利迷論壇 » 昔日紅軍 » Martin Samuel: 利記唔買番奧雲係一個錯誤

頁: [1] 2

~吳鎮宇~8/2/2006 15:46
Martin Samuel: 利記唔買番奧雲係一個錯誤

By Martin Samuel, The Times (British newspaper)

文章簡述:
如果只計聯賽入球, 利記仲差過維拉, 我地前峰三個加埋成27.1m, 但係監介地即使奧雲只係出場十次入七球,但係已經係聯賽入球上多過摩記加施斯半季入球既總和,
當科拿被視為神既同時,點解D人當咗奧雲係宜家伊斯蘭教反對既丹麥卡通,
當然利記仲可以係summer去買奧雲,始終奧雲佢係英超有穩定既入球數量,係歐洲頂級賽事能夠為球隊作出貢獻,宜且唔駛太多時間去適應利記既打法,既然利記用得14m去買施斯, 點解利記唔買番奧雲

THEY should have bought Michael Owen. Oh come on, we all know it. They should have taken a deep breath, a financial kick in the teeth and a few days of rotten headlines and welcomed the best goalscorer in England back to his spiritual home.

Had Liverpool done that, they would be better than third. Had Liverpool bought Owen, we might have a proper title race to discuss rather than the sideshow of red cards and red faces that is the postscript to Sunday’s defeat by Chelsea.

Owen scores goals and Liverpool do not. That is the heart of the matter — indeed all that matters — right now. We can debate ethical codes and two-footed, airborne tackles from behind if anyone really thinks that this is the issue, but to those reeling at the paucity of the challenge to Chelsea, the fact remains that Liverpool, the self-styled title contenders, have scored twice in eight league and cup matches against the other three teams in the top four.

Steven Gerrard’s goal against Chelsea in a 4-1 defeat and Harry Kewell’s winner at home to Tottenham Hotspur stand alone. (Liverpool have not scored in either of their matches against Manchester United.) Liverpool can draw goalless with the best (Chelsea twice, United once), but they cannot do what is required to beat them. You know, the thing that is the point of the game.

So in lieu of real entertainment, we have José Manuel Reina’s spat with Arjen Robben. Must we do this? OK, but make it quick.

Reina deserved to go for his tackle on Eidur Gudjohnsen, which amounted to a professional foul because, if Gudjohnsen had been allowed to turn, he would have been running on goal with the Liverpool goalkeeper queueing for readmission. Reina knew this, so he took him out in a way that was cynical and violent.

His tackle was high, from behind, and neither foot was on the ground when it was made. He got what he deserved. Robben should then have been booked for play-acting. Long-term, he has done himself most harm, though, because referees will now be reluctant to believe their eyes when he is kicked — and a player as good as he is will get kicked a lot. There. Back to the important stuff.

Liverpool can camp out on the high moral ground until May, but the Premiership table is not lying. Chelsea are a speck on the horizon; in second place are United, from whom Liverpool have taken one point in six when the balance of power is said to be changing. For the champions of Europe, this is below expectation.

Given Liverpool’s achievements last season, there should not be so much in it. It could be argued that the nature of Liverpool’s only win over Chelsea in nine meetings — in the second leg of a Champions League semi-final that set up a triumphant night in Istanbul — has given a false impression of the relative closeness of the teams.

Last season’s table, with a 37-point difference between Chelsea (first) and Liverpool (fifth), may be regarded as a better yardstick and if Liverpool can improve significantly on that margin, generous observers might be satisfied. Except that when the season began, with a fifth European Cup and Gerrard on display, any Liverpool fan who was asked where the club would be in February would not have predicted 21 points (15 if lucky) behind Chelsea.

Last season, Liverpool conceded about 0.97 points to Chelsea every time the teams were in action (adding up to a differential of 37 points over 38 matches); this season, even if Liverpool win both of their games in hand, they will, on average, have dropped 0.6 points to Chelsea every match. On that projection, at the end of the season Liverpool will trail Chelsea by 23 points, a negligible improvement and certainly one that, had it been placed in a mission statement last summer, would have been met with howls of disapproval.

It is plain that Chelsea are stronger in depth. The defence is slightly tighter — conceding 0.52 goals per game to Liverpool’s 0.65 — while only Gerrard could be guaranteed a place in Chelsea’s powerful midfield, with Xabi Alonso a strong contender. Yet the margins here remain small and debatable and the teams well-matched. It is different in the front line.

[b]Liverpool are still waiting for the first league goal from a striker in 2006, despite forwards that cost a combined £27.1 million. If goals were points, Liverpool would be joint ninth in the Premiership, tied with Wigan Athletic, Fulham and Middlesbrough. Aston Villa would be above them.[/b]

The acquisition of Robbie Fowler is populist and romantic but relies on the player recapturing form from at least four seasons ago, when he scored 12 goals in 22 matches for Leeds United. He may be God at Anfield, where Owen was treated like a Danish cartoonist recently, but the simple truth is that Fowler has to rewind ten years to find a season during which he scored as prolifically as Owen had for Newcastle United this season before injury intervened.

[b]Owen has started ten league games for a poor team and has scored seven goals. That is a better strike-rate than Fowler in any season since 1995-96, when he struck 28 times in 38 league matches. Owen has scored as many league goals this season as Peter Crouch and Fernando Morientes (or Djibril Cissé and Morientes) put together, in one third of the appearances.[/b]

Owen was so obviously the answer for Liverpool that even Freddy Shepherd, the Newcastle chairman, spotted it and topped his wages at Real Madrid to spirit him to St James’ Park before the Anfield board came to its senses. Right to the wire, Owen would have signed for Liverpool had those at his former club shown the slightest determination to make the deal work.

[b]What stopped them? Ego, perhaps. Having, by choice, sold Owen for £8 million the previous summer, to buy him back for twice as much a year later would represent very bad business and public embarrassment. Yet is it also not a mistake to let foolish pride override the best interests of the club?[/b] Yes, there would have been a few wince-inducing moments at the time. Some commentators would have called into question the commercial acumen of those in charge. The act of paying over the odds for a player who had been part of the furniture a year previously would also have stuck in the craw. But then Owen would have started banging in the goals, as he always does, and the economics would have been for the birds.

Liverpool had scant reason to fear criticism anyway. Rafael Benítez, having won the Champions League in his first season, was flameproof, while the board would have been delivering only what most supporters wanted.

Schadenfreude at Owen’s misfortune since leaving Liverpool is misplaced anyway. When the striker returned to Anfield with Newcastle on Boxing Day, much fun was had at his expense. His new team-mates were dismal, as usual this season, and the home fans mocked his diminished status while trumpeting the success of their club in his absence. Yet it has proven to be hollow laughter. Whatever happened in Istanbul last May, Liverpool need Owen as much as Owen needs Liverpool and any executive discomfort that would have been felt on his return will surely have been outweighed by more widespread disappointment if Liverpool follow their Champions League success with a trophyless void.

That fear is genuine. The domestic challenge to Chelsea in tatters, the FA Cup a step down from last season, the only way the club can improve is to retain the European Cup and, of the 16 teams still involved, Liverpool have a poorer scoring record than all bar Villarreal, the Spanish also-rans.

Last season, between the first leg of the quarter-finals and the final, Liverpool scored one goal in three games and progressed. Yet with half the competition averaging two goals per game in league matches, they are unlikely to survive on such meagre rations this time, particularly because four teams (Chelsea, Juventus, Lyons and PSV Eindhoven) also have stronger defensive records.

In Benfica, Liverpool claimed a fortuitous draw in the first knockout round, but the big beasts await — and if Benítez’s front line has been shy against the best opposition at home, why should it continue to buck the trend in Europe? Fowler’s eagerly awaited return aside, Liverpool may have missed the boat. The summer was the moment for the board to shut its eyes, write the cheque for Owen and move on. The presumption that the player will quit failing Newcastle for Liverpool next may require revision, with a new manager due on Tyneside. Any coach worth his tracksuit will make sure that Owen’s commitment is part of the package and he certainly owes the locals a full season after this troubled campaign.

[b]Still, at least Liverpool did not lose face over Owen. All that remains is to find a proven, consistent Premiership goalscorer, capable of also making an impact at the highest level in Europe, who will not take time to adapt, costs roughly the £14 million that was paid for Cissé and is desperate to go to Anfield. Answers on a postcard, please.[/b]

[ Last edited by ~吳鎮宇~ on 2006-2-9 at 12:33 AM ]

livgerrard88/2/2006 16:09
而家講都太遲了.......
我地要對我地而家的前鋒有信心吧

braos8/2/2006 16:11
希望下季可以見到奧雲著番利記波衫啦, 有佢, 利記入球有保障架!!!!

braos8/2/2006 16:12
[quote] [u][b]livgerrard8[/b]  在 2006-2-9 12:09 AM 發表:[/u]

而家講都太遲了.......
我地要對我地而家的前鋒有信心吧 [/quote]

唔遲, 講緊下一季姐.....

yepp8/2/2006 16:18
[quote] [u][b]braos[/b]  在 2006-2-8 16:11 發表:[/u]

希望下季可以見到奧雲著番利記波衫啦, 有佢, 利記入球有保障架!!!! [/quote]

good point and agree.....:thumbup::thumbup:

tingfung6248/2/2006 16:24
算吧啦...一講呢d topic又會有人嘈交...見到都怕怕~

利物浦泰利8/2/2006 16:29
唉....我之前一向唔支持買owen....
不過依ka有d想....
我地好1需要一個完全唔洗點適應.....有高入球能力既前

smartpighk8/2/2006 16:51
無可否認,奧云是一個很好的前鋒,不過最大的問題
第一:他是否想有很大的決心回利記,正如當年走去皇馬時的決心
第二:在賓sir的戰術之下,他有多大的功效呢,因為從他在華倫時開始.
第三.他的確身價很貴 !!!!

harrycool8/2/2006 17:38
Because Owen doesn't have 'heart' to play for Liverpool, this is the main reason why I always don't want him back.

Brothers may criticise me but I think I can say out my opinion, just as a discussion~

When there was news talking about Real Madrid was interested in Owen, at that time, I just felt that he started to lose the 'heart' to play for Liverpool.

This is easily seen on his face...

I don't want to see a player that is not giving 100% to play for the club.

RICE8/2/2006 17:43
[quote]

By Martin Samuel, The Times (British newspaper)[/u]

文章簡述:
如果只計聯賽入球, 利記仲差過維拉, 我地前峰三個加埋成27.1m, 但係監介地即使奧雲只係出場十次入七球,但係已經係聯賽入球上多過摩記加施斯半季入球既總和,
當科拿被視為神既同時,點解D人當咗奧雲係宜家伊斯蘭教反對既丹麥卡通,
當然利記仲可以係summer去買奧雲,始終奧雲佢係英超有穩定既入球數量,係歐洲頂級賽事能夠為球隊作出貢獻,宜且唔駛太多時間去適應利記既打法,既然利記用得14m去買施斯, 點解利記唔買番奧雲
[/quote]

因為買番奧雲,
要係27.1m之外再俾16m.....,
這16m是新的成本,
而27.1m是沉沒的成本,

~吳鎮宇~8/2/2006 17:44
[quote] [u][b]RICE[/b]  在 2006-2-9 01:43 AM 發表:[/u]

因為買番奧雲,
要係27.1m之外再俾16m.....,
這16m是新的成本,
而27.1m是沉沒的成本, [/quote]

Sunk Cost:cool:

alanhahaha8888/2/2006 17:49
我地的確係要一個有入球保證既前鋒,但係球會實在冇咁多錢

fred_YNWA8/2/2006 17:54
各花入各眼la

我自己都想owen back
不過真係好risk

有可能損失好多$$$$$

~吳鎮宇~8/2/2006 18:13
[quote] [u][b]alanhahaha888[/b]  在 2006-2-9 01:49 AM 發表:[/u]

我地的確係要一個有入球保證既前鋒,但係球會實在冇咁多錢 [/quote]

我地有冇錢好視乎阿摩主席肯唔肯比錢我地洗

RICE8/2/2006 18:29
[quote] [u][b]~吳鎮宇~[/b]  在 2006-2-8 18:13 發表:[/u]


我地有冇錢好視乎阿摩主席肯唔肯比錢我地洗 [/quote]


阿摩主席肯唔肯比錢我地洗會否視乎我地有冇錢比阿摩..?

小平8/2/2006 18:32
我自己絕對支持 !

其他人點睇到好
我撐你 !

Legolashk8/2/2006 18:50
YUP..我都係撐...
除o左面子因素..我睇唔到理由唔買owen 番黎.
仍然記得..去年的一個post
8m 被人搶...
但owen...絕對係一個值15 甚至20m 的前鋒...
呢個絕對係世界頂級前鋒..

fowler_238/2/2006 18:53
But in Stat. Owen's team is not good!~16-17 in the table!

hwandrew8/2/2006 19:36
[quote] [u][b]fowler_23[/b]  在 2006-2-9 02:53 發表:[/u]

But in Stat. Owen's team is not good!~16-17 in the table! [/quote]

這與奧雲的能力無關..
紅軍今屆都幾明顯創造到唔少機會
只係前鋒無法將機會轉成入波囉...
有奧雲仔既話..
我信會成績會更好....

Legolashk8/2/2006 19:42
[quote] [u][b]fowler_23[/b]  在 2006-2-9 02:53 發表:[/u]

But in Stat. Owen's team is not good!~16-17 in the table! [/quote]

你可以對比番..有owen 在陣..同無owen 在陣的紐卡素戰績爭幾遠.

delpierfan8/2/2006 21:58
睇完呢幾場波 ....

都冇得唔認同既 , 我地 d 前鋒 , 真係唔得

Summer 都真係可能會埶過晒 ........

如果可以既話, 咁然希望返 Owen 啦  ...

noducking9/2/2006 01:55
買秅狗u係太貴,我返而覺得賣左巴士係錯

Kobe9/2/2006 02:03
8m賣出
要17m買返
當時來講係一個幾艱難0既決定來0既

sshan9/2/2006 02:26
喺買唔番奧雲之後,本來好多人都寄望cc或者摩記會重拾過往既佳態,入球自然唔成問題.
可惜既係半年已過,佳態未見,入球問題加劇惡化,奧雲事件才被人一再番炒,我既建議係無買奧雲係事實,入球率低係事實,既然係事實就唔應該回頭望,而且我會選擇繼續期待cc或摩記,甚至科拿既佳態,因為我覺得佢地值得期待.

kalok9/2/2006 03:23
我深信如果當時唔係桑拿士為求番身,盡地一鋪抄貴奧雲個價,奧雲回歸一事,可能又會有另一番境象。

不過事情已經過去,雖然我都好想見到奧雲可以好似神一樣,再次穿起利記既球衣,更何況我想信奧雲一定可以協助利記改善把握力不足既問題。

但而家又唔可以講當時唔買番奧雲係一個錯誤既決定,因為站起球會經營的角度來看,真係無理由起短短一年之內,蝕咁多比皇馬。

liverpool079/2/2006 03:26
紅軍近四五場真係造唔到波比前鋒,而前鋒亦欠缺自己搵食能力,所以有攻勢而無入球!

幸運之神9/2/2006 09:14
前鋒唔爭氣就梗比人講閒話啦
不過當自己睇到班波d前鋒又失機果陣
我都真係會諗番起奧雲...

懷c9/2/2006 09:53
[quote] [u][b]smartpighk[/b]  在 2006-2-9 12:51 AM 發表:[/u]

無可否認,奧云是一個很好的前鋒,不過最大的問題
第一:他是否想有很大的決心回利記,正如當年走去皇馬時的決心
第二:在賓sir的戰術之下,他有多大的功效呢,因為從他在華倫時開始.
第三.他的確身價很貴 !!!! [/quote]

第1佢表明自己想番
第2 根本好有用 高冶2傳仲好過 希c基
第3 我想一想 如果買左cc可能都有500m 都唔有冇--
加上買埋杜迪=200∼300 如果球會自己拎800出黎都有1500 紐卡素有機會放...

但係可能性唔太大

同埋 cc 都仲有比下機會 可能唔係因為傷過 唔會打成咁

felixae869/2/2006 14:34
錢呢!?
邊有錢"

kezhang9/2/2006 15:34
當可以拎出17M出黎買人。就唔一定買奧雲啦。

算你買咗奧雲,若果高冶佢哋又FIT,入好多波,咁有人又會話用17M太貴,將哩筆錢用黎買祖亞昆。。。正中右翼重好啦。

利迷KEnnEtH9/2/2006 16:28
其實我唔抗拒奧雲仔返黎
(返到黎就最好,始終佢同祌係產量較多既射手)
但若無心既,有陣時d野都無得勉強…

kewell_boy10/2/2006 11:08
我絕對信奧雲仔既能力
希望佢下季可以番到黎

owen200310/2/2006 11:14
12m姐
盡買得起

盡記得舊年好多人唔想佢返黎

話今年d前鋒一定好掂 ....=.=

MACARENA10/2/2006 12:51
不過要利記出到千七萬買返佢,摩利士未必肯制喎

barosliverpool10/2/2006 13:01
我记得好似OWEN同纽卡素合同有条款系12.5M就可以有交易喔

★牌王☆10/2/2006 13:09
紅軍唔係佢話黎就黎,話走就走:fire

~基維爾~10/2/2006 13:10
e層我都覺

snoopyyau10/2/2006 14:08
我覺得如果有心黎....一早黎左啦..
當然我歡迎佢...因為佢係利記所生的

alanhahaha88810/2/2006 20:39
[quote] [u][b]snoopyyau[/b]  在 2006-2-10 02:08 PM 發表:[/u]

我覺得如果有心黎....一早黎左啦..
當然我歡迎佢...因為佢係利記所生的 [/quote]

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
非常同意
但係為表誠意奧雲要自動減薪

windie11/2/2006 03:56
[quote] [u][b]★牌王☆[/b]  在 2006-2-10 21:09 發表:[/u]

紅軍唔係佢話黎就黎,話走就走:fire [/quote]

我都係咁話....
點解神走左依然有咁多人支持
點解佢走左就少左咁多fans....
要一個咁gei球員....
我情願隊波好似而家咁....
雖然係入波唔多....
但係失波都唔多....
夠贏就得啦....


查看完整版本: Martin Samuel: 利記唔買番奧雲係一個錯誤


Powered by Discuz! Archiver 4.1.0  © 2001-2006 Comsenz Inc.
Processed in 0.003176 second(s), 2 queries