The shield of 'ambition'

Your article whinges about players moving to stronger clubs as though this is somehow a failing, or a new phenomenon.

Guess what..? Lescott, Jagielka, Cahill all moved to Everton because we were bigger & better than their previous teams too...

However, the latter part of your piece reminded me of the preference I have for Everton's battling work ethic, than the undoubtedly hollow accomplishments of Man.City.

That said, we were once referred to as the Mersey Millionaires, so I guess 'achievement,' is always, in part, purchased.

Kevin I've got no problems with players moving. Lescott, Jagielka and Cahill all wanted to play in the Premier League so they moved. I can even understand those who move for money, at least they're honest about it.

Arteta's exit was fine; he wanted to play in the Champions League – he even took a pay cut to get it and joined a team who probably won't win anything because he wanted to play in that competition. He didn't insult his team mates on the way out though by saying that they lack ambition.

What annoys me is that players just disguise their glory hunting as some sort of ambitious virtue they possess that others don't. This is absolutely untrue, I'm not having a whinge about players leaving.

Moving to a club that has a better chance of silverware IS ambition, James.

Cottee chose us over Arsenal for the exact reason that you find objectionable.

Can't help thinking that you are conflating a few different things James, just to have a go at Rodwell and Fellaini (who you seem to have a big problem with anyway). Just because he got a pay rise rather than having to take a pay-cut, how can you dismiss Rodwell's move to Citeh as simply 'glory hunting'?

If you know anything about the sporting mentality then you should be aware that ambitious players always want to play in the best teams and the best competitions because that is were you truly measure yourself against the best. If a shed-load of money comes with the package, then that just makes it all the better.

It is the players who choose to remain as 'big fish' in 'small ponds' who are the true glory hunters, relying on their status as the top talent to gain them the adulation of thousands. Either that or they are simply happy to play at a level were they are comfortable which could be termed as 'unambitious' (if playing at the highest level you can achieve is the chosen definition of ambition).

Until Fellaini (and Rodwell) moves to a bigger club and is happy to warm the bench, or to a club with no better prospects than Everton simply for more money, then he has (they have) done nothing to attract such denigratory labels.

Incidentally, I have always been surprised at the high regard that Martin O'Neill seems to be held in by a lot of people. To my mind he is a fairly average manager, as is evinced by his failure to out compete EFC when at Villa and spending Lerner's cash pretty freely.

That kind of ambitious loyalty is seen very rarely, in fact only Steve Bull springs to mind as an example He narrowly failed to get Wolves all the way up from the 4th to the 1st Division, but at least he's now got a stand named after him at Molineux!

James... I've few issues with your article. Firstly, the Fabregas comments are very misplaced. One of his primary reasons for moving back to Barca, was his affiliation with the club, having come through the youth system at Barca, and because Guardialo was one of his role models. He also should never had played in the match you refer to his back-heel mistake... he was nowhere near fit enough. I also think the idea the idea that Arsenal could have won the champ league, if one moment hadn't happened in a quarter final is a bit of a stretch... especially given their end of season drop off. They could have won the Champions League of course... as could we if Ferguson's goal had not been chalked off... but it is a bit of a stretch

Also...the premise of much of your article... the idea of one player dragging a team up with him. I fundamentally disagree with it. Gerrard had alot of influence for Liverpool... but he did it in a team with the likes of Alonso and Mascherano in... what has happened in the last three season's? Team's these days, obtain success through a collection of great players... Barca are not great because of Messi... but because of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta, Busquets and Mascherano... not to mention the others. United were not great because of Keane, but Keane and the others... etc etc and Modric, could never, drag Spurs up to the level of Real Madrid... it is not possible. Messi couldn't, and he is possibly, the greatest footballer in history.

I think you article is extremely subjective, and simplistic. You talk about players not wanting to work hard... how exactly did they become great footballers in the first place? do you think they were just born with it? And If Fabregas wants to win trophies... should he stay with a team, who typically sell at least one top senior a season, or should he move to a club which invests heavily in the team, and who have a far better squad? Objectively, should Fellaini, if he wants to win trophies, stay with us, or go to City, or United or even Real? and if you've an interest in Journalism... and get an offer with one of the major tabloids, do you stay with your local paper?

Also...what is more of a challenge for a Fellaini... staying at a club he is safe in, guaranteed of starting and admiration... or testing yourself in a club with the best players in the world... And using your logic, should Fellaini have not stayed at Liege?

One more thing about Gerrard...he was on the cusp of a move to Chelski, and then his house was vandalised, he received death threats etc etc...imo he got scared, and in doing so, said goodbye to many more trophies, and quite probably, a much better career. He is a paradigm of loyalty in a disloyal age... but objectively, given that he has never won the league title he yearns for, was his decision correct? and was it courage, or fear, that motivated it?

Football is business. When Cahill stopped being valuable for us, many of the toffeeweb posters criticised him, and stated that we should sell him...the Tim Cahill, Mr Loyal, who we brought for £1.5million, and who, imo, stands up as one of the best finds of Moyes era', and one of the best championship finds of the premier league period. But we were fine in letting him go, or most of us at least, because we had got what we wanted from Cahill. In fact, it was because of the club's/fans ambition, that many believed we should let Cahill go.

Now why, should Fellaini, or whoever, show loyalty to their club? Especially when they've been purchased, rather than progressed through the youth system. It's nice when they do, but football is both a business, and a means for self-satisfaction...if a player believes they can do better somewhere else, both in terms of wages, and success... why shouldn't they move? We received £12mil (and rising) for Rodwell, and will get over £20mil for Fellaini. We've done well out of them, and they've done well out of us. And if Fellaini goes, I’ll be annoyed, I’ll be sad, but ultimately I will understand his decision... because objectively, I know, this club cannot offer him the success he could achieve elsewhere.

An excellent article, James. The sense of entitlement of many professional footballers is mind boggling. Kevin, moving to a club with a better chance of silverware is indeed ambition. It might well show contempt for your team mates and quite often is a symptom of an over-inflated ego but, hey, it's good to be ambitious.

Jim, Mr Loyal Cahill earned a fortune from us, I like him but we didn't consign him to the poor house. I cannot and will not respect the decision of men under obscene lucrative contracts to fuck off because they believe they are better than their team mates.

I reckon that anyone can live on £1million a year so when one of these ambitious types takes a significant pay cut to achieve their goals, well I'll praise them to the roof tops. Yes, I believe Arteta did but I doubt he'll be pawning gold to live his dreams.

Martin; common sense piece, many people and footballers don't have the degree of self-knowledge to see the 'real' picture, we can and do kid ourselves into believing anything.

Kevin Hudson: Although the Mersey Millionaires tag was to some extent valid, all John Moores did was guarantee the loans, we still had to pay them. Unlike City and Chelsea, whose cash was effectively written off the day it was given.

As has been stated on numerous occasions (short version): if you want loyalty, get a dog.

Jim, why couldn't Arsenal have won the Champions League that year? A team with Fabregas and Van Persie in the semis of a competition with the favourites already knocked out? Who would have thought Chelsea could win it last year.

I think we are arguing different points; yes, some great teams have many great players in, some others however (such as the Liverpool vintage of 2005 pre Mascherano, Torres, Reina) do not.

Gerrard was worried about winning trophies and was being courrted by Chelsea. The easy thing would have been to jump ship to Chelsea. Instead, he stayed and inspired his team to the European Cup. At that time, they were probably as likely as we would be to win it (should we ever get back in it); that was ambition. Moving to Chelsea to pick up their obligatory trophy per season would not have been ambition.

Jim, your last line says it all: "This club cannot offer him the success he could achieve elsewhere." We shouldn't be offering him anything, he's a part of this club, he should be making his own success here, not waiting for it to be offered to him.

If he really wanted to be in the Champions League, he wouldn't have missed the sitter against West Brom or let his man loose on the corner; he has cost us those three points but, at the end of the season, he won't be blaming himself as to why we didn't make it – he'll be distancing himself from us, citing himself to have a level of ambition that we couldn't offer him.

Reaching that consistent high level required to get to the Champions League though won't matter to him when he's on the bench at Madrid or Man City, letting everyone else do the work though. He'll come on, play about ten games of the season, and pick up a nice shiny league medal. Far harder to be at your best for 38 league games, take the responsibility of being a team's star player, inspire those aorund you, and aim for something truly ambitious.

Osman, Hibbert, Neville – dead certs in the team, inspire all you want... might as well smash your forehead into a wall.

Perhaps Felli has woken up to the fact that a lot of us on TW have known for a long long time — Everton will never win a trophy with tactically inept big-game bottler Davey boy in charge.

Peter, naughty, naughty. Remember that DM knows something about football and tactics and you know nothing.

Excellent article, James, and one I agree with entirely. I remember back in the late 80s and 90s, Michael Jordan was the star player of a Chicago Bulls basketball team that was otherwise quite poor. I think they went 3-4 seasons when they would go the Playoffs, but the lack of quality in the rest of the squad meant that they could never quite make it to the Finals.

Jordan could easily have been frustrated by lack of trophies and jumped ship to a 'bigger' team (Lakers, and at that time, Pistons, etc). But he stuck to the Bulls, and the rest as they say, is history (5 Championships, or was it more, and the unofficial title of the greatest basketball player in the history of the game).

Now, that is ambition, desire and sportsmanship.

Half agree with you James, as an Everton fan I cant imagine anything better than playing at Goodison, but thats biased. For me, players citing winning trophies as a reason for leaving does show a level of ambition, but it still makes me pissed off! Lescott for example, left as first choice centre back in one of the best pairings in the country, England squad member, regular scorer and well liked by the fans. He may now have a couple of medals, and more money, but is he a better player? Does he get as much playing time? Is he as appreciated at his club as he was before?

Matt le Tissier was once asked if he regretted not joining another team and winning medals, he replied something to the effect of "Lots of players can say they have won more medals than me, but how many can say they were better players?".

"Lescott, Jagielka and Cahill all wanted to play in the Premier League so they moved"

James, applying your logic surely these players should have shown 'ambition' by backing themselves to help their respective clubs achieve promotion to the Premier League instead of joining a Premier League club?

Why is it okay for them to want to move to play at a higher level than say, Fellaini if he leaves us?

Martin Mason# 764 So please enlighten us as one who "KNOWS". What exactly has Davey boys footballing genius and tactical prowess brought to Everton in the past 10 years. Apart from top half of the Prem 'survival' a solitary 'top four' finish and a solitary LOSING Cup Final appearance along with plenty of boring defensive KITAP football .

Are you one of those countless TW Moyesophiles who think that is SATISFACTORY.

Waiting..................................

Noel its different because these players moved for the professional challenge, they were not guaranteed trophies at Everton (as we've all painfully found out). They probably also moved for the money and the prestige of the premier league. Players like Rodwell have the money and the premier league already, they''re already in a team that could grace the champions league if it could only improve by a small amount, it owuld probably only take one great season of everyone in form to do it. If I honestly thought that half these players who moved were doing so purely for the challenge of the champions league then it wouldn't bother me, but they don't. Arteta did, hence why he took a pay cut and mvoed to Arsenal, he'd given the best of his career with us and in his twilight years wanted one taste of the big time. Arsenal are in the champions league every year yet it didn't stop Nasri and Fabregas moving on because they had, according to them 'ambition'. So did Van Persie apparently, which begs the question why they couldn't of played together in the same team and achieved their ambition, far easier just to blame the other 8 members of the team and move to somewhere guaranteed to win something. Both Fabregas and Nasri now have despite playing minor roles far less than they did at Arsenal. At some point the blame for clubs not achieving their ambitions have to lie with the star players who are responsible for that rather than them just blaming the rest of the club and then claiming that they haven't offered them trophies. Trophies are there to be earnt not just picked up as some sort of welcome packet to the club, a guarantee when you sign on the dotted line. Fabregas and Nasri never did enough to deserve a trophy at Arsenal, the same way Fellaini hasn't done enough to earn a trophy at Everton.

Martin now your being interesting!! Looking between the lines of whats being said and forming an opinion its amazing how cynical you can be of a player and how those Kenwright tinted specs come on when ever anyone questions the running of the club , however whats that cracker you always come out with "you are not a football player you don't really know" one things for sure Feli knows that hes at a selling club a club that now has 19 or is it 18 senior professionals now that Belgian debacle has come to light, whilst we have paper thin squad that is now already under pressure due to injuries he will be lucky to win a cup!!

S Bull 'at least he's now got a stand named after him at Molineux'

Custer also has a STAND named after him - The Little Bighorn

S Bull had a funny head-dress and Custer had long hair - remind you of anyone?

I think an alternative way of viewing this is that nothing much has really changed, other than the scale of things, over the last few decades.

There's always been a shifting power-base in football. Teams at the top usually stay at or around the top for a period of time, until someone else emerges from the pack, and they slip back. The only exceptions to this in recent times, in terms of league winners, was Blackburn and Leeds Utd - who both spent big to win the title, and both dropped back for different reasons, basically unable to build on that success.

Our last flirtation at the top was all-too brief, 3 top 2 finishes, then 4th then boom, as mis-management off the pitch was matched by the mis-management on it.

For players as well there has always been the move for more money, masquerading as moving to a club with more ambition. Sometimes the player moves because the club refuses to pay him what he wants (Steve McMahon wanted an extra £10 a week if I recall, HK wanted shot of him). In Rooney's case he was clearly going to get both - medals and the money. Lescott probably looked at City and thought with their resources they'll be regular CL (and bear in mind this would effectively "lock out" another position for us), and now has an FA Cup and Championship medal.

Ambition at Club Level is probably different than what it was pre the Sky influx of money. Club Chairman in the EPL want to stay there, and Clubs outside want to be there. Blackpool didn't spend big for their one season flirtation, but banked enough money from that, and subsequent player sales, to spend on ground work and pay their owners handsomely.

The gamble in chasing the top 4 and the riches that CL and sponsorship value increases bring is probably going to get more intense when the next overseas TV deal is announced in a few months. For fans, ambition is a strange concept as one fan's ambition is another's pipe dream.

Too much money does flow out of the game, especially if you consider players' wages as money going out. The question is often asked what would happen if players weren't on such big contracts. Well, there would be much less indebtedness amongst clubs, but probably clubs would then be seen as cash cows by owners and we'd be back to the dark days of carpet-bagging owners. The only way this would be avoided is if there was a controlled reduction in the TV deal values - but this is anathema to those driving the Premier League brand, and illegal as the TV market is contestable (in theory).

I don't blame the players but if I were a director at a club I would even consider unilaterally
- adhering to a strict players wage budget - they'd still be millionaires, but with some tax-legal investments players would be taken care of for the rest of their lives, negating the need for the likes of the Former Players' Foundation in the long run, and maybe younger players would have some more desire about trying to make it to the first team, rather than getting the next Baby Bentley.
- getting the club on a profitable trading position, where profits can be invested back into the team, or even paid as a dividend to the owners.

Of course in my Utopian vision the fans would be the ultimate owners, and could take said-dividend as a reduction in the following season's ticket prices. If DM wants to splash the cash one summer, then you can blame him for the inflation-linked increase the following year!

James...Arsenal could have won it...but anyone 'could' win it...we are dealing with probabilities. Firstly, there is nothing to say that Arsenal's defeat was determined by Fabregas' back-heel...Barcelona were the better team in the match, and the better team over-all. You can't isolate one moment in a two legged tie, and state with certainty that it defined the match, unless you have a machine which allows you to explore alternate realities. Why would Arsenal have automatically gone through, if Fabregas hadn't made an error? And even if they had of, as I referenced before, their form dropped off (as a consequence of a lack of senior depth) in the latter part of the season, and they would still have had to beat top teams to do so.

But anyway. How can you say stuff like:

'If he really wanted to be in the Champions League, he wouldn't have missed the sitter against West Brom or let his man loose on the corner; he has cost us those three points...?'

Are you even being serious with that comment? Is Fellaini meant to play perfectly because he wants Champions League Football...I could list a whole host of errors from top players which probaly cost them matches and potentially tournaments...(Messi/RVP most obviously) but what's the point? surely you can see such thinking is nonsensical. Fellaini is a great player...he may have off days, he may miss chances, but he has the ability to play in a team fighting for champions league football. Do you really believe he could achieve the level of success he could with us, as he could with Real or Man City? please, confirm this for me....Do you believe one player can drag a team of good, possible europa league players, to the top of their league, and make them european contenders?

And James...why would Fellaini be on the bench at City? why do you assume his ambition is to sit on the sidelines? I believe that, if Fellaini went there today, he would start over half their league matches, and be a fundamental part of the team. Fellaini isn't Rodwell...he is a far better player, and we've all seen him dominate matches in ways which only top players can.

Now please actually answer the questions I've raised this time...most especially, whether, given your logic, Fellaini should have stayed at Liege, Baines at Wigan etc etc and whether one player can actually bring a team of our level, to the level of City, United etc.

And I can't disagree more about Gerrard and Chelsea...Ambition is about achievement...and Gerrard would certainly have achieved more at Chelsea than Liverpool. He was also on the brink of leaving, until the disreputable actions of Liverpool's supporters....he stayed, and yes, he has a champions league to show for it, but how many league titles? and is this a way, for a player of Gerrard's quality to end his career? in the last three seasons, Chelsea have won the league title, the FA cup twice and the Champions league. Liverpool have won the Carling cup, and finished 7th, 6th and 8th. Now, don't get me wrong, I think his loyalty was honourable, and something we all yearn for in our players...but you talk of ambition, and staying at Liverpool, was not ambitious.

I want Fellaini to stay...but I won't begrudge him a move. He owes us respect, he should in no way disrupt the squad if he wants a move...but he doesn't owe us more than that. If a better club come in for, a club which offers the trophies we can't currently offer because of financial restrictions, and they offer a fair amount, then he will, and objectively should, go.

To answer your questions Jim. Of course its purely hypothetical whether Arsenal would of/could of won the champions league that year. My point is that Fabregs and other players have to accept their culpability in their own teams failings to realise that ambition. He constantly claimed that arsenal couldn't match his yet the backheel (whatever its implications for that game, athough it did cost them a goal) is a prime example of that top player being a part of his own teams downfall. I'm trying to highlight the way they disassociate themselves from their team's failings as though in some way its not thier own and its apparently someone elses fault that they're not being 'offered' trophies.

Of course Fellaini will win more trophies at Madrid or City, I'm not disputing that, I'm arguing that merely winning is not ambition. Hibbert could win trophies with Real Madrid, even Rodwell will probably end up with a league title, but is this ambition? Depends on your definition, I've outlined mine, it appears different to yours, that's fine.

My point about Fellaini missing is once again highlighting top players inability to recognise their own culpability in a team's performance. Quite happy to take the adulation when they're the star and win, but will blame the team for not matching their ambition if they don't achieve their goals. But in how many of the big games (not Man U in the league which is not a big game but FA cup semis, finals, derbies) has Fellaini affected his own fate? Does Fabregas ever recognise that if he'd played better he could have a carling cup and possibly a champions league to his name?

A top player can't drag a team to th top of a league, you need unbelievable consistency from every member to win the league. Gerrard has shown however that one top player can get you consistently into the top 4 and can win you trophies almost singlehandedly. Quite simply Fellaini is not the top player Gerrard was, he doesn't drive us beyond our means, in fact we finished higher in the league with lesser players before he arrived. We seem to finsih every year exactly where we should finish. He's a part of that league finish not separate from it. If him, Baines, Pienaar, Jelavic Jagielka and Heitinga were playing at a champions legaue level for a whole season we robably would make it, yet they're not they're playing at a 7th in the league level and there's only so long you can keep blaming Moyes or Hibbert or Osman for this.

Is Fellaini better than Toure, absolutely not, better than Silva or Nasri absolutely not, this leaves the defensive positions only, and is Mancini going to really reunite the crab twins in midfield? That was probably the crappst midfield pairing seen under Moyes's reign and led us to one of our dourest starts to a season, why would anyone replicate that?

I disagree on Gerrad. That one European cup will mean more to him than any medal he would of won at Chelsea. But then you finish your post talking about which clubs can 'offer' Fellaini trophies which shows you've missed my point altogether.

James Martin - really good post, point and debate.

Your article prompted me to have a look in the Dictionary and the definition of ambition is "the desire to achieve or do something", whereas being "ambitious" is "having or showing ambition" and importantly "intended to satisfy high aspirations and therefore difficult to achieve".

So, I'm with you. If Rodwell wins a title medal with Man City is he going to feel he satisfied his own high aspirations and was instrumental in achieving that title, which is undoubtedly difficult to achieve? Or is he going to look in the mirror and think he might have a medal, but is the achievement really his?

Like them or loathe them I think players like Gerrard, Rooney, Terry, Drogba, Lampard, Toure, Aguerro etc can look at their medals and know they've earned them. I guess it all boils down to how much of a difference you feel you've need made in realising an achievement for that ambition to be satisfied. If you're going to Man Utd, City or Chelsea because they're the only team who are realistically going to win anything then what are you adding to the party there, if they're likely to pick up silverware anyway? Or are you just along for the ride?

I agree with a lot of what James has wrote. When I was a kid I never had any interest in playing for the best team, as long as I was playing with my mates I was happy. My school team was the best and we won the league every year but my Sunday league side was a mid-table team and when we finally won a cup it meant a whole lot more because I felt we'd earned it rather than being expected to win.

If I was a profession footballer i'd want to play in the top flight because i'd want to play against the best but not be the best. I would get more satisfaction out of being remembered as a great player by the fans of a team like West Brom rather than winning trophies at Man U and being quickly forgot by the fans because I would just be one of countless top players the club has had.

I've not missed your point James... I just fundamentally disagree with the rigid way you look at ambition. You suggest consistently that moving does not show ambition... whereas I think in most people's eyes, a progressive career move (and a move from Arsenal to Barca, or Everton to City is generally progressive) displays ambition. I also notice that you keep avoiding answering whether Fellaini should have stayed at Liege or Baines at Wigan... For using the basis of your argument, Baines should have tried to have made Wigan a better team and Fellaini should have tried to improve Liege, and generated team success through personal success. Or is it ok to stay at a club, which your subjective judgement deems good enough? and if so, what is the marker for staying or moving on?

Of course, any case has to be looked at in terms of the individual involved. Rodwell to City, imo, was not an ambitious move, because he is not going to play. I believe when Fabregas moved to Barca, he believed he would become an essential component of the team, and similarly if Fellaini moved to City, I believe he would be an essential component. However, I only refer to City as speculation, with regards to a future destination. Looking at the top teams, I think United probaly more obviously need a combatitive midfielder than City.

And I really disagree with your belief that if 5 of our players were playing at champ league quality for the whole season, then we would get or would have got champions league football. To assert that, ignores the rest of the league, and the bigger squads of those around us. Last season, for instance, of the 5 players I believe are capable of producing champions league quality, only three started the season in our colours. We were completely missing creativity and a finisher until the end of January, had one of the smallest squads in the division and based on net spending/wages, should have really finished 10-12th in the division (I guesstimate that purely based on the fact we had been the lowest spenders for the previous few windows, and had chopped our wages extensively since the last wage figures were announced). I believe the form of Pienarr and Jelavic, not to mention the consistent performances of Baines, Heitinga, and, Fellaini, caused our seventh place finish.

Notably, in the second half of the season league, when we had all five players involved, we finished fifth. However, even with those players, we were not man for man, or in terms of our squad, a match for those who finished in the champions league positions, (or of Chelsea in sixth). Spurs had the squad depth to allow Defoe, Pienarr and Kranjcar to sit consistently on the bench...whereas they would have all been essential elements in our side. Similarly, Arsenal had the likes of Theo, RVP, Arteta and Song in their team, not to mention the likes of Arshavin and Bendtner out on loan/on the bench. We simply could not match those teams in terms of the first 11 we could play, especially until the January arrivals, or in terms of the squads they could put out.

Imo, this season, we have improved the squad, and thus will, over the course of the season, be closer to every team that finished above us last season, with the possible exception of Chelsea(who I believe will flatter to deceive this season, because they will be caught out defensively in tougher matches, but should nonetheless finish top four).

Also, in response to your assertion to the contrary, I would argue that, for his position, Fellaini is comparably a better player than Nasri. I would say Fellaini is one of the best central midfielders in the division, whereas Nasri was very poor for City last season, and only really consistently played to a world class standard in his last season for Arsenal.

I think my belief in Fellaini's ability is, beyond my perceptions of his performances in person or via television coverage, authenticated by his playing stats. Whilst his passing is suspect sometimes, and needs improvement, he won a higher percentage of tackles and headers than any other central midfielder in the division last season. I think, long term, he should be playing alongside Gibson, and if he stays fit, will be out of the league's outstanding players this season.

"If you're going to Man Utd, City or Chelsea because they're the only team who are realistically going to win anything then what are you adding to the party there, if they're likely to pick up silverware anyway? Or are you just along for the ride?" - Amen Mike, it's not ambition, it's selfishness and greed. I want medals and more money.

The likelihood is that City, United and Chelski are going to win silverware in the next season or two, so what is ambitious about joining a winning team? Apart from getting more money and having a slice of the pie when it comes to medals.

Jim we could argue all day about how we judge Fellaini in comprison to other midfielders in the league. Stats can also be cherry picked to fit whichever point you're trying to make. Bilyaletdinov was statistically our fastest player, yet most would say he always looked slow. Fellaini has been run past more than any player in our team. Stats go both ways. That's not the the main point of this post.

I've already said you disagree with my definition of ambition, fair enough, we really won't get any further.

To answer your point about Baines from Wigan, back then they were a million miles behind us. Baines probably wanted a crack at European football (not to mention joining his boyhood club), and he probably wanted a decent wedge. We weren't 'offering' him trophies, although he's had the opportunity through his own contribution to the team to win some, he didn't move just to be a part of some trophy party, however he had played with Wigan he could never have got them to the level Everton were at.

Everton are different; we are constantly on the cusp of European qualification, we clearly have trophy winning potential judging by our recent trips to Wembley and we have numerous top class talent. It would not be unfeasable for Everton to qualify for the champions league or win trophies. We just won't be doing it as regularly or as often as City and Madrid.

Players seem to be moving to those clubs just because of the guaranteed trophies on offer, ignoring the trophy potential of teams such as Everton that could be realised if players like Fellaini (regardless of my personal views on him) stayed and took responsibility for their own failings as to why their team hasn't won anything rather than just looking around for the nearest team that probably will in the future.

Ridiculous post having a cheap dig at Rodwell & Fellaini.

Firstly, the Rodwell bashing - I don't recall him ever asking to leave or forcing a move? From what I can gather the club thought the money the would receive for him would be better used to strengthen other areas of the squad, so they accepted the bid.

Secondly James, may I ask - in your opinion, when is the transfering of a player from one club to another acceptable becuase there seems to be a large grey area in the players you've already mentioned?

From what I can gather, Arteta was fine with you because he deserved a shot at the Champions League (why he couldn't single handedly guide us there is another days work), Nasri wasn't (despite picking up his first premier league medal since moving), Fabregas wasn't (he should have stayed away from joining arguably the greatest footballing team in a generation, not to mention his home town club), Jags and Cahill were fine (because they wanted to move to the Premier League. but they only moved to a top 8 club - which is why it fine, because if they moved to the top they could be seen to clearly lack ambition, I think?). What about Baines? He should have stayed with Wigan surely?

Bizarre.

James, your last post on Baines is so hypocritical it is unreal.

1) ‘Baines probably wanted a crack at European football (not to mention joining his boyhood club), and he probably wanted a decent wedge.

Remove Baines’ name, and insert Fabregas, with the addition he may win a few trophies aswell.

2) ‘…however he had played with Wigan he could never have got them to the level Everton were at.'

I agree, but didn't you say Gerrard played so well he got Liverpool to Milan/Madrid/Barca's level? Also, Fellaini will never play well enough to get us to City/Chelseas/Uniteds level.

3) ‘…Players seem to be moving to those clubs just because of the guaranteed trophies on offer, ignoring the trophy potential of teams such as Everton…’

You say it as though all players have the choice, but only an elite few get signed by these teams at the top – so if you are one of these players, then turning your back on playing at the very top could even be seen as a lack of ambition or faith in your own ability.

It appears players are allowed leave lower clubs for Everton because we don’t win trophies. But if they move from Everton to title-challenging sides, they LACK ambition.

Tony...City, United and Chelski are going to win things..because they have the best players. Surely every player, wants to test themselves at the highest level, and ambition dictates this? some criticise Pele, or rather demean his record, because he never proved himself in a european league(unfair imo, as South America booasted a high level of domestic ability in Pele's era than now). If Neymar stayed in Brazil for the rest of his career...would that be ambition? When I played football for a local youth team in my early teens, I always hankered to play for seniors...because I wanted to test myself at a higher level. Surely, every footballer playing in a team outside the top four, wants to play champions league football (and have a chance of winning the CL)? and how can it be unambitious to do so?

I think we, as a club, offer a problem, because of our financial situation. I think we will win a trophy in the next 5 years, but would any player, with ambitions of becoming the best, objectively, show ambition by staying at Everton? unless we get a buyer, objectively, we have no viable prospect of short-term progression, because we will have to finish above several teams who invest 20mil plus more in their team than we do each season.

I also think, because of the representation of the greedy footballer (not without reason of course), ambition and greed are conflated. What does everyone think of Arteta's move? he moved, for lower wages, to a team which offered 1) less chances of a starting place 2) but more chance of winning a major trophy and participating in the Champions League. Based on, some of the notions expressed in this thread, however, some would seemingly suggest that this move was not ambitious?
And similarly, what of Fabregas? he has, in my opinion, been mis-represented in this thread. For one, he returned to the club that he began his career at. Next, he played for 7? seasons at Arsenal, and won one trophy, and saw a plethora of international talent leave. And, he contributed a part of his salary (1mil euros a year) to faciliate his move to Barca. His intentions were not monetary, because he could have hankered for a move to a club which would have paid more in wages, and for whom he wouldnt have had to pay a wage contribution. He was clearly motivated by a desire to play alongside the best, and win trophies.

And why, finally, is it selfish for players to want to win medals?

Clearly however, some of us are at cross-purposes, because the term ambition is itself varied Ambition is success, but it is also a personal representation of success. For Gerrard, as pointed out, the Champ League medal might bring him more personal satisfaction than anything he could have won elsewhere(although I maintain, based on his constant comments, that he wants a league title)...but then maybe for Fabregas, the league title at Barca, the club he grew up watching, would mean more than winning the title with Arsenal.

James, I thought you defended yourself quite well, until you mentioned the Baines stuff...

How can you argue that Baines should move (i.e a move from a relegation contender to a european contender), but that Fellaini or others shouldnt (a move from 6-8th place team, to title challengers). By prescribing such subjective reasoning, you defeat your argument imo. Of course we offer a bigger chance of success than Wigan...that's the whole point of this argument. And Man City offer a bigger chance of success than we do.

There is, essentially, no difference in Baines moving from Wigan to us, than from us, to Manchester United. He would make both moves with an expectation, but not guarantee, of 1) starting every match 2) of receiving higher wages 3) of increasing his chance of trophies, and playing at a higher level.

Not one bit GJ, all I'm saying is that the 'virtue' of ambition is used too often by modern day footballers as an excuse as to why they angle for moves to top clubs. I'm merely arguing the definition of ambition.I'd rather they just came out and said either 'i'm cash hungry' or 'I just want to win easy trophies and lot of them', neither of which in my mind is the definition of ambition. I just grow tired of players leaving clubs, almost insulting them by citing a lack of ambition on behalf of their former employers, only to go to a club where they're sitting on the bench picking up easy trophies seemingly basking in their own 'ambition'.

Agree completely with GJ and Jim – it makes no sense to understand Jags and Lescott moving to Everton ('for the money and the prestige of the Premier League'), but to criticize Rodwell for also moving for, presumably, the money and the prestige of winning the premier league....

You seem to make the assumption that the players you've accused of greedy ambition have just moved to spend their days sitting on the bench, and picking up medals won by other superior players. Nasri made 31 Premier League appearances for Man City last year – more than he'd ever made in a season for Arsenal. Similarly, another of your targets, Fabregas, played 48 times for his home town club last year – the last time he'd played that many for the club that poached him all those years ago was 2006-07. Even Rodwell has featured in every City game so far this season – I'm not 100% convinced he would have done the same at Everton...

Moving clubs is part and parcel of the game. I hope that anyone joining Everton can also be accused of wanting to win trophies. We raised Rodwell, and then sold him when we thought he wasn't going to quite cut it – we used the money to buy players we think will. It's business, and club plays the game just as much as the players. And if Fellaini goes then we will again have made a serious profit, in addition to having enjoyed a very good footballer for a good stretch of his career.

I am quite surprised by the article, especially the difference from players moving to Everton and other players.

What is the difference between Baines moving to Everton or Fabregas moving to Barca?

In terms of ambition, nothing! They both joined bigger or more successful clubs. It's a load of rubbish to critcise Fellaini or Rodwell, when Jags, Baines or Lescott did exactly the same thing - move to (currently) a more successful club! It's very hypocritical.

And James, how can you excuse Arteta and not Fellaini? If Fellaini wants to leave, he'd want to move for Champ League football, Arteta moved for Champ League football. Yet you criticise one and excuse the other for both supposedly wanting the same thing.

It is a very personal dig on Fellaini, and I've seen from previous posts from James, you don't rate him that highly.

He also dismissed these rumours on his Facebook site anyway.

I think one of the points james is trying to make about Fellaini is that he has voiced his "ambition", not simply put his head down, played his game and earned the transfer he now apparently (according to the press) desires. Arteta went without fuss. He could have left before, but didnt. When he did leave he didnt make a big deal of it. Graveson too, who begrudged him a move to Madrid? He played well, did his job and got a chance at one of the worlds biggest clubs.

With dues to Rodwell, he also went respectfully, and I bear him no ill will.

Baines played himself into a move away, didnt force the issue though. Jags the same.

From my perspective, there is nothing wrong with a player wanting to better himself and get to the top of the game, be it with his current team, or by earning a move to a club that is playing at a higher level. But as fan of the club Fellaini is currently playing for, I don't want to be told that being ambitious doesnt include playing on the ground I dreamed of playing on as a kid. But hey, I suppose that was my ambition, not his!

I mentioned it on another thread, apart from the second half of last season and the first couple of games this season, Fellaini hasn't set the world alight the rest of the time with us, he hasn't actually been that good.

I am a bit lost here, when did Moyes get offered the Celtic job? When did he get offered the Scotland job? When did he get offered a job in the Middle East?

Once again unfounded, incorrect articles make Moyes out to be something he isn't, which is an in-demand manager. We have had him for ten years; if he had got a top money offer, he would have been off faster than Fellaini, Lescott, Rodwell etc.

Barely disguised Moyes eulogy.

Next time substitute "comfortable" for "ambitious" regarding Moyes and we might be getting somewhere.

"What does everyone think of Arteta's move? He moved, for lower wages, to a team which offered 1) less chances of a starting place 2) but more chance of winning a major trophy and participating in the Champions League" – In all the time Arteta was at Everton, I don't think Arsenal won a single trophy.

Watched that film Moneyball last. Would never have cast brad Pitt in the Moyes role, it should have gone to Kevin mckidd!

In today's game if you want loyalty and players playing for their shirt and locality then that is what the existence of international football is for. If you want capitalist driven football then it's club football.