Moderators Zico Posted November 23, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 23, 2006 i'll say it again the 8 million has probably kick started diouf anelkas goals will come sam won't sell, through choice it's an admission that the first time he's had big momney, he's got it wrong if you're saying that it's a good signing because it's kick started diouf, what do we do next time diouf loses interest? think it's b??ll??cks myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 The win at Newcastle (orchastrated by Anelka) is worth more than that alone you buffoon. Sticks and stones! Granted he had one of his more effective games, but ???orchastrated???, as you so eloquently put it, is a bit strong. Campo was influential, Diouf played well, and we???d have been sunk without Titus Bramble. As I've said before, it isn't Anelka's fault. However, if we're not going to use him, we may as well lose him. That would be a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledwhite2 Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 He is quality He needs time as do his team mates Then we become a better team Stop being such a set of moaning, impatient bitches The list of players that have improved exponentially after a slow start is endless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 He is quality - do not disagree but we need goals He needs time as do his team mates - for me 10 games is enough Then we become a better team - one man does not make a team Stop being such a set of moaning, impatient bitches - ??8M shortens the patient period The list of players that have improved exponentially after a slow start is endless - see below I can think of an equally long list of players who have not. Starter for 10: Jardel. Your turn (and I bet you run out of names before me!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trotter Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Ok then, I put this too you all. Lyon bid ??5 million 1st Jan.......Do you accept ?? Get a full back and maybe Nugent. Do you accept ??? ye defo wanted nugent for 3.5mill all along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piemon Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 We've probably had about ??30's worth out of Anelka so far. very good Enzo very good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Sticks and stones! Granted he had one of his more effective games, but ???orchastrated???, as you so eloquently put it, is a bit strong. Campo was influential, Diouf played well, and we???d have been sunk without Titus Bramble. As I've said before, it isn't Anelka's fault. However, if we're not going to use him, we may as well lose him. That would be a shame. Campo was good and Bramble as reliable (for the away team) as ever, but I'm sure we'd not have won that game without Anelka. Which is worth alot. We are using him, maybe not to his full potential. The question is, if we do that, just to fit in with him, do we lose something from elsewhere from the switch in formation / personnel that would mean overall we're less effective? And that's one for Sam and Sammy. Personally, I'm just fed up of the whinging and particularly the "get rid of Anelka" muppets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marple whites Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Have been impressed with Anelka's workrate. But ??8.5m for no goals and he has played over a quarter of a season isn't very good. Defo agree that it is our system that doesn't suit him though in his defence. But what striker would fit in with how we play ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Yatesy: He is quality - do not disagree but we need goals - No, we need to win games. Who scores is largely irrelevant and we're more likely to win with Anelka in the team than without He needs time as do his team mates - for me 10 games is enough - In those 10 games, he's contributed much more than Borgetti etc, even though he hasn't scored. Then we become a better team - one man does not make a team - Exactly, see above Stop being such a set of moaning, impatient bitches - ??8M shortens the patient period - Why? It aint your money. Would it have been OK if we bought him for ??2m? The list of players that have improved exponentially after a slow start is endless - see below - His overall play is fine. The guy is a current French international FFS. All he needs is a bit of confidence Bolton fans - Dont know they're born Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Zico Posted November 23, 2006 Moderators Share Posted November 23, 2006 good point at least we only paid ??8m compared to ??30 difference is though, they could buy 10 shevchenkos if they wanted realistically, we've only got one stab at buying an expensive top class finisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_spencer Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Have been impressed with Anelka's workrate. But ??8.5m for no goals and he has played over a quarter of a season isn't very good. Defo agree that it is our system that doesn't suit him though in his defence. But what striker would fit in with how we play ? Drogba? Anyone got a spare ??40 million? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Site Supporter HomerJay Posted November 23, 2006 Site Supporter Share Posted November 23, 2006 dont think you could buy drogba at any price at the moment... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YATESY Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Bolton fans - Dont know they're born Very good reply that. But it is because I was born a Bolton fan pre-Reebok that I do care. We have a so called world class centre forward who is not looking like scoring a goal, never mind actually doing it. Like it or not we have paid ??8M for Anelka and I for one, am not afraid to say that he has been a waste of money. Yes he is contributing more team play than we all expected but for a fee of ??8M I want goals, and not just any old goals - I want the winner in a 3-2 game or the only goal in a tight match. The third goal at Walsall is not enough. One question to ask you, how many games do you give a goalscorer who isn't scoring goals before you expect BSA to change things? You can hide behind the fact we are 6th in the league but if our current form continues and we in the bottom half by Christmas, will you still be giving our non-scoring record signing your full backing then? I think not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 (edited) Do you even need a 'goalscorer' ?? You have been midtable 3 seasons in a row without one! Maybe a just replace an owd midfielder!! Edited November 23, 2006 by Pablo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbwfcd Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 but if our current form continues and we in the bottom half by Christmas, will you still be giving our non-scoring record signing your full backing then? I think not. That won't happen, if we keep playing the way we have been we will win more than we lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piemon Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Do you even need a 'goalscorer' ?? You have been midtable 3 seasons in a row without one!Maybe a just replace an owd midfielder!! Above 8th isnt mid table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Above 8th isnt mid table :::::::::::::: Oh yes it is pal. Below 6th IS MID table to you know why ?? IT IS THE MIDLE OF THE TABLE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piemon Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 :::::::::::::::: Oh yes it is pal. Below 6th IS MID table to you know why ?? IT IS THE MIDLE OF THE TABLE! 12th to 8th is mid table FACT :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Dont be silly, Top, middle or Bottom....and you are...MIDDLE 7th to 13th is mid table! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piemon Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Dont be silly, Top, middle or Bottom....and you are...MIDDLE 7th to 13th is mid table! Ok this is silly. we are both Mid-table Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Ok this is silly. we are both Mid-table maybe right but we are a better team than everton on recent performances/results against the peoples club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pablo Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 Ok this is silly. we are both Mid-table No we are mid-table you are top 6.....AT THE MOMENT! maybe right but we are a better team than everton on recent performances/results against the peoples club. :::::::::::::: Grasp at them straws mate. Man city have a better record against Chealsa than Chelsea do against City.....does that mean.....!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mounts Kipper Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 No we are mid-table you are top 6.....AT THE MOMENT! :::::::::::::::: Grasp at them straws mate. Man city have a better record against Chealsa than Chelsea do against City.....does that mean.....!! o.k.then your the better team :::::::::::::: , but we are still above you, yet again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
enzo gambaro Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 This thread has gone really gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jules_darby Posted November 23, 2006 Share Posted November 23, 2006 This thread has gone really gay. Now we agree. In a really manly way of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts