I don't think that he'd suit our system though, Notso. Could he lead the line in a lone role in the Premier League? Owen's a crock. He can't play 90 minutes, is rarely fit and isn't up to the rigours of regular football any more. He's got 5 league goals in two seasons. Total waste of money and a squad place.
Could he lead the line any worse?...we all doubted Gallas to start with. As I keep saying PNP, not 1st choice, just better back up than we have., and as i said previously a goal every 2.5 games in La Liga, in a **** side isn't too bad imo. Couldn't agree more on Owen, which is my main point back at Luke, who suggested hasbeens have no use...why did they buy him then? This is just a hypothetical chat really, as it looks llike we'll do well to sell just one, and sign just one up front atm. Ideally I'd like to see a new main striker (lone role) AND a better backup striker. The reality of that i know looks unlikely.
if Levy had not held out for more money,we could have got shot of 3or4 of our deadwood and have got a top striker instead of looking at all these free's all looking for a last easy payday
I must admit I always thought of Trezeguet as a player who flattered to deceive and had never actually scored enough goals to back up his reputation as a top striker. I was also going to bring up Valdes who I thought had totally outscored David last year but apparently he only managed 8. The very fact that we're talking about Trezeguet shows how foolish we were not to go in for Klose on a free.
Fergie obviously disagrees; and so do I, to an extent. Any player would suffer a loss of form and confidence if they are not given game time. Look at Defoe. Undoubtedly Owens' many injuries have ensured that he's not half the player he once was. The one thing you don't lose, however, is that killer instinct. Owen has always had it; and, IMO, still does.
A lot of strikers don't have electric pace. However, the one thing all top strikers possess is that killer instinct. They don't panic, they are clinical. IMO, Owen still has that - he just doesn't play often enough to get that sharpness into his game. Maybe, that's partly due to injuries, but he seems to spend an awful lot of time warming the bench. Jimmy Greaves was never, either the fastest, nor the fittest, thing on two legs; but he never lost that instinct of how to put them away.
Greaves wasn't a crock, though. Owen's not capable of playing enough games to return to full sharpness and he's often not able to play 90 minutes. Ferguson doesn't get a lot wrong, but he's wrong about Owen.
We'll have to agree to disagree, mate. I know he's had many injuries - mostly hamstring, and maybe those injuries restrict the amount he can play. But to be able to play 90 mins, you've got to play 90 mins more consistently. I would still maintain that, if he's able to, then if he played more regularly, he would score much more frequently. No, Greavsie wasn't a crock. But he was a heavy drinker, and smoker. Even in his latter playing days, when he clearly wasn't fit, he was still a threat because of that instinct for scoring goals.
That's a lot of ifs, Notso. Surely Man Utd would be better off blooding a youngster? It would probably save them money on wages, for a start.
A striker of Qwens' ability comes along, in the U.K. once in a generation. Blooding youngsters is obviously what you look to do - if you can see potential. However, blooding youngsters just in an attempt to save money, is futile. Owen played for England at just 18, because the talent & potential was obvious. I'm sure if Fergie felt he had the quality, he would be blooding his young ones now. He never hesitated with Giggs, Scholes, Becks, etc. Even though certain "experts" told him he would never win anything with kids. In my view, Fergie still sees something there with Owen. He's not one for sentiment; and if he felt Owen was no longer up to it, he would dump him unceremoniously
Ferguson's not flawless, though. He may see something in training or he may just like Owen, as they share a love of horses, but it's clear that he's not doing it on the pitch.
That was my point, though, PNP. For whatever reason, he's not being given enough game time to do it on the pitch. I also think, that it would take more than a mutual love of horses, for Fergie to keep him on. As we know, he's usually utterly ruthless with those he no longer thinks up to the job.
Ceefax ran a story, with quotes from chairman Huw Jenkins, dismissing the link. Rather than Klose, we should've tried harder to sign Van Nistelrooy on a free - he's still scoring goals, has experience in the PL, and there was talk he was willing to take a pay cut. Instead, he slipped through our fingers and went to Malaga.
His goals last season came against Scunthorpe (2), Bolton, Southampton and Blackpool, Lidls. His Champions League hat-trick came in a game when you'd already qualified for the next round, too. Once Malaga became interested in van Nistelrooy, we were never going to sign him, Croydon. They're another club with Arabic money backing them.
Plenty of players City have coveted and/or courted haven't signed for them (i.e. Kaka, Alexis Sanchez), and they're bankrolled by Arabic money. A lot more of it than Malaga, in fact. Why do people equate a club having Arabic money with players signing for them as if they had a gun held to their head? It's nonsensical.
I didn't say that he was automatically going to Malaga, Croydon. I said that we were then out of the running. Kaka went to Real Madrid and Sanchez went to Barca. We can't match their financial clout or their prestige.
