Would you be indifferent to the benching of a club legend and captain after a small patch of poor form?

That's all I wanna know.

Yeah but, what is this really about? lol

And more importantly, can I move this to the Madrid section now? I assume this is about Madrid.

What's your agenda le Sam

Nah it's for everyone, I wanna know if they would be open to their club openly treating legends in such a manner? It's a genuine question and completely open to everyone.

nah , i guess i would want him to get some leeway since he is a club legend , but if that form persists specially in the crucial half of the season, things have to be done for the betterment of the club

Gerrard will be on our bench once Sahin comes in

Spoiler:

Schweini wrote:Gerrard will be on our bench once Sahin comes in

Spoiler:

He can be your LB.

Would we bench Tony Adams after 2-3 poor games ? nope

Well I think the answer if obvious.

Define "small patch of form".

If the guy is the captain, its for a reason, its more than just his ability. You dont bench him ever, unless he has permantly declined or unfit. Even then its not a done thing.

Puyol has declined and is often injured, however never will he be simply benched.

But im intrested, where are you going with this.

Pedram wrote:

Schweini wrote:Gerrard will be on our bench once Sahin comes in

Spoiler:

He can be your LB.

We already have the Brazilian Busquets, and the Welsh Iniesta. Only thing missing is the Turkish Xavi

Livercelona

Nameless wrote:Im guessing he wants Iker benched?

You mean Iniesta is the Welsh Allen

I'm trying to gauge where the pursuit of doing everything even remotely possible to win ends and where respect for achieved status begins.

For example, when Ronaldo arrived Raul encountered a patch of poor form (mostly due to a complete change in role and function) . The coach coul've easily made the "rational decision" and benched Raul for Morientes , but it never happened and they eventually figured it out.

Would that be the right or wrong call?

Put trust in your guy who's given everything for you or do whatever you feel guarantees immediate results?

There are many other examples to be honest Barca faces a similar question with Mascherano and Puyol , Chelsea with Terry etc etc.

@Dani- Small patch of poor form? let's say 10 games. Actually, what would be your limit?

RealGunner wrote:You mean Iniesta is the WelshSpanish Allen

I think every situation is different. I cant talk about that with Raul, because I dont remember it clearly at all.

But to me, its simple. If he still has the quality and he can fit into the team then poor form is poor form and you stick with him. If he is actually declining and putting him in the team is to the detriment of the team, then he cant play.

To answer your question directly. Again, I dont remember it, but to me, sticking with Raul makes sense. But perhaps tactically, removing him could of been correct. Really, its impossible to answer without knowing all the details.

Le Samourai wrote:I'm trying to gauge where the pursuit of doing everything even remotely possible to win ends and where respect for achieved status begins.

For example, when Ronaldo arrived Raul encountered a huge patch of poor form (mostly due to a complete change in role and function) . The coach coul've easily made the "rational decision" and benched Raul for Morientes , but it never happened.

Would that be the right or wrong call?

Put trust in your guy who's given everything for you or do whatever you feel guarantees immediate results?

There are many other examples to be honest Barca faces a similar question with Mascherano and Puyol , Chelsea with Terry etc etc.

@Dani- Small patch of poor form? let's say 10 games. Actually, what would be your limit?

Depends on the personality of the captain.
Captains usually put the team ahead of themselves so they won't complain when they're benched so it won't affect morale negatively. They can still contribute from the bench.
What DOES affect morale negatively is when your team doesn't get a good result. I say bench the captain for the good of the team, if need be.

_LMG_10_ wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:I'm trying to gauge where the pursuit of doing everything even remotely possible to win ends and where respect for achieved status begins.

For example, when Ronaldo arrived Raul encountered a huge patch of poor form (mostly due to a complete change in role and function) . The coach coul've easily made the "rational decision" and benched Raul for Morientes , but it never happened.

Would that be the right or wrong call?

Put trust in your guy who's given everything for you or do whatever you feel guarantees immediate results?

There are many other examples to be honest Barca faces a similar question with Mascherano and Puyol , Chelsea with Terry etc etc.

@Dani- Small patch of poor form? let's say 10 games. Actually, what would be your limit?

Depends on the personality of the captain.
Captains usually put the team ahead of themselves so they won't complain when they're benched so it won't affect morale negatively. They can still contribute from the bench.
What DOES affect morale negatively is when your team doesn't get a good result. I say bench the captain for the good of the team, if need be.

Fair enough.

But there's a risk/reward factor here I mean if you bench a player especially someone old , there's no guarantee he ever returns to being the player he was again.

So you not only lose that leadership , but you also lose the chance that he'll actually return to form and be a formidable presence skill wise.

It's alot more difficult than moving parts fluidly in and out and expecting them to maintain or retain form the chances are always better if you stick with them.

This Allen is the Welsh Iniesta has to stop

Allen is a defensively superior more refined version of Henderson, if he's the Welsh of any Barca player it is Busquets.

Anyway as for the topic, if you have better options yes i would.

Going back a few years we had Kluivert and Bellamy who were starting to excel as a partnership and we were starting to climb the table as a result and then Shearer came back from Injury.

Kluivert was dropped despite it was obvious to everyone the best partnership we had was Kluivert-Bellamy and Kluivert eventually left and was always known as a flop because of this and Bellamy left soon after and we fell into mid-table obscurity.

Shearer is/was a legend but his interests shouldn't have been put ahead of the teams interests and we suffered as a result.

So basically if your legend is running through a poor run of form and you have better options i would drop him yes.

a player joins Liverpool and Mole stops rating them

Allen actually intercepts more balls compared to Tiote, and his key passes are very comparable to Cabaye. He is a hybrid of both

Felt so sorry for Patrick when that happened to him, he deserved better. He wasnt in his prime at Newcastle but he still was ballin' pretty well before that.

I recall they tried to play him and Shearer at some points, but it of course never worked because at that stage, neither wanted to run in behind and both were fighting for the same crosses.

Definitely. It's about having the best players. If the legend isn't good enough he should be benched and a better player should replace him.

Just because he's a legend/captain, doesn't mean he's special and deserves to start when he's past it/isn't performing.