Nasri or Gourcuff

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

Exactly

Not workin in premier inn tonight then Chris :pirate:

Now I like Nasri, but then I like Gourcuff. But which is better?

There's only 1 way to find out........

luke. wrote:

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

Exactly

Not workin in premier inn tonight then Chris :pirate:

Travelodge actually.

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

Exactly

Not workin in premier inn tonight then Chris :pirate:

Travelodge actually.

Damn. was close enough

luke. wrote:

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

Exactly

Not workin in premier inn tonight then Chris :pirate:

Travelodge actually.

Damn. was close enough

Nah they're about 3 miles apart tbh.

grenade187 wrote:Do you watch many MLS league games?

Since they dont compete in any major competitions I just watch the NY team because of Henry and I used to watch the Philly team for Ljumberg a few times.

Sometimes it can be painful to watch im not gona lie.

Nah I can't stomach watching MLS, I find it insanely boring. I tried to watch the Seattle Sounders because of Ljungberg in hopes of him bringing some of the European style to the MLS, but it still didn't catch me. I have also watched the Red Bulls because of Henry and it still doesn't do anything for me because the overall match itself is still very American.

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

And nearly a year later people still don't understand where I was coming from despite me explaining it in the simplest of terms. Only one person from the entire old boards got my point.

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

Actually it's nothing like that because you fail to understand where I am coming from and I see no point in re-explaining something that was nearly a year ago.

I understand, because they don't run at the goal with the ball, they don't move the ball forward towards the goal, they just finish it off, which isn't true imo, a lot of strikers run with the ball forward, and even when they finish it off, it's an attacking move, trying to score.

Arise, I don't think you even know your own point in that argument. You say strikers aren't attackers because they aren't the only ones who attack.

That's like saying England isn't in Europe because France and Germany are also in Europe...

kyro7 wrote:I understand, because they don't run at the goal with the ball, they don't move the ball forward towards the goal, they just finish it off, which isn't true imo, a lot of strikers run with the ball forward, and even when they finish it off, it's an attacking move, trying to score.

A lot of strikers ISN'T all strikers. Also if you are playing with your back to goal say a la Shearer, turning and attempting to score is not what I would call attacking.

At the end of the day if you don't agree fine, more power to you and it doesn't change my opinion, but to keep repeating it like a broken record because you don't agree is pathetic plain and simple.

SBSP_FIFA wrote:Arise, I don't think you even know your own point in that argument. You say strikers aren't attackers because they aren't the only ones who attack.

That's like saying England isn't in Europe because France and Germany are also in Europe...

I know exactly what I am saying. Also that is a terrible analogy because its nothing like what I am saying.

What I am saying is if you have 100 strikers that play with their backs toward goal and another 30 that actually run at goal, does that 30 represent all strikers? No, so you can't say that all strikers are attackers, you would have to say that some strikers are attackers, not all.

A better example. Marouane Chamakh and Robin Van Persie are strikers that I would say attack, but if you look at someone like Ruud van Nistelrooij who is a back to goal, in the box striker. He is not attacking in my opinion so that would mean out of those 3, 2 are attacking and 1 isn't hence all strikers are not attackers.

AriseForLife wrote:

kyro7 wrote:I understand, because they don't run at the goal with the ball, they don't move the ball forward towards the goal, they just finish it off, which isn't true imo, a lot of strikers run with the ball forward, and even when they finish it off, it's an attacking move, trying to score.

A lot of strikers ISN'T all strikers. Also if you are playing with your back to goal say a la Shearer, turning and attempting to score is not what I would call attacking.

At the end of the day if you don't agree fine, more power to you and it doesn't change my opinion, but to keep repeating it like a broken record because you don't agree is pathetic plain and simple.

SBSP_FIFA wrote:Arise, I don't think you even know your own point in that argument. You say strikers aren't attackers because they aren't the only ones who attack.

That's like saying England isn't in Europe because France and Germany are also in Europe...

I know exactly what I am saying. Also that is a terrible analogy because its nothing like what I am saying.

What I am saying is if you have 100 strikers that play with their backs toward goal and another 30 that actually run at goal, does that 30 represent all strikers? No, so you can't say that all strikers are attackers, you would have to say that some strikers are attackers, not all.

A better example. Marouane Chamakh and Robin Van Persie are strikers that I would say attack, but if you look at someone like Ruud van Nistelrooij who is a back to goal, in the box striker. He is not attacking in my opinion so that would mean out of those 3, 2 are attacking and 1 isn't hence all strikers are not attackers.

Kicking the ball at the other teams goal is attacking their goal, which is the aim.

AriseForLife wrote:
I know exactly what I am saying. Also that is a terrible analogy because its nothing like what I am saying.

What I am saying is if you have 100 strikers that play with their backs toward goal and another 30 that actually run at goal, does that 30 represent all strikers? No, so you can't say that all strikers are attackers, you would have to say that some strikers are attackers, not all.

A better example. Marouane Chamakh and Robin Van Persie are strikers that I would say attack, but if you look at someone like Ruud van Nistelrooij who is a back to goal, in the box striker. He is not attacking in my opinion so that would mean out of those 3, 2 are attacking and 1 isn't hence all strikers are not attackers.

Attacking = trying to score.
Attacker = one who tries to score.

Is Van Nistelrooy trying to score? Yes, he is. Therefore he is an attacker.

kyro7 wrote:
Kicking the ball at the other teams goal is attacking their goal, which is the aim.

SBSP_FIFA wrote:


Attacking = trying to score.
Attacker = one who tries to score.

Is Van Nistelrooy trying to score? Yes, he is. Therefore he is an attacker.

Again you two have your opinion and I have mine. Why is that so hard for you each to understand?

Why is my seeing something different such a big deal to you two?

Kicking the ball at the oppositions net does not = attacking in my opinion if that's all tha happens.

Okay lets leave it at that.

I see what he's trying to say, not all strikers are attackers..because most strikers these days just wait for the ball and try to strike. But in attacking is like getting the ball from deep and running at defenders...

Yeah but, both are attacking moves, just because people that run at the goal are attackers, doesn't mean kicking the ball at the goal is not attacking.

But I'm only saying this to you, not arise.

I do get what you are saying Kyro, but in my opinion if I was playing striker and I was in the box and received a pass and the ONLY thing I did was turn and shoot. That too me does not equal attacking. In my eyes I do not see that as attacking, I see that as shooting or finishing and nothing more.

What is attacking then?

Watch Robben, Cristiano, Samir, etc. The attacking runs they make to get the ball into the oppositions end of the field. Once they pass to the strikers, depending on where the ST is on the pitch they can either be attacking or camping. If they are camping then I do not considering them attacking, but if they are outside the box trying to create something then I call that attacking.

Then no one can be considered anything tbh, because players do different things.

You might see Vermaelen make a forward run, and he's attacking, just like when he has a pop at goal, what your saying imo means no one should be classed as anything.

I don't get Arise's logic, with all due respect.

AriseForLife wrote:

The-Reporter wrote:

luke. wrote:

kyro7 wrote:

luke. wrote:Wasn't AriseForLife the one who said Attackers aren't strikers?

He said strikers are not attackers.

Yeah I knew it.. just cba changing it round

Its like saying cb's are not defenders.

Actually it's nothing like that because you fail to understand where I am coming from and I see no point in re-explaining something that was nearly a year ago.

OK so CB's are defender's, in which case who are they defending against... the attacker's i would guess, but the strikers are not attackers according to you so do the cb's just let them by?

Cunt.

Trying to score and running at goal trying to set up a striker to score is attacking. Homing down at the goal is attacking, strikers just holding to ball up for another player to come down and finish is attacking. I get Arise's point, but it'll be a hard order trying to convince people that strikers are not necessarily attackers.

19Jones19v wrote:Trying to score and running at goal trying to set up a striker to score is attacking. Homing down at the goal is attacking, strikers just holding to ball up for another player to come down and finish is attacking. I get Arise's point, but it'll be a hard order trying to convince people that strikers are not necessarily attackers.

Nah.

If strikers are not attacking, then there will be no need to defend against them, considering you only defend against attacks. If Arise said this to somebody like Alex Ferguson he'd say fuck off you imbecile.

The-Reporter wrote:

19Jones19v wrote:Trying to score and running at goal trying to set up a striker to score is attacking. Homing down at the goal is attacking, strikers just holding to ball up for another player to come down and finish is attacking. I get Arise's point, but it'll be a hard order trying to convince people that strikers are not necessarily attackers.

Nah.

If strikers are not attacking, then there will be no need to defend against them, considering you only defend against attacks. If Arise said this to somebody like Alex Ferguson he'd say fuck off you imbecile.

Yeah, but at some point in the match that striker will turn his defender and be facing the goalkeeper, having an attempt at goal and so on. There's no striker out there that doesn't attack the opposite team at some point in the game.

19Jones19v wrote:

The-Reporter wrote:

19Jones19v wrote:Trying to score and running at goal trying to set up a striker to score is attacking. Homing down at the goal is attacking, strikers just holding to ball up for another player to come down and finish is attacking. I get Arise's point, but it'll be a hard order trying to convince people that strikers are not necessarily attackers.

Nah.

If strikers are not attacking, then there will be no need to defend against them, considering you only defend against attacks. If Arise said this to somebody like Alex Ferguson he'd say fuck off you imbecile.

Yeah, but at some point in the match that striker will turn his defender and be facing the goalkeeper, having an attempt at goal and so on. There's no striker out there that doesn't attack the opposite team at some point in the game.

To sum this whole thing up..

Strikers = attackers.

Arise is either just a stupid cunt who hasn't got a clue or stubborn.

Why do you all hate Arise for?

grenade187 wrote:Why do you all hate Arise for?

Don't hate him at all. Just find it funny when he says stuff like strikers are not attackers.

Its exact comments like this that give americans a bad reputation and make people think they are stupid.

Reporter I often see you arguing with him on just about everything he posts lol.