Erm, it's English - if you can't understand it, not my fault. What I'm basing this on is the fact that Kosta has always been a good player - here or at Brisbane. The difference? He has more appearances for Brisbane in one season that he's had in 3 years with the Phoenix. How many goals did he have in his first 10 games for the Roar? He was given continuity, and the club showed faith in him and allowed him to build confidence. Obviously Ange's style of play helps him, but do people really believe Kosta couldn't have done this for the Phoenix? Do people honestly believe that Kosta went from a guy who shouldn't start for the Phoenix to one of the key players and goalscorers for Brisbane in just a short few months, just because of Ange? You really believe this?
I do
The Phoenix game has been by and large been built on the cross in from the flanks to a striker to score. We rarely come down through pinball alley and strike direct on. Why Kosta never worked or would never have worked is because he was played centrally and was also 5 nothing up against 6 ft guys. Is he having to win aerial balls for the Roar? Nope. However thats how he was and I suspect would have been used here had he stayed.
So no, he was not going to succeed in our game style and the best thing he ever did was move to a team that played him in the right place and the right style for him. You can say what you like about it but its all there on the replay.
So then you basically agree that his time here was mishandled?
So what you're saying ir Ricki shouldve restructured the entire teams system to fit an (at the time) unproven young kids style of play?
No. What I'm saying is that a lot of players worse than Kosta have played in the system which apparently doesn't 'suit' him (which at its heart is a bollocks argument, since good players will remain good players regardless of the system they play in, and it's up to the manager/coach to get the best out of them). And they've had a lot more chances to 'fit in' into this 'system' than Kosta had.
The point remains - the club mishandled this situation. Either they didn't recognise the talent, or they failed to get the best out of it. Whichever way you look at it, it's a big fail on the part of the club. And please note that I never said anything about Kwasnik. But of course bringing that randomly in is indicative of the level of debate on this forum these days, which had in fact led me to leave the forum for a few weeks. I thought I'd give it another chance, but since I see the amount of stoopid on here and its frightening growth rate, clearly there's no point in bothering.
So with this post I'm officially retiring from here. Hope you all have a wonderful time patting yourselves on the back, I've got better things to do.
Well stoopid would be a forum mod throwing their toys and 'resigning' because they can't win an argument. Don't accuse others of it when you are equally as guilty and considering you are a forum mod, you should be above it since you wear the title.
To the point of the post. NO Good players will not remain good players regardless of the system. There are plenty of examples of players that move clubs and kick on or on the opposite ledger, fall away. Simon Elliott - Stand out at the WC, played EPL. Good footballer right? So why is he not a standout in our system? Is that the clubs fault for mishandling him???? How the Phoenix play is different to how the All Whites play.
If I stick Paul Ifill in at centreback, he should still be a star right? Good player, can play in any system.... Somehow I doubt he would standout or be as effective as where he plays now primarily because a central defender has a different skill set. Much like when we put Kosta upfront and knocked in balls from out wide, being 5 foot nothing, didn't suit his skill set. His skill set is designed for a system where he has room to run because he is light, quick of feet and has good touch control. And just for good measure - Stan Collymore. Played well at Liverpool, shyte everywhere else.
So you toss your toys and think this and think that but you are rationalising an argument that is plainly based on stoopid.