Weirdness Abounds (or the Idrissa Gana Gueye Thread)

[nyblue23]

1 minute ago, Bailey said:

I'll remember that

The point is that a player scoring a hattrick sounds great but a player scoring 3 goals from 3 chances is much better than a player scoring 3 goals from 20 clear cut chances.

Stats like tackles, interceptions, passes completed give a glimpse of a players ability but they dont tell the full story. For example, as a team we made 1 less tackle compared to the Southampton game but made 2 more interceptions compared to the Southampton game.  That doesnt mean anything on its own because there are lots of other variables but if Gana was the machine being made out you would expect the stats from the Huddersfield game to be far worse, when the truth is that others pick up the slack.

Different opponents. Huddersfield are total shit and Southampton played with a bit of quality.

[Bailey]

1 hour ago, nyblue23 said:

Different opponents. Huddersfield are total shit and Southampton played with a bit of quality.

Exactly that is one of the variables.

[Hafnia]

Anyone think.we don't miss him? 

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, hafnia said:

Anyone think.we don't miss him? 

Today, no. Hopefully a freak example but they played long ball, he wouldn’t have helped 

[Aidan]

Oooh we would have lost 6-1 with him in the squad today. 

Thought I'd get in there first. 

[Bailey]

I genuinely don't think one man difference would have helped even if it was Messi for Theo.

We might have been better but we still would have lost.

[pete0]

9 minutes ago, Matt said:

Today, no. Hopefully a freak example but they played long ball, he wouldn’t have helped 

Might've before if he played instead of Coleman, Keane or Baines. All three responsible for the goals. 

Only chance given from Gomes and Davies was when the latter lost the ball after receiving a poor throw in from Coleman and no one giving him an option. Don't see what Gana would've added. 

[Shukes]

3 hours ago, Bailey said:

I'll remember that

The point is that a player scoring a hattrick sounds great but a player scoring 3 goals from 3 chances is much better than a player scoring 3 goals from 20 clear cut chances.

Stats like tackles, interceptions, passes completed give a glimpse of a players ability but they dont tell the full story. For example, as a team we made 1 less tackle compared to the Southampton game but made 2 more interceptions compared to the Southampton game.  That doesnt mean anything on its own because there are lots of other variables but if Gana was the machine being made out you would expect the stats from the Huddersfield game to be far worse, when the truth is that others pick up the slack.

But Huddersfield are the worst team in the division and our stats against them were awful.... not sure if you realise this, but your actually supporting the pro Gana debate with that. 

Unless you've simply, changed your mind about Gana and are meaning to. 

I thought you were big into the stat game though? With your... PlayStation tactics and stats... team X has a 12% chance of scoring against us. Probably works up in Star Trek world. 

Anoher example would be watching the match. Stats against Huddersfield probably won’t show the pure amount of touches they had in our area, without having an effort on goal. But that doesn’t mean it’s because we handled them, it’s because they are shit. Look at today for example, Wolves had less efforts than Huddersfield, but due to their quality, finished 3 of them.

Back on the effort point though. I go back my Drogba point. The guy used to shoot for fun. Some ended up clearing the stadium, some went for a throw in. But the guy never stopped shooting and one would be a worldly. If Gana scores three goals out of 20 efforts, PSG would have offered 50m for him as he would easily be worth double his value now. 

See your still missing the big picture. Any goal he scored, any chance he creates, is simply a bonus as his job is to break up play, like the defence and midfield, and let his team mates do their job. 

If you try to compare him with attacking mods, or forwards, then it’s only fair you compare all players like that. Example, how many shots has Richarlison blocked? And if his stats aren’t enough, would you replace him with someone better? How many goals has Pickford scored? 

Read through the match thread against Huddersfield. Yourself, Palfy, PeteO and Sev thought he did good. Pretty much everyone else thought we were poor. In my opinion it’s due to your bias against Gana, that you guys will see anything that doesn’t involve him as good. Just as, and I’ll freely admit it, I’m probably biased towards him, as I rate him. 

But that’s where this thread has gone and why many stay away. It’s turned into a battle of wills rather than any substantial and meaningful conversation. Both sides are trying so hard to prove their points..... 

That we’re missing what’s right in front of our eyes.

[Bailey]

1 minute ago, Shukes said:

By Huddersfield are the worst team in the division and our stats against them were awful.... not sure if you realise this, but your actually supporting the pro Gana debate with that. 

Inless touve simply, changes your mind about Gana and are meaning to. 

I thought you were big into the stat game though? With your... PlayStation tactics and stats... team X has a 12% chance of scoring against us. Probably works up in Star Trek world. 

Anoher example would be watching the match. Stats against Huddersfield probably won’t show the pure amnount of touches they had in our area, without having an effort on goal. But that doesn’t mean it’s because we handled them, it’s because they are shit. Look at today for example, Wolves had less efforts than Huddersfield, but due to their quality, finished 3 of them.

Back on the effort point though. I go back my Drogba point. The guy used to shoot for fun. Some ended up clearing the stadium, some went for a throw in. But the guy never stopped shooting and one would be a worldly. If Gana scores three goals out of 20 efforts, PSG would have offered 50m for him as he would easily be worth double his value now. 

See your still missing the big picture. Any goal he scored, any chance he creates, is simply a bonus as his job is to break up play, like the defence and midfield, and let his team mates do their job. 

If you try to compare him with attacking mods, or forwards, then it’s only fair you compare all players like that. Example, how many shots has Richarlison blocked? And if his stats aren’t enough, would you replace him with someone better? How many goals has Pickford scored? 

Read through the match thread against Huddersfield. Yourself, Palfy, PeteO and Sev thought he did good. Pretty much everyone else thought we were poor. In my opinion it’s due to your bias against Gana, that you guys will see anything that doesn’t involve him as good. Just as, and I’ll freely admit it, I’m probably biased towards him, as I rate him. 

But that’s where this thread has gone and why many stay away. It’s turned into a battle of wills rather than any substantial and meaningful conversation. Both sides are trying so hard to prove their points..... 

That we’re missing what’s right in front of our eyes.

I have said many times that Gana in the 2nd best midfielder at the club. I don't agree with the extent to which Pete & Palfy go, but I also dont support the other side of the argument which thinks he is one of the first names on the teamsheet.  What I have said does not support the pro-Gana argument, it supports that he isnt this machine that wins all these tackles and makes all these interceptions by himself. He isn'tt some destroyer in midfield nor the only one that can do it.

I don't have a clue where you are going with this playstation/x box rubbish. Its called analysis. As you know I watch the games and I even take the time to post highlights to back up points that I make. I also look at stats to either support or disprove my own thoughts, or use them to do the same to others. You can see it on these threads that bias effects everyone, so at least by trying to use other evidence to support my view, I am at least trying to bring something to the table. If you don't like it, that's fine but the other day my view was that Huddersfield weren't a threat and the stats supported that they weren't a threat (at least at 11 a side). The stats wont show dangerous touches they had but in my view there just weren't many.

You are missing the point about the 20 shots point. Its not about Gana, its a point about basic statistics and using basic statistics alone. Anybody who scores 3 goals from 20 clear cut chances is not doing as well as somebody else who scores 3 goals from 3 clear cut chances and yet the basic stat (joked about in the previous post before mine) will only tell you that they scored a hattrick however one player has clearly outperformed the other.

You must have missed the point where I said that I didnt like the 3 individuals together and that Gana would be suited to the role Gomes was playing at the time. In fact I have said plenty of times that it is his best position over the years. I watched the game, came to the conclusion that Huddersfield weren't a threat and as it happens, the player that replaced him played well. That has fuck all to do with Gana. No-one said we played well, not even me, I just believe that we actually played effectively for once. You were the only one who seemed to expect them to score every 5 mins from all those amazing chances they created

There is plenty of mudslinging on this thread and that is why it is important to try and add some analysis and genuine debate to the thread. Both sides of the argument make good points but they often get lost because neither side wants to give in. Its the same in the Lukaku thread and it will be the same in other threads in the future!

 

[Shukes]

The point is Bailey you use statistics to argue your point, then use it to counter others points.... as stats don’t tell the whole picture. 

It seems as though you use them when they befit your point, but tell others that stats don’t count... when it doesn’t. 

And you’ve done it again. The quality of Huddersfield doesn’t mean we handled them. It means they aren’t very good Bailey. 

Have you ever played football? I mean that sincerely by the way, not as a stick.

My manager taught us that any touch in the box by the opposition was a chance gave away, regardless of what they did with it... as that’s irrelevant. You could give that same touch away ten times and get ten different results. That’s how football works. You give that exact same chance away to a different team and you have a different outcome.

An example is the two tackling themselves on our penalty spot. Comical.

Another day, one player cushions it for the other to shoot. 

We were rubbish against Huddersfield, rubbish. Davies played well, but the midfield didnt work. We played the worst team in the league and created less chances than a Big Sam team.

I totally agree with you about the thread. And it’s up to us all to change that. We need a manager too! And maybe a coach!

[Shukes]

Sorry Bailey, I’m thouroughly depressed right now and it’s coming though.

[Bailey]

2 hours ago, Shukes said:

The point is Bailey you use statistics to argue your point, then use it to counter others points.... as stats don’t tell the whole picture. 

It seems as though you use them when they befit your point, but tell others that stats don’t count... when it doesn’t. 

And you’ve done it again. The quality of Huddersfield doesn’t mean we handled them. It means they aren’t very good Bailey. 

Have you ever played football? I mean that sincerely by the way, not as a stick.

My manager taught us that any touch in the box by the opposition was a chance gave away, regardless of what they did with it... as that’s irrelevant. You could give that same touch away ten times and get ten different results. That’s how football works. You give that exact same chance away to a different team and you have a different outcome.

An example is the two tackling themselves on our penalty spot. Comical.

Another day, one player cushions it for the other to shoot. 

We were rubbish against Huddersfield, rubbish. Davies played well, but the midfield didnt work. We played the worst team in the league and created less chances than a Big Sam team.

I totally agree with you about the thread. And it’s up to us all to change that. We need a manager too! And maybe a coach!

I use stats to support a point and not as the point. Basic stats are largely meaningless without context. Very rarely do I post a simple stat without more around it, unless I am on the wind up

I still play now Shukes and I am a defender (and was a GK). I know that what matters is stopping chances or the quality of chances. The moment you mention when the two players ran into each other, the one who had the ball was running away from the goal and that isnt a dangerous position. If he can turn and be ready to get a shot off then it is but that hadnt happened. One player might cushion it off but then our defenders might be in there to make a block because they have time to get out. Its like saying a decent ball across the 6 yard box is a chance even if there is no-one there to get on the end of it. 

The centre of midfield did work with 11 men because they had next to no chances and whilst we didnt do a lot of our own, we were ahead and keeping them at bay. That is exactly what we needed to do. I completely understand that you might want more than seeing off a crap side, and we should have made more of our own opportunities late in the first half and then countered better in the second but we werent threatened until Digne was sent off. Then what is also to say that Gana would have helped that, because it hasn't in the past.

[Shukes]

Said this a few times, even in the match thread. The first seven chances they had were before the sending off. We also took a forward off and still had ten players behind the ball.  They only had a few chances after the sending off didn’t they? I remember the possession stats before the sending off as well, they had time in midfield to play the ball around.

Yes a cross into the six yard box is dangerous. Always has been and always will be. You won’t get a manager to tells players not to cross into the sox yard box unless it’s hitting a player... never.  

Like it or not, football is a game of attrition. Gerry was great and putting those balls into the box and was encouraged to it, as managers know how dangerous it is and realise that only one needs to hit a player to end in a goal.

Its generally known as probing. Man City are probably the best team in the world at this. They probe and probe until one gets through. Each one has a chance to cause trouble.... hence it being called a chance.

Your point about the two players and how could end up, again is irrelevant ( in my eyes ). The idea for me is to stop those balls coming in and negate the roll of the coin. If you let it happen and accept the roll of the coin, you will get away with some, and lose some.

I think our football values and the way we look and want our team to play, are very different. We’re never going to see it each other’s way as that’s how we have been coached through our football careers. Good to see how others look at tactics though.

[pete0]

You can't stop every chance but you can reduce the liklihood of the other team scoring. Statistically you're less likely to concede from a crosses that's why teams force the opposition out wide. I'd rather have to defend 7 crosses than give one clear chance away through the middle. 

[Shukes]

7 hours ago, pete0 said:

You can't stop every chance but you can reduce the liklihood of the other team scoring. Statistically you're less likely to concede from a crosses that's why teams force the opposition out wide. I'd rather have to defend 7 crosses than give one clear chance away through the middle. 

Exactly, this is my point. You know your game. 

you let teams play through the middle and get the ball into the box, it’s a lottery. Make them play wide, and your negating their ability. 

Against Huddersfield we let them have possession in the middle. Recipe for disaster against better teams.

[Hafnia]

7 hours ago, pete0 said:

You can't stop every chance but you can reduce the liklihood of the other team scoring. Statistically you're less likely to concede from a crosses that's why teams force the opposition out wide. I'd rather have to defend 7 crosses than give one clear chance away through the middle. 

City scored 3 from them today.. 

[Bailey]

8 hours ago, Shukes said:

Said this a few times, even in the match thread. The first seven chances they had were before the sending off. We also took a forward off and still had ten players behind the ball.  They only had a few chances after the sending off didn’t they? I remember the possession stats before the sending off as well, they had time in midfield to play the ball around.

Yes a cross into the six yard box is dangerous. Always has been and always will be. You won’t get a manager to tells players not to cross into the sox yard box unless it’s hitting a player... never.  

Like it or not, football is a game of attrition. Gerry was great and putting those balls into the box and was encouraged to it, as managers know how dangerous it is and realise that only one needs to hit a player to end in a goal.

Its generally known as probing. Man City are probably the best team in the world at this. They probe and probe until one gets through. Each one has a chance to cause trouble.... hence it being called a chance.

Your point about the two players and how could end up, again is irrelevant ( in my eyes ). The idea for me is to stop those balls coming in and negate the roll of the coin. If you let it happen and accept the roll of the coin, you will get away with some, and lose some.

I think our football values and the way we look and want our team to play, are very different. We’re never going to see it each other’s way as that’s how we have been coached through our football careers. Good to see how others look at tactics though.

But those 7 chances werent chances, they were shots. Maybe one was a half chance but thats it. You cant stop all shots, in fact in some circumstances with some players you would encourage them to shoot rather than pass.

They're most dangerous chances came when we were down to 10 men. That isnt just my view or opinion it is statistical fact that they were less likely to score.

A cross into the 6 yard box "can" be dangerous but not if its properly defended. You can flash 100 balls across the box but if the players are marked and the angles are covered they arent a threat. What you see as a chance in this scenario, I see as good defending.

Your perception of that chance is based on a perfect world and it has to be accepted that mistakes big and small will be made and the strength of the defensive system is how well they adapt to those mistakes. That ball is played in but we have the immediately threatening players covered. The only person who can get to the ball is running away from goal. If he is then allowed to turn, it can become a chance, but that doesnt happen and whilst they did get in each others way, the move breaks down. It wasnt even guarenteed to be a shot on target let alone a goal.

I do agree about the last bit though

16 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Exactly, this is my point. You know your game. 

you let teams play through the middle and get the ball into the box, it’s a lottery. Make them play wide, and your negating their ability. 

Against Huddersfield we let them have possession in the middle. Recipe for disaster against better teams.

But they didnt play through the middle and we did defend the middle. Just because we ceded possession to them 50 yards from goal doesnt mean they threatened centrally. Again the evidence suggests most of their attacks came from the flanks.

Their best chances came from crosses into the box. The system worked the players wide and then the cross came in and we dealt with almost all of them bar 2, which happened to be when we were down to 10 men.

[Bailey]

10 minutes ago, hafnia said:

City scored 3 from them today.. 

They are a bit of an anomoly. They dont cross from positions most teams do and Arsenal arent exactly organised. In fact at times in that second half they were shambolic.

[pete0]

Only caught the second city goal were Gundogan was central just outside the area and put in a chipped ball to Sterling on the edge of the six yard box who then squared it across goal to Aguero. Lovely goal but not your typical goal from a cross, in which I mean ones from closer to the corner flag where the opposition have been forced out wide. 

[Shukes]

Love it Bailey... a statistical fact. 

You dont play football at all do you haha.

Or... you have no idea what an actual fact is. 

Fact... they didn’t score when we had ten men.

Fact... they didn’t score when we had Eleven men.

Those are facts. Your SSN nonsense isn’t factual at all, not in the slightest. Again... what I’m saying is FACT!  seriously, cut this rubbish out. Offer your opinion, but please accept that that is what it is.

 

They did play through the middle. I watched it with my own eyes and again in the highlights this morning. I struggle to see how you can watch them play the ball in the middle of the park, look up, play it out to the wing, which results in a cross and header on goal.... and still say it didn’t come from the middle.

You probably are one of those that went on about Baines assists, but never recognised the assist from Pienaar as he didn’t play the last ball in. Again, this is why I question your actual playing knowledge against a watching fan. 

It’s not all about the final ball Bailey. That’s the black and white SSN stat for you. 

No point discussing anymore, you don’t see it my way, and i definitely will never see it your way.... I pray. Let’s just accept we see this one differently haha. 

[Bailey]

36 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Love it Bailey... a statistical fact. 

You dont play football at all do you haha.

Or... you have no idea what an actual fact is. 

Fact... they didn’t score when we had ten men.

Fact... they didn’t score when we had Eleven men.

Those are facts. Your SSN nonsense isn’t factual at all, not in the slightest. Again... what I’m saying is FACT!  seriously, cut this rubbish out. Offer your opinion, but please accept that that is what it is.

 

They did play through the middle. I watched it with my own eyes and again in the highlights this morning. I struggle to see how you can watch them play the ball in the middle of the park, look up, play it out to the wing, which results in a cross and header on goal.... and still say it didn’t come from the middle.

You probably are one of those that went on about Baines assists, but never recognised the assist from Pienaar as he didn’t play the last ball in. Again, this is why I question your actual playing knowledge against a watching fan. 

It’s not all about the final ball Bailey. That’s the black and white SSN stat for you. 

No point discussing anymore, you don’t see it my way, and i definitely will never see it your way.... I pray. Let’s just accept we see this one differently haha. 

No Shukes you arent getting this pal. My OPINION is that their best chance was when we were down to 11 men. To back up my OPINION, I did some research and that research puts a value to the statistical probability of scoring a goal from that position of the pitch and those chances were Mooy's free-kick and the header which Pickford saved. This isn'tt an opinion, its not on SSN on a playstation or whatever else you want to use to dismiss it as. They were less likely to score from all the chances they had before the sending off compared to after it.

The highlights are out there, none of the chances come from the middle of the park. We actually push the play out wide and then the cross comes in. Their best chance came as a result of Kenny being beaten and Coleman dropping off his marker not because of any weakness in the middle of the park, even though we were down to 10 men.

No I am not and have never been so dont just start throwing random stuff in that isnt even true which has nothing to do with this discussion. As an example you can look at the talk about Siggy where I am saying that our best play goes through him. No talk of assists, goals or anything else.

I find it funny that you question my playing history when you are the one who thinks everything is dangerous. I would guess you were of an attacking mindset or you played for a team that didn't have to do much defending!

Its a strange one, because I have normally thought that we see things in a similar way but we are poles apart on this. Have a good night!

[pete0]

1 hour ago, Shukes said:

They did play through the middle. I watched it with my own eyes and again in the highlights this morning. I struggle to see how you can watch them play the ball in the middle of the park, look up, play it out to the wing, which results in a cross and header on goal.... and still say it didn’t come from the middle.

 

4 hours ago, Shukes said:

Exactly, this is my point. You know your game. 

you let teams play through the middle and get the ball into the box, it’s a lottery. Make them play wide, and your negating their ability. 

Against Huddersfield we let them have possession in the middle. Recipe for disaster against better teams.

Shukes I'm confused. Do you agree the centre mids done their jobs forcing Huddersfield out wide? 

[Shukes]

Bailey I’m sorry, but you can’t put a scientific equation into the game of football, it doesn’t work like that. I have even started looking at these stats you use just to see what the crack is. And so far as I have seen, each one has been wrong. 

I ask you, what was the probability that Crystal Palace werbefoi g to shoot against Liverpool, the shot weak and looking like a routine pick up for the goalkeeper, the ball hit a ballon, and go in? This is football and mathematical equations don’t work.... as shown in the gambling world. 

Not sure how we can push them wide from a central position and a cross comes in, and still not accept that the play started from the middle. If they lose possession and we give it back on the wings, I agree. But if they keep possession and work it to the wing and get that cross in, then just maybe, that’s good play from them. Just like Pickford throwing the ball out to a player who runs up the wing, crosses the ball in, and we score. The goal came from our goalkeeper throwing the ball out and creating a chance. 

You might have me on the next one. And that’s got me thinking to be fair. I was a very attacking player and played for a team that had a lot of success, and maybe this is why i see it differently. If I had recieved the ball inside the box, i would be in with a chance... in my head at least haha. To me, those situations can easily swing from the players flight it up (as they did) to a little lay off, and a goal. Just like the crosses they put into the six yard box hat no one got on the end off. If a striker reads those, it’s easily a different story. But your right, they didn’t and it wasn’t. Maybe I’m overthinking it all.

Sorry if I am being argumentative again. Got caught up in the moment and acted like a dick. Sorry Bailey. Having a bad weekend just isn’t the right excuse to go off on one.

[Shukes]

19 hours ago, pete0 said:

 

Shukes I'm confused. Do you agree the centre mids done their jobs forcing Huddersfield out wide? 

PeteO I’ve confused myself and not sure what I am saying. 

I think I’m looking to deeply into this and trying to analyse what’s going wrong, when I’m a builder, not a football manager haha. 

As Bailey has pointed out, I do look at it from an attacking mindset. I know that if a player lets me have the ball in the middle of the park, I’m going to cause havoc. If the push me out wide, it’s limiting my vision and range.

I do think we have them far too much of the ball in the middle. But accept that. It’s just my opinion.

[Bailey]

18 hours ago, Shukes said:

Bailey I’m sorry, but you can’t put a scientific equation into the game of football, it doesn’t work like that. I have even started looking at these stats you use just to see what the crack is. And so far as I have seen, each one has been wrong. 

I ask you, what was the probability that Crystal Palace werbefoi g to shoot against Liverpool, the shot weak and looking like a routine pick up for the goalkeeper, the ball hit a ballon, and go in? This is football and mathematical equations don’t work.... as shown in the gambling world. 

Not sure how we can push them wide from a central position and a cross comes in, and still not accept that the play started from the middle. If they lose possession and we give it back on the wings, I agree. But if they keep possession and work it to the wing and get that cross in, then just maybe, that’s good play from them. Just like Pickford throwing the ball out to a player who runs up the wing, crosses the ball in, and we score. The goal came from our goalkeeper throwing the ball out and creating a chance. 

You might have me on the next one. And that’s got me thinking to be fair. I was a very attacking player and played for a team that had a lot of success, and maybe this is why i see it differently. If I had recieved the ball inside the box, i would be in with a chance... in my head at least haha. To me, those situations can easily swing from the players flight it up (as they did) to a little lay off, and a goal. Just like the crosses they put into the six yard box hat no one got on the end off. If a striker reads those, it’s easily a different story. But your right, they didn’t and it wasn’t. Maybe I’m overthinking it all.

Sorry if I am being argumentative again. Got caught up in the moment and acted like a dick. Sorry Bailey. Having a bad weekend just isn’t the right excuse to go off on one.

Dont be silly mate, its all good im enjoying it actually.

Just to pick up on the example, the probability is based on having a shot in that position and the circumstances of that shot, not what happens after ie pinged or daisy cutter.

In the next point you could argue every attack will come from the centre at some point. The whole point is funnelling the play away from the 18 yard box. At one stage its guarenteed every goal will come through the middle in your definition.

The next bit probably sums up why we have such different views. I have been a defender or keeper in good and bad teams and I know what its like when you have a fellow defender you are on the same wavelength with and one that just follows the ball (probably also explains my frustration with Gana). Would be good fun if we played 1 v 1. You would always expect to score and I would always expect to stop it, whether thats 30 yards out or in my own box. Its only a chance if you beat me

[Shukes]

I do see what you mean. But I would say that it’s a tactic for some teams to work the ball through the middle, then switch play to the wings and try and get a ball in. Something I think we don’t do enough off. 

Not many teams have the players with the ability to thread balls brought the middle, most have to work the wings. 

Maybe we should organise a TT five a side day haha. Would be fun watching all the players... that used to be good. 

I’m one of them by the way. My head still knows what to do, my body just doesn’t keep up with it. The amount of visions I have pinging one into the top corner, only to see it sail for a throw in. Must be the standard of the balls they use nowadays.

[pete0]

32 minutes ago, Shukes said:

Not many teams have the players with the ability to thread balls brought the middle, most have to work the wings. 

This is exactly why I don't like Gana in midfield. With him out of position it ever team manages to get through our middle. 

[Sibdane]

https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2019/idrissa-gueye-i-was-ready-for-psg/

Quote

“They put the brakes on immediately,” he explained to L’Equipe, as cited by Get French Football News. 

“I pushed. I told the club I wanted to take this golden opportunity to go to Paris. A huge challenge, especially at the age of 29.

“It is a dream that sadly did not come true.

“Even player works to join the best teams, to play in such matches in the Champions’ League. But I was honoured that PSG were interested in me.

“Now, I know that I am of interest to these types of clubs, that I am ready to go to the final level to join a top European club. I am going to work even more so that they come back to me. Maybe it is not finished with PSG”.

 

[Palfy]

31 minutes ago, sibdane said:

https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2019/idrissa-gueye-i-was-ready-for-psg/

 

If it’s any conciliation Gana my old mate I was also hoping you would be allowed to leave

[Shukes]

1 hour ago, sibdane said:

https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2019/idrissa-gueye-i-was-ready-for-psg/

 

Great to hear attitudes like that. If only we had more like him.

Gana, you sound like myself, always strive to be the best you can be. Hats off!