Radamel Falcao

[Rmpr 8,977]

Well, for a long time now I was against this signing, and this for several reasons. Now I am not as sure about my stance (regarding this deal) as before. So I'll try and look at the bright side of this deal :

* To my mind, we need to make a marquee signing this summer, whatever the position (CB, CM, ST...). I think it is very important, because it will send a strong message to our opponents in the Premier League. It will show our intents : put an end to our run of three pathetic seasons in the league. Kinda like what United did last summer ; they lost the league to City, so they bought van Persie even if they seemingly had enough strikers (and it turned out to be the right decision). Buying the player regarded as one of the best striker in the world, if not the best, will clearly be a statement to both Manchester clubs that they will have to count upon us.

* The game against Basel yesterday night stressed one of our flaws which has been damaging us all the season long. It's our finishing (or lack of). I'll mention again the example of United and van Persie. This United team is not by any means an exceptional team. They have many flaws : their defense and midfield are fairly average. Though, their striking force, especially the Dutchman, have papered over those flaws. Barcelona and Messi is another example : the little agrentinian has carried his team on his shoulders for the past two years. This season we have been very wasteful ; had we had a proper finisher, we would have most certainly been ahead of City and have won the World Cup. So Falcao could resolve our finishing problems, and thus make our other problems looking less troublesome.

* He will give us another dimension in our game. At the moment, we lack penetration, because our midfielders have no one in front of them to pass the ball to. As a matter of fact, our game is pretty flat, and all we do is to pass the ball sideway around the box. Furthermore, many members say we lack width and our crossing-game is not good enough. But why would we have width and a good crossing-game when there's no one in the box to cross to ? With Falcao, we are bound to have more penatration, because our AMs will look to give him the ball. Also, with him as the focal point in the box, having width will make sense, because we will have someone to cross to.

* He will give us a mental edge. At the moment, we are pretty easy to defend. Indeed, we do not really have a striker ; all happens through our AMs. Therefore, in order to nullify our attacks, all the opponents have to do is to leave our striker alone and to close down space for our AMs — which makes us toothless. Moreover, we lack the fear factor. Our players don't really cause fear and havoc. With Falcao, our opponents will be on their back feet. Because of his reputation, defenders will loosen their marking upon Mata, Hazard, etc... Because they will have to handle him. As a matter of fact we will be harder to defend.

Voilà voilà.

I second that, really good post!

I will say this for the thousandth time: I will be more happy with Cavani, but that doesnt mean I wont be overly excited with Falcao.

[Spike 12,049]

No, he gets the ball in a non-goal situation and even then manages to score!

After passing to himself? Because the last time Spike checked to creating chances required a pass or a cross of something...

[Rmpr 8,977]

After passing to himself? Because the last time Spike checked to creating chances required a pass or a cross of something...

The last time I checked, Spike was just being a stupid bitch about Falcao.

[Spike 12,049]

The last time I checked, Spike was just being a stupid bitch about Falcao.

I'm being right and correct and spot on about terminology.

[The Skipper 20,609]

I think what people are trying to say is that Falcao can turn half-chances into goals.

[Hutcho 8,443]

He is a quality player no doubt about it...

53 mils worth... I. E. Twice as good as lewandowski is a stretch. If we get him, he will get everyone's full support I assume. But the skepticism is very understandable.

[Rmpr 8,977]

I'm being right and correct and spot on about terminology.

No you are not, you are transforming a metaphor into a literal statement. That is one hell of a stupid thing to do!

Everyone knows there are some expressions in the football world that doesn't really make sense if you try reading it word-for-word....

[Spike 12,049]

No you are not, you are transforming a metaphor into a literal statement. That is one hell of a stupid thing to do!

Everyone knows there are some expressions in the football world that doesn't really make sense if you try reading it word-for-word....

I know for a fact that 'creating your own goals' is a contradictory statement because to create in football is to put another player in a position to score. It's not a hard concept to grasp, Rapha, all creating is setting up other players in a position to score. The very nature of it requires two or more people to facilitate it. Not only is it impossible to do but it sounds stupid to say.

[Rmpr 8,977]

I know for a fact that 'creating your own goals' is a contradictory statement because to create in football is to put another player in a position to score. It's not a hard concept to grasp, Rapha, all creating is setting up other players in a position to score. The very nature of it requires two or more people to facilitate it. Not only is it impossible to do but it sounds stupid to say.

You are wrong, because you are using one dumb concept of "creating a goal". You are suggesting that nobody creates anything by themselves because others at some point touched the ball or gave him a pass or whatever. While most people are saying that if one is in a position where there is no goal perspective and he still creates the opportunity out of nothing, then this is a goal created by himself.

For instance, Oscar's second goal against Juventus fits the criteria. You will argue that someone passed to him, but the pass is not part of the goal, so his first touch and amazing finishing made the goal a reality. Meaning that Oscar created his own goal.

It is not so hard to grasp, Jake. Maybe you should free yourself of the actual words and concentrate more on the idea.

[Spike 12,049]

You are wrong, because you are using one dumb concept of "creating a goal". You are suggesting that nobody creates anything by themselves because others at some point touched the ball or gave him a pass or whatever. While most people are saying that if one is in a position where there is no goal perspective and he still creates the opportunity out of nothing, then this is a goal created by himself.

For instance, Oscar's second goal against Juventus fits the criteria. You will argue that someone passed to him, but the pass is not part of the goal, so his touch and amazing finished made the goal a reality. Meaning that Oscar created the goal his own goal.

It is not so hard to grasp, Jake. Maybe you should free yourself of the actual words and concentrate more on the idea of the concept.

But even then that's not creating a goal for yourself. For fucks sake it's isn't hard to understand. That's pulling a goal out of nowhere. Creating = two or more players. How hard is that to understand? NOT ALL GOALS ARE CREATED. There is such a thing as pulling a goal out of nowhere, not once have I said that isn't a possibility. Not once. All I've said is that creating a goal require one or more players, from a pass or a cross or something. Let's say Messi snatches a ball from a defender and scores. Nobody created it, because only Messi was involved. He pulled it out of nowhere.

Pulling a goal out of nowhere =/= Creating a goal.

DIFFERENT.

[Hamilton 2,120]

To bad for the money, could do lot's more with that amount..

[Rmpr 8,977]

But even then that's not creating a goal for yourself. For fucks sake it's isn't hard to understand. That's pulling a goal out of nowhere. Creating = two or more players. How hard is that to understand? NOT ALL GOALS ARE CREATED. There is such a thing as pulling a goal out of nowhere, not once have I said that isn't a possibility. Not once. All I've said is that creating a goal require one or more players, from a pass or a cross or something. Let's say Messi snatches a ball from a defender and scores. Nobody created it, because only Messi was involved. He pulled it out of nowhere.

Pulling a goal out of nowhere =/= Creating a goal.

DIFFERENT.

No, it is not!

Pulling a goal out of nowhere = Creating a goal.

Because the goal opportunity was not explicit there, but you created it without anyone's direct influence. Unlike a tap-in, penalty, corner or whatever.

Again, trapped in the words. You used different words to explain the exact same thing, but because you typed different letters, you think your are actually changing the meaning (which you aren't).

[Strike 7,477]

I second that, really good post!

I will say this for the thousandth time: I will be more happy with Cavani, but that doesnt mean I wont be overly excited with Falcao.

Put it this way; when people speak of Cavani - they use words like "powerhouse striker, strong" etc but When people refer to Falcao, they talk of him being the 3rd best player in the world

Cavani is a great striker but Falcao will bring that extra psychological edge with him.

[Spike 12,049]

No, it is not!

Pulling a goal out of nowhere = Creating a goal.

Because the goal opportunity was not explicit there, but you created it without anyone's direct influence. Unlike a tap-in, penalty, corner or whatever.

Again, trapped in the words. You used different words to explain the exact same thing, but because you typed different letters, you think your are actually changing the meaning (which you aren't).

Stop telling me what I'm doing. This is infuriating. I'm done.

[Rmpr 8,977]

Put it this way; when people speak of Cavani - they use words like "powerhouse striker, strong" etc but When people refer to Falcao, they talk of him being the 3rd best player in the world

Cavani is a great striker but Falcao will bring that extra psychological edge with him.

I agree, but I think Cavani would be better than Falcao in front of Hazard-Mata-Schurrle...

Anyways, it is a win-win situation.