Alexis Sanchez

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dax777 said:
Not really. We had Komps, MDM, and Nastasic. We did not 'need' a CB any more than we did a game changer.

We lost Lescott a backup at CB and Negredo do a starter at striker. It was just a period of tunnel vision, that you couldn't get folks to see what was in front of their eyes.

The claim of being top heavy, couldn't have been further from the truth. It was no surprise we went strikerless for 6 weeks early in that season. Sanchez was the right choice then, we simply murked it up then.

FFP should havE caused us to ignore a want on defense for a want in attack. Because the attacker was a far better and more impact player.
.
Click to expand...

Nastasic.

Ok.
 
Cityisland said:
Disagree, but ok.

Nasty has been used sparingly and was not an established/ trusted starter from the previous campaign. MDM was getting on a bit at that point and offered depth to the squad.

I dont think that this, with Kompany , who hadnt managed 30 premier league starts the two seasons prior to that, was enough. I can see why another CB was prioritized.

I dont see how you can ignore defense. Scoring goals was not an issue the previous season - didnt we score 150 odd?

Defense had to be the priority especially with Lescott leaving.
Click to expand...
Again, we had both starting CB's returning, but we were losing one of the starting strike duo. Yes, Kompany was injury prone, but so were Aguero and Jovetic. This feels like dejavu.

Put it this way, both positions were losing something. Striker was losing a starter, CB a backup. Both positions had injury prone (or deemed injury prone as the case turned out for Sergio) stars. And our defense actually got much stronger towards the end of the season as our goals dried up. I pointed all these out in many arguments I had back then.

The interest and believe that Mangala was the better choice was a carryover from the previous January window needs, when we had been scoring for fun and seemed weak on defense. By seasons end, Demichelis play had jumped leaps and bounds and Garcia was playing better. Where we had actually dipped in performance was at scoring. Post Negredo injury.

Sanchez, outside of being world's better than Mangala, was actually a greater need by season's end. But because we went in for Mangala in January and failed, folks just believed we had to have him in the summer.

Again, I pointed it out then, that if everyone was healthy, Mangala was going to be a backup his 1st season (Even if he developed into world class) on the other hand, Sanchez was going to start immediately in our attack. How is a backup more needed than a starter?
 
Rolee said:
We couldn't do it because of the wage sanction
Click to expand...
Yes, we couldn't do both. We could do one or the other. I argued we should have done Sanchez over Mangala. He would be a starter and Mangala was not going to bench either Komp or Demi as starter. So we were spending heavily in a restricted year on the future, rather than consolidating our advantage by spending on the present.

Sanchez would have been spending on the 1st 11. Mangala was spending on the future. Burdened with a restriction that stopped you from doing both for a short period, common sense suggested we should have done the former and saved the latter for later.
 
Neville Kneville said:
Nastasic.

Ok.
Click to expand...
It makes no difference whether you or I rated Nastacic. Its simply that he represented exactly what Mangala was when we bought him. A young defensive prospect. Neither have amounted to much yet. We had veteran starters and a prospect as backup. We gave up one prospect to get another more expensive prospect as the backup rather than buying a world class starter we had tried to get 2 years before.

It was a mind boggling decision then and still is now. Even more so because almost everyone here agreed with it. And as we are about to pay 15 million more for an older version of that player 2 years later while the backup CB has been moved on, its funny many still believe it was the right decision.
 
Dax777 said:
Yes, we couldn't do both. We could do one or the other. I argued we should have done Sanchez over Mangala. He would be a starter and Mangala was not going to bench either Komp or Demi as starter. So we were spending heavily in a restricted year on the future, rather than consolidating our advantage by spending on the present.

Sanchez would have been spending on the 1st 11. Mangala was spending on the future. Burdened with a restriction that stopped you from doing both for a short period, common sense suggested we should have done the former and saved the latter for later.
Click to expand...

We scored 10 more goals than Chelsea & finished 8 points behind.

Mangala played the same number of games, as Kompany. Demichelis ended up playing 40 games that season. Had he got injured, as could easily have happened, God knows where we would have finished up.

Whether people like it or not, there comes a time when you have no choice but to at least try & fix the defence..
 
Dax777 said:
Yes, we couldn't do both. We could do one or the other. I argued we should have done Sanchez over Mangala. He would be a starter and Mangala was not going to bench either Komp or Demi as starter. So we were spending heavily in a restricted year on the future, rather than consolidating our advantage by spending on the present.

Sanchez would have been spending on the 1st 11. Mangala was spending on the future. Burdened with a restriction that stopped you from doing both for a short period, common sense suggested we should have done the former and saved the latter for later.
Click to expand...
.
I dunno Dax, I reckon we would've had to get rid of a high earner to make room for Sanchez ' wage at the time.
 
Dax777 said:
It makes no difference whether you or I rated Nastacic. Its simply that he represented exactly what Mangala was when we bought him. A young defensive prospect. Neither have amounted to much yet. We had veteran starters and a prospect as backup. We gave up one prospect to get another more expensive prospect as the backup rather than buying a world class starter we had tried to get 2 years before.

It was a mind boggling decision then and still is now. Even more so because almost everyone here agreed with it. And as we are about to pay 15 million more for an older version of that player 2 years later while the backup CB has been moved on, its funny many still believe it was the right decision.
Click to expand...
That's all with hindsight. Mangala didn't work out so of course on the surface it adds weight to your argument. At the time we looked pretty decent going forwards and we're looking increasingly dodgy at the back, it wasn't unreasonable for us to try to improve the centre of defence. Your gripe should be with the scouts etc who identified Mangala not the thinking behind which imbalance in the squad needed addressing most urgently.
Personally I would put buying a centre back ahead of signing Sanchez again this summer. Don't get me wrong, I'd be thrilled if we get Sanchez but definitely not at the expense of getting a decent defender. We already have title winning attacking options but we are one injury to kompany away from not winning the title. Buy Sanchez and we will still have title winning attacking options and still be one injury to kompany away from not winning it. Buy a decent centre back and it actually addresses a very obvious potential problem in the squad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.