|
|
Post by clarkeda on Jan 25, 2023 13:16:44 GMT
Do I remember him absolutely battering us when he played for Swansea and turning Bauer (maybe) inside out all game.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldspeckledben on Jan 25, 2023 13:19:50 GMT
Assuming Celina and Sarkic both speak Albanian (despite being brought up in Norway and England respectively) due to their parents native tongue... Could be a good thing to get them settled potentially? Bit of a stretch. Sarkic is from Grimsby and Celina doubtless speaks good English having played here for several years. No need for them to form some sort of Balkan mafia. I acknowledged that they both spoke good English. Merely pointing out they have something in common which may well encourage camaraderie, but hey ho... |
|
|
|
Post by shrewspotter on Jan 25, 2023 13:20:26 GMT
Do I remember him absolutely battering us when he played for Swansea and turning Bauer (maybe) inside out all game. Wasnt that Daniel James? |
|
|
|
Post by SuperRickyFuller on Jan 25, 2023 13:28:15 GMT
Do I remember him absolutely battering us when he played for Swansea and turning Bauer (maybe) inside out all game. Wasnt that Daniel James? I'm almost certain it was James and he went to Man United the following transfer window too. |
|
|
|
Post by maine on Jan 25, 2023 13:44:38 GMT
If he comes it should be interesting. In his Swansea days (when he got the ball) he was terrific to watch because one never knew what was going to happen, and I imagine neither did he. I'd say he is quicker than Powell and Smallbone, though not as strong as Nick. I'm surprised that Neil has a history of being interested in him,as on the surface he doesn't seem a likely choice.
I hope it works out.
|
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 25, 2023 13:45:28 GMT
All managers pick players on the basis of percentages. If a flair player is 80% effective 50% of the time their overall effectiveness on the pitch is better than a steady Eddie who is 39% effective 100% of the time and less effective than steady Eddie who is 41% effective 100% of the time. In the former case every manager will pick the flair player in the former case and the steady Eddie in the second. Managers are interested in outcomes and the overall judgement they make on a player is based on the balance between how consistent they are compared with their impact when on song. A flair player with poor consistency won't get picked and neither will a steady Eddie who doesn't make much difference even if they are always playing their best. Only fans choose flair players before percentage players as a matter of principle. Managers make judgements on sporting criteria, not aesthetics. I disagree to an extent it's not only strictly fans that choose the flair player before percentage player but the neutral spectator too. In short the people who finance the game. It's an aspiration and entertainment driven sport and dull does not sell tickets or tv subscriptions a fact of which I'm sure most if not all club owners are aware hence the dearth of purely functional football managers and coaches in employment in this era. You can say it's a bucket and it holds water as many times as you want it doesn't bode well for your future as a bucket salesman. The purely functional doesn't support the multi billion £ entertainment industry that is English football. It's completely the other way round. The top clubs don't play flair players to entertain - they can afford to buy the very best players and the very best players are both consistent and have the flair to make the difference which in turn makes the team a good watch. Most teams don't have that luxury and the flair players they can afford are way less consistent and have to be propped up by a proportionally higher number of steady Eddie's. Any club without the money to get the very best who play a team of flair players they can afford in preference to players less talented but more consistent will by definition do worse than teams who pick players on pragmatic grounds. Fans may be happy to accept the occasional entertaining loss but it starts to wear thin pretty quickly and the majority of managers get sacked on the basis of the league position, not for their entertainment rating. Going out to entertain does not ensure sporting success. That will only happen when the goal difference column in league tables is replaced by one for artistic merit. |
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Jan 25, 2023 13:50:41 GMT
Do I remember him absolutely battering us when he played for Swansea and turning Bauer (maybe) inside out all game. I think he only played in 1 of the 4 games against us when he was at Swansea, and he was hooked early in a 2-0 defeat at the Bet365........ |
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 25, 2023 14:00:28 GMT
I disagree to an extent it's not only strictly fans that choose the flair player before percentage player but the neutral spectator too. In short the people who finance the game. It's an aspiration and entertainment driven sport and dull does not sell tickets or tv subscriptions a fact of which I'm sure most if not all club owners are aware hence the dearth of purely functional football managers and coaches in employment in this era. You can say it's a bucket and it holds water as many times as you want it doesn't bode well for your future as a bucket salesman. The purely functional doesn't support the multi billion £ entertainment industry that is English football. It's completely the other way round. The top clubs don't play flair players to entertain - they can afford to buy the very best players and the very best players are both consistent and have the flair to make the difference which in turn makes the team a good watch. Most teams don't have that luxury and the flair players they can afford are way less consistent and have to be propped up by a proportionally higher number of steady Eddie's. Any club without the money to get the very best who play a team of flair players they can afford in preference to players less talented but more consistent will by definition do worse than teams who pick players on pragmatic grounds. Fans may be happy to accept the occasional entertaining loss but it starts to wear thin pretty quickly and the majority of managers get sacked on the basis of the league position, not for their entertainment rating. Going out to entertain does not ensure sporting success. That will only happen when the goal difference column in league tables is replaced by one for artistic merit. You're just very wrong and out of touch. If it were so the leagues would be full of dinosaur managers playing dour route one football. As it is dinosaur managers are very nearly extinct simply because their product is not aspirational. Even clubs with low income are favouring the progressive over the dour & pragmatic. Maybe you haven't noticed as an outlier our club has a fetish for the dour and pragmatic. |
|
|
|
Post by werrington on Jan 25, 2023 14:01:23 GMT
Do I remember him absolutely battering us when he played for Swansea and turning Bauer (maybe) inside out all game. Think that was that Indian lad? He’s disappeared off the scene completely |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 25, 2023 14:03:44 GMT
Is he still playing?
Talented and good once, just like Dwight Gayle.
👀
|
|
|
|
Post by somersetstokie on Jan 25, 2023 14:05:15 GMT
"You're just very wrong and out of touch. If it were so the leagues would be full of dinosaur managers playing dour route one football. As it is dinosaur managers are very nearly extinct simply because their product is not aspirational. Even clubs with low income are favouring the progressive over the dour & pragmatic. Maybe you haven't noticed as an outlier our club has a fetish for the dour and pragmatic".
Yes but "We are STOKE"!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 25, 2023 14:08:22 GMT
Do I remember him absolutely battering us when he played for Swansea and turning Bauer (maybe) inside out all game. Think that was that Indian lad? He’s disappeared off the scene completely Yan Dhanda. Now at Ross County in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 25, 2023 14:11:17 GMT
It's completely the other way round. The top clubs don't play flair players to entertain - they can afford to buy the very best players and the very best players are both consistent and have the flair to make the difference which in turn makes the team a good watch. Most teams don't have that luxury and the flair players they can afford are way less consistent and have to be propped up by a proportionally higher number of steady Eddie's. Any club without the money to get the very best who play a team of flair players they can afford in preference to players less talented but more consistent will by definition do worse than teams who pick players on pragmatic grounds. Fans may be happy to accept the occasional entertaining loss but it starts to wear thin pretty quickly and the majority of managers get sacked on the basis of the league position, not for their entertainment rating. Going out to entertain does not ensure sporting success. That will only happen when the goal difference column in league tables is replaced by one for artistic merit. You're just very wrong and out of touch. If it were so the leagues would be full of dinosaur managers playing dour route one football. As it is dinosaur managers are very nearly extinct simply because their product is not aspirational. Even clubs with low income are favouring the progressive over the dour & pragmatic. Maybe you haven't noticed as an outlier our club has a fetish for the dour and pragmatic. That's rubbish. Progressive football is in fashion because if played properly it is more effective than dour pragmatic football - not because it's aspirational and entertaining. If it was the other way round teams would be playing dour pragmatic football because at the end of the season trophies and league positions count - not glowing newspaper reports and best of clips. Football is a sport. Sport is about winning. Winning is entertaining. Entertainment is a by product - not the aim. You really have got this completely wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by thevoid on Jan 25, 2023 14:19:49 GMT
All managers pick players on the basis of percentages. If a flair player is 80% effective 50% of the time their overall effectiveness on the pitch is better than a steady Eddie who is 39% effective 100% of the time and less effective than steady Eddie who is 41% effective 100% of the time. In the former case every manager will pick the flair player in the former case and the steady Eddie in the second. Managers are interested in outcomes and the overall judgement they make on a player is based on the balance between how consistent they are compared with their impact when on song. A flair player with poor consistency won't get picked and neither will a steady Eddie who doesn't make much difference even if they are always playing their best. Only fans choose flair players before percentage players as a matter of principle. Managers make judgements on sporting criteria, not aesthetics. You are correct , but given that there are only 92 league managers out of which at most 13 have a successful year ( promotion or cups), a lot of them fail going down the steady eddy path. Success is relative. If Brighton carry on their current league performances but don't win a cup (Charlton beat them in the Carabao I think?) they will have had a successful season, and done it in an entertaining manner. |
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 25, 2023 14:25:22 GMT
You're just very wrong and out of touch. If it were so the leagues would be full of dinosaur managers playing dour route one football. As it is dinosaur managers are very nearly extinct simply because their product is not aspirational. Even clubs with low income are favouring the progressive over the dour & pragmatic. Maybe you haven't noticed as an outlier our club has a fetish for the dour and pragmatic. That's rubbish. Progressive football is in fashion because if played properly it is more effective than dour pragmatic football - not because it's aspirational and entertaining. If it was the other way round teams would be playing dour pragmatic football because at the end of the season trophies and league positions count - not glowing newspaper reports and best of clips. Football is a sport. Sport is about winning. Winning is entertaining. Entertainment is a by product - not the aim. You really have got this completely wrong. Progressive football is more effective than dour pragmatic football because the people who run the game and sell the product have made it more effective by adjusting rules and the interpretation of the rules and directions to referees to make it more effective thus increase entertainment value. They didn't do it because entertainment is a by product they did it because they realise they're in the entertainment industry. They've made it eaisier for flair players to demonstrate their skill and ability and not be kicked out of games because that's what puts bums on seats at grounds or infront of tv's. |
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 25, 2023 14:39:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Veritas on Jan 25, 2023 14:48:40 GMT
So competing with Smallbone and Powell, when fit, for the No10 role, still no width then. |
|
|
|
Post by realstokebloke on Jan 25, 2023 14:53:34 GMT
Never clocked last year (was it - when we were linked ?) exactly where his best position was, and thought he was more of a winger than the Ipswich journo suggests.
So maybe, as a 10, he's either competition for, or is a direct replacement for Smallbone after all. Maybe AN needs both given NP's lack of fitness / consistency.
Having ditched Fosu though, would have to think a winger is still on the cards.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Jan 25, 2023 15:02:18 GMT
It's completely the other way round. The top clubs don't play flair players to entertain - they can afford to buy the very best players and the very best players are both consistent and have the flair to make the difference which in turn makes the team a good watch. Most teams don't have that luxury and the flair players they can afford are way less consistent and have to be propped up by a proportionally higher number of steady Eddie's. Any club without the money to get the very best who play a team of flair players they can afford in preference to players less talented but more consistent will by definition do worse than teams who pick players on pragmatic grounds. Fans may be happy to accept the occasional entertaining loss but it starts to wear thin pretty quickly and the majority of managers get sacked on the basis of the league position, not for their entertainment rating. Going out to entertain does not ensure sporting success. That will only happen when the goal difference column in league tables is replaced by one for artistic merit. You're just very wrong and out of touch. If it were so the leagues would be full of dinosaur managers playing dour route one football. As it is dinosaur managers are very nearly extinct simply because their product is not aspirational. Even clubs with low income are favouring the progressive over the dour & pragmatic. Maybe you haven't noticed as an outlier our club has a fetish for the dour and pragmatic. But he's signing an out and out Maverick perhaps AN isn't an out and out dour pragmatist? |
|
|
|
Post by greenman on Jan 25, 2023 15:08:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FullerMagic on Jan 25, 2023 15:09:22 GMT
Transfermarkt has it at pretty much 50-50 wide and central.
Would think Neil would maybe use him the same way McCarthy and Cooper did, rather than Potter?
16/17 Twente
LW 14
AM 7
RW 5
17/18 Ipswich (Champ) McCarthy
LW 26
AM 9
2nd striker 2
18/19 Swansea (Champ) Potter
AM 30
LW 6
RW 3
2nd striker 2
19/20 Swansea (Champ) Cooper
LW 20
AM 12
20/21 Dijon
AM 14
LM 4
DM 3
CM 2
LW 2
21/22 Ipswich (L1) (Cook&McKenna)
AM 19
LW 3
RW 2
22/23 Kasimpasa
LW 13
AM 6
|
|
|
|
Post by clarkeda on Jan 25, 2023 15:11:56 GMT
He either played as number 10 or a tucked very tight inside forward. If he’s doing that then you need an athletic hard-working left-back to go around him and attack space down the wing to pull defenders away. He only needs a little space because his technique is so strong but in the crowded hurly burly of Championship or League One games even that might be at a premium. Screams Josh Tymon to me. |
|
|
|
Post by etebojan on Jan 25, 2023 15:18:07 GMT
see my earlier post from the summer |
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 25, 2023 15:20:36 GMT
You're just very wrong and out of touch. If it were so the leagues would be full of dinosaur managers playing dour route one football. As it is dinosaur managers are very nearly extinct simply because their product is not aspirational. Even clubs with low income are favouring the progressive over the dour & pragmatic. Maybe you haven't noticed as an outlier our club has a fetish for the dour and pragmatic. But he's signing an out and out Maverick perhaps AN isn't an out and out dour pragmatist? I don't really give a fuck what he is if he can get us scoring 4 goals at home on a regular basis he could be the devil himself for all I care. It does seem uncharacteristic as I was kind of assuming Powell's maverick nature and fancy flicks over percentage ball's is why he doesn't seem to value him in his starting line up when fit. From what I can read about this bloke he's all that with less physicality. I can't really work out what he wants or what it will look like. It's all about the goals for me, even Pulisball was entertaining during the short periods he got us scoring a satisfactory ammount of goals, it was the other 90+% of his 10 years that I found to be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by CBUFAWKIPWH on Jan 25, 2023 15:23:04 GMT
That's rubbish. Progressive football is in fashion because if played properly it is more effective than dour pragmatic football - not because it's aspirational and entertaining. If it was the other way round teams would be playing dour pragmatic football because at the end of the season trophies and league positions count - not glowing newspaper reports and best of clips. Football is a sport. Sport is about winning. Winning is entertaining. Entertainment is a by product - not the aim. You really have got this completely wrong. Progressive football is more effective than dour pragmatic football because the people who run the game and sell the product have made it more effective by adjusting rules and the interpretation of the rules and directions to referees to make it more effective thus increase entertainment value. They didn't do it because entertainment is a by product they did it because they realise they're in the entertainment industry. They've made it eaisier for flair players to demonstrate their skill and ability and not be kicked out of games because that's what puts bums on seats at grounds or infront of tv's. A well drilled, consistent, dour pragmatic player can still negate a flair player without having to foul them. As per my original example flair players only get picked when their net contribution is greater than their pragmatic rival. If their net contribution is less then they won't get picked on the grounds they are more entertaining. An entertainment industry has grown around football and other sports but in terms of the day to day decisions about who plays and how teams setup the drivers haven't changed. Managers will pick players on the basis of maximising the chance of winning the game. If they win the game the fans will go home happy and come back next time and will stay in their job. If they go out to entertain and lose on a regular basis the fans willgo home pissed off and will be less likely to come again and the manager will get sacked. Competitive sport is entertaining to watch. But it was, is and always will be first and foremost a competitive sport that will put pragmatic decisions about winning first. The entertainment bit happens as a by product - no matter what the marketeers and TV executives might want you to believe - they don't pick the team. By all accounts Man Utd's decision to bring back Ronaldo was made for non footballing reasons - mainly to shift shirts and keep their TV fans happy. More or less the first thing ten Hag did was drop him and got rid. Because as entertaining and popular as he was he wasn't doing the team any good and the team wasn't doing very well. Every now and again you might get a manager or club making footballing decisions based on the grounds of commerce and entertainment and every time it will get exposed as stupid and some pragmatic manager will come in and put the club back on track before it all goes horribly wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by gingerninja on Jan 25, 2023 15:42:41 GMT
Not sure where this dour pragmatist comes on, Gallagher at Preston was a floaty, flair type player and he was a regular under Neil,as was Johnson who I have always thought was a really good technical player..
|
|
|
|
Post by leesandfordstoupe on Jan 25, 2023 15:47:39 GMT
Progressive football is more effective than dour pragmatic football because the people who run the game and sell the product have made it more effective by adjusting rules and the interpretation of the rules and directions to referees to make it more effective thus increase entertainment value. They didn't do it because entertainment is a by product they did it because they realise they're in the entertainment industry. They've made it eaisier for flair players to demonstrate their skill and ability and not be kicked out of games because that's what puts bums on seats at grounds or infront of tv's. A well drilled, consistent, dour pragmatic player can still negate a flair player without having to foul them. As per my original example flair players only get picked when their net contribution is greater than their pragmatic rival. If their net contribution is less then they won't get picked on the grounds they are more entertaining. An entertainment industry has grown around football and other sports but in terms of the day to day decisions about who plays and how teams setup the drivers haven't changed. Managers will pick players on the basis of maximising the chance of winning the game. If they win the game the fans will go home happy and come back next time and will stay in their job. If they go out to entertain and lose on a regular basis the fans willgo home pissed off and will be less likely to come again and the manager will get sacked. Competitive sport is entertaining to watch. But it was, is and always will be first and foremost a competitive sport that will put pragmatic decisions about winning first. The entertainment bit happens as a by product - no matter what the marketeers and TV executives might want you to believe - they don't pick the team. By all accounts Man Utd's decision to bring back Ronaldo was made for non footballing reasons - mainly to shift shirts and keep their TV fans happy. More or less the first thing ten Hag did was drop him and got rid. Because as entertaining and popular as he was he wasn't doing the team any good and the team wasn't doing very well. Every now and again you might get a manager or club making footballing decisions based on the grounds of commerce and entertainment and every time it will get exposed as stupid and some pragmatic manager will come in and put the club back on track before it all goes horribly wrong. I think you're in denial. The game has been incrementally rigged to favour of what people want to see, it's been going on for decades. Such change has been focused on the entertainment value of the product. Better technical players playing on better surfaces, scoring more goals and less binary outcomes, less physicality. There simply aren't any purely sporting reasons for these developments of the game. I don't really think you've got much idea where the power lies in the game. Football managers will only be allowed to pragmatise(is that even a word?) within the parameters they're given. I hope you're not a cricket fan. You'd have an even greater job trying to convince yourself it was all about pure sporting merit and entertainment is just a by product. |
|
|
|
Post by tejstokie on Jan 25, 2023 15:53:38 GMT
So competing with Smallbone and Powell, when fit, for the No10 role, still no width then. He's listed as a winger on quite a few of his Dijon and Ipswich appearances. |
|
|
|
Post by musik on Jan 25, 2023 17:15:04 GMT
I thought he was much older.
Little player, just like the two we have upfront, Brown and Campbell.
Could be good this!
|
|
|
|
Post by banksy1art on Jan 25, 2023 17:17:13 GMT
Hope he’s not put on penalties  |
|
