Robbie Keane

[rage]

how is that selective? you wanted babel brought on yet after the game you were saying, correctly imo, that he has not been at the races. Its irrelevant who you wanted him on for, you wanted a player not at the races on at half time. You can't have it all ways.

Why do this to yourself? Contradictory does not even begin to describe. I really really hope you are a WUM because I would hate to think there are really people around that can only see negativity.

its selective because i wanted babel on the pitch as a striker alongside keane not played on the left.

if you really think that its irrelevant who i wanted him on for (and therefore what position he plays in) then i'm sorry but i disagree with u.

[MrMichael]

Lets not have this thread descend into semantical tit-for-tat please lads.

i actually wouldn't have taken keane off. he was tiring as some observed, i watched the game on telly and agree u don't see enough off the ball stuff on there.

but because he was tiring and that we really didn't have any real proven or inform talent on the bench i would have put either babel or ngog or even kuyt to play upfront alongside keane to help him out.

i don't think we should have tried to keep the lad on the pitch and changed our formation to do so

Fair enough - although if he was as knackered as several people on here have said he really did have to come off. One of Rafa's prime philosophies is that a fit player is better than an unfit one, whoever those fit/unfit players may be, and however they are playing. Now that's a valid view, maybe not one all managers would share, but a valid view nonetheless I think.

Keane has been subbed in strange circumstances quite often, and I haven't agreed with all those decisions, mostly because he looked able and willing to continue, but in this case, if he was that knackered, I don't think a major point needs to be made out of it. And really, it is quite unlikely that the decision to bring him off seriously affected our chances of winning the game.

Were it not for a few dodgy draws recently, we would be looking at today's result as an undeniably decent one. I'm happy with 7 points out of 9 against our main rivals so far (with 2 of those 3 games having been away from home). With hindsight its easy to point to certain things as being wrong, but one could also easily say that had El Zhar finished the chance he had, then it would have been an inspired decision.

[nbryan1764]

its selective because i wanted babel on the pitch as a striker alongside keane not played on the left.

if you really think that its irrelevant who i wanted him on for (and therefore what position he plays in) then i'm sorry but i disagree with u.

I think you are missing my point. You wanted a player on the pitch that is not cutting it and expecting it to change the game in our favour? So at ht we take Lucas off (who wasn't our worst player by a long shot today) and bring Babel in to play upfront. Again, he doesn't perform, then what? Is it still a good decision?

[rage]

No, if we'd gone with your option and lost, you'd be bitching about it.

no like i said early numerous times it would have shown that we went for it as i felt they were there for the taking.

it doesn't matter that you disagree with the option i present but it was viable craig. you're just finding it hard to accept hence you're potential future failure scenario and the mythical eto'o on the bench

[Craig_H]

no like i said early numerous times it would have shown that we went for it as i felt they were there for the taking.

it doesn't matter that you disagree with the option i present but it was viable craig. you're just finding it hard to accept hence you're potential future failure scenario and the mythical eto'o on the bench

future failure scenario? What the bobbins are you on about?

If we'd taken off Lucas and brought on Babel upfront, and then lost, you'd be having a go at that decision.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the option, i'm just saying that you whinge that we didnt do, whilst you'd also be whinging if we'd done it and lost. Because, quite simply, you just want to complain at something, regardless.

[nbryan1764]

no like i said early numerous times it would have shown that we went for it as i felt they were there for the taking.

it doesn't matter that you disagree with the option i present but it was viable craig. you're just finding it hard to accept hence you're potential future failure scenario and the mythical eto'o on the bench

any option that you present could be calle viable. Its also theoretical, you cannot prove it is right and nobody els can prove it is wrong.

[rage]

I think you are missing my point. You wanted a player on the pitch that is not cutting it and expecting it to change the game in our favour? So at ht we take Lucas off (who wasn't our worst player by a long shot today) and bring Babel in to play upfront. Again, he doesn't perform, then what? Is it still a good decision?

i'd rather have had babel as a striker than on the left today.

and i think that whilst lucas did improve in the second half, he was poor. when they lost their captain and had a player sent off even if lucas had been playing well i would have liked us to play with 2 strikers and gone for it.

[Leyton388]

Took his goal well today which will give him a lot of confidence nd he always performs better in the second half of the season.

[the rev leeroy brown]

I think you are missing my point. You wanted a player on the pitch that is not cutting it and expecting it to change the game in our favour? So at ht we take Lucas off (who wasn't our worst player by a long shot today) and bring Babel in to play upfront. Again, he doesn't perform, then what? Is it still a good decision?

sorry to butt into a daft arguement here but 2 points need to be made.

1. babel quite honestly isn't cutting it as super sub this season but he still has the skill, power, pace to quite easily turn a game on it's head. he could have changed the game had he come on earlier. which leads me onto.....

2. luca was the worst player for us today ( not by a long shot ) but he still the worst. he's too slow and his passes were negative. he looked scared to be in possession today.

[rage]

future failure scenario? What the bobbins are you on about?

If we'd taken off Lucas and brought on Babel upfront, and then lost, you'd be having a go at that decision.

what you just describe is a scenario.

i would have been pleased if we'd gone for it, we didn't

[Craig_H]

sorry to butt into a daft arguement here but 2 points need to be made.

1. babel quite honestly isn't cutting it as super sub this season but he still has the skill, power, pace to quite easily turn a game on it's head. he could have changed the game had he come on earlier. which leads me onto.....

2. luca was the worst player for us today ( not by a long shot ) but he still the worst. he's too slow and his passes were negative. he looked scared to be in possession today.

No he wasnt.

[MrMichael]

[the rev leeroy brown]

future failure scenario? What the bobbins are you on about?

If we'd taken off Lucas and brought on Babel upfront, and then lost, you'd be having a go at that decision.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the option, i'm just saying that you whinge that we didnt do, whilst you'd also be whinging if we'd done it and lost. Because, quite simply, you just want to complain at something, regardless.

so would everyone else on this site.

[nbryan1764]

i'd rather have had babel as a striker than on the left today.

and i think that whilst lucas did improve in the second half, he was poor. when they lost their captain and had a player sent off even if lucas had been playing well i would have liked us to play with 2 strikers and gone for it.

and as I have said nobody can say you are wrong in wanting theat, and likewise you cannot say it would have worked. I think Lucas had a decent game today. He seems to suffer by repuation so whatever he does people think he is **** anyway. A long way from our worst player today.

[the rev leeroy brown]

No he wasnt.

who was then?