hbic - Straight away an error underlining my point rather than your own, its why I've not bothered reading anymore, no doubt its littered with them Manchester United: Evra (44), Rooney (39), Carrick/Ferdinand (35) Manchester City: Silva (43), Yaya Toure (38), Lescott (37) Arsenal: Van Persie (34), Walcott (32), Song (31) Newcastle: Simpson (34), Jonas (33), Coloccini (31) Spurs: Walker (42), Benny (40), Bale (38) Chelsea: Cole (30), Mata (28), Terry (27) Why use Apps for the season for Evra and PL apps only for Cole? http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/shared/bsp/hi/football/statistics/players/c/cole_41948.stm ...like I said 45 ****in games! Just looking at the total number of minutes played underlines the alarming discrepancy between the amount of football played by Walker, Benny, Parker I think you'll find I agreed the point with these exceptions a while ago. Anyone would think I was against the idea. Townsend and GDS? ....I'd make Bale and Lennon play again aswell! Youngsters being loaned out to Championship clubs for the business end of the season, as the aging players have to play every game ....Chelsea! Well I think the subject has been thrashed to death now, we should find another subject for a bout of loggerheads!
You do realise you are disagreeing with a website that you stated proves that players at the teams around us have played as many games as Spurs' players, right? Are you saying its a credible source when you quote it, but lacks credibility when somebody else does? If you want to get into the nitty gritty about Ashley Cole's appearances, you might want to consider Walker, Benny, Bale and Modric have all played more league games than he has... And the reason they are exceptions is because, quite simply, they aren't being rested. Which is what Corluka, Rose and Sandro are for. Even during games, as opposed to when they are injured or suspended. Fine, exacerbate the problem. Chelsea's starting XI against Arsenal: Cech; Bosingwa, Cahill, Terry, Bertrand; Essien, Romeu, Malouda; Torres, Kalou; Sturridge. Chelsea subs against Arsenal: Mikel (66), Mata (74), Cole (77) Lampard remained on the bench, and Drogba wasn't even in the matchday squad. Would it be about your membership of this group: http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
Especially when they state that we don't need to rotate the squad or give the youngsters a run-out in an FA Cup match against League One opposition...
Slightly off-topic, but I still can't get my head around that first Stevenage line-up. Insane tactics. Dawson got injured in the replay, too.
I don't believe the players were playing 5-3-2 in training for the week before, either. It would've been so much more logical to play our usual formation, but with a smattering of understudies or youngsters instead. It would've been less turgid to watch, and probably wouldn;t have gone to a replay, instead of playing two defensive midfielders against a long ball team two divisions below us...
If you want to get into the nitty gritty about Ashley Cole's appearances, you might want to consider Walker, Benny, Bale and Modric have all played more league games than he has. In other words you can't find a Spurs player with more apps than Cole or Juan Mata. Especially when they state that we don't need to rotate the squad or give the youngsters a run-out in an FA Cup match against League One opposition. I've never said that, so as usual, don't know what you're on about..."I think you'll find I agreed the point with these exceptions a while ago. Anyone would think I was against the idea. The league one oppo gave the players we did play enough problems, highlighting the fact the rest would have had no chance...but you know best! As for flat earth, good one coming from a flathead! Rotation with significantly weaker players will not improve results, the sooner you accept that, the less hair you'll pull out looking for excuses that aren't there.
Our performance against Stevenage was severely hampered by the ****e tactics though, Notso. Playing 5 at the back and 2 holding midfielders against a team that hoofs it is just ludicrous. Picking a supposedly weaker side with the right balance and tactics would've produced a better performance, in my opinion.
Walker - 36 league appearances Assou-Ekotto - 34 league appearances Modric - 32 league appearances Bale - 32 league appearances Mata - 32 league appearances Cole - 31 league appearances Yeah, couldn't find one... You;re the one who said you'd rather flog Lennon into the ground that use Dos Santos or Townsend... Yes, I know we played a 5-3-2 formation that we never used before, that we didn't use in training for the week before the game, and featured reserve players like Bale and Parker (90 minutes each) and Walker (64 minutes, substituted when we changed to 4-4-2) - seriously, you picked the wrong game to try and score points with. Tell me, how many Premier League winner's medals do Wes Brown and John O'Shea have? They are both "significantly weaker players" than Nemanja Vidic and Rio Ferdinand, but they - or to be more accurate, the team - won medals because they could do a job when they were required to come into the team for a few games here and there, or even just to maintain a lead with 20 minutes left on the clock because Rio was looking tired or Vidic was obn a booking. That's how you use a squad effectively, something Harry has shown a complete inability in doing, and the apologists trying to pretend isn't an issue with increasingly wide gaps in their logic. The sooner people like you and Ghoddle10 realise that it isn't your bext XI that win games, but the entire squad, the better.
You know I meant total apps. "flog Lennon into the ground" typical extreme exaggeration, I wouldn't advocate that, all I've ever said is, there is no case for using weaker players unless absolutely necessary. I see you never agreed that loss of the Daws, Hudd, Niko etc. was a real blow. These players you can trust in a PL game, Gio and the others, give over. I don't care what anyone says, using the weak players you've mentioned earlier in the season, then we would not have had the same results we did.
A lot of this is in the players individual heads. If you're happy, things are going great etc, you're never tired - you can't wait to get out there and play. The trouble with our lot is, heads go down too easily. Don't believe in what they're being asked to do, perhaps?
Even though we've already covered minutes played is a more reliable indicator, and you;ve been slapped down in that regard? Right... Even when you said... ...? Oh, apart from every time I've said it throughout the season. For a start, would you classify Dawson, Huddlestone, Sandro or Kranjcar as "weak players"? Secondly, you really don;t get it, do you? Danny Rose or Andros Townsend can come on for twenty minutes and terrify a tiring full back with their pace. Sassong could come on if King was looking tired or Kaboul was playing with a knock. It;s not about having players as good as your first team on your bench, it's about having players who can do a job when required, which eases the reliance on the first team. Get this into your thick, In Harry We Trust, head.
For a start, would you classify Dawson, Huddlestone, Sandro or Kranjcar as "weak players"? You really are, not reading what I write, no, they are not, GDS and the like are. Slapped down???, I don't think so, you've just been slapped down for getting Ashley Coles minutes played wrong, undermining everything else you have to say. If you're going to start getting arsey i've no further interest.
I'm saying we should have rotated them in more effectively, so no, I am not. As you're attempting to duck the question on this, does that mean you do? 1.) You clearly do not have to common courtesy to read what other people write, let alone take it on board, so it's a bit rich you complaining 2.) As above, you're trying to say somebody advocating some squad rotation is classifying Sandro and Kranjcar as "weak players", which doesn't work 3.) You still show no comprehension of what squad rotation is He's still played more, so you're really not helping yourself with this one... You're the one who got arsey when you posted Harry's dismissal of Corluka's valid observations and said it was gospel. Or your arsey retort about Chelsea and older players (which doesn't stand up, when you consider the amount of times Lampard was dropped earlier in the season), or when you've just posted crap that doesn;t fit in with what I've said throughout the season. Yeah, right.
