Chelsea Football Club

Comments

  • bluefusion198
    228 posts Has Potential To Be Special
    De Bruyne is average, don't buy the hype into him. None of the big teams are interested in signing him
  • PES
    5173 posts Big Money Move
    De Bruyne is average, don't buy the hype into him. None of the big teams are interested in signing him
    Oh good, you're back.

  • Evra
    2236 posts Fans' Favourite
    Jenko wrote: »
    Willian is the better option because De Bruyne can only do it within 30 yards of space to run into, I'm told.
    Honestly, how often do you watch Willian play with Chelsea? This sounds like the opinion of somebody who doesn't watch him nearly enough to make a satire statement like that. Do you realise just how important Willian is to the side? Ronny Deila made the accurate comparison to Gandalf's Shadowfax.
  • Samuel
    319 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited April 2015
    A unique brand of droll self-mockery at ones inability to dispute my outlook, had I never saw one before.

    Rumours that Henderson has become the latest Liverpool player to reject a contract, contrary to Rodgers defending the player's commitment. He could have a rotational role here, similar to Ramires currently. Sort of midfielder Mourinho would love to him in his squad, and use when needed. Potentially a cheap option with one year left on his contract.
  • xXBarkleyXx
    818 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited April 2015

    Samuel wrote: »
    A unique brand of droll self-mockery at ones inability to dispute my outlook, had I never saw one before.

    Rumours that Henderson has become the latest Liverpool player to reject a contract, contrary to Rodgers defending the player's commitment. He could have a rotational role here, similar to Ramires currently. Sort of midfielder Mourinho would love to him in his squad, and use when needed. Potentially a cheap option with one year left on his contract.

    No please don't.

    I think Henderson has vastly improved if chelsea are going to buy him and stick him on the bench and give him the odd few games like city did to rodwell then id rather them not buy him and halt his progression.

  • PR0DIGY84
    283 posts Sunday League Hero
    Henderson isn't going anywhere, hopefully we do can do some amazing business again and get rid of Ramires, Oscar and Ivanovic.

    God willing especially for the first 2
  • Dan13
    4648 posts National Call-Up
    Dribbly wrote: »
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    You've wasted around £90million on dross like Luis, Salah, Willian, Ginkel and Cuadrado, so don't make out like they were essential transfers :D Mata are De Bruyne and laughably superior to all of them.

    You analysis of De Bruyne is pure conjecture, he played 132 minutes for you so speculating what he is and isn't capable of in a Chelsea set-up is disingenuous.
    An excellent left back, a player we are most likely going to make a profit on when we eventually sell, a player who ok isn't spectacular but does a decent job, a young player who maybe won't make the grade but was highly thought of and unlucky with a serious injury and a player who it is far too early to make a judgment on.

    The fact you are having to use them as examples of our 'dross' transfer business shows just how outstanding we have been in the transfer market in recent years :)
    This isn't UT, lad
    :/
    Just so you know making money is a big part of the real world too.
    I didn't know Chelsea were so cash-strapped that they needed to conduct transfers similar to how one would conduct business in the stock market, all the while disregarding the fact that an innocent player's career and sanity is hanging in the balance.
  • xXBarkleyXx
    818 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    You've wasted around £90million on dross like Luis, Salah, Willian, Ginkel and Cuadrado, so don't make out like they were essential transfers :D Mata are De Bruyne and laughably superior to all of them.

    You analysis of De Bruyne is pure conjecture, he played 132 minutes for you so speculating what he is and isn't capable of in a Chelsea set-up is disingenuous.
    An excellent left back, a player we are most likely going to make a profit on when we eventually sell, a player who ok isn't spectacular but does a decent job, a young player who maybe won't make the grade but was highly thought of and unlucky with a serious injury and a player who it is far too early to make a judgment on.

    The fact you are having to use them as examples of our 'dross' transfer business shows just how outstanding we have been in the transfer market in recent years :)
    This isn't UT, lad
    :/
    Just so you know making money is a big part of the real world too.
    I didn't know Chelsea were so cash-strapped that they needed to conduct transfers similar to how one would conduct business in the stock market, all the while disregarding the fact that an innocent player's career and sanity is hanging in the balance.

    It isn't being cash strapped it's more of making a profit for the financial fair play so they can bring in the players they need.
  • Bluemoon
    15710 posts World Class
    De Bruyne is average, don't buy the hype into him. None of the big teams are interested in signing him

    i much preferred chelseagoals2012 or w/e it was
  • JDYx
    521 posts An Exciting Prospect
    edited April 2015
  • Dan13
    4648 posts National Call-Up
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    You've wasted around £90million on dross like Luis, Salah, Willian, Ginkel and Cuadrado, so don't make out like they were essential transfers :D Mata are De Bruyne and laughably superior to all of them.

    You analysis of De Bruyne is pure conjecture, he played 132 minutes for you so speculating what he is and isn't capable of in a Chelsea set-up is disingenuous.
    An excellent left back, a player we are most likely going to make a profit on when we eventually sell, a player who ok isn't spectacular but does a decent job, a young player who maybe won't make the grade but was highly thought of and unlucky with a serious injury and a player who it is far too early to make a judgment on.

    The fact you are having to use them as examples of our 'dross' transfer business shows just how outstanding we have been in the transfer market in recent years :)
    This isn't UT, lad
    :/
    Just so you know making money is a big part of the real world too.
    I didn't know Chelsea were so cash-strapped that they needed to conduct transfers similar to how one would conduct business in the stock market, all the while disregarding the fact that an innocent player's career and sanity is hanging in the balance.

    It isn't being cash strapped it's more of making a profit for the financial fair play so they can bring in the players they need.
    So after spending foolishly on garbage, you need to demand extortionate transfer fees to save face and bring in what could very well be more garbage. Sound business plan that
  • xXBarkleyXx
    818 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    Dan13 wrote: »
    Dribbly wrote: »
    You've wasted around £90million on dross like Luis, Salah, Willian, Ginkel and Cuadrado, so don't make out like they were essential transfers :D Mata are De Bruyne and laughably superior to all of them.

    You analysis of De Bruyne is pure conjecture, he played 132 minutes for you so speculating what he is and isn't capable of in a Chelsea set-up is disingenuous.
    An excellent left back, a player we are most likely going to make a profit on when we eventually sell, a player who ok isn't spectacular but does a decent job, a young player who maybe won't make the grade but was highly thought of and unlucky with a serious injury and a player who it is far too early to make a judgment on.

    The fact you are having to use them as examples of our 'dross' transfer business shows just how outstanding we have been in the transfer market in recent years :)
    This isn't UT, lad
    :/
    Just so you know making money is a big part of the real world too.
    I didn't know Chelsea were so cash-strapped that they needed to conduct transfers similar to how one would conduct business in the stock market, all the while disregarding the fact that an innocent player's career and sanity is hanging in the balance.

    It isn't being cash strapped it's more of making a profit for the financial fair play so they can bring in the players they need.
    So after spending foolishly on garbage, you need to demand extortionate transfer fees to save face and bring in what could very well be more garbage. Sound business plan that

    Sold mata de Bruyne and Luiz and brought it Costa luis fabregas I wouldn't say theyre garbage.
    They will sell the players like salah for a profit so they can be in players better suited too the club and so they don't end up like city in a ffp mess because they are spending more than what they bring in.

    I don't even know how pellegrini is on about bringing in a big name signing when he only got bony because there's a supposed deal of £25mill for negredo from Valencia.
  • Jenko
    13845 posts Has That Special Something
    Samuel wrote: »
    A unique brand of droll self-mockery at ones inability to dispute my outlook, had I never saw one before.

    Your preposterous views on De Bruyne and your squad have been repeatedly roasted by Ward and Evra already, you knew they had torn you to shreds and instead of even attempting to make up for the pasting you received chose to go back to earlier points that had no place in the discussion. Your 'outlook' has been both disputed and disproven multiple times since the new forums began, no matter how incredulous you are.
  • Wardhiigley
    1974 posts Play-Off Hero
    edited April 2015
    Samuel wrote: »
    Willian is far from some sort of creative phenomenon, however he possess the best combination of attributes for what is demanded in this current Chelsea side - De Bruyne's polar opposite, if you like. I think you're missing my point, De Bruyne wasn't as valuable to Chelsea as he now is to Wolfsburg because he's in a system that wholly suits him and utilizes him effectively. He was always this talented, but never in a situation to excel the way he has until he moved to Germany.
    He's excelled in Germany because he's been given opportunities to. During the earlier days with Werder Bremen and Wolfsburg he struggled a little, he even admitted as much himself to the Wolfsburg News when quizzed about Schurrle's recent erratic form. So he wasn't "valuable" to Wolfsburg in the 1st 132 minutes he played for them either, and I'm sure if they'd followed Chelsea's moronic logic he'd have been frozen out and then shipped off.
    Samuel wrote: »
    When you're the main creative hub in a team it's very rare to have significant defensive duties.
    Well despite you constantly mentioning how nonexistent De Bruyne's defensive contributions are and how prevalent Willian's are the statistically comparison between them this season is reasonably close. And as Evra has mentioned De Bruyne has played a more disciplined role for the national team and during his time and Bremen.
    Samuel wrote: »
    If you were to take him out of his current side and transfer him to say Barcelona, do you think he would still be, arguably, the best playmaker in Europe? He wouldn't fit the system, just like when he was at Chelsea. He is on his best when initiating the counter attack, he wouldn't get that sort of freedom at Barca. That said, and to reinstate what I said earlier, I doubt there'd be too many clubs who wouldn't want him having some sort of role however influential that might be.
    Much was written about Fabregas's struggles at Barcelona (which I don't necessarily agree with) and yet he's flourished at Chelsea, well at least for the 1st half of the season. So using Barcelona as an example is worthless and bizarre. Also your constant arse covering is pathetic, you're (incorrectly and baselessly) criticising De Bruyne's inability to adapt to different system then immediately going on to say almost all clubs would want him. Talk about having a weak opinion.
    Samuel wrote: »
    I hardly doubt the actual 158 minutes he played for Chelsea was sorely definitive when you're working with a manager, various coaches and whatnot in post-season for two years.
    That indoctrination by Mourinho is staggering. You sound like his son when he went on that rant on Instagram, acting like he's inflable and every decision he makes is the correct one. Anyone that judges a player on pre-season is an imbecile. It's simply an opportunity for commercial ventures and building fitness. In pre-season Luke Shaw looked ****, Sanogo looked like a God and Soldado could be classed as a football player.

    Samuel wrote: »
    For a visual sake, you can see how Willian's work rate, and defensive prowess, is comprehensively advocated:

    05f772d5abd500634b4f0abc3ac75374.png

    De Bruyne v. Hull for arguments sake, too. There's a clear contrast.

    283f612011829de7c53d8616c7b31292.png
    What is this ****?

    I don't even care what game that Willian heat map is from, but using that De Bruyne one is simply idiotic. You're cherry picking De Bruyne's 1st ever game for Chelsea in which he played 67 minutes. How is that even a remotely meaningful comparison? lol. And just for the record De Bruyne was actually very good in that game, probably your standout player.

    Let's look at all of De Bruyne's heat maps during the World Cup
    dANTa77.png
    YpPex0r.png
    UHr1sx1.png
    y1J3jAg.png

    He was routinely the top or amongst the top for distance covered in each of the games he played. For the World Cup overall he was 8th for distance covered per game with 11.6km . And this is in a **** climate like Brazil.


    As for you sudden defence of Hazard 70955.gif. My comment was an off the cuff remark alluding to Hazard's past form (hence the use of the words "before" and "was") and the levels Chelsea fans went to defend him. I was simply using him as an example in relation to your defence of Willian.

    I routinely criticised Hazard in his 1st, 2nd and the the early parts of this season, but he's recently been playing at an acceptable level and because of that I've ceased my critiquing. You're entire response is indicative of how insecure Chelsea fans are when it comes to Hazard, it's really not even a secondary point in this discussion but I'll indulge you and refute some of your ridiculous assertions.

    First I'm going to taper this by saying I don't rate Zidane that highly. Most people on the old Real Football section will know this. He was an outstanding player and fantastic on the eye but he was a big game bottler.

    Samuel wrote: »
    Zidane was never that productive even when he was the best player in the world
    Really?
    B8q9rfSCcAEv4FR.png

    At international level he has extremely respectable goalscoring record, better than the likes of Gerrard, Beckham, Pirlo, Xavi, Iniesta, David Silva, Sneijder, Hagi, Gascoigne, Rivellino, Fabregas, Schuster, Gullit.

    Samuel wrote: »
    I think there's a clear parallel in play style between the two, obviously Hazard has some way to go before reaching Zizou's level. They both possess the ability to destroy the opposition's offensive shape, before leaving it to other players to finish things off. There are also striking similarities in their incredible ability to retain possession in the final third; Hazard is largely direct and yet very rarely gives away the ball necessarily, that's a rare and unappreciated combination.
    ...

    The thing about players like Zidane, even Hazard to an extent, the amount they do for the team is not something you can get in a clear statistic. It's not about being the "king of the pre-assist", it's more the matter that they dictate everything. While I don't agree with using statistics normally to disregard someone's argument, I think the data here is a little too interchangeable to ignore. I feel like anybody who calls Hazard overrated just doesn't understand football to a degree more complex than just goals and assists

    First of all I don't even know why you are comparing Zidane to Hazard. Hazard is a winger, I will not entertain any objections to that. Sure he played as an attacking midfielder/second striker at Lille but at Chelsea he plays as a left side winger, he can cut inside all he like that still doesn't make him a playmaker like Zidane. Would you compare Hazard to Pirlo or Xavi? They are deep lying playmakers, just because Zidane plays a few yard further forward than them does not mean you can compare the two.

    Your whole subjective analysis of the two is ****, Zidane played best in a central role and pulled the strings. His 1st season at Juventus was inconsistent to say the least, he played more average/bad games that good. He played a few different positions, left of a 442, in the middle of a 442 (sometimes besides Deschamps as a deep playmaker and sometimes ahead of him like a diamond) and the playmaker in a 4312. Anyway, he best performances always came when he played as trequartista or a little deeper in a 442.

    Just look at his performances in that central role against Verona, Milan, River Plate and Ajax (which he said was his best ever game). Hazard literally plays nothing like this at all.




    Look how almost all of Juve's play comes through him, coming very deep to transition them from defence to attack and regularly distributing the ball to the wide men ( Jugovic and in particular Di Livio) and the forwards. At his best he dictated the tempo during his 1st season at Juventus. When he was compared to his rival at Inter Djorkaeff he and Lippi admitted that he was too selfless often to a fault. He particularly thrived off the tireless running on right side of Di Livio, he was often an outlet for balls and also attracted defenders to him which created space for Zidane to sometimes operate into a right-central area. This graphic from an online blog demonstrates that very scenario in a 6-1 destruction of PSG

    GwgFbWo.png


    He gained recognition that season not because of his performances in Serie A (which were on the whole average) but because of his Champions League exploits. Lippi often gave Zidane more freedom in Europe than he would in the more tactically and defensively heavy Serie A and this allowed Zidane to flourish. I read that it was against Rapid Wien when Zidane was played in the front three (slightly just off the front two) because Vieri was out and Zidane got three assist and excelled and that stuck with Lippi.

    For the following season 1997/98 Juventus acquired Inzaghi and Fonseca which meant Lippi initially thought he had the correct players to play Zidane the #10 in a 442 diamond or 443. Note he still operated in the middle and had players like a matured Del Piero, Inzaghi, Di Livio and Fonseca orchestrate for them to get goals and assists. It was pretty hit and miss for Zidane because he struggled with the defensive responsibility. At start of 1998 Lippi switched to a 3412 to bring an extra defensive player into the middle of the park to free Zidane up. Juventus played with the wingbacks providing a constant option and with Juventus replacing the tall Vieri with Inzaghi and playing Del Piero beside him it meant Juve played with short passing.
    PsFItGt.png
    (It was often Conte on the opposite flank to Di Livio)

    Because of Zidane's more advanced role in the 3412 he'd sometimes allow Del Piero to come deepers so he could be the later runner in behind the defence.
    flZJ63o.png

    It was done on occasion but more often that not Zidane was the instigator of attacks (with Deschamps and Davids giving him the ball to transition from attack to defence) by feeding the wing backs or the two forwards who between them got 39 goals that season.

    Those are just examples of two seasons at Juve but they're used to show a wider pattern of Zidane's play during his time in Serie A. A central playmaker that dictates play with a defensive shield behind him, wide men and prolific strikers.

    And when he moved to Real Madrid it was the same. Here is Real Madrid's line for the CL final against
    WSjUWZe.png

    Very similar to the formation that was built for him at Juventus. Solari was often the more disciplined of him and Figo but this was balanced by Roberto Carlos attacking as the wide option (his Real Madrid version of Di Livio) and Soldado on the other side rarely venturing out of his own half. Again, here Zidane is blessed with only having to control the flow of the game because he has a defensive God in Makélélé behind him and (until recently) the record La Liga assistor in Figo beside him with goal machines in the form of Raul and Morientes who got 32 goals between them at season ahead of him. Extremely similar to his time at Juventus and it brings and interesting point that throughout his career stretching back as far as Bordeaux Zidane has ordinarily had the team built around him in terms of formation and teams duties.

    Just look at some of Zidane's play that season:
    How on earth can you compare Hazard to that?

    When Madrid brought in Ronaldo the following season Zidane was shunted to the left of a 4231 because Raul played in the sort of #10.
    FGehtx5.png

    This was when most pundit agree that Madrid and Zidane began to decline, of course it's partially attributed to a natural decline of the Zidane and the collective team but forcing Zidane into a wider area was also a factor. From a wider position Zidane could not dictate the game to same extent he was supposed to and he frequently came central very quickly after receiving the ball and it created an inherent imbalance in the team. After Makélélé left the defensive shield which Zidane depended on was gone and even though he still played slightly wide to accommodate Beckham, when he did play centrally he was still not he brilliant best but he's legs had also gone by then.


    So as far as Hazard and Zidane go, the similarities are with ball control (which Zidane is obviously superior in) and lack of tangible statistics to back up their contributions. And that's it. You could pretty much make that link with dozens of skillful players. Zidane contributions came in controlling football matches, he had outstanding widemen and strikers to score the goals and assists. In any of the teams that Zidane played in Hazard would be the winger/forward that Zidane orchestrated the play for so that he could provide a substantial contribution. In previous seasons when Chelsea struggled for creation and goals Hazard never stepped up despite playing in an area where he was deployed to do just that. And now that Chelsea have Costa and Fabregas Hazard has not taken over playmaking mantel either so comparing him to Zidane is **** stupid.
  • Handy Andy
    5736 posts Big Money Move
    / discussion
  • Jenko
    13845 posts Has That Special Something
    Oh my
  • Jaymizzo
    2383 posts Fans' Favourite
    Ward on a rampage...
  • PES
    5173 posts Big Money Move
    Destroyed.
  • Stannis Baratheon
    1417 posts Professional
    Jay?
  • JDYx
    521 posts An Exciting Prospect
    @Wardhiigley "And now that Chelsea have Costa and Fabregas Hazard has not taken over playmaking mantel either"

    Sorry but I 100% don't agree with that. Everything good we do goes through him. We are lucky that he's rarely ever injured because we'd look terrible going forward if he wasn't available.

    And what was the KdB/Willian arguement about, without having to go through previous pages?
  • xXBarkleyXx
    818 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Wards going in :joy:
  • Evra
    2236 posts Fans' Favourite
    That was brutal.
  • Wardhiigley
    1974 posts Play-Off Hero
    edited April 2015
    JDYx wrote: »
    @Wardhiigley "And now that Chelsea have Costa and Fabregas Hazard has not taken over playmaking mantel either"

    Sorry but I 100% don't agree with that. Everything good we do goes through him.

    That's not the same as being a playmaker.



    That was him against Stoke, a performance that was universally praised as one of his best and that prompted the braindead John Terry to say he was on par with Messi and Ronaldo. Just look at how he spends the vast majority of the game out wide, of course he's a modern winger so he'll invariably come inside but you're having a laugh if you even try and compare that to a prominently centrally deployed player like Zidane. And on a numerous occasions when he did come into the middle he the drove back out to the flanks, there were instances where he was out wide and I could see the moment that Zidane would have came back inside but Hazard drove down the byline. I can't remember him coming into the central area of his own half to receive the ball from Matic or one of the CBs and then proceed to distribute the ball and drive through the middle. Closest he came to that was receiving the ball outwide, coming no deeper the the center circle of his opponents half and then misplacing a forced pass that wasn't on.
  • xXBarkleyXx
    818 posts An Exciting Prospect
    Moral of the story- don't start an argument with ward
  • Ace
    4489 posts National Call-Up
    Holy sh*t :o
  • Ooo kill em
  • JDYx
    521 posts An Exciting Prospect
    JDYx wrote: »
    @Wardhiigley "And now that Chelsea have Costa and Fabregas Hazard has not taken over playmaking mantel either"

    Sorry but I 100% don't agree with that. Everything good we do goes through him.

    That's not the same as being a playmaker.



    That was him against Stoke, a performance that was universally praised as one of his best and that prompted the braindead John Terry to say he was on par with Messi and Ronaldo. Just look at how he spends the vast majority of the game out wide, of course he's a modern winger so he'll invariably come inside but you're having a laugh if you even try and compare that to a prominently centrally deployed player like Zidane. And on a numerous occasions when he did come into the middle he the drove back out to the flanks, there were instances where he was out wide and I could see the moment that Zidane would have came back inside but Hazard drove down the byline. I can't remember him coming into the central area of his own half to receive the ball from Matic or one of the CBs and then proceed to distribute the ball and drive through the middle. Closest he came to that was receiving the ball outwide, coming no deeper the the center circle of his opponents half and then misplacing a forced pass that wasn't on.

    He is at the centre of everything we do in a creative sense, so yes, he is the main playmaker of our side. Your definition seems to be centered around the idea that a playmaker has to be one 'dictates tempo', 'controls the game'. There are different types of playmakers for me.


    I was at the game at the weekend and I was actually surprised by the reaction when I got back. I didn't think he was THAT good to be honest (in relation to how others rated his performance). Obviously he scored a goal and got an assist, but I thought his general play wasn't up to the standard that he's usually at. Especially in the first half (mind the whole team was bad), but he was quite sloppy on the ball by his standards.

    And I don't know why you're even mentioning Zidane. That was your discussion with the other lad, not me. I haven't compared the two players.
  • PR0DIGY84
    283 posts Sunday League Hero
    Good day
  • Monkey
    8345 posts League Winner
    Christ alive that post
  • Samuel
    319 posts Sunday League Hero
    edited April 2015
    First I'm going to taper this by saying I don't rate Zidane that highly. Most people on the old Real Football section will know this. He was an outstanding player and fantastic on the eye but he was a big game bottler.

    You couldn't be further from the truth. Forty-two years after Puskas had produced possibly Madrid's greatest - and, in truth, football's history - individual performance in Hampden Park, Zidane rose to meet that level, and it's viable to suggest he surpassed it, in the very same stadium. His volley was of the highest possible quality and on the greatest possible stage. It was a perfect example of transcendental ability, which was accustomed to his success.

    The curiosity you pose of Zidane’s career is bizarre in that his quality still seemed to lack that kind of confirmation. He has somewhat universally been branded as the greatest footballer of all time - particularly on the international stage. Sure, he never quite consumed the mentality that saw other great players dominate on a consistent basis. In truth, he had a temper we all saw in the 2006 World Cup final and a series of other red cards. But the fact that they were isolated instances is also representative of his career positively on a large scale. However, it was in the biggest of games, if you will, that he brought out his cool, controlling presence aside from that moment of madness against Italy. Astutely, Rob Smyth described him as a "cerebral genius" and a "avant-garde footballer". And, along the same lines, Alex Ferguson once said that Zidane "didn't hurt teams" - which I believe relates to your interpretation that he's thought of too highly. While those views would appear to be criticisms at first, it was more so a reference to the fact that Zidane would tend to withdraw and dictate teams rather than decide them. As Thierry Henry said, “he is the guy we can always count on, the one who really takes control." That particular trait of his was explosive in the greatest games of his career. Zidane saved the most decisive moments for the most demanding occasions: the 1998 World Cup final where he lead France to the title; single-handedly ripping apart the second-best Selecao side ever, the entirety of Euro 2000 (where, once again, he was voted as the best player), the last couple minutes of France's Euro 2004 group game with England and the knock-out rounds of the 2006 World Cup.

    In that, Zidane was principally the ultimate big-game player.
    And now that Chelsea have Costa and Fabregas Hazard has not taken over playmaking mantel either so comparing him to Zidane is **** stupid.

    Typical of the modern game, the midfielders in a 433 are normally in a sort of triangle formation and not just left-central-right - generally in a flat 3, one further back as a "holding" midfielder with two going forward, or two holding players and one forward. To paraphrase, a playmaker can be defined as someone who sets up chances for his/her teammates. It is unnecessary for a playmaker to be defined to a certain position, nor in fact is there now an actual need for a 'true' creator. At Arsenal, for example, Özil is in large parts the out and out playmaker, regardless of whether he starts centrally or on the wing. Formations are fluid. You shouldn't think of formations as static, be all and end all, formulas to tactics, they're just a framework.

    You merely have to look back to 2010/11 at Pep Guardiola's all time European great Barcelona side. Here's an example of his side against Arsenal in the height of their Champions League glory:

    barca-arsenal-attempt-jazillion.gif

    There's not a "true" playmaker. In this squad, Xavi, Busquets and Iniesta form the '3' in midfield, and they are all playing centrally. Busquets taking the defensive duties, Iniesta taking the attacking duties and Xavi playing in between both in a more supportive role. Xavi is the closest to a playmaker as you're likely to get - it's not a coincidence he roams more than Iniesta who also plays central. He's constantly receiving the ball by every player on the pitch.

    Let's use Chelsea as another example. We could play Costa up front, Hazard and Willian on the wings with Matic, Ramires and Mikel in the middle. Or swap one of those players with Fabregas and there's your playmaker. And at Chelsea, the likes of Oscar and Willian are never going to attract defenders from Hazard the way Messi and Suarez can for Neymar for instance, and like you mention Hazard is the player in the Chelsea team that is relied on to make something happen in the build up so he's not always the one on the end of the attacking move.

    According to Squawka, Eden Hazard created 92 chances last season in the Premier League. Comparing this to Messi, who created 75 chances and Ronaldo who created 47 chances La Liga. You have to wonder, even without the cutting edge in front of goal, is he that far behind the world's best?
    So he wasn't "valuable" to Wolfsburg in the 1st 132 minutes he played for them either, and I'm sure if they'd followed Chelsea's moronic logic he'd have been frozen out and then shipped off.

    De Bruyne wasn't sold simply because he didn't track back. He was sold because of his workrate in training, which I think when over your head earlier. He's the type of player who needs to be on the pitch so he can develop, admittedly no fault of his own. His departure, however, developed after the game against Hull - he couldn't cope with the mentality of not starting every game, so he began to sulk which lead to him being sold.
    Post edited by Samuel on
Sign In or Register to comment.