Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I've never played championship manager tbqfh 50420[/snapback] Affr Alex, iibaqfh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 At ease soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 At ease soldier. 50422[/snapback] Just waiting on an update on these remarks now that we know the club has Luque down as a midfield player. I take it you know about Luque's best position than the playe himself and the manager who signed him. Well, actually I take you think you know. Striker I reckon Sarcasm from you here, simply because you disagreed with me. Sad attitude, that like. HTL knows better though, obviously Ref to Luque as a striker from you here... A left-sided attacker plays down the left, simple enough to understand I would have thought. There's a chance for you to show some maturity here. Will you take it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46027 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 At ease soldier. 50422[/snapback] Take caution in your tone, commander. I'm a fair man, but this —— heat is making me absolutely crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I gave you a 'proper answer' on about the 2nd page. I thought you were being a dick though, as usual. After that, I took the piss to wind you up and it looks like it worked a treat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] What he said, happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46027 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] Not wishing to take anyone's side (cos I can't be arsed to get into this) but one of the Spaniards at work who knows his football reckons Luque operates best as a left-sided midfielder. I'm just lashing out cos you've dissed my main man, Souness, tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] Not wishing to take anyone's side (cos I can't be arsed to get into this) but one of the Spaniards at work who knows his football reckons Luque operates best as a left-sided midfielder. I'm just lashing out cos you've dissed my main man, Souness, tbh. 50430[/snapback] He's wrong like Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] You've posted this already and I understand it. Which part of your post do you think I don't understand? What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. Q. When you refer to Luque having always been a striker, can you confirm that you mean a striker in the same mould as a Shearer, Owen or any other player considered to be an out and out striker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] You've posted this already and I understand it. Which part of your post do you think I don't understand? What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. Q. When you refer to Luque having always been a striker, can you confirm that you mean a striker in the same mould as a Shearer, Owen or any other player considered to be an out and out striker? 50435[/snapback] I mean that in a 4-4-2, he'd be playing as one of the 2. Personally I see him as a replacement for Bellamy. Q. Is there a quote from Souness on the web somewhere which says that Luque was signed as a replacement for Robert? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 To give a 'proper answer', I think Luque will sometimes be utilised on the left of a front 3 and sometimes on the left of a midfield 4. As an aside though HTL, would you consider Beardsley to have been a striker throughout his career? I would, but he wasn't in the Owen or Shearer mould. And I'm not saying Luque is the same as Beardsley in his style of play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I gave you a 'proper answer' on about the 2nd page. I thought you were being a dick though, as usual. After that, I took the piss to wind you up and it looks like it worked a treat. 50428[/snapback] Eh? Looks like it worked a treat? I'm not wound up at all, man, I find your ignorance and pedantic posts absolutely hilarious, iiqh. By the way, what's with the double standards. Complaining I called you a nob then you calling me a dick just because you don't agree with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] You've posted this already and I understand it. Which part of your post do you think I don't understand? What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. Q. When you refer to Luque having always been a striker, can you confirm that you mean a striker in the same mould as a Shearer, Owen or any other player considered to be an out and out striker? 50435[/snapback] I mean that in a 4-4-2, he'd be playing as one of the 2. Personally I see him as a replacement for Bellamy. Q. Is there a quote from Souness on the web somewhere which says that Luque was signed as a replacement for Robert? 50437[/snapback] I doubt there is a quote, but as I've said, there is no need for everybody who posts something on this forum to have to produce a quote. Or there shouldn't be. Do you insist on a quote for everything you don't agree with? Can you give me the quote from Mr Souness that states clearly Luque is a replacement for Bellamy? What there has been, and I've already mentioned this but it's been consistently ignored, were comments from Mr Souness that he was signing a 'proper' player who would offer more threat down the left side of the team. My interpretation of that comment is that Luque is replacing Robert, this idea substantiated by the fleeting glimpses we've had of him, when he did in fact operate on the left of midfield in the exact area Robert used to occupy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I gave you a 'proper answer' on about the 2nd page. I thought you were being a dick though, as usual. After that, I took the piss to wind you up and it looks like it worked a treat. 50428[/snapback] Eh? Looks like it worked a treat? I'm not wound up at all, man, I find your ignorance and pedantic posts absolutely hilarious, iiqh. By the way, what's with the double standards. Complaining I called you a nob then you calling me a dick just because you don't agree with me. 50440[/snapback] No double standards from me, I merely pointed out you had called me a nob after you accused me of being childish. Not that it matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 To give a 'proper answer', I think Luque will sometimes be utilised on the left of a front 3 and sometimes on the left of a midfield 4. As an aside though HTL, would you consider Beardsley to have been a striker throughout his career? I would, but he wasn't in the Owen or Shearer mould. And I'm not saying Luque is the same as Beardsley in his style of play. 50438[/snapback] Which means he's a replacement for Robert. Thank you. Beardsley was an exceptional player who could play as a support striker in a 4-4-2 and score lots of goals so you can call him a striker. He could also play a free role when 2 other strikers were being used in a 4-4-2, I would never consider him an outright midfield player, if that's what you're asking, even though he was so good he could do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 In the same way that he's played most of his career as a striker means he's a striker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 That was a joke by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 That was a joke by the way. 50446[/snapback] Ok, I deleted my reply. There's just no point, is there. Get help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 That was a joke by the way. 50446[/snapback] Ok, I deleted my reply. There's just no point, is there. Get help. 50449[/snapback] FFS IT WAS A JOKE MAN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] You've posted this already and I understand it. Which part of your post do you think I don't understand? What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. Q. When you refer to Luque having always been a striker, can you confirm that you mean a striker in the same mould as a Shearer, Owen or any other player considered to be an out and out striker? 50435[/snapback] I mean that in a 4-4-2, he'd be playing as one of the 2. Personally I see him as a replacement for Bellamy. Q. Is there a quote from Souness on the web somewhere which says that Luque was signed as a replacement for Robert? 50437[/snapback] I doubt there is a quote, but as I've said, there is no need for everybody who posts something on this forum to have to produce a quote. Or there shouldn't be. Do you insist on a quote for everything you don't agree with? Can you give me the quote from Mr Souness that states clearly Luque is a replacement for Bellamy? What there has been, and I've already mentioned this but it's been consistently ignored, were comments from Mr Souness that he was signing a 'proper' player who would offer more threat down the left side of the team. My interpretation of that comment is that Luque is replacing Robert, this idea substantiated by the fleeting glimpses we've had of him, when he did in fact operate on the left of midfield in the exact area Robert used to occupy. 50441[/snapback] Apologies, I thought I read one of your posts which stated that Luque IS a replacement for Robert, which in turn in took as gospel What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. is a little different to Personally I see him as a replacement for Bellamy. I'm basing my opinion of what I've seen of the player of his career, in which he's been a striker. You're basing your opinion on an interpretation of a quote by a man whom you in fact believes nothing of what he ever says. Pointless discussion, granted, but IN MY OPINION it's Robert we haven't replaced properly, not Bellamy. Luque has the potential to be an absolute star at this club, as long as the fans give him time; from the comments I've read on here though, I doubt that's going to happen. That Chopra's a bit shite aint he like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 OK, I'll try again. Luque has always been a striker in his career. Obviously Newcastle see him as a midfielder. Souness is an idiot. 50426[/snapback] You've posted this already and I understand it. Which part of your post do you think I don't understand? What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. Q. When you refer to Luque having always been a striker, can you confirm that you mean a striker in the same mould as a Shearer, Owen or any other player considered to be an out and out striker? 50435[/snapback] I mean that in a 4-4-2, he'd be playing as one of the 2. Personally I see him as a replacement for Bellamy. Q. Is there a quote from Souness on the web somewhere which says that Luque was signed as a replacement for Robert? 50437[/snapback] I doubt there is a quote, but as I've said, there is no need for everybody who posts something on this forum to have to produce a quote. Or there shouldn't be. Do you insist on a quote for everything you don't agree with? Can you give me the quote from Mr Souness that states clearly Luque is a replacement for Bellamy? What there has been, and I've already mentioned this but it's been consistently ignored, were comments from Mr Souness that he was signing a 'proper' player who would offer more threat down the left side of the team. My interpretation of that comment is that Luque is replacing Robert, this idea substantiated by the fleeting glimpses we've had of him, when he did in fact operate on the left of midfield in the exact area Robert used to occupy. 50441[/snapback] Apologies, I thought I read one of your posts which stated that Luque IS a replacement for Robert, which in turn in took as gospel What I've been saying is that Luque was signed to replace Robert. is a little different to Personally I see him as a replacement for Bellamy. I'm basing my opinion of what I've seen of the player of his career, in which he's been a striker. You're basing your opinion on an interpretation of a quote by a man whom you in fact believes nothing of what he ever says. Pointless discussion, granted, but IN MY OPINION it's Robert we haven't replaced properly, not Bellamy. Luque has the potential to be an absolute star at this club, as long as the fans give him time; from the comments I've read on here though, I doubt that's going to happen. That Chopra's a bit shite aint he like. 50454[/snapback] Ok, fine. Time will tell whether Luque is used as a replacement for Robert or for Bellamy. I honestly can't see anything that leads someone to believe Luque will replace Bellamy, but there you go, you think so.. I think my interpretation of the comments from Mr Souness are pretty well justified and don't see how else they could be interpreted. Be that as it may, you're right about Chopra, though. As for not giving Luque a chance....well I've been away for some time so I haven't been following stuff about him. Can't see why he won't be given a chance by the supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 46027 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 As for not giving Luque a chance....well I've been away for some time so I haven't been following stuff about him. Can't see why he won't be given a chance by the supporters. 50470[/snapback] Leazes Mag wrote him off as lacking heart after a game and a half IIRC. I know you weren't around at the time though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howaythelads 0 Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 As for not giving Luque a chance....well I've been away for some time so I haven't been following stuff about him. Can't see why he won't be given a chance by the supporters. 50470[/snapback] Leazes Mag wrote him off as lacking heart after a game and a half IIRC. I know you weren't around at the time though. 50471[/snapback] In the minutes he played what I'd say is that he doesn't look like he is going to be tracking back helping the fullback, and tackling like Dave Mackay. As he was playing in the role previously filled by Robert, and the reason Robert was booted out was because he wasn't a proper player who tackled and tracked back, I do have doubts whether Luque will be any better on that score. Doesn't mean he won't be given a chance, though. If he doesn't track back he's going to be compared to Robert from a creative point of view, which means he has a lot to live up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 28, 2005 Share Posted October 28, 2005 I don't think Robert was sold because he couldn't tackle etc. I think it was more to do with his perceived inconsistency. One thing I will say though is that while under Souness everybody was meant to be given a clean slate, the manager had it in for Robert (and Bellamy) from the start. However, while I liked Bellamy, I was one of the ones who wasn't too bothered about seeing the back of Laurent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now