Liverpool FC Forum

john craig wrote:Last night's game was a great watch, 2 good sides in good form playing in a game of huge importance, and in the end the best side won.  Undoubtedly Italy are by some margin the technically superior side, but on home soil and with the majority of the support Germany were a good match for them on the night.  It was enthralling rather than an exciting open game, and I suspect if that had been a group game rather than a world cup semi, people wouldn't be going over the top so much hailing it as a great game.  I actually thought the first half was pretty dull, but things certainly hotted up in the 2nd and in extra time.

I have to say though that I am very surprised by some of the phrases used above, such as 'the best International game to watch since Euro 2004', 'Zambrotta doesn't have a weakness in his game' and 'the Italian defenders are on a MUCH higher level than Ferdinand, Terry etc'.  I think people are getting carried away a bit to be honest.

It was a good tactical battle and because of the importance of it it was exciting, but that is certainly not the best game I've watched entertainment-wise even in this world cup.  Quality-wise it was good though.

Zambrotta is a quality player but I think Stu is getting carried away saying he doesn't have a weakness at all.  If that were so he'd be the best player in the world, because every player has weaknesses.  Ashley Cole certainly has weaknesses, such as not being great at what his main job is - defending, yet only the other week Stu claimed Zambrotta and Cole were on a par as 'the 2 best left backs in the world'.  But he also said at that time neither were world class players.  But now after last night Zambrotta has 'no weaknesses in his game', but still isn't world class in your opinion?

The Italians are the best defenders in the world.  And when Cannavaro and Nesta dragged Italy kicking and screaming to the Euro 2000 final, they were already the best 2 centre backs in the business imo.  But to say they are on a MUCH higher level than the best Premiership defenders, as Niall states, is again a bit much.  It's about different styles.  Italian football and at times International football is played at walking pace compared to the premiership, taylor made for good readers of the game such as the Italians.  Put Hyypia for example in the Juve defence in Serie A and he'd be an absolute colossus I think, less vulnerable to pace.  Put Cannavaro in our defence week-in, week-out in the premiership and while he'd still be a great player, there'd be games where his lack of physical presence (5'10'') would see him have a torrid time.  I don't think the gap is as big as some people make out.

I will agree with Stu and St Mike on Totti once again, don't rate him, and although he did a few good things last night, his diving was ridiculous once again, a disgrace in fact.

And I'll agree with Stu on Pirlo, I think he's possibly been the weak link in the Italy side this world cup.  He does often play people into trouble and gives away a lot of free kicks.  He also always wants time on the ball, when often he needs to make a decision on what to do with the ball sooner.

On Zambrotta, he doesn't have a weakness. He doesn't have any world class attributes either.

He's very good at almost everything, he's not world class at anything. He's not a world class player but is the best full back and one of the best wingers around in modern day football. He's a class act.

I also stand by what i said about players not being world class unless they have a world class level of ability. Someone doesn't become world class because the level of quality in an area drops. IE Gary Neville doesn't become world class or even top class because he's one of the best in the league in his position. He's still only a good player. If a world class full back comes into the league it doesn't make him worse by any stretch of the imagination. To many people consider players world class because of a reputation or because they are the best in the position. Steven Gerrard's a world class player, but i wouldn't say he's a better centre mid than Alonso a better right winger than Joaquin, a better holding player than Makelele or a better attacking midfielder than Michael Ballack.

You're statement about Cannavaro is absoloutely and utterly wrong and to be quite honest shocking. He's world class and better than Jamie Carragher in absoloutely every single aspect of his game without question.

You talk about styles and go on about the physical side of the game, well i'm sorry but you're talking rubbish. Absoloute rubbish. Don't tell me he'd find it harder to win a header against Henry than he would against Toni, or Adriano, don't tell he can't read Murphy's passes over Ballacks because he'll be in the premiership and not an international match... I'm sorry but thats . Great players are great players and while the tactical side of play helps situations it NEVER makes a player great. Its about strengths and weaknesses. If you've got it, you've got it, if not then you haven't. Its that simple.

Great players don't suddenly forget how to tackle, be aggressive, win a header, pass a ball, control a ball because they're in a different country. A great player is a great player and thats the end of it and Cannavaro is different class to players like Terry and Carragher. Infact he's probably 2 or 3 classes above. Its like comparing Michael Ballack to Jermaine Jenas. Its rediculous.

Good Bob wrote:

john craig wrote:Last night's game was a great watch, 2 good sides in good form playing in a game of huge importance, and in the end the best side won.  Undoubtedly Italy are by some margin the technically superior side, but on home soil and with the majority of the support Germany were a good match for them on the night.  It was enthralling rather than an exciting open game, and I suspect if that had been a group game rather than a world cup semi, people wouldn't be going over the top so much hailing it as a great game.  I actually thought the first half was pretty dull, but things certainly hotted up in the 2nd and in extra time.

I have to say though that I am very surprised by some of the phrases used above, such as 'the best International game to watch since Euro 2004', 'Zambrotta doesn't have a weakness in his game' and 'the Italian defenders are on a MUCH higher level than Ferdinand, Terry etc'.  I think people are getting carried away a bit to be honest.

It was a good tactical battle and because of the importance of it it was exciting, but that is certainly not the best game I've watched entertainment-wise even in this world cup.  Quality-wise it was good though.

Zambrotta is a quality player but I think Stu is getting carried away saying he doesn't have a weakness at all.  If that were so he'd be the best player in the world, because every player has weaknesses.  Ashley Cole certainly has weaknesses, such as not being great at what his main job is - defending, yet only the other week Stu claimed Zambrotta and Cole were on a par as 'the 2 best left backs in the world'.  But he also said at that time neither were world class players.  But now after last night Zambrotta has 'no weaknesses in his game', but still isn't world class in your opinion?

The Italians are the best defenders in the world.  And when Cannavaro and Nesta dragged Italy kicking and screaming to the Euro 2000 final, they were already the best 2 centre backs in the business imo.  But to say they are on a MUCH higher level than the best Premiership defenders, as Niall states, is again a bit much.  It's about different styles.  Italian football and at times International football is played at walking pace compared to the premiership, taylor made for good readers of the game such as the Italians.  Put Hyypia for example in the Juve defence in Serie A and he'd be an absolute colossus I think, less vulnerable to pace.  Put Cannavaro in our defence week-in, week-out in the premiership and while he'd still be a great player, there'd be games where his lack of physical presence (5'10'') would see him have a torrid time.  I don't think the gap is as big as some people make out.

I will agree with Stu and St Mike on Totti once again, don't rate him, and although he did a few good things last night, his diving was ridiculous once again, a disgrace in fact.

And I'll agree with Stu on Pirlo, I think he's possibly been the weak link in the Italy side this world cup.  He does often play people into trouble and gives away a lot of free kicks.  He also always wants time on the ball, when often he needs to make a decision on what to do with the ball sooner.

On Zambrotta, he doesn't have a weakness. He doesn't have any world class attributes either.

He's very good at almost everything, he's not world class at anything. He's not a world class player but is the best full back and one of the best wingers around in modern day football. He's a class act.

I also stand by what i said about players not being world class unless they have a world class level of ability. Someone doesn't become world class because the level of quality in an area drops. IE Gary Neville doesn't become world class or even top class because he's one of the best in the league in his position. He's still only a good player. If a world class full back comes into the league it doesn't make him worse by any stretch of the imagination. To many people consider players world class because of a reputation or because they are the best in the position. Steven Gerrard's a world class player, but i wouldn't say he's a better centre mid than Alonso a better right winger than Joaquin, a better holding player than Makelele or a better attacking midfielder than Michael Ballack.

You're statement about Cannavaro is absoloutely and utterly wrong and to be quite honest shocking. He's world class and better than Jamie Carragher in absoloutely every single aspect of his game without question.

You talk about styles and go on about the physical side of the game, well i'm sorry but you're talking rubbish. Absoloute rubbish. Don't tell me he'd find it harder to win a header against Henry than he would against Toni, or Adriano, don't tell he can't read Murphy's passes over Ballacks because he'll be in the premiership and not an international match... I'm sorry but thats . Great players are great players and while the tactical side of play helps situations it NEVER makes a player great. Its about strengths and weaknesses. If you've got it, you've got it, if not then you haven't. Its that simple.

Great players don't suddenly forget how to tackle, be aggressive, win a header, pass a ball, control a ball because they're in a different country. A great player is a great player and thats the end of it and Cannavaro is different class to players like Terry and Carragher. Infact he's probably 2 or 3 classes above. Its like comparing Michael Ballack to Jermaine Jenas. Its rediculous.

It's complete bollox to say Zambrotta doesn't have a weakness Stu, it doesn't make any sense.  He may not have any OUTSTANDING weaknesses, as you say he can do most things well.  But up against someone like Henry, his pace could be called a weakness, because he's not lightening quick.  Against a tall, physical player his aerial ability could be deemed a weakness.  In any specific game, a good coach can see weaknesses in EVERY player and EVERY system.  Whether he has the specific players in his side that can exploit those weaknesses is another matter.

If you thing that the physical side of the game doesn't matter and that great players are great players and that's it, then that's completely wrong.  How can you say Cannavaro would be the best defender in the premiership if he has never tried to?  Morientes, Poborsky, Brolin, Suker etc - all regarded as top, top players abroad, but none of them cut it in England.  Not because they weren't top players, but because the style of play and the physical side of the game didn't suit them.  You will no doubt argue that while they were top players, Cannavaro is a great player so it's not the same.  Bollox.  A 5'10'' centre back will struggle in certain games in the Premiership depending on who they play against.  He won't be used to defending against 50 long balls lumped into the box in a game playing Bolton in the pi.ssing rain, will he?  His reading of the game and passing ability will mean absolutely fu.ck all in that situation.  Yet Jamie Carragher can deal with it, John Terry can deal with it.  So style and the physical side of the game very much DOES matter, whether you choose to accept it or not.

And saying comparing Cannavaro to Terry is like comparing Ballack to Jenas is just ridiculous to be honest.  Very soon Cannavaro and Terry will be the respective captains of Italy and England.  But that is the same as comparing the German captain to an overrated England squad player??  Get a grip lad.

john craig wrote:

Good Bob wrote:

john craig wrote:Last night's game was a great watch, 2 good sides in good form playing in a game of huge importance, and in the end the best side won.  Undoubtedly Italy are by some margin the technically superior side, but on home soil and with the majority of the support Germany were a good match for them on the night.  It was enthralling rather than an exciting open game, and I suspect if that had been a group game rather than a world cup semi, people wouldn't be going over the top so much hailing it as a great game.  I actually thought the first half was pretty dull, but things certainly hotted up in the 2nd and in extra time.

I have to say though that I am very surprised by some of the phrases used above, such as 'the best International game to watch since Euro 2004', 'Zambrotta doesn't have a weakness in his game' and 'the Italian defenders are on a MUCH higher level than Ferdinand, Terry etc'.  I think people are getting carried away a bit to be honest.

It was a good tactical battle and because of the importance of it it was exciting, but that is certainly not the best game I've watched entertainment-wise even in this world cup.  Quality-wise it was good though.

Zambrotta is a quality player but I think Stu is getting carried away saying he doesn't have a weakness at all.  If that were so he'd be the best player in the world, because every player has weaknesses.  Ashley Cole certainly has weaknesses, such as not being great at what his main job is - defending, yet only the other week Stu claimed Zambrotta and Cole were on a par as 'the 2 best left backs in the world'.  But he also said at that time neither were world class players.  But now after last night Zambrotta has 'no weaknesses in his game', but still isn't world class in your opinion?

The Italians are the best defenders in the world.  And when Cannavaro and Nesta dragged Italy kicking and screaming to the Euro 2000 final, they were already the best 2 centre backs in the business imo.  But to say they are on a MUCH higher level than the best Premiership defenders, as Niall states, is again a bit much.  It's about different styles.  Italian football and at times International football is played at walking pace compared to the premiership, taylor made for good readers of the game such as the Italians.  Put Hyypia for example in the Juve defence in Serie A and he'd be an absolute colossus I think, less vulnerable to pace.  Put Cannavaro in our defence week-in, week-out in the premiership and while he'd still be a great player, there'd be games where his lack of physical presence (5'10'') would see him have a torrid time.  I don't think the gap is as big as some people make out.

I will agree with Stu and St Mike on Totti once again, don't rate him, and although he did a few good things last night, his diving was ridiculous once again, a disgrace in fact.

And I'll agree with Stu on Pirlo, I think he's possibly been the weak link in the Italy side this world cup.  He does often play people into trouble and gives away a lot of free kicks.  He also always wants time on the ball, when often he needs to make a decision on what to do with the ball sooner.

On Zambrotta, he doesn't have a weakness. He doesn't have any world class attributes either.

He's very good at almost everything, he's not world class at anything. He's not a world class player but is the best full back and one of the best wingers around in modern day football. He's a class act.

I also stand by what i said about players not being world class unless they have a world class level of ability. Someone doesn't become world class because the level of quality in an area drops. IE Gary Neville doesn't become world class or even top class because he's one of the best in the league in his position. He's still only a good player. If a world class full back comes into the league it doesn't make him worse by any stretch of the imagination. To many people consider players world class because of a reputation or because they are the best in the position. Steven Gerrard's a world class player, but i wouldn't say he's a better centre mid than Alonso a better right winger than Joaquin, a better holding player than Makelele or a better attacking midfielder than Michael Ballack.

You're statement about Cannavaro is absoloutely and utterly wrong and to be quite honest shocking. He's world class and better than Jamie Carragher in absoloutely every single aspect of his game without question.

You talk about styles and go on about the physical side of the game, well i'm sorry but you're talking rubbish. Absoloute rubbish. Don't tell me he'd find it harder to win a header against Henry than he would against Toni, or Adriano, don't tell he can't read Murphy's passes over Ballacks because he'll be in the premiership and not an international match... I'm sorry but thats . Great players are great players and while the tactical side of play helps situations it NEVER makes a player great. Its about strengths and weaknesses. If you've got it, you've got it, if not then you haven't. Its that simple.

Great players don't suddenly forget how to tackle, be aggressive, win a header, pass a ball, control a ball because they're in a different country. A great player is a great player and thats the end of it and Cannavaro is different class to players like Terry and Carragher. Infact he's probably 2 or 3 classes above. Its like comparing Michael Ballack to Jermaine Jenas. Its rediculous.

It's complete bollox to say Zambrotta doesn't have a weakness Stu, it doesn't make any sense.  He may not have any OUTSTANDING weaknesses, as you say he can do most things well.  But up against someone like Henry, his pace could be called a weakness, because he's not lightening quick.  Against a tall, physical player his aerial ability could be deemed a weakness.  In any specific game, a good coach can see weaknesses in EVERY player and EVERY system.  Whether he has the specific players in his side that can exploit those weaknesses is another matter.

If you thing that the physical side of the game doesn't matter and that great players are great players and that's it, then that's completely wrong.  How can you say Cannavaro would be the best defender in the premiership if he has never tried to?  Morientes, Poborsky, Brolin, Suker etc - all regarded as top, top players abroad, but none of them cut it in England.  Not because they weren't top players, but because the style of play and the physical side of the game didn't suit them.  You will no doubt argue that while they were top players, Cannavaro is a great player so it's not the same.  Bollox.  A 5'10'' centre back will struggle in certain games in the Premiership depending on who they play against.  He won't be used to defending against 50 long balls lumped into the box in a game playing Bolton in the pi.ssing rain, will he?  His reading of the game and passing ability will mean absolutely fu.ck all in that situation.  Yet Jamie Carragher can deal with it, John Terry can deal with it.  So style and the physical side of the game very much DOES matter, whether you choose to accept it or not.

And saying comparing Cannavaro to Terry is like comparing Ballack to Jenas is just ridiculous to be honest.  Very soon Cannavaro and Terry will be the respective captains of Italy and England.  But that is the same as comparing the German captain to an overrated England squad player??  Get a grip lad.[/color]

[color=#000000]Zambrotta doesn't have a weak part of his game. He's very good in all aspects of the game. He's an outstanding player and probably the best in the world in the full back positions and probably one of the best in the world on the wings.

He has ability as a footballer.

The Physical side of the game does matter, as does the techincal side, as does the mental side and tactical side. Of course they do, thats what makes a player great. How can I say Cannavaro will be the best in the league? Erm because he's the best in the world mate. Thats how. Its the same with Schevchenko and Ballack, next season they will be class players for Chelsea as they are class players already. All this "proven in the epl" is .

You use examples of Morientes, Brolin, Suker, Poborsky etc.

Well Morientes wasn't good enough. Brolin certainly wasn't good enough, Suker was WELL past his once brilliant best and Poborsky was decent but Beckham was better.

You're examples are poor. I can then put to you, Bergkamp, Zola, Juninho, Desailly, Gallas, Alonso... all players who are good enough. End of. Not physically great, just plain and simple good enough.

You'd have been better using Veron, i'd then have pointed out how he was played as a central midfielder in a two at Manchester United and tactically he simply wasn't suited to there system.

The physical side of the game is JUST AS important as the tactical side and the technical and mental, not more so. All parts of the game are of equal importance. Its absoloutely rediculous to sit there and say he can cope with Klose and Adriano and Toni (who's games are as physical as any player in this country) but can't compete with Fowler, Owen and Dickov over here simply because of the country. Crouch struggles against Carvalho for christs sake, Cannavaro's better than him in every aspect aswell.

You keep mentioning his height? Whats that got to do with absoloutely anything ever ever ever ever ever. You sound like one of these clueless scouts who knock players back because they're to small or not quick or not black etc etc. Its all bollox of the heighest order. Height means nothing, football ability is whats important. You want Height? Djimi Traore... Need i say more. Physically great, 6'3. Should be a great player then right?

You say he won't be used to defending high balls? I'm sorry but thats rubbish. Don't sit there and say he's not had to cope with long balls into the box at club level and international level throughout his career because am not having that. Italian sides play long balls aswell, as do Brazil, all teams play long balls, he's more than capable of dealing with the easiest type of ball and does it every game. great players adapt to situations.

His reading of the game will mean nothing on high balls? Are you taking this or are you completely and utterly clueless? To win a header you NEED to anticipate the flight of the ball and you NEED to anticipate when and how your opponent is going to position himself or he'll roll you out of the way, you NEED ot be aggressive and you NEED to make the right decision and it NEEDS to be a the right time. The lads a class alround defender who excells in every aspect of defending. He's world class and one of the best centre halfs ever. He wins nearly everything in the air, one on one players don't get past him, he has pace, he can tackle, he reads the game, he's physcially extremely strong, he's aggressive and solid, his concentration is second to none, his positional sense and ability to sweep up is second to none. His ability to see situations VERY VERY VERY early was demonstrated by the part he played in Italy's second goal last night.

Ability is ability. I'm not talking form, i'm not talking tactics. I'm talking about an individual as a player. A great player. Not a Frank Lampard, a John Terry, a Jamie Carragher. Not players who are well drilled and play in systems every week that get the best out of them. Not players with limited ability and only a few top class attributes, i'm on about a player who has 9 maybe 10 world class attributes and has ball skills that strikers and midfielders in the lower leagues could only dream of having. I'm talking about a player who can adapt to any situation and tactical demands.

I'm talking about one of the best centre backs ever to walk the face of the earth. Your love for John Terry is quite worrying.

A lad who's got very average pace coupled with decent mobility. He's got very average on the ball at best. A lad who's simply all heart and all bottle.

Hyypia, Carragher, Terry, Cannavaro, Ferdinand, out of 20.
I'll put Gerrard on the end to get across a point.
:

Code: Select all

Techincal:

Correct pass:  13, 12, 10, 16, 14, 15
Dribbling:         6,  8,  5,  10,  12, 14
Passing:         11, 11, 10, 14, 14, 16
First touch:     12, 11, 10, 13, 15, 15
Technique:      12, 10, 10, 14, 16, 15
Shooting:         -,  -,  -,  -,  -, 18
Finishing:         -,  -,  -,  -,  -, 16
Heading:         19, 14, 20, 18, 18, 14
Tackling:         17, 19, 17, 20, 16, 17
Marking:          18, 18, 16, 20, 15, 14

Mental:

Aggression:      15, 18, 20, 20, 12, 18
Bravery:           19, 19, 20, 20, 16, 18
Determination:   19, 20, 20, 20, 16, 20
Leadership:       18, 18, 20, 20, 18, 20
Work rate:        14, 18, 16, 20, 12, 16
Vision:             10,  7,  8,  13, 13, 15
Decisions:         19, 18, 16, 20, 15, 14
Positional:         18, 16, 15, 20, 18, 14
Anticipation:      18, 18, 16, 20, 17, 15
Movement:        7,  8,  7, 12, 11, 15

Physical:

Agility:            10, 16, 10, 17, 14, 15
Balance:          16, 14, 14, 18, 14, 16
Pace:              8,  12,  9, 15, 16, 16
Acceleration:    9,  12, 10, 15, 16, 17
Stamina:          15, 17, 17, 20, 18, 17
Strength:         19, 16, 20, 18, 17, 16
Jumping:          18, 15, 16, 20, 18, 14


That gets my point across.

10 = Average.

13 = Decent.

15 = Good.

16 = Good in the premier league.

19 = One of the best in that area.

20 = The best in that area.

Physically Cannavaro is the best, he's very strong in all areas. Ferdinand is also very consistent in the area. Jamie Carragher physically is in my opinion third best, if you look at that area you'll see the decrease in numbers when you go to his level.

Mentally, the weakest is Ferdinand. The strongest Cannavaro and Terry but Hyypia and Carragher are very close. Hence the reason the last three are extremely good and well drilled club players. They all are top class in this area of the game and well drilled players.

As you can see technically there is also a massive gap favouring Ferdinand and Cannavaro.

Cannavaro is a world class player.

Jamie Carragher and John Terry have alot of excellent attributes and even one or two that are world class, but they also have area's of there game that are nowhere near world class and wouldn't look out of place in the lower leagues. They have too many average attributes to be considered world class.

john craig wrote:You're knocking my examples there, but in fact yours are the ones that are flawed.  I cited players that were regarded as being class players before flopping in England.  You say Suker was past his best.  Wrong.  He was not, but that example illustrates a player who could have played comfortably into his 30's in a slower, less physical league.  Instead he made a bad move to England where his body couldn't deal with the physical or fast nature of the league.  Instead you cite Gallas, who is immense physically and probably is more suited to the premiership than somewhere like Italy where I don't think he'd be as effective - we'll see that when he goes to Milan.  Again, different styles of player are more suited to certain leagues.  There are very few players who would be equally as excellent in different leagues (eg, Italy, England, Spain).  Cannavaro may well be one of those players, but you certainly can't prove it, as I cannot prove he may not.

I never said that physical attributes were more important mate, you were the one who dismissed them out of hand and have now retreated saying that they are AS IMPORTANT as technical and mental attributes but not more important.  Show me where I said they were ever more important?

Why are you using Traore as an example of tall footballers not always being good?  Do you not think I'd figured that one out myself?  Again that's a bad example.  But a 6'4'' defender like Hyypia who IS good in the air is going to be better in the air than a 5'10'' defender who is good in the air.  It's a fact.  It's a fact that height matters as a defender, it's not the most important thing, but it matters.  Are you saying that Cannavaro would be no better if he was 6'3 rather than 5'10''.  Of course there'd be a difference, he'd be fecking unbelievable.

No need to patronise me with championship manager stats Stu, we've all played the game but it's not the real world mate.  How can you seriously rate every single player's ability out of 20 for each attribute??  It's unrealistic and is all down to opinion.  At the end of the day it's about whether the player does the fecking business on a Saturday, not whether you think his mental attributes are better than his physical ones.

Its far from unrealistic. Thats the point. Its also not down to opinion either. Players are better and worse than others FACT. Certain players are great tacklers, others aren't.

If your judements wrong then thats not my problem. If it was all a matter of opinions ability wouldn't exist. But the fact is it does.

Cannavaro is excellent in the air. He's no Sami Hyypia or John Terry but he's not far off and his height doesn't hinder him at all. He wins alot of headers and has an aggression

John, the reason players lack in certain countries and don't perform isn't down to the style of play of the country, its down to the tactics they play in, its down to the individual team and its down to the clubs ability to get the best out of them. You don't need attributes in one country to be a good player in another.

You need everything.

Litmanen was never physically any good at all. Never ever yet he was quality. The fact is he was good enough. Thats what its all about. You either have it or you don't.

The players you're on about are great performers at a good level, theres a difference in being a great performer in a great team and being a great individual. The difference in Cannavaro is as above. I don't hear you arguing directly with the ratings i've given the players.

The fact is thats how you judge a players ability. Thats the only way to do it. Yes you can go on about players who perform, but that means you're getting the best out of something decent. If you get the best out of something great then you have a better product.

The reason players fail is managers look at performances and just think i'll lash him in there. Not what is he good at, how do i get the best out of him. What system will work, will he fit our current system etc.

Good Bob wrote:The reason players fail is managers look at performances and just think i'll lash him in there. Not what is he good at, how do i get the best out of him. What system will work, will he fit our current system etc.

Look, you're confusing me again Stu.  Look at the post I've quoted.  Did you or did you not say a couple of posts back that class players are class players and it's got nothing to do with tactics?  Now you're saying that the performances of players is directly related to the system they play in and how they're used.  That is a complete and utter contradiction no matter what way you look at it.

I don't accept that a player's ability to succeed at a club is purely down to the tactics and the way the club trys to get the best out of them and has nothing to do with the league or style of play.  Is Benitez a bad manager because he couldn't get the best out of Morientes?  He tried Morientes as as the main striker, as support striker, as a lone striker, as fecking well everything.  And I'm damn well sure he was working hard with him in training and with the other players to get the best out of him, but it just didn't happen.  Is that the fault of the coaching staff, had Morientes just turned sh.ite overnight or is Morientes just not suited to a quick, physical league?  I'll say the latter is most likely.

john craig wrote:

Good Bob wrote:The reason players fail is managers look at performances and just think i'll lash him in there. Not what is he good at, how do i get the best out of him. What system will work, will he fit our current system etc.

Look, you're confusing me again Stu.  Look at the post I've quoted.  Did you or did you not say a couple of posts back that class players are class players and it's got nothing to do with tactics?  Now you're saying that the performances of players is directly related to the system they play in and how they're used.  That is a complete and utter contradiction no matter what way you look at it.

I don't accept that a player's ability to succeed at a club is purely down to the tactics and the way the club trys to get the best out of them and has nothing to do with the league or style of play.  Is Benitez a bad manager because he couldn't get the best out of Morientes?  He tried Morientes as as the main striker, as support striker, as a lone striker, as fecking well everything.  And I'm damn well sure he was working hard with him in training and with the other players to get the best out of him, but it just didn't happen.  Is that the fault of the coaching staff, had Morientes just turned sh.ite overnight or is Morientes just not suited to a quick, physical league?  I'll say the latter is most likely.

Performances relate to tactics. Ability doesn't.

Bman wrote:

insightful first post there

Good Bob wrote:Performances relate to tactics. Ability doesn't.

ability + tactics + suitability to style of league = performance

john craig wrote:I don't accept that a player's ability to succeed at a club is purely down to the tactics and the way the club trys to get the best out of them and has nothing to do with the league or style of play.  Is Benitez a bad manager because he couldn't get the best out of Morientes?  He tried Morientes as as the main striker, as support striker, as a lone striker, as fecking well everything.  And I'm damn well sure he was working hard with him in training and with the other players to get the best out of him, but it just didn't happen.  Is that the fault of the coaching staff, had Morientes just turned sh.ite overnight or is Morientes just not suited to a quick, physical league?  I'll say the latter is most likely.

Morientes wasn't good enough and thats the answer mate. Simple as that.

You can look at what he lacked but my point is you don't need to have suitable attributes to succeed in one league or another.

Juninho was never great physically. He was everyones favourate saying "lightweight" but he was class. Kinkladze was never physically brilliant.

If you're a great player you can play anywhere. You need alround ability, thats my point. Thats what i mean when i say an international player or a club player. If you aren't a great player you can adapt to every situation. Ability isn't form. They are two completely different things.

Owen is a great finisher, however he misses sitters. Cisse isn't a great finisher however he can score difficult chances. Form is temporary.

Players like Carragher, Terry and Lampard are in a system they know with players they know and an environment they know. It matters a great deal. They aren't international class players and they wouldn't look as good in other systems as they all proved during the world cup.

john craig wrote:

Good Bob wrote:Performances relate to tactics. Ability doesn't.

ability + tactics + suitability to style of league = performance

Style of league means nothing. If thats the case why don't the English teams just play the English way against forgeiners and then they'll win every game.