Who can beat

[Mr. Peanuts]

I generally consider "solid" to mean "very good", or even "excellent".

as do I, maybe I used the wrong word in your opinion, Zeus, but I have pretty much the same stance on Arsenal as you do.

[arwen_7]

celtic would beet them :P

[ZeUs!!]

Have to be quick... will respond in full later:

Ranieri considered himself a dead man by Christmas. At one point in January, during an away game Chelsea was winning, a pissed-off home fan jealously yelled "We may be losing but you'll be fired this summer," to which Claudio said "Wrong, I'll be fired by May." Call it hindsight if you will, but the stink of houscleaning ran through the press for almost the entire season.

As for Mourinho's Porto signings, Ferreria is a little unproven, granted, but Carvalho is a rock. Easily one of the best defenders in last years Champion's league, and a very sincere target of Real's. He might not be Sol or Rio, but he's tits, and I think he'll earn his keep (especially for a financially lenient owner).

I'll read back through, but I don't think I said anything about the fans loving Mourinho yet (though I think they have an open mind). Ranieri was hard not to like, and the fans don't easily forget. I only meant to suggest that the players love him so far, as suggested by media interaction so far this preseason.

Silvestre won't be working out for a left-sided position, as far as I know. Heinze was brought in to compete with O'Shea over there (not to mention Spector's success thus far with his first-team preseason debut at the position, as well as finishing "reserve player of the year" last year in the spot), so I can't imagine SAF having designs for him in there. I'm not sure where to fit him in, especially after a pretty shitty campaign last year (and a shitty Euro summer). I disagree on Wes, though. He got thrown into the deep end last year, struggled for a few weeks and took way too much flak, then played really well for most of the remainder (without really shaking the "he's worthless now" tag).

Have to leave now. Arsenal tomorrow.

Night.

The thing that gets me about Abramhovich is that he never came clear with his intentions at the beginning of the season. I'm pretty sure that pisses Ranieri off too, but the fact is he let the guy spend £120m of his money on a football team which the new manager is going to start to dismantle. The press might have smelt a rat when saying that Ranieri was for the axe, but it doesn't take a prize-winning journalist to notice that a new chairman has been replacing everyone in the team except the manager so far, and they need to sell papers. The writing was only really on the wall when everyone's favourite slime-ball Peter Kenyon started meeting up with Mourinho. Until there was a potential successor being touted then the speculation was just that - paper talk. The stink of housecleaning ran through the press because thats what they do, they decide the news when the transfer window's closed.

Do you subscribe to The Fiver? Its possibly the best thing ever to happen to electronic mailing, http://football.guardian.co.uk/fiver/. I got "Justy H" (thats his pimp name, right?) into it and then he starts mailing me with an urge to learn more about football, so I've sent a back issue of the magazine I get over to Americaland but unfortunately I didn't send any instructions as to what to do with it... so he started eating it (check the 'Pictures Of Things I Like' thread).

You say Carvalho is a rock, and there's no disputing that he had a good season last season, but is one maybe two decent seasons enough justification to blow £17m on a defender? Chelsea's other mega-bucks aquisition Didier Drogba was playing in the French second division two years back, you don't turn into £23m striker from a French also-ran in two years. Kezman on the other hand has been flopping them in for the past three or four years in Holland, and even longer back in Yugoslavia and was a steal at just £5m. Swings and roundabouts. Carvalho bloke could go on and play the best football of his life for Chelsea but I feel they would be hedging a safer bet on a more established defender, one that won't cost £17m when the asking price for the best holding midfielder in the world is £30m as opposed to splurging £17m on a whim because a defender had a good season. A lot of parallels could be drawn between his Euro 2004 and my attempts to re-educate Mr Peanuts, it was solid but not spectacular.

Silvestre didn't have a bad season last time around. Slightly dodgy, but that was because he wasn't settled in one position and he didn't have a regular partner for whatever position he was required to play each saturday. Silvestre hasn't gone off the boil at all and I'm willing to bet this coming season we'll see the best yet. Heinze hasn't been brought in to challenge anyone, Heinze has been brought in for the fact that the Manchester United defence simply isn't good enough for Manchester United. Wes Brown's got dodgy knees, Rio Ferdinand has been spending his saturday afternoons shopping for khakis in Gap and so isn't really at the peak of his form and won't be for a little while, in fact the only element of the Man Yoo defence with an element of reliability would be Gary Neville.

Fancy watching a game some time next year Rodge?

[Jerome Scuggs]

Sure!

[Ewan]

I think ZeUs!! has played hattrick for too long that he now considers solid to be less than good.

[Mr. Peanuts]

hattrick is zzzzz

[Ewan]

I liked it, but got bored eventually

Chelsea have played very good in their friendlies according to various sources.

[ZeUs!!]

Shit hattrick! I've just looked and I've got £600k to blow on whomever I choose, but I'll probably sit on it. My view of solid is unspectacular and reliable, the Bolton's and Everton's who save for maybe one or two players usually try and grind out a result

[RogerMexico]

The thing that gets me about Abramhovich is that he never came clear with his intentions at the beginning of the season. I'm pretty sure that pisses Ranieri off too, but the fact is he let the guy spend £120m of his money on a football team which the new manager is going to start to dismantle. The press might have smelt a rat when saying that Ranieri was for the axe, but it doesn't take a prize-winning journalist to notice that a new chairman has been replacing everyone in the team except the manager so far, and they need to sell papers. The writing was only really on the wall when everyone's favourite slime-ball Peter Kenyon started meeting up with Mourinho. Until there was a potential successor being touted then the speculation was just that - paper talk. The stink of housecleaning ran through the press because thats what they do, they decide the news when the transfer window's closed.

Do you subscribe to The Fiver? Its possibly the best thing ever to happen to electronic mailing, http://football.guardian.co.uk/fiver/. I got "Justy H" (thats his pimp name, right?) into it and then he starts mailing me with an urge to learn more about football, so I've sent a back issue of the magazine I get over to Americaland but unfortunately I didn't send any instructions as to what to do with it... so he started eating it (check the 'Pictures Of Things I Like' thread).

You say Carvalho is a rock, and there's no disputing that he had a good season last season, but is one maybe two decent seasons enough justification to blow £17m on a defender? Chelsea's other mega-bucks aquisition Didier Drogba was playing in the French second division two years back, you don't turn into £23m striker from a French also-ran in two years. Kezman on the other hand has been flopping them in for the past three or four years in Holland, and even longer back in Yugoslavia and was a steal at just £5m. Swings and roundabouts. Carvalho bloke could go on and play the best football of his life for Chelsea but I feel they would be hedging a safer bet on a more established defender, one that won't cost £17m when the asking price for the best holding midfielder in the world is £30m as opposed to splurging £17m on a whim because a defender had a good season. A lot of parallels could be drawn between his Euro 2004 and my attempts to re-educate Mr Peanuts, it was solid but not spectacular.

Silvestre didn't have a bad season last time around. Slightly dodgy, but that was because he wasn't settled in one position and he didn't have a regular partner for whatever position he was required to play each saturday. Silvestre hasn't gone off the boil at all and I'm willing to bet this coming season we'll see the best yet. Heinze hasn't been brought in to challenge anyone, Heinze has been brought in for the fact that the Manchester United defence simply isn't good enough for Manchester United. Wes Brown's got dodgy knees, Rio Ferdinand has been spending his saturday afternoons shopping for khakis in Gap and so isn't really at the peak of his form and won't be for a little while, in fact the only element of the Man Yoo defence with an element of reliability would be Gary Neville.

Fancy watching a game some time next year Rodge?

Regarding Roman's orignal spending spree with Ranieri, I don't really think he had a clue what he was doing (Roman, that is). He had just bought the team, and it was a honeymoon. He wasn't organized. He wanted to build the best team in Europe, but he didn't have a clue about how to do it. Everything pre-Kenyon was just youthful zeal. The suits have become a little more hard-nosed since. And yeah, you're right about newspapers -- sales, and so forth -- but the clandestine Sven courting was happening pretty early in the season. Long before Chelsea was out of any picture.

As for the fiver, I sort of hate any subscription email, but I do check that site pretty regularly. It's great. And God bless Justin and his dewey-eyed enthusiasm.

The Carlvho signing is a gamble, granted, but they had the money. I really just think he's going to pan out. And for the record, I disagree on his Euro performance. I thought he played well, stupid-header-leading-to-Owen-goal aside. Didier is a complete mystery to me, however. I saw some of his UEFA Cup campaign, and he did look good, but come on. That pricetag is a fucking huge leap of faith. Incidently, he played like shit in the friendly against Roma on Thursday. I agree on Kezman, too... he's the real deal, and I haven't a clue why he was slept on in the transfer market. At one point in the summer, long after Mateja declared his intent to leave PSV, his agent admitted that the only club who had made a formal offer was Dundee. Fulham had a link shortly after, then Liverpool, but it seemed like everyone was going to pass on him. I was pretty surprised when Chelsea picked him up, since they still had Jimmy-Floyd and Crespo, but I think he's going to be a bargain. And after watching the preseason friendlies, I think he's going to be their first choice up front.

And yes, agreed on the Man U defensive clusterfuck. You have more faith in Silvestre than I do, but I'll take your word on it. I just feel like every time there was a critical dumbfuck foul on the back line for Manchester and France -- usually one leading to a really nice set piece or PK that changes the game -- it's Silvestre on the end of it (did he give up two PK's in Euro 2004, or three?). As for Heinze, SAF had announced his intentions to give him the starting nod at left-back, until he got called up for the Olympic team and burned a few new bridges. He might be a benchwarmer now, though. If Wes stays healthy, he has my confidence, and I think Rio might have a "fuck the haters" mission-season, which makes me think he'll be dropped into the first game back ready and rearing to go. You might be right on the latter though.

As for the Arsenal shit, here we go, but bear in mind I'm really not that informed on their inner-workings: I don't really think Henry wants/needs a target man or true striker. Part of that's based on the offensive outcomes of the French national side. When he's paired up with Trezeguet, the chemistry is crap. They rarely find each other. The box just gets more congested, and Thierry has less space to make shit happen. When they threw Saha in there at Euro 2004, everything changed immediately. With space to operate in, Henry was suddenly Captain Badass again. So I think it might be similar on a club level. Rather than having a "fox in the box," keep space for Henry, rely on your attack-minded wingers to cave in when appropriate, and have Reyes run around, draw defenders out, and occasionally take a shot from 25 yards. Sort of a Ronaldinho/Saviola operation. And the Vieira deal is the fifty-million dollar question for the summer, but reports are now pulling back on it a little bit. Who knows. Biggest dick in football, huh? Did you know it's well understood that Huey Lewis has the largest dick in Rock N' Roll? Just found that out last week. Good for you, Huey.

As for the game, sure thing. Let me get settled over there, but we'll figure it out.

[ZeUs!!]

I wanted to type an epic 2,000 word essay on football but I can't really find anything to disagree with.

You could be right with the "youthful zeal" theory, it stands to reason as we know for a fact Ambramhovich had the cash burning a hole in his pocket otherwise he wouldn't have spent the first £120m buying the club in the first place. Perhaps it could just be put down to naiveity?

I think Chelsea need to think about the consequences when signing relative unknowns for huge quantities. Obviously they stand to make a financial loss should the player flop, but more so players are likely to be scared of Chelsea as they see it as a poisoned chalice, anyone unestablished who signs for Chelsea is doomed etc etc.

You say Henry doesn't play well with Trezeguet, when he had a great partnership with Trezeguet at Monaco which was the reason both players were called up to the France '98 squad and Henry managed to earn a move to Juventus in the first place. The Frenchies were hoping they could try and link up again but it all kind of went Yorke/Cole on them.

Another viewpoint:
5:PEARL JAM> henry doesn't play well with people? that seems stupid in itself

Also you say if you put an out-and-out forward on the pitch with Henry, a fox in the box, then the penalty area will get more congested? Does that mean you're advocating a tactic of everyone stand back and let Henry run at the defence? Henry 100% would benefit from someone in the box to link up with, play some balls off of to help him do what he does best and crave open the defense. Also surely a packed penalty area is what you want? That way the defenders or attackers don't know where they are and suddenly every ball's a 50/50 and could be a shot. We have a phrase over in Blighty where we shout "PUT IT IN THE MIXER!", ie put it in the box and create confusion. The last thing you want is an organised defense. I would have said Saviola is pretty much the epitome of an out-and-out striker, therefore a Ronaldino-Saviola partnership would be just what I'm advocating at Arsenal with Morientes, not the opposite.

I see what you mean about having the winger's cut inside at the last minute, that way Henry would be able to feed some through balls for them to latch onto, however this is moot point as Arsenal already operate that system and we know it works.



Edit: So maybe I found a couple of things to disagree with

[tahkis]

Oooh Mike, calm down with your writing. Do you think someone got enough nerver to read that much of text. :eek:

[RogerMexico]

I wanted to type an epic 2,000 word essay on football but I can't really find anything to disagree with.

You could be right with the "youthful zeal" theory, it stands to reason as we know for a fact Ambramhovich had the cash burning a hole in his pocket otherwise he wouldn't have spent the first £120m buying the club in the first place. Perhaps it could just be put down to naiveity?

I think Chelsea need to think about the consequences when signing relative unknowns for huge quantities. Obviously they stand to make a financial loss should the player flop, but more so players are likely to be scared of Chelsea as they see it as a poisoned chalice, anyone unestablished who signs for Chelsea is doomed etc etc.

You say Henry doesn't play well with Trezeguet, when he had a great partnership with Trezeguet at Monaco which was the reason both players were called up to the France '98 squad and Henry managed to earn a move to Juventus in the first place. The Frenchies were hoping they could try and link up again but it all kind of went Yorke/Cole on them.

Another viewpoint:
5:PEARL JAM> henry doesn't play well with people? that seems stupid in itself

Also you say if you put an out-and-out forward on the pitch with Henry, a fox in the box, then the penalty area will get more congested? Does that mean you're advocating a tactic of everyone stand back and let Henry run at the defence? Henry 100% would benefit from someone in the box to link up with, play some balls off of to help him do what he does best and crave open the defense. Also surely a packed penalty area is what you want? That way the defenders or attackers don't know where they are and suddenly every ball's a 50/50 and could be a shot. We have a phrase over in Blighty where we shout "PUT IT IN THE MIXER!", ie put it in the box and create confusion. The last thing you want is an organised defense. I would have said Saviola is pretty much the epitome of an out-and-out striker, therefore a Ronaldino-Saviola partnership would be just what I'm advocating at Arsenal with Morientes, not the opposite.

I see what you mean about having the winger's cut inside at the last minute, that way Henry would be able to feed some through balls for them to latch onto, however this is moot point as Arsenal already operate that system and we know it works.



Edit: So maybe I found a couple of things to disagree with

I think we had a miscommunication somewhere. If Saviola is the epitome of an out-and-out striker to you, then I'm using the term wrong. When you described what Henry was not, a "back to the wall, 6'6" shithouse," that's sort of what I think of as a "true" striker (regardless of whether or not that's what you/the general public has agreed on, so I may be off) -- The Viduka's, Van Nistelroy's, Vieri's, etc. Anyone who is perched in the box and waiting for service, a clinical finisher, but not necessarily a playmaker. Saviola collects passes from the midfield and makes wicked runs all over the place, like a crackhead. Just wasn't what I thought you meant.

And again with the Henry thing, we definately got screwed up somewhere. I've only been watching the game for three years now, so the Monaco reference I'll take your word on, but what I've seen from the French national side hasn't been encouraging. To watch a team of that caliber create 2 or 3 decent chances on goal in 90 minutes, time and time again, is disheartening. But you're suggesting I advocate a tactic of "everyone stand back and let Henry run at the defence," which means something got lost in translation, or you think I'm an idiot. Not sure where you got the idea that I'm passing Henry off as a soloist (or that he doesn't work well with others). I'm suggesting that he doesn't work well with a Shearer or like-minded player, not that everyone should sit in midfield, drink water, and talk about their spouses while Henry runs at the goal with guns blazing. I'm suggesting that one-touch passing and erratic but aggresive runs have done just as much for their offense as "putting it in the mixer" might. You watched them play after Reyes's introduction in January, right? That's all I'm pushing for, and I think it's less possible with a crowded and retracted back four.

The "have a winger take it down and cross it into a shitheap of people, hopefully hitting one of our guys, ideally our best forward who can finish or head the ball in a pinch" style of play is successfull by all means. It can be a lot more graceful than the description I just used, and it can produce some spectacular shit, but I don't think you need to necessarily force all teams to emmulate that kind of offense (I know you weren't suggesting the winger-to-cross approach every time, but it's what I see the most). Arsenal got just as many compliments for the way they played last season as for the results, and I think it would be a shame to fault them for that now, even if they are Francophile dicks.

[Squeezer]

Chelsea next season? OMG outstanding transfers...

Wtf are u talkin about

[ZeUs!!]

I think we had a miscommunication somewhere. If Saviola is the epitome of an out-and-out striker to you, then I'm using the term wrong. When you described what Henry was not, a "back to the wall, 6'6" shithouse," that's sort of what I think of as a "true" striker (regardless of whether or not that's what you/the general public has agreed on, so I may be off) -- The Viduka's, Van Nistelroy's, Vieri's, etc. Anyone who is perched in the box and waiting for service, a clinical finisher, but not necessarily a playmaker. Saviola collects passes from the midfield and makes wicked runs all over the place, like a crackhead. Just wasn't what I thought you meant.

And again with the Henry thing, we definately got screwed up somewhere. I've only been watching the game for three years now, so the Monaco reference I'll take your word on, but what I've seen from the French national side hasn't been encouraging. To watch a team of that caliber create 2 or 3 decent chances on goal in 90 minutes, time and time again, is disheartening. But you're suggesting I advocate a tactic of "everyone stand back and let Henry run at the defence," which means something got lost in translation, or you think I'm an idiot. Not sure where you got the idea that I'm passing Henry off as a soloist (or that he doesn't work well with others). I'm suggesting that he doesn't work well with a Shearer or like-minded player, not that everyone should sit in midfield, drink water, and talk about their spouses while Henry runs at the goal with guns blazing. I'm suggesting that one-touch passing and erratic but aggresive runs have done just as much for their offense as "putting it in the mixer" might. You watched them play after Reyes's introduction in January, right? That's all I'm pushing for, and I think it's less possible with a crowded and retracted back four.

The "have a winger take it down and cross it into a shitheap of people, hopefully hitting one of our guys, ideally our best forward who can finish or head the ball in a pinch" style of play is successfull by all means. It can be a lot more graceful than the description I just used, and it can produce some spectacular shit, but I don't think you need to necessarily force all teams to emmulate that kind of offense (I know you weren't suggesting the winger-to-cross approach every time, but it's what I see the most). Arsenal got just as many compliments for the way they played last season as for the results, and I think it would be a shame to fault them for that now, even if they are Francophile dicks.

The problems in catagorising forwards arise when you group people like Viduka and Van Nistelrooy together for what you see as goal poaching (which means they're involved in little-to-none of the build up play). I see Viduka and Van Nistelrooy as two very different forwards, it would help to clasify one as a striker and one as a centre-forward.

Centre-forwards

This is very much an old style of player but still highly effective as shown by Pierre Van Hoojidonk at Euro 2004. This may not be the correct term for this kind of player but its the term I'm going to use as it will be easier to distinguish plus I've wrote so much in this thread now that everyone else who reads this is just going to take everything I type as gospel. A centre-forward would be like I described previously, a 6'6 brick shithouse. A huge tank of a man whos job is half to score goals and half to beat up the defence. The best example of this in recent years would be perma-injured Evertonian Duncan Ferguson (pictured here on the left with Ipswich legend Fabian Wilnis on the right):



His past achievements have included imprisonment for assault whilst playing for Rangers and hospitalising two would-be burgulars at his home. He is a fan-s favourite and hard bastard, who brings power and strength to the front line, enabling him to hold off the defence and feed the striker. He is also a great header of the ball (although not necessarily 6'6) and is more than capable of beating anyone in the air meaning a lot of high balls get sent his way and he gets shitloads of goals from his head. Whilst not the quickest player every to grace the beautiful game, both physically and mentally, he was Everton's most dangerous player before the emergence of Wayne Rooney. I would say Mark Viduka is more this kind of player, prefering to elbow any oncoming defenders in the face rather than skillfully flick the ball onto his heel and sending the defender one way whilst deftly flicking the ball the other. A centre-forward is the more withdrawn of the front two who plays just off of the striker.

Strikers

In contrast to Big Dunc, the most stereotypical striker currently in the Premiership would be Paul Dickov who has recently transferred to Blackburn Rovers from Leicester City (pictured on the left with former Ipswich legend Jamie Scowcroft on the right):



To put it bluntly, he's an annoying little shit. He darts about, running on to through balls before either slotting the ball past the keeper or being pushed over and having another lump kicked out of him by the defending team. This kind of player is a "clinical finisher" (pundit's love that phrase) who relies on the team to do the donkey work for him, but if done then he can be a devastating player, and this player is most like Van Nistelrooy. This player is the teams best goalscorer and should average around 20 a season, compared to the forward's 15.

Obviously the borders are going to be blurred, for example Van Nistelrooy sometimes indulges in a bit of build up play and Viduka scores more than his stereotype decrees but rather loosely, this is how I see how players. The most obvious example of this partnership in action would be Heskey and Owen up front for Liverpool last season (Heskey on the left looks to have just laid the ball off to Owen, who in 0.4 seconds time will be bulldozed by the Cameroon defender. The guy with dreads looks to be Rigobert Song*):



All of the above typing did have a purpose, to help me explain my viewpoint on Henry. I see Henry as an unconventional striker. He has all the attributes associated with a striker; the finishing, the running into space and the getting steamrolled by the opposition defence, however what makes Henry so good and therefore different from the rest is he creates his own chances and does his striker's role, doing away with the need for a centre-forward. Yet I still feel when when a ball is fed into Henry by either Ljundberg, Reyes or Pires he's going to get bulldozed. Arsenal would benefit far more by having a player to hold-up the play just long enough so only one pass needs to be played to Henry so he can bury it with his first touch.

But would doing that take away Henry's usefulness? Like I say, what make Henry special is his ability to create something out of nothing, not to have the ball handed to him on a plate. Also with the two winger's and Reyes creating all the chances that they do would mean that introducing another forward would mean you have four people creating chances and only one employed to put them away, what if that one person is out of position? A centre-forward at Arsenal certainly would help to beef up the front line and help them try and dictate their attacks, as opposed to trying to avoid the defence. Aw shit, I don't know what to do with Henry, thats why Arsene Wenger is manager of Arsenal and I can only aspire to re-assemble the local under-13's team in the village, Doddinghurst Olympic, when I'm about 35 and have nothing better to do. I hope I've given you a useful lesson in old-fashioned English attacking circa 1970 though!



* Interesting fact about Rigobert Song: he had two disasterous spells in England with West Ham and someone else who escapes my memory so much so that two phrases are now commonly used in our country: "Its all gone horribly Rigobert Song (wrong)" or "He's done a Rigobert".

[Citroen]

please tell me you didnt bother typing all that...... and that its just a l33t copy-paste.