2025/26 Charly Alcaraz


brucemate said:
That clarified your point. His positive attributes are recognised in his ability to go forward and play others in. The squad struggles to score goals at present. Consequently from my perspective I would like to have seen him given more game time.
Click to expand...
I’d already said that?

This is like the twilight zone, it’s like instead of seeing my actual point of ‘I think he’s good but you can kind of see why he doesn’t get picked more because he gives the ball away a lot even with really simple stuff’ it’s come up on peoples screens as ‘I absolutely despise the bloke, think he’s the worst player ever to pull on the shirt and see no redeeming features’.

I like him, I think he’s very good in some ways, but I can also see how his weaknesses might be seen as balancing out his strengths overall.
 
Lanolin said:
I’m not saying that though? I’m saying i think you can see why the pros think what they think, not that they just must be right because they’re pros. My original point was that you can see he has talent, but I can understand why his career so far is what it is, because he intersperses moments of real quality with moments of amateurish incompetence. Hes far from the only one, I’m not singling him out and my original post wasn’t even remotely critical of him. All I’m saying is I don’t watch him and don’t think it’s a travesty he doesn’t start more - it wouldn’t be terrible if he did but it’s not terrible that he doesn’t. Like I said, I really don’t think that’s very controversial.
Click to expand...
Well I’ll say this, my take has long been that the “professional” viewpoint that it’s better to not make mistakes than to actually cause an impact is wrong. And that’s what is happening here too. It’s a travesty he doesn’t play more because the side on the whole performs better when he does. I understand it’s a bit volatile, but there’s a positive side to that volatility and it’s a side that teams often need. Sure it’d be great if we could have an elite player that could carry all the threat with little downside or unevenness but failing that the player with the higher upswings is necessary in an attacking position.

Put simpler I’m willing to say that on this player Moyes and the others who don’t rate him are wrong.
 

brucemate said:
Unnecessary comment, we are all doing what a forum is for, articulate our point of view and debate.
Click to expand...
It’s not at all! The post makes no sense whatsoever, I’ve seen the same poster make other posts which make perfect sense, if they want me to debate a point with them they’ll have to revisit and form coherent sentences so that I know what they mean, otherwise how can I respond? If they have an issue they can tell me, I don’t think they need you to be their white knight.
 
TheBigIguana said:
Well I’ll say this, my take has long been that the “professional” viewpoint that it’s better to not make mistakes than to actually cause an impact is wrong. And that’s what is happening here too. It’s a travesty he doesn’t play more because the side on the whole performs better when he does. I understand it’s a bit volatile, but there’s a positive side to that volatility and it’s a side that teams often need. Sure it’d be great if we could have an elite player that could carry all the threat with little downside or unevenness but failing that the player with the higher upswings is necessary in an attacking position.

Put simpler I’m willing to say that on this player Moyes and the others who don’t rate him are wrong.
Click to expand...
And that’s a perfectly understandable viewpoint that I don’t hugely disagree with. For me the balance isn’t quite right and there’s too much that I think is sloppy and not enough brilliance to swing it in his favour, but it’s not a million miles away. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it but I’ll try - I think he’s good and does some really good stuff, and all things being equal would much rather see players like him in the side than not, but I can also see how his general play may hold him back in the harsh realities of the real world.
 
Lanolin said:
It’s not at all! The post makes no sense whatsoever, I’ve seen the same poster make other posts which make perfect sense, if they want me to debate a point with them they’ll have to revisit and form coherent sentences so that I know what they mean, otherwise how can I respond? If they have an issue they can tell me, I don’t think they need you to be their white knight.
Click to expand...
I was not being a white knight and made the comment as I thought that the meaning was clear and was not overly bothered about some minor syntax matters. That aside, I have enjoyed the thread.
 
I really like Charlie as a player. Gives me a feel of a Steven Naismith type in terms of his mentality, always willing and hardworking, fairly decent technically just lacks a bit physically (mainly a yard of pace). I do wonder why he hasn't played more, particularly in a few games we've been chasing.

That being said I didnt think he was spectacular tonight but I do think he helps our play around the box as KDH has a tendency to shift and overlap with Grealish, which really should be Mykolenkos job.
 
brucemate said:
I was not being a white knight and made the comment as I thought that the meaning was clear and was not overly bothered about some minor syntax matters. That aside, I have enjoyed the thread.
Click to expand...
Good for you. I genuinely don’t understand the meaning of a single sentence so couldn’t possibly try to reply properly. You could have tried to articulate the point differently to allow me to respond but you decided to call me out for no reason instead, but yeah apart from that great conversation.
 

Lanolin said:
And that’s a perfectly understandable viewpoint that I don’t hugely disagree with. For me the balance isn’t quite right and there’s too much that I think is sloppy and not enough brilliance to swing it in his favour, but it’s not a million miles away. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it but I’ll try - I think he’s good and does some really good stuff, and all things being equal would much rather see players like him in the side than not, but I can also see how his general play may hold him back in the harsh realities of the real world.
Click to expand...
He’s also 2-3 years away from his prime. I think some forget he’s only 23.

He’ll improve, how much is the question obviously. But he won’t reach his potential sitting on the bench, and there are definitely more minutes to be had in this squad for him.
 
Lanolin said:
And that’s a perfectly understandable viewpoint that I don’t hugely disagree with. For me the balance isn’t quite right and there’s too much that I think is sloppy and not enough brilliance to swing it in his favour, but it’s not a million miles away. I’m not sure how much clearer I can make it but I’ll try - I think he’s good and does some really good stuff, and all things being equal would much rather see players like him in the side than not, but I can also see how his general play may hold him back in the harsh realities of the real world.
Click to expand...
Yeah that’s all fair, I’d just argue on a more philosophical level that those harsh realities don’t really exist
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top