Liverpool have offered Sylvain Wiltord a two-year contract!

Dub13

According to the french paper Lèquipe Liverpool have offered the former Arsenal player Witord a two year contract. Wiltord is also concidering a deal with the french club Lyon. Wiltord has no contract, wich means he doesn`t have to sign a new contract before the 1. sept 1200 deadline.
If there is an agreement within 1. sept however, he can play for Liverpool in CL.
Signing after 1.sept and he cannot play CL till later in the tournament.

gandalf

Hmmm he would be a good replacement for Owen. Damn now I can see the git scoring against us if he joins Liverpool !!!

Dub13

gandalf wrote:

Hmmm he would be a good replacement for Owen. Damn now I can see the git scoring against us if he joins Liverpool !!!

I can see that happning if he comes to Liverpool, former players Love to score against clubs who release/sell them.


If he's available for nothing then we've really got nothing to lose. He's better than Pongolle anyway and he cost Arsenal a cool £13million only a few years ago,which just goes to show you how crazy the market was back then.

robbie1876

Seems like superb value to me. Wiltord had some good moments and goals at Arsenal, he could reach his potential at Liverpool.

jesus_thats_gre

The thought of it is giving me cold sweats.. I just dont rate him at all..

The Muppet

jesus_thats_gre wrote:

The thought of it is giving me cold sweats.. I just dont rate him at all..

Its having the opposite effect on me but for the same reason.


He's an Arsenal reject so if Liverpool want to catch up on the top teams it doesn't make sense for them to sign players that were not considered good enough at the higher level.

gandalf

Hmmm I think you girl guides are being a bit harse on someone that plays quite regularly on the French National team. Then again I suppose he isn't in the same class as Biscan

mike65

Wiltord rejects Baggies (22 hrs ago)

Wiltord on way to Parkhead (8 hrs ago)

Keegan Eyes Striker (Aug 26)

Thanks to Google!

Mike.

Dub13

I also here that Celtic may offer him 2 week trail.some how I cannot see him going on trial....if its true why do Celtic need a player like this to have a trial he is easily up to the SPL.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I would like to see him at the Pool be him a reject from the best team in the premiership at the moment or not. He is a classy player and I think a relationship with Cisse would bring superb benefits.

Jivin Turkey

Am I not right in saying that he is not an Arsenal reject? And that it is actually Wiltord that rejected Arsenals contract offer and decided to leave? He is a decent player, and with no transfer fee you really have nothing to lose.

mayordenis

well we should of kept diouf as a backup for our strikers so we do need someone with a certain pedigree.

smemon

wiltord is a poor footballer, another emile heskey that belongs in the 1st division or china.

he's a liability to any side he joins plus he'll want big wages.

Jivin Turkey

smemon wrote:

wiltord is a poor footballer, another emile heskey that belongs in the 1st division or china.

he's a liability to any side he joins plus he'll want big wages.

Almost a goal in every 2 starts for Arsenal, as the second striker, or from the wing. 22 goals in 64 internationals for France. Yes a definate liability.

You could pay him £40000 a week for 2 years, thats only £4M. Definately worth it seeing as there is no transfer fee.

Big Ears

smemon wrote:

wiltord is a poor footballer, another emile heskey that belongs in the 1st division or china.

he's a liability to any side he joins plus he'll want big wages.

sort of like..............Diego Forlan....................no Forlan's worse .

evilhomer

Dub13 wrote:

I also here that Celtic may offer him 2 week trail.some how I cannot see him going on trial....if its true why do Celtic need a player like this to have a trial he is easily up to the SPL.

Yeah Dub13 he may be good enough for the SPL but is he good enough for the Champions league?

O'Neill likes to watch players train and obviously see what kind of attitude they have. Not so long ago he wanted Rivaldo to go on trial! thats just O'Neills style

smemon

Jivin Turkey wrote:

Almost a goal in every 2 starts for Arsenal, as the second striker, or from the wing. 22 goals in 64 internationals for France. Yes a definate liability.

You could pay him £40000 a week for 2 years, thats only £4M. Definately worth it seeing as there is no transfer fee.

he cant pass the ball AT ALL. id much prefer henrik larsson for free much better player and deal. 242 goals in 315 games for celtic. wiltord is not good enough for a big club and would more likely go to portsmouth or similar.

The Muppet

Wiltord is rubbish. The reason he has moved from "the best Team in the premiership" is because he wasn't good enough to hold his place in that team so why Liverpool would want a player considered not good enough for Arsenal is puzzeling unless of course they have no ambition to win the league. He may help them close the gap on the likes of Bolton but to challenge for the title they should be signing top quality players and IMO Wiltord is not one of those.

Pepe LeFrits

Wiltord is a good player who was unable to displace Bergkamp and as a result was shifted out of position to right wing. He was let go by Arsenal because they couldn't agree over the length of the contract. He was still a France international until very recently, he's scored a lot of goals for them and I thought he had an alright Euro.

Liverpool are in need of forwards and while I wouldn't expect him to be a starter for them he'd be a good backup to have and would give Benitez options. He makes good runs and is quite inventive, he'd be a better backup for Baros and Cisse than Pongolle. If Baros and Cisse don't work together as a pair he could even get a good few starts.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

Wiltord is rubbish. The reason he has moved from "the best Team in the premiership" is because he wasn't good enough to hold his place in that team so why Liverpool would want a player considered not good enough for Arsenal is puzzeling unless of course they have no ambition to win the league.

This is not true. Wiltord was a top player for Arsenal in the 2002-2003 season. He got sidelined in 2003-2004 NOT because he wasnt good enough, but because there was no agreement on a contract length/money and Wiltord was threatening to go on a Bosman.

The Arsenal board played very hard ball with Wiltord and any player that threatens to go on a Bosman. Essentially they are saying "try it, and your career will be ruined". They didnt want an Owen-like situation. Arsene reluctantly had to drop him from the team, although he didnt want to. That gave Bergkamp an opportunity and a resurgent season last year and also made room for the likes of Reyes. So effective was the Arsenal PR on this that even Arsenal fans dont understand what happened.

In terms of Liverpool wanting him, Liverpool need as many quality players as they can get. I thought Wiltord would have signed with someone by now. Clearly, his lucre has been diminished with his lack of visibility, which is clearly what happened purposely last year. None of the big clubs want Bosmans signings to happen so they are all doing collectively what they can to discourage it. Who knows, maybe there is a G-14 secret pact not to pick up players in this manner. But as a player, Wiltord would add to te current Liverpool team and play on the right wide of midfield. But its unclear if Benitez wants to play in that style or not. Getting rid of Diouf is an indicator that he doesn't.

As for Larsson, he didnt want to play in England. He wanted to play in Spain or Italy - full stop.

StickyMcGinty

smemon wrote:

he cant pass the ball AT ALL. id much prefer henrik larsson for free much better player and deal. 242 goals in 315 games for celtic. wiltord is not good enough for a big club and would more likely go to portsmouth or similar.

well larson is at barca, whats the point in mentioning him if there is not a chance in hell of anyone getting him.

wiltord would be a good signing, on a free of course!

like a previous poster said, we've nothing to loose. houllier paid crazy money for unproven players, this would be a free with no risk. we need an experienced third striker badly though, as shown by what happened when cisse got injured yesterday

Raskolnikov

kaids wrote:

Wiltord is a good player who was unable to displace Bergkamp and as a result was shifted out of position to right wing. He was let go by Arsenal because they couldn't agree over the length of the contract. He was still a France international until very recently, he's scored a lot of goals for them and I thought he had an alright Euro.

Liverpool are in need of forwards and while I wouldn't expect him to be a starter for them he'd be a good backup to have and would give Benitez options. He makes good runs and is quite inventive, he'd be a better backup for Baros and Cisse than Pongolle. If Baros and Cisse don't work together as a pair he could even get a good few starts.

I'd agree with that. Wiltord is a decent player and could be useful as backup. If he made an impact as a backup player then maybe consider him in the first team, as it stands though, he's no Bergkamp or Henry and if Liverpool want to challenge for the title then they need players of that calibre.

red-not-blue

If Wiltord does sign I hope he brings some of the Arsenal Mentality with him.

After yesterdays defeat to Bolton our new manager predicts 4 or 5 months to get the team working !! Any bets that this will turn into another 5 year plan !

I imagine spirit in the dressing room is quite low at the moment with Owen gone and the adjusting to a new managerial style . . and this new guy doesn't make me feel like he has the club at heart he just doesn't display the passion other managers show on the sidelines then again Chelsea's manager is even less animated !

If players of Wiltords mentality can be attracted to Liverpool we will need a different type of manager than Benitez IMO.

R-N-B

Jivin Turkey

redspider wrote:

This is not true. Wiltord was a top player for Arsenal in the 2002-2003 season. He got sidelined in 2003-2004 NOT because he wasnt good enough, but because there was no agreement on a contract length/money and Wiltord was threatening to go on a Bosman.

That hit the nail right on the head. He was also very good in the 2001-02 season. Another reason for him being sidelined last year was he was injured for long spells. He wasnt rejected by Arsenal, he rejected their offer!

Raskolnikov

Wiltord signs for French champions Olympique Lyonnais, good move for him, an equally good move that Liverpool didn't sign him.

midget lord

im glad we didnt take him, we just got rid of one primadonna who wanted an assurance he would play in every game, last thing we needed was another one.

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

This is not true. Wiltord was a top player for Arsenal in the 2002-2003 season. He got sidelined in 2003-2004 NOT because he wasnt good enough, but because there was no agreement on a contract length/money and Wiltord was threatening to go on a Bosman.

Wiltord scored 10 goals and got 5 assists in 37 League appearances for Arsenal in 02/03 season. Thats hadly prolific and certainly would not be classed as acceptable for a "top player" in any premiership team with aspirations on winning the title.

He got sidelined because he wanted more money that his mediocre talent deserved and when Arsenals valuation of his services didn't meet with his own they showed him the door. Wenger is a shrewd judge of a footballer and he has the say in who stays and goes not the Arsenal board.

None of the big clubs want Bosmans signings to happen so they are all doing collectively what they can to discourage it. Who knows, maybe there is a G-14 secret pact not to pick up players in this manner.

Thats pure rubbish didn't United get miller on a bosman and barcelona got Laarson and most of the top clubs have made bosman signings. No club wants their players to have the ability to move for nothing but its a fact of life and law and to suggest that the top clubs are taking a stance on it is not supported bty any evidence what so ever. Suggesting that as a reason why none of them were interested in Wiltord is laughable to say the least.

eirebhoy

The Muppet wrote:

Wiltord scored 10 goals and got 5 assists in 37 League appearances for Arsenal in 02/03 season.

34 league appearances, 27 starts.

The Muppet

eirebhoy wrote:

34 league appearances, 27 starts.

I'll have to do somthing about that alzhimers, it still falls a long way short of whats expected from a top premiership striker.

Pepe LeFrits

The Muppet wrote:

I'll have to do somthing about that alzhimers, it still falls a long way short of whats expected from a top premiership striker.

But is quite good for a winger.

The Muppet

I wouldn't consider 5 assists in 34 games as being quite good for a winger and as the discussion in this thread was about him being a good replacement for Owen and a partner for cisse I dont see the relevance of your point in that context.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

I wouldn't consider 5 assists in 34 games as being quite good for a winger and as the discussion in this thread was about him being a good replacement for Owen and a partner for cisse I dont see the relevance of your point in that context.

5 assists and 10 goals isnt bad for a striker playing on the wing in 27 starts. Just because he doesnt statistically get the assist doesnt mean he had a vital hand in many other goals.

redspider

The Muppet wrote:

Wiltord scored 10 goals and got 5 assists in 37 League appearances for Arsenal in 02/03 season. Thats hadly prolific ....

I'd like to see the source of your stats (especially as your alzheimers is kicking in). I haven't looked them up myself but 5 assists sounds below par for a winger, although people have been saying he wasnt a good passer.

But this is a point to think about - if Wenger is so wise (I think he is) and if Wiltord is as bad as you say, then why did Arsene play him 37/34 times (27 starts) ? That does not compute.

Wenger is a shrewd judge of a footballer and he has the say in who stays and goes not the Arsenal board ...

I do kowtow to Arsene and his ability. However, he has "a" say at Arsenal, not "the" say. Evidence: Overmars, Anelka and Viera (he wanted them all to stay but the board was willing to sell them).

No club wants their players to have the ability to move for nothing but its a fact of life and law and to suggest that the top clubs are taking a stance on it is not supported bty any evidence what so ever.

Clubs are taking a stance in that they dont want to lose money (asset value). Players are employed to play and when they "threaten" to go at some point under a Bosman tend to get mis-treated (ie: dropped), unless the club cannot do without their services, such as in the case of Larsson. This I believe is illegal if challenged in courts under employment law because it is affecting the players future employability and livelihood and is in effect a form of bullying. This is what happened to Wiltord at Arsenal.

I agree that the top clubs are not taking a "cartel" stance in relation to bosman players - that was a "who knows" remark, not an opinion of mine.

who knows, you might really be green ! (get it?)

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

I'd like to see the source of your stats (especially as your alzheimers is kicking in). I haven't looked them up myself but 5 assists sounds below par for a winger, although people have been saying he wasnt a good passer.

But this is a point to think about - if Wenger is so wise (I think he is) and if Wiltord is as bad as you say, then why did Arsene play him 37/34 times (27 starts) ? That does not compute.

The source of my stats is the official premier league statistic page at http://www.premierleague.com and I agree with you that 5 assists is below par.As you say he was not a great passer of a ball so there is no way I would ever have considered him as being a Top Player at Arsenal.

On your second point Managers do not like admitting making mistakes in the transfer market and usually persist with their purchases long after the rest of us realise they are not good enough. Heskey at Liverpool and Forlan at united would be prime examples.

redspider wrote:

I do kowtow to Arsene and his ability. However, he has "a" say at Arsenal, not "the" say. Evidence: Overmars, Anelka and Viera (he wanted them all to stay but the board was willing to sell them).

The board being willing to sell a player and refusing them a new contract are two different things. Are you saying that if the board had forced Viera to leave because they refused to offer him a new contract that Wenger would accept that? Wenger like Fergie at United have the fan power behind them and no board can afford to ride roughshot over that, If Wenger had wanted Wiltord at Arsenal he would still be there.

redspider wrote:

Clubs are taking a stance in that they dont want to lose money (asset value). Players are employed to play and when they "threaten" to go at some point under a Bosman tend to get mis-treated (ie: dropped), unless the club cannot do without their services, such as in the case of Larsson. This I believe is illegal if challenged in courts under employment law because it is affecting the players future employability and livelihood and is in effect a form of bullying. This is what happened to Wiltord at Arsenal.

I agree that the top clubs are not taking a "cartel" stance in relation to bosman players - that was a "who knows" remark, not an opinion of mine.

who knows, you might really be green ! (get it?)

That was not the point I thought you were making. I agree with you that happens in most cases but again I would say thet Arsen Wenger picks the team at Arsenal not the board and if it were any other way he would be off.


I,m not as green as I look.

Pepe LeFrits

The Muppet wrote:

I wouldn't consider 5 assists in 34 games as being quite good for a winger and as the discussion in this thread was about him being a good replacement for Owen and a partner for cisse I dont see the relevance of your point in that context.

Is it really necessary to spell out every little thing? The relevance is that he was played out of position but still managed to do quite well. If played in his correct position, presumeably he'd do better.

A lack of goals doesn't necessarily mean a bad player, look at Bergkamp, Rooney and Smith...

(On that note, I just looked up The Muppet's linked site and noticed that last season Bergkamp scored 4 goals and had 9 assists. So presumeably then he must be worse than rubbish, yet for some reason he was rewarded for last season's play with a new contract due to his "outstanding" play..."

Jivin Turkey

And again the statistical meaning of an assist isnt always the true story. A player can easily create a goal without being awarded an "assist".

10 goals in 27 starts from a winger is very good.

The Muppet

kaids wrote:

(On that note, I just looked up The Muppet's linked site and noticed that last season Bergkamp scored 4 goals and had 9 assists. So presumeably then he must be worse than rubbish, yet for some reason he was rewarded for last season's play with a new contract due to his "outstanding" play..."

You convienently forgot to give the time on the pitch for each player but I understand if you were to do so that would not suit your argument.

Anyone who follows football knows that Wiltord never was A "Top Player" for Arsenal and he would not have strengthened the Livepool team had he signed for them.

Pepe LeFrits

The Muppet wrote:

You convienently forgot to give the time on the pitch for each player but I understand if you were to do so that would not suit your argument.

And you convienently keep ignoring that Wiltord was playing out of position on the wing, while Bergkamp was playing up front.

Anyone who follows football knows that Wiltord never was A "Top Player" for Arsenal and he would not have strengthened the Livepool team had he signed for them.

Ah, the old "anyone who disagrees with me doesn't know what they're talking about", wins many an argument i'm sure...

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

he would not have strengthened the Livepool team had he signed for them.

Name Liverpools strikers.

Baros, Cisse, Luis Garcia, Sinima-Pongolle

Now while they all may be good players with lots of potential, none of them are fully proven or have a wealth of experience.

I definately think Wiltord could have added something. And while Im not depressed we didnt sign him, I think with a 0 transfer fee he was not a bad buy.

redspider

Muppet, I think you need to answer the points directly. I admit that I am not sufficiently self disciplined myself to reply to all points on this forum as good as I should, on a point by point basis .... but Muppet, I think that you could definitely do a lot better and react to the points that people are making. Point by point.

Your general point is that Wiltord was *not* a good player for Arsenal, such as in 2002/03, but there is no evidence of this. Arsene Wenger picked him regularly, 27 apps in the league and 13(!) in Europe. Not a sign of someone that is not a good player. You could say that he was in the first 11, and rested for many premier league matches. Here is the list of top scorers in all comps that season:

Thierry Henry 35
Robert Pires 16
Sylvain Wiltord 14
Fredrik Ljungberg 9
Dennis Bergkamp 7

So, the hypothesis that Pires, Ljungberg and Bergkamp are brilliant and Wiltord is useless => does not compute

Lets compare Wiltord:
Appearances: 34
Assists: 5
Caught offside: 27
Crosses: 35

with Pires:
Appearances: 26
Assists: 3
Caught offside: 4
Crosses: 21

They play different roles, but hold on, only 3 assists from Pires ... less than Wiltord. Pires is not crap => Wiltord is not crap

The Muppet wrote:

As you say he was not a great passer of a ball so there is no way I would ever have considered him as being a Top Player at Arsenal.

I didnt say that he was not a great passer. Others have said that on the forum, I would need to see his passing stats to know. But stats can be misleading on passes as I've pointed out in other threads. It depends on the riskiness of the passes that you make. Some players play safer and make less chances. Others take more risks but get more cut out.

On your second point Managers do not like admitting making mistakes in the transfer market and usually persist with their purchases long after the rest of us realise they are not good enough.

My second point was that Wenger didnt want to sell Overmars and Anelka but they were sold anyway. You didnt answer that.

I dont agree with your point about Managers playing players that are no good because they bought them. That doesn't make sense in the long run. If Wenger thought that he was no good, why would he start him 13 times in the CL matches in one season. Using your example, it want a case of Ferguson persisting to play Forlan even when he under-performed.

Wenger like Fergie at United have the fan power behind them and no board can afford to ride roughshot over that, If Wenger had wanted Wiltord at Arsenal he would still be there.

I suppose thats why the board have given Fergie a 1-year rolling contract. Not much power there. In terms of Wiltord it doesnt make sense that Arsene thinks he's a top player in 2002-03 and not in 03-04. If Wenger didnt want him, and has so much power, why didnt he sell him in 2002-03?



Here is an interesting summary of players performances as of Mar 2003:

No change on the top of the Premier League forward ranking for the second month: Thierry Henry of Arsenal London leads ahead of James Beattie of Southampton; the lead of the Frenchman became minimal however. Strong Ruud van Nistelrooy of ManU replaced unfading Alan Shearer of Newcastle United on position 3; Shearer is fourth. Michael Owen of FC Liverpool returned to the fifth place (three places up as compared to February). Two forwards of ManCity kept their places in the Top 10: Nicolas Anelka moved from 5 to 6 and Shaun Goater from 6 to 9. Dion Dublin of Aston Villa remained in the Top 10, too; he in now tenth (one place down). Michael Ricketts moved from Bolton Wanderers to FC Middlesbrough leaving his good days in Bolton: he did not score a goal in March and fell from 9 to 19. Two new faces in the March Top 10 are well-known Mark Viduka of Leeds United (position 7) and veteran Teddy Sheringham of Tottenham (position 9); they replaced Ricketts and Tomasz Radzinski of Everton (position 11). Viduka moved up by incredible 25 places thanks to his goals scored in March and Sheringham climbed from position 15. Last but not least: shooting star Wayne Rooney is 22nd, Arsenal’s Silvain Wiltord 28th and his teammate Dennis Bergkamp 44th.


I dont have a poll taken of Arsenal fans in 2002-03, but I have anecdotal evidence that Wiltord was seen as a good player, and not as a bad player, and only became a bad player when he was dropped and threatened to go on a Bosman.

Caesar_Bojangle

Neil Mellor showed some promise when Houllier gave him that brief run a season or two back. I'd like to see Benitez give him a decent shot

The Muppet

redspider wrote:

Muppet, I think you need to answer the points directly. I admit that I am not sufficiently self disciplined myself to reply to all points on this forum as good as I should, on a point by point basis .... but Muppet, I think that you could definitely do a lot better and react to the points that people are making. Point by point.

Ok as you are one of the more balanced users here I will answer this post point by point as requested.

redspider wrote:

Your general point is that Wiltord was *not* a good player for Arsenal, such as in 2002/03, but there is no evidence of this. Arsene Wenger picked him regularly, 27 apps in the league and 13(!) in Europe. Not a sign of someone that is not a good player. You could say that he was in the first 11, and rested for many premier league matches. Here is the list of top scorers in all comps that season:

Thierry Henry 35
Robert Pires 16
Sylvain Wiltord 14
Fredrik Ljungberg 9
Dennis Bergkamp 7

So, the hypothesis that Pires, Ljungberg and Bergkamp are brilliant and Wiltord is useless => does not compute

Lets compare Wiltord:
Appearances: 34
Assists: 5
Caught offside: 27
Crosses: 35

with Pires:
Appearances: 26
Assists: 3
Caught offside: 4
Crosses: 21

They play different roles, but hold on, only 3 assists from Pires ... less than Wiltord. Pires is not crap => Wiltord is not crap

The discussion in this thread was whether Wiltord would have been a good replacement for Michael Owen at liverpool. I said he was not good enough to replace Owen and I still believe that. I posted his statistics for a season where you said he was a Top Player at Arsenal to illustrate why I held that opinion and you agreed they were poor. I agree statistics can be misleading but in wiltords case I dont believe they are hiding anything special

redspider wrote:

I didnt say that he was not a great passer. Oback up my view and thers have said that on the forum, I would need to see his passing stats to know. But stats can be misleading on passes as I've pointed out in other threads. It depends on the riskiness of the passes that you make. Some players play safer and make less chances. Others take more risks but get more cut out.

I would argue that the best players know when to pass and when not to but passing is not really the most important attribute for a striker which as I said earlier is the context of this thread.

redspider wrote:

My second point was that Wenger didnt want to sell Overmars and Anelka but they were sold anyway. You didnt answer that.

I dont agree with your point about Managers playing players that are no good because they bought them. That doesn't make sense in the long run. If Wenger thought that he was no good, why would he start him 13 times in the CL matches in one season. Using your example, it want a case of Ferguson persisting to play Forlan even when he under-performed.



I suppose thats why the board have given Fergie a 1-year rolling contract. Not much power there. In terms of Wiltord it doesnt make sense that Arsene thinks he's a top player in 2002-03 and not in 03-04. If Wenger didnt want him, and has so much power, why didnt he sell him in 2002-03?

Wenger is in a lot stronger position now than he was at the time of the Overmars and Anelka move and If he played hardball with the board there would only be one winner . As you well know there were mitigating circumstances in Fergies case and his power is such that despite the major shareholders and board members working against him he is still there and will be for as long as he wants.

redspider wrote:

I dont have a poll taken of Arsenal fans in 2002-03, but I have anecdotal evidence that Wiltord was seen as a good player, and not as a bad player, and only became a bad player when he was dropped and threatened to go on a Bosman.

They are entitled to hold that opinion but so am I entitled to mine. I don't rate him as a player and IMO he would not have improved the current liverpool team to any great extent. Thats my opinion I appreciate it differs from yours and other users here but thats no reason to change it.

Jivin Turkey

The Muppet wrote:

The discussion in this thread was whether Wiltord would have been a good replacement for Michael Owen at liverpool. I said he was not good enough to replace Owen and I still believe that.

No it wasnt, the discussion was about Wiltord signing for Liverpool, and would it be good or not in a general sense. One person suggested it would be a good replacement for Owen, and he is not even a Liverpool supporter, no one else suggested he replace Owen, and you never mentioned Owen until now, 5 pages into the thread.

And you didnt just say he wasnt good enough to replace Owen, you said he was "rubbish". 64 caps for France would suggest otherwise, especially as the majority would have been while they were World and European champions.

The Muppet wrote:

They are entitled to hold that opinion but so am I entitled to mine. I don't rate him as a player and IMO he would not have improved the current liverpool team to any great extent. Thats my opinion I appreciate it differs from yours and other users here but thats no reason to change it.

Ok, name 3 Liverpool strikers that you would rate ahead of Wiltord, based on what they have accomplished in the game. Me thinks he definately could of added something.

Pepe LeFrits

The Muppet wrote:

Ok as you are one of the more balanced users here I will answer this post point by point as requested.

Aw. Out of curiosity why did you delete your original reply? It was quite rich of you to suggest that people should be more accepting of others' differing viewpoints after you just rubbished any view that differed to yours, and now there is the above comment...

The discussion in this thread was whether Wiltord would have been a good replacement for Michael Owen at liverpool.

Since when? Looks like the thread was about the possibility of Wiltord joining Liverpool and as a corollary the benefits of such a move for both parties. Though if it was about Wiltord replacing Owen it would make your extreme viewpoint more digestible which so i suppose i can see why you would want to try and spin it that way.

I said he was not good enough to replace Owen and I still believe that. I posted his statistics for a season where you said he was a Top Player at Arsenal to illustrate why I held that opinion and you agreed they were poor. I agree statistics can be misleading but in wiltords case I dont believe they are hiding anything special

I don't believe he's good enough to 'replace' Owen but that's not really the issue. The statistics you posted were pretty meaningless considering how they well compared with Arsenal's other more universally accepted 'top' players.

Big Ears

The Muppet wrote:

will be for as long as he wants.

two trophy-less seasons , and fergie would be out the door , ive very little doubt about that .

Which is why I don't think Fergie will be at United for too long more .

StickyMcGinty

Which is why I don't think Fergie will be at United for too long more

he should have left when he originally said so. signing rooney was a clutching at straws signing to be honest!

The Muppet

If you read the thread from the begining you will see references to Wiltord replacing Owen and being a good partner for Cisse which clearly is a striking role.

This thread is now begining to remind me of the old forum and as we are going around in circles and I have seen nothing to change my opinion so if there is nothing to add I will leave it at that.

p.pete

kaids wrote:

Aw. Out of curiosity why did you delete your original reply?

Read his sig.

redspider

Hmmm, I think you've got your responses there Muppet, although I dont want to pick on anyone in a thread or on this forum.

I agree that this thread has degenerated somewhat but you have to look at your own responses and wonder why.

I suppose I should be "grateful" that you took the time to respond to some of the points. The only problem was that you didnt respond to them *properly*. I cant make you do that without it being painstakingly pedestrian and taking loads of my time going through each minutae one by one, which would take from now to Xmas.

As you say, you have your opinion, and other people will have theirs - but from the evidence on this thread it looks like the other opinions are in the majority and you are in the minority. No-one can force you to change an opinion if you cant see.

Sometimes on threads opinions can differ on limited evidence, but in this case the evidence is available.

Back to more important issues ....