• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Would You Support Move For Rio

asajoseph

Established Member
quattro,

Firstly, you missed the point entirely - my post is in response to this post here, by invisibleman

so in the beckham thread in the transfers section you are saying you care that hes an ex manc, but wouldnt care for ferdinand?

So before ranting, I think it's best to get some context. So, to do that, let's go back to the start of this thread and remind ourselves what the question was. Sabret00the's initial question was this

If we matched Real's £21m bid for Rio ferdinand would you back it?

To which my initial response was this

What on earth's the point of this question?

He's a manc, he'd cost a lot in transfer fees and wages, but he's a damn good player, with his best years still in front of him.

However, in the meantime, OTIL had posted this

Do we need him?

I don't think we do. The defence has been generally strong over the last two year, the opening months of this season aside.

So, now that we know where we stand, I'll expand.

You said

you are looking at things from purely the perspective of the team as a playing unit which IMO is unrealistic.

Which, if I were writing a post purely about whether or not we should sign Rio Ferdinand, would be perfectly legitimate. However, in the context of the discussion I was resonding EXACTLY to issues with the playing unit - nothing more. Now, it sounds to me that OTIL's post is a post about whether we 'need' Rio Ferdinand in footballing terms - and therefore, to respond to his point I felt it appropriate to limit the discussion to purely footballing terms.

1. he will be very expensive to buy and maintain. this is a critical assumption in the argument obviously because not taking this into consideration will be thoroughly unrealistic. for this reason alone, we dont "need" him.

Indeed, this is true and has never been in dispute. But like I said, in the context of my particular post, I don't think it was relevant.

2. he has a track record for off-pitch tomfoolery. yes we've had some ourselves, which is all the more reason we have to stay away from him.

Yes, this is quite true too - that's why I said in my previous post in this thread...

...brings all that extra baggage...

Your third point too is accurate

3. we have senderos and toure. you will go again with the argument "but thats like saying we dont NEED to improve the team". given that ferdinand is a better player than senderos or toure, you may have a point but looking at what it will cost us, i disagree. i'd rather look at the NET effect, not just the obvious possible improvement on the pitch.

And indeed has never been in dispute - in fact, this is exactly the point I made in my previous post, when I said

The fact that he's a manc is enough for me to dislike him, however his footballing talent would certainly be enough to override that factor alone. The fact that he brings all that extra baggage may put me off him.

If you believe that I was trying to state that we SHOULD buy Rio Ferdinand, then you're mistaken. My point is simply that Rio Ferdinand is a world class footballer, and if it were down to that alone, we should sign him - however, as I've recognised several times in this thread, that's NOT all there is to Rio. I would have thought that reading the entire thread in context would make that pretty obvious.

I was responding, I believe, to a point made regarding footballing talent alone. If it were down to that, I'd take Ferdinand in an instant, and he'd be straight into the first team.

and i doubt anyone would disagree with you based on this PURELY.

but we know better now dont we?

I find it quite bizarre that to make this point you've ignored the parts of my previous post, and my other posts in this thread where I've mentioned Rio's other drawbacks. It's all very well taking two sentences from my post, but if you don't read the whole thing in its entirety, or take it in the proper context, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.

net effect. for all your pontifications on how naive others are here for not thinking we "need" ferdinand despite his obvious and proven performance on the pitch, it looks like its you who is being myopic in always placing the argument into very limited and unrealistic parameters in order to prove your point

I'm beginning to sound like a stuck record now, I'm sorry. BUT as I've demonstrated to you, the inital discussion with OTIL back on page one WAS based upon the limited parameters of 'footballing talent'.

Your point, and excuse me if I misrepresent you, is that the 'net effect' of Rio Ferdinand would be a negative. I've never disagreed with that statement. What I have done, however, is break down Rio Ferdinand's effect into components - footballing and non-footballing. If it is wrong for me to point out that one of those components, the footballing one, would certainly be a massive benefit to the club, then I think we might need a whole new way of approaching Message Boards in general.

if we use your view that we "need" ferdinand purely because he is a great defender, we can then also conclude that we "need" shevchenko, adriano, nesta, puyol, ronaldinho etc... all because they are great talents as well that will "improve" us.

This isn't my view - you've missed the point. I've never said that we 'need' Rio Ferdinand specifically. But to assume that we've got the best possible XI players out on the pitch every single saturday, and that we don't 'need' to improve is where the real myopia lies.

a rather "naive" way to look at things no different from all those comical dream lineups we have at the transfer forum dont you think?

Now you're talking. Nothing bugs me more than dream lineups...
 

Aussie

Established Member
asajoseph said:
quattro,

Firstly, you missed the point entirely - my post is in response to this post here, by invisibleman

so in the beckham thread in the transfers section you are saying you care that hes an ex manc, but wouldnt care for ferdinand?

So before ranting, I think it's best to get some context. So, to do that, let's go back to the start of this thread and remind ourselves what the question was. Sabret00the's initial question was this

If we matched Real's £21m bid for Rio ferdinand would you back it?

To which my initial response was this

What on earth's the point of this question?

He's a manc, he'd cost a lot in transfer fees and wages, but he's a damn good player, with his best years still in front of him.

However, in the meantime, OTIL had posted this

Do we need him?

I don't think we do. The defence has been generally strong over the last two year, the opening months of this season aside.

So, now that we know where we stand, I'll expand.

You said

you are looking at things from purely the perspective of the team as a playing unit which IMO is unrealistic.

Which, if I were writing a post purely about whether or not we should sign Rio Ferdinand, would be perfectly legitimate. However, in the context of the discussion I was resonding EXACTLY to issues with the playing unit - nothing more. Now, it sounds to me that OTIL's post is a post about whether we 'need' Rio Ferdinand in footballing terms - and therefore, to respond to his point I felt it appropriate to limit the discussion to purely footballing terms.

1. he will be very expensive to buy and maintain. this is a critical assumption in the argument obviously because not taking this into consideration will be thoroughly unrealistic. for this reason alone, we dont "need" him.

Indeed, this is true and has never been in dispute. But like I said, in the context of my particular post, I don't think it was relevant.

2. he has a track record for off-pitch tomfoolery. yes we've had some ourselves, which is all the more reason we have to stay away from him.

Yes, this is quite true too - that's why I said in my previous post in this thread...

...brings all that extra baggage...

Your third point too is accurate

3. we have senderos and toure. you will go again with the argument "but thats like saying we dont NEED to improve the team". given that ferdinand is a better player than senderos or toure, you may have a point but looking at what it will cost us, i disagree. i'd rather look at the NET effect, not just the obvious possible improvement on the pitch.

And indeed has never been in dispute - in fact, this is exactly the point I made in my previous post, when I said

The fact that he's a manc is enough for me to dislike him, however his footballing talent would certainly be enough to override that factor alone. The fact that he brings all that extra baggage may put me off him.

If you believe that I was trying to state that we SHOULD buy Rio Ferdinand, then you're mistaken. My point is simply that Rio Ferdinand is a world class footballer, and if it were down to that alone, we should sign him - however, as I've recognised several times in this thread, that's NOT all there is to Rio. I would have thought that reading the entire thread in context would make that pretty obvious.

I was responding, I believe, to a point made regarding footballing talent alone. If it were down to that, I'd take Ferdinand in an instant, and he'd be straight into the first team.

and i doubt anyone would disagree with you based on this PURELY.

but we know better now dont we?

I find it quite bizarre that to make this point you've ignored the parts of my previous post, and my other posts in this thread where I've mentioned Rio's other drawbacks. It's all very well taking two sentences from my post, but if you don't read the whole thing in its entirety, or take it in the proper context, you're deliberately misrepresenting what I've said.

net effect. for all your pontifications on how naive others are here for not thinking we "need" ferdinand despite his obvious and proven performance on the pitch, it looks like its you who is being myopic in always placing the argument into very limited and unrealistic parameters in order to prove your point

I'm beginning to sound like a stuck record now, I'm sorry. BUT as I've demonstrated to you, the inital discussion with OTIL back on page one WAS based upon the limited parameters of 'footballing talent'.

Your point, and excuse me if I misrepresent you, is that the 'net effect' of Rio Ferdinand would be a negative. I've never disagreed with that statement. What I have done, however, is break down Rio Ferdinand's effect into components - footballing and non-footballing. If it is wrong for me to point out that one of those components, the footballing one, would certainly be a massive benefit to the club, then I think we might need a whole new way of approaching Message Boards in general.

if we use your view that we "need" ferdinand purely because he is a great defender, we can then also conclude that we "need" shevchenko, adriano, nesta, puyol, ronaldinho etc... all because they are great talents as well that will "improve" us.

This isn't my view - you've missed the point. I've never said that we 'need' Rio Ferdinand specifically. But to assume that we've got the best possible XI players out on the pitch every single saturday, and that we don't 'need' to improve is where the real myopia lies.

a rather "naive" way to look at things no different from all those comical dream lineups we have at the transfer forum dont you think?

Now you're talking. Nothing bugs me more than dream lineups...

My head hurts.
 

burnsjed

Established Member
I can't believe this thread is still going!
Thought it was daft to start with, and nothing has changed that
 

Latest posts+

Top Bottom