MANoWAR

The worst thing is we've never gotten to see his true attacking prowess -- a player of his calibre deserved to be playing alongside the KDB/Aguero/Silva/Sanchez (prime) of the sporting world with those players supporting him instead of carrying us year after year. now, we get to see that. Just unfortunately not with us.

The worst thing is we've never gotten to see his true attacking prowess -- a player of his calibre deserved to be playing alongside the KDB/Aguero/Silva/Sanchez (prime) of the sporting world with those players supporting him instead of carrying us year after year -- now, we get to see that. Just unfortunately not with us.

yes -- if we are able to get somebody like Ten Hag in he can help promote our promising youth while not having the pressure to perform. We can also assess if they're ready for the big step up or should be sold, whilst also allowing him to get used to the style of the PL. Very promising manager.

I think the 60m is the crux of it. City's record signing is still 68m for KDB -- and he has a claim to be the best player in the PL with Hazard leaving and undoubtedly one of the best midfielders in the world. Real Madrid have just signed jovic for about 70m. Pulisic, regardless if we take into consideration his age, wouldn't start over anybody in the Liverpool/City side, and would see the bench for the Tottenham side (he might rotate with Moura, but all their other players are better/more proven), In accordance with Dortmund post the last TWO seasons have been less than stellar, in particular Dortmund's closest title challenge for a while, where he was benched by other players. And I think ultimately, if people see that we're willing to flock around 60m for somebody who has a few question marks about their stats (in addition to his number of contributions lately), then they would rather go for somebody who has a less controversial statistic at something like Ziyech, having a sh*t tonne of goals and assists in particular against good teams in the CL; or, Pepe, who less proven, has a sh*t tonne of goals on the right wing. This also motivates the Brandt and Hazard post - would buying two players, both of which are still not in their prime (Brandt being very young) be an improvement to our attack than the above? Most likely. People are desperate for us to return to a consistent top end team than fluctuating with our performances and having uncertainty around the managers future, the types of players we have signed (have we gotten anybody top end since Kanté?), so this is why they'd rather see proven quality than (supposed) potential - unless the supposed potential is more obvious e.g. in De Ligt or Felix. I also don't think the American criticism is unwarranted -- the potential for marketing there is excellent, and our own f**king chairman has said that Pulisic is going to help with that.

What a comment, I can't tell which part is my favourite - thanks a lot for this

I think saying he is a talented player vs saying he's the next big thing is a lot more reasonable, in particular when one's based off watching games and the other from youtube highlights. Second point: You mean in the Bundesliga where he got more assists there any other period in his history? And scored more than Pulisic there any he ever has? The guy who was spraying hollywood passes like it was nothing? All of his time in a squad far inferior to Dortmund right now -- and where he has somebody like Pep to guide him to world-class level? Wrong. Nope, nowhere did I say he's only hyped because from the USA -- in fact I have said several times he's a talented player, just not 'the next big thing', and given that we seemingly seem to disagree a lot on this, what better way than to give the opinion of somebody who's followed his career more closely than either of us? It's undeniable that his birthplace has given him certain hype where another like Lithuania wouldn't give him. I mean, even our chairman said that he's going to help us with the us fan base I mean, my point was arguing against you saying he's the next big thing, not that he wasn't talented. Whereas I think the point from him works quite good: Personally, I don't expect him to become an era defining player over the next year or so, but I don't believe he'll be a flash in the pan forgotten by 25 either. No, he won't be Ronaldo or Messi, and probably not Hazard or Reus either. But he might be a Son or Shaqiri level player in a few years. He will have a solid career, here or elsewhere. 16/17 he was good. Last season he was w**k, and this season he is peripheral to Sancho. Any player that is gonna be the next big thing would have far better description than that last line, and would've had far more of the input than has been written about him

Giroud has always been a dependable player who can hold the ball up well, and is good against tired legs. In contrast, it can be argued that too much of his game is lacking to be in the category of world class. For example, Giroud went something like 20 goals in his last Arsenal season without a goal. Most strikers when you think of world class --Kane, Aguero, Lewandowski-- have not suffered from that. Going back to the Leicester title-winning season, and even Conte's season, most of them would agree that Lacazette or Auba would've made them far more competitive to the title than Giroud, and you wouldn't say either of those are 'world-class' (well, perhaps borderline in some instances). In his world-cup season, many would argue that all you needed was a tall, strong striker to help out -- if many other players can do that, then it goes against him have world-class i.e unique ability. Players like Aguero for example also have other tenets -- i.e being big-game when it's necessary, and scoring against top end teams. Giroud hasn't done that. Suarez has showcased that. Kane to a lesser extent. In addition, all of these players have regularly scored multiple goals over the season, 20+ in many cases, whereas Giroud hasn't been able to match that! Giroud also suffers from another thing: less fitness. He's tired out many occasions in his seasons for Arsenal, which is why him as an impact-sub have always given his better performances. If his best performances come from the bench, you can't really say he's world-class Somebody like Firmino isn't world-class, but is an excellent player that allows Salah to play his game. If you put him in Conte's title winning team, he would look sh*t. If you added Aguero in comparison to any team, or Kane, he would elevate most of them while still being able to play his game normally. Giroud doesn't have that ability. If his other tenets are enough to put him in the league with those, the definition of world-class, at least in my eyes, would become too loose and thus lose any kind of meaning. Hence, he simply fits into the profile of a good player, but not a world-class one. Mate the title of your video is literally '30 SKILLS that will leave you speechless'. Do you think that's actually going to give out the deficines and his overall level of consistency in his game play? You seem to have the impression I haven't watched him; I have, which is why showing youtube videos doesn't add anything to the overall point. Why don't you tell me what he possesses that makes him the next world beater if you're so confident The second point is just dumb. Yes, lets attribute all the in-depth analysis to Dortmund fans being bitter about losing a player that was benched by another for a lot of the season. Let's ignore the plenty of non-Dortmund fans from the Bundesliga agreeing with it. What about the point in paragraph 5 which literally referenced the ratings he'd been given over the course of the Bundesliga? Which point can seemingly be riddled with bias that makes it so incorrect? About the american point; it doesn't go against my opinion. On the contrary -- it suggests that circumstances are his favor; that just lessens the point about American being the sole criteria

I mean, no it can't -- at least not the level anywhere the USA. You think if he was born in Lithuania or Latvia this level of hype would be similar? Again, to your second point showing me a f**king youtube highlight which can make any player look world class (see Giroud), that doesn't trump watching him. Perhaps give this a read: Talented yes, hyped up to be the next big star? Come off it Nor does it change that Dortmund have come closer to winning the league this season than any other for the past few years, despite benching Pulisic for much of it.

Instead of spending 5-10 mins googling him I could perhaps watch his matches over the course of a season or two and garner further opinions from Dortmund fans over his ability -- that would perhaps give a more concrete idea of what he is like. To your second point, the point isn't that the UK hypes their players up, it's the fact that football isn't centrc in the US compared to anything else; however, given that Pulisic is the most talented player to come from there in a while, and his goal tally has helped the national squad, he's only going to get hyped up for doing things that no other lad in the US squad is able to do as well as the fact that the USA dominates much of the internet and global affairs

No he isn't -- if he wasn't American his hype wouldn't be anywhere near what it is Can guarantee if this guy signed for Liverpool or Man United he'd be slated heavily.

If this lazy bastard is our striker by next season then Sarri's sacked by the 18th game and we'll go back to whining about how we keep signing duds. Really shocking how we always find ourselves in a bad striker position never mind how we constantly say we need to improve our other options too

wtf. Is this true? There's been lots of reports about how corrupt FIFA / UEFA are but this is scary

I wonder where this would leave Chelsea's stature as a club going forward; it is no surprise that Everton are looking to expand their stadium and grow as a club. We know how large the stadiums in the Bundesliga are already. Real Madrid and Barcelona, regardless if they are the biggest clubs in the world, are looking to expand to 100k The CPO are adamant on rejecting any move outside of Fulham (rightly or wrongly) which leaves us with a constraint to build here. But even then, a 60k capacity is a stretch; there simply would not be any space, and even then, Earl's Court is only 10-15 mins by trying to walk and that was rejected. So where does that leave us? If the club are continue to grow and maintain a strong status without Roman's influence in the future then it is surely a necessity to realise that a large stadium facilitates this. With all the money in the game now and how the likes of Spurs have sponsorship deals with the NFL etc. the gap in wealth available will surely close. But shoehorning 60k, or trying to scaledown costs (which will likely be accompanied by fewer facilities being made) and then disallowing any room for further expansion would be a bit of a knock-down to wanting to maintain our level in the upper echelons of football. It's all a bit of a conundrum with the weird investment climate for Roman, potentially having to play away and having a transfer ban during a critical period. No doubt Chels are fine at the moment

The interest cooled down because wages and they signed De Jong