Pastore signs for PSG

Christ how did you answer me so quickly?



You're deluded, for thinking otherwise. That simple.

What a spastic you are.

Witty retort. Just what I would expect from you.

this forum is lame, someone give me a link to a proper football forum with adults

ViVaRooney wrote:this forum is lame, someone give me a link to a proper football forum with adults

http://forum.ea.com/uk/forums/show/36.page

I wouldn't expect anything from you because you don't offer anything.

Filippo Inzaghi wrote:

ViVaRooney wrote:this forum is lame, someone give me a link to a proper football forum with adults

http://forum.ea.com/uk/forums/show/36.page

Great forum: one which I would highly reccommend. I tend to post on both forums, but prefer EA.

Filippo Inzaghi wrote:

ViVaRooney wrote:this forum is lame, someone give me a link to a proper football forum with adults

http://forum.ea.com/uk/forums/show/36.page

i said with adults

You're getting carried away Luke, accept that I'm better and move on.

ViVaRooney wrote:this forum is lame, someone give me a link to a proper football forum with adults

Fuck off then.

Eternal Witcher wrote:You're getting carried away Luke, accept that I'm better and move on.

The only thing you're better at is being a spastic.

I'm done.

He's done.

Luke you're in the wrong this time so take it like a man.

Kuled wrote:

ViVaRooney wrote:this forum is lame, someone give me a link to a proper football forum with adults

Fuck off then.

yes thats what i am trying to do, if i can get a link to a proper football forum

Someone please provide him with a link.

coolhead33 wrote:Luke you're in the wrong this time so take it like a man.

How am I in the wrong?

I want him to back up his point of Pastore being better value then Torres.

Pastore is the sort of player who Chelsea could have done with. He would have added that spark of creativity that their rather stagnant midfield currently lacks.

With Pastore opting for PSG and Tottenham keen to hold onto Modric, I worry about how Chelsea are going to cope this season. A title challenge may be beyond them without a complete revamp of the squad.

cheesy wrote:Pastore is the sort of player who Chelsea could have done with. He would have added that spark of creativity that their rather stagnant midfield currently lacks.

With Pastore opting for PSG and Tottenham keen to hold onto Modric, I worry about how Chelsea are going to cope this season. A title challenge may be beyond them without a complete revamp of the squad.

Clearly, I mean, not like we won every game in pre-season so far and haven't conceded a goal

Also, not like Benayoun can't do the job.

cheesy wrote:Pastore is the sort of player who Chelsea could have done with. He would have added that spark of creativity that their rather stagnant midfield currently lacks.

With Pastore opting for PSG and Tottenham keen to hold onto Modric, I worry about how Chelsea are going to cope this season. A title challenge may be beyond them without a complete revamp of the squad.

I don't agree with the last bit, Chelsea will obviously be in the mix next season

luke. wrote:

cheesy wrote:Pastore is the sort of player who Chelsea could have done with. He would have added that spark of creativity that their rather stagnant midfield currently lacks.

With Pastore opting for PSG and Tottenham keen to hold onto Modric, I worry about how Chelsea are going to cope this season. A title challenge may be beyond them without a complete revamp of the squad.

Clearly, I mean, not like we won every game in pre-season so far and haven't conceded a goal

Also, not like Benayoun can't do the job.

Pre-season means absolutely nothing. If you are sitting in 3rd by the time December comes, what is pre-season going to mean then?

Benayoun is a decent player, but he is a treatement table regular who is not on the same level as the likes of Modric, Nasri or Gerrard when they are playing well.

Think about it. Torres is something of a relic when you compare him to the 2007/8 season. Pastore has nowhere to go but up at his age, and he's already been hailed as a great player. Add to that Pastore being cheaper.

Eternal Witcher wrote:Think about it. Torres is something of a relic when you compare him to the 2007/8 season. Pastore has nowhere to go but up at his age, and he's already been hailed as a great player. Add to that Pastore being cheaper.

Who is hailing him as a great player?

Torres is a proven world-class striker, who looks be getting back to his best judging on his steadily improving performances this pre-season.

What has Pastore proved? He's not exactly top of the assist charts with 5, doesn't exactly strike "playmaker" to you, does it? Especially because he's not deep-lying. A low pass rate of 73%, not great, is it? Most of what he offers is his dribbling which even then he can lose the ball a lot when he tries it, and his finishing. He's more of a Lampard style then a Kaká or the like.

Would you pay £37m for someone who's scored 11 goals, and got 5 assists in 35 games?

He's done nowhere near enough to gain the price-tag he's gone for, whereas Torres has. All credit must go to Zamparini.

luke. wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Luke you're in the wrong this time so take it like a man.

How am I in the wrong?

I want him to back up his point of Pastore being better value then Torres.

You spent £50 million on a striker who had been off form all season. I know they had a shit manager but why pay £50 million for someone who wasn't at their best? Pastore is probably on form, getting better, younger, cheaper and probably has the potential to surpass the achievements Torres has had throughout his career.

cheesy wrote:

luke. wrote:

cheesy wrote:Pastore is the sort of player who Chelsea could have done with. He would have added that spark of creativity that their rather stagnant midfield currently lacks.

With Pastore opting for PSG and Tottenham keen to hold onto Modric, I worry about how Chelsea are going to cope this season. A title challenge may be beyond them without a complete revamp of the squad.

Clearly, I mean, not like we won every game in pre-season so far and haven't conceded a goal

Also, not like Benayoun can't do the job.

Pre-season means absolutely nothing. If you are sitting in 3rd by the time December comes, what is pre-season going to mean then?

Benayoun is a decent player, but he is a treatement table regular who is not on the same level as the likes of Modric, Nasri or Gerrard when they are playing well.

Pre-season means quite a lot actually.

Last season Chelsea had a poor pre-season, then started the season with a bang, leading to underlying problems in the team being uncovered when we hit a bad pitch, as they weren't solved in time because they were forgotten about as we'd had such a good start. Later pre-season games aren't a bad judgement of how a team looks. Earlier games are for fitness, later games aren't so much.

coolhead33 wrote:

luke. wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Luke you're in the wrong this time so take it like a man.

How am I in the wrong?

I want him to back up his point of Pastore being better value then Torres.

You spent £50 million on a striker who had been off form all season. I know they had a shit manager but why pay £50 million for someone who wasn't at their best? Pastore is probably on form, getting better, younger, cheaper and probably has the potential to surpass the achievements Torres has had throughout his career.

You don't pay for form, you pay for class. Torres has proven that, Pastore hasn't. Nor has he gone to a league where he could actually prove himself.

luke. wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:Think about it. Torres is something of a relic when you compare him to the 2007/8 season. Pastore has nowhere to go but up at his age, and he's already been hailed as a great player. Add to that Pastore being cheaper.

Who is hailing him as a great player?

Torres is a proven world-class striker, who looks be getting back to his best judging on his steadily improving performances this pre-season.

What has Pastore proved? He's not exactly top of the assist charts with 5, doesn't exactly strike "playmaker" to you, does it? Especially because he's not deep-lying. A low pass rate of 73%, not great, is it? Most of what he offers is his dribbling which even then he can lose the ball a lot when he tries it, and his finishing. He's more of a Lampard style then a Kaká or the like.

He's done nowhere near enough to gain the price-tag he's gone for, whereas Torres has. All credit must go to Zamparini.

Would the likes of Barcelona be interested in him otherwise? Wasn't it you who hated stats?

And you're just looking for any signs of life in that wreck. His best has gone. Sure I can admit that he could still be good but simply not at his old standard.

Eternal Witcher wrote:

luke. wrote:

Eternal Witcher wrote:Think about it. Torres is something of a relic when you compare him to the 2007/8 season. Pastore has nowhere to go but up at his age, and he's already been hailed as a great player. Add to that Pastore being cheaper.

Who is hailing him as a great player?

Torres is a proven world-class striker, who looks be getting back to his best judging on his steadily improving performances this pre-season.

What has Pastore proved? He's not exactly top of the assist charts with 5, doesn't exactly strike "playmaker" to you, does it? Especially because he's not deep-lying. A low pass rate of 73%, not great, is it? Most of what he offers is his dribbling which even then he can lose the ball a lot when he tries it, and his finishing. He's more of a Lampard style then a Kaká or the like.

He's done nowhere near enough to gain the price-tag he's gone for, whereas Torres has. All credit must go to Zamparini.

Would the likes of Barcelona be interested in him otherwise? Wasn't it you who hated stats?

And you're just looking for any signs of life in that wreck. His best has gone. Sure I can admit that he could still be good but simply not at his old standard.

Who says Barcelona were interested? We don't even know for sure if Chelsea were interested. Zamparini is a nutter, it's hard to trust anything he says and it could have been a mad stunt to hike up PSG's price. He tried it with Real and Perez said he'd never heard of Pastore. And no, I'm quite a stats enthusiast.

luke. wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:

luke. wrote:

coolhead33 wrote:Luke you're in the wrong this time so take it like a man.

How am I in the wrong?

I want him to back up his point of Pastore being better value then Torres.

You spent £50 million on a striker who had been off form all season. I know they had a shit manager but why pay £50 million for someone who wasn't at their best? Pastore is probably on form, getting better, younger, cheaper and probably has the potential to surpass the achievements Torres has had throughout his career.

You don't pay for form, you pay for class. Torres has proven that, Pastore hasn't. Nor has he gone to a league where he could actually prove himself.

I know but you don't pay for a player off form either. That is backed up by the fact that he hasn't performed well for you since moving. When you buy an on form player they normally make a better impact than an off form player for obvious reasons. Torres might never get back to his former self for all we know for whatever reason. I know I'm contradicting my first sentence here but you don't always pay for class. Hernandez might of been good in the Mexican league but that is nowhere near the standard of the Premier League and you don't pay for Mexican League "class" if that makes sense. Fergie saw something in him and it paid off. It's about buying for the future as well. Although you needed a player to make an instant impact Pastore could of done that. Some players for the future can shine straight away.

For £43 million they could have signed Carroll.

Don't go there Cadbury.