peterstorey
Still not banned
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2002
- Messages
- 37,291
I tell you what Ramsey will be better than Anderson before too long let alone Fabregas.
I tell you what Ramsey will be better than Anderson before too long let alone Fabregas.
You sound like a Liverpool supporter
I tell you what Ramsey will be better than Anderson before too long let alone Fabregas.
Anderson will definitely make it. He's got most of the instinctive natural attributes that aren't really learnt, like his use of his body in tackles/general. He's very good at that.
Though it's hard to determine where exactly he'll end up playing position/role wise. A surging midfielder might be his niche'.
Pete we talk this stuff on our forums mate. Not here.
Wilshere maybe. Crazy talk to be making those sort of claims about Ramsey.
No crazier than suggesting that Anderson will eclipse Fabregas as a CM, much less crazy in fact.
No crazier than suggesting that Anderson will eclipse Fabregas as a CM, much less crazy in fact.
I tell you what Ramsey will be better than Anderson before too long let alone Fabregas.
We've heard it all before though Pogue, how many have actually lived up to the hype? a hand full....
All I ever wanted was for someone to take over from the ginger ninja, It'll take some doing but if he can then I'll be happy...
As it happens I don't think Anderson will ever be able to do the things that Scholes can.
I hope you're wrong there...
Totally different type of player.
This is an exemplary post in two respects. First, it illustrates a common confusion and conflation -- mixing up character and physical attributes. This happens all the time when people talk about sports; it's inevitable, I suppose, in an activity intrinsically about physical accomplishment.Fabregas is largely a powderpuff attacking midfielder. Equally as responsible for Arsenal's lack of fight as any other Arsenal player. He'll probably never have the natural fighting instinct that Anderson has, and that is why Anderson has the potential to become a more rounded central midfielder than Fabregas IMO.
and here's Bilbo again, making the same error. Anderson is in fact much more of the Keane/Vieira type than Cesc is. It's simply not a relevant comparison.I do hope you're not comparing him to Keane or Vieira Pete? Two men and a boy.
Fabregas isn't yet 'great' on a consistent basis. No point arguing otherwise
Arsenal's kids will always be over-hyped, thanks to the location and affiliations of all of the most popular sports journalists. James Lawton being one of the most cringeworthy
Thats a spectacular amount of bollocks Jens. And the sad thing is, it looks like you really made the effort too.This is an exemplary post in two respects. First, it illustrates a common confusion and conflation -- mixing up character and physical attributes. This happens all the time when people talk about sports; it's inevitable, I suppose, in an activity intrinsically about physical accomplishment.
Second, it's a cautionary example of what can happen to your ideas if your brain stops working.
Fabregas is "a powderpuff attacking midfielder." I guess saying this, in order to contrast him with Anderson, makes sense in two respects (allowing, of course, for a rival supporter's hyperbole). (A) that he plays an attacking role as opposed to the quasi-defensive one, which Anderson plays; and we all know that holding midfielders are the hard men. (B) that Cesc doesn't have the same kind of body as Anderson; he is smaller and weaker.
Indeed. I -- and several others -- have already pointed out that Cesc and Anderson are very different kind of footballers.
The stoopiditee comes in with the confusion between physical weakness and mental weakness. What Bilbo seems to believe is that a winning character -- or whatever you want to call it -- manifests itself only in one form -- in that hard-man, blood-and-thunder type. In fact, Cesc is one of the more competitive players out there and has a real will to win -- a will, moreover, that he has brought to accomplishment many many times.
In fact, you could look at it along these lines: Cesc has "by himself" won more games than Anderson has. But again, this doesn't mean he has a stronger character than Anderson. It's because of the nature of his role on the pitch, as the orchestrator of Arsenal's attack.
(Btw, to make a digression into cultural psychology, it occurs to me that Bilbo's ideas are quintessentially English ideas about football. You wouldn't see a Spaniard, Brazilian, or Italian formulate judgments about football along the same lines at all. And, moreover, that that is why English players tend to have the weaknesses that they do, like technical insufficiency and tactical naivete.)
and here's Bilbo again, making the same error. Anderson is in fact much more of the Keane/Vieira type than Cesc is. It's simply not a relevant comparison.
I love James Lawton. He is unbelievably, amazing, spectacularly, brilliantly, wonderfully inclined to get caught up in his flights of poetic fancy and lose all touch with the solid earth of reality.
The stoopiditee comes in with the confusion between physical weakness and mental weakness. What Bilbo seems to believe is that a winning character -- or whatever you want to call it -- manifests itself only in one form -- in that hard-man, blood-and-thunder type. In fact, Cesc is one of the more competitive players out there and has a real will to win -- a will, moreover, that he has brought to accomplishment many many times.
I have never once heard any Arsenal fan on the planet utter even a hint of a bad word about Fabregas. Which is kind of understandable, given that he is jewel in the crown over at the Emirates, but also somewhat reflective of their own managers failings to see any of the faults in his own squad.The fact is Fabregas doesn't have the same fight that Anderson has, that's clear to anyone.
We've admitted the same about Carrick lacking that fight, you should be able to about Fabregas.
I have never once heard any Arsenal fan on the planet utter even a hint of a bad word about Fabregas. Which is kind of understandable, given that he is jewel in the crown over at the Emirates, but also somewhat reflective of their own managers failings to see any of the faults in his own squad.
slowly, now, step away from the ring of power ...Thats a spectacular amount of bollocks Jens. And the sad thing is, it looks like you really made the effort too.
Fabregas > Anderson
Always will be. At the moment, Anderson has no greater role than if somebody like Alan Smith was still playing in midfield for you.
You've either got it, or you don't.
Fabregas has got it, just look how many assists he gets.
Fabregas > Anderson
Always will be. At the moment, Anderson has no greater role than if somebody like Alan Smith was still playing in midfield for you.
You've either got it, or you don't.
Fabregas has got it, just look how many assists he gets.
We seem to have a group of Arses on a WUM - in this case they are riding peterstorey's syphilitic c*ck.
Jeez. Not like you to be quite so uncouth, FS. Having a grumpy one?
100% hand-on-my-heart honesty, it's not clear to me. I believe - -again, in all sincerity -- that Cesc has tons of fight and determination and character.The fact is Fabregas doesn't have the same fight that Anderson has, that's clear to anyone.
We've admitted the same about Carrick lacking that fight, you should be able to about Fabregas.
100% hand-on-my-heart honesty, it's not clear to me. I believe - -again, in all sincerity -- that Cesc has tons of fight and determination and character.
I'd be genuinely interested if you could explain why the opposite seems so clear to you. Maybe we are disagreeing over the facts; on the other hand (though I doubt it) maybe by "fight" we mean different things?
When the going gets tough he doesn't step up and take the game by the scruff of the neck, although he does make the team tick. Where was he against Stoke? It's not even the fact that he didn't play well, but players like Keane would have lead their team even when not playing well and set an example of how everyone else should go about their work.
He's not an inspirational character in terms of his attitude and work-rate either.
All things which show a sign of fight.
Why are you comparing a lad, who's barely out of his 20s, with Roy Keane?
Seriously, I don't know how anyone could deny that that Fabregas is way ahead of Anderson, in every aspect of his game, for now. Even if Anderson never gets as good as Fabregas is right now, he could still become a decent footballer. Fabregas is probably already one of the top 6 or 7 best central midfielders in Europe, IMO.
I'm comparing someone with very little fight to someone well-known for having an enormous amount of fight. Seems a lot easier than going through a list of players and trying to remember someone else at 20 who has plenty of fight, like Anderson.
I agree with the second part, I don't remember reading anyone who did say that Fabregas isn't a better player than Anderson in this thread anyway and it would be stupid to.
So you're focussing on the fight thing only?
Cause I've seen Fabregas pretty much carry his entire team on his back, on a number of occasions, something Ive never seen Anderson do.
But like I said, this is no shame on Anderson. He's a 20 year old rough diamond, who is still finding his feet in the Premier League. It's almost unfair to compare him with someone who is the best player in Arsenal's squad, by quite some margin.
Yeah, that's all I was commenting on.
Fabregas has dominated midfields, Fabregas has dominated games for the entire 90 minutes and he is the difference between a 1 goal win and a 4 goal win in the same way Scholes is to us(as you pointed out before).
He's better in every single technical area of the game I can think of bar dribbling, and he is light years ahead of him in terms of footballing intelligence.
Okay. First thing, I guess, is to make this one thing clear: My thinking that Cesc has fight does not mean I think Anderson doesn't, or even that I think Cesc has more than Anderson. I am arguing with the absolute assertion that Cesc is not a fighter. You understand that, I assume.When the going gets tough he doesn't step up and take the game by the scruff of the neck, although he does make the team tick. Where was he against Stoke? It's not even the fact that he didn't play well, but players like Keane would have lead their team even when not playing well and set an example of how everyone else should go about their work.
He's not an inspirational character in terms of his attitude and work-rate either.
All things which show a sign of fight.
Are you actually going to comment on the footballing issues or are you just going to be rude (and later pedantic)?It seemed a(n un)natural extension when I'd typed 'Arses on a WUM' and thought of the WUMmiest poster in the thread - who therefore deserves a bit of extra opprobrium.