₦airaland Forum

My friend, scratch all this Rivaldo et al yarns. I am only willing to compare Juninho and Mihaljovic to Beckham. All other players are not worth comparison. How many freekicks has Rivaldo scored in his career? That he scored twice in one game tells me nothing. Thats like me saying Ratchenko must be a better striker than Ronaldo because he scored 5 against Cameroun in USA '94 and Ronaldo has never scored 5 in an International.

Now to Juninho:

How many times has he played for Brazil, much less scored freekicks?

Beckhams career started in 1996. He started playing for Man Utd circa 1997. Juninho has been at Lyon since 2001.

Therefore we cannot rate anything he did before that as it was not in our consciousness, that is of course unless you are an avid follower of Brazilian league.

I stated that Beckham was probably the best freekick taker from 1997 to 2002.

These are not intercepting time-frames.

Comparing Beckhams period of dominance (1997 - 2002) to Juninho's period of dominance (2001 - 2008), we can then decide who is the best freekick taker.

We must differentiate hype from reality.

Beckham's prowess with free-kicks is not a hype.

Beckham lacks all other skills, but his crossing and set-piece delivery alone has taken him to three of the best clubs in the World.

I say, for a man so talentless, that crossing and set-piece taking must be extra-ordinary - and it is.

Beckham has not been scoring freekicks for some time, but in a 5 year time-span from 1997 to 2002, he scored a hell of a lot.

People here talking about Juninho scoring 40 free kicks to date.

Beckham has scored 43.

It is not a hype. It is reality that Beckham was the best from 97-2002, with the possible exception of Mihajlovic.

Mentioning Rivaldo, Ronaldinho, Roberto Carlos et al is an insult. The only names that stand comparison with Beckham over the last 12 years are Juninho and Mihajlovic. Full stop.

How many freekicks has Roberto Carlos scored for example? A man that used to waste all of Madrid's freekicks just because he established a flukish reputation in Le Tournoi.

A few times I talked about Drogba and was accused of lying on here. . . . it is only when Drogbas autobiography reaches Ajegunle that my yarns are confirmed and even turn up as quiz questions by the same touts who accused me of lying initially. 


Anyway, I was just watching MOTD and Scolari says Drogba has been training very well this week and should be back in the squad next Saturday.

I did pay attention to one statement he made. He said if Drogba can show his technical level is increasing, then he has a chance for the future.

This is the first time I have heard a coach talk about a 30 year old players technical level and it just confirms what I have thought all along - that Scolari doesn't think Drogba has the technical skill required to play his brand of football.

That was why he was in a rush to defend Anelka when Drogba demo against CFR Cluj.

Scolari also said that the players have to forget about the last 5 games and go back to the style of play they had before that. I think Scolari believes that Drogba's return conflicted the players as to whether they should revert to Avram/JM style or carry on Scolari style, especially in light of the defeats to Liverpool and Arsenal. The return of Drogba just accentuated this conflict; coupled with everyone's call for a Plan B. In the end, we stopped playing even Plan A.

Scolari harping on about "players whose minds are on other clubs should leave" is probably borne out of his belief that Drogba would hinder rather than help his style of play. He knows Drogba is a hero to many and doesn't wanna upset anyone, but at the same time he knows there is no viable future for his brand of football if Drogba stays. Hence he is giving him the option to make real on his various threats to leave.


After watching the game, I can give some objective analysis:

Miroslav Stoch looked OK. Maybe he has a future, but we still need one more winger at least.

Still no width in our play. It is pedestrian and easy for our opponents to read. We need a winger fast.

We are too open to the counter attack. Whenever Stoke attacked, they had enough space so that if we did not win the one-on-one challenges, they would have a chance to score. We need to keep 4 players behind the halfway line at all times. Mikel's lack of pace also does not help us when we are counterattacked. It is too easy to run past him and expose our defenders to one-on-ones.

We had many chances, but we need to be more clinical, especially as we are trying to finish chances in tight spaces with Scolari's new system. That requires players of the right temperament and composure. No wonder Scolari was dogged in his pursuit of Robinho, because he has the right temperament to finish off those split second chances.

^^^^A man who cannot recognise sarcasm.

Stoch will replace Joe Cole? I don't know about that, I aint seen the kid, but we need wingers.

Akola, whats up with ya penchant for The Sun news articles these days? You know we don't comment on tabloid gossip on Chelsea thread.

If Scolari criticises Lamps as the article says, I see no reason to run over to Scolari after he scores.

Objective analysis:

I didn't watch the game.

Obviously, game was poor, to be losing to Stoke for most of the game. I have no hopes for this season. We will struggle again without proper wingers.

Nateevs talk is reh reh reh. . . .without Lampard's goal, all his theories blow to dust.

Chelsea is a team in transition. A lot of funny things will be happening over the next few weeks such as power plays between Drogba and Scolari etc. It is time to control player power at Chelsea. Nobody here knows what happens in Chelsea dressing room.

John Terry suffering from back spasm. . . .

You sure say Terry age dey correct?. . . . na so so old man injury im dey always get. . . .his Type 1 fibres must be deteriorating

He who laughs last laughs best. . . gaynners can now return to their thread and brace themselves for their own loss this evening. . . .but unless RA buy some wingers we will always struggle like we did today. . . .

saintvalx:
I just said how it is and he's been saying how it might be -Saintvalx

P Diddy! What are you doing on Nairaland?

They don't have to be in the building. If they sent a rocket from the building, they will definitely evacuate themselves knowing that the Israeli's will retaliate. Hence, they are putting the hospital patients in grave danger for propaganda purposes. A cowardly act if you ask me. And I am not a Zionist. I don't think Israel should be in the middle-east since all Arab countries voted against it in 1947. You do not camp in a village without permission of the villagers. However, HAMAS tactics are dead wrong and I find their behaviour revolting.

Drogba not in the squad.

As the UN said, "both sides should respect the neutrality of the Hospital."

If HAMAS stop sending rockets from the clinic, the clinic will receive no counter-fire.

If somebody is shooting at you, do you stop to investigate where he is shooting from or do you bust back straight at where he is shooting from?

There is no need to engage in a physical struggle with Stoke. We just need to pass around them like we did at The Brittania.

Ogbuke would play regardless of Ibisevic breaking his leg.

This is really sorry news. I feel bad for the guy.

I bet Dayokanu is somewhere celebrating.

It is quite obvious that my interpretation of Drogba's physical problems as a 'fitness' issue was quite correct as I had stated that I didn't think his 'loss of workrate' followed the steady gradual decline that you would associate with the ageing process.

Infact I pointed out an exact date at which he stopped running hard (circa 18 months ago) and I clearly stated that it was a conscious decision on his part (not surprising since strikers usually trade workrate for improved goal productivity). Hence I surmised that any 'inability' to run like he did before must be a consequence of his reduced work rate affecting his 'fitness'.

Quite logical IMO. I was not fussed about the scientific interpretation or definition of my statement. I was merely engaging in informal discourse, until this aproco-noser decided to expose his penchant for pedantry. Although I pointed out the informal nature of my conversation, this ogoloma decided to proceed with his nitpicking abrasiveness, thinking I would cower at the thought of engaging him in a verbal joust. 

As it turns out, my informal definition is still technically correct and thanks to this aproco-noser, I have learnt the scientific definition of stamina. . . . Type 1 fibres and reh reh reh. . . To boot, the aforementioned aproco-noser has even graciously admitted that his critique was facetious, so I can say it all ended happily ever after. 

Ako, I hope you remember how you guys denied Q4 when I brought it up long time ago. You even called me liar. . . . till I provided links.

Anyway, I really can't answer Q1 & 3

I think Sauron no 2 may be correct.

Debosky, stop all this reh reh reh. . . .

I did not mention the word stamina once. I don't need a lecture on the meaning of the word stamina.

You misread my quote and proceeded to build a fallacious argument around your misinterpretation.

All you need to do is answer one question; then admit you are wrong like the gentleman I know you are.

Is the phrase "Drogba's fitness has decreased" grammatically wrong?

Yes or No - and stop all this reh reh reh.

End of discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now we have established that my original quote was gramatically correct, I would like to expose your shallow assumptions, since you are twisting yourself into knots with wikipedia quotes.

debosky:
Your genetic make-up has a big influence on your stamina. There are two types of muscle fibres, Type II fibres are known as slow twitch fibres. They cannot work as quickly as the Type I fast twitch fibres, but they can work for a much longer time. Now you cannot readily INCREASE your level of Type I fibres, but you can train them - i.e endurance built up over a period of time. As those muscles age though, their limit of movement and ability to be rebuilt as fast or regenerate drops,

debosky:
Physical fitness is the functioning of the heart, blood vessels, lungs, and muscles at optimum efficiency. This optimum will be affected by age, disease status, injuries and the like - the optimum condition, at a given time is NOT therefore a genetically defined property as aging (which affects stamina) is.

This is where you show your Isaac Boro Park reasoning.

So you have concluded that Drogba's decline in work rate is due to the decline of his Type 1 fibres (stamina), not the condition of his heart, blood, vessels, muscles and lungs (fitness)?

At this point I ask: How do you know? Are you his doctor?

How old is Drogba that his Type 1 fibres should decline so dramatically over the space of 1 year?

You have made a hasty assumption.

debosky:
Your primary assertion is that Drogba 'stopped running' and 'his body isn't used to hard work anymore'. This implies that he could have maintained his level by continuing to run, which is false. Stamina being a genetic feature, will decline primarily based on genetic programming, not by continuing to 'run'.

debosky:
As a player ages, his stamina reduces, but he may still have the fitness required to play portions of a game.

Are you grammatically incorrect in re-labelling my 'fitness' as 'stamina'? YES!

Why? because I never mentioned his age, injury or genetics. I blamed it mostly on his conscious reduction in workrate 18 months ago, which I believe has affected his cardiovascular and muscular functions (fitness).

debosky:
This implies that he could have maintained his level by continuing to run, which is false. Stamina being a genetic feature, will decline primarily based on genetic programming, not by continuing to 'run'.

'Continuing to run' will not maintain his 'stamina', but it will maintain his 'fitness' . I said his 'fitness' had declined didn't I? . . . you're the one that says I meant 'stamina' instead. . . . . hehehehe. . . . see the way this guy dey twist himself. . . .



And finally,

My assumption is not hasty, and I have given myself room for manouvre because I did not state categorically that "his stamina has not declined". I just said "his fitness has declined." You said his "stamina has declined but his fitness has not." At which I refer you to the point I made earlier - are you his doctor to know the condition of his heart, lungs and muscles?

Akolawole:
Unknown to the Twin-friend, Chelsea has 101 problems, DD is just one. Majority of the remaining is still uncorrected by our world class coach.

somze:
DD and JM are Ibime's problem (let's not forget his sidekick - Nat. . . ) 

I think a thorough investigation should uncover some sort of scandal. 

The world class coach offers attractive, free flowing footie . . . around the midfield area . . . sometimes 

You guys can be real olodo sometimes. We agree on all the other problems we have.

Is it zonal marking we don't agree on?

Is it lack of width we don't agree on?

Is it lack of winning mentality we don't agree on?


The only problem Chelsea has that we don't agree on is Drogba because you guys refuse to acknowledge it. full stop.

That is why we are here discussing Drogba extensively. If Somze disagrees that zonal marking is a problem, then we can change the topic.

Until then, we will argue about the topic most sensitive to you - your idol!

[quote author=~Sauron~ link=topic=196587.msg3351041#msg3351041 date=1232140197]How can fitness be in two extremes(Fit or Unfit)??
A player can be half-fit. 40% fit, 50% fit, 90% fit or fully fit.[/quote]Thats not even the crux of the argument.

If we define "100%" fitness as the ability to play 90 minutes at an acceptable pace, Drogba can be 200% fit if he can play 180 minutes at the same intensity.

If his fitness then decreases to 150%, he is still fit enough for 90 minutes or 135 minutes to be exact.

That is only if we vary time and hold the other variables constant. The only other variable here is stamina.

So, if Drogba can play 90 minutes at twice the stamina (ability to run continuously without pause) of an average player, we can say he is 200% fit. If his stamina drops to that of the average player, then his fitness has decreased to 100%.

In both instances, his 'fitness has decreased', but he is still not 'unfit'.

So, unless Debosky retracts his misrepresentation of my original quote, he is logically and grammatically wrong.

Then he can start to build his arguments up from scratch again.

@ Akola,

Sharrap dia! No need for bias here. We are discussing grammar, not Drogba.  . Debosky made a fatal assumption that I said something I didn't and has built his whole argument around that. A house without a foundation must surely crumble.

See this yeye Tiv boy. . . . it took him 2 hours to post a riposte. . . . I have seen his User ID logged on to Nairaland since 19.00 GMT. . . maybe the cold in Canada has affected the 'stamina' of his fingers and he cannot type at an acceptable rate of words per minute anymore.  

debosky:
Don't blur issues - you said he wasn't FIT.

Liar, liar, pants on fire!

Here is my exact quote:

Since January last year, Ibime has been ahead of the game, telling everyone that Drogbas workrate has been falling at an alarming rate and his fitness is decreasing as a result. Now Drogba cannot even run 50% of how he used to run in JM days. Yet those who defended him then are defending him now, despite his physical condition declining so badly that some are speculating that he subtracted African VAT from his age. He has no VAT on his age, his body is just not used to hard work anymore.

The phrase "fitness is decreasing" is gramatically correct.

The question is: Can your fitness decrease? Yes! Can your fitness decrease whilst still leaving you enough 'fitness' for professional football? Yes!

There is no need for Haile Gabriel Selassie examples since my initial quote does not contravene the definition of 'stamina'.

Debosky seems to be implying that every footballer is just on the margin of fitness and any marginal decline in that fitness takes them under the required threshold. Either that or he is suggesting that fitness is a static quantity and should not be quantified as a continuous function of time.

This is obviously wrong. For example, Essien fit dash you half of his fitness and still be fit enough for Premier League football. Maybe Essien is fit enough for marathons. His fitness can decrease and still leave him fit enough to play football.

Your statement: "If a player is not fit, he won't be fielded for the most part" implies that Drogba's "decrease in fitness" takes him under the boolean threshold. By boolean, I mean yes or no, true or false, 0 or 1, fit or unfit.

If fitness is a boolean quantity, then why the expression "He needs a few more matches to build up his fitness?". If your fitness isn't already "built up", then you shouldn't be on the pitch according to Debosky's moronic logic.

Only a mammal like Debosky would not know that fitness and stamina are mutually reinforcing. If you lose stamina to the extent that you cannot run consistently over 90 minutes, then you will be declared unfit.

There is no need to initiate a 2 page debate as a result of your pedantry.

There is no such thing as pro-JM, anti-JM, pro-Drogba or anti-Drogba. The only thing we are is pro-Chelsea.

When you are pro-Chelsea, you do not get sensitive about individuals. We just analyse the good and bad points of everyone, without getting offended. No one is God and every man is fallible. Akola always accuse me of lies. . . . till I provide links. . . .

Yo Sauron, you got any audios?

Decent verse. . . . but I hope you bribed again.

The same people who now agree that Drogba has lost some 'stamina' are the ones who argued 6 months ago that Drogba was still in top physical shape. . . . they just shift the argument from arguing about WHETHER he has lost stamina to arguing about the CAUSE of his loss of stamina.

The same people who now agree that Drogba wants to leave Chelsea are the same ones who denied that Drogba wanted to leave Chelsea 6 months ago. . . . they just shift the argument from arguing about WHETHER Drogba wants to leave Chelsea to arguing about the CAUSE of Drogba's unhappiness at Chelsea. . . .

The same Nairaland acolytes who shout "Give Lampard whatever he wants" are the ones who come here to ask us who we are gonna sell Lampard to when RA ceases spending, since he is on such high wages.

The same Nairaland acolytes who do not notice that I criticise Scolari even more than I criticise JM. . . . it is just that when I criticise Scolari, they say nothing, but when I criticise JM, they turn it into a debate because they are so sensitive.

The same Nairalanders who believe that I hate JM, just because I criticise certain facets of his management. . . .same Nairalanders who believe that I endorse LPS zonal marking system, when I was the first to criticise it on this thread. .

We could go on and on. . . . I just wish Nairalanders would adopt some objectivity.

I can criticise any aspect of any thing at Chelsea, it doesn't mean I am opposed to that thing. My father has some bad points, but overall, he is a good fella.

debosky:
@ FBS

Ol boy you don shack already so you no fit spell 'bottle' again? 

See wetin LPS don do to Chelski fans 

Ibime instead of humbly accepting that you are deficient in English  (incapable of distinguishing between stamina and fitness  ) you dey form for hia? 

Now let me educate you once more - whether he was 'running' or not, the fact that your analysis is flawed at best doesn't change. If you don't have fitness, you will NOT get games in any quality club - stamina on the other hand, can change with age, injury and other factors NOT influencing fitness geddit? 

Wetin this yeye Tiv man dey talk about English? 

Oya make I set am straight like ruler.

Fitness does not follow Boolean principle, where you either have it or you don't.

"Debosky has lost weight", does not mean he now weighs 0 kilograms. Anuofia!

This nincompoop seeks to define fitness as a discrete quantity.

"Drogba has lost fitness" does not imply that he is no longer fit. It just means he is no longer as fit as he used to be.

This guy is taking pedantry to another level by introducing the word 'stamina', as if they are not interchangable in everyday vocabulary.

Sorry it wont work. Nigerian sport is not a consumer-friendly commodity.

debosky:
What is all this 'ahead of the game' rubbish?

You parrot what JM said and you are 'ahead of the game'?

Sharrap dia!

This debate about zonal-marking has been in the public conciousness since Benitez since implemented it in 2004 at Liverpool.

I do not need JM to talk about zonal-marking to know whether I like it or not.

The only reason I brought it up is because Akola is suggesting that I will not complain about Scolari's zonal-system if we concede set-pieces to Stoke, while it is on record that I was the first to even bring it to attention on this thread, even before Scolari came to Chelsea.

debosky:
Your argument about 'workrate' and fitness bears no relevance. If a player is not fit, he won't be fielded for the most part. It's not by simply running around that you prove fitness.

I suspect you might want to talk about stamina - which is not simply a function of workrate, but can be affected by age and slow/incomplete recovery from injury.

If a player is burnt out or past his peak, his stamina levels will drop, regardless of how much fitness he has. Giggs is fit, but doesn't have the stamina to run forever like he had a few years back. This idea that his body isn't used to hard work is fallacious - Chelski don't even play the way they did before.

Throughout the MU game - how many balls were played over the top for DD to chase and harry defenders? How many through balls came from midfield for DD to latch on? All we saw were exquisite sideways passing a la Arsenal without Cesc.

Apart from those issues, Drogs is off form - he doesn't need 100 chances to score and would have likely put one away on Sunday if he wasn't off form.

Sharrap dia!²

Was Avram Grant's team passing the ball from side to side? Why was DD also not running last season?

dayokanu:
Putting Nigeria as a nominee for best National team or Nsofor as best young player.

Are they trying to ridicule us?

You are thinking exactly what I was thinking. Maybe it's because Glo are the sponsors.

Gervinho should be there ahead of Kalou sef as he was rated as the second best player of the Olympics by many behind Messi. Nsofor should not be there ahead of Obasi. And I am surprised Alex Song's performance at the ACN was overlooked.

Akolawole:
@Ibi-Nateeves

Is this true?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/article2137246.ece

I just dey ask o.

If it is true, it only backs-up Ibime's criticism of Scolari zonal-system which he made on 19th June 2008, even before mammals like Akolawole knew what zonal marking system is.

Read post 11317 on : https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-16635.11296.html

[quote author=Ibime link=topic=196587.msg3347433#msg3347433]Well Mourinho criticised Scolari for employing the zonal marking system from set-pieces. And what happened? Germany buried them from two set pieces where the marking was non-existent. I hope Scolari is not going to bring that zonal marking system to Chelsea because the way we mark at the moment is perfect.[/quote]

Akolawole:
Wait for Anelka to score the expected hat-trick on saturday then you will see jubilation galore even if Olofinjana scored a brace through set peices.

Idiocy dey worry you! 

How many times have you heard me criticise LPS set-piece tactics on here?

While Chelsea cry-babies are leading the rally cry in defence of a player who has been FINED and DROPPED, Ibime has been ahead of the game.

Somze will remember my criticism of LPS set-piece tactics during Euro 2008, even before he came to Chelsea. Somze would remember that I said "I hope he doesn't bring that zonal marking shit to Chelsea." Don't make me pull out the archives on you.

Nateevs will also remember that I said back in August after our first match that if you put wingers on our full-backs. LPS strategy falls to pieces. Again, don't make me pull the archives out on you.

Since January last year, Ibime has been ahead of the game, telling everyone that Drogbas workrate has been falling at an alarming rate and his fitness is decreasing as a result. Now Drogba cannot even run 50% of how he used to run in JM days. Yet those who defended him then are defending him now, despite his physical condition declining so badly that some are speculating that he subtracted African VAT from his age. He has no VAT on his age, his body is just not used to hard work anymore.

Ibime will always stay ahead of the curve while idol worshippers are lulled into complacency, then they act surprised when their team loses 3-0, as if the warning signs have not been there. O boy, don't insult my intelligence.

And as a disclaimer: Ibime is not Anelka's greatest fan. I have questioned his attitude and confidence many times. But he is on form, and an on form player should always play. Right now, I will take almost anyone but Drogba!

RichyBlacK:
Ibime,

I think you may have an overly negative view of Islam. On the stem cells thingy, read this

Ibime:
another example: Islam will never allow you to conduct embryonic stem cell research. . . in the future, when we are curing Cancer and Parkinsons, the muslims will still be asking why they are behind in the field of medicine. . . .

Take note of the highlighted. . . . I already know that stem cell research goes on in Iran. . . .embryonic stem cell research is a different story. . . .even the Yanks are behind on that one, thanks to religion.

Therefore you must accept that Islamic backwardness is not as a result of some Western propaganda to hold them back, but on their dogged devotion to one man's ideals, whilst the rest of the World engages in exchange of ideas. . . . out of the West alone has come Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Keynesian theory, Saysian theory, different philosophies, different economic theories etc. . . . whilst out of Islam, nothing has come out. . . except Islam!

If you venture any theory in an Islamic State in times past, you have to ask the Mullah whether it is acceptable under Mohammed's economic theory first. . . and if it contradicts any of his many laws, they will behead you.

Simply put, there is no exchange and acceptance of ideas in Islam