Fuller inna the dog house?

[Karl]

So I guess you are a smarter coach than Alex Ferguson and Frank Rijkaard. Alex built his side around Ronaldo and Rijkaard around Ronaldinho.

I do not know about built around.
...but our little discussion is going nowhere as Cristiano Ronaldo was shaped by Alex Ferguson into an excellent TEAMplayer.

The Ronaldinho I have been seeing over the years has always been an excellent TEAM player. I have never seen him ever play (a game) anti-TEAM where he is just a brukky-boo! This guy is one the masters of the one-two...works continuously to bring his teammates in play...within 'the playing' that is easily observed.

There is nothing wrong in recognising who your star player is and fashioning your team and tactics around him. Both Ronaldo and Ronaldinho were allowed to express their "creative" skills within their teams.

I wonder if your within their teams means the same thing as it means to me i.e. within the confines of the TEAM concept?

I doubt it.

The other players became their supporting cast.

Yes! ...and there must also be at the exact same time the star recognizing that he is also a piece of the supporting cast...a part of TEAM.

Fuller has shown the ability to unlock opponents' defenses time and time again. Pullis' tactics are ANTI-Fuller/TEAM. Without ABSOLUTELY any doubt, Stoke looks more potent when Fuller is on the field. His creative abilities unsettles defenses. Without him, Stoke's attacks are ridiculously predictable.

There is no doubt that Fuller's bag of tricks can unlock the greatest of defenses...but equally there is no doubt that Fuller too often breaks down Stokes attacks and throws away Stoke's possession of the ball...and too often he denies his TEAMmate 'sure goals' by failing to pass when the TEAMmate is well placed to shoot!

[Gamma]

TH was team until wenger sell pires, vieira and silva and then henry became anti-team.....notwithstanding that even by dint of attrition, more responsibility came his way as the senior man and captain.

karl in love with the word TEAM but the concept and practice elude him altogether so...if yuh win is TEAM and if yuh lose is ANTI-TEAM!

[Assasin]

I guess Goal also have to be used in the same CONCEPT.
Fuller has been the leading scorer for the past two season and is the leading striker this year so keep him off the field because he has flair.

[Jangle]

So I guess you are a smarter coach than Alex Ferguson and Frank Rijkaard. Alex built his side around Ronaldo and Rijkaard around Ronaldinho. There is nothing wrong in recognising who your star player is and fashioning your team and tactics around him. Both Ronaldo and Ronaldinho were allowed to express their "creative" skills within their teams. The other players became their supporting cast. Fuller has shown the ability to unlock opponents' defenses time and time again. Pullis' tactics are ANTI-Fuller/TEAM. Without ABSOLUTELY any doubt, Stoke looks more potent when Fuller is on the field. His creative abilities unsettles defenses. Without him, Stoke's attacks are ridiculously predictable.

[Sir X]

Ahhhhhh Onandi Lowe , tell the truth about Lowe! Karl !

[Karl]

For me, NO!

My aim is TOP OF THE WORLD!
...if it is D.Cup winning the titles. ...if it is NPL winning the league & KO cup! ...if it is JA going to the World Cup and winning!

...makes no damn sense to me based on the numbers of players and the intelligence of same to go for less than winning! ...in other words at each and every level it must be making 'best TEAM'.

Is Messi a brukky-boo?
No!

He plays good defense!
Most often plays the move and passing game!

...is he a good bruker?
Absolutely!

He uses that 'bruk-in' ability in a manner that best serves TEAM. He is strong...I suppose his low center of gravity helps there....

He is explosive! ...can and does change pace at the drop of a hat!

He suckers the opponent by judicious mix of dribbling and passing i.e. the opponent is always uncertain if he is going to 'bruk or pass'.

Excellent TEAM man!

----------

Is Fuller a bruky-boo?
Absolutely!

...defenders/opponents can with a fair degree of certainty gamble on his holding the ball...he is going to 'bruk' 99.99999+% of the time he gets the ball! ...or so it appears!

...most often not a very good TEAM man!

[Gamma]

he played for barcelona, psv eindhoven, flamengo and i believe in later years an US A League team. a more selfish player you are not likely to see.

you figget di rift with bebeto, with his coaches (who can forget the toilet paper incident) ...... point is he had a wicked conversion rate...he could walk around for 89 minutes doing NOTHING but complain but if he got one chance he could bury it to win a game.

i cannot think of anything more anti-team than being lazy...(or even lazie, but i digress). i am flabbergasted to now see your categorisation of his style as being.."the simple game" and how "his teammates made things easy for him"...

do me a favour, going forward, please spare us your TEAM analyses becase it appears to be patented and copyrighted BS!

[Jangle]

Karl, can a team be built around a creative/brukky-boo/selfish player?

[Karl]

thanks for that...my question though is "was romario anti team?"

On which team have you seen him play?

I have only memories of him playing for Brazil and most often he played TEAM. His teammates often made his task simple. They often had him on the end of a buildup where his task was often 'shoot'...just 'shoot'...or one trick and shoot! My recollection was he played, most often, the 'simple game'!

[Gamma]

thanks for that...my question though is "was romario anti team?"

[Karl]

re lowe....wasn't that the case BEFORE lowe and in fact has been the same SINCE lowe?

i think we have beaten mexico more often with lowe than we have without .... was romario anti team?

Lowe...and laterly Shelton are merely 'most easily' seen by those who miss the signs when we are playing at lower levels.

Look at Fuller?
I have been saying from wappy was bwoy...that in terms of close skills, strength and pace he is a world beater...but he too often plays anti-TEAM.

Fuller gave us a glimpse at his potential...God the man is round about 30 and has been playing in Scotland or England for approximately 10 years...anyway - he gave us a glimpse of his potential with a fanstatic cameo in his last but one match. He came on controlled his use of the 'bruk', moved and passed like a dream and put before us a performance...albeit a cameo...that was definately TOP OF THE WORLD and thus made his TEAM 'mileeeeeeeeeees' better. Why can he not do that on a consistent basis? Why those many silly 'brukin' and thus losing of the ball and putting his TEAM (Stoke) 'down' in overall performance? Why make things so difficult for his TEAMmates?

There is a reason we have not got a better record as the levels competition we meet get higher and higher. That reason is directly related to our players not sharing the ball...not playing TEAM. The potential is there in all our players, to as a TEAM, play...to currently play at a level of at least 50 places higher up the FIFA ranking charts...if only we played TEAM.

We need to weed out the so-called flair players who on a constant basis lose the ball (= give the ball to our opponents)! Makes no sense keeping players who by actions 'ruin everything'.

[Gamma]

re lowe....wasn't that the case BEFORE lowe and in fact has been the same SINCE lowe?

i think we have beaten mexico more often with lowe than we have without .... was romario anti team?

[Karl]

Just teams and players doing what they consider in 'best interest'! No big deal!

[Karl]

Carl Brown and Pulis have summ'n in common. dem nuh like flair a whatsitnot.

Flair has to be used within coach's TEAM concept.

E.g. Robinho is a good player and I think we all will agree he is 'nuf-nuf' flair...but he was poison for Man City. he would cause the TEAM to lose the ball too often.

There is this nonsense we spout on this board very often surrounding the 'creative' being allowed to do his thing (no restrictions). If Mr. Flair or Mr. Goalscorer causes the TEAM to lose the ball too often as the TEAM attempts to break through to the 'upper reaches' those 'losing of the ball' result in TEAM being punished more often.

It is simple really...possession of the ball means the opposing TEAM does not score. Give away the ball...brings increasing instances of being 'punished' the higher the level of play of your opponents.

*Lowe's one-a-day was perfect example. We killed CFU opponents...where competitive at lower CONCACAF levels...and invariably lost to the top CONCACAF TEAMs (Mex & USA).

*Shelton is another who at lowest levels have fans shout - GREAT! ...as the competition moves to higher and higher levels the fact thta he is poison becomes clear to those who could not recognise same when our opponents where the...let's face facts...our 'bottom of the barrel', CFU competitors! Hey 6th formers clueless about the game will always whip 2nd formers.

[Farmah]

English & Lamey were the faces of the Waterhouse franchise. Hard to believe that he left. : o

It's like hearing that Hue moved to Arnett, Steve Green moved to Harbour View, Cornell Chin-Sue moved to Reno, Devon Hodges moved to Waterhouse, Joycie moved to Rivoli, or Teofore Bennett moved to PMU.

But it has been a revealing past 24 months anyhow. Just consider how Fabian Dawkins left Village for August Town; Sean Sawyers left PMU for Humble Lions; Jermaine Taylor left View for Georges; Dada left MeadHeaven for Tivoli; Julian McLeish left Arnett for Tivoli; Robert Scarlett left View for BT; and even Desmond Brackenridge flip-flopped between Waterhouse and Arnett.