: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:07 pm  

JWP wrote:

I can't agree with you, they left themselves with one genuine option on the right in Joe Cole. Had Cole been fit, you could have had a case for Cole playing from the left, and SWP from the right. Malouda could & should have been sacrificed, the only thing against this I suppose is '2nd season syndrome' and there was a chance he may have done better this year, like Pires took a year to settle for instance, that didn't happen.

I'm not saying that SWP produced anywhere near his best for Chelsea, nor am I saying he's a 'great' player, but he's much better than Kalou or Malouda.

SWP is better than Malouda, who has shown absolutely nothing at all. Chelsea are better off without SWP and the sooner Malouda goes the better.

Kalou has shown more than either of them and he also has the benefit of being much younger as well. He's suffered from being associated with Malouda in some ways and he doesn't deserve that. I don't think he's going to be a great player, but he could be a good and vital squad player.

Chelsea's problem was not getting rid of SWP, it was not getting a replacement in. Obviously we wanted Robinho in and it looked like he was coming, but Citeh took him from our grasp. 5hit happens though, and I'm still glad that we got rid of SWP even without a replacement.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:13 pm  

Enfield Exile wrote:

or Nicky Butt, Danny Guthrie ( ), Joey Barton et al.

BTW where did I say Johnson was better? Please provide evidence

What have they got to do with anything?

Not sure why you felt the need to put a laughing emoticon next to Danny Guthrie's either.

You said Johnson was better than Anderson. I rate Carrick higher than Anderson but that's only my opinion. Either way, they're not too far apart so surely Johnson's better than Carrick as well as Anderson, in your eyes?

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:18 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

SWP is better than Malouda, who has shown absolutely nothing at all. Chelsea are better off without SWP and the sooner Malouda goes the better.

Kalou has shown more than either of them and he also has the benefit of being much younger as well. He's suffered from being associated with Malouda in some ways and he doesn't deserve that. I don't think he's going to be a great player, but he could be a good and vital squad player.

Chelsea's problem was not getting rid of SWP, it was not getting a replacement in. Obviously we wanted Robinho in and it looked like he was coming, but Citeh took him from our grasp. 5hit happens though, and I'm still glad that we got rid of SWP even without a replacement.

I just find that odd, that you'd think that. That you'd be happy that Chelsea had one less option, one less option who never let Chelsea down, he just didn't produce his best, though he may argue. with some justification that he was never given a run of games to produce his best

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 5:40 pm  

JWP wrote:

I just find that odd, that you'd think that. That you'd be happy that Chelsea had one less option, one less option who never let Chelsea down, he just didn't produce his best, though he may argue. with some justification that he was never given a run of games to produce his best

Watch the Chelsea-Wigan game from last year and tell me he didn't let Chelsea down. If he'd have converted the pi55 easy chances that were set up for him then we'd have won that game and the title could've been ours. Instead he screws his shots into the top tier, Wigan end up stealing a draw and the title is given to Man United.

That was the final straw for me. He was always the same at Chelsea. He looks an exciting prospect and can skin people for fun at times, but nearly every time his final ball is awful. He is simply not good enough for Chelsea and we're better off without him being there. And if Citeh get where they want to be, he won't be good enough for them soon either.

: Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:22 pm  

Enfield Exile wrote:

There's no user called "Some Bloke"

Red Issue got any scoops on our finances (taken from the Daily Mirror) recently? Or has the interest in our finances diminished somewhat?

They were right about Shinawatra not having a pot to urinate in.

Now we just remember the days when you you were the real manchester club, before you sold out to the corporate devil in the vain hope of winning the odd carling cup.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:35 am  

ash4hullfc wrote:

Not sure why you felt the need to put a laughing emoticon next to Danny Guthrie's either.

Because he's comically bad

You said Johnson was better than Anderson. I rate Carrick higher than Anderson but that's only my opinion. Either way, they're not too far apart so surely Johnson's better than Carrick as well as Anderson, in your eyes?

Interesting...errrr....logic. I enjoy debating with intelligent people, those who can have a bit of laugh, but you are humourless and not too bright.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:37 am  

Karlos13 wrote:

They were right about Shinawatra not having a pot to urinate in.

Indeed, he's poor. He has about £100m left. Remind me, what is United's bank balance?

Now we just remember the days when you you were the real manchester club, before you sold out to the corporate devil in the vain hope of winning the odd carling cup.

It's a step up from Cups for Cock-ups

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:09 am  

Enfield Exile wrote:

Because he's comically bad

You chose to put a laughing emoticon next to Guthrie's name, even though you mentioned Nicky Butt in the same sentence.

I also suggest you pay more attention to football, it may prevent you from coming up with ludacris statements.

Enfield Exile wrote:

Interesting...errrr....logic. I enjoy debating with intelligent people, those who can have a bit of laugh, but you are humourless and not too bright.

Yeah, okay then.

So, where do you rate Carrick in comparison to Anderson? You said the other day that Johnson was better than Anderson, making yourself look a fool in the process. You then laughed at Carrick's International credentials, yet I don't see any caps next to Johnson's name.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:51 am  

ash4hullfc wrote:

You chose to put a laughing emoticon next to Guthrie's name, even though you mentioned Nicky Butt in the same sentence.

At least Butt has a bit of a pedigree and ability.

I also suggest you pay more attention to football, it may prevent you from coming up with ludacris statements.

I haven't read any post from you that suggests you know anything about football apart from what Talksport tells you.

Do you honestly think your knowledge of City players is better than mine?

Where do you rate Carrick in comparison to Anderson? You said the other day that Johnson was better than Anderson, making yourself look a fool in the process.

Bit of an expert re Johnson, eh? How does he compare with Anderson in terms of the following:
* Heading ability
* Ability to score
* Pace
* Dribbling
* Passing
* Football intelligence
* Protecting the defence

What are Johnson's weaknesses on the field?

You then laughed at Carrick's International credentials, yet I don't see any caps next to Johnson's name.

I merely stated that Carrick should never play for England. He’s not international quality – which pretty much all of his international appearances have shown.

If international caps (U21 and senior) are the measure of quality, are you saying that Daniel Sturridge isn’t very good or not likely to be? Is Frazier Campbell better than Sturridge? After all, he has more caps.

International caps? Not many at U21 as he has been injured so often. Still, name a midfielder from this country who was as good as Johnson at 19.

Is a City supporter going to spend my time comparing the merits of two United players? Nope.

When I have talked about Johnson it has been in terms of potential and what he has briefly shown. The lad was 19 and was carrying our team in the first two months of Sven's reign. The lad is/was very, very talented. I think he is about 7 years younger than Carrick. Carrick was nowhere near the player Johnson was at the same age.

Carrick looks decent fotr United. Jeez, even some of your players would look mid-table Premiership quality if they played for United.

: Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:11 pm  

Enfield Exile wrote:

Bit of an expert re Johnson, eh? How does he compare with Anderson in terms of the following:
* Heading ability
* Ability to score
* Pace
* Dribbling
* Passing
* Football intelligence
* Protecting the defence

What are Johnson's weaknesses on the field?

Getting on the field would be a start.

Anderson is very good at passing, running with the ball, and protecting the defence. He's pacy as well. I'd say the only thing Johnson has that Anderson doesn't have is goals. Yet, Anderson can take European Cup final penalties.

Enfield Exile wrote:

I merely stated that Carrick should never play for England. He’s not international quality – which pretty much all of his international appearances have shown.

Perhaps his previous Spurs career makes you have an instant dislike to Carrick. He did fook all wrong against Spain. He has been one of, if not the most consistant and best English midfielder of the past year. He's by far the best holding midfielder the country has anyway.

He was criticised before joining United for not scoring goals, he's added goals at United. He was criticised for his price tag. He has more than proved his worth, been instrumental in two League titles and a European Cup victory.

Had Ronaldo not been so fantastic last season he would have been our PotY by far. Again this season, Vidic has shone above any other player, probably in the PL, but Carrick has yet again continued his fantastic form.

Enfield Exile wrote:

Carrick looks decent fotr United. Jeez, even some of your players would look mid-table Premiership quality if they played for United.

Don't talk $hite.