User Tag List

Page 725 of 725 FirstFirst ... 225625675715723724725
Results 10,861 to 10,875 of 10875

Thread: Xavi Hernández

  1. #10861
    Senior Member
    malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bucharest, Romania
    Posts
    773
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Marshall D Teach View Post
    Sure, if we’re talking about Busquets and Rakitic in their primes. That’s long gone now though, those two are finished.
    don't think you lose the talent with age. its just that you don't have the legs and energy to do the same stuff you could do 10 years ago.

    remember rakitic in sevilla? he was a beast who ran from box to box, scoring goals and pulling the strings in midfield.

    even so, properly rested and rotated, those two would be more valuable than prime henderson...to a team with a good coach.

  2. #10862
    Junior Member

    Join Date
    May 2019
    Posts
    103
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raketa10 View Post
    He is not ready. Let him prepare for his career as a coach far away from this board. I hope he comes after Barto leaves but not before. He should be ready for 2021/22 season.
    He’s more ready than Valverde will ever be.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Observer View Post
    Very disingenuous to take THAT away from my post.

    The squad bar Messi is average (for Barca standards). We are not above Tottenham without Messi. The best performers are nearing retirement. The rest is nothing special. Maybe De Jong and Arthur will become great in a few years, right now they are 21 and 22. Which midfielders ever dominated consistently at that age?

    You want to believe Dembélé is another Mbappe but he is more like another Lucas Moura or Douglas Costa.

    Semedo is nothing. I think you could plug in 30 other RBs in that position and there would be no downgrade.

    Valverde is not great. He is also not particularly bad. He is like most coaches you will get other than Pep and Klopp right now mixed with a not so great Barca.

    This is what you end up with.

    I will not argue this to eternal lengths though. Everyone has his own opinion already and will not deviate from it. Most think this is still the best team in the world and only the coach is holding it back and a Setien or Sarri would get rainbows shining out of Dembélés ass. I don't believe in that.

    Who is right we will never know. By the time Valverde goes Messi and Suarez will decline and the narrative for the next coach will shift again. How he has to deal with a Messi-less Barca and he'll be given leeway.
    Funny how Spurs did better in the CL than we did, despite the fact that we have Messi and they don't. Unlike us, they didn't get utterly humiliated. Oh right, that's because they actually have a competent coach.

    Also, guys nearing retirement like Busquets and Rakitic our best performers? Now I've heard it all

    De Jong and Arthur won't "maybe become great in a few years", they've already done it against the best teams. Much more than Busquets and Rakitic can say these past couple of years.

    The revisionism by the Valverde fanboys here is insane. Already trying to downplay FDJ too, because they know EV is going to bench him and they have to justify it somehow.
    Last edited by Marshall D Teach; 18th August 2019 at 08:01 PM.

  3. #10863
    Senior Member
    BarcaOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Observer View Post
    I'm not an idiot, I'm working on my PhD in Theoretical Physics.

    Logic seems not your strong point however. Otherwise you would be aware that there are many coaches who



    So going from one of those to most likely another one is completely pointless.

    I remember the Lucho days. Yes, I have a very well functioning memory. The hate posts were the same. "Completely clueless manager, only MSN, we have no midfield" and so on. Even the same childish name changes, someone called him "Licho" which is supposed to be "trash" in Portuguese. Flavia was behind it afaik.

    Then Barca went with Valverde. Why are you not enjoying that managerial change?
    Being a physicist does not make you an insightful football analyst--you begin your 'reply' by claiming my logic is weak (which it could be, though I am prepared to defend it) yet your first claim is that there is somehow a correlation or correspondence between theoretical physics and footballing insight. Bravo, Einstein, you should write FIFA and all national FAs recommending that they scrap whatever their professional coaching courses teach and replace it with instruction in physics. Because, as you so ironically put it, logic.

    I think you are right that Lucho was unfairly criticized--I always liked him and thought the abuse he received here was exaggerated. But let us take up logic once again. Your bringing up of Lucho assumes that I wanted Lucho sacked, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Where did you come up with that? Surely not my posts history; if you'd looked there, you'd have found that I supported Lucho. Logic tells us unfounded assumptions result in weak and faulty arguments. That is certainly true here.

    Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

    Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

    So tell me this, you dazzling mathematician: are you really suggesting that the shitfest that we saw at Roma two years ago, at Anfield last season, and at Athletic just a few days ago is really the best we can do?

    If so, well then I am glad, for your sake, monsieur Newton, that there is in fact no correlation whatsoever between expertise in theoretical physics and footballing insight. Otherwise, you'd be shit at both.
    peptastic

  4. #10864
    6racies Xavi
    messi2140's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    4,270
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BarcaOG View Post
    Being a physicist does not make you an insightful football analyst--you begin your 'reply' by claiming my logic is weak (which it could be, though I am prepared to defend it) yet your first claim is that there is somehow a correlation or correspondence between theoretical physics and footballing insight. Bravo, Einstein, you should write FIFA and all national FAs recommending that they scrap whatever their professional coaching courses teach and replace it with instruction in physics. Because, as you so ironically put it, logic.

    I think you are right that Lucho was unfairly criticized--I always liked him and thought the abuse he received here was exaggerated. But let us take up logic once again. Your bringing up of Lucho assumes that I wanted Lucho sacked, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Where did you come up with that? Surely not my posts history; if you'd looked there, you'd have found that I supported Lucho. Logic tells us unfounded assumptions result in weak and faulty arguments. That is certainly true here.

    Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

    Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

    So tell me this, you dazzling mathematician: are you really suggesting that the shitfest that we saw at Roma two years ago, at Anfield last season, and at Athletic just a few days ago is really the best we can do?

    If so, well then I am glad, for your sake, monsieur Newton, that there is in fact no correlation whatsoever between expertise in theoretical physics and footballing insight. Otherwise, you'd be shit at both.
    In his defense he is still working on that thesis , so who knows what kind of bullshit he is writing up.
    Quote Originally Posted by A Valverde cheerleader in his natural habitat View Post
    Good, let them win the overrated CL and we'll continue to dominate La Liga.

  5. #10865
    Senior Member
    The Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    655
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by BarcaOG View Post
    Being a physicist does not make you an insightful football analyst--you begin your 'reply' by claiming my logic is weak (which it could be, though I am prepared to defend it) yet your first claim is that there is somehow a correlation or correspondence between theoretical physics and footballing insight. Bravo, Einstein, you should write FIFA and all national FAs recommending that they scrap whatever their professional coaching courses teach and replace it with instruction in physics. Because, as you so ironically put it, logic.

    I think you are right that Lucho was unfairly criticized--I always liked him and thought the abuse he received here was exaggerated. But let us take up logic once again. Your bringing up of Lucho assumes that I wanted Lucho sacked, but that is an unwarranted assumption. Where did you come up with that? Surely not my posts history; if you'd looked there, you'd have found that I supported Lucho. Logic tells us unfounded assumptions result in weak and faulty arguments. That is certainly true here.

    Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

    Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.

    So tell me this, you dazzling mathematician: are you really suggesting that the shitfest that we saw at Roma two years ago, at Anfield last season, and at Athletic just a few days ago is really the best we can do?

    If so, well then I am glad, for your sake, monsieur Newton, that there is in fact no correlation whatsoever between expertise in theoretical physics and footballing insight. Otherwise, you'd be shit at both.
    Oh, you sarcastically called a physicist Einstein and Newton, unbelievable imagination you got there. *claps slowly*

    Your logical deduction remains weak and you certainly aren't a Newton given you make assumptions about statements that were never made and on top of it debunk your own previous statements. You want to defend yourself? Sure, let's see if your defense holds up or if you are honest enough to concede defeat.

    How did our conversation begin? I asked to name managers other than the obvious top 2 in the world right now in Pep and Klopp, as they are not available. Your insightful reply to that was "moron" and "idiot" (twice). Awesome. Let's see what the Cambridge Dictionary says about "idiot":

    showing poor judgment or little intelligence
    To which I replied that you are off the mark as I'm doing my PhD in Theoretical Physics. Unless you know many physicists who have little intelligence. Philosophically we could actually debate about it but frankly and while being politically incorrect: The statistical probability is highly in your favour when trying to find out who between the 2 of us is an idiot, not in mine.

    Now where is the connection to my football knowledge? Where is my statement that my football opinion is superior because I'm a physicist? Nowhere. The connection is only there with your random insult about my intelligence due to my differing opinion to your opinion. You concede defeat at this point: yes or no? Are you honest: yes or no?



    Another illogical assumption you made: I would have claimed that you wanted Lucho sacked. How exactly did you conclude this from:

    I remember the Lucho days. Yes, I have a very well functioning memory. The hate posts were the same. "Completely clueless manager, only MSN, we have no midfield" and so on. Even the same childish name changes, someone called him "Licho" which is supposed to be "trash" in Portuguese. Flavia was behind it afaik.

    Then Barca went with Valverde. Why are you not enjoying that managerial change?
    I think even someone with weak logical deduction like you can understand that I'm talking in general here and not specifically about you. I even mention another member by name, Flavia, and talk about thread name changes (you are and never have been a mod so how could you change names of threads?). Nothing to do with you specifically wanting Lucho gone, I'm describing the general negative mood of the fanbase towards the ex coach who got replaced and it hasn't automatically gotten better. It got actually worse.

    Let's get back to your major statement:

    Quote Originally Posted by BarcaOG View Post
    You have to be a first-rate idiot or a delusional moron to even seriously countenance the idea that, simply because there are no 'elite' managers available, we are better off sticking with a coach, in Valverde
    A hypothesis is debunked if you can find only 1 counterexample and funnily enough you said it yourself:

    Quote Originally Posted by BarcaOG View Post
    (...) could be bad. (...) Could be even worse, true
    That chance is there. So why am I an idiot again if you just debunked your own statement? Guess you don't have to be an idiot after all to suggest the idea that, simply because there are no 'elite' managers available, we might be better off sticking with Valverde.

    You gonna be honest now or what?



    Quote Originally Posted by BarcaOG View Post
    Your second assumption is that any change whatever in coaching will result "most likely in another" [failure]. Again, unfounded: why are you so sure? The change from Tata to Lucho was very positive, while the change from Lucho to Valverde, not so much. So even a very superficial examination of the 'empirical data'--you see, I am trying to speak to the masterful and intellectually imposing physicist you claim to be--suggests that changing managers can be both positive and negative. An action with indeterminate consequences, if you will, Mr. Hawkins.

    Which leaves us with this: we can continue with Valverde, in the full knowledge that both the result (outcome) and the process (content) are flawed and, frankly, shitty. Or we can try something else. Could be good, could be bad. But at least there is some chance it won't be bad. Could be even worse, true--we are after all in indeterminate territory--but you could use that argument to avoid doing anything whatever in the world.
    My estimation is that the chances for same level coach or even worse are higher than landing someone better. Why? Because an available coach witch a proven CV who also suits Barca's style does not exist and I exclude Mourinho from the list of potential coaches for obvious reasons. I could be wrong and someone like Setien could be the SHIT. Next Pep. However I don't believe so, my opinion is that the probability is higher that he turns out same level as Valverde or worse than better. What's your problem again to call me an idiot for?

  6. #10866
    Senior Member
    Catta's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    948
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would rather the club took a gamble on Arteta as our next coach than on Xavi. Arteta played in Spain, France and England, was learning from Wenger and Pep, has Barca DNA, he would be the perfect candidate.

  7. #10867
    Senior Member
    BarcaOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Observer View Post
    Oh, you sarcastically called a physicist Einstein and Newton, unbelievable imagination you got there. *claps slowly*

    Your logical deduction remains weak and you certainly aren't a Newton given you make assumptions about statements that were never made and on top of it debunk your own previous statements. You want to defend yourself? Sure, let's see if your defense holds up or if you are honest enough to concede defeat.
    This 'reply' shows not only that your logic sub-par, but also that you aren't a very careful reader. I never claimed I was Newton; I was simply mocking your ridiculous attempt to credit your footballing insight by appealing to you training in physics.

    How did our conversation begin? I asked to name managers other than the obvious top 2 in the world right now in Pep and Klopp, as they are not available. Your insightful reply to that was "moron" and "idiot" (twice). Awesome. Let's see what the Cambridge Dictionary says about "idiot".
    No: this discussion began when I attacked your absurd position that we should stick with Valverde even though he is a proven failure. My point is simply that we are no worse, and maybe even better off, with just about anyone else. Some here have suggested Arteta, others Xavi, etc. etc. Thinking about the Roma and Anfield debacles plus Valverde's total failure to integrate Dembele and Coutinho pushes me to agree with those people. You, on the other hand, seem to be perfectly happy to stick by a failure of a coach.


    To which I replied that you are off the mark as I'm doing my PhD in Theoretical Physics. Unless you know many physicists who have little intelligence. Philosophically we could actually debate about it but frankly and while being politically incorrect: The statistical probability is highly in your favour when trying to find out who between the 2 of us is an idiot, not in mine.
    The whole physics thing is simply my mocking you for being obtuse and narcissistic enough to bring that up when what we're talking about is football. Look: good for you for studying physics. My point is that has nothing whatever with what we're discussing, so that there is absolutely no reason why you had to bring that up, other than to boost your fragile ego.

    Now where is the connection to my football knowledge? Where is my statement that my football opinion is superior because I'm a physicist? Nowhere. The connection is only there with your random insult about my intelligence due to my differing opinion to your opinion. You concede defeat at this point: yes or no? Are you honest: yes or no?
    Again, this 'retort' is simply a result of poor reading skills. I called you an idiot based on your comments about keeping Valverde on, i.e., based on your footballing insight. We are on a football forum, so how you are not able to make that inference is beyond me. You replied by citing your training in physics. Again: that is not relevant to what we are discussing.

    Another illogical assumption you made: I would have claimed that you wanted Lucho sacked. How exactly did you conclude this from
    I am in favour of sacking Valverde; you brought Lucho up as an example of a coach who many--unfairly, and we agree on that--wanted sacked. Presumably you think that I am making a similar mistake. So you equate my wanting Valverde sacked to wanting Lucho sacked. How do I know that? Because unless you are assuming some sort of equivalence between both cases, you would not have brought Lucho up. Otherwise why bother?

    Let's get back to your major statement: A hypothesis is debunked if you can find only 1 counterexample and funnily enough you said it yourself
    No, not necessarily. That might be the case in the natural sciences, but certainly not in the social sciences. One reason Karl Popper is so heavily criticized is for having proposed that very standard of casual analysis and hypothesis testing as a social science model. But human affairs, i.e. sports in our case, is too messy for that sort of exactitude.

    My estimation is that the chances for same level coach or even worse are higher than landing someone better. Why? Because an available coach witch a proven CV who also suits Barca's style does not exist and I exclude Mourinho from the list of potential coaches for obvious reasons. I could be wrong and someone like Setien could be the SHIT. Next Pep. However I don't believe so, my opinion is that the probability is higher that he turns out same level as Valverde or worse than better. What's your problem again to call me an idiot for?
    I think you are an idiot--logic and argumentation aside--because I find it strictly incomprehensible that, after everything Valverde has done (or rather failed to do) and the number of brutal humiliations he has masterminded, you actually think he is worth sticking to. We don't play attractive football; we don't have a sound or coherent tactical set up; our players look lost and disconnected; Messi's best years were wasted. And on and on and on. Why on earth do you think that is acceptable?

    Consdier Solskjaer at United. Nobody expected much from him after Mourinho left, and yet he managed to have a decent influence on the team. He was not a high-profile manager or anything. The same could happen here, at least for the remainder of the season.
    peptastic

  8. #10868
    Senior Member
    Messigician's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    2,523
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Shut up u eggs ^ won't tell u again

  9. #10869
    Senior Member
    The Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    655
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Your perception about simple facts is as faulty as your logical deduction.

    Valverde with 5 league losses in 2 seasons of which 2 were after league was won: "record of failure".

    Ole at United with 5 losses and 2 draws in his last 10 games alone last season, after the honeymoon period was over: "decent influence on the team".

    Couldn't make it up.

    No point discussing at this level when the truth is bended in such a fashion.

    Key difference between Mourinho and Valverde: One fought with his own players, including the squad's star player, created a toxic environment as usual after 2 years so the squad stopped playing for him and enjoyed it when he was gone. Even no coach at all would have been an improvement at that point. The other is well liked by all his players.

    You even went as far as judging another person's "personality" who lives thousands of miles away whose language you don't share and who you have only ever seen on TV or read some loosely translated Barcastuff Twitter quote snippets.

    Shithousery all around.

    Stick to throwing insults around in Internet forums because you can't comprehend other perspectives. You are in good company here anyway.

  10. #10870
    Senior Member
    BarcaOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Observer View Post
    Your perception about simple facts is as faulty as your logical deduction.

    Valverde with 5 league losses in 2 seasons of which 2 were after league was won: "record of failure".

    Ole at United with 5 losses and 2 draws in his last 10 games alone last season, after the honeymoon period was over: "decent influence on the team".

    Couldn't make it up.

    No point discussing at this level when the truth is bended in such a fashion.

    Key difference between Mourinho and Valverde: One fought with his own players, including the squad's star player, created a toxic environment as usual after 2 years so the squad stopped playing for him and enjoyed it when he was gone. Even no coach at all would have been an improvement at that point. The other is well liked by all his players.

    You even went as far as judging another person's "personality" who lives thousands of miles away whose language you don't share and who you have only ever seen on TV or read some loosely translated Barcastuff Twitter quote snippets.

    Shithousery all around.

    Stick to throwing insults around in Internet forums because you can't comprehend other perspectives. You are in good company here anyway.
    Again, you are assuming that the team's record under Valverde is due to him and not, say, to Messi, which is not at all the case. Valverde brings nothing to this team it wouldn't have without him; in many ways he makes it worse. What we saw at Bilbao last week is precisely what Valverde brings to the team when he does not have Messi to rescue him. So I say it again: you must be a first-rate, world-class idiot to think he is acceptable.

    But please, keep on supporting the shittiest, most boring and least inspiring football we have seen at Barcelona for over a decade. No doubt you're rooting for Valverde to bottle another CL through an embarrassing away-defeat humiliation. And even then, you'd probably recommend he sign an extension.
    peptastic

  11. #10871
    Senior Member
    The Observer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    655
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You keep making assumptions about things that were never said or implied. I wonder if, by now, you even realize it.

    When someone says that there is no great alternative right now so we might as well wait for better opportunities to arise and it could get even worse with unknown quantities like Setien, it does not imply: "You are a VALVERDE FANBOY AND PROBABLY PRAY FOR HIS EXTENSION HURP DA DERP".

    You are beyond help if you do not see the IDIOCY behind your thinking. For someone who likes to throw around that word so often, the lack of self reflection is hilarious.

    It's not my fault at all that you cannot imagine all the possible outcomes where keeping Valverde for now might be better for the long-term.

    Let's assume ten Hag is a promising manager who we should get. Now it would be near on impossible to get ten Hag in the same window where Ajax lost De Ligt and De Jong and possibly van de Beek. At the end of this season however it will be more likely. We might have even contacted him already. Now what happens if we get random unproven Setien RIGHT NOW on the spot? You think we could sack him again 8 months later? What if he wins La Liga "because of Messi" but actually doesn't improve us coaching-wise? So basically a Valverde side step. Sacking a new league winning manager 8 months later? What if ten Hag meanwhile signs a 5 year contract with, say, Chelsea after Lampard fails? WHAT THEN?

    And that's just ONE of many possible outcomes that I'm considering when I'm not blindly joining the "SACK HIM NOW" circle jerk.

  12. #10872
    Senior Member
    Raketa10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    6,156
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It would be suicidal for him to return before his old teammates stop playing and before this board leaves. I hope he comes but now is not the right time. In 2-3y time he will be ready. I only hope he won't stay in Qatar for that long because the level of football there is a joke.

  13. #10873
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Posts
    732
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Raketa10 View Post
    It would be suicidal for him to return before his old teammates stop playing and before this board leaves. I hope he comes but now is not the right time. In 2-3y time he will be ready. I only hope he won't stay in Qatar for that long because the level of football there is a joke.
    Xavi said that there is no problem with him managing his old teammates and that he'd love to manage Messi. I dont see the problem with him coaching them. Pep played with Xavi and managed him later on.
    "It is what it is"- Ernesto Valverde after suffering a humiliation in the UCL.

  14. #10874
    Senior Member
    Raketa10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    6,156
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by abbbs97 View Post
    Xavi said that there is no problem with him managing his old teammates and that he'd love to manage Messi. I dont see the problem with him coaching them. Pep played with Xavi and managed him later on.
    He is not ready. Would you rather spend him in this moment and on this team with some clearly unmotivated players or would you prefer to give him a clear star with players who would unconditionally listen to him?

    There is no way in hell he can improve current versions of Pique, Alba, Busi, Raki, Suarez etc. We would spend him easily in that way and we wouldn't get best version out of him. Try to remember that Pep coached a fairly young team with less stars and much bigger IQ than this team has. Not to mention those players were true professionals and they were hungry for trophies. From the start he got rid of Ronaldinho, Deco and Eto'o later on. There is no way our current board would allow him to do that with Suarez or Busi or Pique. He should take over after the elections and start from the scratch.
    Last edited by Raketa10; Today at 02:30 PM.

  15. #10875
    Senior Member
    BarcaOG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,087
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by The Observer View Post
    You keep making assumptions about things that were never said or implied. I wonder if, by now, you even realize it.

    When someone says that there is no great alternative right now so we might as well wait for better opportunities to arise and it could get even worse with unknown quantities like Setien, it does not imply: "You are a VALVERDE FANBOY AND PROBABLY PRAY FOR HIS EXTENSION HURP DA DERP".

    You are beyond help if you do not see the IDIOCY behind your thinking. For someone who likes to throw around that word so often, the lack of self reflection is hilarious.

    It's not my fault at all that you cannot imagine all the possible outcomes where keeping Valverde for now might be better for the long-term.

    Let's assume ten Hag is a promising manager who we should get. Now it would be near on impossible to get ten Hag in the same window where Ajax lost De Ligt and De Jong and possibly van de Beek. At the end of this season however it will be more likely. We might have even contacted him already. Now what happens if we get random unproven Setien RIGHT NOW on the spot? You think we could sack him again 8 months later? What if he wins La Liga "because of Messi" but actually doesn't improve us coaching-wise? So basically a Valverde side step. Sacking a new league winning manager 8 months later? What if ten Hag meanwhile signs a 5 year contract with, say, Chelsea after Lampard fails? WHAT THEN?

    And that's just ONE of many possible outcomes that I'm considering when I'm not blindly joining the "SACK HIM NOW" circle jerk.
    I am abandoning this dispute because you evidently cannot read carefully or even remotely comprehend the issues at hand. By any stretch of the imagination, your invocation of Valverde's record of two leagues is grounded in an assumption that those successes are due to him. That's an absurd assumption. We know that you are assuming that because you did not qualify that claim by citing Messi's god-level league form or anything else.

    Anyways, please, continue to support the most uninspiring manager we've had in decades, the very person who has masterminded some of the most insipid, pathetic, and humiliating defeats we have suffered as a club. The more Valverde continues to fuck up the more ridiculous your 'defence' of his tenure looks.
    peptastic

Tags for this Thread