Same Boring Frank Lampard Thread 2.0
- Thread starter NYCFCFan10
- Start date
Ferdinand Cesarano
Registered
Because they are in a tough fight for league position. He's contracted to Man City until the end of the season; there's no telling whether he'll help them secure points that they'll need in order to finish third instead of fourth, or fourth instead of fifth.
That said, the less he plays for them until May, the better for us.
kas_tippler
Registered
Ferdinand Cesarano
Registered
OK, bringing him on while down 4-1 -- this I object to. It's just a risk of injury with no real upside.
kas_tippler
Registered
Welcome to the world of 'old City' AKA a complete shambles........
Come on, you don't think the sub at midfield can spark a comeback?
Honestly, do you work for MCFC, because you're always making excusing for them. No offense, just an observation.
They're not using him. He's riding the bench. Whether they're still in a position for a CL spot is completely irrelevant because THEY"RE NOT PLAYING HIM. I repeat. THEY"RE NOT PLAYING HIM.
At this point, they're just keeping him to save face, nothing more.
Ferdinand Cesarano
Registered
Of course I don't work for Man City. While I have tremendous respect for Man City and while I whole-heartedly approve of the means by which they have become a big club (namely, by getting a good owner), I don't support them; I am a Chelsea fan.
Furthermore, I am not "making excuses". I am merely pointing out that which should be obvious: even though Man City cannot win the title, they have plenty to play for; they will therefore not voluntarily weaken their squad by releasing a great player whom they are entitled to keep.
It's true that Man City haven't used Lampard much lately. This, however, does not preclude them from using him in the upcoming matches. If Lampard comes off the bench in the final minutes of some match and helps set up a goal -- or himself scores a goal -- which turns a loss into a draw (as happened against Chelsea) or which turns a draw into a win, those could be the points that secure a Champions League spot for Man City; and then it will all have been worth it for them. The mere potential for such an occurrence is reason enough for them to keep Lampard until his contract runs out.
So, given that Lampard will be at Man City no matter what, we should be pleased (not annoyed) when he doesn't play. Anyway, our team's most important player and the league's main symbol will be here soon enough. When he gets here, it still will be during the team's inaugural season; Lampard will still have been part of this team's history from the beginning.
Coming off a rest of a month or two, Lampard will be the freshest guy out there. If NYCFC can stay within fighting distance of sixth place, then the meaningful part of the season could get very interesting for us
Also, NYCFC and Lampard will take centre stage in August, when they meet Gerrard and the Galaxy in the biggest event in MLS since Beckham's Galaxy made their first trip into Giants Stadium to play the Red Bulls.
So we have plenty to look forward to. It's ridiculous to get all worked up because this world-class superstar is five minutes late to the party.
rangersnycfc
Registered
Champions League means so much to the clubs, besides Chelsea in 2013 and Fulham in 2010 none of the English Clubs try in the EL. Champions League money is super valuable and all the big players want to play in the CL its the ultimate in Club football.
N
Nicholas Constantino
Guest
I don't think anyone is arguing the important of UCL to City- they're just saying Lampard isn't going to do anything to help them get there.
Is it really intended for him to take two whole months off?
BINGO! Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.
Its easier to understand than why you guys are trying so hard to convince internet strangers of something. They are winding you up and they go away when you stop talking Frank with them.
Ferdinand Cesarano
Registered
He isn't? That is a foolish comment, because you cannot see the future. He's a weapon that they might use. Or they might not use him. No one can say for sure right now; it will depend on circumstances.
One cannot reasonably claim that the fact that he hasn't played much lately means that he will certainly not play at all in City's remaining games. It's much more likely to think that he will get some playing time. If they brought him on when they were down 4-1 to United, then they will almost surely bring him on in minute 70 or so in a match that is yet to be decided.
The idea is that he will finish the Premier League season in May, rest during June and July, and begin playing for NYCFC in August. In the unlikely event that he doesn't get off the bench at all in City's final games, then perhaps his rest won't have to be that long. But, assuming that he does play in a few of their remaining games, he will certainly need that time off before starting to play here.
Except they are playing him though, aren't they? Not very much, but he's playing. I somehow doubt they'd waste a roster space, and deny other squad members playing time (scant as it may be) just to "save face". Clearly they think he's an important piece of the squad, otherwise they'd be bringing some other multi-millionaire off the bench.
All things considered, unless you believe MCFC feels some sort of magnanimous duty of care to NYCFC (spoilers: they don't), and would consider jeopardizing their season one iota just to help us out, this is actually the best outcome we can hope for - the less football Frank plays now, the less rest he'll need when the English season finishes.
We should bring him back.
Similar threads
