Gareth Barry

[Bungle]

Not to mention we haven´t even seen him fully fed yet.

And for the record, footballers start losing their legs at 33-35. Kone has just turned 30.

So we're basically comparing a 45 year old malnourished man to a well fed 32 year old, hardly fair really.

 

[Tree13]

Not to mention we haven´t even seen him fully fed yet.

And for the record, footballers start losing their legs at 33-35. Kone has just turned 30.

He's been observing Ramadan, meaning that for one month he has eaten ONLY between sunset and sunrise. Whilst I'm not volunteering to do the same, it's not exactly hunger strike.

As for the 33- 35 thing, it's not set in stone is it Doctor? No, didn't think so. Some decline earlier, some later. Some decline raidly, some see their pace dwindle over a prolonged period. Some (Distin) just keep going. The point is, Barry was never quick to begin with and his pace has been dwindling for a couple of years already; there is no sense in paying a transfer fee for him when his legs are very possibly just a couple of months away from seizing up. His presence would act as a barrier to Junior, Lundstram or another young reserve and we'd get no return on an outlay of £4m+ (inc wages).

 

[Sozzled]

I'd rather Barry came in on loan than us splash £15m on McCarthy. That's enough for me.

 

[Bilko]

I wouldn't underestimate Barry,people harping on about his age,but there's plenty of good footballers well able to play top football at that age.

 

[IcelandBlue]

Lampard is 35 years old. So he has been finished these past three years? Or is it possible that age is not all that matters? Why is Barry being phased out at City... could it be because they have bought new players for 100 million?

 

[Groucho]

I don't think Gareth Barry would be a bad signing.

Still decent, could do a job for a few years.

 

[Tree13]

Lampard is 35 years old. So he has been finished these past three years? Or is it possible that age is not all that matters? Why is Barry being phased out at City... could it be because they have bought new players for 100 million?

But Chelsea can do exactly the same. The fact that they aren't is merely reflective of the fact that Barry and Lampard are two different players with different levels of technical skill and physical fitness.

Barry is getting the elbow because he's no longer good enough to play as the water carrier, Lampard is being retained because his technical skills allow him to consistently play at a better level than Barry even though he too is starting to slow down.

Distin is 36 and faster than both of them have EVER been. It's not absolute, but it is fair to say that Barry, who was NEVER fast, is only going to get slower over the next couple of years. And he isn't that technically talented either. I maintain that if Hargreaves had stayed fit, Barry would never have got England caps in double figures.

Barry is an acceptable one-year stopgap loan, IF the wages are low enough to reflect the fact he'll be backing up Gibbo.

 

[Minimeister]

I think he'd be an excellent signing. The lad's quality and has never had pace anyway so unsure why that's being discussed.

 

[griffla]

The point is, Barry was never quick to begin with and his pace has been dwindling for a couple of years already; there is no sense in paying a transfer fee for him when his legs are very possibly just a couple of months away from seizing up. His presence would act as a barrier to Junior, Lundstram or another young reserve and we'd get no return on an outlay of £4m+ (inc wages).

Erm, you what? I get that you don't like Barry but lets not go OTT. His legs are not going to seize up and drop off at some point in the next 8 weeks! Barry has always been slow but is exceptional in other parts of his game. To me that makes it less important that he'll get slower over the next few years.

 

[Essex Blue]

He's certainly no long term solution but I really hope we sign him. He is a massive upgrade on Osman and his inclusion will make a difference on the pitch, which should result in more league points which is what it is all about.

Both Neville and Osman were horrendous last season and cost us god knows how many points, I don't care how many England caps he got or how many times he touched the bloody ball, he was weak and it cost us points.

 

[Dell Boy]

There are some bad meffs on here dissing my Ossie. Not having it lad.

 

[mahermi1]

Not bothered if we sign him or not, just a bit underwhelmed as to why we are after a 33 year old on loan, when most other teams who finished below us are showing real ambition to improve their squads. One other thing if Barry comes it better not push Barkley back down the pecking order.

 

[tim cahill]

He'd be better than nothing and we could definitely do worse, but I'd rather get someone younger on a permanent deal.

 

[maddison]

Not bothered if we sign him or not, just a bit underwhelmed as to why we are after a 33 year old on loan, when most other teams who finished below us are showing real ambition to improve their squads. One other thing if Barry comes it better not push Barkley back down the pecking order.

Initially I echoed your views, but after thinking about it I think it's more like this: Barry is the perfect back up for Gibson, who quite frankly won't last the season without spending half of it on the bench. While Barry is getting on a bit, aside form his wages, he's not going to cost that much and offers a limited (possibly no) risk investment. If we can push for top 4 with him in the team as cover, we'll have an injection of cash for next season to be able to look for a younger alternative.

I think his signing makes sense, although I'd still rather have seen someone like Honda come here

 

[Eggs]

...we all have an opinion, but the important factor is whether the Manager wants him and we would have to presume he does.