John Stones

[KCblue]

I'd take Stones, but nowhere near what they are allegedly asking for him.

 

[Dax777]

Lescott made Kompany a better player when next to him & was part of, imo, the best cb pairing City have had since Watson & Doyle.

The rest of Komapny's partners since have just dragged him down a level & made him work harder.

None have been fit to lace Lescott's boots as defenders & probably don't even keep the ball significantly better in spite of all the criticism he received for that. On top of that he was a great personality who fought heart & soul for the team .

Imo that makes him a bargain, & one of the key signings of the era where we turned from serial losers to winners & we will be lucky to replace him with the next 100 mil we spend. As a defender we probably won't replace him. We'll just learn to accept much less because the passing is good

Again, this is mostly revisionist history.
1. We played a more defensive style for a good portion of that period.
2. Between fall 2010 and Fall 2012 Kompany was in fact the best individual defender in the world. This is before the injuries began to plague him constantly and he began to decline. That Lescott was his partner at the time was incidental, not causal.
Check Kompany for Belgium in that period and he was great. Check Lescott for England he was average.
3. We played with 2 DMs Barry and DeJong. Both well Schooled in helping protect defense to the detriment of our offense.
4. Kompany's littany of injuries began to pile up just as Lescott was being replaced. The Injury caused Kompany's and our defense' decline, not the loss of Lescott. This can easily be verified by the fact that anytime Kompany stayed healthy long enough to get into footballing shape, he returned again some excellent top class performances regardless of who his partner was.. Unfortunately, those became rear the more injuries he picked up.

Lescott was a ripoff. A stiff skill bereft bigman who was lucky to be purchased by a growing team that couldn't get top end talent at the time. He served us well. And I thankhim for it. But let's ease up on the false attributions.

I don't think we've purchased a weaker CB since Lescott.

 

[mosssideblue]

Haven't read most of this thread but is this forum speculation or is the club genuinely interested in him?

 

[Neville Kneville]

Again, this is mostly revisionist history.
1. We played a more defensive style for a good portion of that period.
2. Between fall 2010 and Fall 2012 Kompany was in fact the best individual defender in the world. This is before the injuries began to plague him constantly and he began to decline. That Lescott was his partner at the time was incidental, not causal.
Check Kompany for Belgium in that period and he was great. Check Lescott for England he was average.
3. We played with 2 DMs Barry and DeJong. Both well Schooled in helping protect defense to the detriment of our offense.
4. Kompany's littany of injuries began to pile up just as Lescott was being replaced. The Injury caused Kompany's and our defense' decline, not the loss of Lescott. This can easily be verified by the fact that anytime Kompany stayed healthy long enough to get into footballing shape, he returned again some excellent top class performances regardless of who his partner was.. Unfortunately, those became rear the more injuries he picked up.

Lescott was a ripoff. A stiff skill bereft bigman who was lucky to be purchased by a growing team that couldn't get top end talent at the time. He served us well. And I thankhim for it. But let's ease up on the false attributions.

I don't think we've purchased a weaker CB since Lescott.

It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to appreciate Lescott & assume it was all coincidence that their partnership was the best, state mitigating circumstances for that & for everyone else not being as good, but then rely on blindly quoting statistics to suit many of your other arguments.

 

[Dax777]

It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to appreciate Lescott & assume it was all coincidence that their partnership was the best, state mitigating circumstances for that & for everyone else not being as good, but then rely on blindly quoting statistics to suit many of your other arguments.

Nope. I use stats as a part of every argument. Including this. Just didn't want to bore you with it.

But since you asked, I'll oblige. :)

The fact that he was statistically our lowest rated defender supported my point. The fact he made the fewee # of tackles, and interceptions than any other defender bar the often injured Richards pointed to this too. The fact that Deyong and Barry also made more Tackles and interceptions also hints at our defense's strenght in midfield. The fact that he was making tackles at the same rate as David Silva also raised an eyebrow.

But I figured you didn't want to know all that. So I argued using metrics you liked. I.E. "partnerships". So I argued it can't be the case he made Komps better if Komps was good regardless of partner, and if he couldn't make his other partners look good.

Whether by stat, deductive reasoning, or simply watching: No metric supports your claim outside of "faulty memory revisionism."

There was no year Lescott was here bar 2009-10, that City didn't attempt to buy a CB to replace him. He was the weak link. The stats showed it, the coaches knew it, and management kept up the search for a deserving Kompany sidekick.

That Kompany' regressed and became injury prone had nothing to do with the weakness that was Lescott.

 

[aguero93:20]

He was the last hope for the rags but they couldn't push through the emergency transfer to Bournemouth in time.

 

[Hungarian blue]

It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to appreciate Lescott & assume it was all coincidence that their partnership was the best, state mitigating circumstances for that & for everyone else not being as good, but then rely on blindly quoting statistics to suit many of your other arguments.

It wasn't coincidence, but it was because of Mancini in a big part. Nastasic looked like a world beater in many games under Mancini, then become a complete joke.

Still, hopefully, our defenders will employ a sort of a similar playing style under Pep's guidance as it was in these last 3 seasons, and I have some hope that Otamendi will become an important feature in our starting eleven (especially if Kompany cannot sort himself out).

 

[g180aj]

John Stones is going to be top draw and it's going to take around £40 million for the deal to go through. For some reason I really think it will happen.

 

[RandomJ]

It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to appreciate Lescott & assume it was all coincidence that their partnership was the best, state mitigating circumstances for that & for everyone else not being as good, but then rely on blindly quoting statistics to suit many of your other arguments.

Seems to be a lot of revisionism going on here. Lescott was average but played at a time where we had Mancini and Kompany in his prime and had defensive cover from midfield (Barry and De Jong). Lescott couldn't control the ball, couldn't pass and his defensive work was hit and miss and was littered with mistakes, as we all remember that infamous header in the QPR game that nearly cost us the title. Plus since he left us he has been absolute gash and Villa fans fucking hate him.

 

[bluesince76]

Lescott made Kompany a better player when next to him & was part of, imo, the best cb pairing City have had since Watson & Doyle.

The rest of Komapny's partners since have just dragged him down a level & made him work harder.

None have been fit to lace Lescott's boots as defenders & probably don't even keep the ball significantly better in spite of all the criticism he received for that. On top of that he was a great personality who fought heart & soul for the team .

Imo that makes him a bargain, & one of the key signings of the era where we turned from serial losers to winners & we will be lucky to replace him with the next 100 mil we spend. As a defender we probably won't replace him. We'll just learn to accept much less because the passing is good

I agree that when they played together, they were a great pairing and Lescott was probably the better defender, although he never got the credit.

He clearly wasn't comfy with the ball at his feet - he looked like I do if I try and kick with my left foot but as a defender, we haven't come close to replacing him.

He definitely wasn't worth £24m at the time though which brings us back to Stones. Whilst I'm not a fan, he has a value but I don't see it as £40m+. Basic economics of opportunity cost should show what else we could buy with the money - I suspect you could get Van Dijk and Alderweireld for not much more than Stones would cost and there would be better bargains abroad