selling Henry would be the best move arsenal make, why have one of the best forwards in the game now when the rest of the squad arent up to par with your forward. What good is having a forward when he doenst get the opportunities score from your playmates. Besides Arsenal could use the cash to start replacing their defense and midfield who are aging.
Originally posted by Deano
no it isnt the best move.henry is brilliant and is important to arsenal. they still have plenty of cash without having to sell henry. all they really need is a defensive midfielder.
agreed. IMO selling Henry would be a major set back for Arsenal. There are not many players as good as him in the world.
He scored a shit deflection which wasn't credited to him, first of all.
Second, it's his first goal in how many months? About 19. Why are people acting like the man is Ronaldo now? He scored for Southampton because they continually tried to let him score, as Liverpool do. Henry scored 16 in his last 11 at Highbury. That's something to applaud.
Not Crouch ending a year plus long goal drought with a dodgy deflection and half-decent goal.
-AC
Can I asked from what evidence you deduced that because he has achieved one goal in over a year, on his own, that he will now go on a scoring streak?
Scoring after a long period of time puts confidence in the player. One example is Michael Owen, who had a really slow start at Real Madrid. It wasn't after his first goal scored in October 2004 that he started to put them in the back of the net (even though he was constantly a sub too!)
Second, it's his first goal in how many months? About 19. Why are people acting like the man is Ronaldo now? He scored for Southampton because they continually tried to let him score, as Liverpool do. Henry scored 16 in his last 11 at Highbury. That's something to applaud.Not Crouch ending a year plus long goal drought with a dodgy deflection and half-decent goal.
Crouch, we all know, is not Michael Owen or Henry. So he has a different role at Liverpool and England. I don't expect him to put in 16 in 11, but he will add value to the team and put in some themselves. See Argentina vs England how Crouch added value to the England team without scoring. He was such a distraction to the Argentinians that they forgot to mark Owen.
By the way, Crouch has not scored in 24 hours of football..That only makes it about 16 matches, not 19 months or a year
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Can I asked from what evidence you deduced that because he has achieved one goal in over a year, on his own, that he will now go on a scoring streak?-AC
strikers low on confidence rarely score goals. High on confidence = more likely to score goals. Now that he has scored, his confidence will be up and therefore there will be an higher probablilty that he will score more goals on a regular basis.
he has scored 24 goals in a prem season before. its not as if he cannot do it.
on a better (less shitty shitty crouch related) note... Spurs have, imo, made one of the signings of the season in Teemu Tainio, he plays MR, CM, AM and DM with equal quality (i've been to games where he's played them all), has an amazing shot with his right foot, and a decent left as well.
the best thing is though is the effort he puts in, possibly because of the competition for position at Spurs atm (Jenas, Carrick, Davids, Davis, Routledge, Lennon, Mendes, Brown, Reid) but he just seems to be everywhere on the pitch when you need him.
The game against sunderland this saturday he was without a doubt the best player on the pitch, he hit the bar with a head, put it just past the post with a shot and always seemed to be hustling the sunderland players - which is 1 of the parts of the game, imo, Spurs are lacking. - and making crucial tackles and passes.
and considering we got him on a free release from Auxerre (he's an international...) he's definately been my favourite new arrival at Tottenham - yes, even more so than Davids
Another Spurs fan? Excellent. I watched the Spurs game (Sunday morning over this side of the world) and agree with you on Tanio. He is just the player Spurs need in midfield to complement the playmakers like Jenas and Carrick. Tanio and Davids are the grafters and every team needs that in midfield. I love having Davids on our team, he plays like his life depends on it and is just the enforcer that our team has laked over the years. I've never had the chance to see Routledge play (other than on my Fifa 06 Spurs team), what's he like? All in all Spurs have one of our best teams in recent memory (and i've been a Spurs fan for 28yrs), add to that a smart manager with passion for his team and we are looking good right now.
Routledge is a pretty decent winger, good crossing ability and can take people on when he wants to - only let down is he rarely wants to... he likes to drift inside a bit too much (although tbh thinking about it, that's really what Spurs need since our Strikers aren't the best in the air)
Lennon is the better winger imo, tricky, young, energetic, hugs the line and only drifts in once he's beaten the full-back - pushing into the side of the box.
tbh though neither fit into my ideal current team now.
the way we're playing the 4 central midfielders, all switching their roles throughout the game, with Lee and Stalteri practically acting as wingbacks while Davids and Carrick or Tainio protect the defence.. is perfect to me.
we seem to have lost our defensive solidity somehow, probably fullbacks doing too much attacking and should settle back a little more... and our Strikers have definately lost their touch - especially Defoe... what the **** happened???.
Yeah our defense has fallen by the wayside recently. I like the pairing of Dawson and King though, King is always dependable and Dawson has been a nice surprise this season. Both Stalteri and Lee love to get forward which has its advantages and as is becoming apparent its disadvantages also.
Defoe sometimes frustrates me with his attitude. When he has service and gets the ball he is happy, but when he doesnt he losses interest in the game and doesnt go looking for work. Mido does his share of defending and i like the way he puts himself about up front. Even if he doesnt win the header he still makes sure the defender knows his around (like Ferguson in a way).
What i like most about this Spurs team is the way they work for each other and seem to really enjoy playing together, i dont know how much of that comes from winning but its still great to see as a fan.
Any idea when Routledge is back from injury?
Originally posted by cx218
Scoring after a long period of time puts confidence in the player. One example is Michael Owen, who had a really slow start at Real Madrid. It wasn't after his first goal scored in October 2004 that he started to put them in the back of the net (even though he was constantly a sub too!)
Might aswell count this as a reply to Deano (so if you wish to reply Deano, quote this).
My main aim in asking that question was to find out why Deano believes that a striker who more or less can't score from the penalty spot or in the box a lot of the time (his 5-7 months shy of 2 years goal drought proves this) will now go on a scoring streak because he's scored a goal.
His answer was as yours is, confidence. Which is BS. He might try harder, but I seriously don't see where all this scoring streak malarky comes from.
Originally posted by cx218
Crouch, we all know, is not Michael Owen or Henry. So he has a different role at Liverpool and England. I don't expect him to put in 16 in 11, but he will add value to the team and put in some themselves. See Argentina vs England how Crouch added value to the England team without scoring. He was such a distraction to the Argentinians that they forgot to mark Owen.
I swear the blundering oaf actually knocked Owen down when he was going for the ball.
If all he's good as is a tall, lumbering distraction then why is everyone acting as if the man is a genuinely good player? If that's all he's for, any 6 foot 7 beanpole could do the job. The only way he scores is by 9 men playing the ball to him and continually giving him chances. Even then he didn't manage to score in eons.
Argentina outclassed England until they took off a few players, to deny this is foolish. VVD and I were discussing this the other day and he raised a good point. He said that when England lose to Northern Ireland, people treat them like they're the shittest. When they beat Argentina they act like the World Cup might as well be theirs. It's pathetic. Especially seeing as England got whooped playwise and were on the losing end until Argentina chilled out. Crouch has no part to play and if his only part is "distraction" then people need to stop going on as if the man is some top class striker.
Originally posted by cx218
By the way, Crouch has not scored in 24 hours of football..That only makes it about 16 matches, not 19 months or a year
I'm talking overall. The man hadn't scored in ages.
-AC
crouch is a lot more effective than a beanpole. he brings something different to the squad as stated earlier. he has scored 24 goals before in a season, he can do it again.
i woudnt say england got whooped. because they didnt. argentina are better at keeping the ball yes. but england did not get whooped. england created as many chances as argentina, perhaps even more. England piled on the pressure and they bottled it. simple as. riquelme went off, so what? he woudnt of stopped the goals flying in at his end anyway. dont forget england had 2 weak sidebacks. would argentina have scored the first goal if ashley cole would of been there? the answer is no. would samuel have scored the 2nd goal if the ref had not given a freekick?(which it wasnt anyway) the answer is no.
my point is, anyone can knit pick and say 'oh well that woudnt of happened if he would of stayed on the pitch'. its just pointless bringing it up.
Originally posted by Deano
crouch is a lot more effective than a beanpole. he brings something different to the squad as stated earlier. he has scored 24 goals before in a season, he can do it again.
You've not stated why. You've stated lame, speculatory reasons as to why you believe he might bring something.
Just because he's scored 24 before, doesn't mean he will. He got those goals because Southampton played to him. Where are they now?
Originally posted by Deano
i woudnt say england got whooped. because they didnt. argentina are better at keeping the ball yes. but england did not get whooped. england created as many chances as argentina, perhaps even more. England piled on the pressure and they bottled it. simple as. riquelme went off, so what? he woudnt of stopped the goals flying in at his end anyway. dont forget england had 2 weak sidebacks. would argentina have scored the first goal if ashley cole would of been there? the answer is no. would samuel have scored the 2nd goal if the ref had not given a freekick?(which it wasnt anyway) the answer is no.
my point is, anyone can knit pick and say 'oh well that woudnt of happened if he would of stayed on the pitch'. its just pointless bringing it up.
Bottled it? They took a lot of players off after they were winning and controlling the game then England scored lucky goals.
You can't be sure Ashley Cole would have stopped the goal, first of all.
It's not pointless bringing it up, I made a point.
-AC
You've not stated why. You've stated lame, speculatory reasons as to why you believe he might bring something.Just because he's scored 24 before, doesn't mean he will. He got those goals because Southampton played to him. Where are they now?
im not syaing he will. im saying if he has done it before, he can do it again. and of course he got the goals because southampton played the ball to him, how else are strikers like crouch and michael owen going to score? do you expect him to score from 50 yards or dribble the ball past people? i'll say it for the last time, he is NOT that sort of player. You gotta understand that.
Bottled it? They took a lot of players off after they were winning and controlling the game then England scored lucky goals.
how was they lucky? lol. not lucky at all. im amazed you have said that. its a team game, if they are just gonna rely on riquelme then they are in trouble. they have good enough players to see out the game. england would of scored, regardless of whether or not riquelme was on the pitch.
You can't be sure Ashley Cole would have stopped the goal, first of all.
no im positive, no arguments. bridge was about as fit and sharp as paul gascoigne is at the moment. if he was sharp and up to match speed, then the opposing player woudnt of gotten past him, let alone get past cole. just baffles me to as why sven played him.
It's not pointless bringing it up, I made a point.
it is pointless. you are saying england would not of scored if riquelme was on the pitch. which is ridiculous since they scored earlier on when he was playing, plus struck the post. but since you blame that for argentina's loss, i'll say this again. First argentina goal wouldnt of happened if cole was playing, 2nd goal wouldnt have happened if the ref gave the right decision. dont say i cant be sure of that when you are saying you are sure that england wouldnt of won if riquelme stayed on the pitch, you cannot be sure of that either.
argentina are a great team and they will most probably always keep the ball better than england. doesnt mean they are a better side, its what you do with the ball that counts. and england created as many chances as argentina did that day.