Kyle Walker

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sensanetional said:
Hmm lets see:

Bad: Nkoudou, Sissoko, Janssen, N'Jie, Fazio, Stambouli, Soldado, Paulinho, Capoue, Chiriches, Chadli, Lamela

Good: Dier, Eriksen, Dele Alli, Alderweireld, Son, Wanyama. I'm going by post-Bale era but you can add Vertonghen and Lloris as well I guess.

More shit players than good players.
Click to expand...

I think they've generally been good, with the exception of the season when they squandered the Bale money. If they'd spent that over 2-3 seasons they might have got better value but the pressure to spend it all at once (and also change the manager) got to them.
 
Sensanetional said:
Hmm lets see:

Bad: Nkoudou, Sissoko, Janssen, N'Jie, Fazio, Stambouli, Soldado, Paulinho, Capoue, Chiriches, Chadli, Lamela

Good: Dier, Eriksen, Dele Alli, Alderweireld, Son, Wanyama. I'm going by post-Bale era but you can add Vertonghen and Lloris as well I guess.

More shit players than good players.
Click to expand...

Lamela has been injured a lot but no way a bad signing. A fine player. We've recouped a lot of money anyway

Look at our back 5 which has been the best defence two years on the spin. 37m quid to assemble. Less than Mangala and 7m more than Luke Shaw
 
Crouchinho said:
Lamela has been injured a lot but no way a bad signing. A fine player. We've recouped a lot of money anyway

Look at our back 5 which has been the best defence two years on the spin. 37m quid to assemble. Less than Mangala and 7m more than Luke Shaw
Click to expand...

The season he got injured, Lamela looked to be a lot better player, than we'd seen before.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
I take it you've never encountered members of the construction profession!
Click to expand...

I just thought there would have been something in the contract to mitigate against a 100% cost increase.

If the bloke who fixed my gutter would have doubled his original price of £80 to £160 I'd have told him to get to fuck!
 
In the real world, £20M - which is a hell of a lot of money anyway - should be plenty but, this is modern football.

  • He signed a new contract on Sep the 23rd, 2016, which runs until 2021.
  • Most football pundits consistently rate him as one of the best right backs in England.
  • Formed part of the strongest defence for consecutive seasons.
  • Full international.
  • Reaching his 'footballers prime'.
  • Has footballers tattoos.

Who knows the final fee? £30M?, £40? £50? £60?

Football is becoming more and more out of touch with the real world if you ask me.
 
willipp said:
Maybe at our level yes, but I doubt many teams recruit to win things these days, more likely to stay in the prem or try and break into the top 4. There are only 3 teams I'd say who recruit to win the league and that's us, Chelsea and united. Spurs have never been in that bracket and I doubt ever will be.
Click to expand...
Yes they seem to have generally done well in the market lately but given the type of their buys viz a viz ours, it may not be very fair comparing us both. It's similar to comparing investing in stocks to investing in mutual funds. I know this is not the best analogy but I'm trying to pass the message if you get it. They seem to have done very well but at the end of the day it all comes down to trophies and they have fuck all to show. Someone would argue to say they don't have the resources to compete with the big guns but that was the case with Leicester when they won the EPL two seasons ago and I still remember Swansea winning a League Cup not long ago iirc. The thing about Spurs that is worth noting is that they are a 'nearly club' and seem to always bottle it whenever it counts for the most. That has nothing to do with hiw much hey have in their transfer kitty but a mentality imo. Yes I believe they have been prudent with what they've had and Levy has been excellent doing the business bit but until they begin to WIN then it counts for nothing. There is a reason why small teams don't go toe to toe with bigger teams but try to be all defensive as this is usually the best way to nullify their firepower and so whether we have an Mbappe upfront that costs £140m, at the end of the day it's 11 vs 11. This is why the epl is ultra competitive and bigger teams know they have to actually earn 3 points on a weekly basis as there are no free points. I know that success means different things to different people and by extension different clubs but if a Leicester can win the league in the modern era where we had the likes of City, Arsenal, United, Chelsea then the excuse that they don't have the resources will never sell for me. They make low risk buys and so the ones that don't work out are shelved aside as they cost next to nothing whilst the ones that are successful happen to the get the attention of all and sundry unlike our approach where we want to win the league every season and so have to make the high risk purchases and bear the attendant high fees and either bite the bullet if the transfers do not work out as plannd or the players themselves have to overcome the negative media representation always highlighting the high fees with which they got signed. Two different world's, ours and spurs'.
 
ojeme said:
Yes they seem to have generally done well in the market lately but given the type of their buys viz a viz ours, it may not be very fair comparing us both. It's similar to comparing investing in stocks to investing in mutual funds. I know this is not the best analogy but I'm trying to pass the message if you get it. They seem to have done very well but at the end of the day it all comes down to trophies and they have fuck all to show. Someone would argue to say they don't have the resources to compete with the big guns but that was the case with Leicester when they won the EPL two seasons ago and I still remember Swansea winning a League Cup not long ago iirc. The thing about Spurs that is worth noting is that they are a 'nearly club' and seem to always bottle it whenever it counts for the most. That has nothing to do with hiw much hey have in their transfer kitty but a mentality imo. Yes I believe they have been prudent with what they've had and Levy has been excellent doing the business bit but until they begin to WIN then it counts for nothing. There is a reason why small teams don't go toe to toe with bigger teams but try to be all defensive as this is usually the best way to nullify their firepower and so whether we have an Mbappe upfront that costs £140m, at the end of the day it's 11 vs 11. This is why the epl is ultra competitive and bigger teams know they have to actually earn 3 points on a weekly basis as there are no free points. I know that success means different things to different people and by extension different clubs but if a Leicester can win the league in the modern era where we had the likes of City, Arsenal, United, Chelsea then the excuse that they don't have the resources will never sell for me. They make low risk buys and so the ones that don't work out are shelved aside as they cost next to nothing whilst the ones that are successful happen to the get the attention of all and sundry unlike our approach where we want to win the league every season and so have to make the high risk purchases and bear the attendant high fees and either bite the bullet if the transfers do not work out as plannd or the players themselves have to overcome the negative media representation always highlighting the high fees with which they got signed. Two different world's, ours and spurs'.
Click to expand...

Wow. Too many letters. What's the gist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top