+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 36 of 36

Thread: 100% grafter vs player with guile

  1. #26

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    It's a great question, one I don't really have an answer to that I'm convinced by, but I edge marginally towards B.

    There's perhaps an interesting flip question to this. What would you find more frustrating:-

    a) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - whose limitations with the ball could undo the hard work they put into the cause.

    b) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore, Peter Whittingham etc - who despite their undoubted talent, often went missing for a number of games and could be a liability when they did.

  2. #27

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by ken smith View Post
    B for me, but the problem with our 'B players' this year is that apart from Hoilett, they have rarely done anything of note. (although not helped by some poor play by others around them).
    But that's what you get with B's

    Inconsistency, one week brilliant followed by 6 weeks of nothing.

    That's why they need the A's .

    With an A it's a given that you'll get their best week in week out.

    Ideally you need a bit of both, but if it was exclusive then I'd go with A's

    For me though I think it's a bit different.
    I don't watch City because they are good. I watch them because they are my club. If they were crap I'd still go - as many of us did for years. So I don't feel the need to be entertained, I want to see the players give what I would if I was out there myself.

    It's great to have a bit of excitement and I mostly loved watching Bothroyd, Koumas, Tomlin etc.. but there's nothing worse than seeing a player not give a shit.

  3. #28

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Half a Bee View Post
    It's a great question, one I don't really have an answer to that I'm convinced by, but I edge marginally towards B.

    There's perhaps an interesting flip question to this. What would you find more frustrating:-

    a) players in the mould of Jason Perry, Willie Boland, Don Cowie, Super Kev, Ben Turner, Sol Bamba, Lee Peltier etc - whose limitations with the ball could undo the hard work they put into the cause.

    b) players in the mould of Nathan Blake, Jason Fowler, Jason Bowen, Jay Bothroyd, Jason Koumas, Kenneth Zohore, Peter Whittingham etc - who despite their undoubted talent, often went missing for a number of games and could be a liability when they did.
    The category B players are undoubtedly far more frustrating. You can't really get frustrated with someone get the maximum out of their tool set.

    Fair play to them they deserve everything they get. I do hope and believe that option C (the player that has both) has become the order of the day though.

    When you look at the demands on players at Champions league level etc you cant afford to carry anyone either way.

  4. #29

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by thehumblegringo View Post
    The category B players are undoubtedly far more frustrating. You can't really get frustrated with someone get the maximum out of their tool set.

    Fair play to them they deserve everything they get. I do hope and believe that option C (the player that has both) has become the order of the day though.

    When you look at the demands on players at Champions league level etc you cant afford to carry anyone either way.
    How many of those have we seen at Cardiff down the years? I reckon if you went back, say, thirty years you'd be lucky to get ten. I'd say Kav had a bit of both, as did Carl Dale (for the level he played at), Whitts would always put the effort in, but he just wasn't very good at the aspects of the game that a type A player excels at and in the current team, Hoilett has a very good work ethic for a "flair" player. Danny Gabbidon was always very languid and his coolness meant that you could be thinking that a disaster, which never came, was just around the corner, but I reckon you could never really question his commitment.

    I think Michael Chopra worked really hard in his first spell for us, Steve McPhail always gave 100 per, but, like Whitts, there were weakness to his type A game, while the way he reacted to one of our Play Off defeats showed that Chris Burke cared. Mark Delaney was superb for us and could never be accused of just being a type B player, while Joe Ledley would come up with something every now and again (e.g. his Semi Final goal against Barnsley) to show that he had type B player elements to his game, but I'm beginning to take liberties there which probably means that I've hit the stage where I'm not going to think of anyone else!

  5. #30

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    How many of those have we seen at Cardiff down the years? I reckon if you went back, say, thirty years you'd be lucky to get ten. I'd say Kav had a bit of both, as did Carl Dale (for the level he played at), Whitts would always put the effort in, but he just wasn't very good at the aspects of the game that a type A player excels at and in the current team, Hoilett has a very good work ethic for a "flair" player. Danny Gabbidon was always very languid and his coolness meant that you could be thinking that a disaster, which never came, was just around the corner, but I reckon you could never really question his commitment.

    I think Michael Chopra worked really hard in his first spell for us, Steve McPhail always gave 100 per, but, like Whitts, there were weakness to his type A game, while the way he reacted to one of our Play Off defeats showed that Chris Burke cared. Mark Delaney was superb for us and could never be accused of just being a type B player, while Joe Ledley would come up with something every now and again (e.g. his Semi Final goal against Barnsley) to show that he had type B player elements to his game, but I'm beginning to take liberties there which probably means that I've hit the stage where I'm not going to think of anyone else!
    I think Bellamy and Ramsey and even probably Delaney should be added to that list as well Bob

  6. #31

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by thehumblegringo View Post
    I think Bellamy and Ramsey and even probably Delaney should be added to that list as well Bob
    Agreed about Bellamy and Ramsey - I mentioned Delaney and would certainly include him.

  7. #32

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by the other bob wilson View Post
    Agreed about Bellamy and Ramsey - I mentioned Delaney and would certainly include him.
    Sorry Bob somehow I missed that. I'd probably put Stant in that list too. I think Mccormack before Chopra came could be a shout and I'd probably even put Robbie James and Ratcliffe in that list.

  8. #33

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    I have seen this debate over the decades so many times. A fascinating debate, but one that hasn’t changed conclusion for me since I first started taking an interest in football in the 1980s, and I saw the same answer across many other areas of life since.

    The pattern so often goes like this. For a while we have a manager whose players play pretty football but fail to deliver. He peppers his team with fancy Dans who got show a bit of skill but lacked the mindset to win and deliver often enough to meet the club’s targets. For this, think Dave Jones, or for a worse example of failure, Solsjkaer or Trollope.Then in comes a man who overcompensates by building a team of brutish, fit men who mainly lack class but are tough to beat. Think Mackay / Warnock, or when it goes wrong, Russell Slade. Often these swings are due the fact we are rarely flush with cash and have to choose between cheaper available players, who often fall into either category. Skillful but weak,brutish but less classy. Occasionally you get a bargain and get both but these are atypical. The only time this often changes is when we are flush with cash and can pick up better quality players and choose a bit more, or if you hire an exceptionally good manager whose methods are advanced. But as is so often the case, we do not have that luxury. So we have a simple choice. Stylish failure? Or being brutishly hard to beat but standing a change of making it? To me the answer is no different to other aspects of life. Heard these lines before?

    "Perspiration, not just inspiration". “Winners never quit, and quitters never win”.

    Different quotes. Same message. But how many people still don’t get it, or meet it with a wall of cynicism, when the evidence is in clear plain sight? How many still have this endless debate to which the answer is so obvious if you want any person or group to do well? You see it in all fields of life. Businessmen, football, rugby, careers, family life, politics. Think about it. How many times have you heard these lines?

    “I had a great business idea but didn’t do it. He took the risk and did it”.

    “He tried so many times but in the end he just got lucky”.

    “I was way more talented at <whatever sport> in school than him, but he made it”

    “Ooh he’s so boring all he does is work”

    Isn’t it "strange" that most of the time success comes to those who most of the time are mentally harder, fitter and keep going? An idea isn't enough. Creativity isn't enough. Ability isn't enough. Winners are those who go a little further. And when things get difficult they don’t duck or dive but keep fighting until they eventually come out on the other side. Those who do better are those that do more. More effort often means more output, which means more performance. It's the 5-10% of extraness on top of their ability that nudges them ahead of those not willing to put in the same effort. In sport it is called "The Theory of Marginal Gains" - a jargonistic and posh way of saying "finding many or several ways to do just a bit more". No magic formula, but a simple rule of sport, and simple rule of life. So simple, but many don’t do it because mentally it is too much to ask for most.

    Warnock epitomises that. It's just that he applies those simple rules into the realm of football. So do his players. It is the only and simple explanation as to why light-mentality footballers that Dave Jones selected so often buckled under pressure, and routinely failed at promotion, and why Warnock has a litany of success in this division in getting promotion. No magic formula, but a simple rule of life – applied to The Championship. We don’t spend like Wolves. And I don’t want us failing like Trollope. I want us to win. Win at all costs. And whilst there are no guarantees, Warnock is the best guy to do this.

  9. #34

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by Keyser Soze View Post
    I have seen this debate over the decades so many times. A fascinating debate, but one that hasn’t changed conclusion for me since I first started taking an interest in football in the 1980s, and I saw the same answer across many other areas of life since.

    The pattern so often goes like this. For a while we have a manager whose players play pretty football but fail to deliver. He peppers his team with fancy Dans who got show a bit of skill but lacked the mindset to win and deliver often enough to meet the club’s targets. For this, think Dave Jones, or for a worse example of failure, Solsjkaer or Trollope.Then in comes a man who overcompensates by building a team of brutish, fit men who mainly lack class but are tough to beat. Think Mackay / Warnock, or when it goes wrong, Russell Slade. Often these swings are due the fact we are rarely flush with cash and have to choose between cheaper available players, who often fall into either category. Skillful but weak,brutish but less classy. Occasionally you get a bargain and get both but these are atypical. The only time this often changes is when we are flush with cash and can pick up better quality players and choose a bit more, or if you hire an exceptionally good manager whose methods are advanced. But as is so often the case, we do not have that luxury. So we have a simple choice. Stylish failure? Or being brutishly hard to beat but standing a change of making it? To me the answer is no different to other aspects of life. Heard these lines before?

    "Perspiration, not just inspiration". “Winners never quit, and quitters never win”.

    Different quotes. Same message. But how many people still don’t get it, or meet it with a wall of cynicism, when the evidence is in clear plain sight? How many still have this endless debate to which the answer is so obvious if you want any person or group to do well? You see it in all fields of life. Businessmen, football, rugby, careers, family life, politics. Think about it. How many times have you heard these lines?

    “I had a great business idea but didn’t do it. He took the risk and did it”.

    “He tried so many times but in the end he just got lucky”.

    “I was way more talented at <whatever sport> in school than him, but he made it”

    “Ooh he’s so boring all he does is work”

    Isn’t it "strange" that most of the time success comes to those who most of the time are mentally harder, fitter and keep going? An idea isn't enough. Creativity isn't enough. Ability isn't enough. Winners are those who go a little further. And when things get difficult they don’t duck or dive but keep fighting until they eventually come out on the other side. Those who do better are those that do more. More effort often means more output, which means more performance. It's the 5-10% of extraness on top of their ability that nudges them ahead of those not willing to put in the same effort. In sport it is called "The Theory of Marginal Gains" - a jargonistic and posh way of saying "finding many or several ways to do just a bit more". No magic formula, but a simple rule of sport, and simple rule of life. So simple, but many don’t do it because mentally it is too much to ask for most.

    Warnock epitomises that. It's just that he applies those simple rules into the realm of football. So do his players. It is the only and simple explanation as to why light-mentality footballers that Dave Jones selected so often buckled under pressure, and routinely failed at promotion, and why Warnock has a litany of success in this division in getting promotion. No magic formula, but a simple rule of life – applied to The Championship. We don’t spend like Wolves. And I don’t want us failing like Trollope. I want us to win. Win at all costs. And whilst there are no guarantees, Warnock is the best guy to do this.
    Pretty much sums it up.... and a clear message, be careful what you wish for!

  10. #35

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Quote Originally Posted by thehumblegringo View Post
    I think Bellamy and Ramsey and even probably Delaney should be added to that list as well Bob
    Delaney was some player. A real shame with his injuries.

  11. #36

    Re: 100% grafter vs player with guile

    Andy Legg could be both as well. Robbie James was a special type of player. He was head and shoulders above most at that time in that league. An old pro who had the skill but work was in his DNA and just because he had dropped down he didn't rest on his laurels. Wouldn't abide it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •