this is following on from the agger thread. is it worth keeping a player even a supremely talent player if they are injury prone? By this I mean a player who when actually fit is world class but is injuried more often than not
injuries v quality
- Thread starter spider-Neil
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Depends on the wages, the position, the back ups etc.
In agger's case, no.
In agger's case, no.
Hey Peter Parker...what brought you back 🙂
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
even though I doubt gerrard is going to have an injury free season he is an exception for me because he is club captain and his value for us is more than the fee we would fetch for him if he were sold.
[quote author=spider-neil link=topic=45661.msg1345414#msg1345414 date=1307526503]
this is following on from the agger thread. is it worth keeping a player even a supremely talent player if they are injury prone? By this I mean a player who when actually fit is world class but is injuried more often than not
[/quote]
Gareth Bale?
We had Digger who was injured alot, plus Owen of course
this is following on from the agger thread. is it worth keeping a player even a supremely talent player if they are injury prone? By this I mean a player who when actually fit is world class but is injuried more often than not
[/quote]
Gareth Bale?
We had Digger who was injured alot, plus Owen of course
T
the_khl
Guest
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345434#msg1345434 date=1307527354]
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
[/quote]
Agger has won us quite some important (and revenue-boosting) games actually. Chelsea ChL semi-final at Anfield and Benfica Euro Quarter-final away springs to mind. (That was last Season if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not saying it's enough I'm just saying that he's a player that can change a match. And has done so despite struggling with injuries.
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
[/quote]
Agger has won us quite some important (and revenue-boosting) games actually. Chelsea ChL semi-final at Anfield and Benfica Euro Quarter-final away springs to mind. (That was last Season if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not saying it's enough I'm just saying that he's a player that can change a match. And has done so despite struggling with injuries.
But you are saying it's enough, aren't you?
Next thing you'll be saying we should keep Agger if only to keep our other legend Christian Poulsen company.
In any event, it's academic.
No club is going to offer us 9 million for sicknote.
Neil : I think there is a reason to sometimes make the gamble, especially if a player is recoveing from a bad injury as opposed to beng injury prone. The reason why Aquilani failed was mainly because we misjudged the length of time he'd be out of action, plus other issues such as not being comfortable with the English game (allegedly)...considerig he playe so little for Rafa and Roy it's hard to be sure.
But Aquilani wasnt injury-prone,it was just a failed gamble bearing in mind it was a position that desperately needed immediate replacing and the length of time plus the large fee paid meant it was always a big ask.
When it comes to someone injury prone like Agger it's really no point making the same argument.
Next thing you'll be saying we should keep Agger if only to keep our other legend Christian Poulsen company.
In any event, it's academic.
No club is going to offer us 9 million for sicknote.
Neil : I think there is a reason to sometimes make the gamble, especially if a player is recoveing from a bad injury as opposed to beng injury prone. The reason why Aquilani failed was mainly because we misjudged the length of time he'd be out of action, plus other issues such as not being comfortable with the English game (allegedly)...considerig he playe so little for Rafa and Roy it's hard to be sure.
But Aquilani wasnt injury-prone,it was just a failed gamble bearing in mind it was a position that desperately needed immediate replacing and the length of time plus the large fee paid meant it was always a big ask.
When it comes to someone injury prone like Agger it's really no point making the same argument.
[quote author=KHL link=topic=45661.msg1345514#msg1345514 date=1307532882]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345434#msg1345434 date=1307527354]
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
[/quote]
Agger has won us quite some important (and revenue-boosting) games actually. Chelsea ChL semi-final at Anfield and Benfica Euro Quarter-final away springs to mind. (That was last Season if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not saying it's enough I'm just saying that he's a player that can change a match. And has done so despite struggling with injuries.
[/quote]
You can find examples where pretty much any player has had games where they have played very well and contributed to us winning. Players who you can't do that for would be excluded from this debate anyway really wouldn't they?
The factors with Agger are that we can still get a decent sum of money for him and that he is a defender. A successful backline ideally should be a strong a settled unit so an injury prone defender, no matter how good he is, is always at more of a disadvantage.
Maybe if Agger tries to make a comeback as a centre forward and is a revelation there then you might be able to continue your argument on firmer ground
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345434#msg1345434 date=1307527354]
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
[/quote]
Agger has won us quite some important (and revenue-boosting) games actually. Chelsea ChL semi-final at Anfield and Benfica Euro Quarter-final away springs to mind. (That was last Season if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not saying it's enough I'm just saying that he's a player that can change a match. And has done so despite struggling with injuries.
[/quote]
You can find examples where pretty much any player has had games where they have played very well and contributed to us winning. Players who you can't do that for would be excluded from this debate anyway really wouldn't they?
The factors with Agger are that we can still get a decent sum of money for him and that he is a defender. A successful backline ideally should be a strong a settled unit so an injury prone defender, no matter how good he is, is always at more of a disadvantage.
Maybe if Agger tries to make a comeback as a centre forward and is a revelation there then you might be able to continue your argument on firmer ground
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345532#msg1345532 date=1307533912]
[quote author=KHL link=topic=45661.msg1345514#msg1345514 date=1307532882]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345434#msg1345434 date=1307527354]
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
[/quote]
Agger has won us quite some important (and revenue-boosting) games actually. Chelsea ChL semi-final at Anfield and Benfica Euro Quarter-final away springs to mind. (That was last Season if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not saying it's enough I'm just saying that he's a player that can change a match. And has done so despite struggling with injuries.
[/quote]
You can find examples where pretty much any player has had games where they have played very well and contributed to us winning. Players who you can't do that for would be excluded from this debate anyway really wouldn't they?
The factors with Agger are that we can still get a decent sum of money for him and that he is a defender. A successful backline ideally should be a strong a settled unit so an injury prone defender, no matter how good he is, is always at more of a disadvantage.
Maybe if Agger tries to make a comeback as a centre forward and is a revelation there then you might be able to continue your argument on firmer ground
[/quote]
This.
He's not a match winner, he's essentially a centre back who's had some very good games for us and some run of the mill games, like most good players really. Again, his contribution is being overstated.
[quote author=KHL link=topic=45661.msg1345514#msg1345514 date=1307532882]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345434#msg1345434 date=1307527354]
If we had, say, a striker who was over 30, scored goals whenever he was on the field but rarely managed more than 10 games a season then yeah, it MIGHT be worth keeping him because the value of having him would probably be more than selling him.
But, even in that case, if we were offered a big fee for that player then it would be tempting to take it.
In the case of Agger we should sell without a doubt. He is still quite young, teams apparently are still willing to pay decent money for him and we should be trying to have a settled defence wherever possible anyway
[/quote]
Agger has won us quite some important (and revenue-boosting) games actually. Chelsea ChL semi-final at Anfield and Benfica Euro Quarter-final away springs to mind. (That was last Season if I'm not mistaken).
I'm not saying it's enough I'm just saying that he's a player that can change a match. And has done so despite struggling with injuries.
[/quote]
You can find examples where pretty much any player has had games where they have played very well and contributed to us winning. Players who you can't do that for would be excluded from this debate anyway really wouldn't they?
The factors with Agger are that we can still get a decent sum of money for him and that he is a defender. A successful backline ideally should be a strong a settled unit so an injury prone defender, no matter how good he is, is always at more of a disadvantage.
Maybe if Agger tries to make a comeback as a centre forward and is a revelation there then you might be able to continue your argument on firmer ground
[/quote]
This.
He's not a match winner, he's essentially a centre back who's had some very good games for us and some run of the mill games, like most good players really. Again, his contribution is being overstated.
T
the_khl
Guest
Is there any chance at all that some on here might understate Agger a bit as well as I'm accused of overstating him?
Any at all?
@Avvy
The Poulsen comment is getting rather old isn't it? I've long ago accepted defeat in terms of me thinking that he was a decent buy.
I do believe you are quite wrong in your assessment of Agger's value but we'll see.
*Still hope Kenny believes in him.
Any at all?
@Avvy
The Poulsen comment is getting rather old isn't it? I've long ago accepted defeat in terms of me thinking that he was a decent buy.
I do believe you are quite wrong in your assessment of Agger's value but we'll see.
*Still hope Kenny believes in him.
T
the_khl
Guest
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345582#msg1345582 date=1307535921]
Not really because I haven't seen anyone at all on here saying that Agger is anything but a very good player but one who is hugely injury prone. I don't think that is an assessment that can be argued with is it?
[/quote]
Posters are talking about his contribution. That's different from what you say.
Not really because I haven't seen anyone at all on here saying that Agger is anything but a very good player but one who is hugely injury prone. I don't think that is an assessment that can be argued with is it?
[/quote]
Posters are talking about his contribution. That's different from what you say.
There's no chance of that at all, because the amount of over-stating you make for Agger boggles the imagination, which is what people keep telling you.
The Poulsen comment isnt old either because you keep making statements like 'calm down I'm always right' when you clearly aren't all the time, especially when it comes to Agger.
Richey is also bang on his assessment.
As I see it, Agger is a very good player who is utterly useless for us because he's always injured and regards playing for Denmark and risking injury as more important than playing for his club and staying fit.
Those are't even opinions, those are facts, which he has done. Twice.
I'd love to keep saying 'sell' but it's pointless as no one's going to buy at 9 million.
The Poulsen comment isnt old either because you keep making statements like 'calm down I'm always right' when you clearly aren't all the time, especially when it comes to Agger.
Richey is also bang on his assessment.
As I see it, Agger is a very good player who is utterly useless for us because he's always injured and regards playing for Denmark and risking injury as more important than playing for his club and staying fit.
Those are't even opinions, those are facts, which he has done. Twice.
I'd love to keep saying 'sell' but it's pointless as no one's going to buy at 9 million.
[quote author=KHL link=topic=45661.msg1345588#msg1345588 date=1307536159]
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345582#msg1345582 date=1307535921]
Not really because I haven't seen anyone at all on here saying that Agger is anything but a very good player but one who is hugely injury prone. I don't think that is an assessment that can be argued with is it?
[/quote]
Posters are talking about his contribution. That's different from what you say.
[/quote]
Well Mark has said his contribution is overstated (and I agree with him as it happens) but I suspect he is broadly basing that on the fact that Agger is injured so much not because he is a poor player, so its not that different.
[quote author=Richey link=topic=45661.msg1345582#msg1345582 date=1307535921]
Not really because I haven't seen anyone at all on here saying that Agger is anything but a very good player but one who is hugely injury prone. I don't think that is an assessment that can be argued with is it?
[/quote]
Posters are talking about his contribution. That's different from what you say.
[/quote]
Well Mark has said his contribution is overstated (and I agree with him as it happens) but I suspect he is broadly basing that on the fact that Agger is injured so much not because he is a poor player, so its not that different.
- Status
