Fabio Quagliarella (43 Viewers)

Would you keep Quagliarella?

  • Yes

  • No

  • Maybe

Results are only viewable after voting.
Vlad

Vlad

In Allegri We Trust
#9,983
May 23, 2011
24,211
#9,983
Interdestroyer said:
I don't understand how you can say Matri is a better backup for Llorente, it doesn't make sense. I guess by that argument you would also prefer a 17yr old primavera targetman over Quag because he plays the same role. Quagliarella proved to be a far superior player and someone that can handle pressure much better than Matri aka Mr 0 zero football skills outside of finishing.

'We play better with Matri on the field' :derp: .. who are we, Arsenal? :derp::derp:
Click to expand...
Quag is far superior?? We're not comparing Messi and Gilardino here. Looking at their stats for the past 3 years it seems rather even. Matri scored 29 goals from 83 games while Quag netted 26 from 79 respectively. It's a matter of preferences. You certainly can't say one is far better player than the other.
IMO Matri is better sub for Llorente because of his already mentioned characteristics.




Interdestroyer said:
I agree, though I think Matri is a far more questionable purchase. Think of the money we wasted for a 7th place finish.. Instead of spending 18m on Matri + 15m on Vucinic the next season we could've spent 30m on someone else.
Click to expand...
They both were questionable considering the amount we payed. But on the other hand circumstances of both were the influencing factor.
I wouldn't drag Vucinic into this as his purchase was an excellent one. For 15M he more than proved his worth.
 
Nzoric

Nzoric

Grazie Mirko
#9,987
Jan 16, 2011
37,882
#9,987
Interdestroyer said:
I don't understand how you can say Matri is a better backup for Llorente, it doesn't make sense. I guess by that argument you would also prefer a 17yr old primavera targetman over Quag because he plays the same role. Quagliarella proved to be a far superior player and someone that can handle pressure much better than Matri aka Mr 0 zero football skills outside of finishing.

'We play better with Matri on the field' :derp: .. who are we, Arsenal? :derp::derp:



I agree, though I think Matri is a far more questionable purchase. Think of the money we wasted for a 7th place finish.. Instead of spending 18m on Matri + 15m on Vucinic the next season we could've spent 30m on someone else.



And as always the Quag haters love to underappreciate and just completely ignore any facts put in front of them for retarded opinions.
Click to expand...
Far superior :rofl: . What a tool
 
sgjuveboy

sgjuveboy

Senior Member
#9,999
Oct 31, 2012
2,723
#9,999
let's all agree that both matri and quag are good players when they are on form, both of them have earned us victory before. But let's also all agree that they are highly inconsistant, there are games where they just seem like a waste of space. The issue with them is that we never know which version of matri or which which version of quag is going to turn up. They do not guarantee any quality when they start games.

Therefore, let's all stop the argument, sit back and watch what the board decides to do. They are both dispensable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 43)