Home
Tottenham Talk

Would a fast striker have kept Bale at Spurs?

1 min read

TOTTENHAM TALK


Well my article on passing verses pace certainly brought out an interesting discussion and the point made about the excitement of seeing Gareth Bale running at defences was certainly a good one. If we could find another Gareth Bale I don't think any of us would be complaining.

The 28-year-old (29 next July) Welshman reportedly turned down, as expected, a move to Manchester United this summer to stay in Spain at his dream club.

He was the best crosser of a ball on the run without breaking stride, crosses that were along the floor across the six-yard box too in Bale's case, that I can remember since QPR winger Dave Thomas I think it was.

We didn't have strikers on the end of enough of these crosses tough, had they got there or anticipated better then there were plenty of tap-ins to score. What if that had happened and Bale was creating all these goals for a striker, would he still have moved central?

He moved there because we lacked attacking option centrally. Had we had them bale may well have stayed on the wing and his prowess may not have been seen to it's full extent. If that were the case, would he still have got his dream move to Real Madrid?


COYS
Trending topics at No1 Spurs Website THBN
Spurs in a good position now
Passing problem, not pacey winger problem

8 comments

  1. What rubbish! Once Bale was given freedom to roam there where no crosses. Bale was playing by himself, He was scoring more goals and the strikers and team as a whole scoring less.
    • Absolutely bang on the money,he became a self centred individual,never looked up or considered his teammates in the latter stages ..I now have the pleasure of watching my TEAM play great football as a unit...laughably the experts all seem to think Bale will improve whatever side he plays for? Really,I think we've improved considerably since he's left..no,as for getting Modic back? Yes please

    • Perhaps you could explain how that's different from what Clive said? What's true for the goose must be true for the gander.

      I think what you both say makes sense personally. Just not sure what you seem to be arguing with.

      COYS!!
    • You haven't really understood the article at all have you. It relates to the time before he was moved central to be a one man team, but prior to that when he was just a wide player crossing for others.
  2. You've given the answer yourself. He supported RM as a boy and it was his dream move. RM added urgency to the situation by telling him it was "now or never," and thus ending the slim chance we had of keeping him for a short period longer. I believe this is want is called delaying the inevitable!

    So, no, had nowt to do with it.
  3. "He moved there because we lacked attacking option centrally."
    Nothing to do with wanting to win trophies then? I'd guess that 3 Champion's Leagues later, he must rue the fact we didn't have an Aguero or Aubameyang to run onto his crosses. Not to mention tripling his salary, better tax and commercial arrangements, nicer lifestyle, better players around him...
    • I think you'll find when he said "He moved there ..." Clive was referring to moving to play more centrally (Read the preceeding line of text.) He also referred later to GB's 'dream move'to RM. I believe he's clear why GB wanted the move. Clive was merely discussing the likelihood of him being desired by RM had he not moved inside at that point and thus illustrated a potential that may not have been so evident had he kept his game to playing on the wing and providing crosses - good ones though they were.

      It makes sense to get a full comprehension of what's being said before trying to refute it. I can't argue with your comment. Simply that Clive didn't say anything opposing it in the first place.

      COYS!!
  4. Jesus it's hard sometimes. If your going to argy a point at least read the statement the author has made.