Silva

[Avalon]

Tevez works for the team, no doubt he's a teamplayer. He, however, was the lone striker we had for the majority of his City career and we all know he was often the only one up front.
I think he just needs to get used to more players being in the box these days. He tries too much himself, often getting a poor wide shot on goal, or losing the ball. It's great he's working so hard, but he tends to try too much for himself lately, at times when there's better options available. In the end, as long as he keeps scoring, everything's fine.

To say he's not a teamplayer is a bit extreme though. He wouldn't be fighting to get the ball back, or dropping to pick up the ball if he wasn't.

[Original Dub]

I love Silva, I think he's an excellent player... but by some of the comments on here you would think he was the in the top three in the world in his position.I'm also still hearing that Tevez isn't a team player.

The world has gone fucking mad.

A couple more goals and Tevez will be the top striker in the world's top league. He's favourite to do this BTW.

Also, for those who say we aren't the same team without Silva in it - I agree. But up until very recently it was a case of "if Tevez doesn't play City don't win".

Some people forget so quickly. I'm a bit amazed by all of this TBH. I would have thought the world and his brother would have known that Tevez is our front runner for both City POTY and Premier League POTY. I believe Kompany will come second...

Ok, POLL coming!!

By all acounts he is not far off. And he was already there when we signed him.

Really?

I take it you mean he was already in the top three playmakers in world football when we signed him?

I disagree. Strongly.

[Blue Blood]

silva and de jong are our most important players closely followed by vk

One of that trio surely has to be Player of the Season.

Atm I'd give it to Silva.

Magician that lad.

eh?!

Would Tevez sneak into fourth position, or would someone pip him to that?

Tevez and maybe VK are our only players that may sneak into the short running for POTY in the Premier League, so I really don't get the above posts.

I meant our POTS dub not the league, I poorly phrased it though. My bad.

[Original Dub]

silva and de jong are our most important players closely followed by vk

One of that trio surely has to be Player of the Season.

Atm I'd give it to Silva.

Magician that lad.

eh?!

Would Tevez sneak into fourth position, or would someone pip him to that?

Tevez and maybe VK are our only players that may sneak into the short running for POTY in the Premier League, so I really don't get the above posts.

I meant our POTS dub not the league, I poorly phrased it though. My bad.

I know mate, I got that, but I'm saying that Tevez is probably the only player that has a chance of making it in the short list for Prem POTY, yet you have him MAYBE fourth in OUR POTY??

[Rag_hater]

it is my regret that I never saw Peter (the Great) Doherty, considered to be better than Bell, at a time when Bell was in his pomp....By fans who saw them both play...He must have been some player.
That does not diminish the player that Bell was. He could defend, attack, tackle, head, had consumate ball skills, he also subjugated himself to the team's cause and he was a regular scorer.
Should Silva remain at City for any length of time, I have no doubt that he will eventually become recognised as the greatest player of this generation that wore blue.

...and Dub mate...stats don't tell everything about a player. They don't record how a little dip of a shoulder can send a defender the wrong way, or how a reverse pass can wrong foot a whole line of defenders. They don't record how a run without the ball can create space for others to go ahead and create havoc. Silva's impact on the field is far more than stats could ever record mate. Silva is one to sit back and enjoy...not record.

Stats may not record the type of play you mention.However watching the game as most of us do counteracts that argument.And for me having seen a few matches at grounds and on the telly I know I prefer the telly and feel I see more of what players do ,so to say that stats are not helpful in making a judgement strikes me as somewhat of a folly.
Stats are there to fill in a picture.Obviously not a complete picture but a part that can be helpful nontheless.
For example it was a stat that told us that Carlos has been the fastest City player to get 50 goals.Thats information that has been used to confirm what a lot of us were thinking.If stats are used to confirm a train of thought what's the point in not using them.
For me they are an addition to what I see.
To many people seem to say that stats are not a good way of highlighting a point but I think as a way of backing up an argument and they are a necessary part of what is there watch.

[Ted Hughes]

it is my regret that I never saw Peter (the Great) Doherty, considered to be better than Bell, at a time when Bell was in his pomp....By fans who saw them both play...He must have been some player.
That does not diminish the player that Bell was. He could defend, attack, tackle, head, had consumate ball skills, he also subjugated himself to the team's cause and he was a regular scorer.
Should Silva remain at City for any length of time, I have no doubt that he will eventually become recognised as the greatest player of this generation that wore blue.

...and Dub mate...stats don't tell everything about a player. They don't record how a little dip of a shoulder can send a defender the wrong way, or how a reverse pass can wrong foot a whole line of defenders. They don't record how a run without the ball can create space for others to go ahead and create havoc. Silva's impact on the field is far more than stats could ever record mate. Silva is one to sit back and enjoy...not record.

Stats may not record the type of play you mention.However watching the game as most of us do counteracts that argument.And for me having seen a few matches at grounds and on the telly I know I prefer the telly and feel I see more of what players do ,so to say that stats are not helpful in making a judgement strikes me as somewhat of a folly.
Stats are there to fill in a picture.Obviously not a complete picture but a part that can be helpful nontheless.
For example it was a stat that told us that Carlos has been the fastest City player to get 50 goals.Thats information that has been used to confirm what a lot of us were thinking.If stats are used to confirm a train of thought what's the point in not using them.
For me they are an addition to what I see.
To many people seem to say that stats are not a good way of highlighting a point but I think as a way of backing up an argument and they are a necessary part of what is there watch.

Stats are a help sometimes but can also be misleading.

There's a reason most managers will sometimes travel thousands of miles on their days off to try & see a player 'live' rather than on tv though & that's because you only see half a player's game on tv. When the camera is on the play, you are missing half the players on the pitch, their runs, feints & the reaction of the opposition to said movement, whether a player spots a danger early before it develops & moves into a position to stop it (as Garth Barry, for instance, frequently does but will hardly ever be noticed on tv), whether a player adheres to the shape the manager wants from his team or drifts out of position (Boateng), how much a player works in attack or defence etc.

The only time you'll see these things on tv is if there is a significant incident or if a commentator decides he's spotted something you should know about. Often they see what they want to see & have decided before kick off which players they highlight so you are seeing their version of the game.

TV is good for showing close up detail you miss from a distance away but those who've been to the game can watch that on the recording afterwards anyway. There is absolutely no comparison when judging players, between going to a game & watching on TV.

[Crossie]

He is Ali B in his prime,

He is Kinky without the ball greedyness

He is our C*ntona

[Rag_hater]

it is my regret that I never saw Peter (the Great) Doherty, considered to be better than Bell, at a time when Bell was in his pomp....By fans who saw them both play...He must have been some player.
That does not diminish the player that Bell was. He could defend, attack, tackle, head, had consumate ball skills, he also subjugated himself to the team's cause and he was a regular scorer.
Should Silva remain at City for any length of time, I have no doubt that he will eventually become recognised as the greatest player of this generation that wore blue.

...and Dub mate...stats don't tell everything about a player. They don't record how a little dip of a shoulder can send a defender the wrong way, or how a reverse pass can wrong foot a whole line of defenders. They don't record how a run without the ball can create space for others to go ahead and create havoc. Silva's impact on the field is far more than stats could ever record mate. Silva is one to sit back and enjoy...not record.

Stats may not record the type of play you mention.However watching the game as most of us do counteracts that argument.And for me having seen a few matches at grounds and on the telly I know I prefer the telly and feel I see more of what players do ,so to say that stats are not helpful in making a judgement strikes me as somewhat of a folly.
Stats are there to fill in a picture.Obviously not a complete picture but a part that can be helpful nontheless.
For example it was a stat that told us that Carlos has been the fastest City player to get 50 goals.Thats information that has been used to confirm what a lot of us were thinking.If stats are used to confirm a train of thought what's the point in not using them.
For me they are an addition to what I see.
To many people seem to say that stats are not a good way of highlighting a point but I think as a way of backing up an argument and they are a necessary part of what is there watch.

Stats are a help sometimes but can also be misleading.

There's a reason most managers will sometimes travel thousands of miles on their days off to try & see a player 'live' rather than on tv though & that's because you only see half a player's game on tv. When the camera is on the play, you are missing half the players on the pitch, their runs, feints & the reaction of the opposition to said movement, whether a player spots a danger early before it develops & moves into a position to stop it (as Garth Barry, for instance, frequently does but will hardly ever be noticed on tv), whether a player adheres to the shape the manager wants from his team or drifts out of position (Boateng), how much a player works in attack or defence etc.

The only time you'll see these things on tv is if there is a significant incident or if a commentator decides he's spotted something you should know about. Often they see what they want to see & have decided before kick off which players they highlight so you are seeing their version of the game.

TV is good for showing close up detail you miss from a distance away but those who've been to the game can watch that on the recording afterwards anyway. There is absolutely no comparison when judging players, between going to a game & watching on TV.

For the majority of the match the picture that is shown through the TV is from a camera that is mounted over the managers heads,so the view that is being shown is what the manager sees.A lot of it in close up that the human eye is not capable of.
Along with this anything that happens of note is shown at a different angle or in slo mo and if one wants to see what players are doing of the ball I think the majority of that is covered.You may see a few things that are not covered by the camera's but on the whole this is little compared to the so much more that is gained in other area's.
Theres only one position that you see things from when your'e at the ground whereas there are camera's all arond the pitch some on the touchline which show pictures you will never see by being there until you come homr and watch the highlights.

[john68]

You have started to put words in my mouth again Rag hater and I remind you that we fell out over this some tiime ago. Please read my posts more carefully.
My point was that stats did not give the whole picture and with someone like Silva who does so much work off the ball or in a manner which is unrecordable by stats, Stats fulfill an even lesser role in showing the complete picture. I did not say that stats were of no use,
As Ted says, the TV, even when showing the wide shot, does not show the whole field and therfore misses many things that are available to those in the stands. Even when focussing, close up at particular incidents the TV misses events happening in close proximity.
Players like Silva do so much off the ball, little runs that create space, drifting into positions that make them available for passes etc. These are often missed on the small screen and are unrecordable in the stats. Yet they are very effective events that help the team in actuality.

[Sideshow Bob]

I'm stunned that ANYone who watches city with regularity can question the fact that silva is our best player. It's patently obvious that we are nowhere near as good without him. The same cannot be said of any other player. True, NDJ and Kompany are important, but we can play well without them. As far Tevez goes, I have this sneaking suspicion we'll be a better overall team when he leaves. Great player to be sure, but not a great team player.

Bloody hell, I was agreeing with your whole post until that, I know he likes to shoot when there is sometimes a better option, but FFS if he didnt shoot we would be fooked. Tevez is every bit a team player as Silva

To be fair, I said he wasn't a "great" team player, and I stand by that. I am not just referring to his propensity to shoot when teammates are open, to run into traffic and lose the ball, or to slow our play by holding the ball too long. Besides these things, he also is selfish with his teammates - remember the great goal Micah scored last year only for Tevez to claim he got a touch? Or, how about he fact that he insists on wearing the captain's band while basically refusing to learn English?

Tevez works hard for the team (most of the time) but a great team player he is not.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

The guy's a master.

So pleased he got that goal. Loved the way he ran forward celebrating it with his hand aloft and some Villa player try to bat it aside - he didn't even notice and jogged on. He punches above his weight physically and is streets ahead with his football brain. I'm salivating over the level of legendaryness he could achieve, and I do not care if that isn't a word.

To paraphrase the late, great Kenneth Wolstenholme, in one of his most celebrated moments ".......some people are on the page, they think this word is in the dictionary; IT IS NOW !!........"

Nice one Mr Duvet; these are the kind of excellent new expressives which should be absorbed into the Oxford English, rather than the incoherent garbage currently being incorporated.

The rest of your post is top notch as well.

[Blue Blood]

silva and de jong are our most important players closely followed by vk

One of that trio surely has to be Player of the Season.

Atm I'd give it to Silva.

Magician that lad.

eh?!

Would Tevez sneak into fourth position, or would someone pip him to that?

Tevez and maybe VK are our only players that may sneak into the short running for POTY in the Premier League, so I really don't get the above posts.

I meant our POTS dub not the league, I poorly phrased it though. My bad.

I know mate, I got that, but I'm saying that Tevez is probably the only player that has a chance of making it in the short list for Prem POTY, yet you have him MAYBE fourth in OUR POTY??

Ah i see your point. Strange one isn't it.

[Rag_hater]

You have started to put words in my mouth again Rag hater and I remind you that we fell out over this some tiime ago. Please read my posts more carefully.
My point was that stats did not give the whole picture and with someone like Silva who does so much work off the ball or in a manner which is unrecordable by stats, Stats fulfill an even lesser role in showing the complete picture. I did not say that stats were of no use,
As Ted says, the TV, even when showing the wide shot, does not show the whole field and therfore misses many things that are available to those in the stands. Even when focussing, close up at particular incidents the TV misses events happening in close proximity.
Players like Silva do so much off the ball, little runs that create space, drifting into positions that make them available for passes etc. These are often missed on the small screen and are unrecordable in the stats. Yet they are very effective events that help the team in actuality.

Your arguments apply equally to your own observations.If your telling me that people at the ground see everything you are well mistaken.I've been COM's a few times and know what I see.
Your point about stats sometimes being unrecordable seems ambiguous aswell. I am using the stats that are available and that seem to be the ones that people consider to be important.Whatever stats are available and used to make a judgement surely that can't be critisized because it is a judgement based on the information available.So in your opinion if there should be more is it not wrong to dismiss opinions that have been made using the information that is out there.

[john68]

Where did I say that people in the ground saw everything...your word...I said that TV misses many things that are availabel to those in the ground....entirely different.
Nor did i say that any stats were unrecordable...I did say there were events on the field that were unrecordable as stats...Again entirely different. The point being that although stats are useful. they do not show the complete picture and with the likes of a player who does more off the ball, they show even less of a complete or true picture. (Do I really need to explain this?)
I never said there should be more stats...your words not mine.

[Ted Hughes]

it is my regret that I never saw Peter (the Great) Doherty, considered to be better than Bell, at a time when Bell was in his pomp....By fans who saw them both play...He must have been some player.
That does not diminish the player that Bell was. He could defend, attack, tackle, head, had consumate ball skills, he also subjugated himself to the team's cause and he was a regular scorer.
Should Silva remain at City for any length of time, I have no doubt that he will eventually become recognised as the greatest player of this generation that wore blue.

...and Dub mate...stats don't tell everything about a player. They don't record how a little dip of a shoulder can send a defender the wrong way, or how a reverse pass can wrong foot a whole line of defenders. They don't record how a run without the ball can create space for others to go ahead and create havoc. Silva's impact on the field is far more than stats could ever record mate. Silva is one to sit back and enjoy...not record.

Stats may not record the type of play you mention.However watching the game as most of us do counteracts that argument.And for me having seen a few matches at grounds and on the telly I know I prefer the telly and feel I see more of what players do ,so to say that stats are not helpful in making a judgement strikes me as somewhat of a folly.
Stats are there to fill in a picture.Obviously not a complete picture but a part that can be helpful nontheless.
For example it was a stat that told us that Carlos has been the fastest City player to get 50 goals.Thats information that has been used to confirm what a lot of us were thinking.If stats are used to confirm a train of thought what's the point in not using them.
For me they are an addition to what I see.
To many people seem to say that stats are not a good way of highlighting a point but I think as a way of backing up an argument and they are a necessary part of what is there watch.

Stats are a help sometimes but can also be misleading.

There's a reason most managers will sometimes travel thousands of miles on their days off to try & see a player 'live' rather than on tv though & that's because you only see half a player's game on tv. When the camera is on the play, you are missing half the players on the pitch, their runs, feints & the reaction of the opposition to said movement, whether a player spots a danger early before it develops & moves into a position to stop it (as Garth Barry, for instance, frequently does but will hardly ever be noticed on tv), whether a player adheres to the shape the manager wants from his team or drifts out of position (Boateng), how much a player works in attack or defence etc.

The only time you'll see these things on tv is if there is a significant incident or if a commentator decides he's spotted something you should know about. Often they see what they want to see & have decided before kick off which players they highlight so you are seeing their version of the game.

TV is good for showing close up detail you miss from a distance away but those who've been to the game can watch that on the recording afterwards anyway. There is absolutely no comparison when judging players, between going to a game & watching on TV.

For the majority of the match the picture that is shown through the TV is from a camera that is mounted over the managers heads,so the view that is being shown is what the manager sees.A lot of it in close up that the human eye is not capable of.
Along with this anything that happens of note is shown at a different angle or in slo mo and if one wants to see what players are doing of the ball I think the majority of that is covered.You may see a few things that are not covered by the camera's but on the whole this is little compared to the so much more that is gained in other area's.
Theres only one position that you see things from when your'e at the ground whereas there are camera's all arond the pitch some on the touchline which show pictures you will never see by being there until you come homr and watch the highlights.

No it isn't. You can see the whole pitch & choose what you look at. Surely I don't have to explain the difference between a pair of eyes & a neck & a tv camera now? Try driving your cab looking througha camera.

[Rag_hater]

Where did I say that people in the ground saw everything...your word...I said that TV misses many things that are availabel to those in the ground....entirely different.
Nor did i say that any stats were unrecordable...I did say there were events on the field that were unrecordable as stats...Again entirely different. The point being that although stats are useful. they do not show the complete picture and with the likes of a player who does more off the ball, they show even less of a complete or true picture. (Do I really need to explain this?)
I never said there should be more stats...your words not mine.

So your telling me that the fact that Howard Webb (probably one of the best refs around)missing our Nigel karate kicking Alonso in the WC or Clitenberg miss of Rooneys elbow(both incidents picked up by camera by the way)for example are incidents that can be missed by someone a few feet away who is solely concentrating on the play but the fans in the stands see it replayed in their heads in slo mo and repeated,from differing angles .I didn't realise that.
What people see in the stands leads to them missing many things as can be shown by the actions of referee's.
Stats may not be the complete picture but if they are the measurment that is being accepted then I don't see why they cannot be used.They may not be the complete picture but being at the game is far from it aswell.In the old days when going to the match and MOTD where the only ways of seeing what had happened it may well have been the case but nowadays things are different.

it is my regret that I never saw Peter (the Great) Doherty, considered to be better than Bell, at a time when Bell was in his pomp....By fans who saw them both play...He must have been some player.
That does not diminish the player that Bell was. He could defend, attack, tackle, head, had consumate ball skills, he also subjugated himself to the team's cause and he was a regular scorer.
Should Silva remain at City for any length of time, I have no doubt that he will eventually become recognised as the greatest player of this generation that wore blue.

...and Dub mate...stats don't tell everything about a player. They don't record how a little dip of a shoulder can send a defender the wrong way, or how a reverse pass can wrong foot a whole line of defenders. They don't record how a run without the ball can create space for others to go ahead and create havoc. Silva's impact on the field is far more than stats could ever record mate. Silva is one to sit back and enjoy...not record.

Stats may not record the type of play you mention.However watching the game as most of us do counteracts that argument.And for me having seen a few matches at grounds and on the telly I know I prefer the telly and feel I see more of what players do ,so to say that stats are not helpful in making a judgement strikes me as somewhat of a folly.
Stats are there to fill in a picture.Obviously not a complete picture but a part that can be helpful nontheless.
For example it was a stat that told us that Carlos has been the fastest City player to get 50 goals.Thats information that has been used to confirm what a lot of us were thinking.If stats are used to confirm a train of thought what's the point in not using them.
For me they are an addition to what I see.
To many people seem to say that stats are not a good way of highlighting a point but I think as a way of backing up an argument and they are a necessary part of what is there watch.

Stats are a help sometimes but can also be misleading.

There's a reason most managers will sometimes travel thousands of miles on their days off to try & see a player 'live' rather than on tv though & that's because you only see half a player's game on tv. When the camera is on the play, you are missing half the players on the pitch, their runs, feints & the reaction of the opposition to said movement, whether a player spots a danger early before it develops & moves into a position to stop it (as Garth Barry, for instance, frequently does but will hardly ever be noticed on tv), whether a player adheres to the shape the manager wants from his team or drifts out of position (Boateng), how much a player works in attack or defence etc.

The only time you'll see these things on tv is if there is a significant incident or if a commentator decides he's spotted something you should know about. Often they see what they want to see & have decided before kick off which players they highlight so you are seeing their version of the game.

TV is good for showing close up detail you miss from a distance away but those who've been to the game can watch that on the recording afterwards anyway. There is absolutely no comparison when judging players, between going to a game & watching on TV.

For the majority of the match the picture that is shown through the TV is from a camera that is mounted over the managers heads,so the view that is being shown is what the manager sees.A lot of it in close up that the human eye is not capable of.
Along with this anything that happens of note is shown at a different angle or in slo mo and if one wants to see what players are doing of the ball I think the majority of that is covered.You may see a few things that are not covered by the camera's but on the whole this is little compared to the so much more that is gained in other area's.
Theres only one position that you see things from when your'e at the ground whereas there are camera's all arond the pitch some on the touchline which show pictures you will never see by being there until you come homr and watch the highlights.

No it isn't. You can see the whole pitch & choose what you look at. Surely I don't have to explain the difference between a pair of eyes & a neck & a tv camera now? Try driving your cab looking througha camera.

I don't drive a cab anymore.
There are plenty of vehicles with Cameras in so blind spots are eliminated.Technology.Making things better.
The Camera don't lie
Rear-view cameras on cars could become mandatory
The government has proposed requiring automakers to install the systems on all their vehicles to eliminate blind spots and reduce back-over accidents.
December 04, 2010|By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times
The federal government wants automakers to install back-up cameras in all new vehicles starting in late 2014.

The plan, announced Friday, received a strong endorsement from insurance industry and other analysts and is likely to get some level of support from car manufacturers.

[Ted Hughes]

Perhaps the players can all have cameras strapped to their heads in future.

[john68]

Rag Hater,
You do love your creative writing...:-)
I never told you anything about Howard Webb...never even mentioned him. Nor did i mention Mr Clittenburg. In fact neither the De Jong incisent nor the Rooney incident were mentioned by me...and neither did I express any views on any part of anything that you accuse me of telling you. You just made that lot up out of your own head mate.
You are right, people in the stands miss quite a lot, I missed a fair bit the other night when I went for a piss and then got a burger, but guess what...I never said they didn't in the 1st place.
Finally, we make some headway. You freely admit that stats are not the complete picture (your words)...Thery are only a part of the picture....and my point was just that.
Ypou see, the parts of the picture that stats cannot fulfill, are those parts that I identified earlier. The parts where a plyer does something, usually, off the ball.
Now think on this my friend...In a 90 minute game, the average time a player has on the ball is around 2 mins. That is 2 mins when the stats can record his actions...How do stats record his actions during the other 88 mins? He would rarely be still, the runs he makes and the positions he takes up will undoubtedly have an effect on the game...but if your stats are unable to record it...and this applies to all 22 players, it makes the recorded stats only a very small (but important) part of the game.

[DoomMerchant]

Rag Hater,
You do love your creative writing...:-)
I never told you anything about Howard Webb...never even mentioned him. Nor did i mention Mr Clittenburg. In fact neither the De Jong incisent nor the Rooney incident were mentioned by me...and neither did I express any views on any part of anything that you accuse me of telling you. You just made that lot up out of your own head mate.
You are right, people in the stands miss quite a lot, I missed a fair bit the other night when I went for a piss and then got a burger, but guess what...I never said they didn't in the 1st place.
Finally, we make some headway. You freely admit that stats are not the complete picture (your words)...Thery are only a part of the picture....and my point was just that.
Ypou see, the parts of the picture that stats cannot fulfill, are those parts that I identified earlier. The parts where a plyer does something, usually, off the ball.
Now think on this my friend...In a 90 minute game, the average time a player has on the ball is around 2 mins. That is 2 mins when the stats can record his actions...How do stats record his actions during the other 88 mins? He would rarely be still, the runs he makes and the positions he takes up will undoubtedly have an effect on the game...but if your stats are unable to record it...and this applies to all 22 players, it makes the recorded stats only a very small (but important) part of the game.

aren't you old enough, by 4-5x, to know better than to take the bait that this douche puts in his hooks? Come on.

cheers

[john68]

...and i was enjoying fishing myself....spoilsport....:-)
Old enough???...I am just a child at heart Doomie!!!...My grandkids are older than me