dazzybee Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 And if @dazzybee calls him 'Ozili' one more time.... It's my stupid ipad. I need to recheck much more than i do with the stupid thing And yeah, Ozil is the more proven player, I wouldn't' swap because Eriksen looks incredible, but obviously Ozil has done more and is an incredible player. As for Ramsey, hes been average if not crap for a long time, one good start to the season does not mean hes a world beater all of a sudden, he might be, but no way would I take him over a brazilian international who looks incredible and still getting used to a new league.
Jon Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Mourino said that when he signed him. He preferred a host of other similar players this summer and not Ozili. Real Madrid were more than happy to let him go and even recently said he doesn't have the right attitude. Bale was also playing for spurs at 21, what's that got todo with anything. Though it shows your viewpoint clearly, you are incredibly short sighted. Oh what a surprise. All he gooners sticking up for each other. I was going to do a Breakdown properly, but after the responses i couldn't be bothered, it would be pointless. And I also included Chelsea and Man city, but as always arsenal fans a re fixated with spurs so it became the same old boring bias debate. I said I'd take ozil and carzola. The goons said they take none. Which is frankly ridiculous and why I can't be arsed. If the goons genuinely think flamini and diaby are better than sandro and Capoue, and Ramsey is better than Paulinho, and they wouldn't take eriksen or dembele etc Then it just proves everything I believed about their mindset. Mourinho said he didn't rate him when he signed him? what? You seem to be basing your conclusion on Mourinho not liking Ozil because he wen't to Arsenal and not Chelsea. There's been stories lately about Mourinho in fact trying to sign him but he was too late. Madrid haven't said anything about Ozil, that's pure speculation in press as to why they'd sell such a player. Bale did play for Tottenham at 21, he wasn't considered one of the top players in the world 3 years ago. Considering how cheap Eriksen was to sign, if he was that highly rated he'd be at a better club, pure and simple. I do think he'll go on to be a very good player but again, on the basis of a hand full of games you've basically said he's better than Ozil because he's younger. I never said I wouldn't take any Spurs players, so you're talking out your arse there. I'm simply trying to establish how you can rate players so highly like Paulinho when you know nothing about him, you've seen what's he's done on the basis of 6 games and immediately said he's better than half our midfield. Apparently it's crazy that we could consider a midfielder who has scored more goals and had more tackles than him a better player. Basically the point i've been trying to make is with the exception of about 3 players, the midfield you've got are price tags. Their potential is not in question but they haven't proven anything. You've seen them play as much as we have, how you can proclaim them to be the best in the league after 6 games is nothing but fanboy love.
Ramar Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 I said I'd take ozil and carzola. The goons said they take none. Which is frankly ridiculous and why I can't be arsed. If the goons genuinely think flamini and diaby are better than sandro and Capoue, and Ramsey is better thanPaulinho, and they wouldn't take eriksen or dembele etc Then it just proves everything I believed about their mindset. I said I wouldn't swap anyone. Which means out of the comparison list I made I wouldn't trade one of ours for yours like for like. I rate Eriksen, but he wouldn't get in our fully fit midfield, we've already got Cazorla and Ozil. The new lot I don't know enough about to consider taking them, and the old lot like Lennon, well Theo does a good job keeping him out the England team. As for Ramsey, hes been average if not crap for a long time, one good start to the season does not mean hes a world beater all of a sudden, he might be, but no way would I take him over a brazilian international who looks incredible and still getting used to a new league. Officially mad, Ramsey's killed more celebrities than Team America.
dazzybee Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Mourinho said he didn't rate him when he signed him? what? You seem to be basing your conclusion on Mourinho not liking Ozil because he wen't to Arsenal and not Chelsea. There's been stories lately about Mourinho in fact trying to sign him but he was too late. Madrid haven't said anything about Ozil, that's pure speculation in press as to why they'd sell such a player. Bale did play for Tottenham at 21, he wasn't considered one of the top players in the world 3 years ago. Considering how cheap Eriksen was to sign, if he was that highly rated he'd be at a better club, pure and simple. I do think he'll go on to be a very good player but again, on the basis of a hand full of games you've basically said he's better than Ozil because he's younger. I never said I wouldn't take any Spurs players, so you're talking out your arse there. I'm simply trying to establish how you can rate players so highly like Paulinho when you know nothing about him, you've seen what's he's done on the basis of 6 games and immediately said he's better than half our midfield. Apparently it's crazy that we could consider a midfielder who has scored more goals and had more tackles than him a better player. Basically the point i've been trying to make is with the exception of about 3 players, the midfield you've got are price tags. Their potential is not in question but they haven't proven anything. You've seen them play as much as we have, how you can proclaim them to be the best in the league after 6 games is nothing but fanboy love. God you're infuriating, you manipulate everything. I meant Mourinho said he was the ebest number 10 when he signed him. And no, he didn't try and resign him, he was busy signing similar players he preferred after working with him for years. If Chelsea wanted him, he would have got him, surely you're not THAT deluded to think he'd choose Arsenal over them?! Your rationale is so weird, so simple, so immediate. Do you not know that man City tried signing Eriksen and he turned them down? Do you not think Ajax are a big club? The fact he came to spurs does not mean he isn't amazing, this is such idiocy; Berbatove, Modric, Bale, Carrick all went for huge fees, they didn't become good when they left spurs and played for a "bigger club" which is how you seem to be judging your views. And I never said Eriksen is better than Ozil, when did I say this> In fact I said Ozils expeirnece gives him the edge, what I did say is I wouldn't swap them, as I think Eriksen could be even better than Ozil. You never said you wouldn't take our players, Ramar did, (problem with debating two goons). You say about me rating Paulinho, I have watched Brazil games, not many, but I have, plus did you see the worldy he scored against England. Fact is, brazil are the worlds best team, and he's one of their best midfielders. And is judging him on this season any different to everyone creaming over Ramsey in the same time frame? You're like Harry Redknapp, only rate players who are proven in the premier league NOW!!! Paulimho's just come? Well then no one is allowed to rate him!!! Awesome logic!! But what's wrong with potential (most of which have bags of international experience and there is other leagues outside of england and spain)? I'd rather someone with loads of potential than someone who is proven to only be pretty good. Officially mad, Ramsey's killed more celebrities than Team America. Haha, though his powers have waned this season!
Ramar Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 Brazil the worlds best team? Spain might have something to say about that.
Jon Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 To say he's Brazilian makes him great is a bit of reach. Plenty of duds have played for Brazil. Hello Jo. Do I think Ajax are a big club? well it depends on how you define a big club. Why do you think Eriksen didn't go to Man City? i'm thinking lack of consistent playing time perhaps? I don't only rate players in the Premier League. I watch many leagues around the world, I've known about Eriksen for example for many years. It's fair enough to slate people for creaming over Ramsey on the basis of 6 games but most Arsenal fans are aware of how good he was becoming before he got butchered by Shawcross, it's just taken him a long time to get back to that level. So Chelsea weren't in for him because Dazzy said so? I don't usually believe paper stories but i'm sure their more accurate than a bitter spud who claims to know the truth. Your logic is even more awesome than mine. You say Eriksen turned down Man City to go to Spurs, yet according to you there's no possibility Ozil would turn down Chelsea to go to Arsenal. Hmmm.
dazzybee Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 To say he's Brazilian makes him great is a bit of reach. Plenty of duds have played for Brazil. Hello Jo. Do I think Ajax are a big club? well it depends on how you define a big club. Why do you think Eriksen didn't go to Man City? i'm thinking lack of consistent playing time perhaps? I don't only rate players in the Premier League. I watch many leagues around the world, I've known about Eriksen for example for many years. It's fair enough to slate people for creaming over Ramsey on the basis of 6 games but most Arsenal fans are aware of how good he was becoming before he got butchered by Shawcross, it's just taken him a long time to get back to that level. So Chelsea weren't in for him because Dazzy said so? I don't usually believe paper stories but i'm sure their more accurate than a bitter spud who claims to know the truth. Your logic is even more awesome than mine. You say Eriksen turned down Man City to go to Spurs, yet according to you there's no possibility Ozil would turn down Chelsea to go to Arsenal. Hmmm. There you go again twist twist twist. I NEVER said he's brazilian so he must be good, I said brazilian are the best team in the world (maybe Spain but I think Brazil are better) and he's one of their important players. Not all brazilians are good!!! And you're twisting the Eriksen debate, one minute you're talking about Eriksen didn't go to a bigger club, then you change it to "well, he'd just be sat on the bench so didn't go..." You twist and change your own and others words to fit your agenda. You did it last season too. Most aresenal fans aware of how good ramsey was? ! Bullshit. How many goons couldn't believe he was getting game time. Revisionist!! No, you're right. Cheslea wanted Ozil. Barca did. Man U did. But he CHOSE arsenal!!! None of us know, but I know which is more believable. And no, I don't believe Ozil would turn Chelsea down for Arsenal, UNLESS e hates Mourinho. Or, more likely, Chelsea didn't want him. He was desperate to stay with madrid, but they didn't want him either. Don't be bothered about it, you've got an amazing player as a result. Brazil the worlds best team? Spain might have something to say about that. Yeah maybe. I don't think so, and reckon Brazil will win the WC!
Wii Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I heard a great line yesterday. David Moyes spent 12 years trying to get Everton above Manchester United, well he's finally achieved that goal.
Jon Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 There you go again twist twist twist. I NEVER said he's brazilian so he must be good, I said brazilian are the best team in the world (maybe Spain but I think Brazil are better) and he's one of their important players. Not all brazilians are good!!! And you're twisting the Eriksen debate, one minute you're talking about Eriksen didn't go to a bigger club, then you change it to "well, he'd just be sat on the bench so didn't go..." You twist and change your own and others words to fit your agenda. You did it last season too. Most aresenal fans aware of how good ramsey was? ! Bullshit. How many goons couldn't believe he was getting game time. Revisionist!! No, you're right. Cheslea wanted Ozil. Barca did. Man U did. But he CHOSE arsenal!!! None of us know, but I know which is more believable. And no, I don't believe Ozil would turn Chelsea down for Arsenal, UNLESS e hates Mourinho. Or, more likely, Chelsea didn't want him. He was desperate to stay with madrid, but they didn't want him either. Don't be bothered about it, you've got an amazing player as a result. Yeah maybe. I don't think so, and reckon Brazil will win the WC! I haven't twisted anything. I'm simply trying to understand what the fuck you're talking about. What are all these things that I did last season? Stating how many goals I thought Podolski would get and saying I'd take Vermaelen over Vertonghen. Brazil are one of the better teams in the world yes, Paulinho has 20 caps. One of their most important players? very debatable. For as many criticised Ramsey, many stood by him. I was simply stating that he's got a body of work as opposed to a player like Paulinho who wasn't on your radar until you signed him. Personally I got Ramsey on my home shirt at the start of last season, always been been a big fan. So enlighten me Dazzy, if it wasn't for playing time why did Eriksen turn down Man City for Spurs? I'm sure many teams would have loved to have signed Ozil, not many clubs have a spare £45 Million kicking about though. I'm not bothered about Ozil, i'm glad he wanted out of Madrid, we've got him as a result.
Mr-Paul Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 I'm actually loving this argument/banter :P Dazzy, I'm with Ramar here in the way that I probably wouldn't swap any of our midfielders for yours, like for like. I'm not denying that you have some quality midfielders - Eriksen, Paulinho etc. are great players. But we don't need them - I wouldn't have them over Cazorla and Özil, for example. You try and downplay how good Özil is - only Messi matched him in the number of assists he created in the last two years. With regards to Ramsey, he had a massive injury and has worked his way back to fitness, and was often played out of position last season. Now he has won his spot in a more natural position he is absolutely flying - he might not keep up this rate of scoring, but he's doing great - NOTE this is not me saying he's world class. Jack Wilshere - he isn't regarded as one of England's brightest prospects for nothing - maybe he is overhyped but he is a brilliant, give-it-all midfielder who I believe should only get better. Again, he has been plagued by injury, but he is still young and has lots to learn. Never would I rather have Andros Townsend over him, or Lennon over Walcott. Don't rate either at all - I'd love for them to better than they actually are for England's sake! I'll give you Capoué over Diaby though. It'd be nice to have a player that wasn't constantly injured! Other than that, Ramar's assessment seems pretty fair to me.
Ramar Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 I think when Diaby is fully fit and with a run of games (lol, never, I know) he's a class act. Unfortunately you can't rely on that ever happening.
dazzybee Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Surely you'd take Sandro and Capoue. You are weak in DM area, Falmini is doing better than I'm sure we all imagined, but he still not great (positioning hasn't been perfect) and with CL you need to rest/rotate, but have no one. As for the rest, fair enough, i think it's all pretty comparable to be honest and probably why none of us would swap, happy with what we have. Now shall we get to centre backs
Jon Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Surely you'd take Sandro and Capoue. You are weak in DM area, Falmini is doing better than I'm sure we all imagined, but he still not great (positioning hasn't been perfect) and with CL you need to rest/rotate, but have no one. As for the rest, fair enough, i think it's all pretty comparable to be honest and probably why none of us would swap, happy with what we have. Now shall we get to centre backs Are we talking just this season or including last season
bob Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Just to interrupt this argument for a second (which is surely going somewhere), when fans are referred to as 'plastics', is this in a material science context or what? Is it something to do with credit cards?
dazzybee Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Just to interrupt this argument for a second (which is surely going somewhere), when fans are referred to as 'plastics', is this in a material science context or what? Is it something to do with credit cards? Not sure if you're being serious or not, but I'll answer anyway. It just means a fake fan. So all the new Chelsea and Man city fans are plastic fans supporting the newest big and shiny thing for example.
Ramar Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 Just to interrupt this argument for a second (which is surely going somewhere), when fans are referred to as 'plastics', is this in a material science context or what? Is it something to do with credit cards? Just another word for glory hunter. I've booked up for Dortmund away. 10 hours on a coach happy days...
bob Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Yes, but why the word plastic? Is it from a plastic surgery sense then?
dazzybee Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Just another word for glory hunter. I've booked up for Dortmund away. 10 hours on a coach happy days... When are you going. Me and some mates are doing Germany and Dortmund end of November.
Jon Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 (edited) Not bad for a team with the 2nd best midfield in the league :wink: Edited October 1, 2013 by Jon
Charlie Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Just back from the Celtic game. Pretty gutted. Another fantastic performance from the lads and Mulgrew really should've scored to make it 1-0 from a corner. Stupid, stupid sending off. We had no idea what it was for as we didn't see him kick out.
Jon Posted October 1, 2013 Posted October 1, 2013 Just back from the Celtic game. Pretty gutted. Another fantastic performance from the lads and Mulgrew really should've scored to make it 1-0 from a corner. Stupid, stupid sending off. We had no idea what it was for as we didn't see him kick out. Wasn't much in it and Neymar obviously made it look like an assassination but it was a kick and you can't get away with that nowadays, especially right in front of the referee. He's the captain, he should know better than reverting to the stupid shit he used to do. Before the sending off Barca had their usual 180% of possession in the centre of the pitch with Forster having nothing to do. Game got stretched as we looked for an equaliser but Forster played a blinder. We've played quite well in the first 2 games and have nothing to show for it.
Ramar Posted October 1, 2013 Author Posted October 1, 2013 That was a fantastic night at the Emirates. First half we were unplayable, absolutely superb. Could have been 3/4 up. Second half we took the foot off it a bit but we played with desire, passion and togetherness. There's a real confidence and spirit in the side at the minute. And when you've got Ozil opening his account with a goal like that, magic. Side note, the atmosphere was proper old school in there, loved it. The fans are being won over by this side.
-Dem0- Posted October 2, 2013 Posted October 2, 2013 Pundits and commentators were saying that this was Arsenal's first real test against an out-and-out top quality side. The result? Arsenal put in the complete performance and made Napoli look average at best.
Recommended Posts