The simplest way to solve this disagreement is this: Bale is being linked with a move for £100m+. Walcott was available for free and nobody moved for him.
Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Basically you laughed at my view of Walcott and Bale not having a huge difference between them so i backed it up with stats and reasonable argument - you ignore that totally.
You ask me why Bale is over-rated and Walcott is under-rated - i provide you with reasons - you ignore them and make some comment about Madrid being naive....
Good discussion buddy - well worth my time
You ask me why Bale is over-rated and Walcott is under-rated - i provide you with reasons - you ignore them and make some comment about Madrid being naive....
Good discussion buddy - well worth my time
Of the last 4 seasons we have finished 4th twice and 3rd twice, so we are not scrapping 4th every season
So, carrying on in that vein means you'll be scrapping for 5th place for the next 2 seasons then?..
Not at all. I didn't say that Bale was no better than Walcott, I just highlighted their respective stats to show that they are similar. The difference is that in our team, the goals are spread amongst the team and Walcott makes a contribution to the overall collective effort, whereas Bale in your team scores the crucial goals and carries the rest of the team along.
He had sixth months left on his contract and was free to sign a pre-contract agreement with whoever he wanted to.
The only side linked with him was Liverpool and it doesn't appear that they followed up on it.
Basically you laughed at my view of Walcott and Bale not having a huge difference between them so i backed it up with stats and reasonable argument - you ignore that totally.
You ask me why Bale is over-rated and Walcott is under-rated - i provide you with reasons - you ignore them and make some comment about Madrid being naive....
Good discussion buddy - well worth my time
Why is Bale worth more than Walcott? I would have thought that last season was adequate explanation. Bale scored some goals, and did some things that no other player currently on the face of this planet could have scored, or done. THAT's why Real are so desperate to have him. And why they'll pay almost anything to get him.
They're probably far better judges of talent than you lot, or they'd be banging your door down to sign Walcott. Don't see much sign of Real, or anybody else doing that!...
You've got it all wrong NSIS, apparently Madrid only want to sign players who the media say are good, they don't bother with scouting or anything stupid like that
your post was well thought through but doesn't explain why the most successful club in history would want to break the world transfer record for Bale. I think the two players have similar skill levels but Bale's extra speed, strength, stamina and size make him a much more valuable player. The similarity in stats is partly down to the different systems and roles and partly down to Arsenal having a better squad than Spurs over this time periodBasically you laughed at my view of Walcott and Bale not having a huge difference between them so i backed it up with stats and reasonable argument - you ignore that totally.
You ask me why Bale is over-rated and Walcott is under-rated - i provide you with reasons - you ignore them and make some comment about Madrid being naive....
Good discussion buddy - well worth my time
@Nowsuferinginspain
Ok post #13344 - If your going to try and make a comment at least make sure you know what your talking about. We have finished 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th - so if we continue in that vein we will finish 3rd next season, not 5th. Numbers not your strong point?
As for the value argument - it's just plain stupid. Torres is obviously twice the player of RVP. Bent is one of the best players in the league. Oh wait, whats that, this is all nonsense and the price paid for a player doesnt guarantee his abiulity? Shock horror....
@PNP - Chelsea and Pool where both an alert waiting to see what would happen but it was obvious he would re-sign for Arsenal, he has also been linked with moves to Utd and Barca over the last couple of seasons. (Barca even began the bigging up of Walcott with messi, pep and others comming out with how good he is).
I haven't at any point said Walcot is the better player, or that Bale isn't a fantastic player - my point is about how the two players are really not that vastly seperated as some seem to think
Ok post #13344 - If your going to try and make a comment at least make sure you know what your talking about. We have finished 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th - so if we continue in that vein we will finish 3rd next season, not 5th. Numbers not your strong point?
As for the value argument - it's just plain stupid. Torres is obviously twice the player of RVP. Bent is one of the best players in the league. Oh wait, whats that, this is all nonsense and the price paid for a player doesnt guarantee his abiulity? Shock horror....
@PNP - Chelsea and Pool where both an alert waiting to see what would happen but it was obvious he would re-sign for Arsenal, he has also been linked with moves to Utd and Barca over the last couple of seasons. (Barca even began the bigging up of Walcott with messi, pep and others comming out with how good he is).
I haven't at any point said Walcot is the better player, or that Bale isn't a fantastic player - my point is about how the two players are really not that vastly seperated as some seem to think
As the statmongers are out again, I'll simply mention my favourite from a couple of years ago:
League stats for the 2010/11 season:
Xavi: 3 goals, 7 assists.
Chris Brunt: 4 goals, 11 assists.
Brunt > Xavi.
League stats for the 2010/11 season:
Xavi: 3 goals, 7 assists.
Chris Brunt: 4 goals, 11 assists.
Brunt > Xavi.
If Chelsea and Liverpool wanted him, then they'd have moved for him. The idea that they'd wait for you to sort out his contract is ludicrous, frankly.
@PNP - im sure if you do a statistical analysis over a longer period of time you'll get a more accurate view of those two players. Stats can be presented in a goodway or in a stupid ways. It's about how you use them and what stats you focus on. And of course stats are not everything. That doesnt mean they are nothing.
In the case of two wide players, with a similar role, similar styles of play in teams of a fairly similar level currently, who both have very similar stats - i'd say it's fair to say they are on a similar level and use the stats to back that up.
In the case of two wide players, with a similar role, similar styles of play in teams of a fairly similar level currently, who both have very similar stats - i'd say it's fair to say they are on a similar level and use the stats to back that up.
@PNP - there is no point wasting your time going for a player who won't be moving. Walcott was always going to stay - he said it, so did his agent, so did wenger, so did the club. It was about agreeing on terms. Any interest from otehr clubs was used as leverage.
Clubs generally don't waste time on transfers they don't think will happen.
And it was reported at the time that enquires had been made andhe had been contacted.... (rumours ofc)
Clubs generally don't waste time on transfers they don't think will happen.
And it was reported at the time that enquires had been made andhe had been contacted.... (rumours ofc)
But the point you're highlighting is that Brunt's stats are good in an average team, and Xavi's average in a good team.
You could apply the same framework to Bale and Walcott, and it makes Walcott look like the better player because he's playing in a better team.
The point I'm highlighting is that stats are largely meaningless.
Xavi was the playmaker in a team that scored 95 league goals and he was directly involved (goals, assists) with only 11 of them (11.5%).
Brunt played a similar role or was shunted out wide in a side that scored 56 goals. He was directly involved in 15 of them (27%).
They were both playing in similar level leagues and the stats suggest that Brunt had a better season.
Anyone that actually thinks that he did needs to have their head examined, though.
Players say a lot of things in public. I'm sure that I could dig you up a few choice comments from van Persie, Nasri, Toure, etc.
Would that have put the likes of Chelsea off? Of course not. If they'd have really wanted him, then they'd have made him a far superior offer, especially as he'd have been free.