Ndiaye V England.

[Working Class Hero]

You wouldn’t have played Scholes in the Norwood role.

None of Scholes, Gerrard or Lampard would have fit that role, they were all much better suited to playing further up the pitch.

Scholes was just as good at passing and just as bad at tackling. I'm backing that call.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

You wouldn’t have played Scholes in the Norwood role.

None of Scholes, Gerrard or Lampard would have fit that role, they were all much better suited to playing further up the pitch.

Scholes played a really similar role to Norwood. Deep lying playmaker. He attacked and defended more because he was far more mobile, but the position was very similar.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Are you realising that if Ndaiye winds down his contract (18 months) then he will continue to receive a small (comparatively) salary in comparison to his colleagues? The rumour is that he is payed £4100 per week. If he was to sign a new contract with us at say £23000 per week (similar to Baldock, Egan, Norwood etc.), then he would (in those 18 months), earn an extra £1.5m. Also, that is just basic...there could be all sorts of add-ons etc. included, plus things like promotion bonuses/relegation clauses.

That would be United stance in the negotiations if and when we offer him £23K over 4year, costing the clubs a grand total of £4.6 million.

Maybe his agent will argue that N'Diaye is at a similar level to what Morgan Gibbs-White was last year.
He might even say if you go on the S24SU forum most fans who have seen both play, rate N'Diaye as being the bigger talent with the bigger ceiling.
However lets say they are both the same standard and worth the same.

Last Summer Forest paid £25 million + loads of add-ons potentially taking the transfer to £42 million.
Also he's reportedly being paid £30K a week salary on a 5 years deal.

Lets say he fails all his performance related stuff and Forest are relegated this season so the transfer stays at £25 million.
£30K a week over 5 years = £7.5 million

So imagine the conversation during negotiations.
Forest have just invested £32.5 million in Gibbs- White
Where as our financial investment to a potentially better player is miserly £4.6 million.

 

[LJBlade]

Scholes played a really similar role to Norwood. Deep lying playmaker. He attacked and defended more because he was far more mobile, but the position was very similar.

He really didn’t. Norwood barely makes it over the halfway line. Scholes was a complete box to box midfielder who was better in the attacking half. If any of those three were to play the ‘Norwood role’ it would be Gerrard but he wouldn’t have been naturally suited to it either.

 

[LJBlade]

Scholes was just as good at passing and just as bad at tackling. I'm backing that call.

A lot of players are just as good as Norwood at passing. It doesn’t mean they’d be suited to the same role he plays.

 

[Frank the tank]

That would be United stance in the negotiations if and when we offer him £23K over 4year, costing the clubs a grand total of £4.6 million.

Maybe his agent will argue that N'Diaye is at a similar level to what Morgan Gibbs-White was last year.
He might even say if you go on the S24SU forum most fans who have seen both play, rate N'Diaye as being the bigger talent with the bigger ceiling.
However lets say they are both the same standard and worth the same.

Last Summer Forest paid £25 million + loads of add-ons potentially taking the transfer to £42 million.
Also he's reportedly being paid £30K a week salary on a 5 years deal.

Lets say he fails all his performance related stuff and Forest are relegated this season so the transfer stays at £25 million.
£30K a week over 5 years = £7.5 million

So imagine the conversation during negotiations.
Forest have just invested £32.5 million in Gibbs- White
Where as our financial investment to a potentially better player is miserly £4.6 million.

Forest have a lot more money than us

 

[CaptainMorgans]

He really didn’t. Norwood barely makes it over the halfway line. Scholes was a complete box to box midfielder who was better in the attacking half. If any of those three were to play the ‘Norwood role’ it would be Gerrard but he wouldn’t have been naturally suited to it either.

You think Gerrard was more similar in style to Norwood than Scholes? Wow.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I think you're way, way off the mark with that shout.

 

[Digs blade]

Gerrard squealed a lot more

 

[LJBlade]

You think Gerrard was more similar in style to Norwood than Scholes? Wow.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I think you're way, way off the mark with that shout.

I don’t think Gerrard was anywhere near similar in style to Norwood, if that helps. Scholes certainly wasn’t. He wasn’t a deep lying play maker. He had Keane at the side of him for the defensive duties.

Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard were all better in attacking positions. None of them would have been suited to the ‘Norwood role’ but the one who would have suited it better would have been Gerrard. He played a deeper role towards the end of his career.

Feel free to actually explain why you disagree though.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

I don’t think Gerrard was anywhere near similar in style to Norwood, if that helps. Scholes certainly wasn’t. He wasn’t a deep lying play maker. He had Keane at the side of him for the defensive duties.

Scholes, Lampard and Gerrard were all better in attacking positions. None of them would have been suited to the ‘Norwood role’ but the one who would have suited it better would have been Gerrard. He played a deeper role towards the end of his career.

Feel free to actually explain why you disagree though.

Scholes often sat deep in the pocket and dictated the tempo of games.
Everything went through him, quarterback like. He'd spread wide passes, they'd come back to him, he'd go wide again.
He put in the best individual display I, and several others, have ever seen at the Lane in 2006/07.

The role he played that day (and many others) was as a deep lying play maker. Happy to go forward and probe higher up the pitch and could go box-to-box as you say.
I've often thought of Norwood as a poor man's Scholes as he has some of the passing range but lacks the mobility to get up & down.

 

[LJBlade]

Scholes often sat deep in the pocket and dictated the tempo of games.
Everything went through him, quarterback like. He'd spread wide passes, they'd come back to him, he'd go wide again.
He put in the best individual display I, and several others, have ever seen at the Lane in 2006/07.

The role he played that day (and many others) was as a deep lying play maker. Happy to go forward and probe higher up the pitch and could go box-to-box as you say.
I've often thought of Norwood as a poor man's Scholes as he has some of the passing range but lacks the mobility to get up & down.

He didn’t ‘sit deep’ at all. Man Utd wouldn’t have been the attacking force they were if they had two defensive mids playing for them. He was very much box to box, something his goal scoring record supports. Coming deep for the ball doesn’t equate to ‘sitting deep’.

Gerrard played the exact same way for Liverpool but was better defensively.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

He didn’t ‘sit deep’ at all. Man Utd wouldn’t have been the attacking force they were if they had two defensive mids playing for them. He was very much box to box, something his goal scoring record supports. Coming deep for the ball doesn’t equate to ‘sitting deep’.

Gerrard played the exact same way for Liverpool but was better defensively.

I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean by sitting deep. I'm not suggesting he sat on the halfway line and just mopped up (like Rice for England).
But he sat at the base of United attacks and dictated the tempo / direction of attacks from there. He'd move up the pitch with the attack and penetrate in advanced areas with his passing range.

Gerrard and Lampard didn't play anything like that.

 

[LJBlade]

I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean by sitting deep. I'm not suggesting he sat on the halfway line and just mopped up (like Rice for England).
But he sat at the base of United attacks and dictated the tempo / direction of attacks from there. He'd move up the pitch with the attack and penetrate in advanced areas with his passing range.

Gerrard and Lampard didn't play anything like that.

Gerrard was very similar to Scholes. They were both nothing like Norwood.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

Gerrard was very similar to Scholes. They were both nothing like Norwood.

Completely disagree, but OK... it doesn't particularly matter in the scheme of things.
Both old men now!

 

[LJBlade]

Completely disagree, but OK... it doesn't particularly matter in the scheme of things.
Both old men now!

Which part do you disagree with specifically? You surely aren’t suggesting that either of them were similar in playing style to Norwood? 5mins on YouTube would show you how dissimilar they both were to someone who barely gets over the halfway line.

Norwood has a goals to game ratio of about 1 in 30. Gerrard and Scholes had a 1 in every 4.5. They were both much more attacking than Norwood will ever be.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

Which part do you disagree with specifically? You surely aren’t suggesting that either of them were similar in playing style to Norwood? 5mins on YouTube would show you how dissimilar they both were to someone who barely gets over the halfway line.

Norwood has a goals to game ratio of about 1 in 30. Gerrard and Scholes had a 1 in every 4.5. They were both much more attacking than Norwood will ever be.

Well yes, Scholes has much better stats because he was a world class player whereas Norwood's level isn't even Premier League.
That doesn't mean they didn't play a similar role in their respective teams.
Scholes due to his superior mobility and, of course, playing with much better players, was able to dictate the play further up the field than Norwood. Whilst up there he would also happen across goals because he could actually shoot (unlike Norwood).

Both players dictate play with their passing range and everything their team does goes through them. They both receive it centrally, spread the play wide and recycle possession left and right.

 

[sjl]

You think Gerrard was more similar in style to Norwood than Scholes? Wow.
I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I think you're way, way off the mark with that shout.

We’re actually comparing Norwood to Gerrard and Scholes?

 

[LJBlade]

Well yes, Scholes has much better stats because he was a world class player whereas Norwood's level isn't even Premier League.
That doesn't mean they didn't play a similar role.
Scholes due to his superior mobility and, of course, playing with much better players, was able to dictate the play further up the field than Norwood. Whilst up there he would also happen across goals because he could actually shoot (unlike Norwood).

Both players dictate play with their passing range and everything their team does goes through them. They both receive it centrally, spread the play wide and recycle possession left and right.

Scholes was also playing against better players. You surely aren’t suggesting that Norwood is as attacking at Scholes was?

Your description of Scholes could also have been attributed to Gerrard. Both of them were box to box midfielders. A million miles away from what Norwood is.

Scholes was often beyond the strikers (I’ve literally just watched it) Norwood doesn’t even get close to that.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

We’re actually comparing Norwood to Gerrard and Scholes?

Stylistically.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

Scholes was also playing against better players. You surely aren’t suggesting that Norwood is as attacking at Scholes was?

Your description of Scholes could also have been attributed to Gerrard. Both of them were box to box midfielders. A million miles away from what Norwood is.

Scholes was playing against better players, but he was one of the best players at the very best club. As I said, he was a world class midfielder.

And no, I'm not suggesting Norwood was as attacking. How on earth have you got that from my post?! I literally said the opposite.

We're going around in circles now.
My conclusion is that Norwood's role in our team is similar to that of Scholes's at Man Utd. Obviously he is absolutely nowhere near that level and he doesn't have even half the tools that Scholes did. Hence, Norwood's stats don't stand up to Scholes's.
But they're tasked with similar roles and responsibilities; recycling the ball, penetrating lines with their passing range and dictating the tempo of games.

Gerrard didn't play anything like that, nor did Lampard.
Alonso played a similarish role for Liverpool.
Makelele played a similarish role (but more defensive minded) at Chelsea.

 

[LJBlade]

Scholes was playing against better players, but he was one of the best players at the very best club. As I said, he was a world class midfielder.

And no, I'm not suggesting Norwood was as attacking. How on earth have you got that from my post?! I literally said the opposite.

We're going around in circles now.
My conclusion is that Norwood's role in our team is similar to that of Scholes's at Man Utd. Obviously he is absolutely nowhere near that level and he doesn't have even half the tools that Scholes did. Hence, Norwood's stats don't stand up to Scholes's.
But they're tasked with similar roles and responsibilities; recycling the ball, penetrating lines with their passing range and dictating the tempo of games.

Gerrard didn't play anything like that, nor did Lampard.
Alonso played a similarish role for Liverpool.
Makelele played a similarish role (but more defensive minded) at Chelsea.

Andrea Pirlo was also one of the very best players but he doesn’t have as good of a goal scoring record as Scholes because he actually was a deep lying play maker.

You didn’t say the opposite. Scholes was better in the oppositions half. The stats show that. Norwood isn’t, he barely gets into the oppositions half.

Scholes’s role at Man U is nothing like Norwood’s at United. Man U didn’t play a role like Norwood’s for most of the period we’re talking about.

Keane was the defensive element and Scholes was the attacking element. Like Alonso and Makelele to Gerrard and Lampard.

Scholes and Gerrard were both box to box midfielders. Nobody on the planet would describe Norwood that way.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

Andrea Pirlo was also one of the very best players but he doesn’t have as good of a goal scoring record as Scholes because he actually was a deep lying play maker.

You didn’t say the opposite. Scholes was better in the oppositions half. The stats show that. Norwood isn’t, he barely gets into the oppositions half.

Scholes’s role at Man U is nothing like Norwood’s at United. Man U didn’t play a role like Norwood’s for most of the period we’re talking about.

Keane was the defensive element and Scholes was the attacking element. Like Alonso and Makelele to Gerrard and Lampard.

Scholes and Gerrard were both box to box midfielders. Nobody on the planet would describe Norwood that way.

As I've said, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[Charlieblade]

Southgate will probably pick a conservative starting XI, hoping to get a lead by half time. He can then introduce a greater range of attacking players in the second half.

Senegal might have different ideas, and Ndiaye and similar talented footballers could easily upset the Southgate starting XI.

England still have the quality off the bench, so I expect a very interesting game v Senegal.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Good news for Sheff Utd.

Just listening to Talksport now.
Natalie Sawyer and Tony Cascarino are previewing the England - Senegal match.

Natalie Sawyer has just said "Mane is their best player and he's out injured, their next best player is Idrissa Gaye who is suspended".
"So most of their hopes now lie on Ismaela Sarr of Watford. She said he's the best player in the Championship and on his day is easily PL standard
but his issue is consistency and that's what put PL clubs off from committing big money to sign him from Watford,
however she said maybe today is the day he'll be at his best and cause England trouble. I waited and waited, and not a single mention of N'Diaye.

Then they spoke to Kraku Offari (the African football expert/ correspondent for Talksport).
Cascarino asked him "do you think N'Diaye of Sheffield United will start like he did in the last match".

The reply was
"I expect N'Diaye to be on the subs bench because although he played in the last match and wasn't that impressive."
"Also the Senegal manager is known to be quite cautious so he's likely to rely on his players with more experience."

From a selfish Sheff Utd point of view, lets hope N'Diaye stays under the radar and returns hungry with a point to prove.
He's seen as a top level Championship player with big doubts whether he can hack it at PL or international level.
So when we gain promotion back to PL we offer £20K a week + big performance related bonuses and due to the lack of excitement about him in the national media
His reputation remains quite modest, so he feels obliged to sign a long contract with Sheff Utd, then let's hope he smashes the PL.
Don't mind interest from big PL clubs once he's signed a contract because it would be SUFC holding the power and we can insist on a 60 million + transfer fee..

 

[Swinton Blade]

We’re actually comparing Norwood to Gerrard and Scholes?

Gerrard and Scholes are average, rather have Norwood atm

 

[Sheffsteel]

Southgate will probably pick a conservative starting XI, hoping to get a lead by half time. He can then introduce a greater range of attacking players in the second half.

Senegal might have different ideas, and Ndiaye and similar talented footballers could easily upset the Southgate starting XI.

England still have the quality off the bench, so I expect a very interesting game v Senegal.

They've just said on Talksport that they understand from sources that Foden and Saka are starting tonight in place of Sterling and Mount.

They commented that "Southgate is usually conservative and goes with the same players he can rely on,
so it's a good sign that he's starting with the more talented/ exciting Foden and Saka instead of the experienced Sterling and Mount".

 

[Charlieblade]

A couple of hours after I posted my opinion, I read something similar from Jenas. It seems Southgate might be learning after all. Not sure the managers job for England should be a creche though?

 

[Bladesman]

 

[BushBlade]

That would be United stance in the negotiations if and when we offer him £23K over 4year, costing the clubs a grand total of £4.6 million.

Maybe his agent will argue that N'Diaye is at a similar level to what Morgan Gibbs-White was last year.
He might even say if you go on the S24SU forum most fans who have seen both play, rate N'Diaye as being the bigger talent with the bigger ceiling.
However lets say they are both the same standard and worth the same.

Last Summer Forest paid £25 million + loads of add-ons potentially taking the transfer to £42 million.
Also he's reportedly being paid £30K a week salary on a 5 years deal.

Lets say he fails all his performance related stuff and Forest are relegated this season so the transfer stays at £25 million.
£30K a week over 5 years = £7.5 million

So imagine the conversation during negotiations.
Forest have just invested £32.5 million in Gibbs- White
Where as our financial investment to a potentially better player is miserly £4.6 million.

I think the point is, he could sign a new contract with us now and earn more, with a clause that it goes up again if we get promoted, like most of our players had last time we went up. To protect him from being stuck with us whilst we demand £50m if we don’t go up, his agent could insist on a release clause that kicks in if we’re not promoted. The sweet spot would be an amount higher than we’d get for a player going into his last year of his contract, but low enough to make sure that, if he keeps going the way he has, PL clubs will come in for him.

 

[JackSUFC]

Comfortable England win. Ndiaye an unused sub and back home for Huddersfield next Saturday.

Wanting anything other than the above is strange behaviour.