01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Daemon SinSo?
With the amount of money and buying power you have it'd be shameful if you weren't able to field a decent second choice team.
The post was in response to invigorate's post. Also, you may have noticed that at times we have played with 4th and 5th choice players.
Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea have similar, if not greater amounts of money. And I contend that our team, devastated by injuries so far this season, is doing better than any of the other 3 would do with the equivalent players removed.
That was the only point. Any of your small club jealousy is simply not relevant.
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by PalynkaAre you trying to say that successful clubs like United only have 11 first choice players?
How would Saha fit in the squad as a first choice?
Saha is our only out and out striker. Should that option be required, Saha would be accomodated. Maybe through Rooney dropping out onto the wing.
Tevez is excellent, Rooney is excellent and Saha (with a couple of games under his belt) is excellent. He offers something different to the other 2 (Height and pace running into the channels) and would be considered 1st choice against certain opponents.
D
01 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by RagnorakHow do you define 1st best? Is it not the best 11 in theory?
Are you trying to say that successful clubs like United only have 11 first choice players?
Saha is our only out and out striker. Should that option be required, Saha would be accomodated. Maybe through Rooney dropping out onto the wing.
Tevez is excellent, Rooney is excellent and Saha (with a couple of games under his belt) is excellent. He offer ...[text shortened]... ce running into the channels) and would be considered 1st choice against certain opponents.
D
Edit - And Saha is pretty poor.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by PalynkaIn Europe, Fergie (rightly or wrongly) wants to play with 5 in midfield. This season (injuries permitting), that 5 is (left to right) Rooney, Carrick, Hargreaves, Scholes, Ronaldo. With 1 up front. Rooney and Tevez aren't as well equipped as Saha to play up top on their own. That leaves Saha as 1st choice in Europe.
How do you define 1st best? Is it not the best 11 in theory?
Edit - And Saha is pretty poor.
Throughout the United team, there are players who are 100% 1st choice. VDS, Neville, Ferdinand, Vidic, Evra, Ronaldo, Scholes, Hargreaves, Rooney. I wouldn't consider Giggs to be an automatic first choice anymore. And Saha, in certain tactical set-ups or against certain opponents would be 1st choice.
His record speaks for itself...
15 before January for Fulham in 2003-2004. Then 7 in 10 for United.
2005-2006 - 14 in 30 starts.
2006-2007 - 15 goals in a season effectively over in January.
He needs about 5 games to get up to speed after a lay-off (his touch and passing can be atrocious until he gets fully match fit), but then he is undoubtedly quality.
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by RagnorakExactly. It is the only point and its a moot one.
So?
The post was in response to invigorate's post. Also, you may have noticed that at times we have played with 4th and 5th choice players.
Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelsea have similar, if not greater amounts of money. And I contend that our team, devastated by injuries so far this season, is doing better than any of the other 3 would do with the equ ...[text shortened]... oved.
That was the only point. Any of your small club jealousy is simply not relevant.
D
You've got no idea how any of the other big teams would perform under the same circumstances. You're just spouting out an unfounded, conceited assumption that you do know.
The fact (and the point I was making) is that you've got an entire squad full of world class players and all of them are more than capable of playing at Premiership level.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by RagnorakIf you tried to sell Saha, I don't see why any big club would be interested. Again, believe what you want but Saha is only there because you haven't found anyone better.
In Europe, Fergie (rightly or wrongly) wants to play with 5 in midfield. This season (injuries permitting), that 5 is (left to right) Rooney, Carrick, Hargreaves, Scholes, Ronaldo. With 1 up front. Rooney and Tevez aren't as well equipped as Saha to play up top on their own. That leaves Saha as 1st choice in Europe.
Throughout the United team, there ...[text shortened]... ng can be atrocious until he gets fully match fit), but then he is undoubtedly quality.
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by PalynkaI probably have to agree with you, but Saha is an established international (when fit). Not a poor player but would get in any of the top four teams on his day. He is just as good as Kalou (but no Drogba), just as good as Voronin (but no Torres) and apart from Van Persie, who I see as a slightly different type of forward could easily play for Arsenal.
If you tried to sell Saha, I don't see why any big club would be interested. Again, believe what you want but Saha is only there because you haven't found anyone better.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Virtue76You're right, point taken.
I probably have to agree with you, but Saha is an established international (when fit). Not a poor player but would get in any of the top four teams on his day. He is just as good as Kalou (but no Drogba), just as good as Voronin (but no Torres) and apart from Van Persie, who I see as a slightly different type of forward could easily play for Arsenal.
But still, to Voronin I'd still give him the benefit of the doubt considering he's just arrived. For Kalou, I think this season is make-or-break. He has the talent, but unless he steps up to the level that he can reach, Chelsea might start reconsidering him.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by Daemon SinUnfounded? You're having a laugh! Is it or is it not a fact that we are top of the table with Arsenal. Is it or is it not a fact that we have had a huge list of injuries to contend with this season? Is it or is it not a fact that Chelsea and Liverpool are off the pace so far with pretty much full squads? Unfounded? Puhlease. Think before you type.
Exactly. It is the only point and its a moot one.
You've got no idea how any of the other big teams would perform under the same circumstances. You're just spouting out an unfounded, conceited assumption that you do know.
The fact (and the point I was making) is that you've got an entire squad full of world class players and all of them are more than capable of playing at Premiership level.
Read some of Chelsea's statements from the end of last season, and you'll get an idea how they performed when first choice players were out.
Liverpool can't perform even with a full squad, so that is a no brainer.
I would bet my house that Arsenal wouldn't be top of the table if they were missing the amount of quality players that we have missed so far this season. Lets look at the team minus the players I listed earlier...
Lehmann, Almunia, Gallas, Eboue, Sagna, Senderos, Hoyte, Silva, Flamini, Diarra, Hleb, Adebayor
So they'd possibly play with...
Fabianski, Traore, Toure, Clichy, AN Other Reserve Player, Rosicky, Fabregas, Denilson, Walcott, Van Persie, Da Silva.
Admittedly, it's better than I would have thought, but the fact remains, that even with their full squad they are simply level on points with us.
Football is all about speculation. Invigorate speculates (without a shred of eveidence, beyond an obvious bias) that United don't have more strenght in depth than the other 3, I speculate (with past instances as evidence) that he is wrong, you simply dive in missing the point completely.
Even in the post I quoted here, you're speculating. Could you please tell me how you know that Evans, Simpson, Eagles, Dong, Cathcart, Campbell, Martin, Shawcross and Gibson are "capable of playing at Premiership level"?
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by PalynkaYou're dead right. But other teams being unprepared to risk big money on a player with a terrible injury record who is sidelined more often than not doesn't say anything about his ability when fit.
If you tried to sell Saha, I don't see why any big club would be interested.
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by invigorateWenger certainly knows how to develop talent.
Fletcher, o'Shea, Park, (Foster), Silvestra, Pique in my opinion are not as good as the worst 5 on Arsenal's 16 to play on Saturday. Foster is in brackets because he is probably the exception.
Bias - maybe! but looking at Arsenal last night depth doesn't look like a problem.
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by invigorateSay what now? I don't understand what you're doing.
Fletcher, o'Shea, Park, (Foster), Silvestra, Pique in my opinion are not as good as the worst 5 on Arsenal's 16 to play on Saturday
Are you trying to say that the United players you listed aren't the 12th to 16th strongest players? What about Carrick, Brown, Saha, Foster, Anderson?
Are you saying that those are the players that'll be on the bench on Saturday? Rather tough considering Park, Foster and Silvestre are all out until next year.
Please explain your excercise.
We can speculate until the cows come home. Just answer me these questions... which team is joint top of the league while enduring an injury run which has seen a minimum of 6 to a maximum of 12 first team players out injured? Which team is joint top while having the occasional injury problem?
D
01 Nov 07
Originally posted by RagnorakOf course it says something, but of course it's not the end of the story either. The fact remains that if you think Man U needs someone upfront to play alone, Saha is not the player to be there. He not only is injury prone but he also isn't anything special when he's fit. So overall, he's poor.
You're dead right. But other teams being unprepared to risk big money on a player with a terrible injury record who is sidelined more often than not doesn't say anything about his ability when fit.
D
I wouldn't think of naming him a 1st choice player for Man U. Apparently, we think differently.
Also, for me, the point of saying '1st choice' isn't saying 'He's first choice because we need him', because actually you need almost all of your squad. That's why teams need more than just 1st choice players, or what I consider that to be.