Klaus wrote:
And I disagree with the notion. I always thought Coquelin's potential was obvious. I don't think Campbell's is, by contrast. The fact that two cases are superficially similar doesn't make them identical. Campbell is the definition of a highlights player if I've ever seen one. We were fed the good parts through compilations during his time in Greece, and then he arrived and we got to see for ourselves that he's not up to code. Playing a couple decent passes during a 25 minute substitution in a Champions League game we lost to Zagreb doesn't exactly change that perception. Even Amaury Bischoff had one good game for us.
On the subject of giving him a fair shot, Campbell is very unlikely to contribute with any more than Chamberlain in the next couple of games, and he's never going to make it here. So why give him any minutes at all? It's not a charity.
Never said the cases were identical, but there are similarities in how people write players off on the basis of a very small sample size. I strongly disagree with your calling him "the definition of a highlights player", if anything he's the exact opposite - for a forward he doesn't score many goals (yet) but he contributes to every game he plays in by keeping things ticking or playing a key pass. Not even talking about his time at Olympiakos because of the low quality of the opposition but his time at Betis showed to me that there's a player to be unearthed, didn't score or assist too many but his overall game was very mature, his individual brilliance showed every now and then too (what the video doesn't show is how he ran the whole pitch back to win the ball and initiate the counter):
I'm not sure where you saw that he's not up to Arsenal standard, probably not at Arsenal because I just looked it up and he played around 300 minutes here in a year and a half, almost exclusively sub appearances. We're not a charity but just like you give Chamberlain the benefit of doubt that he'll improve why shouldn't we for Campbell?
