Deppo Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Which would you rather have in the side? Don't just say Lallana because he scored today. I want detailed, reasoned responses please.
SuperMikey Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana probably. Has more about him that catches the eye, and his creativity is priceless. Surman was good, but a little bit lightweight for a CM and not quick enough for a LM.
Johnny Shearer Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana because he scored today. +1 Lallana - on the ball close control is much better than Surman's. Can take it round players more effectively and better a finisher. However Surman is stronger on the ball in terms of keeping it.
SNSUN Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana's more attacking IMO, but Surman's left foot is better. In summary, I think the answer is porridge.
S-Clarke Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 I'd like them both in the side, they both bring something different.
Ewell Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 I want detailed, reasoned responses please. but you couldn't be arsed to give yours!
dronskisaint Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana - greater vision, creativity & control + an ability to score goals from midfield. I rate Drew Surman &, unusually for me, would have him back but a different (& not so gifted) player compared to Lallana.
Legod Third Coming Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 This is like asking who you would prefer to lick your balls... Anne Widdicombe or Charlotte Church.
Deppo Posted 6 November, 2010 Author Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana certainly seems a good prospect. I would say he is more exciting a player than Surman was. Wont forget in a hurry Surman's goals for us, though.
Deppo Posted 6 November, 2010 Author Posted 6 November, 2010 This is like asking who you would prefer to lick your balls... Anne Widdicombe or Charlotte Church. Yeah, but you could ask that question another way using the same people: Who would you rather lick your balls - a virgin or a slapper?
benjii Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana certainly seems a good prospect. I would say he is more exciting a player than Surman was. Wont forget in a hurry Surman's goals for us, though. What are your top ten?
Deppo Posted 6 November, 2010 Author Posted 6 November, 2010 What are your top ten? I have forgotten.
Bailey Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Lallana, every time. Whilst Surman was a very good player for us, Lallana has bags more potential and will play at a higher level than AS for a longer period of time.
Legod Third Coming Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 Serious considered answer has to be Lallana. He is a game changer, Surman was just a good player but couldn't unpick a defence or provide that little sparkle needed to ignite the team.
Prince Jazzbo Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 There's only one way to find out........
Legod Third Coming Posted 6 November, 2010 Posted 6 November, 2010 There's only one way to find out........ Opta?
georgeweahscousin Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Highly rate both, but if I had to choose one it would be Lallana.
georgeweahscousin Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Highly rate both, but if I had to choose one it would be Lallana.
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Is Surman injured because he hasn't featured in Norwich's first team for some while?
Fitzhugh Fella Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Is Surman injured because he hasn't featured in Norwich's first team for some while?
austsaint Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Seriously? Surman is average and already peaked, lallana has huge potential and gets better each year, they're light years apart. I see it the same way.......Surman a fringe Championship player who has peaked; Lallana an untapped, improving player with special skills.
austsaint Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Seriously? Surman is average and already peaked, lallana has huge potential and gets better each year, they're light years apart. I see it the same way.......Surman a fringe Championship player who has peaked; Lallana an untapped, improving player with special skills.
S-Clarke Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Is Surman injured because he hasn't featured in Norwich's first team for some while? Yeah, he got a knee injury back in September. He'd been a regular for them up to that point.
S-Clarke Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Is Surman injured because he hasn't featured in Norwich's first team for some while? Yeah, he got a knee injury back in September. He'd been a regular for them up to that point.
jam Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Surman 15 in 133 games Lallana 26 in 112 Bit harsh - Lallana wasn't made to play at left back for extended periods of time.
jam Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Surman 15 in 133 games Lallana 26 in 112 Bit harsh - Lallana wasn't made to play at left back for extended periods of time.
Andy_Porter Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Wouldn't mind both of them. Lallana - Surman - Schneiderlin - Chamberlain That would be an amaazing midfield, I guess now we have to focus on keeping hold of Lallana, Chamberlain and Schneiderlin.
Andy_Porter Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Wouldn't mind both of them. Lallana - Surman - Schneiderlin - Chamberlain That would be an amaazing midfield, I guess now we have to focus on keeping hold of Lallana, Chamberlain and Schneiderlin.
red&white56 Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Lallana - because he shows a real desire to get into the penalty area to support attacks, his dribbling skill and his passion. But this doesn't mean that I don't like Drew...............
red&white56 Posted 7 November, 2010 Posted 7 November, 2010 Lallana - because he shows a real desire to get into the penalty area to support attacks, his dribbling skill and his passion. But this doesn't mean that I don't like Drew...............
rolosfc Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Lallana. Surman doesn't have much of a change of pace or anywhere near as much skill and trickery as Lallana. I would like them both though.
jasonb Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Lallana - having just watched his interview on saintsplayer this morning I am really impressed with the way he has developed - not just as a player but as a person. He comes across like a really genuine - honest - young lad. He fielded questions regarding Bale and Walcott's continued progress at a higher level with great aplomb and integrity. He stressed that he wants to get promoted with Saints and is enjoying his football. Having heard Bale speak recently too (he comes across as a well adjusted and grounded individual too despite the crazy press he's getting) it makes you feel quite proud at how these young men have been developed by a great setup at Saints. Surman - whilst also seemingly a decent young fella has a little bit a rebuilding to do after he was sold to get us some cash. A sign of a great player is one who can overcome hiccups and setbacks - I reckon he has the capacity to do it too since he;s from the same good stock.
Viking Warrior Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Llanna as he is still a saints player and surman isn't
Shroppie Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 I'd like Surman in the team, but not to replace Lallana. They're different types of player. Surman is more like Hammond, only better. Lallana is a real attacking threat, Surnman more a holding player who will occasionally get forward into dangerous positions.
Harry Faz Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Still can't believe it's being debated. Top clubs will be keeping an eye on Lallana, the ability and skill is clearly there. He has the touch, vision, turn of pace and final ball/finishing to make it in the top flight. Surman had a few spells of good form in the CCC but never looked consistently good to me, and never found a position. Poor left back, OK right winger, slow but alright left winger, and very poor lightweight central midfielder. I wouldn't swap him for Lallana or Chamberlain. I'm not convinced I'd swap him for Schneiderlin either. One of the worst set piece takers I've seen consistently take all our set pieces. Agree Adam is better player - not sure whether he has the pace and strength for the top flight but undoubtedly good enough for the championship. Would love him to sign a new contract with us. Felt sorry for Surman - he had to learn his trade during the crap dutch experiment, ie in a sinking ship. Adam has undoubtedly had the benefit of good players around him in last 12 months - an dhis game has come on leaps and bounds. .
Saint Luke Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Lallana - more skill, but of course until they both play at the same level ahrd to say for sure. Lallana would probably benefit from better players around him even more. Lallana is also my son's favourite with Rickie, although admiration for Rickie is based on last years form.
captainchris Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Ridiculous thread comparing chalk with cheese!.............
Andy_Porter Posted 8 November, 2010 Posted 8 November, 2010 Still can't believe it's being debated. Top clubs will be keeping an eye on Lallana, the ability and skill is clearly there. He has the touch, vision, turn of pace and final ball/finishing to make it in the top flight. Surman had a few spells of good form in the CCC but never looked consistently good to me, and never found a position. Poor left back, OK right winger, slow but alright left winger, and very poor lightweight central midfielder. I wouldn't swap him for Lallana or Chamberlain. I'm not convinced I'd swap him for Schneiderlin either. One of the worst set piece takers I've seen consistently take all our set pieces. Bit harsh on Surman really, I'm sure Surman would look far better if he had stayed with us and played in League one and Adam would have probably ended up on the bench for Wolves if he left rather than Surman. Both good players, I'm glad we've at least got one of them sitll here.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now