• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

I liked Erik Lamela before it was cool

Re: Official - Lamela

clevelandspur said:
spursspinter spot on imo

also that is incorrect Lamela has played more minutes than Chadli and Capoue

You say Lamela can perform at a higher level than others but what proof do we have of that? He played in a much different league and team with Roma there is absolutely no guarantee he will perform better than the players we have in the team right now. That is just pure speculation, in addition to everything we have actually seen of him hasn't pointed to that.
Click to expand...

Chadli has played 729 minutes in the league, Capoue 515 and Lamela 331.

My proof is his time at Roma and previously with River. If we were to sign Lionel Messi, do we have no proof that he'll perform better than Jermain Defoe then? Lamela needs consistent game time, why can you not see this? 331 minutes, three league starts and you're concluded that he hasn't shown to be better than other players we have, remarkable. What happened to giving players games and time? Nowadays it's "perform like Maradona or get to the back of the line" ](*,)
 
Last edited:
Re: Official - Lamela

If ever there was a player that you can guarantee will have some kind of a dip its Ade... Lamela needs to get himself ready and in a position to make Ade suffer during this dip (if/when it happens). Thats the way I see it going this season. Sherwood seems pretty content with the 2 up top right now. So its going to take a drop in form/injury for him to get this game time that he needs IMO.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Rossi22 said:
Chadli has played 729 minutes in the league, Capoue 515 and Lamela 331.

My proof is his time at Roma and previously with River. If we were to sign Lionel Messi, do we have no proof that he'll perform better than Jermain Defoe then? Lamela needs consistent game time, why can you not see this? 331 minutes, three league starts and you're concluded that he hasn't shown to be better than other players we have, remarkable. What happened to giving players games and time? Nowadays it's "perform like Maradona or get to the back of the line" ](*,)
Click to expand...

What makes you think that you know how to handle him better than the last two Spurs managers who have both said that it is taking him time to settle here?
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Rossi22 said:
Chadli has played 729 minutes in the league, Capoue 515 and Lamela 331.

My proof is his time at Roma and previously with River. If we were to sign Lionel Messi, do we have no proof that he'll perform better than Jermain Defoe then? Lamela needs consistent game time, why can you not see this? 331 minutes, three league starts and you're concluded that he hasn't shown to be better than other players we have, remarkable. What happened to giving players games and time? Nowadays it's "perform like Maradona or get to the back of the line" ](*,)
Click to expand...

To be fair, I wouldn't say Chadli or Capoue have been given consistent game time although you are correct with your general point. This is the problem with all our signings really, only Paulinho before his injury and Soldado have been given a run of games. A lot of the new boys have had injuries this season, so can you really judge them fairly on how good they could prove for us? Even Eriksen was in and out of the side before Sherwood took over. Don't think we can make a proper assessment on any new players until next season, especially if they are mostly in and out of the side due to injury or rotation...
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Rossi22 said:
Chadli has played 729 minutes in the league, Capoue 515 and Lamela 331.

My proof is his time at Roma and previously with River. If we were to sign Lionel Messi, do we have no proof that he'll perform better than Jermain Defoe then? Lamela needs consistent game time, why can you not see this? 331 minutes, three league starts and you're concluded that he hasn't shown to be better than other players we have, remarkable. What happened to giving players games and time? Nowadays it's "perform like Maradona or get to the back of the line" ](*,)
Click to expand...

Absolutely this. The boy needs game time and confidence more than anything. I really hope Timmy will give him a decent run in the side. It would be downright shame to see such a talent go to waste at our club. I feel terribly sorry for the lad, seems like such a stand up chap just wanting to do his best, yet not getting the opportunities to show what he's capable of.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

He needs consistent minutes in a competitive team, coming on at 80 minutes with us coasting isn't much use either as we will likely be less inclined to attack, like his last game vs Stoke where he came on and most the team had slowed right down, happy to keep the ball and play it safe. Appearances like this are good to start with, but not if we ever want to see him creating/scoring, as the whole team needs to be going for goals.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Rossi22 said:
Chadli has played 729 minutes in the league, Capoue 515 and Lamela 331.

My proof is his time at Roma and previously with River. If we were to sign Lionel Messi, do we have no proof that he'll perform better than Jermain Defoe then? Lamela needs consistent game time, why can you not see this? 331 minutes, three league starts and you're concluded that he hasn't shown to be better than other players we have, remarkable. What happened to giving players games and time? Nowadays it's "perform like Maradona or get to the back of the line" ](*,)
Click to expand...

I am talking about overall minutes on the pitch you are just using PL minutes to suit your argument. The whole point is if he was really that great than he wouldn't be giving the manager a headache about picking him for games. Where is his responsibility for impressing in training and cup games so we don't have to even have these debates. I'm pretty sure if Messi came to us we wouldn't be talking about picking him for certain games to "help his confidence".
 
Re: Official - Lamela

clevelandspur said:
I am talking about overall minutes on the pitch you are just using PL minutes to suit your argument. The whole point is if he was really that great than he wouldn't be giving the manager a headache about picking him for games. Where is his responsibility for impressing in training and cup games so we don't have to even have these debates. I'm pretty sure if Messi came to us we wouldn't be talking about picking him for certain games to "help his confidence".
Click to expand...

Exactly. You can't tell me it's coincidence that two managers have chosen not to fully utilise him yet. Sherwood seemed keen to make a statement and do many things opposite to AVB so it wouldn't of been a surprise to see him put Lamela straight in like he did Ade but he didn't. That and the fact that Sherwood has come out and paid recognition to his ability means there are obviously reasons why he's not been picked consistently at the moment. Everyone on here knows sweet FA about Lamela and how he is currently set to cope with the rigours of the PL. I'll happily take Sherwood's judgement over anyone's on here by a country mile....
 
Re: Official - Lamela

If Mata is only $7 million more than Lamela, it really does bring the risks of taking a young player unused to the Premier League on board. Did we overpay for Lamela? Is Mata a bargain price given his pedigree and why would that be in January when prices are usually higher?
 
Re: Official - Lamela

NYSpur said:
If Mata is only $7 million more than Lamela, it really does bring the risks of taking a young player unused to the Premier League on board. Did we overpay for Lamela? Is Mata a bargain price given his pedigree and why would that be in January when prices are usually higher?
Click to expand...

I think Mata is a unique case - Mourinho doesn't want him, Chelsea are overloaded with players in his position, there's a potential benefit to Chelsea in selling him to Man United now as he can help them take points off rivals and the player wants to leave for first team football before the world cup. All those factors make Chelsea a more willing seller than would normally be the case for a player of his calibre.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

I also think Chelsea don't consider United a threat, I bet they wouldn't sell him to Arsenal at that price for example.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

We overpaid for a class youngster because we had £80+ million from the Bale transfer and everyone knew it.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

NYSpur said:
If Mata is only $7 million more than Lamela, it really does bring the risks of taking a young player unused to the Premier League on board. Did we overpay for Lamela? Is Mata a bargain price given his pedigree and why would that be in January when prices are usually higher?
Click to expand...

In who's money?
Lamela cost £25.8m + £4.3m in add ons depending on performances that we wont have to pay if he flops.
Mata is going for £40m
That's £14.2m more.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Cochise said:
I'm not having a dig, just making a point that the £30 million was because we were held to ransom. Normally we wouldn't have a chance with a kid like him, we only got him because of the money from Bale.
Click to expand...

Fair enough and to be honest I actually didn't intend to come across that way.

It could be the Bale money but it could also be our willingness to pay vast amounts for youngsters, at the time paying £10m for Bale made absolutely no sense whatsoever to me and especially during his first few years. The same has to be said about this kid but I really think that people are just judging him by the price whilst showing a great deal of impatience. I honestly never thought that he would hit the ground running, even felt that it might take two years for him to show us what he's really made of.

Even when he's looked sad you can still tell he has such a natural technique that most players don't possess.
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Modric THFC said:
In who's money?
Lamela cost £25.8m + £4.3m in add ons depending on performances that we wont have to pay if he flops.
Mata is going for £40m
That's £14.2m more.
Click to expand...

I'm obviously not privy to the details that you quote. However, the figure I have seen for Mata is 37 million as the headline one. I would expect that this is also a composite of base plus add ons. The point remains that whatever the differential, you have the issue of buying a proven performer or buying potential. How much is it worth to have a player who is almost certain to hit the ground running as opposed to one that will need time and may never fit in to the league. For every Fernando Torres (at Liverpool) there is Fernando Morientes.....
 
Re: Official - Lamela

Modric THFC said:
In who's money?
Lamela cost £25.8m + £4.3m in add ons depending on performances that we wont have to pay if he flops.
Mata is going for £40m
That's £14.2m more.
Click to expand...
plus the wages!!!! Lamela is probably on 40k a week max, Mata is in the 120-150k a week bracket. over a 5 year contract that is some difference
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back