Dear Guest
Thank you for visiting! est189 will soon be closing its doors (do forums have doors?) please visit the following thread - (to wail & cry perhaps?)
https://www.est1892.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=4002484#post4002484
Thanjk you.
Paul.S
Got to agree some name being bounced around are pretty average at best,hopefully just paper waffle,ratherspend money on worll class player than what apperception to be bench warmers.
Players such as Henderson and Wickham are being bought for the future whilst being able to offer something right now. Players with great potential who are ready to play s part in the squad, seems like a good as long as we improve the first team as well.
I'm thinking about player that were average when bought and turned out well:
* Torres
* Ronaldo
* Lampard
* Anelka
If Gerrard featured for any of the unfashionable teams at 19 years of age would have thought him average?
not sure any of those were average as such and i remember saying when gerrard broke through that he was going to be world class as a manc told me he would be average.
its worrying the amount of players we are linked with that are not the quality you would want to push for a league title
so are we really thinking of signing these type of players and if so why?
I don't believe any of it. Camolli was brought in to bring in talent based on the likes of Berbatov, Bale and Modric. He's hardly likely to try and establish himself at LFC by bringing in the type of player Fulham fans wouldn't get excited about.
I think it's clear Comolli has identified the root of our problems in the current squad. It can't just be a coincidence that players who have had injury problems or underperformed this season tend to have two forenames (e.g. Steven Gerrard, Martin Kelly, Andy Carroll and Joe Cole) whereas the man with two surnames, Lucas Leiva, has had an excellent season.
Obviously players like Connor Wickham, Jordan Henderson and Eden Hazard are being considered mainly because they can redress this imbalance in the squad.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Of course, it's an old tactic - if you can't come up with a good counterargument just attack the sanity of your opponent.
It's a perfectly credible theory. Certainly much more realistic than Torres rejoining.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
. Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.
Comment