It's an annoying feature of football forums that many posters are eager to draw conclusions about a player or a transfer on a pretty small basis of evidence. How could one come to the conclusion that Grealish is not a good signing on the basis of 3 away games vs 3 of the strongest teams in the world, given that we dominated those teams at their ground and that he is a new player who needs time? One must be pretty clueless (about football) to arrive at such a conclusion.
It seems some would have questioned Grealish even if we had won any of those 3 games by 3 goals, provided that his personal stats weren't great.
Grealish is doing well for a new player in a radically new (for him) system. It will take time to gel with the other players, to understand their movements, to contribute more goals and assists. He will be particularly useful against low blocks and packed defences, where his ability to hold on the ball in crowded spaces and provide a creative spark is likely to be decisive. He's a great addition to our team and will help us keep a high level of performances, especially when we need to rotate more heavily.
Generally, a lot of posters on here are quick to write players off on the basis of clichés or lazy interpretations of stats. A common thread among the clueless comments and criticisms is the obsession with pace or daft comparisons with legends of the club. E.g., because Jesus is not clinical like Aguero, he must be average. Because Gundogan looks slow, he must be useless. Because Rodri seems to be immobile and doesn't tackle like Fernandinho, he isn't good enough, etc. etc. Not to mention harsh criticisms of Pep from fans who don't possess 1/100 of his tactical acumen and ability and who don't understand basic truths about football, e.g., that the opposition has always some chance to win (remember Wigan in 2018!), especially if it is on the level of Chelsea, United, Liverpool, PSG, etc. No tactics and no selection guarantees success in football. Yet a lot of criticisms after losses are based on the unshakeable conviction that had Pep done what they thought was necessary we'd have avoided the loss. As if chance doesn't play an important role in football and the latter is thoroughly predictable.
It seems some would have questioned Grealish even if we had won any of those 3 games by 3 goals, provided that his personal stats weren't great.
Grealish is doing well for a new player in a radically new (for him) system. It will take time to gel with the other players, to understand their movements, to contribute more goals and assists. He will be particularly useful against low blocks and packed defences, where his ability to hold on the ball in crowded spaces and provide a creative spark is likely to be decisive. He's a great addition to our team and will help us keep a high level of performances, especially when we need to rotate more heavily.
Generally, a lot of posters on here are quick to write players off on the basis of clichés or lazy interpretations of stats. A common thread among the clueless comments and criticisms is the obsession with pace or daft comparisons with legends of the club. E.g., because Jesus is not clinical like Aguero, he must be average. Because Gundogan looks slow, he must be useless. Because Rodri seems to be immobile and doesn't tackle like Fernandinho, he isn't good enough, etc. etc. Not to mention harsh criticisms of Pep from fans who don't possess 1/100 of his tactical acumen and ability and who don't understand basic truths about football, e.g., that the opposition has always some chance to win (remember Wigan in 2018!), especially if it is on the level of Chelsea, United, Liverpool, PSG, etc. No tactics and no selection guarantees success in football. Yet a lot of criticisms after losses are based on the unshakeable conviction that had Pep done what they thought was necessary we'd have avoided the loss. As if chance doesn't play an important role in football and the latter is thoroughly predictable.
Last edited: