I am sure the majority of Evertonians have hogged their PCs all summer and scrambled through newspapers to find a shred of hope to hang onto that we were at last exploting the opportunity to build on our achievements.
Even now, as I type this article, we're all clinging to the hope that we sign a player (I think most of us have given up on two being possible) that a lot of us may not even know much about but has to be an improvement to an already paper-thin squad.
I know certain posters (Doddy in particular) have come on praising "The Everton Way", but I know that if many supporters feel like I do, they will feel utterly let down by a club that promises so much and disappoints so often. Every year we have to sell to buy and always leave it to the last minute.
I know Moyes says he only wants to bring players that will improve the quality of the squad but surely somebody like Tuncay for less than £5 million gives us an option to give Ossie a rest. And Krancjar at £2.5 million has been available all summer.
I am sure it makes many of us want to turn our backs on a club that constantly gives out a message saying "Screw the supporters" but the problem is they are in your blood and it's like some "Junkie" fix that we keep putting ourselves through in the vain hope that our day will come again.
But I am afraid it will never come while Kenwright remains at the helm and continues the culture of "kidding" us that he only has our interests at heart while he is selling our birthright behind our backs and more funds disappear down the blackhole.
I still often think to myself, "I wonder what happened to the £12 million for Manny 'He will be signing in the morning' Fernandes? Or the funds that were there at the start of the summer enough to get Phil Carter 'excited' at the prospect of players we were going to bring in early?"
The truth of the matter is we got £24 million for Lescott and spent £14 million on inadequate replacements similar to last year when we got £18 million for Johnson and McFadden and got Felli for a reputed £3.5 million down-payment and the rest over the next 250 years... (OK, that was a BK-type porky but you get the point).
"The Everton Way" is the other side of the black hole. The paralell world where Bill and his buddies can all pat themselves on the back over a glass od Dom Perignon and say, "Didn't we do well?"
While back in the real world, thousands of True Blues are getting disillusioned at best and suicidal at worst. The banks of the Royal Blue Mersey may see more than Kopites hanging from it this year...
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 01/09/2009 at 21:36:56
2 Posted 01/09/2009 at 21:37:27
3 Posted 01/09/2009 at 22:16:35
And with huge debts, loans etc., it makes sense — and is perhaps inevitable — to have som spare money to service them and downpay on them.
We have done well in this transfer window!
4 Posted 01/09/2009 at 22:30:07
5 Posted 01/09/2009 at 22:50:47
At this point I can’t make up my mind but either way he’s doing irreparable damage to the club in serving his own interests.I note you make reference to Kranjcar. I too felt we should have gone after his signature and was foolishly optimistic having read the report in the Mirror that we’d entered the race to sign him. However, I’ve since read Kranjcar’s response to our interest.
To cut a long story short he pretty much says he chose Spurs as he believed they are a club with ambition and were going in the right direction. I’m not silly enough to think that the salary on offer wasn’t a major factor for the player.
The truth is though that year on year we’re going to loose out to other clubs in terms of the quality of players we can expect to attract. The saddest thing of all is that we really had a chance to build on our relative success from last year but once again we’ve missed the boat and I don’t think it’s going to be sailing again any time soon.
6 Posted 01/09/2009 at 22:17:48
Can you imagine these two fat mercenaries on a wet Tuesday night in Hull? These players are inexpensive for a reason, I’ll give you that. Their respective clubs want rid to raise capital, but they aren’t that great and I doubt they would even bust a gut to compensate!
I really can’t believe that anyone can actually be THAT negative. Think about it: Jacobsen — replaced by Heitinga (Dutch former player of the year, 50 caps, Ajax educated); Shandy & Castillo —replaced by Bilyaletdinov (Russian international, ex-Young Player of the Year) with Rodwell stepping up, and like for like with Lescott/Distin — while the club makes a profit. What’s the problem?
It’s good business, it isn’t reckless, and the squad is demonstrably stronger. Your attitude is whinging, and irresponsible. You don’t have to spend every penny, every time you pass the tuck-shop, Jay. Or were you bitching when we broke our transfer record 3 or 4 times in consecutive seasons ?
On to the best bit: "... utterly let down," is laughably melodramatic: "I’m sure it makes many of us want to turn our backs on the club," — Do It Then!!
The Pulitzer prize runner up, though, was your harrowing sign-off line: "While back in the real world (?!) thousands of true Blues are getting disillusioned at best, and suicidal at worst. The banks etc..." Risible !!
Please, put down the crack pipe Jay.. It’s actually been a good week!! Don’t piss over it with scholastically redundant polemic.
7 Posted 01/09/2009 at 23:13:51
8 Posted 01/09/2009 at 22:39:34
It’s not just the ‘Everton Way’, it’s the way of all football teams bar the lucky few teams who have chanced upon sound minded and stupidly rich backers. We all know we want someone different than Kenwright, we all know we would like top signings at the beginning of the transfer window, but we also know that we don’t want one of the many corrupt, flawed, crazy rich backers who have come/stayed/screwed up/gone from English clubs recently. I’m getting pretty bored of the boo hoo brigade of Everton fans who feel that we have the god given right for self pity in football.
Take a look below at the current league table below, minus Everton and see how many other teams you would genuinely like to be in the position of, or who have a perfectly smooth ride.
In most, I see some similar problems, some different problems, some far more serious problems and all but one of two who have reasons to moan, but non who do it so persistently or tediously as we often do.
Chelsea — One of the lucky few
Spurs — Backed well financially. Happy Harry always starts well, but drifts off as the season goes on.
Man Utd — Spent less than Everton despite need for creative midfielder and 80 million in bank/large debts, but still a huge and successful club
Man City — Time will only tell but being backed significantly at moment
Stoke — Struggle to get any real quality in and meet wages/ unfashionable club
Arsenal — Despite big success, still cannot compete with the big boys on transfers — big players becoming restless with no success- starting to leave
Liverpool — Have backing and CL money but large debts and sold most creative midfielder without recruiting anyone new
Aston Villa — Sound backing and spent a fair bit, but is Downng, Collins and Dunne any better than our three signings?
Sunderland — Despite large amounts spent, I don’t look at anyone they with bought with envy and an unfashionable club to. Even Bent tried his best to find someone else before deciding that Sunderland was his only real option
Burnley — Have just signed Nugent as their main attacking threat. Enough said. Every year there is a plucky team who start well. Just think about Hull last year.
West Ham — In real difficulty following their iclandic buyout a few years ago. A selling club now
Birmingham — Just been bought by a dubious backer who does not look like someone who is in it for the long hall or with any significant funds to challenge. Struggle to attract players
Wolves — No significant funds. Struggle to attract players
Hull — Selling best players. No one wants to go there
Fulham — Injured players, owner who is no longer willing to back them significantly, but does not want to sell. Cannot afford new ground that they hoped to build
Wigan — Committed and hard working owner, but does not have funds to compete-unfashionable club
Blackburn — Will never have the money to buy significantly unless new owner is found
Bolton — No money spent and owner in no mood to sell
Portsmouth — Huge changes/ panic buys/lost key players — in trouble
9 Posted 01/09/2009 at 23:23:17
Reading DM in one of the sunday papers saying he wants more than just the Lescott money after the teams achievements in the last couple of years and Bill Kenwright is trying to provide it just confirms what we already know, that BK (all his own fault by the way) hasn’t got any say about club affairs regarding transfers or Kirkby. By his own admission he’s only a supporter.
It’s all very sad that our destiny is being decided by Earl and Green.
10 Posted 01/09/2009 at 23:32:47
We have let Jacobsen, Valente, VdM, Castillo and Lescott go and replaced an already threadbare squad with three players, one of whom most of us have never heard of but may prove to be an outstanding buy but where is the backup to take on a European campaign and cover for the Afcon which happens this season.
What do we do when Yobo, Yak, Pienaar and Anchebe go missing for 6 weeks particularly if we get injuries?
What’s the certainty that Arteta, Jags and/or the Yak will be the same players and hit the ground running?
I would also not get too excited by Heitinga just yet because by all accounts he’s had a real loss of form this past 2 years and was turned inside out by Milner recently.
Personally I think he will be marginally better than Jacobsen but more versatile.
Bily will be more available than VDM and hopefully as good a quality.
Distin is marginally worse than Lescott and obviously much older and can not contribute those all important goals from set pieces.
So that leaves us with no replacement for Valente i.e. no cover for LB and no replacement for Castillo although Rodwell seems to be coming on in leaps and bounds.
Moyes was expecting 4 not 2 so I guess he must have been smoking a crack pipe too.
My biggest beef is not the signings or lack of — it’s the lateness, causing a poor start to the season once again.
And the two fat mercenaries you mentioned would have been welcome additions to the squad, in most evertonians eyes, just ask Moyes who tried to sign Krancjar just before he chose Spurs.
11 Posted 02/09/2009 at 00:01:55
1) Distin was quite pricey for a 31-year-old. Solid and dependable I am sure but unremarkable.
2) Valente, one of our most experienced players, and only genuine LB cover, has left. Will the lack of cover lull Baines into complacency?
3) We haven’t addressed the chronic lack of creativity in midfield. Whilst I have high hopes for Bilyaletdinov, we surely don’t want to lay all our hopes on a Russian who is going to have to adapt to a totally new culture, both footballing and in a wider sense.
4) We can only imagine what would have happened had we not sold Lescott. Would we be here as the club who spent the least money?
The Optimist in me tells another story:
1 ) At RB we now have someone of true International pedigree.
2) On the Flanks we now have options with Bilyaletdinov and Pienaar which allow Arteta to play his best role without compromising the team.
3) The defence looks solid.
4) In Yak, Saha, Jo and Cahill I believe we have options in attack.
5) Of the players we have lost, it is only Lescott who we will miss. VdM was not a First Team member, ditto (sadly) was Nuno. Castillo and Jacobsen also played peripheral roles, They probably turned out for the Reserves more than the First Team
It's up to all Everton fans to make their own minds up. The Jury is definitely still out on this summer. Whilst I don’t think it has been disastrous, I for one am still left thinking we have once again come up that little bit short.
12 Posted 01/09/2009 at 23:50:44
I wish you’d get your facts straight before coming on here to criticise others.
"Liverpool — Have backing and CL money but large debts and sold most creative midfielder without recruiting anyone new"
They only spent £36 million on Johnson and Aquilana!!!
"Arsenal — Despite big success, still cannot compete with the big boys on transfers 1 big players becoming restless with no success — starting to leave" thats why they spent £12 million on Vermaelen and are struggling near the top of the league!!
"Stoke — Struggle to get any real quality in and meet wages/ unfashionable club"
Have signed Huth, Tuncay, Whitehead, Arismendi!!
"Aston Villa — Sound backing and spent a fair bit, but is Downng, Collins and Dunne any better than our three signings?"
Not to mention
H Beye (Newcastle United, £3m), C Cameron (Northampton Town, undisc), F Delph (Leeds United, £6.5m rising to £8m), S Downing (Middlesbrough, £12m), R Dunne (Manchester City, £6m), A Marshall (Coventry City, free), S Warnock (Blackburn Rovers, £6m), J Collins (West Ham United, £5m).
I make that £40 million and a much beefier squad.
"Fulham — Injured players, owner who is no longer willing to back them significantly, but does not want to sell. Cannot afford new ground that they hoped to build"
Only signed Duff, Greening, Elm, Dikgacoi and Kelly!!
I could go on but if you’re happy with the lateness and substance of our transfer dealings you must be really easily pleased.
13 Posted 02/09/2009 at 00:24:06
It’s a complete shambles and to point at City for only paying what we expected towards the window closing is like blaming VDM for the crack down on binge drinking... there’s an element of truth but it’s not all down to that. Why would you leave this all until the last minute? It’s not saved us money — in fact it’s cost us more in terms of Heitinga!!! And in terms of time and energy couldn’t we have put more elsewhere is we’d have sorted the potential deals pre-September?
I'm not sucicidal by any means, but I fully agree that the "Everton Way" is fucking us up badly.
14 Posted 02/09/2009 at 00:51:24
Cover for Valente? Are you unwell... get some help!! How can we take you seriously with comments like that... if we wanted cover for Valente then maybe the groundsman should let the grass grow longer down the left side... That would be more contribution then he made to our squad last year.
15 Posted 02/09/2009 at 01:21:53
Now that Lescott and Valente have gone who would you suggest as cover if Baines gets injured or loses form??
Maybe it’s not only me that needs help!!
16 Posted 02/09/2009 at 03:06:00
Yes its frustrating - we do not have the big backer we need to compete in the Champions League. The chances of us breaking in on our own are practically nil.
If this is "not good enough" for some of our supporters then so be it.
Over borrowing (which I think we are dangerously close to doing) is the worst course of action. There is no correlation between transfer money spent and success on the pitch. This is not a matter of opinion, independent studies confirm this. There is a correlation between wages and success. We need to keep our best players and renew their contracts by paying decent wages. We are doing this. However if you get a silly offer for a player you should take it. We have also done this (although perhaps not intentionally).
The squad is stronger in all departments than a year ago. Yes we lack some cover at left back but Neville can play left back (and has done so regularly for us, Man U and England) and the Irish boy Collins can also play in that position (but of course no first team experience yet - but this is 3rd level cover we will need to live with for now).
Net net we have filled in two pieces of the jig saw for zero outlay on transfers (but big investment in wages). If the new signings perform as hoped we will be a much stronger side.
Now what more can you reasonably expect? Yes it would be better if we had done this all in July, but this is not within Moyes or BK’s control. We are going for higher quality players and this takes more patience than buying make weights. Quality not quantity is what matters. Although are squad is small it is flexible and it also helps the band of brother mentality. It also gives chances to youth at times. This is all positive stuff.
17 Posted 02/09/2009 at 03:15:10
I do agree with you that Tuncay and Krancjar look like bargains. However we have sufficient forwards so maybe there was no real need for Tuncay . He can play wide right but this is not really his best position (I think we have heard that before).
Krancjar is a different matter. He would give some cover for Arteta in the middle and is probably a better option than Osman on the right.
But we don’t really know the story. Maybe the price was too high earlier in the window or we were hoping for other signings that did not come off. Perhaps we could have bidded up the price as he obviously preferred Spurs because of the Croatian/Harry link. However we will surely survivie without him.
18 Posted 02/09/2009 at 05:07:48
Chelsea have reigned in their spending as opposed to all previous seasons under Abramovich.
Liverpool have severe money problems. They sold Alonso on the back of a excellent season. I am convinced that if they had signed Barry last year and sold Alonso then, that they would have got half of the £32M Real have paid. Johnson was bought for £7M with the remainder of Crouch debt wiped clean and Aquiliani was £17M.
There is a trend starting to come into the world of football (Man City and Real Madrid exempt) that all clubs are having to tighten the purse strings. I do believe that it is time for a change at board level as Kenwright has obviously taken as far as he can. He has his critics but with him at the helm we have become a team that is respected for the way a club is run.
The time has eventually come that clubs are being told "No more money. In fact, we want some of the hundreds of millions of pounds we have lent you back. NOW" As I said a couple of weeks ago all clubs now have to be run in debt. But it is the level of debt that is important now. We are still in a position to service our debt but other clubs will not be.
Some posts on here are asking why we did not follow up our enquiries for TuncAy and make a move for Kranjcar earlier? I make the statement that neither of these players would be a step in right direction whilst still costing us another £7-8M in fees not including wages.
I am happy with the purchases this close season (although I would have liked them for pre-season if there was one, but defo for the Arsenal game). Not saying the outcome of the game would have been different but players should be bought for the start of the season.
(On a side note. Why does Fifa not say window closes on August 1st or that no league starts before 1st September?) I feel as though I am starting to ramble so......... I believe that "The Everton Way" might be the way forward for many clubs in future. Might be nice to know that we could become trend setters!!!!
19 Posted 02/09/2009 at 06:39:52
There isn’t a glass ceiling that stops us jumping up but the sticky floor of no investment. Paper the floor with money and see how high we could go.
20 Posted 02/09/2009 at 07:48:38
The easy one is Villa. No-one could seriously prefer Collins and Dunne to Distin and Heitinga. And on Downing and Bily - well, we’ll see, but I’m glad we’ve got Bily. Delph may turn out to be an inspired purchase, but he’s young and probably not going to be as good as Rodwell this year.
Kirk is right. A new wind is blowing and there is a less money around apart from the crazies at Man City and Real Madrid. And Platini is on their case now, hopefully.
True, we got quality rather than quantity this time, and it may come back to bite us. We really need a strong defensive midfielder in my opinion. I guess that’s now going to be Rodwell. But clearly the policy now is to go for who we really want and, if we don’t get them, don’t buy makeweights instead. I think that makes sense.
By the way, would everyone stop worrying about LB! Distin has played there, and Neville has played there for his bloody country.
21 Posted 02/09/2009 at 08:32:44
I just cannot understand why some of our fans want to get us more and more in debt, when its clear there is no money to spend. They demand that chairman put their own money in, but should take nothing out. Apparently, this is called being ’ambitious’. However in the real world away from FM, it's called fucking ridiculous.
22 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:13:17
If that’s being unambitious, fine. I think it’s being relatively poor but able to attract much higher quality players than nearly all our competitors. (And pay their wages.)
23 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:23:47
We’ve not spent anywhere near £20mill, and perhaps you can tell me, which one of those players is a playmaker and which one is a right winger?
Right positions my arse! Soon we’ll have a team of ultility players... jack of all trades, masters of feckin none.
24 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:16:44
In my opinion we have been far more negitive in the last 2 weeks than we ever have, at least in the old days we only had one defensive midfielder in Carsley now we have two in Rodwell and Pip.
25 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:29:47
You are disagreeing with his tactics, fine. But we didn’t get an out and out right winger because Moyes didn’t want one.
I agree with you I would have liked a Banega/Defour playmaker. That’s I assume why we tried to get one.
26 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:36:28
And we have replaced!!! 4 players who played a total of 6 games between them... with a centre half who has missed 8 games in 3 seasons, last year's Dutch Player of the Year... and a Russian international who Andrei Kanchelskis says will be a huge player for Everton....
I really am at my wits end..
27 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:41:33
Please tell me where my facts are not straight?
"Liverpool- I said they have backing and CL money but large debts and sold most creative midfielder. Now that is pretty factual to me. I then referred to them not recruiting anyone new. Here I maybe should have stated that I meant someone in Alonso’s role. Aquilana may be that person, but by the time he is fit and accustomed to the Premier league, will Liverpool be in with a shot at the title?
Arsenal: I said they cannot compete with the big boys in transfers. What is not true about that? You mention 12 million for Vermaelen. For Christ sake, we spent 15 million on Fellaini! Does that make us the next Chelsea. When it comes to the money that United, Chelsea and to a certain extent Liverpool offer, Arsenal cannot compete. They are a great footballing side and have started well, but do you think they will be winning the league come May 2010?? And like I said, with Adebayor already lured by wages that Arsenal cannot compete with, and Fabregas looking to Spain, their (top) players will become resteless the longer they miss out on league titles
Stoke: I said that they Struggle to get any real quality in and meet wages and are an unfashionable club. You come Back with “Huth,Tuncay,Whitehead,Arismendi!!” Well blow me, why did we not go for that donkey Huth or the mighty Dean Whitehead! And the effervescent Tuncay who was part of a relegated team! Jay, at a push, Tuncay may have been a descent squad player, but for 6 million???!!!
Aston Villa- I said they had “sound backing and spent a fair bit, but is Downng, Collins and Dunne any better than our three signings?" you then went on to list the other players they bought, including the ones I already mentioned as some sort of point about a large squad. Please tell me, Delph aside maybe (although he has only played Division 1 football) who would you buy out of that crock you mentioned beyond the three players I did.
Fulham- I said they have problems with injured players-fact. I said their owner is no longer willing to back them SIGNIFICANTLY, but does not want to sell. Tell me where that is untrue? And they cannot afford the new ground that they hoped to build. Again, Jay, I’m trying to find the lie here?? You mention Duff, Greening, Elm, Dikgacoi and Kelly. I say washed up, mediocre, wrong Elm, who? and would you want him?
You then say, “I could go on but if you’re happy with the lateness and substance of our transfer dealings you must be really easily pleased.”
Well like I said in my initial post Jay “We all know we want someone different than Kenwright, we all know we would like top signings at the BEGINNING of the transfer window”.
Get a grip on reality Jay. Go have a cup of tea, maybe book a table for a meal with your missus, and get some perspective on reality before talking continuing to talk tosh.
28 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:45:32
29 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:46:12
Can you imagine these two fat mercenaries on a wet Tuesday night in Hull? These players are inexpensive for a reason, I’ll give you that. Their respective clubs want rid to raise capital, but they aren’t that great and I doubt they would even bust a gut to compensate!"
Kevin, that’s utter tripe.
Tuncay is well know for his committed displays and Krancjar would improve most teams in the Premier League — and he plays the central playmaker role we were screaming out for!
30 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:42:22
And under that wonderful owner Mr Lerner too. Wish we had him, then we too might get players like Richard Dunne and Stephen Warnock. Toffeeweb mailbag would have positively gone up in flames if we’d bought those two!
Lighten up Jay. Get some context and perspective. We don’t have the money of Man City or Spurs, but things are really not that bad.
31 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:50:29
32 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:52:26
That’s Walter Mitty territory.
And by the way...going by early viewings of Delph...Villa have improved on the sluggish and one-dimensional Barry.
33 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:52:09
34 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:56:00
35 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:54:27
36 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:57:52
You're wrong, Neil, he does, but he still insists on apllying his square peg round hole mentality to the role
That's why: Radzinsky, Johnson, Arteta, Pienaar, Osman, Anichebe, Beatty, Jo and even the Yak have all been ask to play out there. Moyes lines up 4-5-1 99.9% of the time, are you really suggesting he does that without wide men???
37 Posted 02/09/2009 at 09:56:44
As others have mentioned ,youth may get a chance;but quite possibly,these were the areas Moyes may have been looking at with his "4 or 5 more players," comment. But to be fair,I’m not too worried. I think we’ll be fine..
Oh and Ciaran... Tuncay — 7 goals last season. Kranjcar — 9 goals in 80 appearances for Pompey. That my friend, is tripe... (Again... Too easy.)
38 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:02:38
Moyes made several enquiries over Krancjar including yesterday morning.
Spurs got a real steal with him.
39 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:04:41
40 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:07:16
Yes, that’s what known as guesswork.
The fact that he commonly employs attacking midfielders in traditional wing positions would go someway to dismissing if not completely contradicting your reading of Moyes mind.
41 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:04:26
Sorry to forgot to say, you are pissing into the wind mate, your points are absolutely spot on. But while we have so many people not only prepared to accept the lies, but who will do their level best to justify them, you will never ever get the honesty you crave from the Everton board.
42 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:11:03
Enlighten me, what's the difference between a wide midfielder and a winger — apart from terminology?
43 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:15:16
Number of goals is the only definitive indicator of a good midfielder ..eh Kevin!
Try watching them.
44 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:12:48
Moyes values a ’high pressing game’, in which all players are required to tackle back, to come inside to cover etc. etc.. That’s also of course why he generally prefers 4-5-1: two out and out attackers are too much of a luxury for our Davey. At times he (in my opnion) takes this to ridiculous extremes and plays TWO holding midfielders (those sorry days of Carsley and Neville).
Watching Villa the other night I saw Ashley Young hugging the flank and doing a pretty non-existent job of covering back or inside. Just not how Moyes plays!
As I say, totally fair to criticize Moyes’s defence first tactics. But a bit hard blaming him for not buying players he doesn’t want. VdM was an obvious mistake for Moyes because he did not do the defensive bit. This also explains of course why he has persisted with Osman.
45 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:21:55
46 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:27:54
Stop making a distinction that doesn’t exist. A false dichotomy will not convince anyone with a bit of footballing nous.
Moyes buys utility players — that doesn’t mean he doesn’t play them in a certain position... we play wingers, wide players, line huggers — call them whatever you want... in a 4-5-1. That’s a fact.
47 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:20:42
Don’t people understand that this lack of ambition (and limited commerical nouse) means that our best players realise to play with genuine top players and earn top money, they have to go elsewhere?
Forget comparing this summer’s spending to United. Compare our spending to theirs over the last 3 years, we dont even hit 20% of their net spend. Likewise Liverpool, City, Chelsea, Spurs, Villa, Newcastle etc etc...
Ask yourselves why we have no money, is because: crap ground? no new investment? limited marketing and PR operations? — who is responsible for overseeing all this?
Who was supposed to find us a new home 9 years ago when it first became obvious that GP wasnt big/modern enough to take us forward?
Who had had 9 years to attract major investors (like every other PL club has had)?
Who lied to its fans about DK — about its capacity, quality and cost?
Who cancelled the AGMs (for the first time ever in the club’s history)?
Who promised they are looking for investment but in the planning permision for Kirkby stated had no intention of selling?
Who has failed to deliver adaquate funds to its manager for the n-th consecutive summer — despite high finishes and European football being achieved on the pitch?
48 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:30:13
Now this may be semantics - those who use the term winger may be referreing to the wide player in a 4-5-1 - so be it.
However we needed two new wide players and got one. That is one more than nothing. And one less than two. My glass is half full. For Jay, Ciaran and others it is totally empty. Come on guys - its no more than half empty.
49 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:36:58
Differences between wingers and wide midfielders are many and various, some of which you have already read but ignored. I would say the two crucial ones are these though:
1) Wingers play wider, hugging the touchline and stretching the opposition defence out, thus creating gaps inside. Wide midfielders play narrower and are expected to help the central midfielders out more.
2) The qualities expected of the two players are different. Wingers are expected to be pacy, run with the ball, attacking their full back and beating a man or two, think Nevin, or early Giggs (or Beagrie). Wide midfielders are better passers and crossers of the ball, think Sheedy or Beckham, and could comfortably play in the centre of the park if need be.
What is ’false’ about this DISTINCTION is that any given player doesn’t necessarily fit into one or the other categories in terms of qualities, and the formations or roles managers ask their players to play don’t necessarily match up with one or the other roles I’ve listed.
You should see them as two ends of a scale, rather than a one or the other choice.
50 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:48:33
Just admit it, they do the same job but Moyes employs central midfielders or strikers to do the job for us; you can't have it both ways, if you want to be happy with utility players — and you clearly are — then you have to recognise the positions they are being asked to play.
51 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:47:54
The Champions League money train explains why Liverpool, United, Arsenal and Chelsea are way ahead of the pack. Also important regarding commercial issues, sponsors etc.
I’m sorry, but Europa League and FA Cup Final doesn’t measure up in the slightest.
When or if we break into the Champions League, it will be a whole new ballground. But it’s also important we don’t break our necks getting there, like Leeds.
52 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:59:31
53 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:02:14
54 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:03:25
You ignored 99% of my post. So Spurs/ Villa/ Newcastle/Sunderland who all outspend us, achieve regular Champs League football do they?
Again ask yourself why this year Stoke’s net spend was greater than ours? Then read my post again and answer the questions I raised.
55 Posted 02/09/2009 at 10:56:16
So,having already factually pointed out their limitations in front of goal,lets see what they do offer:
Tuncay (club & country) 2007-08: 3 goal assists in 28 starts. 2008-09; 9 goal assists in 53 starts.
On to Krancjar (club & country) 2007-08: 6 goal assists in 38 starts. 2008-09: 5 goals assists in 38 starts
We already have players who weigh in which similar statistics-this wouldn’t be a step forward ! Arguing for argument’s sake,Ciaran, so stick to upsetting grandmothers in future, leaving the proper stuff to those who know what they’re talking about..
For example, yesterday's pearl: £6million spent on cover!!
(Iterum quoque facilis)
56 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:13:40
Perhaps, you should explain that one to Moyes.... because were he employs his ’wide players’ and what he expects them to do — is exactly the same as the winger you’ve just described.
Oh and I don’t think definitions are really necessary everytime you use a new word... You can assume that most on here probably know what it means.
57 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:25:05
As I said. Try watching them play football matches mate... Leave pointless stats to Garth Crooks.
Oh, and please don’t make yourself look stupid by declaring yourself more ’knowledgeable’... that’s not your call — and you’ve only just recovered from the last time.
58 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:20:32
It’s also about wages, and a wage structure. This makes it difficult to suddenly bring in a star player on high wages, because other players will want higher wages as a result. This makes it more complicated.
To really make a judgement or assessment on these issues, we need facts:
- how much has clubs in the PL spent this window, and the last three years?
- how much debt have the clubs got?
- how much income have they got?
- how much of the income goes to servicing the debt?
- how much of income is spent on wages (should be around 50 percent)
Anybody got a link to these kinds of facts?
59 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:37:13
(1) I didn’t say that, I said wide midfielders play narrower, and I stand by that. (Wingers are on the wing, wide MIDfielders are nearer the middle, so you can laugh at the language in a ridiculous way all you want, but even in your childish terms, it still makes sense).
(2) "The particular merits/skills of an individual has absolutely nothing to do with the role his manager asked him to perform"
What? Surely they have absolutely everything to do with the role managers ask their players to perform...
(3) What two things am I ’conflating’ into one?
And Ciaran, I’m afraid I won’t necessarily assume people know what words mean, as I’ve seen people slagged off on here before for using ’fancy’ words by the people that didn’t understand them.
60 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:49:49
And Dave is right. You are conflating a players natural position with the actual position they are instructed to play.
We play a 4-5-1 with wide player — who for all intents and purposes perform the role of a winger — whether that is their natural position or not.
61 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:55:42
"And Dave is right. You are conflating a players natural position with the actual position they are instructed to play."
No I’m not. Are you in the team talks? How do you know what they are instructed to do?
"We play a 4-5-2 with wide player — who for all intents and purposes perform the role of a winger — whether that is their natural position or not."
No we don’t. Our wide players are Osman and Pienaar, both of whom look to come inside, and neither of whom hug the touchline. As was mentioned above, the likes of Ashley Young, waiting out wide, play as wingers, Osman certainly doesn’t, and Pienaar only pulls that far wide from time to time if he sees it as necessary.
62 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:45:58
If a players particular skills had EVERYTHING to do with the role a manager has asked him to perform, No player would ever play out of position would we ?
Understand? confusing an individuals skills with the postion the manager asked him to play = conflation.
Trying to claim there is a difference between two players performing the same role by using different terminology is idiotic. do you think SAF says to giggs before a match "Right Giggsy your not playing wide midfield today your playing on the wing" Lol.
Stop trying to complicate a simple game, mate.
63 Posted 02/09/2009 at 12:03:59
No, I watch the games. Its obvious. To me anyway.
Osman comes inside because he’s crap and can’t keep his positioning... hence the Hibbert connundrum.
I didn’t get it wrong... distinguishing between wide players and wingers — in our case — is most certainly a false dichotomy.
64 Posted 02/09/2009 at 12:01:57
And historically and in the game today, a winger is not the same as a wide midfielder. Of course, today not many teams afford themselves whingers :)
65 Posted 02/09/2009 at 11:57:27
However I share the same frustrations as what seems like most Evertonians at the way this and last summer was handled. It is simply not good enough. This summer was identical to last summer. It has cost us points and yet nobody from the club can explain why lessons weren’t learned from last year.
The extra games of the Europa League will put a significant burden on our playing resources. What concerns me most is that our squad was threadbare come the end of last season, yet we are down on numbers again.
Nobody on any of the sites is saying that we should have spent a fortune, but surely some money was available to spend before Lescott went. Its not good enough that a club of our stature, for the past two seasons, has had to sell in order to do any business. I mean stoke can go out a spend £18 million. It begs the question what would be have done if AJ and Lescott weren’t sold or refused to go? Shambles doesn’t describe it.
66 Posted 02/09/2009 at 12:02:09
Stoke may have outspent us on a net basis this year - recently promoted clubs generally have a lot of spare cash. Why? because a lot of their players are still on Championship wages. When they get promoted their top line revenue goes up and as their cost base takes a bit of time to increase the initial impact is a dramatic increase in profits. Its the reverse of the Leeds Utd, Southampton, Leicester effect.
Within a couple of seasons the promoted teams increase their cost base as they buy new players and renew old contracts at Premier League rates. They then have no spare cash to spend on new players.
In any event there is no correlation between transfer spending and results. The correlation is between wages and results. As others have pointed out it is not a spending competition. The important thing is to spend wisely. Sometimes that means spending less or indeed nothing on a net basis. The powder will be kept dry for other uses - unless you think the board is milking the club - but there is no evidence of that. Where the money goes is in the audited accounts - more than half of it goes on wages.
For really detailed information on the comparative finances of football clubs there is a detailed report prepared by Deloittes every year. I would love to read it but it costs GBP350+ - anyone got a copy they could lend me????
67 Posted 02/09/2009 at 12:29:28
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here. When Moyes asks people to play out of position like this its because he doesn’t have endless players each with the particular nuance he wants for the particular opposition or situation. He seems happy with the way Osman interprets that position as he keeps picking him, AJ had the pace if not the close control to worry the opposition full back and I can’t remember when Beattie played wide, that was either desperate or an outright mistake.
"If a players particular skills had EVERYTHING to do with the role a manager has asked him to perform, No player would ever play out of position would we ?"
I don’t know if you’re doing this on purpose, but obviously players need to be adapted into different roles at different times, however my basic sentiment is correct though. This is why Yobo doesn’t
play left wing and Yakubu doesn’t play centre back.
"Understand ? confusing an individuals skills with the postion the manager asked him to play = conflation."
To be honest, no, not really. A player’s individual skills massively affect how they play the ’position’ the manager has asked him to play. I can’t be conflating these two things because they’re not even the same type of thing.
"Trying to claim there is a difference between two players performing the same role by using different terminology is idiotic. do you think SAF says to giggs before a match "Right Giggsy your not playing wide midfield today your playing on the wing" Lol."
That’s the point though, there is a difference, they’re not performing exactly the same role. You might write them down on a piece of paper in the same place, but what they actually do on the pitch isn’t necessarily the same. As for your ’LOL’ (are you a 13 year old girl?) about Giggs, well, actually, managers do exactly that. I’m sure they don’t say ’winger’ or ’wide midfielder’ but they will ask the player to do different things depending on whether they’re home or away, winning or losing, on top and dominating possession or under the cosh and so on.
68 Posted 02/09/2009 at 12:51:14
"You ignored 99% of my post. So Spurs/ Villa/ Newcastle/Sunderland who all outspend us, achieve regular Champs League football do they?"
No, they do not.
Spurs make profit, as they have a season ticket waiting list, and Season ticket prices can command more than double our average prices. They also have excellent corporate packages.
Villa average 4,000 each home game more than us in attendance, also with higher ticket prices due to less obstructed views. They also happen to have a billionaire chairman.
Newcastle average 13,000 more for each home game than us, also in a superior stadium with better corporate facilities.
Sunderland average home gates are 4,500 more than us, in a superior stadium without obstructed views. They also have good returns on corporate clients.
I hope this answers your question, about why other teams can spend more than us. Put simply, it is because they earn a lot more through tickets, and merchandising. An extra £3-4 million per year can service around £20-25 million worth more of debt.
Feel free to have a look at Everton’s accounts, which are published annually. Just like all other Premier League teams.
69 Posted 02/09/2009 at 13:02:50
Secondly, we haven’t bought a RW or creative midfielder, instead we bought a left sided attacking midfielder. Thus freeing up Pienaar to play on the right, not perfect but better than Ossie, or maybe keep Ossie on the right and Pienaar can play as a creative central midfielder, a role a lot of you have been wanting him to occupy. So we have filled one of the two positions, just in a subtler way than some people can appreciate.
70 Posted 02/09/2009 at 13:27:27
Good one Steve.
As for your Osman comment - You are of course right...I can just imagine it now....FA cup final dressing room..Moyes tells Osman that he doesn’t want him sticking to the wide role he’s been assigned in the 5 man midfield - he wants him to drift inside, clutter our midfield and leave Hibbert mercilessly exposed.
Certainly makes sense.
71 Posted 02/09/2009 at 13:23:37
Ask 50 spurs supporters whether Lennon plays wide midfield or on the wing and you’ll get a healthy split in their answers, but it wont change the way Lennon plays, its terminology a wide midfield player is a winger, an outside left/right, a flanker.
Lennon, Giggs, SWP, will still perform the same function whatever the new Malcolm Allisons want to call them
And since when did LOL become the exclusive right of the 13 year old girl ?
if you have another, more acceptable way you would like people to use when they are actually Lol then tell me, I’m more than happy to use it.
72 Posted 02/09/2009 at 13:42:26
At least you both understood the point I was trying to make.
The WAY we go about business is a shambles.
I am overall happy with the players we have brought in but there is nowhere near enogh of them to cover a season where we are supposed to be "GOING TO A HIGHER LEVEL" and we have Europe and the Afcon to deal with.
As Phil said if we hadnt sold Lescott,particularly for 24 million what the hell would we have done.
It is OK for people to come on and say we are in debt etc. but why lie and put bids in for Naughton and Delph and tell supporters "WE HAVE THE FUNDS AND WE ARE GOING TO BRING PLAYERS IN EARLY SO THEY GET A GOOD PRESEASON"
I know most supporters are relieved that we got 3 players for 1 but what about the departures of Lescott,VDM,Valente,Jacobsen and Castillo from a squad that nobody can deny struggled in the latter part of last season.
As I said EFC promise so much and then disappoint by not building on achievement and I know many Evertonians feel the same way irrespective of who we sign or dont sign.
73 Posted 02/09/2009 at 14:52:00
I wouldn’t like to talk to 50 Spurs supporters, let alone pay attention to what any of them say, but anyway you’re the one being hung up on terminology, I simply used it to make a distinction between two quite distinct roles within a football team.
At the start of a tight game, Harry Redknapp might tell Lennon to tuck inside, stay close to his central midfielder and not let the opposing full back go past him, also not to take risks with the ball and look to maintain possession. If Tottenham go behind, or are at home and want to press for the win, he might tell Lennon to pull right out wide and offer an outlet, not worry about the opposing full back going past as that’ll leave Lennon himself unmarked if the LB risks it, and to run at pace with the ball when he gets it, look to take a man on and get the ball in the box. This is the same player, in what you’re calling the same position/role, doing totally different things. Actually, Lennon is well suited to the second bit, whereas david Beckham or someone like Jermaine Jenas (or most central midfield players for that matter) are more suited to the first one. Managers often change their team selection based on this, SAF does it himself, playing Anderson ’on the left’ knowing full well he’ll stay tucked inside and help control the middle of the park but without giving much width or running at the opposition right back. Don’t call it ’winger’ and ’wide midfielder’ if you don’t want to, as that seems to be a problem for you, but don’t pretend the distinction doesn’t exist when it obviously does.
74 Posted 02/09/2009 at 15:02:37
75 Posted 02/09/2009 at 15:39:43
’Winger’ refers to the general position and role on the pitch..i.e working on the wing!
limiting your definition to one particular mode of play within that role is just plain daft.
76 Posted 02/09/2009 at 16:00:01
A good way of thinking about it is considering what secondary position the player would play in, for example, David Beckham suits a central midfield role, whereas Lennon doesn’t, but Lennon would be a useful striker, whereas Beckham wouldn’t.
Another example would be to invite you to consider the difference between a ’central midfielder’ and a ’playmaker’. Both would play in the middle and be expected to do certain similar things, but a playmaker (eg Xavi, Arteta, Carrick) would be receiving and giving short passes regularly, looking to ’make play’ and control the ball, whereas a different type of central midfielder (eg Gerrard, Nolan, Cahill,) would look to make forward runs and get on the end of things, not come short to take responsibility for setting them up. Someone like Frank Lampard would represent a middle point between these two, as at different times he looks to do different things, whereas a lot of players much prefer one or the other role.
I don’t really see where I’m being ’plain daft’ in recognising obvious differences between roles footballers are expected to play.
77 Posted 02/09/2009 at 16:09:48
In over seven years Moyes has probably brought in 30 plus players into our club. How many of these have been line hugging wingers? One. (AvdM.)
Why do you think this is? (Hint: it may have something to do with the tactics he plays and what he demands of wide players.)
The bigger issue is this. Why do you guys spend all your time having a pop at the club, and never ever have a positive word to say? It doesn’t look much like fun to me.
Before you ask, I have PLENTY of negative things to say, and have said many of them over and again here. We should definitely have got a new central midfielder. Moyes is frequently way too defensive for my tastes. Kenwright says stupid luvvie things and doesn’t have enough money. The commercial side of our business has been shite. Etc. etc..
But we also just bought three very good players in the transfer window who will improve our team. Why do you find that SO hard to admit?
78 Posted 02/09/2009 at 16:34:17
"In over seven years Moyes has probably brought in 30 plus players into our club. How many of these have been line hugging wingers? One. (AvdM.)
Why do you think this is? (Hint: it may have something to do with the tactics he plays and what he demands of wide players.)"
Wrong. It may have something to do with the indisputable fact that Moyes has a hard on for utility players!
The fact that you suggest I have nothing ’positive to say about everton’ simply lumps you in with the other children on here Neil...When you’ve got no sensible argument as a counter, then you’ll simply stoop to the ’you lot are just negative everton haters’. It’s petulant and banal bullshit. It also proves you haven’t actually read what I’ve posted - as I’ve already quite clearly stated that I’m happy with the players brought in - it’s the ones who haven’t been brought in that is the problem.
Tell me this...If David Moyes is ’disappointed’ - what exactly gives you the right to tell me, or anybody else that they should not be disappointed as well?
79 Posted 02/09/2009 at 16:46:32
Your arguments on this are frankly just ridiculous (e.g. Ferguson doesn’t tell Giggs to either ’hug the flank’ or ’play more inside’ - OF COURSE HE DOES!! That’s precisely what managers are paid for!!).
We could have a good debate about whether Moyes’ consistent tactics of playing narrower and defensive, without traditional wingers, is a good thing or not. I can see pros and cons. But this argument about why he doesn’t buy the type of player he has never ever bought - it’s just silly.
80 Posted 02/09/2009 at 16:56:57
Here’s a little advice -you can take it or leave it...just because someone agrees with you, doesn’t make you right.
Oh and by the way...calling my arguments ’ridiculous’ - then producing something which you have merely appropriated as ’my argument’ is another silly tactic. I never mentioned Ferguson or what he says to Giggs..My argument is this If you play a 5 man midfield and there are two wide players generally playing on the wings..then they are fucking wingers. End of discussion.
81 Posted 02/09/2009 at 17:05:04
Tell me this...If David Moyes is ’disappointed’ - what exactly gives you the right to tell me, or anybody else that they should not be disappointed as well?
Couldnt agree more but you will never persuade Neil.
Nice guy that he is he remains joint king of the apologists along with Doddy.
82 Posted 02/09/2009 at 17:12:00
It was loaded like an AK47.
83 Posted 02/09/2009 at 17:12:24
Jay - actually, I’m disappointed too. As I’ve said repeatedly, I think we needed the Banega type midfielder we didn’t get. But I think we are definitely stronger than last year, so I am pleased with that (I think Villa and notably Liverpool are weaker). And so I don’t use words like "farce" and "disgrace" and all the rest. I think we did okay given our known financial circumstances.
If not agreeing that a dreadful outrage has been committed is being an ’apologist’ - fine by me.
84 Posted 02/09/2009 at 17:30:05
And neither does not knowing the position Deco plays, and including your mistake in your argument..Deco plays in the hole. NEXT.
85 Posted 02/09/2009 at 17:52:45
Try the difference between Joe Cole and SWP if you it helps you get your head around it. Think they are the same type of wide player? Think a manager might just as well play one or the other? Think Moyes would just as likely buy SWP as Cole if they were the same price?
86 Posted 02/09/2009 at 18:30:24
"Knowledgeable," IS my call if I provide you with facts you overlook, and won’t consider; it certainly isn’t yours to make... Arteta’s the playmaker, Pienaar does it for Bfana Bfana, Bilyaletdinov craves that very same position, to say nothing of Cahill, Fellaini & Osman. You wanna overload that area with two more misfits? Too many cooks...
I’m steering clear of the conspicuously pleonastic tangent this thread has now gone down, but will remind you that your "knowledge" of Heitinga (£6M worth of: "cover"... Hilarious!) is well "wide" of the mark, and yes I am "recovering" from your refusal to repudiate my previous demolition of you.
You’re on a "wing" and a prayer, son. Although granted, you may have more expertise than me in "Antrim Hurling," which sounds fascinating... Take it easy, pest.
87 Posted 02/09/2009 at 18:32:34
The primary function of a winger is to hurt the opposition by delivering crosses from wide areas. Beckham, the guy you say didn’t play as a winger, did this on a regular basis. Lennon and Giggs, the guys you say ARE wingers, didn't/don't. You seem to be confusing the ability of a player to beat a man with his ability to play on the wing.
One of the finest wingers this country ever produced — Dave Thomas — wouldn't dream of even taking a man on if he could get his cross in without risking it.
And what has Gerrard or Mascherano got to do with the argument? Are you really suggesting two players of completely contrasting styles can play in the same position? Try Hibbert and Glen Johnson, both right-backs, or Big Dunc and Cottee, both strikers; your argument isn't just flawed, it's idiotic.
Mike, please don't fall into the trap of replying to what you think you read, try to stick to what was actually posted. I didn’t say the majority of Evertonian’s would prefer Yobo out wide to Ossie, I said a large section would and speaking as someone who travels around the country listening to the abuse Osman takes from our fans, I wasn’t offering an opinion, I was stating a fact.
88 Posted 02/09/2009 at 20:24:00
Hardly any clubs actually spent more than the transfer cash they got in.... if I were Villa I would be pissed off!!! Sold star player and leader for 12m to the richest team in the world.. and replaced with noone proven to take the mantle (and have a billionaire owner).... We sold our second best defender for 20m (net), who was really only worth 15m imo and have got potentially 3 first 11 starting players!!! Wow!!
Yes we need to see what Bily can do, but he has a sweet left foot, tricks and pace... Pienaar can do even better on the right.. so what is the big deal?!?
The other favourite argument being losing Castillo et al..... but lets then neglect to mention we bought in Peterlin, Mustafa.. that Rodwell is now 18 and maturing into a first team regular.... why bring up players that never playerd but neglect to mention new players that are on the fringes like they don’t count....
Groaners .. I’m afraid you are using only portions of the bigger picture to make your argument.... take into account all the facts.... it doesn’t work!
89 Posted 02/09/2009 at 20:56:11
please dont fall into the trap of replying to what you think you read, try to stick to what was actually posted." I ’laughed out loud’ at that Dave, as that’s what you and Ciaran have done all day throughout this argument.
"I didn’t say the Majority of Evertonian’s would prefer Yobo out wide to Ossie, I said a large section would"
I re-checked your post and your use of the word ’majority’ was actually just before this, however I still doubt that any significant number of Evertonians would prefer Yobo to play wide right of the midfield instead of Osman. And if they do, I would quite happily dismiss all of them and their opinion as obviously wrong.
"and speaking as someone who travels around the country listening to the abuse Osman takes from our fans, I wasn’t offering an opinion, I was stating a fact "
No, you weren’t. To claim that you’d have to define what you meant by ’large section’.
Neil won’t admit he’s wrong because he isn’t. He and I can both see a distinction that you and Ciaran obviously can’t. And as for "And what has Gerrard or Mascherano got to do with the argument ? are you really suggesting two players of completely contrasting styles can play in the same position ? try Hibbert and Glen johnson, both rightbacks or Big Dunc and Cottee, both strikers, your argument isnt just flawed, its idiotic" I don’t understand what exactly you’re trying to say here, or what is idiotic, but Neil’s example is a good one, in fact if you include Xavi Alonso from last year’s Liverpool midfield, you’ve got three examples of players in the same ’position’ who have totally different roles based on their natural abilities. I don’t understand why you don’t understand that. As for Big Dunc and Tony Cottee, one of the most commonly used distinctions is that between a ’centre forward’ and a ’striker’. Duncan was a ’centre forward’ while Cottee was a ’striker’. You can choose to ignore these things if you like, but don’t tell us the distinctions don’t exist, because they do.
"Here’s another piece of advice Neil...repeating your point until your blue in the face doesn’t make you right either..."
Take your own advice brother! And while you’re at it don’t get touchy about the word idiot when you’ve used ridiculous, daft and the like- take what you’re dishing out. Also, saying ’end of discussion’ is as ridiculous a thing to post at the end of a point as I can think of. Why don’t you just shout louder or write in all capitals?
Oh, hang on, you did when you wrote "NEXT"
90 Posted 02/09/2009 at 21:42:45
Doubtless the pest will resume hostilities at 9am...
91 Posted 03/09/2009 at 02:37:50
Uh oh looks like some are demanding some extra time....... Dave is going to bring on his winger, Joseph Yobo.
92 Posted 03/09/2009 at 07:48:17
So now a center forward is not a striker ?
You really dont understand the game do you Mike ?
stop subscribing to Shoot magazine mate, its confusing you. A wide player is a winger, a Center forward is a striker, a central defender is a center half and a keeper is still a Goalie call them what you want but it doesnt change their function.
No offence but I think I’ll stick to debating with people who actually understand the gamel
It was actually Mike who mentioned Yobo out wide first.
Many Evertonians would prefer the arse end of a pantomime horse to Ossie - you dont even have to leave this site to know that - so trust me they would have Yobo out there like a shot if it would get rid of Ossie.
Because Mike - and you -were unaware of the fact, dosnt make it any less of a fact
If we’re keeping scores mate your 1-0 down . . and your playing with yourself.
93 Posted 03/09/2009 at 08:12:53
94 Posted 03/09/2009 at 08:28:19
Lets call it a draw and move on!
95 Posted 03/09/2009 at 09:02:56
I didn’t say it was mine to make. I said it wasn’t yours to make.
96 Posted 03/09/2009 at 09:03:35
Yes, your complete contradiction of yourself over the Lescott saga was most enlightening. By the way — your need to slip in unecessary words is becoming quite embarassing.
’Conspicuously pleonastic tangent’
97 Posted 03/09/2009 at 09:06:28
I would’ve thought the difference between attacking an argument getting personal would’ve been obvious.
98 Posted 03/09/2009 at 09:09:51
Ah Kev, I’m disappointed.
Surely you could’ve put that entire sentence through a thesaurus.
It should be end of discussion whenever a fact is offered. Some people fail to accept facts.
But then again...some people are so arrogant they also declare themselves the winner......er.....then come back to argue some more..deja vu?
99 Posted 03/09/2009 at 09:12:35
A shrewd shrewd observation... in any language, show a bit of respect, please.
100 Posted 03/09/2009 at 09:52:07
101 Posted 03/09/2009 at 10:44:18
Wide midfielders & wingers ARE pleonastic concepts fellas, regardless of style. Have a good day!!
102 Posted 03/09/2009 at 10:51:48
103 Posted 03/09/2009 at 11:34:36
I’ll try to explain this one for you, although when I’ve done this for the other positions you’ve ignored it but never mind.
A ’centre forward’ tends to be a big strong physical presence, used as a ’target man’ and expected to win headers and hold up the ball in order to give his midfielders time to join the attack, think Duncan Ferguson or Mark Hughes. A striker tends to be smaller, quicker and looks to run round the back of the defence onto through balls, think Jermaine Defoe or Michael Owen. Again, players don’t necessarily fit precisely into these categories, they’re just archetypes that many football people find useful when discussing football players and their uses within a tactical set-up.
Do you honestly see my ability to make these distinctions as a failure to understand football? Because it seems like its you that isn’t understanding things at the moment.
Also, I mentioned Yobo out wide because you claimed that where managers ask players to play has nothing to do with their abilities, when it clearly does.
And Ciaran, no not really, the way you attack an argument is usually unnecessarily personal. To describe someone’s perfectly reasonable argument as ’ridiculous’ or ’plain daft’ has pretty strong implications about the person making the argument. Its not that a big a step from there for someone to actually say you’re an idiot. It just seems bizarre that of all the people on here you’re the one that gets precious about an innocuous little word like that.
104 Posted 03/09/2009 at 12:07:39
It’s strange that you can’t see the difference between calling a person an ’idiot’ and labelling an argument as ’ridiculous’...yet you can see the distinction between a winger and a wide player - where none exists.
105 Posted 03/09/2009 at 12:30:47
I also make a distinction between a winger and wide midfielder, which does exist, even if only in the minds of the people who think it exists. I’ll spare you the philosophy lesson, but that’s enough of an existence for anything I’m afraid, including the terms themselves. What we’d need to do is find out how many people accept and understand the distinction, I already know there’s at least three on this thread, and my experience of watching football and listening to people talk about it for 20-odd years leads me to accept that there are plenty of people out there who accept and understand it. If you don’t want to use it or recognise then don’t, but you simply cannot, logically, tell anyone that it doesn’t exist. Its a subjective construct used as a tool of communication between people who understand it. That IS an existence.
(Phew, nearly slipped into a philosophy lesson there...)
Anyway, I’m off to bang my head against a brick wall to see how it reacts.
106 Posted 03/09/2009 at 12:41:49
I’ve been involved in the game for nearly 50 years as a player, manager and fan and trust me there are no circumstances where a manager would say to a player "I’m switching you from center forward to striker today". I’m actually pissing myself at the thought of a strikers face. Imagine saying that to Andy Cole ?
I wonder what Pienaar would say if Moyes pulls him to one side and say "Listen Stevie, I’m moving you from playing wide left to to the left wing?"
Sorry mate I can no longer take your argument seriously. Good luck at the wall... Just pull your head back and head-butt it, nothing complicated.
107 Posted 03/09/2009 at 13:12:31
Not that big a step? How wonderfully abstract! Much like your regression to solipsism.
If could find you three people who think the world is flat - would you consider that a priori proof of the argument?
108 Posted 03/09/2009 at 13:14:47
I’m sure no-one does say that, whether a player plays the ’centre forward’ role or the ’striker’ role would usually depend on the abilities (and often in that case, body shape) they already have.
Let me ask you this; do you think a manager might ask a player in one game to offer a target, look to win headers and hold the ball up with his back to goal, and then on another day (say if he had a big bloke alongside him who was good at doing all that) say to him, don’t worry about competing for the first ball or offering a target, look to get in behind the defence and run onto through balls or read the flicks from the big man?
Or to Steven Pienaar (pretty sure I’ve already said this one actually...
There, copied and pasted from earlier in the thread:
"At the start of a tight game, Harry Redknapp might tell Lennon to tuck inside, stay close to his central midfielder and not let the opposing full back go past him, also not to take risks with the ball and look to maintain possession. If Tottenham go behind, or are at home and want to press for the win, he might tell Lennon to pull right out wide and offer an outlet, not worry about the opposing full back going past as that’ll leave Lennon himself unmarked if the LB risks it, and to run at pace with the ball when he gets it, look to take a man on and get the ball in the box. This is the same player, in what you’re calling the same position/role, doing totally different things"
Are you telling me managers don’t do that?
I reckon they do, and you might not like to use the words ’striker’ and ’centre forward’ or ’winger’ and ’wide midfielder’ to refer to these differences, but I, and many others, find them a convenient shorthand. As I’ve said a number of times, you may not like the fact that other people have specific terms to make these distinctions (although I can’t for the life of me think why you care) but people do, and when they talk about and analyse football matches, from time to time they see it as useful to make the distinction when making a point.
I don’t understand your problem with it, or why you’re so convinced I don’t understand football and can’t be taken seriously.
109 Posted 03/09/2009 at 13:34:48
If you read the argument from the top Mike - it’s simply one of terminology versus actuality...Not a discussion of differing talents, attributes or skills of players - it’s a discussion about the redundancy of such terminology whenever it comes to a manager telling a player which position he will be playing on the pitch.
Neil and your positions are simply pedantry. We play with wide players/wingers - whether the players employed in those positions are actually wingers or have the necessary skills that a winger requires or approach that role in a myriad of different ways - is irrelevant.
That’s the point being made...We play with wingers who’s natural position is not winger.
110 Posted 03/09/2009 at 13:27:31
Dont ever try football management, half the players heads would be wrecked befroe you finished your team talk . . .the other half would be in a coma
111 Posted 03/09/2009 at 13:40:31
Oh dear. The flatness of the world, or otherwise, is a totally different type of thing to the subjectively constructed concepts we’re talking about here. Have you missed that point on purpose because you like an argument so much? We can use empirical evidence to discover whether or not the world is flat, it is an a posteriori concept. Defining terms in football is something that is entirely created by us, the users of language. The meanings and ’existence’ of certain terms are a priori, and people’s uses of them and acceptance of those meanings IS a priori proof. You’ve got to admit, you either did that on purpose or you’re an idiot, which is it?
The difference between a ’striker’ and a ’centre forward’ or a ’winger’ and a ’wide midfielder’ is as real as the terms themselves. I might as well tell you there’s no such thing as a striker, that’s equivalent to the argument that you’re making. "You can’t say striker, he’s the guy-who-stands-nearest-to-the-opposition-goal-and-tries-to-score-goals." We agree to use ’striker’ as a shorthand for that, that’s what words are.
The only problem here seems to be that many of us agree to use a distinction that you and Dave don’t like and seem keen not to let us use. Again, I can’t for the life of me think why. Instead of ’wide midfielder’ you and Dave can say winger-who-stays-tucked-inside-and-is-more-suited-to-passing-than-dribbling-often-because-he-lacks-pace if you like. I reckon the rest of us will stick with ’wide midfielder’.
112 Posted 03/09/2009 at 13:57:59
The fact that you are facing a contrary argument negates your referal to the ’a priori’ argument.
113 Posted 03/09/2009 at 14:11:46
You are the Roy Cropper of Toffeeweb, but you have really made me smile today, you are tenacious, you make Neil Pierce look like a quitter - that’ll come back to haunt me
Go on, make my day, admit all your players are deaf
114 Posted 03/09/2009 at 14:04:37
Now to the other one: "Thesaurus," Ciaran?? I looked up "dichotomy" "pedantry" and "solipsism" and guess what I found?
"Hypocrisy" — Done you again! NEXT?
115 Posted 03/09/2009 at 14:28:36
You should apply for 2012....you could just jump up onto the podium and declare yourself the winner in every event.
I use words as required...I don’t squeeze as many into one sentence as I can...
116 Posted 03/09/2009 at 14:21:56
Sorry son I have no time for obnoxious little brats who have no contribution to make to the debate.
Run along now theres a good lad
117 Posted 03/09/2009 at 14:31:53
" I use words as required,"----If that were the case then,you would have referred to Mike as simply a "know-it-all," rather than calling him solipsistic.. Come now..."Yer can’t kid a kidda !!!! "
That dumbed-down enough ??
118 Posted 03/09/2009 at 14:49:45
Go back and find that "yer man," came after me in this thread. Not t’other way round ! Apologies if I touched a nerve there Dave,but know that you TOO also came after me with the equally unneccesary contribution: "wise old sage."
What did you expect--flowers and chocolates ?? You both need a serious half-time teamtalk. Do the honours,"Gaffer...."
119 Posted 03/09/2009 at 15:19:14
But every time you post he’s on like a shot.
an unhealthy fixation he has with you there fella . . .very unhealthy
120 Posted 03/09/2009 at 15:27:11
Ciaran, you’d have to have a point for me to miss it. I don’t see where I’m using numbers to be the ’correct one’. Actually, on that, for me an argument isn’t a competition, and there is no winner. I think that’s where at least two of you are going wrong.
I’ve said everything I could possibly say on this thread already, I’ve already had to repeat myself.
121 Posted 03/09/2009 at 15:42:30
Because I wasn’t accusing him of being a know-it-all...I was refering to the specific philosophical theory HE was using...
122 Posted 03/09/2009 at 15:43:50
123 Posted 03/09/2009 at 15:58:02
No more of this stupid personal point-scoring please. Everton topics ONLY!
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Fan Articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.