Serge Aurier

  • The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...

    Get involved!

Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports

Onomah has shown nothing to suggest he'd be anything like as good as Sissoko. Sissoko has over 50 caps for France and has been a major part of our season, a season in which we're 3rd in the league and into the final stages of the champs league. I wanted Onomah to succeed, really did, but he's done nothing but look bang average in the majority of club games he's played.
This is not up for debate at all.

BC clearly feels he's gone too far to turn back.
 
Couldn’t care less about De bruyne I’ve never mentioned him.

Then maybe try reading what I said properly before wading in with your spurious straw man stuff. Guido said all of Poch's decisions not to use academy players was vindicated because none of them have gone on to be DeBruyne or Salah (after being released by Mourinho). I said academy players don't have to be DeBruyne to have been viable alternatives to spending money on fees and salaries to be viable.

But so what if there are differences between Trippier and Aurier circumstances.
It still doesn’t mean that KWP couldn’t have surpassed Trippier using your same argument.

KWP isn’t even a bench regular two years after signing Aurier. You think he would offer more than Aurier, but still be behind Trippier.
Hardly a massive step up from where he is now anyway.

He wouldn't have to offer more than Aurier, just offer the same to be viable and to have saved us the fee and wages of Aurier.


Your view is that maybe Onomah would be as good as Sissoko. It’s based on nothing, other than your dislike for Sissoko.
It’s not rational to make that assumption because he can’t even cut it in the championship.

It's not based on a "dislike" of Sissoko, I'm sure he's a lovely guy. It's based on me not rating Sissoko and believing that Onomah had a lot of potential that could have been developed to be at least as useful as Sissoko.
 
Then maybe try reading what I said properly before wading in with your spurious straw man stuff. Guido said all of Poch's decisions not to use academy players was vindicated because none of them have gone on to be DeBruyne or Salah (after being released by Mourinho). I said academy players don't have to be DeBruyne to have been viable alternatives to spending money on fees and salaries to be viable.



He wouldn't have to offer more than Aurier, just offer the same to be viable and to have saved us the fee and wages of Aurier.




It's not based on a "dislike" of Sissoko, I'm sure he's a lovely guy. It's based on me not rating Sissoko and believing that Onomah had a lot of potential that could have been developed to be at least as useful as Sissoko.

I didn’t wade in on Guidos behalf....if you hadn’t noticed me and him disagree strongly on Trippier and I actually agree with you regarding his value.

But I think you are doing exactly what you accuse Guido of doing regarding Sissoko and underrating him to the point of an agenda.
I can be hard on Eriksen, but I can still say he’s world class on his day.

Some say Trippier is shit, others say Sissoko offers nothing, and neither are true. That’s not just my opinion, it’s a fact...you don’t get to where we are with a crap DM and RB in the team so both arguments are massively flawed or the rest of the top 6 can’t be that good, as most of them are nowhere near us.

Long story short, you have just said something....it’s founded in no more than an opinion, and that opinion has as much foundation as me saying “we’d be no worse off if we had sold Kane and integrated Janssen”

Just because you personally don’t rate Sissoko, it doesn’t make your statement a fact
 
I didn’t wade in on Guidos behalf....if you hadn’t noticed me and him disagree strongly on Trippier and I actually agree with you regarding his value.

But I think you are doing exactly what you accuse Guido of doing regarding Sissoko and underrating him to the point of an agenda.
I can be hard on Eriksen, but I can still say he’s world class on his day.

Some say Trippier is shit, others say Sissoko offers nothing, and neither are true. That’s not just my opinion, it’s a fact...you don’t get to where we are with a crap DM and RB in the team so both arguments are massively flawed or the rest of the top 6 can’t be that good, as most of them are nowhere near us.

Long story short, you have just said something....it’s founded in no more than an opinion, and that opinion has as much foundation as me saying “we be no worse off if we had sold Kane and integrated Janssen”


Yes, I am doing what Guido is doing, and most of us do. Expressing an opinion.

I think there are differences between my criticism of Sissoko, which Ive backed up with anecdotal evidence and examples as well as cold hard performance data and metrics, as opposed to some of the opinions on Trippier just saying "he's shit" and making up a load of stuff, criticising him for stuff that isn't his fault etc, but yes, fundamentally I am just expressing an opinion.

At least with Guido, we understand each other's stance and argue based on that mutual understanding of each other's points.

What we don't do is make up another straw man scenario, or obfuscate the argument into something completely different and then try to argue that totally different angle, as if it were the original point, totally ignoring the original point.

In this case my point was that academy players don't have to be world class to be viable alternatives.
 
I think there are differences between my criticism of Sissoko, which Ive backed up with anecdotal evidence and examples as well as cold hard performance data and metrics, as opposed to some of the opinions on Trippier just saying "he's shit" and making up a load of stuff, criticising him for stuff that isn't his fault etc, but yes, fundamentally I am just expressing an opinion.

But you havent. And that is exactly why this below isnt true:
Yes, I am doing what Guido is doing, and most of us do. Expressing an opinion.

Because you are claiming you have "evidence" of Sissoko being a poor footballer with "data" but when it suits you, you want to do "eye tests"..

At least with Guido, we understand each other's stance and argue based on that mutual understanding of each other's points.

What we don't do is make up another straw man scenario, or obfuscate the argument into something completely different and then try to argue that totally different angle, as if it were the original point, totally ignoring the original point.

In this case my point was that academy players don't have to be world class to be viable alternatives.

You know that the term "straw man" is not a thing.....it just appeared on the internet and is used by people who get caught out being hypocrites.
Like this:

"Sissoko is poor, and we would be no worse off had we given Onomah game time over the last few years"

"Ok, well then I could say that had we used Janssen over the last few years, he might be scoring 45 goals a season and be better than Kane. Just a baseless massive assumption"

"STRAW MAN!!!!!!!!!"

Its like screaming "STRAW MAN!!!!" is like a get out of jail free card. You dont have to weave your way out of why the two assumptions are as nonsensical as each other, because you said "STRAW MAN!!!!", and that makes it different.
 
But that was what my argument was, which is why this is appropriate to you:

straw man
Dictionary result for straw man

noun

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.

I know what it means....but as I said, it isnt a thing. Its used, like you are using it now, to avoid acknowledging the similarities between two nonsense assumptions.

Ive refuted your "real argument".....here, I'll do it again. Onomah cant get games at Sheffield Wednesday and has been shunted around 4 postions in his 12 appearances this season.
Therefore I dont believe we'd be 3rd in the PL and just hammered Dortmund if he was our first choice CM.

Be careful now......because if you say "academy players dont have to be De Bruyne"....well you know what would make you now dont you..
 
We will find out this summer what is going to happen to those out on loan, absolutely no one really knows. We were always told that if Poch rates you, he WILL NOT send you out on loan but keep you in the group. Then we were told that he had been persuaded to change his stance on this and send out a bunch on loan, let's see if this u-turn actually happens and ONLY if Onomah, Edwards and Co make it into the first team we will know but it's safe to say since things have been under his control a loanee of his has never been selected to play to Spurs. (the only caveat to this would be Brexit, it's feasible at least from a planning point of view not to get rid, if half our team is forced out the country).

The specific point is this about Sissoko/Onomah, right now today Sissoko is way, way, way better than Onomah. There isn't even a contest between the two. If Onomah was on the open market (NOT a Tottenham player) we wouldn't be looking at him as a player to buy, unfortunately, same can be said of CCV and Edwards. You would be apoplectic if we were linked to Onomah. No doubt the counter-argument to this is that had he remained he would have pushed on and would be a first team regular by now, well you can stick that in this the Unicorns and fairytale threads because we will never know, we do know he hasn't been good enough to break into Villa and now Wednesday in the Championship. Here's hoping that things do click for him and that happens at Spurs and just like Kane Josh is about the same age when he broke through but back to the point he's going to have to up his game to even get on Sissoko levels.

You mention Brexit which no one knows what will happen there. However I did read some time ago that on the assumption it goes through, players from the EU will be in the same position as players from the rest of the world. The FA/Premiership has an agreement on who can be brought in from the rest of the world. The discussions were around the number of eligible players from abroad allowed in squads as The FA wants to give young home grown players a better chance of getting game time and the number allowed may reduce. I doubt anyone will be forced to leave the Country and expect any reduced quotas to be brought in gradually. No idea when negotiations will conclude. However as long as there are foreign players on the books that can be dispensed with by the time any reduced quotas come in then there should be no problem. The real problems will be for lower division sides who will not be able to bring in EU players that do not meet the required standard including international caps.
 
I know what it means....but as I said, it isnt a thing. Its used, like you are using it now, to avoid acknowledging the similarities between two nonsense assumptions.

I'm not using it to avoid acknowledging anything, I'm using it to highlight the way you obfuscate and create tangents that digress and dilute what's being argued in order to score stupid points.

I responded to Guido saying Poch's decision not to use certain academy players is vindicated because they haven't become DeBruyne, Salah etc, by saying they don't have to become that good to still be as viable as players we buy. I gave two examples I feel are relevant.

Now instead of arguing a diametrically opposed view, or even just saying I agree with your point but don't agree with one or both of your examples, you start waffling on with:

Surely by these massive assumptions we could say that had we stuck with Townsend he’d be better than Son by now.

Because I am very clearly not saying every single academy player could be better than every single purchased option. I am saying our best prodigies could possibly be at least as viable as our weakest purchases.

then we get:

But so what if there are differences between Trippier and Aurier circumstances.
It still doesn’t mean that KWP couldn’t have surpassed Trippier using your same argument.

It’s a loaded viewpoint, it’s biased, and full of holes because you rate Trippier so somehow KWP wouldn’t have surpassed him by now with game time.

What the fuck was this and how did it relate to my point?

And

KWP isn’t even a bench regular two years after signing Aurier. You think he would offer more than Aurier, but still be behind Trippier.
Hardly a massive step up from where he is now anyway.

Again, miles away from the point, which was that he could have had Aurier's rotation role, and I am pretty sure we'd have been no worse off at all as a squad. Whether I feel he has the potential, or not (which I happen to think he might for what it's worth) to be first choice over Trippier by now is completely fucking irrelevant to my point, because either way he'd have been a viable option, have played about 30 games more in the last two years and increased is ability and value to the team and balance sheet, been much further down the development road, and we'd have been 25m plus 20m wages better off for not having to purchase Aurier.
 
You mention Brexit which no one knows what will happen there. However I did read some time ago that on the assumption it goes through, players from the EU will be in the same position as players from the rest of the world. The FA/Premiership has an agreement on who can be brought in from the rest of the world. The discussions were around the number of eligible players from abroad allowed in squads as The FA wants to give young home grown players a better chance of getting game time and the number allowed may reduce. I doubt anyone will be forced to leave the Country and expect any reduced quotas to be brought in gradually. No idea when negotiations will conclude. However as long as there are foreign players on the books that can be dispensed with by the time any reduced quotas come in then there should be no problem. The real problems will be for lower division sides who will not be able to bring in EU players that do not meet the required standard including international caps.
Yep, the bottom line is as you say no one knows. But clubs, just as businesses will have too, there plans in place if certain things happen. I read this recently which puts a slightly different slant and that is from the plans of what the FA might do, whether they can is a different matter entirely How might Brexit affect the Premier League?
 
Serge is actually surprising good at heading a ball, leaps like a salmon. Made one headed clearance in the centre of the box that nearly got to the half way line. He does climb on players a bit though. Has a lot of experience in top level football so clearly isnt shit, but certainly suits wingback more than fullback
 
He understands his profession as a professional footballer playing right back in a way that Trippier simply doesn't. I think he's a better character on the pitch as well. Should always start the big games.
 
Serge is fairly crap, but a funny guy.....Trippier is a serious northerner, so I guess its a case of let the hate reign.

One cost 3M, one cost 23M......defensively you cant tell them apart, both positionally suspect, both excellent on their day, both horrific off it.
One cant take throw ins, and the other has a masterful cross.

If you rate Aurier, but think Trippier is shit, there is something wrong with you.
 
Serge is fairly crap, but a funny guy.....Trippier is a serious northerner, so I guess its a case of let the hate reign.

One cost 3M, one cost 23M......defensively you cant tell them apart, both positionally suspect, both excellent on their day, both horrific off it.
One cant take throw ins, and the other has a masterful cross.

If you rate Aurier, but think Trippier is shit, there is something wrong with you.
One has been given a substantial run of consecutive games. One hasn't.

One showed periods of serious form (Aurier at Xmas, before injury). One hasn't.
 
One has been given a substantial run of consecutive games. One hasn't.

One showed periods of serious form (Aurier at Xmas, before injury). One hasn't.

So saying Aurier is so much better is based on predicting he will be with a run of games?
I find him a calamity, that offers nothing in attack, and is no better defensively than Trippier....I like the guy, he could be great or he could be the finished article.
But he´s not better than Trippier, positionally, defensively, in attack or with his decision making and passing.

At very best, they are par, but thats being kind because Aurier offers one cross per game
 
Back
Top Bottom