James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
With Calum Chambers playing in the centre of defence for Arsenal who would ever have thought we'd have far better players (at least one) than the likes of Arsenal in certain positions.
Shows how far we've come in the last decade at least.
Shows how far we've come in the last decade at least.
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
If you assume Tarkowski is better than Chambers then yes.
-
- Posts: 1349
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2019 2:08 pm
- Been Liked: 217 times
- Has Liked: 543 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Good grief, quite incredible.jrgbfc wrote:If you assume Tarkowski is better than Chambers then yes.
This user liked this post: Rick_Muller
-
- Posts: 2538
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2016 1:18 pm
- Been Liked: 722 times
- Has Liked: 2025 times
- Location: Computer matrix, IP not found- current code: 00101110100101001100100 1011101010100010101101010100100
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
We've had a better defence than Arsenal for about 10 years to be fair...
This user liked this post: tim_noone
-
- Posts: 5363
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:42 pm
- Been Liked: 1904 times
- Has Liked: 1978 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Accy Stanley have a better defence than Arsenal.
This user liked this post: Bosscat
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Chambers is a Championship level footballer. Funnily enough, Tarkowski being better than him isn’t actually an achievement.
-
- Posts: 7040
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2167 times
- Has Liked: 3100 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
If you are going to try and play devil's advocate, at least 1/100 people would have to be able to agree with you.jrgbfc wrote:If you assume Tarkowski is better than Chambers then yes.
Failed miserably there
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4183 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
ZizkovClaret wrote:If you are going to try and play devil's advocate, at least 1/100 people would have to be able to agree with you.
Failed miserably there
That is the problem though, if you find yourself typing negative nonsense most the time then it becomes a habit and you type stupid comments like that. He isn't on his own though on here.
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
I'm not saying Tarkowski isn't better. Just that the way we play makes all our defenders look better. I reckon if you put any average Premier league centre half into our team they'd look outstanding.ZizkovClaret wrote:If you are going to try and play devil's advocate, at least 1/100 people would have to be able to agree with you.
Failed miserably there
-
- Posts: 7040
- Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2016 12:50 pm
- Been Liked: 2167 times
- Has Liked: 3100 times
- Location: Praha
- Contact:
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Your statement suggested you believed there was anyone outside of the Chambers family who might believe that Tarks isnt a better player....jrgbfc wrote:If you assume Tarkowski is better than Chambers then yes.
Utter hogwash
-
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am
- Been Liked: 261 times
- Has Liked: 21 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
we probably have a better keeper than them as well but then again we may have a better keeper than anyone in the prem. I think Pope is that good.
-
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am
- Been Liked: 261 times
- Has Liked: 21 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
definitely an element of that in our team and I agree with you on that. For me I think Tarks has potential but could be exposed at a top team where defensive players will often be exposed more than at Burnley. Keene certainly took time to find his feet at Everton.jrgbfc wrote:I'm not saying Tarkowski isn't better. Just that the way we play makes all our defenders look better. I reckon if you put any average Premier league centre half into our team they'd look outstanding.
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Nothing wrong with Calum Chambers. He's a decent Premier League player.
Tarkowski is the better defender but Chambers is the better distributor.
Tarkowski is the better defender but Chambers is the better distributor.
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Do you have anything to add in terms of the topic?claretonthecoast1882 wrote:That is the problem though, if you find yourself typing negative nonsense most the time then it becomes a habit and you type stupid comments like that. He isn't on his own though on here.
-
- Posts: 9599
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 pm
- Been Liked: 3148 times
- Has Liked: 10236 times
- Location: Staffordshire
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Tarks is a cracking defender but he will have to curb that diving in at the edge of the box ; it cost him his England place and damn near let Southampton in on Saturday.
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4183 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
ksrclaret wrote:Do you have anything to add in terms of the topic?
For you ? Nope, knock yourself out
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Odd to comment on a thread if you have no intention of adding any of your own contributions to the topic.claretonthecoast1882 wrote:For you ? Nope, knock yourself out
It's not very fair to constantly have a go at other's people contributions when you're not prepared to offer any yourself.
This user liked this post: careyclaret
-
- Posts: 10159
- Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2018 1:59 pm
- Been Liked: 4183 times
- Has Liked: 57 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
ksrclaret wrote:Odd to comment on a thread if you have no intention of adding any of your own contributions to the topic.
It's not very fair to constantly have a go at other's people contributions when you're not prepared to offer any yourself.
Yet still you felt the urge/need to contact me directly. Just skip past my posts love
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Okay, well I tried to get you involved in the debate. If simply sniping at everyone else and makes you happy then you crack on, 'love'.claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Yet still you felt the urge/need to contact me directly. Just skip past my posts love
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Maybe I worded it wrongly. If you asked most neutrals I bet a lot would tell you there wasn't much between Tarkowski and Chambers. On here a lot of people view everything through ridiculous claret tinted specs. Tarkowski is no more than a good steady, Premier league defender yet some folk on here talk about him as though he's the second coming of Franz Beckenbauher.ZizkovClaret wrote:Your statement suggested you believed there was anyone outside of the Chambers family who might believe that Tarks isnt a better player....
Utter hogwash
-
- Posts: 30618
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:00 am
- Been Liked: 11032 times
- Has Liked: 5644 times
- Location: clue is in the title
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
we've to watch Chambers, he has a habit against us
This user liked this post: Elizabeth
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Nearly scored against us on the Turf for Fulham too, had a header that hit the bar.Vegas Claret wrote:we've to watch Chambers, he has a habit against us
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
I'd say most neutrals would say Tarkowski is by far the better defender. When discussing the Maguire transfer only two defenders came up as an alternative for Man U. when many thought the £80 million fee was too high - Nathan Ake & James Tarkowski.jrgbfc wrote:Maybe I worded it wrongly. If you asked most neutrals I bet a lot would tell you there wasn't much between Tarkowski and Chambers. On here a lot of people view everything through ridiculous claret tinted specs. Tarkowski is no more than a good steady, Premier league defender yet some folk on here talk about him as though he's the second coming of Franz Beckenbauher.
Calum Chambers was never even mentioned as a good alternative if the Maguire transfer fell though.
In addition, no Leicester city supporters contemplated the idea of him playing for them either.
Edit: That's based on reading their supporters forums Redcafe & Foxestalk.
This user liked this post: ZizkovClaret
-
- Posts: 8466
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 10:06 pm
- Been Liked: 2461 times
- Has Liked: 1990 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
That’s Arsenals problem. They sign good footballers, we sign good defenders.ksrclaret wrote:Nothing wrong with Calum Chambers. He's a decent Premier League player.
Tarkowski is the better defender but Chambers is the better distributor.
-
- Posts: 3552
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:55 am
- Been Liked: 2595 times
- Has Liked: 301 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Spijed wrote:I'd say most neutrals would say Tarkowski is by far the better defender. When discussing the Maguire transfer only two defenders came up as an alternative for Man U. when many thought the £80 million fee was too high - Nathan Ake & James Tarkowski.
Calum Chambers was never even mentioned as a good alternative if the Maguire transfer fell though.
In addition, no Leicester city supporters contemplated the idea of him playing for them either.
Edit: That's based on reading their supporters forums Redcafe & Foxestalk.
Maybe because Leicester don't expect to sign players from Arsenal's first XI?
This user liked this post: boatshed bill
-
- Posts: 1376
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:48 am
- Been Liked: 498 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
Both players are good fit for their respective clubs - neither would work if you swapped them.
I'd say Tarkowski has the better defensive attributes - playing for a team who are generally set-up to defend. Chambers is better with the ball - playing for a team who are generally set-up to attack.
A Tarkowski-type player could be a real asset for Arsenal but it would require a shift in their overall approach and philosophy. Conversely it's difficult to envisage a Chambers-like player being effective in Dyche-era Burnley
I'd say Tarkowski has the better defensive attributes - playing for a team who are generally set-up to defend. Chambers is better with the ball - playing for a team who are generally set-up to attack.
A Tarkowski-type player could be a real asset for Arsenal but it would require a shift in their overall approach and philosophy. Conversely it's difficult to envisage a Chambers-like player being effective in Dyche-era Burnley
-
- Posts: 15228
- Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:47 am
- Been Liked: 3155 times
- Has Liked: 6742 times
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
That Mavropanos lad looked more like an old fashioned centre back. No nonsense type of defenderEarbyClaret wrote:Both players are good fit for their respective clubs - neither would work if you swapped them.
A Tarkowski-type player could be a real asset for Arsenal but it would require a shift in their overall approach and philosophy. Conversely it's difficult to envisage a Chambers-like player being effective in Dyche-era Burnley
Re: James Tarkowski v Calum Chambers
At that point hadn’t he just come off a season-long loan at a relegated club?dandeclaret wrote:Maybe because Leicester don't expect to sign players from Arsenal's first XI?