Fernando Torres' Loyalty Rating

[Death.]

His ambition certainly outweighs his loyalty, that is for sure. I don't remember the OP saying he should have Loyalty 1.

[milnerpoint]

I agree that Chelsea currently has a bigger chance to win trophies. But I don't see why Liverpool wouldn't be able to challenge for the top spots next season. As I said before, Liverpool has new owners that will spend money on world class players, and with the current squad Dalglish has done a great job. It looked more likely that Liverpool will get relegated than get to the top 7 under Hodgson, but when Dalglish came, it looks like that Liverpool have a good chance to try and push for 5th or even 4th place. I don't see why Liverpool wouldn't be able to fight for the top spots next season after improving the team in the Summer.

Without being too negative, Liverpool are miles behind Man City, Spurs, Arsenal, Man Utd and Chelsea, there is very little chance of them qualifying for the champs league unless one of these teams has a nightmare season and i bet Torres has seen that, the new owners may be willing to spend, but you will struggle to get any world class players, and after another season or two Gerrard will stop having the influence he does at the moment and then they will be in huge trouble. Improvement is one thing, but liverpool barely have a good enough squad for the prem league, it will need a lot of investment before its even close to challenging for anything other than the cups.

[Smurf]

Even with all the money Man City have available to them it took them a few seasons to get a team together. And they're even close to finishing building that squad.

Liverpool does have a hefty reputation, and that may bode well for them in future signings. But they will struggle against teams with money and teams in the champions league.

[x42bn6]

What about Carragher for England? Retired because he couldn't get his game. Loyal.

Loyal to his club, not his country...

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with you.

Did you ever think he's 20/20 loyal to his new club, Chelsea?

Of course not - because he's not a loyal player.

all of those players bar Villa are from a different Era, times have changed now a days, loyalty like these guys have shown does not exist in modern football. Anyway there have been several stories of late with quotes from Buffon about him wanting to leave, that doesnt tie in with what you are saying.

Rumours! And it doesn't tie in with the fact he stuck around with Juventus through Calciopoli.

Torres went to Liverpool expecting them to sign other players of a high calibre, and to win trophies. This didn't happen, so he went somewhere that he's likely to have this happen. That's not a lack of loyalty, thats called ambition.

A player can be ambitious and loyal - such a player would be more willing to stay and help make the club good again.

The game splits ambition and loyalty for a reason - lots of ambition does not say anything about his loyalty.

[DanThomas2006]

He gave us an extra season, if that. I would hardly call that loyalty.

[macca72]

Surely for the game though, it depends on how the attributes react in the game, doesn't really matter if they're not correct to real life, so long as the game produces real life results. So, If you found yourself in a situation in the game where Chelsea / Liverpool became mid table prem teams, or even relegated, and players like Torres didn't move, then that would be more of an issue.

For me so long as the game produces an accurate simulation, can easily live with odd looking attributes.

[charlo116]

In that case, what does it make the Juventus players who stayed at the club after Calciopoli? Hyper-loyal?

Those players were loyal - more loyal than Torres.

Torres, quite frankly, doesn't deserve a 20.

does it always have to be black or white on these forums? Just because i say he's loyal doesn't mean i'm saying he deserves a 20. I already said in this thread that players like del piero and gerrard have been so much more loyal but torres propbably deserves more of a 14 or 15 because he is still fairly loyal.

[Chalky1989]

The only players who deserve a 20 for loyalty would be players who've spent most of their time at one club, who have shown they're willing to resist interest from bigger clubs, and/or are going to stay when it gets rough. For example, I'm sure when Juventus were relegated, Del Piero could have gone to another club, one in the CL or at least Seria A. But he stayed. He deserves a 20(don't know what he has)

Torres was loyal to Atletico Madrid for a while, didn't force a move. We came in for him and they were happy to take the money. He had a few good seasons with us, but then sulked and clearly wanted to be elsewhere. If he'd stayed till the end of the season then left, I'd have said fair enough, he'd been loyal to a point and we can't expect a player of his quality to not want to play CL football. But he tried to screw us over with 3 days left of the Jan transfer window. Which means he's not all that loyal. I'm sure if Chelsea start to suck, he'll want to leave.

I'd say 13-14 would be a fair rating for him. With lower professionalism(he screwed us over, as said), and higher controversy(he moved to one of our rivals in perhaps the most controversial transfer of the past few years).

[shaggy_91]

Torres isn't loyal at all lol, he would have jumped ship to any club such as barca or man united even a couple of years before liverpool bought him. If I remember - Torres had a good record at athletico, but nothing spectacular, and his opening season at liverpool was a total revelation.

As for Liverpool, if Carroll is good, then add a couple of wingers and they've got a nice squad including suarez, gerrard and mereiles, so I wouldn't draw the curtain on them just yet, and I'm a man united fan.

[charlo116]

Torres isn't loyal at all lol, he would have jumped ship to any club such as barca or man united even a couple of years before liverpool bought him. If I remember - Torres had a good record at athletico, but nothing spectacular, and his opening season at liverpool was a total revelation.

As for Liverpool, if Carroll is good, then add a couple of wingers and they've got a nice squad including suarez, gerrard and mereiles, so I wouldn't draw the curtain on them just yet, and I'm a man united fan.

but the fact that he didn't try to force his way out of athletico and he stayed for another half a season after liverpool finished 7th. I know he screwed liverpool over in the end so hes certainly not the most loyal player around but he stayed longer than an unloyal player would have.

[Jhemre]

20 for his loyalty is very high. He is very overrated, like any other premier league players...

[ArranoBeltza]

Well, if you asked Fernando Torres...

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/03/15/2395223/my-transfer-to-chelsea-is-evidence-of-my-loyalty-to

[MeekoHFC]

Is it just me or is Torres (much like Rooney) massively over-rated? They've both done nothing in YEARS.

[x42bn6]

does it always have to be black or white on these forums? Just because i say he's loyal doesn't mean i'm saying he deserves a 20. I already said in this thread that players like del piero and gerrard have been so much more loyal but torres propbably deserves more of a 14 or 15 because he is still fairly loyal.

I don't think he's fairly loyal either, to be honest... The moment things started to look bad, he started getting itchy feet, and if there was no boardroom turmoil, you can bet he would have handed in a transfer request a season earlier. I think something in the range of 10-11 is much more accurate - he's no different to any other player.

Well, if you asked Fernando Torres...

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/03/15/2395223/my-transfer-to-chelsea-is-evidence-of-my-loyalty-to

Heh, like Liverpool and Manchester City have any sort of rivalry (except for a possibly positional one, and even that is pushing it at the moment), and it's not like Manchester United made a bid for him (and we probably couldn't afford it anyway)...

There's no need for excuses on his end - he had only two choices - City and Chelsea - and City went for Džeko.

[milnerpoint]

Is it just me or is Torres (much like Rooney) massively over-rated? They've both done nothing in YEARS.

That surely cannot be a serious comment.

[Johnny Ace]

Well, thanks OP for showing us his hidden attributes!!

I think 20 is a little high for his Loyalty but I'd say he was a loyal player, I think all he's shown in his moves to Liverpool & Chelsea is his Ambition to win things, which I can see there is 20 (thanks again OP )

I always think of, in FM terms, a player like Matt Le Tissier showed a huge amount of Loyalty to Southampton but always showed a lack of Ambition

Pointless thread anyway & should be raised in the Data Issues

[Wonky]

Well, thanks OP for showing us his hidden attributes!!

I think 20 is a little high for his Loyalty but I'd say he was a loyal player, I think all he's shown in his moves to Liverpool & Chelsea is his Ambition to win things, which I can see there is 20 (thanks again OP )

I always think of, in FM terms, a player like Matt Le Tissier showed a huge amount of Loyalty to Southampton but always showed a lack of Ambition

Pointless thread anyway & should be raised in the Data Issues

Yeah, 20 is too high, even though he is a loyal player.

[Smurf]

Well, if you asked Fernando Torres...

http://www.goal.com/en/news/9/england/2011/03/15/2395223/my-transfer-to-chelsea-is-evidence-of-my-loyalty-to

Brilliant article - and very logical thinking from Torres. He does say (what I've said all through this) that it's not the same team he joined.

Liverpool's biggest mistake and the start of their downfall was letting Alonso go.

Here's a news story today

England winger Ashley Young has told friends he wants to leave Aston Villa. A source close to the 25-year-old said: "Villa are showing no sign of breaking into the top four and Ashley knows he has to think about playing at the very top if he wants to become an England regular before the 2012 European Championships."

I would put his loyalty at 20 also. Even though he plays for Villa, he's 25 and Villa are going nowhere and he has to move to improve himself.

There is no point in world class players staying at a club that is not winning trophies. (Young needs to prove himself at a higher level - Torres is already a proven goal scorer)

[x42bn6]

I would put his loyalty at 20 also. Even though he plays for Villa, he's 25 and Villa are going nowhere and he has to move to improve himself.

That is not loyalty! If he were loyal, then he would be looking to stay because it is in his club's interests that one of their best players should stay - Aston Villa don't need the money.

A loyal player will care less about personal achievements, because the club is more important than himself.

[x42bn6]

Definition of LOYAL

1: unswerving in allegiance: as

a : faithful in allegiance to one's lawful sovereign or government

b : faithful to a private person to whom fidelity is due

c : faithful to a cause, ideal, custom, institution, or product

Definition of FAITH

1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty

b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions

(Online Merriam-Webster)

Unswervingly faithfully executing his duties towards the club - that is loyalty.

Notice one's personal desires never come into it - a loyal player's duties to the club are most important.

[Saint_Lane]

(Online Merriam-Webster)

Unswervingly faithfully executing his duties towards the club - that is loyalty.

Notice one's personal desires never come into it - a loyal player's duties to the club are most important.

He can be loyal to his 'ideal' and 'beleif' if we're following that definition. If he's grown up telling himself that he wants to play at the top of European and domestic football, then he was in fact being loyal to himself when he left Liverpool and went to Chelsea.

Now i personally wouldnt say Torres was loyal, i can think of many a footballer that has displayed more loyalty to one particular club. But perhaps Torres is loyal to himself, to his 'ideals'

Each to their own my friends..

P.S Players who stay at one club are not necessarily loyal to that club. Le tissier had signed a contract with Spurs and was willing and ready to walk out the door before it broke down. In fact i'd bet any player would ditch all there allegience to a club if a big boy came knocking with a few million in there pockets

[Smurf]

Michael Owen - there's a Liverpool traitor if I ever saw one.

If Torres ever signs for Manchester team then I'll come right out and say he's disloyal. At the moment he's not disloyal. He spent 3.5 years at liverpool and scored a rake of goals. He was promised trophies. Yet the club sold over 30 players and didn't replace key players due to lack of funds with Hicks and Gillete, and when they got new owners they got a crap manager who wanted to sign crap players.

It was just time for him to move on and achieve his ambitions elsewhere. He'll be as loyal to Chelsea as he was with Liverpool as long as Chelsea fulfill their promises and he fulfills his ambitions.

[x42bn6]

He can be loyal to his 'ideal' and 'beleif' if we're following that definition. If he's grown up telling himself that he wants to play at the top of European and domestic football, then he was in fact being loyal to himself when he left Liverpool and went to Chelsea.

Now i personally wouldnt say Torres was loyal, i can think of many a footballer that has displayed more loyalty to one particular club. But perhaps Torres is loyal to himself, to his 'ideals'

Each to their own my friends..

P.S Players who stay at one club are not necessarily loyal to that club. Le tissier had signed a contract with Spurs and was willing and ready to walk out the door before it broke down. In fact i'd bet any player would ditch all there allegience to a club if a big boy came knocking with a few million in there pockets

I would imagine the definition used in the game refers to loyalty towards clubs, which is why Anelka should have a fairly low loyalty, as should Tévez; whilst Del Piero will have a high loyalty. Anelka is of course loyal - to himself - but the game doesn't use it in that context - he won't have a high loyalty.

[Smurf]

That is not loyalty! If he were loyal, then he would be looking to stay because it is in his club's interests that one of their best players should stay - Aston Villa don't need the money.

A loyal player will care less about personal achievements, because the club is more important than himself.

No a loyal player with low ambition will care less about personal achievements.

Why on earth would a player with bags of potential that can play at a much higher level in the worlds top competitions stay with a club that doesn't compete at that level???

You can be loyal to a club, have ambitions and move on from that club. It takes nothing away from how loyal you were to that club. You go to a bigger club and you give them everything and be loyal to them.

You really don't understand the term "loyal".

[Smurf]

I would imagine the definition used in the game refers to loyalty towards clubs, which is why Anelka should have a fairly low loyalty, as should Tévez; whilst Del Piero will have a high loyalty. Anelka is of course loyal - to himself - but the game doesn't use it in that context - he won't have a high loyalty.

At the start there you're saying you "imagine" and towards the end you shift to a definitive statement. You're making that up as you go along.

Tevez is not loyal - he moved to a Rival club. Will he move to another club? Yeh if he's not getting his game at City he'll move on. That's not disloyalty, that's a player wanting to play football. If he moved to a Man City rival he's even more disloyal than I think he is. If he turned around and said "I couldn't play for another club in England and play against Man City" then he would be more loyal.

Anelka is loyal - he's 4 seasons at Chelsea. He never settled at other clubs. He wanted to play for a top team and be a good player. That's ambition. Once he found that club he always wanted he has stuck with them. He was not loyal in the past - he moved around a lot. But he changed his attitude and he is now a very loyal player.

[HarryMills]

What ever you do, NEVER criticise the database....

FYI did you know that NO-ONE can ever, EVER be faster than someone called Gabby Agbonlahor, if Usain Bolt played football, he'd only get 19 accel/pace imvho.

And in FM2010 (not sure about 11 because after playing the demo, there was no way i would ever buy it) Michael Carrick and Owen Hargreaves are rated as having more ability than the treble winning, ballon d'or nominated Wesley Sneijder.

Ah, the database, got to love it imo.

[Smurf]

I couldn't care less if someone else thinks he's loyal or not.

I think he is. All the arguing and things isn't going to change anyone's opinion. Some liverpool fans will argue he was, some will say he wasn't. And they won't change their mind.

I've a very good understanding of what Loyalty is and other traits that affect that and I'm happy with that. I've tried to share that with others - but I don't agree with their view. But that's someone else's opinion, and I respect that, no matter how much I think they're wrong.

[Paul Edwards]

Bottom line is that that the file was submitted way before deadline day at a time when Torres has reaffirmed his love for Liverpool! We couldn't predict what the judas **** would do!

And obviously with the deadline day aspect meant we had loads of other changes to do which meant this one stat wouldn't have been reviewed as overall there were more important things to do.

[Smurf]

Bitter bitter liverpool fans.

[Chalky1989]

Bitter bitter liverpool fans.

Grow up. While there's some hyperbole in this thread, the premise is accurate. Torres shouldn't have 20 Loyalty.

[Smurf]

I am grown up. The Liverpool fans are bitter.

He shouldn't be 20, as I've said before, but it's not that bad. He should be at least over 16 - so he's still quite loyal.

Calling someone a Judas for leaving for another club is completely wrong. Judas was bribed to "sell out" Jesus so Jesus could be arrested - it was a betrayal for moeny. Torres transfer to Chelsea wasn't anything to do with the storyline or similar in anyway to that of Judas. Torres did not leave because of the money, Chelsea didn't tempt him to turn his back on Liverpool by offering more money - he didn't leave because of the money.

In my opinion Torres is loyal - and in my opinion the Liverpool fans are bitter.

[Gandy]

I love how people try to justify their arguments by saying “I’m a ... fan.”

[Chalky1989]

I am grown up. The Liverpool fans are bitter.

He shouldn't be 20, as I've said before, but it's not that bad. He should be at least over 16 - so he's still quite loyal.

Calling someone a Judas for leaving for another club is completely wrong. Judas was bribed to "sell out" Jesus so Jesus could be arrested - it was a betrayal for moeny. Torres transfer to Chelsea wasn't anything to do with the storyline or similar in anyway to that of Judas. Torres did not leave because of the money, Chelsea didn't tempt him to turn his back on Liverpool by offering more money - he didn't leave because of the money.

In my opinion Torres is loyal - and in my opinion the Liverpool fans are bitter.

He left to a rival, and said he wanted to leave mid season 3 days before the end of the window. That is not the behaviour of a someone deserving of 16+ loyalty. I mean, he left just as Liverpool were starting to improve as well following half a crap season. If Hodgson had still been there, it'd have been understandable. If someone other than Kenny Dalglish had taken over, someone who'd championed Torres, it'd have been understandable. Loyalty is about sticking with a club through thick and thin. Not trying to stitch them.

I don't think he's totally disloyal, I said above, about 13-14 would be fair. Torres is a player who knows how to say the right things, but does something different. I don't dislike the guy, but he's not amongst the most loyal players around so 16+ would be completely undeserved.

Going into the Judas analogy like that is pointless, while they're not strictly the same situation(Only one of them actually happened for example), Judas is just used as a term for anyone who turned their back on someone they should have been loyal to for personal gain. Which he did. Maybe not financially(though I think I'm right in saying he's earning more), but because he wants to win things. And he did it at a really bad time.

[Goaline]

Lol, changed in the update possibly? I doubt it

[Smurf]

He left to a rival, and said he wanted to leave mid season 3 days before the end of the window. That is not the behaviour of a someone deserving of 16+ loyalty. I mean, he left just as Liverpool were starting to improve as well following half a crap season. If Hodgson had still been there, it'd have been understandable. If someone other than Kenny Dalglish had taken over, someone who'd championed Torres, it'd have been understandable. Loyalty is about sticking with a club through thick and thin. Not trying to stitch them.

That's a load of crap. He stuck with them through their most troublesome time, with Hicks and Gillette. New owners came in and it was the same story. So he left.

Loyalty is not about sticking through thick and thin. Loyalty is if you ask your best friend to take a bat to someones head and they do it without question. That's loyalty. Leaving a club that proved for the last 4 years that they were not ambitious enough to sign world class players is not "disloyal" it's plain common sense.

I'm delighted he left, Liverpool didn't deserve him.

I don't think he's totally disloyal, I said above, about 13-14 would be fair. Torres is a player who knows how to say the right things, but does something different. I don't dislike the guy, but he's not amongst the most loyal players around so 16+ would be completely undeserved.

He's completely loyal - as long as the promises are kept. You know players get told that the clubs ambition when they join? If Liverpool were winning the leauge and competing in the Champions League and left like that then he'd be disloyal. But he didn't. He didn't leave Liverpool in a lurch. He was loyal. He knew Suarez was coming, he didn't sign for Chelsea until Liverpool had secured Carroll. He didn't leave for a rival club. Chelsea are not one of Liverpool's rival. They are only rivals when competing for the league. Liverpool are out of the title race and were out of it before Christmas. Torres was not disloyal. He has a lot of respect for Liverpool and loyalty for every club he has ever played for. For example, there is no amount of money that would make him sign for Real Madrid. He just wouldn't and I'd be very surprised if he did ever sign for them. That's loyalty to At Madrid. He would never sign for Man City or Man United, that's loyalty to Liverpool.

Going into the Judas analogy like that is pointless, while they're not strictly the same situation(Only one of them actually happened for example), Judas is just used as a term for anyone who turned their back on someone they should have been loyal to for personal gain. Which he did. Maybe not financially(though I think I'm right in saying he's earning more), but because he wants to win things. And he did it at a really bad time.

If someone's going to use an analogy to prove a point then I'd appreciate 1) Actual true events that occurred and 2)That the analogy actually refers to the situation being talked about. It made no sense in the context it was used in.

[Chalky1989]

That's a load of crap. He stuck with them through their most troublesome time, with Hicks and Gillette. New owners came in and it was the same story. So he left.

Loyalty is not about sticking through thick and thin. Loyalty is if you ask your best friend to take a bat to someones head and they do it without question. That's loyalty. Leaving a club that proved for the last 4 years that they were not ambitious enough to sign world class players is not "disloyal" it's plain common sense.

I'm delighted he left, Liverpool didn't deserve him.

Actually sticking with a team through thick and thin is EXACTLY what true loyalty is in football terms. He didn't even give the new owners a chance and left to our rivals, the Jan transfer window is generally a crap time to buy players, and we were going for Suarez to play alongside him. Plus, it's not that before we weren't ambitious enough to sign quality players, it's that we couldn't afford it. Now we can, and he's scarpered. You're right, we didn't deserve a player who'd been sulking for a year and a half, we deserve players that want to play for us, same as any club.

He's completely loyal - as long as the promises are kept. You know players get told that the clubs ambition when they join? If Liverpool were winning the leauge and competing in the Champions League and left like that then he'd be disloyal. But he didn't. He didn't leave Liverpool in a lurch. He was loyal. He knew Suarez was coming, he didn't sign for Chelsea until Liverpool had secured Carroll. He didn't leave for a rival club. Chelsea are not one of Liverpool's rival. They are only rivals when competing for the league. Liverpool are out of the title race and were out of it before Christmas. Torres was not disloyal. He has a lot of respect for Liverpool and loyalty for every club he has ever played for. For example, there is no amount of money that would make him sign for Real Madrid. He just wouldn't and I'd be very surprised if he did ever sign for them. That's loyalty to At Madrid. He would never sign for Man City or Man United, that's loyalty to Liverpool.

That wouldn't have been loyalty. That would have been him staying around because it benefited him. You never know how loyal someone is till their loyalty is tested, and when it was, he failed. He knew Suarez was coming, which helps my argument. Suarez was being signed to partner him specifically, and was a big money signing showing Liverpool's owners being ambitious like Torres wanted. Yet he still left, we had to go and pay over the odds for Carroll to replace him. Chelsea are a rival of Liverpool, we do not like them as a club. Sure, it's not the same as the Man U or Everton rivalry, but there is a rivalry which has developed over the past 8 years or so. He had a funny way of showing respect by asking to leave mid season. Sure he might not go to Real, but we don't know that. A lot of fans would have thought the idea of him asking to leave 3 days before the end of a transfer window when we'd just began to turn our season around wouldn't happen either. He said a lot of thing. Loyalty to us would either have been staying with us till at least the end of the season, or going abroad.

If someone's going to use an analogy to prove a point then I'd appreciate 1) Actual true events that occurred and 2)That the analogy actually refers to the situation being talked about. It made no sense in the context it was used in.

It's a story with a clear message, it's quite appropriate to use it as an analogy. It's relevant, or are you saying you always object to the use of the term Judas unless the specific betrayal is financially motivated?

[Smurf]

The betrayal should be financially motivated when comparing someone to Judas.

If Judas had left Jesus for a better Jesus who had better magic tricks when Judas was promised by magic tricks by Jesus (1), but when they didn't come he became a groupie to Jesus(2) then I wouldn't say that Judas was a betrayer, I'd say he left Jesus (1) for Jesus (2) because he would be shown the magic tricks that Jesus (1) promised him.

[Bracken]

Damn that Jesus 2 and his better magic tricks

[Smurf]

Purportedly better magic tricks - I add.

[Chalky1989]

The betrayal should be financially motivated when comparing someone to Judas.

If Judas had left Jesus for a better Jesus who had better magic tricks when Judas was promised by magic tricks by Jesus (1), but when they didn't come he became a groupie to Jesus(2) then I wouldn't say that Judas was a betrayer, I'd say he left Jesus (1) for Jesus (2) because he would be shown the magic tricks that Jesus (1) promised him.

I like that you're ignoring the vast majority of the post and are only addressing a minor quibble. It's perfectly valid to use the term. Judas betrayed Jesus for personal gain.

[Smurf]

You asked me the question - I answered the question. I don't know what more I can do for you on that?

Judas didn't betray Jesus for personal gain or to further his career - he betrayed him for cash cold hard gold coins.

Now, Michael Duberry is a better example of a Judas.

[Chalky1989]

You asked me the question - I answered the question. I don't know what more I can do for you on that?

Judas didn't betray Jesus for personal gain or to further his career - he betrayed him for cash cold hard gold coins.

Now, Michael Duberry is a better example of a Judas.

Did you just ignore the vast majority of the Bold text in my reply, #86?

Oh, and cold hard cash = Personal gain

[Chris M]

Judas didn't betray Jesus for personal gain or to further his career - he betrayed him for cash cold hard gold coins.

a) It was silver (allegedly).

b) How is that not a personal gain? If someone gives me 30 pieces of silver, I have personally gained 30 pieces of silver as well as the associated opportunities this offers me, like buying 30 pieces of silver's worth of cool stuff which will benefit my life, like whatver the 30s AD equivalent of an Xbox was.

And furthering one's career is a personal gain.

[jjteo]

You asked me the question - I answered the question. I don't know what more I can do for you on that?

Judas didn't betray Jesus for personal gain or to further his career - he betrayed him for cash cold hard gold coins.

Now, Michael Duberry is a better example of a Judas.

Just drop this subject already. You are most probably quarelling with liverpool fans.

[TacticalGenius]

Going into the Judas analogy like that is pointless, while they're not strictly the same situation (Only one of them actually happened for example)

Brilliant

Anyway, fwiw, imo he is deserving of an above average loyalty, but nothing like near players such as Carragher.

And threads like this are exactly why I rarely post in GD.

[Smurf]

Aye - gold is rare. All the gold that was ever found on earth would only fill 3 olympic sized swimming pools.

Er - well Judas could have probably done with 30 pieces of silver, I don't think Torres was in the same boat.

And the 30s AD equivalent of an xBox was hula hooping with hoops made from vines.

Torres didn't leave because of the money. He didn't have anyone arrested for the money (or at all?) He simply left.

It's like saying the Titanic was disloyal because it sank.

[Smurf]

Just drop this subject already. You are most probably quarelling with liverpool fans.

No - I want to sort out this Judas thing, very unfair to Judas to be compared to Torres.

[jjteo]

Lol goodluck quarelling with em

[x42bn6]

No a loyal player with low ambition will care less about personal achievements.

A player with low ambition and high loyalty will be happy to stay at the club no matter what happens; will not strive to improve himself that much and is less likely to get unsettled by a bigger club as he is very happy with his comfort zone as long as the club wants to keep him.

A player with high ambition and high loyalty will want to stay at the club and achieve things - if that doesn't happen, he will want to stay and ensure that it does happen. Yes, eventually, he may tire of it but the point is, he at least tries to do so. An ambitious player, loyal or not, will always be looking to improve himself. This does mean that ambitious players may be more likely to leave, regardless of loyalty, but to me, this has no bearing on loyalty - loyalty should be measured depending on how they put themselves about for the club.

So if we ignore Torres's ambition to win trophies (because this is ambition, not loyalty), how would we judge Torres's loyalty?

To me, his dreadful attitude, numerous rumours about leaving, handing in a transfer request days before the window shut and brooding about a transfer for a whole year suggests disloyalty.

The fact that he wants to win trophies shows his ambition - the fact that he won't get it at Liverpool is an entirely different matter. An ambitious player, loyal or not, will want to win trophies - it just depends how long he will want to devote himself to the club in order to do so.

So, to me, he has high ambition due to wanting to win trophies, but this does not necessarily imply anything on his loyalty, which should be judged on how the player applies himself to the club's benefit. Torres clearly didn't care about the club for a whole year by brooding over a transfer and having a terrible attitude on the pitch - to me, this is disloyalty and poor professionalism.

Why on earth would a player with bags of potential that can play at a much higher level in the worlds top competitions stay with a club that doesn't compete at that level???

Ask Le Tissier. Or Shearer, who moved to his boyhood club over a bigger club.

You can be loyal to a club, have ambitions and move on from that club. It takes nothing away from how loyal you were to that club. You go to a bigger club and you give them everything and be loyal to them.

Well, yes it does. Loyalty implies devotion to a club. A parent is devoted to their child - they are willing to do anything to see them grow up happy - possibly to their own personal detriment - for example, they could be forced to give up their careers taking care of a child who has disabilities.

An ambitious player - whether loyal or not - will want to win trophies, full-stop. Therefore, to me, the fact they want to win trophies or achieve success (possibly elsewhere) is meaningless in the context of loyalty. Loyalty simply depends on how much they immerse themselves in the club's ambitions and aims. How much they contribute to the community, or how much they give back to the fans, or how much they show they are willing to stay for the long-run by signing long-term contracts even when things are going wrong, or how much they wind up opposition players, for example.

You really don't understand the term "loyal".

I believe you've confused "loyal" with "honourable", to lack a proper word. The idea that Torres promised Liverpool his loyalty conditional upon certain promises, and those promises were not met, means that Torres is somehow morally obligated to refuse his services. In other words, he would give 100% (whether Torres gave 100% in his final year-and-a-bit is debatable in itself, but I'll play along) as long as Liverpool were going to do certain things.

To me, this is not loyalty, because in the case of the parent, it is unconditional love. It is often taken as delusion or mania - like how some people in the ancient past would kill themselves if their ruler ordered them to, or how a stalker without fail stalks a celebrity. To me, this is merely "honour" (again, not the greatest word in the world to be used to describe this).

It is comparable to business - I promise to give you X bundles of wheat every month, in exchange for Y dollars. You fail to pay me, and I won't deliver. I don't deliver, and you won't pay. "Honour", or "level of clemency", perhaps. Some companies may be more tolerant of things - you, for example, might be happy to tolerate a couple of days' delay (say the weather didn't permit certain methods of travel), or I might accept a few days' delay of payment (i.e. the bank's computer systems failed).

But to me, this is not loyalty, because neither side is necessarily interested in the other's interests, short of the counterparty going bankrupt. There is no reason for me to be interested in how you make money, or for you to know how you might help me improve my wheat-gathering process, unless there is a mutual business interest (i.e. you know someone who sells tractor parts), but even if you did, it's not your obligation - these things only happen because of things like friendship, where one party feels a certain degree of loyalty or kinship towards the other.

In other words, our businesses have a mutual interest in helping each other out for the sake of helping each other out (possibly with benefits, possibly without). This is loyalty - unconditional faithfulness or interest in the other side's benefit.

At the start there you're saying you "imagine" and towards the end you shift to a definitive statement. You're making that up as you go along.

I say "I would imagine" because this is seemingly how the game has interpreted it. Look at the editor - I am sure Anelka has a low loyalty level; that Del Piero has a high loyalty value; that Buffon has a high loyalty value; that Le Tissier in the past had a high loyalty value; that Rui Costa in the past had a high loyalty level, and so on.

Tevez is not loyal - he moved to a Rival club. Will he move to another club? Yeh if he's not getting his game at City he'll move on. That's not disloyalty, that's a player wanting to play football. If he moved to a Man City rival he's even more disloyal than I think he is. If he turned around and said "I couldn't play for another club in England and play against Man City" then he would be more loyal.

Silvestre moved to Arsenal but all Manchester United fans would not call him "disloyal". He fought for his place when Evra and Heinze were ahead of him and he only left because it was hopeless.

Peter Schmichael and Denis Law are well-regarded by both halves of Manchester despite moving between both sides. Denis Law in particular would never be considered "disloyal" by either side of Manchester, even though he played brilliantly for both sides.

Sir Matt Busby - played as a Blue (and for Liverpool), managed as a Red - is highly-regarded on both sides of Manchester, and was loyal to all the sides he played for and managed, despite the fact his playing career could hardly be at first glance any appropriate when it came to managing Manchester United.

Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard, both Everton fans (from birth and as a youngster), both giving their all for Liverpool (except one incident in Gerrard's case). Loyal, although understandably perhaps Carragher more loyal than Gerrard.

The fact that a rival club is meaningless - crossing a rivalry divide in itself doesn't necessarily mean anything. Arguably none of these deserve loyalty 20, but I would still call them more loyal than Torres.

Anelka is loyal - he's 4 seasons at Chelsea. He never settled at other clubs. He wanted to play for a top team and be a good player. That's ambition. Once he found that club he always wanted he has stuck with them. He was not loyal in the past - he moved around a lot. But he changed his attitude and he is now a very loyal player.

Anelka has no incentive to move from a club that pays him large wages and at his age, there really is no point in moving because he will be looking to settle down.

[Bracken]

Could we not just think it possible that perhaps SI failed to change his loyalty stat before the patch came out? Is that completely impossible?

I think most people (and probably SI) agree that in light of his transfer to Chelsea, he doesn't deserve this high a loyalty attribute. However, before that, it's possible that many people felt he did deserve it. I think someone at SI just hadn't bothered to change the attribute.