I just mentioned it on another thread, but we seem to spend an awful lot of time on here agonising over the relative virtues of Corky and Big Vic, a discussion sometimes melting in vitriol. But when it comes to the Callum vs Nat debate, we become paragons of peaceful repose. A swift shrug of the shoulders and a bit of a "well, either is fine" conclusion. So come on, stake your claim people. Use a couple of the heckles so often reserved to bellow "VIC CAN'T PASS" and bring them to bear on this debate. For what it's worth, I'm "Team Nat" for the moment. It's a close call, but I do think he offers a greater attacking threat, and his pace advantage means that my vote lies with the slightly more experienced young'un.....
Agreed LTL, Clyne shades it for me, though Chambers' greater height is an asset against certain teams. As always, it's horses for courses to a fair extent.
I think Nathanial is the best English right back around right now and should go to Brazil. I'd pick him eveytime. Thing is, Chambers doesn't do an awful lot wrong.
Not voting as I think they are about as good as each other. I like to see Nathan on the pitch and I like to see Calum. Glad we have the option to swap if one or ther isn't working on the day. Vin
dull (dʌl) adj 1. slow to think or understand; stupid 2. lacking in interest 3. lacking in perception or the ability to respond; insensitive 4. lacking sharpness; blunt 5. not acute, intense, or piercing 6. (Physical Geography) (of weather) not bright or clear; cloudy 7. not active, busy, or brisk 8. lacking in spirit or animation; listless 9. (Colours) (of colour) lacking brilliance or brightness; sombre 10. not loud or clear; muffled 11. (Medicine) med (of sound elicited by percussion, esp of the chest) not resonant footballer noun [C] /ˈfʊt.bɔː.lər/ US /-bɑː.lɚ/ UK A2 someone who plays football, especially as their job: professional footballers
And you call Chambers dull? Yet use the old that's use a dictionary explanation? Least think of something original. What has being dull got to do with his football ability?
Not sure how this is even a question. Clyne is faster, the better defender, and gets forward with much more purpose. Not that I'm against Chambers, he will be a very good player, just Clyne is better. All Chambers really has on his side in this comparison, and I think it might cloud the judgement of some, is that he's arisen from the much touted Saints youth. Oh and he's taller.
I'd tend to agree with this, if we didn't already have Clyne I wouldn't hesitate in declaring Chambers our right-back for the next decade because for his age he is an excellent player, but at the moment for me the only discernible advantages Chambers has is age and height (and I suppose strength goes along with that), and he does seem to be able to produce better crosses than Nat, but even less consistently, everything else Clyne is either as good as or better than him at.
I was answering your question. Next time i'll convey the answer through dance I didn't mean he was dull as a person. I don't know the guy and couldn't possibly comment. I just don't find him that exciting to watch as a footballer yet. He has a great 1st touch and is incredibly athletic and disciplined, but I don't think "Chambers is playing, thats £30 well spent on my ticket"
This is Chambers first real season, of course he will be a bit more held back then Clyne. Look at Shaw's first season, the first lot of games he hardly pushed forward. Both players for me are class.
I think Clyne is better now - but I think Chambers has more potential. Also, Chamber's physique will make him an increasingly dominant defender - whereas Clyne will gradually slow down. That said, I think Clyne is a fantastic all-round player. I'm also slightly biased towards players who came through our academy. That's my favourite part of The Project!
Too close to call, one of the two will end up moving to a different position in future (IIRC Chambers is very versatile). Or one of them will leave.
