Ireland or Rooney

[Dunne's Half-Time Pint]

Sorry, but all this talk of trophies decide how good a player is bollocks. Lee Sharpe, Nicky fuclin Butt, Paul Parker, Tim Sherwood, Chris Sutton, Quentin Fortune have all won more trophies than a lot of our players. So therefore they are better players by default?

Going round in circles here.

Alright - as this is how debate is supposed to work - I concede. You are all absolutely correct.

We have better players than United in every position (except possibly Vidic?).
Trophies/Previous League position (points)/Appearances (inc. International)/Individual Honours/Industry Perceptions etc. are not good indicators as to individual players' abilities. In fact they are misleading, David May and Henning Berg were both obviously shit (relative to the players playing in the division at that time) - the league was won in spite of them. Kleberson has won a World Cup and a Premier League yet he is not fit to lace Mikel Arteta's boots. In fact, United have consistently won loads in spite of the majority of their unfashionable players - who are all shit because we don't like them (making Bacon some sort of "Wizard"?).

So what does everyone predict this season? 2nd? I assume we'll finish behind Chelsea because they have Deco and Ballack (that Frank Lampard is shit though yeah?).

[Fidel Castro]

Sorry, but all this talk of trophies decide how good a player is bollocks. Lee Sharpe, Nicky fuclin Butt, Paul Parker, Tim Sherwood, Chris Sutton, Quentin Fortune have all won more trophies than a lot of our players. So therefore they are better players by default?

Going round in circles here.

Alright - as this is how debate is supposed to work - I concede. You are all absolutely correct.

We have better players than U***d in every position (except possibly Vidic?).
Trophies/Previous League position (points)/Appearances (inc. International)/Individual Honours/Industry Perceptions etc. are not good indicators as to individual players' abilities. In fact they are misleading, David May and Henning Berg were both obviously shit (relative to the players playing in the division at that time) - the league was won in spite of them. Kleberson has won a World Cup and a Premier League yet he is not fit to lace Mikel Arteta's boots. In fact, U***d have consistently won loads in spite of the majority of their unfashionable players - who are all shit because we don't like them (making Bacon some sort of "Wizard"?).

So what does everyone predict this season? 2nd? I assume we'll finish behind Chelsea because they have Deco and Ballack (that Frank Lampard is shit though yeah?).

I'd say Sar, Evra, Vidic, Wio and Rooney are probably better players than our players in their position. You don't win things by having 11 great individuals, it's a team game. I think we have a team on par with scum, but maybe they are a better collective? I agree with some points, but think you should judge a player yourself by watching him, form your own opinion. Trophies could be used as an indicator, but you don't win trophies individually. So I do partially agree with you, just think your putting too much emphasis on honours

[Dunne's Half-Time Pint]

Sorry, but all this talk of trophies decide how good a player is bollocks. Lee Sharpe, Nicky fuclin Butt, Paul Parker, Tim Sherwood, Chris Sutton, Quentin Fortune have all won more trophies than a lot of our players. So therefore they are better players by default?

Going round in circles here.

Alright - as this is how debate is supposed to work - I concede. You are all absolutely correct.

We have better players than U***d in every position (except possibly Vidic?).
Trophies/Previous League position (points)/Appearances (inc. International)/Individual Honours/Industry Perceptions etc. are not good indicators as to individual players' abilities. In fact they are misleading, David May and Henning Berg were both obviously shit (relative to the players playing in the division at that time) - the league was won in spite of them. Kleberson has won a World Cup and a Premier League yet he is not fit to lace Mikel Arteta's boots. In fact, U***d have consistently won loads in spite of the majority of their unfashionable players - who are all shit because we don't like them (making Bacon some sort of "Wizard"?).

So what does everyone predict this season? 2nd? I assume we'll finish behind Chelsea because they have Deco and Ballack (that Frank Lampard is shit though yeah?).

I'd say Sar, Evra, Vidic, Wio and Rooney are probably better players than our players in their position. You don't win things by having 11 great individuals, it's a team game. I think we have a team on par with scum, but maybe they are a better collective? I agree with some points, but think you should judge a player yourself by watching him, form your own opinion. Trophies could be used as an indicator, but you don't win trophies individually. So I do partially agree with you, just think your putting too much emphasis on honours

If you'd read everything I wrote I don't think you'd have formed that impression. Honours - along with league position - are a very good indicator. That's all I've said.
I watch a lot of football - but I miss twice as much - so when I think "that Arsenal side are world beaters" the best way for me to know if i'm right is to look at where they are at the end of the season - what they've won - if they're not where I expected then I adjust/qualify my impression.
I knwo it's easy to get carried away with the players we watch week in and week out - we love them - but the best example I can think of is SWP. I thought he was top - frighteningly good - unplayable at times. He goes to Chelsea and failed to make an impact, under arguably the most effective manager in the game (RESULTS/TROPHIES - THE VERY MEASURE NQDP et al. APPLIED TO HUGHES TO CLAIM HE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH), that meant I was wrong about how good he was. He's a good player, I love him, but he's not proven he's a great player. Someone who goes to a club which challenges for honours, gets in the side, stays in the side, and then they win trophies... i think that's a pretty good indicator.

[ronk]

The Lions Tour in rugby took the best players from 4 sides, none of which were in the top3 in the world and make a single stronger team to take on South Africa, the best team in the world at the moment. It is indeed possible to take the best players from teams that came 4th, 5th and 6th and try to come 4th, or higher.

3 points

the Lions lost

oh that's it

They came within 30 seconds of winning the tour and one concussed player made a mistake.

Which is the more valid metric of whether a team is improved? Do you watch them and rely on your knowledge of the game or do you have so little faith in your own reading of the game that you can only look at the results.

Do you honestly (does anyone?) believe that if we took the best players from all the (outside top4) teams challenging for Europe and gave them time to gel that they wouldn't be capable of breaking into the CL places? Every team in the top4 (except arguably Arsenal to an extent) was made by buying the better players from weaker teams.

I'm just astonished at the attitude of some of the posters here. The longer this had gone on the more people seem to be coming out of the woodwork. You don't watch a player to know whether he's any good. I'm used to hearing that argument from scum and 'Pool fans, it was pretty damn rare on this board. I can just imagine someone saying that SWP wasn't any good because he hadn't won anything. Michael Johnson is rubbish because he hasn't done anything.

If I hear a player is good, I give them the benefit of the doubt. But I use my own eyes when I get the chance and make my own mind up. Shrek is a good player because he's a good player, not because he's won loads with the scum, not because he's first choice for England. That just backs it up.

[Alex Sapphire]

I do, we all do use our own eyes to form opinions about players.
The trouble with this strategy though is a) I see much more of our players than anyone else's (making my judgement of them unsound) and b) this approach has led one very esteemed member of this board to form the opinion that "Lescott is better than Ferdinand", a view which is uncommon and not capable of standing up to any kind of scrutiny other than the "it's my opinion" test.
So this method is unreliable because it results in wildly inconsistent results.
When judgements differ they need testing or we will end up with very dull debates about what we all think.
A reasonable test of a player is stuff like "what do his fellow players think", "what has he won", "where did he play his football", "how important was he to his team(s)".
So if you were bought by European Champions (for a record fee), held down a place in their team, contributed goals or clean sheets, represented your country successfully, and were voted by your peers to be the best player in your position, then you are likely a good player.
On the other hand if the only eveidence you have is that a one eyed man sat in the Kippax says "I rate him", then being a true blue that's good enough for me.

[Original Dub]

If they (Rags) win the league, everyone else in it wants shooting.

Ted
that rates as the stoopidest on topic statement I've ever read on here.

It sounds very much like you are predicting the complete downfall of the rags (worst squad since 1991- are you sure?), and while I dream of that day (having lived it before) I think you're being a bit premature

What do you think?

Rags squad 1992/93:

Beckham Blackmore Bruce Butt Cantona Dublin Giggs Gillespie
Hughes Ince Irwin Kanchelskis McClair Neville Pallister
Parker Phelan Robson Schmeichel Sharpe Wallace Webb
Beardsmore Blackmore Carey Ferguson Lawton Martin Walsh

Fucking good job we don't have to play them as, if the current bunch are so fantastic, then that lot would just be handed the league before the season started & we'd all have to grovel at their feet whilst begging to look up at their supreme wonderfulness.

Who could finish above such a side?

Blackburn fucking Rovers.

I haven't predicted anything whatsoever yet, in fact I've predicted that if the players in the PL are as badly taken in by the rag bullshit as you & one or two others then they'll win the league again. Why not sell Rooney too? If they won't miss Ronaldo & Tevez then why would they miss Rooney? Obviously any team they put out just wins it by default as everyone shits themselves at the sight of Nani, Valencia, Park Ji Sung & the new God; Darren fucking Fletcher.

I can always hope though that someday, someone will uncover the truth of the Emperer's new clothes.

Again 100% spot on.
Despite hating them, I can admit when they have good sides but this current one simply isn't particularily outstanding. I loathed Tranaldo but truth is that his presence was HUGE part of their game. Even rag mate of mine admitted that these Valencia's and Park Ji Sung's are very average players compared to most of the players in the past (although oddly he seems to really rate Nani).

Personally I feel they have two truly top of the pile players in Vidic and Van Der Sar. Rooney is very good player but despite all the hype surrounding him I can't consider him to be truly world class. Let's face it, he scored less league goals last season than Robinho. Other than those three I don't see much more than (upper) midtable players who are well drilled by admittedly one of the best managers around (I need to wash my fingers).

This is the thing that does my head in. If you swapped our squad for theirs, everyone would be shitting themselves at the prospect of going to OT & facing Robinho, Adebayor, Tevez(?), SWP, Ireland + Weiss coming off the bench & even Bellamy. In the past they've always had a bunch of talented match winners. Now they have few & some of them are close to retirement.

They have a team unit more tried & tested at the moment & possibly the best PL defence so of course they're ahead of us in theory but why in God's name do we have to assume it will stay that way all season? Our potential is way above theirs even if they're a stronger unit now; which we'll find out next week. We'll get better & better win or lose though. How much can they improve?

I've only just got to reading through the whole thread now and I have to say it was a fantastic read. But for all the debating, this post here sums up exactly my thoughts on the subject.

If all of our players were on their team and had been playing together for years and we had just assembled the guts of their team into a new city side, they would fucking hammer us.

Our side, almost man for man is better individually and there is NOTHING ridiculous about that statement. Maybe we should jot down how much potentially a top side would pay for each player on both teams.

Because at the end of the day, a players current value is normally reflected in current market rate.

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Sorry, but all this talk of trophies decide how good a player is bollocks. Lee Sharpe, Nicky fuclin Butt, Paul Parker, Tim Sherwood, Chris Sutton, Quentin Fortune have all won more trophies than a lot of our players. So therefore they are better players by default?

Going round in circles here.

Alright - as this is how debate is supposed to work - I concede. You are all absolutely correct.

We have better players than U***d in every position (except possibly Vidic?).
Trophies/Previous League position (points)/Appearances (inc. International)/Individual Honours/Industry Perceptions etc. are not good indicators as to individual players' abilities. In fact they are misleading, David May and Henning Berg were both obviously shit (relative to the players playing in the division at that time) - the league was won in spite of them. Kleberson has won a World Cup and a Premier League yet he is not fit to lace Mikel Arteta's boots. In fact, U***d have consistently won loads in spite of the majority of their unfashionable players - who are all shit because we don't like them (making Bacon some sort of "Wizard"?).

So what does everyone predict this season? 2nd? I assume we'll finish behind Chelsea because they have Deco and Ballack (that Frank Lampard is shit though yeah?).

I'd say Sar, Evra, Vidic, Wio and Rooney are probably better players than our players in their position. You don't win things by having 11 great individuals, it's a team game. I think we have a team on par with scum, but maybe they are a better collective? I agree with some points, but think you should judge a player yourself by watching him, form your own opinion. Trophies could be used as an indicator, but you don't win trophies individually. So I do partially agree with you, just think your putting too much emphasis on honours

If you'd read everything I wrote I don't think you'd have formed that impression. Honours - along with league position - are a very good indicator. That's all I've said.
I watch a lot of football - but I miss twice as much - so when I think "that Arsenal side are world beaters" the best way for me to know if i'm right is to look at where they are at the end of the season - what they've won - if they're not where I expected then I adjust/qualify my impression.
I knwo it's easy to get carried away with the players we watch week in and week out - we love them - but the best example I can think of is SWP. I thought he was top - frighteningly good - unplayable at times. He goes to Chelsea and failed to make an impact, under arguably the most effective manager in the game (RESULTS/TROPHIES - THE VERY MEASURE NQDP et al. APPLIED TO HUGHES TO CLAIM HE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH), that meant I was wrong about how good he was. He's a good player, I love him, but he's not proven he's a great player. Someone who goes to a club which challenges for honours, gets in the side, stays in the side, and then they win trophies... i think that's a pretty good indicator.

Absolutely no comparison between rating players and managers. There are 25 players in squad with everyone having a role to play. Some bigger than others. To win things you don't have to have 25 world class players.

Rags for instance in recent years have had players like Tranaldo, Vidic and Van Der Sar who have guaranteed them titles. In process Wes Brown has won titles as well but I wouldn't say they have won titles because of Brown but more like despite him. Years before that they had Scholes and Giggs in their prime. Before that there were k***e and Beckscum. Before that there were Cuntona and Schmeichel. In their treble winning team there were also players like Jordi Cruyff, David May, John Curtis, Nicky Butt, Wes Brown and Jesper Blomqvist making contributions. Did you think they were world class? Or better than say Ireland, Barry, Lescott, Adebayor etc even if we don't win anything?

However managers are completely different thing. There's (usually) only one manager calling the shots. He decides who plays, how side plays, how they train, which players they buy, which players they sell, what they eat, how they warm up, where they sleep night before games, how he treats players, how he stamps his authority and so and so on and so on. One man. This is THE most important person in the club and he NEEDS to be world class if you are looking for world class results. To make it simple for you, average or poor managers will do nothing (finish 10th) with good players, whereas good manager can get the best out of average set of players.

[Original Dub]

Sorry, but all this talk of trophies decide how good a player is bollocks. Lee Sharpe, Nicky fuclin Butt, Paul Parker, Tim Sherwood, Chris Sutton, Quentin Fortune have all won more trophies than a lot of our players. So therefore they are better players by default?

Going round in circles here.

Alright - as this is how debate is supposed to work - I concede. You are all absolutely correct.

We have better players than U***d in every position (except possibly Vidic?).
Trophies/Previous League position (points)/Appearances (inc. International)/Individual Honours/Industry Perceptions etc. are not good indicators as to individual players' abilities. In fact they are misleading, David May and Henning Berg were both obviously shit (relative to the players playing in the division at that time) - the league was won in spite of them. Kleberson has won a World Cup and a Premier League yet he is not fit to lace Mikel Arteta's boots. In fact, U***d have consistently won loads in spite of the majority of their unfashionable players - who are all shit because we don't like them (making Bacon some sort of "Wizard"?).

So what does everyone predict this season? 2nd? I assume we'll finish behind Chelsea because they have Deco and Ballack (that Frank Lampard is shit though yeah?).

I'd say Sar, Evra, Vidic, Wio and Rooney are probably better players than our players in their position. You don't win things by having 11 great individuals, it's a team game. I think we have a team on par with scum, but maybe they are a better collective? I agree with some points, but think you should judge a player yourself by watching him, form your own opinion. Trophies could be used as an indicator, but you don't win trophies individually. So I do partially agree with you, just think your putting too much emphasis on honours

If you'd read everything I wrote I don't think you'd have formed that impression. Honours - along with league position - are a very good indicator. That's all I've said.
I watch a lot of football - but I miss twice as much - so when I think "that Arsenal side are world beaters" the best way for me to know if i'm right is to look at where they are at the end of the season - what they've won - if they're not where I expected then I adjust/qualify my impression.
I knwo it's easy to get carried away with the players we watch week in and week out - we love them - but the best example I can think of is SWP. I thought he was top - frighteningly good - unplayable at times. He goes to Chelsea and failed to make an impact, under arguably the most effective manager in the game (RESULTS/TROPHIES - THE VERY MEASURE NQDP et al. APPLIED TO HUGHES TO CLAIM HE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH), that meant I was wrong about how good he was. He's a good player, I love him, but he's not proven he's a great player. Someone who goes to a club which challenges for honours, gets in the side, stays in the side, and then they win trophies... i think that's a pretty good indicator.

Absolutely no comparison between rating players and managers. There are 25 players in squad with everyone having a role to play. Some bigger than others. To win things you don't have to have 25 world class players.

Rags for instance in recent years have had players like Tranaldo, Vidic and Van Der Sar who have guaranteed them titles. In process Wes Brown has won titles as well but I wouldn't say they have won titles because of Brown but more like despite him. Years before that they had Scholes and Giggs in their prime. Before that there were k***e and Beckscum. Before that there were Cuntona and Schmeichel. In their treble winning team there were also players like Jordi Cruyff, David May, John Curtis, Nicky Butt, Wes Brown and Jesper Blomqvist making contributions. Did you think they were world class? Or better than say Ireland, Barry, Lescott, Adebayor etc even if we don't win anything?

However managers are completely different thing. There's (usually) only one manager calling the shots. He decides who plays, how side plays, how they train, which players they buy, which players they sell, what they eat, how they warm up, where they sleep night before games, how he treats players, how he stamps his authority and so and so on and so on. One man. This is THE most important person in the club and he NEEDS to be world class if you are looking for world class results. To make it simple for you, average or poor managers will do nothing (finish 10th) with good players, whereas good manager can get the best out of average set of players.

How in God's name can you say that after the thread we had AGES ago where I stated the underlined and you completely disagreed with me??

Aside from that - I'd have to say a few on here have said a number of times that we have won games 'in spite' of our manager. On that theory, we could finish fourth and some may still say its 'in spite' of the manager we have. I think that's ludacris because like you say the manager assembles the team and gels them.

But we can't have this argument both ways, so what's it gonna be?

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

Going round in circles here.

Alright - as this is how debate is supposed to work - I concede. You are all absolutely correct.

We have better players than U***d in every position (except possibly Vidic?).
Trophies/Previous League position (points)/Appearances (inc. International)/Individual Honours/Industry Perceptions etc. are not good indicators as to individual players' abilities. In fact they are misleading, David May and Henning Berg were both obviously shit (relative to the players playing in the division at that time) - the league was won in spite of them. Kleberson has won a World Cup and a Premier League yet he is not fit to lace Mikel Arteta's boots. In fact, U***d have consistently won loads in spite of the majority of their unfashionable players - who are all shit because we don't like them (making Bacon some sort of "Wizard"?).

So what does everyone predict this season? 2nd? I assume we'll finish behind Chelsea because they have Deco and Ballack (that Frank Lampard is shit though yeah?).

I'd say Sar, Evra, Vidic, Wio and Rooney are probably better players than our players in their position. You don't win things by having 11 great individuals, it's a team game. I think we have a team on par with scum, but maybe they are a better collective? I agree with some points, but think you should judge a player yourself by watching him, form your own opinion. Trophies could be used as an indicator, but you don't win trophies individually. So I do partially agree with you, just think your putting too much emphasis on honours

If you'd read everything I wrote I don't think you'd have formed that impression. Honours - along with league position - are a very good indicator. That's all I've said.
I watch a lot of football - but I miss twice as much - so when I think "that Arsenal side are world beaters" the best way for me to know if i'm right is to look at where they are at the end of the season - what they've won - if they're not where I expected then I adjust/qualify my impression.
I knwo it's easy to get carried away with the players we watch week in and week out - we love them - but the best example I can think of is SWP. I thought he was top - frighteningly good - unplayable at times. He goes to Chelsea and failed to make an impact, under arguably the most effective manager in the game (RESULTS/TROPHIES - THE VERY MEASURE NQDP et al. APPLIED TO HUGHES TO CLAIM HE WAS NOT GOOD ENOUGH), that meant I was wrong about how good he was. He's a good player, I love him, but he's not proven he's a great player. Someone who goes to a club which challenges for honours, gets in the side, stays in the side, and then they win trophies... i think that's a pretty good indicator.

Absolutely no comparison between rating players and managers. There are 25 players in squad with everyone having a role to play. Some bigger than others. To win things you don't have to have 25 world class players.

Rags for instance in recent years have had players like Tranaldo, Vidic and Van Der Sar who have guaranteed them titles. In process Wes Brown has won titles as well but I wouldn't say they have won titles because of Brown but more like despite him. Years before that they had Scholes and Giggs in their prime. Before that there were k***e and Beckscum. Before that there were Cuntona and Schmeichel. In their treble winning team there were also players like Jordi Cruyff, David May, John Curtis, Nicky Butt, Wes Brown and Jesper Blomqvist making contributions. Did you think they were world class? Or better than say Ireland, Barry, Lescott, Adebayor etc even if we don't win anything?

However managers are completely different thing. There's (usually) only one manager calling the shots. He decides who plays, how side plays, how they train, which players they buy, which players they sell, what they eat, how they warm up, where they sleep night before games, how he treats players, how he stamps his authority and so and so on and so on. One man. This is THE most important person in the club and he NEEDS to be world class if you are looking for world class results. To make it simple for you, average or poor managers will do nothing (finish 10th) with good players, whereas good manager can get the best out of average set of players.

How in God's name can you say that after the thread we had AGES ago where I stated the underlined and you completely disagreed with me??

Aside from that - I'd have to say a few on here have said a number of times that we have won games 'in spite' of our manager. On that theory, we could finish fourth and some may still say its 'in spite' of the manager we have. I think that's ludacris because like you say the manager assembles the team and gels them.

But we can't have this argument both ways, so what's it gonna be?

When have I ever said that manager isn't or at least shouldn't be the most important person in the club? I said that Cassell has been more important to City than Hughes and I stand by that assesment. I also said that Cassell is more important for the club as we will struggle to find anyone as good as him for his job whereas finding better manager to replace Hughes would be relativelyt easy. Again, I stand by that opinnion.

[Original Dub]

You've just contradicted yourself again - you say Cassell is more important to us than Hughes. How can Cassell be more important than the most important person at the club?

And as to what you're saying - Cassell won't be a problem at all to replace. Taking on Brian Kidd was a fantastic move also.

Replacing the manager would have much much bigger ramifications as well you know.

For what its worth, I agree with you that the manager is definitely, above all else, the most important person at the club. Now, if only you could agree with yourself...

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

You've just contradicted yourself again - you say Cassell is more important to us than Hughes. How can Cassell be more important than the most important person at the club?

And as to what you're saying - Cassell won't be a problem at all to replace. Taking on Brian Kidd was a fantastic move also.

Replacing the manager would have much much bigger ramifications as well you know.

For what its worth, I agree with you that the manager is definitely, above all else, the most important person at the club. Now, if only you could agree with yourself...

So what you are saying is that Stuart Pearce did more to the good of this Club than Jim Cassell? Whatever.

[Alex Sapphire]

You've just contradicted yourself again - you say Cassell is more important to us than Hughes. How can Cassell be more important than the most important person at the club?

And as to what you're saying - Cassell won't be a problem at all to replace. Taking on Brian Kidd was a fantastic move also.

Replacing the manager would have much much bigger ramifications as well you know.

For what its worth, I agree with you that the manager is definitely, above all else, the most important person at the club. Now, if only you could agree with yourself...

So what you are saying is that Stuart Pearce did more to the good of this Club than Jim Cassell? Whatever.

think he'sprobably saying that Pearce's failures had more impact on his time at the club than Cassell's successes. Are you saying that replacing Jim will have more impact than replacing Hughes?

[Niall Quinns Discopants]

You've just contradicted yourself again - you say Cassell is more important to us than Hughes. How can Cassell be more important than the most important person at the club?

And as to what you're saying - Cassell won't be a problem at all to replace. Taking on Brian Kidd was a fantastic move also.

Replacing the manager would have much much bigger ramifications as well you know.

For what its worth, I agree with you that the manager is definitely, above all else, the most important person at the club. Now, if only you could agree with yourself...

So what you are saying is that Stuart Pearce did more to the good of this Club than Jim Cassell? Whatever.

think he'sprobably saying that Pearce's failures had more impact on his time at the club than Cassell's successes. Are you saying that replacing Jim will have more impact than replacing Hughes?

I'm saying it might have more negative impact. It certainly would've before our new found riches.