Kelechi Iheanacho vs Marcus Rashford

[spastic]

Your premise is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong. Nobody, let me repeat: nobody with any knowledge of the game would describe Man City as a bigger club than AC Milan or Manchester United or Liverpool. If you tried that line in knowledgeable circles you'd be laughed out of town.

You're talking like a JJC. You know football existed before Rupert Murdoch paid for the Premier League...

The above is an appeal to authority. We disagree on what bigger should mean. I argue it should be a function of Pull, you and those who agree with you think it should be about history and trophies won. Yes, I know that's how most fans judge bigger, but they are wrong. Let logic guide you not tradition and you are less likely to go wrong.

United is bigger than City because they are still relevant even if they've had a few down years recently. Yes, I can accept that argument. Where pull is about the same presently, history and trophies become a key factor. But a team that hasn't competed in years isn't better or bigger than a team currently in the thicke of everything. It's silly to suggest it is.

Like I've said, City youth players get farmed out to the likes of Ajax. Stars at Ajax go to mid table clubs in England. This tells you the power relationship btw the clubs. The false premise of fans and TV talking heads notwithstanding, Ajax is not on City's level today. Period!

Pull wise, only the top 3 teams have more than City. Liverpool can't attract the players City currently attracts, so no: Liverpool is currently not bigger than City either. United can still attract similar Quality, so can Chelsea and Arsenal. These are the clubs in England today that are as big as City.

Everyone else is a step behind City. And the likes of Porto are not even around the level we are talking about. Every indicator suggests City is bigger than Porto. False reality of fans nothwistanding.

Pull. Okay....

Alex Teixeira chose Chinese Super League side Jiangsu Sunin, ahead of Liverpool during the January transfer window. Using your definition of "bigger" Jiangsu is a bigger club than Liverpool.

You gave the game away with this quote: "Ajax is not on City's level today. Period!" You're right, Ajax is on a higher level in the game - they have more prestige and more success - these are facts. Next, you'll tell us that Leicester is bigger than Ajax.

A while ago there used to be a group of elite European teams known as the G14 - they'd convene every so often and discuss forming a break away super league in Europe. Teams like Liverpool, Marseille, and Ajax were represented in this elite group - teams which hadn't won much if anything on the domestic or European stage for several years. It's prestige within the game that gave such teams a voice in that powerful lobby - not the number of players a team is capable of loaning out to others.

It's the age-old difference between old money and new money. Man City is new money, that's all. Just like Chelsea is.

Again, you have the facts but you are blinded by emotions. Texiera decision is indicative of Liverpool's consistent inabito attract top talent. To now suggest they are a top 10 club ibecause they've won a lot in the past is laughable. They aren't. They couldn't convince Texiera they were a better deal than freaking China.

There in lies the truth. They are not currently a top club. History notwithstanding. If a superleague is formed today, Ajax will not be a member. Period.

Barca, Real, Atletico, Arsenal, Chelsea , United, City, Juve, Bayern, Dortmund, PSG: Anyone else will be a lottery entry. Those are the teams with the most pull in Europe. 95℅ of the best 100 players in the world play at those 11 clubs.

None, play for Ajax, Milan or Inter. It's laughable to think anyone thinks a team that can't attract a top 100 player is a top club.

[txj]

Your premise is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong. Nobody, let me repeat: nobody with any knowledge of the game would describe Man City as a bigger club than AC Milan or Manchester United or Liverpool. If you tried that line in knowledgeable circles you'd be laughed out of town.

You're talking like a JJC. You know football existed before Rupert Murdoch paid for the Premier League...

The above is an appeal to authority. We disagree on what bigger should mean. I argue it should be a function of Pull, you and those who agree with you think it should be about history and trophies won. Yes, I know that's how most fans judge bigger, but they are wrong. Let logic guide you not tradition and you are less likely to go wrong.

United is bigger than City because they are still relevant even if they've had a few down years recently. Yes, I can accept that argument. Where pull is about the same presently, history and trophies become a key factor. But a team that hasn't competed in years isn't better or bigger than a team currently in the thicke of everything. It's silly to suggest it is.

Like I've said, City youth players get farmed out to the likes of Ajax. Stars at Ajax go to mid table clubs in England. This tells you the power relationship btw the clubs. The false premise of fans and TV talking heads notwithstanding, Ajax is not on City's level today. Period!

Pull wise, only the top 3 teams have more than City. Liverpool can't attract the players City currently attracts, so no: Liverpool is currently not bigger than City either. United can still attract similar Quality, so can Chelsea and Arsenal. These are the clubs in England today that are as big as City.

Everyone else is a step behind City. And the likes of Porto are not even around the level we are talking about. Every indicator suggests City is bigger than Porto. False reality of fans nothwistanding.

Pull. Okay....

Alex Teixeira chose Chinese Super League side Jiangsu Sunin, ahead of Liverpool during the January transfer window. Using your definition of "bigger" Jiangsu is a bigger club than Liverpool.

You gave the game away with this quote: "Ajax is not on City's level today. Period!" You're right, Ajax is on a higher level in the game - they have more prestige and more success - these are facts. Next, you'll tell us that Leicester is bigger than Ajax.

A while ago there used to be a group of elite European teams known as the G14 - they'd convene every so often and discuss forming a break away super league in Europe. Teams like Liverpool, Marseille, and Ajax were represented in this elite group - teams which hadn't won much if anything on the domestic or European stage for several years. It's prestige within the game that gave such teams a voice in that powerful lobby - not the number of players a team is capable of loaning out to others.

It's the age-old difference between old money and new money. Man City is new money, that's all. Just like Chelsea is.

Again, you have the facts but you are blinded by emotions. Texiera decision is indicative of Liverpool's consistent inabito attract top talent. To now suggest they are a top 10 club ibecause they've won a lot in the past is laughable. They aren't. They couldn't convince Texiera they were a better deal than freaking China.

There in lies the truth. They are not currently a top club. History notwithstanding. If a superleague is formed today, Ajax will not be a member. Period.

Barca, Real, Atletico, Arsenal, Chelsea , United, City, Juve, Bayern, Dortmund, PSG: Anyone else will be a lottery entry. Those are the teams with the most pull in Europe. 95℅ of the best 100 players in the world play at those 11 clubs.

None, play for Ajax, Milan or Inter. It's laughable to think anyone thinks a team that can't attract a top 100 player is a top club.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about!

[The YeyeMan]

There in lies the truth. They are not currently a top club. History notwithstanding. If a superleague is formed today, Ajax will not be a member. Period.

Ajax - the club of Johan Cryuff, Marco Van Basten, Frank Rijkaard, Johan Neeskens, Louis Van Gaal, Denis Bergkamp, Edwin Van de Sar, Edgar Davids, Kanu, et al. The club that revolutionised the way the game is played will not be part of the super league. And City - a club that hasn't ever reached the final of the European Cup/Champions League will be among the first teams named in the league.

You need to take another break from the forum.

Anyway, we've side tracked here...

[spastic]

There in lies the truth. They are not currently a top club. History notwithstanding. If a superleague is formed today, Ajax will not be a member. Period.

Ajax - the club of Johan Cryuff, Marco Van Basten, Frank Rijkaard, Johan Neeskens, Louis Van Gaal, Denis Bergkamp, Edwin Van de Sar, Edgar Davids, Kanu, et al. The club that revolutionised the way the game is played will not be part of the super league. And City - a club that hasn't ever reached the final of the European Cup/Champions League will be among the first teams named in the league.

You need to take another break from the forum.

Anyway, we've side tracked here...

yes we have sidetracked the thread. But notice how all the players you mentioned have been retired for over 10 years.This is because Ajax currently is Not relevant to football.

The absolutish nature of your views (something often mirrored by lots of fans) is problematic. How big a club is, is a function of many things. But the most important being their 'current' standing in World football. This can be generally judged by their current talent, financial backing, recent trophies and the subjective but real value of their pull. Of less importance is their historical standing.

Aguero will never move from City to Ajax and conclude it was a step up. No City player moving to Ajax will thinks it's a step up. It's clearly a step down. It's where City academy players go to hone their skills. That's all you need to know, to know which is bigger. When Milner moved to LiverpooL, he didn't think he had taken a step up, or sideways. It's a step down. Fans can fool themselves all they want, but players tell you who the big clubs are with their feet. City starters don't move to Liverpool. Liverpool starters move, forcibly I might add to City. Everton has a richer history than City. But when John Stones wanted to move to a 'bigger' club, he chose City not Ajax or Milan. Same with Gundogan and Sane. Their old clubs all had richer histories than City, but they let their feet so the talking.

The fallacy of history being the basis for which club is bigger, is a laughable veil over the eyes of the foolish. Anyone with eyes can tell who the big clubs today are: just look at where all the good players exploding onto the scene are going. You'll find your answer.

Really it's like Porn, it's hard to describe what constitutes it. But when you see it you know. When you see City you know you are looking at a big club. Meagre history, true. But today: there aren't 10 clubs in world football with better talent.

Bayern Madrid Barca, Athletico, PSG Dortmund Juve, the team from Strepford, Chelsea and Arsenal. That's the world of possibility. Anyone else is not currently on par. That's just a fact.

[kalani JR]

There are historically big clubs with name, tradition and support base and there are the big teams (aka the teams currently inform or with the money). The Milan teams, Ajax, Porto, Benfica and Liverpool are the former, while Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona, Juventus and maybe even United are both. City are more of the latter. They will be able to attract the top players and coaches but they'll hold little political influence when UEFA is making decisions. Look at how Milan and Inter were able to make UEFA give them four spots for the Champions League.

[The YeyeMan]

When you see City you know you are looking at a big club.

This is too much!!! A big club that never yet reach the biggest stage in Europe. Stop am!

There are MANY reasons we have to look at more than simply the "current standing" that you mention - for the current standing fails to give us the bigger picture. But carry on, Man City is bigger than AC Milan.

[spastic]

There are historically big clubs with name, tradition and support base and there are the big teams (aka the teams currently inform or with the money). The Milan teams, Ajax, Porto, Benfica and Liverpool are the former, while Madrid, Bayern, Barcelona, Juventus and maybe even United are both. City are more of the latter. They will be able to attract the top players and coaches but they'll hold little political influence when UEFA is making decisions. Look at how Milan and Inter were able to make UEFA give them four spots for the Champions League.

This.

[niyi]

Keep talking about who's a more complete footballer. I guess Nani is a more complete football player than Van-Nistelrooy since Nani has better dribbling and is faster with the ball. Why does he need to dribble and run that with a top 10 finishing (in the world) at age 19?

[spastic]

When you see City you know you are looking at a big club.

This is too much!!! A big club that never yet reach the biggest stage in Europe. Stop am!

There are MANY reasons we have to look at more than simply the "current standing" that you mention - for the current standing fails to give us the bigger picture. But carry on, Man City is bigger than AC Milan.

I ll let you live in delusion.

[kalani JR]

When you see City you know you are looking at a big club.

This is too much!!! A big club that never yet reach the biggest stage in Europe. Stop am!

There are MANY reasons we have to look at more than simply the "current standing" that you mention - for the current standing fails to give us the bigger picture. But carry on, Man City is bigger than AC Milan.

Which team has the brighter future? Every Milan player will force a move to City, no current City starter would do the same. City and PSG have been better at acquiring the best Serie A talent while Milan hopes for them to have an off season so they can get on loan or on a cut price.

[anikulapo]

Your premise is wrong therefore your conclusion is wrong. Nobody, let me repeat: nobody with any knowledge of the game would describe Man City as a bigger club than AC Milan or Manchester United or Liverpool. If you tried that line in knowledgeable circles you'd be laughed out of town.

You're talking like a JJC. You know football existed before Rupert Murdoch paid for the Premier League...

The above is an appeal to authority. We disagree on what bigger should mean. I argue it should be a function of Pull, you and those who agree with you think it should be about history and trophies won. Yes, I know that's how most fans judge bigger, but they are wrong. Let logic guide you not tradition and you are less likely to go wrong.

United is bigger than City because they are still relevant even if they've had a few down years recently. Yes, I can accept that argument. Where pull is about the same presently, history and trophies become a key factor. But a team that hasn't competed in years isn't better or bigger than a team currently in the thicke of everything. It's silly to suggest it is.

Like I've said, City youth players get farmed out to the likes of Ajax. Stars at Ajax go to mid table clubs in England. This tells you the power relationship btw the clubs. The false premise of fans and TV talking heads notwithstanding, Ajax is not on City's level today. Period!

Pull wise, only the top 3 teams have more than City. Liverpool can't attract the players City currently attracts, so no: Liverpool is currently not bigger than City either. United can still attract similar Quality, so can Chelsea and Arsenal. These are the clubs in England today that are as big as City.

Everyone else is a step behind City. And the likes of Porto are not even around the level we are talking about. Every indicator suggests City is bigger than Porto. False reality of fans nothwistanding.

Pull. Okay....

Alex Teixeira chose Chinese Super League side Jiangsu Sunin, ahead of Liverpool during the January transfer window. Using your definition of "bigger" Jiangsu is a bigger club than Liverpool.

You gave the game away with this quote: "Ajax is not on City's level today. Period!" You're right, Ajax is on a higher level in the game - they have more prestige and more success - these are facts. Next, you'll tell us that Leicester is bigger than Ajax.

A while ago there used to be a group of elite European teams known as the G14 - they'd convene every so often and discuss forming a break away super league in Europe. Teams like Liverpool, Marseille, and Ajax were represented in this elite group - teams which hadn't won much if anything on the domestic or European stage for several years. It's prestige within the game that gave such teams a voice in that powerful lobby - not the number of players a team is capable of loaning out to others.

It's the age-old difference between old money and new money. Man City is new money, that's all. Just like Chelsea is.

Again, you have the facts but you are blinded by emotions. Texiera decision is indicative of Liverpool's consistent inabito attract top talent. To now suggest they are a top 10 club ibecause they've won a lot in the past is laughable. They aren't. They couldn't convince Texiera they were a better deal than freaking China.

There in lies the truth. They are not currently a top club. History notwithstanding. If a superleague is formed today, Ajax will not be a member. Period.

Barca, Real, Atletico, Arsenal, Chelsea , United, City, Juve, Bayern, Dortmund, PSG: Anyone else will be a lottery entry. Those are the teams with the most pull in Europe. 95℅ of the best 100 players in the world play at those 11 clubs.

None, play for Ajax, Milan or Inter. It's laughable to think anyone thinks a team that can't attract a top 100 player is a top club.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about!

There you go again, throwing shade at people yet you offer no opposing view. You are either clueless or gutless. And who knows, in your case, probably both

[The YeyeMan]

When you see City you know you are looking at a big club.

This is too much!!! A big club that never yet reach the biggest stage in Europe. Stop am!

There are MANY reasons we have to look at more than simply the "current standing" that you mention - for the current standing fails to give us the bigger picture. But carry on, Man City is bigger than AC Milan.

Which team has the brighter future? Every Milan player will force a move to City, no current City starter would do the same. City and PSG have been better at acquiring the best Serie A talent while Milan hopes for them to have an off season so they can get on loan or on a cut price.

Pff! Absurd question - who knows? I'm not pitching future scenarios here - not in the mid-term nor long-term. Anything can happen. What happens when the oil money dries up? Shall we revisit this thread in four years?

[The YeyeMan]

When you see City you know you are looking at a big club.

This is too much!!! A big club that never yet reach the biggest stage in Europe. Stop am!

There are MANY reasons we have to look at more than simply the "current standing" that you mention - for the current standing fails to give us the bigger picture. But carry on, Man City is bigger than AC Milan.

I ll let you live in delusion.

I'll let you wallow in yours.

[kalani JR]

When you see City you know you are looking at a big club.

This is too much!!! A big club that never yet reach the biggest stage in Europe. Stop am!

There are MANY reasons we have to look at more than simply the "current standing" that you mention - for the current standing fails to give us the bigger picture. But carry on, Man City is bigger than AC Milan.

Which team has the brighter future? Every Milan player will force a move to City, no current City starter would do the same. City and PSG have been better at acquiring the best Serie A talent while Milan hopes for them to have an off season so they can get on loan or on a cut price.

Pff! Absurd question - who knows? I'm not pitching future scenarios here - not in the mid-term nor long-term. Anything can happen. What happens when the oil money dries up? Shall we revisit this thread in four years?

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

[tolahs]

This two young players are at an important juncture in their developments - many African & S.American(mainly Nigerian & Brazilians) have lost their promise to be great at this point - what style or philosophy you play under could make or break you.
Kelechi is playing under a gaffer who's passionate about offensive football - he believes strongly in young stars & drills them to the bone. The possibilities for him right now are endless - he's playing with a bunch of guys who really want to work under this gaffer.
Rashford is rolling under a guy who's pragmatic & prefers experience over youth - more so post Porto. CR & Eden fell out with the special one - Jose likes wings clipped while Pep wants to fly with freedom.
These 2 youngmen will be hugely affected by the philosophies of their present gaffers & that will have a bearing on their careers going forward

[The YeyeMan]

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

Good. We agree that City are in the process of establishing themselves whilst the other clubs you mentioned are already established.

[spastic]

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

Good. We agree that City are in the process of establishing themselves whilst the other clubs you mentioned are already established.

If that's what you read, you probably should read again.

[The YeyeMan]

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

Good. We agree that City are in the process of establishing themselves whilst the other clubs you mentioned are already established.

If that's what you read, you probably should read again.

Re: building an academy.

You re-read it, Mr Manchester City is bigger than AC Milan.

[kalani JR]

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

Good. We agree that City are in the process of establishing themselves whilst the other clubs you mentioned are already established.

If that's what you read, you probably should read again.

Re: building an academy.

You re-read it, Mr Manchester City is bigger than AC Milan.

If you're talking big teams in 2016 and the foreseeable future Milan is not in and cannot enter the conversation with City. You can throw up 100 hypotheticals about all things being equal but in the present reality / real world, City is one of England's top teams while Milan is in the midst of their third season without European competition. Just because a team was successful once upon a time doesn't mean much if it isn't true in the present. Would you call Nottingham Forest or Villa bigger clubs than Chelsea? I would think not.

[The YeyeMan]

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

Good. We agree that City are in the process of establishing themselves whilst the other clubs you mentioned are already established.

If that's what you read, you probably should read again.

Re: building an academy.

You re-read it, Mr Manchester City is bigger than AC Milan.

If you're talking big teams in 2016 and the foreseeable future Milan is not in and cannot enter the conversation with City. You can throw up 100 hypotheticals about all things being equal but in the present reality / real world, City is one of England's top teams while Milan is in the midst of their third season without European competition. Just because a team was successful once upon a time doesn't mean much if it isn't true in the present. Would you call Nottingham Forest or Villa bigger clubs than Chelsea? I would think not.

Top team, yes; bigger club, no.

I can't put it simpler than that.

[spastic]

The money has been in for almost ten years so it probably isn't as volatile as that. Despite what the media will have you think the Abu Dhabi are not a money miss road operation, they are a business that is aiming for a self sufficient City which is why they're building an academy to rival Barcelona, Ajax, United, Sporting and etc. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to keep City relevant for at least the next five years and beyond.

Good. We agree that City are in the process of establishing themselves whilst the other clubs you mentioned are already established.

If that's what you read, you probably should read again.

Re: building an academy.

You re-read it, Mr Manchester City is bigger than AC Milan.

If you're talking big teams in 2016 and the foreseeable future Milan is not in and cannot enter the conversation with City. You can throw up 100 hypotheticals about all things being equal but in the present reality / real world, City is one of England's top teams while Milan is in the midst of their third season without European competition. Just because a team was successful once upon a time doesn't mean much if it isn't true in the present. Would you call Nottingham Forest or Villa bigger clubs than Chelsea? I would think not.

Top team, yes; bigger club, no.

I can't put it simpler than that.

Semantics. Is Villa and Nothingham forest bigger than Chelsea? Quit beating around the bush and answer question

[The YeyeMan]

Semantics. Is Villa and Nothingham forest bigger than Chelsea? Quit beating around the bush and answer question

No, they're not.

But Villa is bigger than Man City.

[Bigpokey24]

So YeyeMan and txj, are trying to derail the thread, because levels have been found