MonteCuler
Well-known member
100m on a CB would be nonsense.
Actually, for me, anything above 60m for a CB is nonsense.
Actually, for me, anything above 60m for a CB is nonsense.
Should Barca pay 100 mil. for Alvarez?
- Thread starter Barcaman
- Start date
nobody, CBs these days are crap - ppl will say Tah and Saliba are the best but they are far away from 100m
the days where you had prime Pique, Puyol, Virgil, Ramos, Boateng or Chiellini are over
Last edited:
Temptation
Well-known member
Saliba and Gabriel are easily worth 100 mil plus in this market
i will never buy these 2 defenders for 100m, we have to consider offense players were always much more expensive than defenders so even in today market's these guys are not worth the money
MonteCuler
Well-known member
tah did well last season and read he had an insane pass accuracy in CL, for Germany he was crap last game but overall he is a good defender, just not 100m worth
Wisconsincule
Active member
Well it certainly looks like this is going to be the next 100mm+ transfer for our club.
Hopefully it does work out. Im highly skeptical.
Hopefully it does work out. Im highly skeptical.
jormatar
Active member
If he comes, I’m sure Flick will make him look completely different player than what we have seen in Atletico. Alvarez is a risk worth taking, playstyle and personality checks all the boxes.
Flick won’t have many years left as a coach, he has implied as much. We need to improve our team big time and fast, we owe it to Hansi after couple of seasons of no substantial spending in transfer windows.
Flick won’t have many years left as a coach, he has implied as much. We need to improve our team big time and fast, we owe it to Hansi after couple of seasons of no substantial spending in transfer windows.
StokeColdMessi
Active member
What else was he supposed to do besides press like a mad dog when Argentina barely had the ball and was defending the whole game?
I still think he'll be great for a team that actually wants to attack, unlike ATM and Argentina.
I still think he'll be great for a team that actually wants to attack, unlike ATM and Argentina.
DonAK
Well-known member
Even in the games where Argentina had the ball I barely saw him running in behind or adding some presence in the box for Messi to pass him the ball or heck even put a cross in he can get at the end of.
Lautaro however was doing all that when he was subbed on every game.
Alvarez is simply not comfortable in a role that requires him to do stuff strikers should be able to do. Especially ones you spend 100m+ on.
ajnotkeith
Well-known member
He just isn't a striker. He doesn't get into good positions and most of the time he is just floating outside the box.
Against England Argentina were in serious danger of losing and mostly because of him being a ghost. He cannot show much without a lot of space to dribble and dance around outside the box.
He is a really good finisher, but what does it matter if you never shoot from good positions?
Against England Argentina were in serious danger of losing and mostly because of him being a ghost. He cannot show much without a lot of space to dribble and dance around outside the box.
He is a really good finisher, but what does it matter if you never shoot from good positions?