[Albion] "He could play at another level"

[dadams2k11]

Another Level?

 

[Iggle Piggle]

Agreed about the potential of Trossard . But My bugbear is painting all the "lazy pundits" as one. Who do we mean ? Can you cite or link to someone who has actually said this ? There's some excellent pundits, journalists and broadcasters who report on the Albion and have a far morenuanced view of Trossard, Caicedo , Potter., Bloom and all of it. They aren't all "lazy" with limited knowledge of the club.

There's been Andy Jacobs and Jamie O'Hara (yeah, yeah both on single dad FM I know) since yesterday alone.

Whilst I get your point - there has been some good analysis too - it's not an unfair statement that many of us were annoyed prior to the game on Saturday about the "We should feel grateful for Chelsea's cash" narrative and how the general consensus is that our best players should leave to progress. It's bollocks. Anyone that's good enough thrives here and we are the best run club in the country bar none. What we aren't is the best paid. I'd rather there was more honesty with "higher level" replaced with "better paid" and a pretence that playing some Danish bin men in the Conference league is what our players are after.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Top teams regularly come up against teams that sit back and put 10 men behind the ball. All they need to do is watch ONE GAME where a team does that to us to see how Trossard's career would go at a bigger club.

Just because we struggle to break down a team with 10 players behind the ball it doesn't automatically mean that Trossard would be rubbish every time he played for a new club against the same tactics. He'd be surrounded by team mates who are better than the players he current plays with, a manager who knows better than Potter/RDZ (assuming we continue to struggle in the same way under him) on how to take apart teams that defend in numbers etc.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There's been Andy Jacobs and Jamie O'Hara (yeah, yeah both on single dad FM I know) since yesterday alone.

Whilst I get your point - there has been some good analysis too - it's not an unfair statement that many of us were annoyed prior to the game on Saturday about the "We should feel grateful for Chelsea's cash" narrative and how the general consensus is that our best players should leave to progress. It's bollocks. Anyone that's good enough thrives here and we are the best run club in the country bar none. What we aren't is the best paid. I'd rather there was more honesty with "higher level" replaced with "better paid" and a pretence that playing some Danish bin men in the Conference league is what our players are after.

You wouldn't be excited if BHAFC got to play some Danish bin men?

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Not related particularly but the 2 players who were identified as "Could go and play at a higher level" this time last year have been a) Subbed regularly and is generally regarded as the 2nd best behind the old Leicester LB in his primary position and b) Bench warmer behind an upmarket Vinny Jones in the pecking order.

Trossard, for instance, may well leave us and go onto be a world beater at his next club but it is striking how poorly 90 million quids worth has been outside of BHAFC. (I'd be the first to admit Ben White has been quality at Arsenal on the flip side)

Interestingly we used BW as the benchmark for our valuation of Cucu..
If Chelsea end up with a Ben White + 25% they will be very happy.
At the moment though, it would seem we have mugged them off.

 

[Swansman]

You wouldn't be excited if BHAFC got to play some Danish bin men?

Sounds like a 0-0 tbf

 

[Nobby]

My latest bugbear from lazy pundits is this stupid statement. It's become another 'Teams Like Brighton' for me. We heard it rolled out about Cucurella last season and about Bissouma for the last few years. It was used about Trossard at the weekend and will be used about any player at a team outside of the uber rich seven who has a run of decent form.

Let's get this straight. Trossard is playing in the EPL. If he signs for one of the monied teams. HE'LL STILL BE PLAYING IN THE EPL! He doesn't go up a level like he's just beaten a video game boss.

Yes, the other 14 (now 13) have less chance of success in this league, but we are not actually playing at a different level. We play league games against all of the same teams that they do.

What they are really saying is that Trossard could play for a richer and more successful team at the same level, get paid more money and have a greater chance of getting a few European games. Don't try to tell me that European football is a higher level than the EPL. Perhaps some of the games in the last sixteen of the ECL might be, but the majority of it consists of meaningless, money making strolls against teams, quite a few of which would struggle to compete even at the right end of the Championship in England. (Scotland's an obvious target, but nobody would argue that Goldson left us to play at a higher level. If that was the case, Rangers would have signed Dunk and Goldson would have got in our team). English football has dozens of graduates of top six academies who have acheived very little so far in their careers, but who have Champions League experience in the same way that our U21s have League Cup experience.

Finally, even if you buy into European football being 'a higher level', Trossard's going to the World bleedin' Cup. What level would you consider above the World Cup? You lazy, cliche ridden, bunch of chancers?

And.... breathe.....

A Top Rant Stato - and all absolutely spot on

 

[Machiavelli]

I think people might be going a bit too deep into this. Doesn't it just mean they are able to play for a team higher up the pecking order? As in they could play regularly for a team challenging for the title and probably thus the latter stages of the champions league.

The requirements and expectations at that 'level' is different to playing for a mid table or relegation fodder team, no?

As someone that has proposed Last 16 of CL as 'another level' (by which I mean higher level), I'd say no to you. And BHA illustrates this. While we may be mid-PL level currently, we actually tend to play better against teams at another/higher level than ones below us in the PL. To take recent examples on this, we have beaten United and Chelsea of late but not Forest or (sorry to them) Brentford. This means that we're of a level with another/higher level in the PL.
Another way of saying this might be that we've got more chance of winning the CL than we have the PL. Which is a nice thought.

 

[Machiavelli]

There's been Andy Jacobs and Jamie O'Hara (yeah, yeah both on single dad FM I know) since yesterday alone.

Whilst I get your point - there has been some good analysis too - it's not an unfair statement that many of us were annoyed prior to the game on Saturday about the "We should feel grateful for Chelsea's cash" narrative and how the general consensus is that our best players should leave to progress. It's bollocks. Anyone that's good enough thrives here and we are the best run club in the country bar none. What we aren't is the best paid. I'd rather there was more honesty with "higher level" replaced with "better paid" and a pretence that playing some Danish bin men in the Conference league is what our players are after.

Usually I agree with you, but not convinced by too much of this. That said, the thing that I'd like to highlight (again, see prior comments in this thread) is that players (or managers) don't just leave us to get more money, they also do so to compete at the another/higher level of Last 16 CL football and win trophies

 

[Iggle Piggle]

You wouldn't be excited if BHAFC got to play some Danish bin men?

I'd be very excited. It would be like a Euro version of FGR and getting the Vegan nuggets in.

I'm not sure how up for it some of our players would be though. The likes of Burnley in Europe treated it like an inconvenience.

 

[Silverhatch]

There's a thread on Bluemoon (City's forum) discussing Pep's lasting effect on our football. One poster says, and was liked many times...

"I think there is far more to it than simply 'playing out from the back' ....yes most teams do it, but most (not all) play out, have no idea what to do with it, and either give the ball away alot around their own box (Arsenal pre Arteta the best example) or end up hoofing it upfield after a couple of passes anyway!! It's like they think it's the 'in' thing to do, but actually have no idea why they are or what they're trying to achieve. The closest to us, over the last couple of years is Brighton, by a country mile."

Perhaps a few players could "play up" to our level!

 

[chaileyjem]

There's been Andy Jacobs and Jamie O'Hara (yeah, yeah both on single dad FM I know) since yesterday alone.

Whilst I get your point - there has been some good analysis too - it's not an unfair statement that many of us were annoyed prior to the game on Saturday about the "We should feel grateful for Chelsea's cash" narrative and how the general consensus is that our best players should leave to progress. It's bollocks. Anyone that's good enough thrives here and we are the best run club in the country bar none. What we aren't is the best paid. I'd rather there was more honesty with "higher level" replaced with "better paid" and a pretence that playing some Danish bin men in the Conference league is what our players are after.

On Talk Sport alone Danny Kelly, Laura Woods, SImon Jordan have all offered up more complex / rounded views of Albion post Chelsea and the reaction to Saturday than just Jacobs etc . Let alone multiple podcasts, various newspaper correspondents, last nights Albion Unlimited, Match of the Day and so on. Its a bit tiring to just hear "poor old Brighton" - why don't they get it.
- when i've gorged on media post match and I've heard little else. So lets be specific about what "the media" are saying and where.

As for best players leaving...then selling players at the right time for the right price at big profits is something to take up with Bloom and Barber. As i understand it, thats exactly what they think we should be doing. They've come out and said it often enough.

 

[Eeyore]

Playing in the CL regularly is another level, there is no way of dressing that up or down.

I'd agree here.

A higher level is:

1) Playing for a team that is expected to compete for silverware and is judged by that. Not one where a mid-table finish is success.
2) Playing for a team that competes in Europe
3) Playing for a team that has more quality and in which you are expected to win matches on a regular basis.

There is most definitely another level, even within the Premier League itself.

Our players are prepared for transfer to that level, it's how Albion survive at theirs. And it is working.

 

[Goldstone1976]

How about: 'playing in the CL last 16s regularly is a different level, and there's no arguing about that'?

Sold to the man in the flat hat at the back.

Sorry - wrong thread.

 

[Bold Seagull]

I'd be very excited. It would be like a Euro version of FGR and getting the Vegan nuggets in.

I'm not sure how up for it some of our players would be though. The likes of Burnley in Europe treated it like an inconvenience.

If relegation is still a serious threat and priority, then Europe is an inconvenience. For say West Ham last season, it was an incredible journey, one in which the fan base really embraced and loved despite losing out in the final.

While relegation may always be a possibility, if it's not an immediate threat, I can only imagine European competition being a lot of fun. I think our squad would actually benefit from playing more games than we do.

 

[Iggle Piggle]

If relegation is still a serious threat and priority, then Europe is an inconvenience. For say West Ham last season, it was an incredible journey, one in which the fan base really embraced and loved despite losing out in the final.

While relegation may always be a possibility, if it's not an immediate threat, I can only imagine European competition being a lot of fun. I think our squad would actually benefit from playing more games than we do.

As a fan, I'd love us to be in the Championship with the Sat / Tue relentless schedule this season with a world Cup in the middle or European competition to keep us entertained on a rainy Tuesday. This part of the season drags a bit especially with the normal international breaks and is one of the disadvantages of being in "the other 14"

Would the squad benefit playing more? My instincts are that I agree with you but I am interested to see the performance differential between those who play in the World Cup and those that don't. Sports science in 2022 suggests some of them will pay for it. Whether some of the data is over thought who knows. I think some players are better than others at coping with the demands twice a week.

 

[GT49er]

My latest bugbear from lazy pundits is this stupid statement. It's become another 'Teams Like Brighton' for me. We heard it rolled out about Cucurella last season and about Bissouma for the last few years. It was used about Trossard at the weekend and will be used about any player at a team outside of the uber rich seven who has a run of decent form.
............English football has dozens of graduates of top six academies who have acheived very little so far in their careers, but who have Champions League experience in the same way that our U21s have League Cup experience.

..........or even ex-Albion players who never quite made it at Brighton playing in the CL at Anfield and finishing top of the group, as well as currently topping the Serie A table.

Unbelievable, Geoff ...........!

 

[trueblue]

I suppose one thing for the likes of Trossard and Caicedo to consider is whether they'd be nailed on for the World Cup if they weren't playing for the Albion. Obviously, stereotypical thinking from outside the club is that if they were at Chelsea, they'd be far better players than at little old Brighton. But the reality might well be that they'd be spending a lot of time on the bench and not showing what they can do - so it's not that cut and dried.