₦airaland Forum

Oriol Romeu deal almost complete.


@Ibime.

Ever seen him play? What's he like?

No you didn't man. I am only bowing out because it all sounds moronic. OK Pedro is a winger.
Anelka is a winger, Nasri is a winger, Hulk is a Winger, Bendtner is a winger.
If Drogba is played on the right of a 4-3-3, we start calling him he is a winger.

This argument is never going to end so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

How difficult is this to understand? You are a very big i.diot if you cannot understand a simple thing.

I responded to a constant request by Chelsea fans wanting Wingers. They are not asking for players that can be deployed as wingers.
If they were, they will ask for any player because any player player can be deployed as a winger. I responded by saying we do not need these players. We only need intelligent players who can be deployed in any position wing play or not. Exactly what Barca do. They deploy players who are not wingers to play in positions of the wing. And you busy making my point for me with every single post telling me I am wrong.

bingo!!!

you just made my point! if you agree they were deployed as wingers then it means wingers were deployed against man utd? a huge difference in your first claim that no wingers were used against united. you have just beaten yourself into a corner.

Everything you say is just a load of insult and repetition. However, this sums up your stark idiocy. I did not claim Barca did not play without "deployed wingers" . . . Rather I said Barca did not play without specialist wingers in response to insistence that we need "wingers" . . . By Wingers, Chelsea fans mean specialist wingers. If Chelsea fans woke up one morning hearing the news that Chelsea had just put in a bid for David Villa, the first question will be do we need him?  No one will come up with the idea that he is a winger. . because no he is not a winger, he is a Striker.

David Villa Sánchez (Spanish pronunciation: [daˈβið ˈβiʎa]; born 3 December 1981), nicknamed El Guaje (Asturian: The Kid),[3][4] is a Spanish footballer who currently plays as a forward for FC Barcelona[5][6] and the Spanish national football team.

Oya me sef I copy my own. Why we no see winger there? According to you Villa is a winger because he plays on the flanks on a 4-3-3. He is a striker. Yes he can play on the wing and may have been deployed there many times, he is not a winger. Simple. I cannot understand how your brain cannot decipher something so very straight forward.

chamotex:
or how did you come up with the conclusion that he MAY never play for England again?

Though in hindsight, I should not have said that because that assertion is open to all sorts of interpretations, reading what you have written there, it sounds like a question from a very dumb person. This is like asking me how I came up with the conclusion that you may die tomorrow.

Do you even have to be a genius to figure that out?

your problem is your lack of comprehension. nani, valencia, giggs are wingers because that has always been their natural positions. if mourinho now feels he can play anelka as a winger then anelka is a winger for that particular game. . . .it's that simple! when fergie played carrick as a defender, he was a defender for that game even though we all know he's a midfielder. your argument that barcelona played against united with no wingers is an incorrect statement because pedro and villa played as wingers in wembley.

The lack of comprehension is on your part dude. The emboldened makes my point for me. Like you keep doing. They are players who play natural positions and you call them that because of where they play. The main difference is, when you talk of wingers, you say Subject "is a" winger. However when the person is not a winger you say Subject "played as a" winger. And there-in lies a gulf of difference.

What you are doing is setting a precedence that will rapidly expunge your defense.


Example. Michael Essien played as a RB, for a majority of the 05-06 Chelsea season. Is it then football savvy to suggest a comparison between Maicon and Essien? Imagine someone walks up to you saying Chac, is Maicon better than Essien? The first question you ask the person is wherein lies the basis of comparison? One is a midfielder, the other is a defender. . . . aha! Does that ring a bell.

If the argument above is true. Then there are players that you refer to as wingers. Not by virtue of where they have been deployed to play for a handful of games but because of their natural positions.

I am sure it probably doesn't ring a bell with you because according to your skewed argument Essien is a right back because he's been asked to played there for a season.

Would it make sense to start up an argument saying [i]"Carrick is better than Shaun Wright Phillips" [/i]just because Grant stumbled on a decision to play SWP in midfield? No!

SWP is a winger, Carrick is a midfielder. If Fergie decides to play Carrick on the flanks, does that now justify a reason to compare Carrick with Giggs. No!

So because players play on the flanks don't mean they are wingers. They have been deployed as wingers, they are not wingers. A truck load of insults cannot make your points any clearer.

shut up your mouth, stop distorting the facts. you said "barcelona beat man utd without wingers". that is what i a attacking. i cannot be arsed if you sign a market woman or a tanker driver. your goof was saying barcelona had no wingers against man utd. they did!

I am not distorting the fact st.u.pid. Chelsea fans want specialist winger. I tell them we don't need one because Barca tore Utd apart without one.
Is that true? Yes!. Barcelona did not play with a winger. They played with players who can play on the wing. Simple to understand.

i am not sorry to say this - you are an . . . . .it's not about what barca. managers have been using 4-3-3 to beat opponents since forever. the nigeria under 17 team of 89 had ikpeba and jide oguntuase supporting keshinro. ikpeba and jide are both wingers. stop misinforming the public with your lethargic redefinition of the roles of football players. any player intelligent enough to switch roles is an utility player, not wing play. giggs is a winger that plays in the centre of the midfield - what do you call that? midfield play or central play? mr nateevs, are you lacking protein?

It's easy to understand if only you open your mind. The issue is not about formation, it's about tactics. You cannot automatically call someone a winger because they play on the wing. Does not mean everyone that plays on the wing is not a Winger. 4-3-3 or 4-4-2, na you sabi. A winger is Nani, Valencia, Giggs. If you dispute that, dare call Anelka a winger. I have asked you that and you cannot. Is Iniesta a winger?

That someone can be and is deployed to play in midfield does not make them a midfielder. A midfielder is a a player whose natural role it is to play in midfield. Which is different from midfield play. If you deploy Giggs to play behind two strikers, he does not automatically become a Central midfield. All these charts you wasted time to go copy from the internet cannot change my mind.

he is not a winger but he can play as a winger. messi started as a winger under rijkaard before being moved to the central position. so now that ronaldo plays as a striker for real madrid, he's no longer a winger? are you this daft, uncle lateef?

You are making my argument for me. Most often than not, you'd find pundits and followers of the game say Ronaldo plays in attack. No one says he is a striker. Which is the same argument I am making. Iniesta is not a winger. He can play on the wing. What is soo difficult to understand? Didier Drogba is not a defender but if deployed as an extra man in defense for the rest 30 mins of every game in a season to defend against last minute aerial threats, does that make him a defender? No? He played in defense. Just like Iniesta play on the wing, and Messi did and Anelka did. . .but they are not wingers.

Simple.

nah, nateevs, you are spewing rubbish. you can have a traditional(out and out winger) or a wing forward. football evolved many years ago. it's funny you mention robben in your lethargic argument when mourinho used robben in a 4-3-3 like guardiola has used pedro and david villa. mr nateevs, you have no argument. some players are intelligent enough to suit 6 roles and they would be called what they play in those specific matches.

Football has evolved man but some things remain. . . and the evolution of football is what allows players like Anelka play on the wing. So is Anelka a winger? Some things don't change. A winger is Alexis Sanchez. . . however, he'd been deployed to play in central midfield many times last season. Is Alexis a CM? Nasri at some point in Arsenal's past season played on the left of a 4-3-3. Is Nasri a winger?

you are a donkey! anelka has been a striker all his life until chelsea moved him wide(to function as a winger). in the games he played as a winger, he was a winger. when he plays as a striker, he is a striker(for that specific game). with your lethargic reasoning, cristiano ronaldo is not a winger? giggs is not a winger? which kind bush-man mentality be this?

The heights of incoherence. Making my argument for me continually. Anelka is a striker not a winger regardless of how many times he played on the wing.
Oh I see now you've found the interesting phrase "In that very game" . . . but hold on!. Let's rewind back to where this whole thing started from.


[b]Chelsea fans say "We need wingers" . . .  What do you think they were referring to? Players who can be converted to the wings? No? They want a Giggs, Nani, Valencia, Sanchez, Turan.

Nateevs says "no we don't need wingers" . . We only need intelligent players who can play on the flank, play other roles, drift wide, skip past a player or two and find a cross or another pass.


So if Chelsea has the Anelkas and Kalous in abundance who can be converted to play on the wings, why do Chelsea fans keep reiterating that "we need wingers" . . . Because they see wingers as specialist players. If Iniesta is a winger, Chelsea fans will not say we need wingers, They will rather say we need players and if they can play on the wing fine. However, they do not say so. . . They say "we need wingers".


I then go on and explain how the winger shitzo is over played and unnecessary and how Barca don't ever use "Wingers". . (bear in mind the Chelsea fan wingers - the specialist winger) and citing the example of the CL in which Utd had specialist wingers and Barca had none yet there was a gulf in ability and you kicked off a series of fruitless arguments. [/b]


Now with you coming back to tell me the phrase you should have used all along "Winger In the game" . . Who is right and who is wrong? Ode jati jati.

Hmmm. On second look, really tight. I think it did not go in.

Goal.

Danny Sturridge has been forcing the issue. He should have scored that. Mikel's been fantastic, Zhirkov, Paulo and Anelka have been very lively.

Very boring. Though it's pre-season, unless we freshen up with the injection of two or three more young, intelligent players, trust me we will struggle.
Only the young guys, Betrand, Josh, PVA and then Benayoun seem to have made any difference.

I am sorry but Lamps, Malouda and Kalou and have down.

coogar:
you are embarrasing yourself on these pages. so if fletcher plays as a right back for man utd against chelsea now means united didn't play a right back in that particular match? on the day man utd played 7 defenders against arsenal now meant all the 7 defenders were defending and rafael/fabio didn't play as wingers for that particular match? nateevs, you are a super-dolt.

your argument was barcelona did not play with wingers against man utd and everyone here has called you a tool because they did. pedro and villa played the roles of wingers at wembley. whether their natural talents are goalkeeping or central defending is not an issue. the issue is what role they played at wembley.


it simply means nic anelka has been playing as a wing forward @ chelsea for about 3 years. . . . . .there's no rule that says a striker cannot play as a wing-forward or vice versa. it's called versatility or also known as an utility player.

You had better just say you never understood my argument. I know exactly what I am saying dude. Barca did not and do not play with wingers. And that's why I clearly stated that there is a difference between Wingers and Wing Play. What Barca do is play with the wings using intelligent players who can skip past one or two and make quick return passes. That's wing play.

I tell you again, for most parts of the season past, Iniesta played on the left of a 4-3-3, is Iniesta a winger? Messi played predominantly on the right of a 4-3-3 during the time of Frank Rijdkaard. Would you call Messi a winger as a result?

A winger is a definition of a type of player. Like Robben, Beckham, Finidi George. They play from the flanks only and they more often than other players have the ability to whip crosses in from the wings. They are players who naturally stretch play and hug the bylines.

Now any player can be made to play that position if they have the intelligence to do so. In that instance they cease being called Wingers because they are not. And that's the reason my friend you refer to Anelka as a wing forward instead of a winger. Why didn't you call him a winger? You are making my argument for me because you know he is not.

Meanwhile match dey. 84,000 sold out.

chamotex:
Since the day he told me Ashley Young may never play for England again cos he just signed for MANCHESTER UNITED, I gave up on him.

Ode! Oya go and fetch the post. Who can take you seriously when you cannot even read seriously? Young may never play for Utd again and he signs for £20m? That was the statement.

Very different from Young may never play for England again "because" he signed for Utd. How can it be so difficult to know there is a difference in the 2?

Bunch of idiots who don't understand tactics. Because someone plays on the wings means he is a winger? I am laughing.
Villa was a top central striker for Valencia for how many years? He plays on the wing for spain in a handful of matches, Ritchboy calls him a winger. . I mean, just look at this bull.s.hit.

ritchboy:
^^ Nateevs is an olodo now. . . Pedro is a winger, he plays there for Spain and started wide-left in the UCL final he is talking about. Villa has been playing wide for Spain before he even joined Barca.

Let me give you an example. Anelka has played on the right of a 4-3-3 for Chelsea for about 3 years. . . . yeah yeah Anelka is a winger. You see how silly it looks? Utter nonsense. Go and count the number of time Iniesta starting wide left for Barca. . . Yeah, he is a winger.


Buncha nutters telling me what not.

coogar:
so pedro and david villa played as what? defenders? nateevs keeps yapping like a wet puppy these days - it must be the excitement of the appointment of andrea villash-boash

Dunce!!!. . Need I explain to you the difference between "wingers" and "wing play"?

Meanwhile I love the rumours building over Arturo Vidal.

somze:
I don't know who is in charge of our transfers but priorities aren't right. I feel we need wingers.

Malouda is spent and neither Kalou nor Anelka adequately covers the right wing. The trio should be allowed to leave in my opinion.

This wingers thing has been discussed extensively on here. It's a myth. What you need is intelligent play. A tactician who can work out how to play, wing play or not. With all the talk of Wingers stretching the game, ManU could not even light a candle next to Barca. They had four wingers in the team, Barca had none.

Wingers are great but I do not believe they are priority and I am very sure AVB shares the same opinion.

somze:
Hasn't Rajkovic been our player for a while now? Why does he need work permit?

He's always needed work permit is one of the reasons he he has been away for four years.


@Ibime.

I cannot confirm he has it now. Although I remember AVB saying in the week that Rajkovic is ready now.
On the matter of Thibault, my guess is that he may be a part of a deal to get Aguero bearing in mind that Atletico were bidding for him as well. If the Aguero thing turns out to be bollocks, I am expecting that the board have decided to make him go on loan to keep him in action and with a option to recall at any-time during the season, should anything happen to Cech. This is the least I expect. Keeping a good back-up goalie in action keeps him in form rather than playing reserve football here and sitting on the bench,.

If that's the case, it's not so non-strategic after all.

werepeLeri:
Even in the UK- people threaten to go on strike and after many negotiations, people call of the strike- and yes, i think you can refer to it as generosity on the part of the management - example British Airways recently. Transport for London, Royal Mail and all the rest- after downing their pickets, they atil negotiate - and the word is negotiate - and in negotiations, if you understand, someone has to be "generous".

Dont hoodwink us about anything being disgraceful, it happens everywhere.

What do you mean "generosity"? With respect to the office of the President, the NLC strike is bringing the economy to it's knees. Depending on how seriously you see it, it is like putting a gun to the President's head. That's duress man and has nothing to do with generosity.

Conservative campaigning for 13 years about a bloated government and careless welfare spending of Labour. They get to power, and begin to implement massive cut backs. NHS threaten with strikes to bring everything to a stand still, Conservatives back down a little. Some sort of agreement is reached and you call that "generosity"?

Do you even understand what you are saying?

$15m? For the best fighter. I am not sure you can buy the cockpit of the best fighter jet for $15m. An F-22 raptor costs over $150m. Except I didn't understand your question and I take no blame for that.

If Pastor Bakare had said to the General or his Political Boss that I am glad you consider me worthy for this position of a Vice President, but I will rather remain in the Pulpit and the Civil Society, to constructively criticize and nourish souls. If you allow me, I can recommend a few good men whom you can choose from, as I don’t think combining active politics and winning souls can be effectively combined. Moreover, I have not been involved in active politics and so, I don’t have a political followership to bring to the table. But I will support via other means. This being done, I am sure and convinced he would have been a hero today, even after his political party had lost out in the Presidential elections. He would also have done justice to members of his congregation who belong to other political parties. He would have still have had admirers all over the world including my humble self and my 70 years old father. He would have remained a conscience to the nation and a voice to reckon with. But today, anything he says is viewed from the political prism and rightly so.

Well I am not a fan Bakare. I cannot remember being a fan of him ever. However the latter part of your post - quoted above - indicates your real frustration. I think your inability to envisage a politician doubling as a pastor clouds your judgement. Why do you think he cannot lose an election and still be a hero? I was hoping for a conclusion where you plead with him to be gracious in defeat and consider him a hero for trying, instead you chastise him for not just talking the talk but putting himself forward.

Secondly, while I haven't listened to a minute of his post-election teachings, I can tell you it's very easy to pick holes in a Pastor's teaching. I cannot tell you how many times I have disagreed with a Pastor's assertion. That you can do it now may really have nothing to do with post-election trauma. If you listen enough to past teachings, I can assure you to find numerous holes. It's not the elections, he's human. I think you are only disappointed he went into politics.

So has he lost it? Well I think that's a little subjective right now.

Seun:
That's the good thing about our beloved president's famous 'generosity' - no strikes are possible!

This is disgraceful coming from you. This shows that whatever it is the President has agreed to was possible inthe very first place. Why has it taken the eve of an economic stand-still to reach the pact? If that was not disgraceful enough, you, by some incomprehensible way, reach the conclusion that this is "generosity" . . .


A typical PR stunt instigated by selfish spin-doctors who line up their pockets at the expense of the masses. Well orchestrated to trick bigots into the continual praise of the President's name and you of all fall for it?


Disgraceful!

odumchi:
A new airport doing its job, getting people to and fro without anything fancy. Pure simplicity and straight0-forwaRdness, the Enugu way.

What do you mean by this statement?

Sky Sports messing around.

[quote author=High_Chief link=topic=716363.msg8746381#msg8746381 date=1311082352]Minister of Aviation, Mrs. Stella Odua, has dismissed fears that the nation’s busiest airport, the Murtala Muhammed International Airport, Lagos would be bombed by the Muslim religious sect, Boko Haram or any other person or persons.

The fear was heightened when she ordered the reopening of the 700-car capacity abandoned underground parking lot at the basement of the international terminal of the airport as users of the facility say the park would pose security threat, which was the main reason why it was closed during the late General Sani Abacha regime.

But the Minister’s decision to reopen the park was informed by the report that there is inadequate car park at the international wing of the airport as there is growing passengers’ movement and therefore increased movement of vehicles and attendant request for more parking spaces.

But ever since the Minister ordered that the parking lot, which has been out of use since 1997, be reopened to ease parking space constraints as well as serve as a revenue generating avenue for government, fears have been expressed in some quarters that the place could become a safe haven for bombers to plant their explosive devices.

Odua said that the decision to rehabilitate the abandoned park was in line with her vision to encourage the parastatals under her Ministry to embrace innovative ways of management, noting that it would help boost their internally generated revenue (IGR).[/quote]Is there an underground parking facility at the Airport? Good lord. Abandoned since 1997? What is it with Nigeria and things that don't work? I mean it's taken 14 years for someone to realize that it's rehabilitation can fetch revenue?

I cannot understand this country.

BP:
Your position on HSBC is not totally correct. HSBC is a bank and not a regulator. If it willingly subjects itself to Shariah scrutiny, it does so on its own. It will be different if you show me this same information on say the bank of England's website.

I'm not even against a Sharia council providing advice and some sort of regulation for the Islamic Banking sub-sector of Non-Interest banking. But what I am saying is that this HSBC example you gave is not a proper case of comparing like with like.

Brilliant point.

[quote author=Negro_Ntns link=topic=716535.msg8748647#msg8748647 date=1311103308]I wonder if the proposal will get this much pushback if it was introduced by a white christian in tie and suit?

What people ought to fear and question are mega pastors who in the name of Jesus are taking from you but not giving back.

Islamic banking gives back what you give + more based on your equity in the sharing.[/quote]I cannot understand the basis of comparison. Mega pastors and Islamic banking.
What has one got on the other?

Reference:
Inept thinking by government once again. How it intends to sustain this kind of program over the long term beats me. These people need jobs, the region needs infrastructure badly. Does it take a guru to put one and one together. Put them to work, real work so that they can earn real salaries. If what they do, their trades can support those salaries let it be. It is real work that creates real expectations.

But I'm one hundred percent sure that all projects are still in the hands of government apologists and the enemies of Nigeria that fritter away our resources and send the rest to Switzerland. Give these people roads to construct, bridges to build, rail lines to lay, refineries to instal. When these roads fail, bridges collapse and refineries implode then we wil all know our limits, learn the hard way and tailor our expectations. That is development.

Jobs? When you set a precedence of paying ex-militants a sum they will never earn from a job, you erase a generation.
What's the incentive for the uneducated in these regions to pick up a job? 65k? Some people will never earn 65k a month till they die.

It's cheaper to become a militant. Many University graduates don't earn 65k. How do you explain to these people who have no role models that it pays in the end to go to School? Why should they spend 20 years of their lives studying when you can pick up arms and threaten to blow up places?


More people will pick up arms in anticipation of the juicy end. . . 65k. When the situation reaches a threshold, government will fight back. These people will tell their generations unborn how they were deprived of their legitimate rights and encourage them to pick up arms and fight for their rights.


Where does it stop? How our President cannot see this, I cannot understand.

@Ibime.

I do understand you. I know he's a weakling and his head is not straight yet. I don't expect him to be an instant hit. It may take a year or two before he reaches there but he has all the talent he needs to get there.

This price is just what's thrown it all off for me. If Santos will do a deal for 25m, I will snap their hands off.