The Manchester City Society II
Scroll to see replies
Original post by doggyfizzel
Quite frankly if you think defending is a fundamentally easy job, there is really no point having a discussion with you. How did you not win the WUM award. 
How did you not win the kop out award?
For starters, the better a team is the less defending they do generally. Playing full back for City or United is a damn sight easier than playing full back for QPR, Reading etc. Yes there's a degree of more being expected offensively, but realistically the trade off makes the job easier as you move up the league.
Yet to hear a retort to how the difference in value of the market for full backs and strikers reflects the difficulty of each role.
Original post by Mess.
Does it count as being a WUM when you believe it 
I'm sorry I believe that full backs an easy/unimportant job. Have you ever even played football? It's where the worst players are played for a reason.
Original post by Slick Fosbury
I'm sorry I believe that full backs an easy/unimportant job. Have you ever even played football? It's where the worst players are played for a reason.
Full back is piss easy at amateur level, that is why the **** players are put there. All they have to do is stand in a straight line with the centre halves and not daydream. If you cannot appreciate what a full back does at the top level then I despair for your understanding of football. In the modern game they are generally the players who have the most free time and space on the pitch. They have to play an attacking game, providing an outlet constantly but then they still have to get back and be in the right position defensively.
I am not saying that they should cost the same amount as a striker but you seem to have a fundamental lack of appreciation of what a top class full back brings.
Edit: Also, the 'have you ever played football' argument is moronic. The likes of Mourinho etc didn't play football to any sort of standard and yet they still have a deeper appreciation for tactics and football than most professional footballers.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Mess.
Full back is piss easy at amateur level, that is why the **** players are put there. All they have to do is stand in a straight line with the centre halves and not daydream. If you cannot appreciate what a full back does at the top level then I despair for your understanding of football. In the modern game they are generally the players who have the most free time and space on the pitch. They have to play an attacking game, providing an outlet constantly but then they still have to get back and be in the right position defensively.
I am not saying that they should cost the same amount as a striker but you seem to have a fundamental lack of appreciation of what a top class full back brings.
I am not saying that they should cost the same amount as a striker but you seem to have a fundamental lack of appreciation of what a top class full back brings.
The argument was actually about the relative difficulty, of course I don't believe being a full back for a side winning the title is easy. If it wasn't they wouldn't be paying tens of thousands of pounds a week to the full backs who do play.
But there is a reason for;
- The difference in transfer fees paid
- The difference in wages paid
- The fact full backs never win POTY awards while strikers do
- The fact centre backs and centre midfielders covering at full back is far more prevalent than the reverse
And that is because being a full back requires less talent than being a striker.
So far the only defence has been ad hom attacks and pedantic waffle as a last resort.
Original post by Mess.
Edit: Also, the 'have you ever played football' argument is moronic. The likes of Mourinho etc didn't play football to any sort of standard and yet they still have a deeper appreciation for tactics and football than most professional footballers.
It's not the same because Mourinho has obviously played football.
Original post by Slick Fosbury
The argument was actually about the relative difficulty, of course I don't believe being a full back for a side winning the title is easy. If it wasn't they wouldn't be paying tens of thousands of pounds a week to the full backs who do play.
But there is a reason for;
- The difference in transfer fees paid
- The difference in wages paid
- The fact full backs never win POTY awards while strikers do
- The fact centre backs and centre midfielders covering at full back is far more prevalent than the reverse
And that is because being a full back requires less talent than being a striker.
So far the only defence has been ad hom attacks and pedantic waffle as a last resort.
But there is a reason for;
- The difference in transfer fees paid
- The difference in wages paid
- The fact full backs never win POTY awards while strikers do
- The fact centre backs and centre midfielders covering at full back is far more prevalent than the reverse
And that is because being a full back requires less talent than being a striker.
So far the only defence has been ad hom attacks and pedantic waffle as a last resort.
Enjoy
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/19/twtc-the-advent-of-attacking-full-backs/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/mar/25/the-question-full-backs-football
Edit: And of course the person putting the ball into the net is going to have a higher profile, be commercially more profitable etc so they will command the highest transfer fees, in part, because of that. This stems from the majority of people watching football are willfully ignorant when it comes to tactics.
(edited 11 years ago)
City paid £17m for Kolarov didn't they?
Barcelona have also paid approximately £30m for Dani Alves which is around what top level strikers have gone for (Aguero £36m and Falcao £38m). He's not even that great a full back compared to some of those in years before. Lilian Thuram was bought by Juventus for €41m in 2001 which is quite comparable to the prices that were being paid for top strikers then (Ronaldo only went for €5m more a year later and he was WPOTY).
If there were full backs of that quality around now, I have no doubt clubs would be paying similar fees as top strikers to get their services. I don't know how much Paolo Maldini in his peak would be worth today (not that he'd ever leave Milan). Maldini's finished 3rd in the Ballon D'Or so clearly full backs are recognised for top awards. There just haven't been as many full backs as good as that though.
Barcelona have also paid approximately £30m for Dani Alves which is around what top level strikers have gone for (Aguero £36m and Falcao £38m). He's not even that great a full back compared to some of those in years before. Lilian Thuram was bought by Juventus for €41m in 2001 which is quite comparable to the prices that were being paid for top strikers then (Ronaldo only went for €5m more a year later and he was WPOTY).
If there were full backs of that quality around now, I have no doubt clubs would be paying similar fees as top strikers to get their services. I don't know how much Paolo Maldini in his peak would be worth today (not that he'd ever leave Milan). Maldini's finished 3rd in the Ballon D'Or so clearly full backs are recognised for top awards. There just haven't been as many full backs as good as that though.
Original post by Mess.
Enjoy
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/19/twtc-the-advent-of-attacking-full-backs/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/mar/25/the-question-full-backs-football
Edit: And of course the person putting the ball into the net is going to have a higher profile, be commercially more profitable etc so they will command the highest transfer fees, in part, because of that. This stems from the majority of people watching football are willfully ignorant when it comes to tactics.
http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/19/twtc-the-advent-of-attacking-full-backs/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/mar/25/the-question-full-backs-football
Edit: And of course the person putting the ball into the net is going to have a higher profile, be commercially more profitable etc so they will command the highest transfer fees, in part, because of that. This stems from the majority of people watching football are willfully ignorant when it comes to tactics.
We should do this more in future. If you just posted the article you were regurgitating I'd have an easier job discerning what the original author is actually saying. Middle men should be cut out where ever possible.
Note the first bloke's examples; Zambrotta a winger, Cole was a forward and Lauren a ball winning midfielder. Untold stories like that, very few with full backs going on to be top strikers. Really though he doesn't say much else and is doing his best impression of you in badly copying Mr. Wilson.
Wilson though is the worst kind of journalist. He churns out pretentious gruel for the guardian readers to gobble down and later regurgitate over a Lebanese import 'you really have to try' before they travel to the game dressed head to toe in official club merchandise.
The majority of the article is a very carefully selected history lesson the Ministry of Truth would be proud of. You'd think the only great footballers in the past 100 years had played at full back.
Ignoring that though he eventually gets down to some real meat. There is one fallacy at the heart of this though. You need to ask why full backs get so much time and space? Because their role is the least dangerous. Given that's the crux of his initial argument, I don't see how bringing up Kuyt, Park and Jair supports this. Surely their existence shows full backs don't always get the most time and space?
That contradiction is at the heart of the article.
The match thread for tomorrow's game is now up, guys, so please post match-discussion before and during the game in there. 
Original post by Laertes
He hasn't been anywhere near as consistent nor has he improved on his game in the same way Zabaleta and Clichy have in the last 6 months or so.
Yes and he also chronically under-achieved, spunked huge sums on players that weren't worth the transfer fees or wages paid for them (Wayne Bridge, RSQ, £23/4m for Lescott). He definitely did some good for City but the positives were more than out-weighed by the negatives and his term can only be looked at as a failure.
Yes and he also chronically under-achieved, spunked huge sums on players that weren't worth the transfer fees or wages paid for them (Wayne Bridge, RSQ, £23/4m for Lescott). He definitely did some good for City but the positives were more than out-weighed by the negatives and his term can only be looked at as a failure.
Yup. Just have to see his QPR term to know how he is with money, they should easily be a top 10 team and contending for top 4 next season. Should stay at teams with no money and stay that way as he's clearly good at teams with no money. Can't believe he wanted the chelsea job last season
Original post by Mess.
Full back is piss easy at amateur level, that is why the **** players are put there. All they have to do is stand in a straight line with the centre halves and not daydream. If you cannot appreciate what a full back does at the top level then I despair for your understanding of football. In the modern game they are generally the players who have the most free time and space on the pitch. They have to play an attacking game, providing an outlet constantly but then they still have to get back and be in the right position defensively.
I am not saying that they should cost the same amount as a striker but you seem to have a fundamental lack of appreciation of what a top class full back brings.
Edit: Also, the 'have you ever played football' argument is moronic. The likes of Mourinho etc didn't play football to any sort of standard and yet they still have a deeper appreciation for tactics and football than most professional footballers.
I am not saying that they should cost the same amount as a striker but you seem to have a fundamental lack of appreciation of what a top class full back brings.
Edit: Also, the 'have you ever played football' argument is moronic. The likes of Mourinho etc didn't play football to any sort of standard and yet they still have a deeper appreciation for tactics and football than most professional footballers.
He's full of crap tbh. Same way they used to put me in goal in matches because I was crap outfield and I'm the best player on the pitch in goal in almost every team I play for now.
When I play fullback, all I had to do was keep in line with the defence and keep it tight at the back. 4-4-2, rigid as ****. That's amateur football for you.
Full back at professional level is much harder. They need to be physical enough to recover when an attacker gets past them, but at the same too have good positioning,(how many times do you see cole and evra do off the line clearances?) then they have to know when to move forward, when to pressure the opposition and provide width.
Imagine if united had bad fullbacks, I doubt they'd get anywhere near as many goals. They're actually pretty important for them as evra/rafael provide another outlet to valencia/nani/young(so they won't get marked out the game) and the cohesion between the full backs and the wingers is just as important as carrick keeping the ball or van persie getting goals(if he gets no service he can't score)
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by doggyfizzel
I'd disagree with that, it just due to general perceptions. Goalkeepers generally sell for peanuts but a top goalkeeper can make or break you. We tend of overvalue strikers because they can win you games with memorable moments but defender win you games with numerous moments none of which are remembered, you only remember the mistakes.
I think in today's market getting hold of a top class striker is far far easier than finding a top class fullback. If you were in the market for a world class left back to sort you for a few seasons where would you look? Cole, Lahm, Evra all to old or no longer at the top. Clichy? Baines? Not really world class. Jordi Alba, good luck. A top fullback is something you never think about when you have it, but you notice every week when you don't.
I think in today's market getting hold of a top class striker is far far easier than finding a top class fullback. If you were in the market for a world class left back to sort you for a few seasons where would you look? Cole, Lahm, Evra all to old or no longer at the top. Clichy? Baines? Not really world class. Jordi Alba, good luck. A top fullback is something you never think about when you have it, but you notice every week when you don't.
Top class strikers, well you just have to find a guy in good goalscoring form and find out why. That's not to say they're not important. But do you think that chelsea would buy demba ba, or tottenham would buy a player like jermaine defoe, or united would buy hernandez. They're far from world class, but if you find out how to utilise them correctly, they'll win you games.
They don't notice the plethora of defenders (especially full backs as they're not usually the final block as that goes to centre backs/goalkeeper) who bust a gut to stop these strikers/forwards/wingers. They have to be the fittest players of the team too.
Original post by Slick Fosbury
It's not the same because Mourinho has obviously played football.
Andre villas boas then.
(edited 11 years ago)
You're all horrendous at debating. I've freely acknowledged that being a full back is an important job- that much is obvious. But so are binmen, yet its one of the easiest jobs around.
Yet to hear why full backs go for less, are paid less, can be covered by player specialising in other positions and so on.
No doubt I'll get another lecture on how important they are, disregarding that it's relative importance/difficulty I'm talking about.
Yet to hear why full backs go for less, are paid less, can be covered by player specialising in other positions and so on.
No doubt I'll get another lecture on how important they are, disregarding that it's relative importance/difficulty I'm talking about.
Midfielder Michael Johnson has been released from his £40,000-a-week contract by Manchester City, reports the Guardian.
The 24-year-old, once considered to be one of the brightest young players to emerge from the club's academy, last made an appearance for the club as a substitute in a Carling Cup tie against Scunthorpe in October 2009.
Not even sure how he got a 40k a week contract..
The 24-year-old, once considered to be one of the brightest young players to emerge from the club's academy, last made an appearance for the club as a substitute in a Carling Cup tie against Scunthorpe in October 2009.
Not even sure how he got a 40k a week contract..
Ridiculous that it wasn't done earlier considering all of the reports surrounding his off the field activities.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Original post by Slick Fosbury
You're all horrendous at debating. I've freely acknowledged that being a full back is an important job- that much is obvious. But so are binmen, yet its one of the easiest jobs around.
Yet to hear why full backs go for less, are paid less, can be covered by player specialising in other positions and so on.
No doubt I'll get another lecture on how important they are, disregarding that it's relative importance/difficulty I'm talking about.
Yet to hear why full backs go for less, are paid less, can be covered by player specialising in other positions and so on.
No doubt I'll get another lecture on how important they are, disregarding that it's relative importance/difficulty I'm talking about.
Fullbacks and centrebacks both go for around the same price tbfh - both sets of defenders are sold/bought for lower prices than midfield/strikers generally and get paid less too.
Err you might sometimes see a CB cover a fullback but what other position does? And usually those covering CBs will play a very defensive FB role.. you won't see a top CB covering a top FB position.. for example, you won't see Ferdinand trying to play Rafael/Evra role or Terry trying to do an Ashley Cole etc.
Tbh the importance/worth/ease will depend what club you are. If you are a lower league team/struggling in the league then FB role is less important/easier as you're being asked to defend as a unit but you're further away from the goal with more protection afforded.
If however you are a FB at a top club, then I'd argue it is harder to an extent due to having to have a focus on both attacking and defending - which is why top fullbacks lke Alves, Johnson, A.Cole, Lahm etc make big money moves and get paid high wages as for those clubs, they are seen as difficult jobs that few players can do well.
Original post by Zerforax
Midfielder Michael Johnson has been released from his £40,000-a-week contract by Manchester City, reports the Guardian.
The 24-year-old, once considered to be one of the brightest young players to emerge from the club's academy, last made an appearance for the club as a substitute in a Carling Cup tie against Scunthorpe in October 2009.
Not even sure how he got a 40k a week contract..
The 24-year-old, once considered to be one of the brightest young players to emerge from the club's academy, last made an appearance for the club as a substitute in a Carling Cup tie against Scunthorpe in October 2009.
Not even sure how he got a 40k a week contract..
Its ridiculous how he was able to get into such a state still under contract. Apparently he wasn't even obligated to train or even turn up. Surely failing to comply with these two would be grounds for misconduct? Its as if City forgot he was still on their books. I wonder if theres more to this then the guy liking a drink or two.
Such a waste of talent.
Original post by sr90
Its ridiculous how he was able to get into such a state still under contract. Apparently he wasn't even obligated to train or even turn up. Surely failing to comply with these two would be grounds for misconduct? Its as if City forgot he was still on their books. I wonder if theres more to this then the guy liking a drink or two.
Such a waste of talent.
Such a waste of talent.
Drug, gambling and severe injury problems seemed to create a perfect storm of wasted talent.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
That guy is a top draw idiot. I would do anything to have the opportunity he had.
Original post by word2yamother
That guy is a top draw idiot. I would do anything to have the opportunity he had.
I can't help but feel sorry for him, to be honest. He had terrible luck with injuries, and it sounds possible that that pushed him towards drinking/drugs and gambling.
Original post by Abiraleft
I can't help but feel sorry for him, to be honest. He had terrible luck with injuries, and it sounds possible that that pushed him towards drinking/drugs and gambling.
The injury (from memory) was terrible. Something relating to his groin and back that stopped him from ever being able to generate a significant amount of power when striking the ball.
He was brilliant when he first came through as well, linked with Liverpool and was very excited about the possible signing.
This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I don't know which 5 unis to pick out of these
- Undergrad Durham or Manchester
- Aerospace Engineering Foundation Degree
- Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Loughbourgh and Newcastle Unis
- LLB Law at UoM or QMUL
- Durham vs Manchester for LLB
- Manchester or York for Uni?
- Uni of manchester or Uni of Sheffield
- Which of these Unis!!
- Uni with sibling
- Manchester Metropolitan University or University of Liverpool?
- Manchester Metropolitan VS Nottingham Trent VS UON
- ucl or manchester
- Warwick vs Exeter Nightlife
- Lancaster or Aberdeen
- Official Computer Science Applicant Thread 2024 Entry
- Manchester vs Sheffield medicine
- Is Bradford an exciting place to live?
- Lancaster Uni or Manchester Metropolitan university
- What should my 5 options be?
