Van der Vaart (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Marceℓℓo
- Start date
- Status
i could give you this video as an answer:
(from 0:46 onwards)
Now we can argue about whether ranieri "defends" our management or not, but if we believe this video then he clearly says that he HAD THE CHOICE, and he CLEARLY CHOSE poulsen. Not a question of money, not a question of secco or anyone screwing up.
As for the point you brought up, i think the players you mentionned are more similar then we all think. Flamini and Poulsen are similar, even if Flamini may be more of a 'constructive' mid then poulsen is. And Alonso on the other hand, is similar to flamini, maybe even another bit more contructive. It's obvious that Poulsen is the more destructive out of all, but in the end, they cover more or less the same spot on the field, that's undeniable. I think that the failing of tiago maybe was kind of a draw-back for alonso. I won't ever compare the two players, but as for positioning and behaviour, there are similarities. And when Tiago got out of our game, it was actually the DM position which looked best (sissoko and Zanetti also) so the reasons why we chose poulsen are not that irrational...
As for stankovic, i think he was more of a backup-option if one of Nedved, Sissoko or Zanetti should be out. I don't think that stankovic was a real alternative to our CM/DM-signing.
(from 0:46 onwards)
Now we can argue about whether ranieri "defends" our management or not, but if we believe this video then he clearly says that he HAD THE CHOICE, and he CLEARLY CHOSE poulsen. Not a question of money, not a question of secco or anyone screwing up.
As for the point you brought up, i think the players you mentionned are more similar then we all think. Flamini and Poulsen are similar, even if Flamini may be more of a 'constructive' mid then poulsen is. And Alonso on the other hand, is similar to flamini, maybe even another bit more contructive. It's obvious that Poulsen is the more destructive out of all, but in the end, they cover more or less the same spot on the field, that's undeniable. I think that the failing of tiago maybe was kind of a draw-back for alonso. I won't ever compare the two players, but as for positioning and behaviour, there are similarities. And when Tiago got out of our game, it was actually the DM position which looked best (sissoko and Zanetti also) so the reasons why we chose poulsen are not that irrational...
As for stankovic, i think he was more of a backup-option if one of Nedved, Sissoko or Zanetti should be out. I don't think that stankovic was a real alternative to our CM/DM-signing.
Really Alen? I thought we needed another DM. 
Wanted or not this guy will lead our team this season so he should be the one who'll create the team.
My problem with him is that he didn't give an impression of someone who knows exactly what he wants.
You simply can't want Poulsen or Xabi Alonso. You can chose between Flamini and Poulsen or between Ledesma and Xabi Alonso, but if you're making a choice between Poulsen or Xabi then it means that you don't know for sure what kind of player you need in your team.
I'm not criticizing the signing of Poulsen and i won't go into the discussion about what we needed.
My question is, why did we try to sign Alonso at first place ?
If we knew that we needed a DMC why didn't we go after a DMC when the Flamini bid failed but Secco took the plane to Liverpool.
P.S: And i see the logic in what Ranieri said. I kinda agree with him. But it still stands that he's saying these things only after we signed Poulsen, just like it stands that we did try to buy Xabi Alonso (which would mean no Poulsen).
My question is, why did we try to sign Alonso at first place ?
If we knew that we needed a DMC why didn't we go after a DMC when the Flamini bid failed but Secco took the plane to Liverpool.
P.S: And i see the logic in what Ranieri said. I kinda agree with him. But it still stands that he's saying these things only after we signed Poulsen, just like it stands that we did try to buy Xabi Alonso (which would mean no Poulsen).
well i think, and this is my opinion about how things in the football-world work, we were after a 'central midfielder' in first line. I mean you cannot simply pick random players, and players consist of more then just their natural position. I clearly see what you're up to and i understand your worry, but i don't think it's that much of a problem. We were after a central midfielder, a holding/defending central midfielder (just to take out the van der vaart - thing). I think ranieri could easily have played with xabi just as well as with poulsen. It would have been a little different, but in the end, both systems could have worked WITHOUT changing the rest of the squad too much. So you're right that there are some differences in Poulsen and Xabi, no need to point that out for sure, but i don't think it would have changed our system fundamentally (as if we would have bought van der vaart for example)
small edit after re-reading: I think in the end, Ranieri just had the two options; and he chose the more defensive/destructive one. And that's it. I think a lot of people (including me) would have preferred xabi, the more contructive, the more elegant play, but if poulsen gives ranieri the securities he need, then i'm fine
small edit after re-reading: I think in the end, Ranieri just had the two options; and he chose the more defensive/destructive one. And that's it. I think a lot of people (including me) would have preferred xabi, the more contructive, the more elegant play, but if poulsen gives ranieri the securities he need, then i'm fine
I think I have a logical answer for why we didn't go for a DMC right after we failed on Flamini.
Flamini's transfer started by him not reaching a contract agreement with Arsenal, wishing to leave the club and thus ending on a free when the transfer window opens. Juventus were the first to offer him a contract and he hesitated to put pen on paper, thinking he might get better. Back then Milan had just crashed out of Europe and were far from fourth in the table. Suddenly Milan started climbing in the league and had good chances to play Champions League football (back then a priority for Flamini).
Milan gave him a larger salary, one that not so many clubs can match. He took a bet, tempted by the cash and chose Milan.
So why didn't Juventus directly go to another DMC?
1- Back then we had just bought Sissoko
2- Flamini was an opportunity that one HAS to try to sign
3- We didn't know that we need another DMC, we only knew that players of the type of Rafael are not a target.
Flamini's transfer started by him not reaching a contract agreement with Arsenal, wishing to leave the club and thus ending on a free when the transfer window opens. Juventus were the first to offer him a contract and he hesitated to put pen on paper, thinking he might get better. Back then Milan had just crashed out of Europe and were far from fourth in the table. Suddenly Milan started climbing in the league and had good chances to play Champions League football (back then a priority for Flamini).
Milan gave him a larger salary, one that not so many clubs can match. He took a bet, tempted by the cash and chose Milan.
So why didn't Juventus directly go to another DMC?
1- Back then we had just bought Sissoko
2- Flamini was an opportunity that one HAS to try to sign
3- We didn't know that we need another DMC, we only knew that players of the type of Rafael are not a target.
We ought to consider also the fact that Ranieri sees in Giovinco a midfielder, but as we all know he's not a hard working wide midfielder like Nedved, the only similarity is that he can cut from the wing into middle, behind the strikers. In fact we will play with 2 and a half forwards when Sebastian is placed in the XI. Having that in mind, Ranieri probably wanted another typically defensive midfielder to secure the left side of the pitch, where a combnation of Giovinco and Molinaro/De Ceglie with a creative central midfielder in person of i. e. Xabi Alonso wouldn't provide a defensive confidence for the team and more opponent's attacks through that wing could be succesful. I think that if Ranieri didn't have a trust in Giovinco and go for a midfielder such as Stanković to be a backup for Neddy, then probably we would have seen a central midfielder instead of Poulsen as a "true champion" signing in midfield. So convincing himself to Sebastian and therefore chosing a more offensive solution on the wing, Ranieri also chose a more defensive one in the centre to provide balance.
what if ranieri just sees our midfield in general as worth strengthening...
if you analyse our midfield you will probably agree that every position can be strengthened because we have no position where we have 2 players of the same quality.
on the left "wing": nedved (who wont last long) and perhaps giovinco
on the righ : camo (and a often injuried marchionni u can't rely on)
central/defensive midfield spot 1: sissoko (with probably marchisio as backup)
central/defensive midfield spot 2: zanetti (???)
i did not mention tiago and almiron because they most probably are considered flops and players that have no future in juve
ekdal is not mentioned because no one could know how he would fit in and if he was ready for serie a
so you see at the start of the transfer window there were many spots where we could enhance quality and depth of the squad ... i guess ranieri just thought he'd go after the players that were available at that moment because we cannot afford to pay much for players that are not on the market.
if you analyse our midfield you will probably agree that every position can be strengthened because we have no position where we have 2 players of the same quality.
on the left "wing": nedved (who wont last long) and perhaps giovinco
on the righ : camo (and a often injuried marchionni u can't rely on)
central/defensive midfield spot 1: sissoko (with probably marchisio as backup)
central/defensive midfield spot 2: zanetti (???)
i did not mention tiago and almiron because they most probably are considered flops and players that have no future in juve
ekdal is not mentioned because no one could know how he would fit in and if he was ready for serie a
so you see at the start of the transfer window there were many spots where we could enhance quality and depth of the squad ... i guess ranieri just thought he'd go after the players that were available at that moment because we cannot afford to pay much for players that are not on the market.
The player confirmed his move to Real on his official website
http://www.vandervaartofficial.com/en/my_news.asp?AjrDcmntId=2375
Deal reportedly worth 10m Euros
http://www.vandervaartofficial.com/en/my_news.asp?AjrDcmntId=2375
Deal reportedly worth 10m Euros
Names were on the table.
Gigli said few weeks before we got Poulsen, (and we all made our comment here), that board -Secco, Gigli and Blanc will decide which player is most suitable for Ranieri..So CR did not make final choice unfortunatly, however, once we signed Poulsen , CR did say that he was player which he wanted..so ..im bit confused here..
If needed, I will find this inteview from Gigli to post again..
So it was board decision, and probably they went with cheapest/safest option..
- Status