoyed I am! When someone goes for me for no discernible reason and I know they're easy to wind up, I just can't help myself. I know it's childish, but there ya go. 

I'm not making any presumptions on how annoyed either of you are, but it's getting off topic and you're both clearly not going to agree, so you may as well both walk away.

[TRO]

Just now, RichiBoi11 said:

I'm not making any presumptions on how annoyed either of you are, but it's getting off topic and you're both clearly not going to agree, so you may as well both walk away.

we have....but thanks....sorry for the hold up.