Winter Mercato

What's your opinion about Lambard, it isn't an easy situation, but he seems to want to leave Stamford Bridge.

I personally doubt that he would be able to adapt to life and football in Serie A and be for Milan as importnat a player he is for Chelski. If, however, those rumours of him being available for around 12-13 mil are true, I wouldn't mind getting him because even if he doesn't make it in Italy, we could always trade to Barca or Real in return for one of their quality players.

I personally think, however, that Lampard would go to Barca - I think his girlfriend is Spanish and from Barcelona - and Barca would end up trading Xavi + money to ManU for C. Ronaldo.

I like him, but for some reason I don't want him at Milan; and I don't think he will fit into our system either.

I am a stubborn admirer of Italian homegrown stars, like Oddo, Buffon and Zambrotta or even Cassano.

To think that we could have signed them all had Galliani done things right.

i think he'd fit into seedorf's position reasonably comfortably assuming he settled in italy out right.

his role at chelsea, or at least his original role when they played a 4-3-3, is more or less the same as it would be for us. He'd also add some drive/hussle to our play, not to mention determination and effort. I'm not his biggest fan, but for a supposed £8 million buy-out clause you'd be hard pushed to find a better all round central midfielder.

I think there is a chance he might come here, but to be honest i see him at Barcelona and probably in a swap deal with Deco.

Originally Posted by kris

We can not afford to do that, we are not Udinese.

Am I missing something here? Do we have to be Udinese to give our new signing some playing time? Do we have to be Udinese to be able to rely on other players to pick up some slack while the "new signing" adjusts to serie a football?

Do you play football? If you do, you'll understand that fifteen minutes as a substitute, no matter how many you get, is not enough for a player to show his true value. If we had the courage to spend so much on RO, we have to have enough courage to play him consistently before giving up on him.

Originally Posted by Jim_UK

i think he'd fit into seedorf's position reasonably comfortably assuming he settled in italy out right.

his role at chelsea, or at least his original role when they played a 4-3-3, is more or less the same as it would be for us. He'd also add some drive/hussle to our play, not to mention determination and effort. I'm not his biggest fan, but for a supposed £8 million buy-out clause you'd be hard pushed to find a better all round central midfielder.

I think there is a chance he might come here, but to be honest i see him at Barcelona and probably in a swap deal with Deco.

I agree with Jim...he`d probably go t barca in a swap deal with Deco...Deco is a favorite player for Mourinho

That is, if Mourinho is still around next year....

For the first time we have been linked with Abidal from Lyon! That would be perfect solution for our LB as then Jankulovski could play on the left midfielder role, just behind Ronaldinho...

imaging ronaldinho alongside with kaka

indeed that would be something, especially if Ronaldo finds some sort of form/fitness again and Ronaldinho stops playing for Brazil for a year to recharge.

Originally Posted by rt9

Am I missing something here? Do we have to be Udinese to give our new signing some playing time? Do we have to be Udinese to be able to rely on other players to pick up some slack while the "new signing" adjusts to serie a football?

He have started plenty of games, but if a team is in the position where it is demanded to win every single game then it is clearly a bit much to ask to continue playing someone who doesn't deliver. Playing 4 games with a Oliveira that doesn't score could be the difference between UCL and UEFA cup. It is true he could turn out good, but as it is he have had plenty of opportunities to do something.

For a team like Udinese it is different because they don't have that big demands on them and could play on a player they know can improve until he does.

Originally Posted by rt9

Do you play football? If you do, you'll understand that fifteen minutes as a substitute, no matter how many you get, is not enough for a player to show his true value. If we had the courage to spend so much on RO, we have to have enough courage to play him consistently before giving up on him.

As I said, he have started plenty of games, out of the games he started he have scored in one. It is also not like we played better with him on the pitch either...

For the record, here are some stats from acmilan.com. I wasnt able to get exact figures for number of starts, but I think the number of minutes do give a pretty decent picture:

Inzaghi 17 Appearances 952 minutes 2 goals

Oliveira 16 Appearances 769 minutes 2 goals

Both have scored only 2 goals in serie a this year, although Inzaghi has been getting more starts and almost 200 more minutes. If you want to look strictly at goal return, then starting INzaghi is certainly no more advantageous than playing RO.

Your logic about comparing Milan with Udinese is warped. If we were a small club with thin resources who are desparate to qualify for a UEFA cup or escape relegation, then we have no choice, we have to keep playing players who are in form and we dont have the "luxury" of giving some of our new signings too much of a chance. On the other hand, if you are a big club with enormous resources, a big squad, then you have no problems rotating your squad, having confidence in new players, and giving them a chance---because the rest of your players are of high enough quality to pick up the slack. For instance, if Kaka was playing for Udinese, they would have to play him every game to stand a chance of qualifying for Europe. Now with Kaka playing for us, we dont have to do that. We can rest him for a few games, play Seedorf in his position, try out Gourcuff there, or even play him for a couple of games when he's off-form---why? Because we have the squad depth to be able to do that. Likewise, we have enough squad depth to play RO for at least five or six games continuous. Your contention about us missing out on a European spot for giving a striker some playing time is way exagerrated to say the least.

Lastly, you ask if the team is better with RO on the pitch. Your opinion may be different to mine, but I dont see the GIla/Pippo partnership working. Pippo does not have the pace or skill to do anything outside the penalty box. Gila can only hold up the ball and pass it back. With RO on the pitch, I see a big difference in the way we play. We are more dynamic, he drops back picks up the ball and adds some pace to our forward line, especially during counter attacks. With a similar goal record in serie a, would it then not be better to start playing RO more consistently? The best case scenario would be that he starts to shine and score goals, then we start getting a return on our heavy investment. The worst---he doesnt do much for 4-5 games, we know he is not suited to our team, and we sell him in the summer after giving him a proper chance and KNOWING that he is not good enough.

Originally Posted by rt9

For the record, here are some stats from acmilan.com. I wasnt able to get exact figures for number of starts, but I think the number of minutes do give a pretty decent picture:

Inzaghi 17 Appearances 952 minutes 2 goals
Oliveira 16 Appearances 769 minutes 2 goals

Both have scored only 2 goals in serie a this year, although Inzaghi has been getting more starts and almost 200 more minutes. If you want to look strictly at goal return, then starting INzaghi is certainly no more advantageous than playing RO.

I never compared him with Inzaghi. clearly there is not much between them in playing time and neither have proved themself as starters, which kinds of explains why neither is a sure starter and why we just used one striker in a couple of games. Your argument was that Oliveira hadn't got a chance to prove himself, but these figures shows more than 12 complete games, so clearly he have got his chances.

Originally Posted by rt9

Your logic about comparing Milan with Udinese is warped. If we were a small club with thin resources who are desparate to qualify for a UEFA cup or escape relegation, then we have no choice, we have to keep playing players who are in form and we dont have the "luxury" of giving some of our new signings too much of a chance.

Udinese is a middle placed team that keep their economy afloat by staying in serie A and selling players for big bucks to the bigger teams. they don't havemoney to replace a player that don't perform directly so they will have to let him play into form or at least get enough playing time to show some sort of value. since they are a middle placed team they don't have much demands, neither from fans nor managment, as long as they are not relegated which seldom is a problem. If Milan on the other hand suddenly loses a game there is just created several threads here about player sucking, manager needed to be booted and about all our problems. the difference is HUGE.

ps. there does not exist any clubs in Italy that is "desperate" for the UEFA cup. In fact the teams qualifying hardly cares about it, it brings little to no income, is negative for their serie A campaign and isn't prestigious in any way.

Originally Posted by rt9

On the other hand, if you are a big club with enormous resources, a big squad, then you have no problems rotating your squad, having confidence in new players, and giving them a chance---because the rest of your players are of high enough quality to pick up the slack.

This is simply not true. The difference in football ain't so big that you can have one or worse, several non-performers saved by one player. Unless that player is a genious scoring every game. For sure that can be the case in as much as 2/3 games, but not winning every third game is clearly not good enough for a club our stature.

Have you followed Milan at all? I mean just look at all the players we bought and replaced because they didn't perform and compare that to smaller teams without our resources. We give a new player some chances during a season, if he fail he is replaced. Udinese or Sampdoria can't afford to do that, they can't keep on buying new players until someone succed, they have to do with what they have.

Originally Posted by rt9

For instance, if Kaka was playing for Udinese, they would have to play him every game to stand a chance of qualifying for Europe. Now with Kaka playing for us, we dont have to do that. We can rest him for a few games, play Seedorf in his position, try out Gourcuff there, or even play him for a couple of games when he's off-form---why? Because we have the squad depth to be able to do that.

for them winning=good, for us winning=must. Sure in a shorter perspective we could be without one of our best players, but then would have to play other players who are more sure to perform. Think now instead if we play the non-performing Oliveira and Inzaghi with Seedorf behind them, would you as a fan feel confident that we would score?

Still what you say here goes partly in counter to what you said before. clearly our squad depth is what means we don't have to give chances to someone like Oliveira. Because our squad depth means that we have others who is in better form to use. It doesn't mean that we have others to play instead of the ones performing, for only the ones performing is important when you MUST WIN.

Originally Posted by rt9

Likewise, we have enough squad depth to play RO for at least five or six games continuous. Your contention about us missing out on a European spot for giving a striker some playing time is way exagerrated to say the least.

Your logic is twisted. undoubtedly more players means more options which in turn means that the less you perform, the more players in front of you. Now if he instead was the replacment for Iaquinta, then he would have who as competition? Youth players, the lack of squad depth there would mean they would have to play him and possibly give the youngsters a chance.

Originally Posted by rt9

Lastly, you ask if the team is better with RO on the pitch. Your opinion may be different to mine, but I dont see the GIla/Pippo partnership working.

I asked if the team looked better with him on the pitch, not to compare him with Inzaghi/Gila playing together. Several games we have played with only Gila. As for my question I am talking about what he contributed to the team so far and from what I seen that is very little. He takes shots over goal all the time and is very selfish so far.

Originally Posted by rt9

Pippo does not have the pace or skill to do anything outside the penalty box. Gila can only hold up the ball and pass it back. With RO on the pitch, I see a big difference in the way we play. We are more dynamic, he drops back picks up the ball and adds some pace to our forward line, especially during counter attacks.

Oh, he runs with the ball alright, problem is that we doesn't pass his teammates. but I agree that he is a better fit to Gila than Inzaghi, I never said anything apart from that. I been saying he have been given plenty of chance to prove himself and have this far failed in that.

Originally Posted by rt9

With a similar goal record in serie a, would it then not be better to start playing RO more consistently? The best case scenario would be that he starts to shine and score goals, then we start getting a return on our heavy investment. The worst---he doesnt do much for 4-5 games, we know he is not suited to our team, and we sell him in the summer after giving him a proper chance and KNOWING that he is not good enough.

why would 4-5 games show you this? considering he have already played more than that with us? thats what I am saying, he have already had that chance, sure we can give him more chances, but now with Ronaldo here I would rather give Ronaldo the chance first. Oliveira have to take his chances when they come up again, clearly just letting him play at this time would be a gamble.

ps. Similar goal record in serie A compared to Inzaghi? If that was what you meant then you ignored every season but this one.

Milan ponder Dzemaili swoop
http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/
he is awsome player
he was tipped to be one of the stars in swiss team on world cup but he didnt get chance to prove himself

Originally Posted by ZvonimirVukic

Milan ponder Dzemaili swoop
http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/
he is awsome player
he was tipped to be one of the stars in swiss team on world cup but he didnt get chance to prove himself

For 10100033535'th time in last 2-3 months, a player who has been earlier connected to Juve or Inter is now connected to Milan ( or vice versa)
----------------------------------------------
Juve join Dzemaili hunt , January 25 , 2007
Swiss international Blerim Dzemaili is set to join either Bolton or Juventus, according to his father. The Albania-born FC Zurich captain can leave on a free this summer, is weighing up several offers and is certain to leave Switzerland.
The player himself had expressed a desire to join Bolton after a recent trial with the Trotters but Juve appear to have entered the bidding for the highly-rated 20-year-old.

"At that time we will decide. Bolton and Juventus have made very attractive offers but there are other teams showing interest."
Dzemaili's contract expires in July.
Eurosport
-------------------------------
Are journalists inventing these stories or the big 3 Italian teams are really going after the same players ?