Convenient. As soon as rumors about a player transfer starts, he will be downgraded to a non-star player. I love it.
The Spurs thread | 2017-18 season | Serious thread - wummers/derailers will be threadbanned
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
- Status
Convenient. As soon as rumors about a player transfer starts, he will be downgraded to a non-star player. I love it.
It's interesting that you regard Walker as being in the same category as Lloris, Alderweireld, Eriksen, Alli and Kane. I never knew you rated him so highly.
Why wouldn't the best player in his position in the country be a star player?
I always did. You can check my post history from back in the day. Besides Kane and Alli, he's the only Spurs player I would have loved to bring to United.
Can a myth that was made up 10 minutes ago really be considered as living on?
Unless, of course, Glaston has used the term "Star player" in one of his many posts on this subject in the past.
I strongly suspect not.
Unless, of course, Glaston has used the term "Star player" in one of his many posts on this subject in the past.
I strongly suspect not.
Because - putting aside the fact that some might dispute your "best player" rating - it's all about a player's relative importance to the team and who they have/could get to replace them if they left.
We have Trippier to replace Walker, but replacing Kane (for example) would be impossible for Spurs without a huge drop in quality. Similarly, Eriksen (for further example) is pivotal to the way we play in a way that Walker wasn't.
This isn't to say that Walker isn't a very good wingback - he is. But to regard him as one of Spurs' star players is a big stretch.
Walker was a key player for Spurs, you cannot possibly deny that.
Rejoice for a myth is born!!
It wasn't that long ago that Pochetino compared Kyle Walker to Lillium Thuram. Safe to assume your manager will not be overly pleased losing him, despite the fallout.
I do deny that. If you regard Walker as a key player for Spurs, perhaps you'd tell me which of last season's best XI for Spurs you don't regard as key players ... because if the answer is hardly any, then the word "key" loses meaning.
I don't think he was. I was paraphrasing you. If you look back to April before it became apparent he wanted to leave you yourself were putting him in the bracket with Lloris and Eriksen and saying there were few players better than him. Fast forward a couple of months and Trippier is an able replacement.
I'd quote the post for you but I can't. It was on April 6th though.
Oh I don't know. The sale would not have happened without Pochettino giving his sanction. His level of "displeasure" will be determined by how well Trippier steps up to the plate and/or what we do with the £50m.
City have a far far better chance of winning the league, or any trophy compared to Spurs - but of course he's not moving for his career!!
Waiting to read his excuse. I guess it will be "He isn't a star player".
I was correct
Does this make Dier a star player?I was correct
He'll be a big miss in games where his athleticism and defending is needed, but against all teams except the top 6 in the league Trippier may even be a better option. I for one am not happy to see him leave, especially not to City, however, it is a world record transfer for a defender and if the money is needed for Poch to strengthen the overall squad I can get behind it.
I have previously said, if I recall correctly, that Walker and Rose were the best pair of wingbacks in the Prem, or certainly right up there with the best. I don't recall saying that Walker is as important to Spurs as Lloris or Eriksen.
Trippier has had more of a chance to show his qualities since April - and has taken his chance well, so yes, I do regard him as an able replacement, albeit with a different set of strengths and weaknesses compared to Walker.
No.
Fair play.
It'll certainly be interesting how the money is spent - and in general be interesting to see your spending this window. I'm guessing some spending will happen pretty soon for you guys.
No. But he won't be sold this summer regardless.
Last season says otherwise.
Really surprised by the lack of activity and even links for spurs. They need to be careful not to cede the initiative. Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool all seem to be doing way more than them.
The below is what you were saying before Walker wanted to leave:
But even aside from Kane, Alli and Alderweireld, there are not many players who are better than Lloris, Walker, Rose and Eriksen in their respective positions/roles (this already amounts to 7 players in our best XI). And those who are (or might be) are quite simply way out of our current price range.
That was in last season's Spurs thread. You grouped them together when it suited your rhetoric. Now all of a sudden Walker is quite easily replaced by Kieran Trippier.
Depends on whether he is staying or leaving.
Thank God for that.
This is great business for everyone involved!
Spurs get £50m for a 27 year old player who's not even one of their most important ones (Kane, Alli, Eriksen, Alderweirald, Lloris), while they also have a good replacement in Trippier, who's also much younger. If Poch invests the £50m wisely this will be seen as great business.
City get an excellent right back, a position they needed to fill in with some quality badly. And money obviously isn't an issue for them.
And Kyle Walker gets to play for a better team who most likely will not stop spending until their ambitions of silverware are met. And given the quality of their team they're bound to start winning trophies very soon.
Spurs get £50m for a 27 year old player who's not even one of their most important ones (Kane, Alli, Eriksen, Alderweirald, Lloris), while they also have a good replacement in Trippier, who's also much younger. If Poch invests the £50m wisely this will be seen as great business.
City get an excellent right back, a position they needed to fill in with some quality badly. And money obviously isn't an issue for them.
And Kyle Walker gets to play for a better team who most likely will not stop spending until their ambitions of silverware are met. And given the quality of their team they're bound to start winning trophies very soon.
Yeah it's been a slow summer for us, but not surprising with the transfer fees thrown around as well as the new stadium to fund. I don't think we'll spend a lot of money, but we do need a new right back unless Poch wants to promote Walker Peters from the academy. Except for that I'd expect a talent or two to be brought in, and maaaaaybe an established player if the profile and fee is reasonable (something that may be unlikely).
Difficult window for us, but if we manage to keep the squad injury free this season I still believe we can challenge for the league without any major investment.
You don't win trophies though.
And I don't even mean that as an insult, it's literally true.
It baffles me a lot of the time that Spurs fans don't get more miffed by this - as Arsenal fans did before Wenger's F.A Cup 3 seasons back.
You last thing you won was the League Cup in 2007/8! The trophy before that...?
The League Cup in 1998/99.
Walker clearly has more chance of trophies at City or United/Chelsea/Arsenal and even Liverpool because you guys do have an actual issue at the club with not winning trophies.
I was correct
If Walker was a "star" player for Spurs, then I'll ask you the same question I asked another poster: which of our best XI from last season do you regard as not being a star player for Spurs?
Vertonghen.
I didn't say Walker as Star player, I said that would be your excuse. You can come up with any excuse, Walker was your key player and first choice player. So yeah, you sold your first choice player to PL rival.
Meh, we've only been in the position of being one of the best teams in England the last two seasons, and there aren't that many trophies to go around. Too early to throw that at us imo. Also, based on our resources (I know this argument is tiresome, but once again we can't spend much and teams around us are spending as if money is out of fashion) we're doing very well so I think you're being slightly unfair.
His point is that you only set the "Star" goalposts after your theory was proven to be full of shit.
As you well know.
We're talking about City, since that's who Walker has signed for, not the collective top 5 other clubs in the Prem aside from Spurs. I'm also talking about the present day - not what has happened over the last several years and beyond. In this present day, Spurs finished above City in the league last season and neither team won a trophy.
You can argue that City's spending spree will take above Spurs this coming season and/or win them a trophy, but that remains to be seen.
Last edited:
Wouldn't you say that you are now significantly weaker in that position now, though? And your squad, in general, is weaker due to the loss of Kyle walker?
So you don't regard Walker as having been a star player for Spurs, yet you dispute my agreement with that assessment. That makes no sense at all.
It also makes no sense for you to single out just two players from Spurs best XI - Vertonghen and Walker - as not being "star" players, because if all other 9 are key players then the word "key" begins to lose any real meaning.
I have quite a while ago given my list of key players for Spurs ... and Walker was not among them.
Um... yeah. In this present day the league hasn't started and it doesn't matter that Spurs got 2nd last year.
And as far as the future is concerned, City will more likely be finishing above Spurs next season. Even if they don't, they're 2-4 year future also looks much better.
I never said anything about star player, i just predicted what your excuse would be.
No, for Spurs star players are different and I never refuted that. You sold Key player to City, how you can argue that is beyond me.
Whom you consider as star player doesn't make a fecking difference, fact is your first choice RB wanted to leave (and left) Spurs to join the team that finished below you in the last 2 seasons.
The squad is significantly weaker, yes, in terms of depth as of today. How much weaker at right wingback we'll be in the first XI with Trippier - if we end up being weaker at all - remains to be seen.
But in terms of squad depth we now have £50m extra to spend, so it's best to reserve judgement IMO until the transfer window has closed.
That's one huge if.
The most successful clubs generally have the best squads. It's practically a mandatory rule that clubs in the prem have a large squad full of ready and willing replacements. Spurs do not have that in any way shape or form. As things stand, they are couple of injuries away to key personnel from completely falling off the radar.
Things might has been different had last summers signings worked out but aside from Wanyama, who was excellent all season long, Sissoko, Jansen and Koudou were a complete failure, largely ineffective all season long. That's the problem with a club like Spurs, they cannot afford for their expensive signings to fail.
Last edited:
Don't see why you can't be honest about it.
Any premiership club would feel the loss of Kyle Walker if they had a relative unknown (Kieran Trippier) as a replacement.
Just admit it.
- Status