[Lemoor]

I'm comparing them season by season, not in total. Eriksen's last 4 out of 5 seasons for Tottenham, he had 20+ goals + assists in the league. Bruno has done that once for us where 9 of his 18 goals were penalties.

That's just a different kind of stat-fishing though.

Why count whole seasons instead of normalising when there is a massive difference in total amount of years and games?
Why use 20 as a magic number?
Why only count goals and assists in premier league and not all competitions?
Why discount contributions from penalties and not from all set pieces?
Why count first six months of Bruno as a full season in terms of expected contributions?
Why discount first two years of Eriksen at the same time?

Maybe there is some rationale, but as far as I see every one of those questions can be answered with "because that benefits Eriksen the most". If you even slightly tinker with those, it changes very quickly,

 

[VP89]

I dont see him as that type of player.
Sure but likewise in the little he has played there, we have seen no evidence it would work, or at least that it would be better than him further forward.
Control and spacial awareness is needed in midfield and we seriously lack it when Eriksen isnt there. A De Jong or Bellingham would fix that.

Eriksen has shown the same limitations, being pushed off the ball or being pressed off it more than a handful of times.

 

[Lyng]

Eriksen has shown the same limitations, being pushed off the ball or being pressed off it more than a handful of times.

That isnt the issue. Eriksen moves to the correct spaces where Bruno will try to move forward. Eriksen does the save pass where Bruno takes the risk almost every time. That risky pass is of massive value for us further up, but often puts us in grave danger in our own half.
We simply are much more vulnerable to our own play with a more erratic 8 like Bruno or Fred.

 

[roonster09]

Move Bruno to 8 and look what happens. A lot of talk here about how bad we are without Bruno, but while that is (thankfully) highly theoretical, what we can see clear as day is how much we miss Eriksen.
Casemiro is being asked to do way to much without Eriksen next to him. Bruno might win more tackles, but that isnt what Casemrio needs next to him, he needs someone who can control the game, something neither Fred nor Mc Tomminay can do.
Eriksen is the only player in our team who has that ability.
Bruno offers something completely different, which we need just as much, but we do suffer without one or the other.

We are bad without Bruno is theoretical? Almost every game he didn't play, he was brought on very soon as we were so shit it was laughable that team with so much quality struggled to create even half chances.

Bruno isn't playing next to Casemiro, so what Casemiro needs from the player next to him is not on Bruno. Eriksen controlled feck all tbh but on the ball he brought lot of quality with his ability to pass between lines (especially Bruno), something we miss but make no mistake, we didn't control any better with Eriksen.

 

[Red in STL]

We had 10 men

Even before we were down to 10 men it was obvious, Bruno in a deep position is asking for trouble, what makes him good as a creative player makes him a liability in deep positions

 

[Lyng]

We are bad without Bruno is theoretical? Almost every game he didn't play, he was brought on very soon as we were so shit it was laughable that team with so much quality struggled to create even half chances.

Bruno isn't playing next to Casemiro, so what Casemiro needs from the player next to him is not on Bruno. Eriksen controlled feck all tbh but on the ball he brought lot of quality with his ability to pass between lines (especially Bruno), something we miss but make no mistake, we didn't control any better with Eriksen.

Of course its theoretical given how small sample size we have. And you of course ignored the "thankfully" because it didnt suit your idea of the post.
My point is there is agreement that we dont really work as well without Bruno.
But despite us having huge issues controlling games in almost every match after Eriksens injury, still people claim we dont miss him.
Of course we had more control. Look at the games before and after. His passing is much more save. We give the ball away much more with Fred or Bruno next to Casemiro. They dont ever take the save option.

 

[zaafi]

Why count whole seasons instead of normalising when there is a massive difference in total amount of years and games?
Why use 20 as a magic number?
Why only count goals and assists in premier league and not all competitions?
Why discount contributions from penalties and not from all set pieces?
Why count first six months of Bruno as a full season in terms of expected contributions?
Why discount first two years of Eriksen at the same time?

1: Because how you perform over the season is how a player should be measured, and not how we did with Pogba and called him an assist machine because he had 6 assists in his first 2 or 3 games some seasons back, and then went back to not assisting at all.
2: It's not a magic number. I could say 17 or 18 and Eriksen would still come better out of it because in every season he has played for Tottenham he has more goals and assists over a season than Bruno, apart from one season.
3: Because it is the league we play in and the league the majority care about. FC Copenhagen and FC Sheriff don't really interest me.
4: Because Eriksen was not on penalties, but Bruno takes our set pieces (Shaw has taken over now most of it now, though). It is also a lot more difficult to create/score from a set-piece than a penalty kick.
5: That's fair. His first season shouldn't be taken into consideration when we're talking about full seasons.
6: Well, I can if you want to. His first season he scored 7 goals and had 8 assists in 25 matches (1976 minutes played) which is a pretty good return, don't you think? In his second he scored 10 goals and assisted 2. Amount of goals are pretty good, but the amount of assists is very low.

Anyway, my point is that a number 10 can still create chances, score and assist without being so reckless and careless in possession (look at Ødegaard, for instance), and eventually that's what we're going to need. Having a hard worker as our number 10 helps, but often he needs to do that work because he lost the ball unnecessarily to begin with.

 

[roonster09]

That isnt the issue. Eriksen moves to the correct spaces where Bruno will try to move forward. Eriksen does the save pass where Bruno takes the risk almost every time. That risky pass is of massive value for us further up, but often puts us in grave danger in our own half.
We simply are much more vulnerable to our own play with a more erratic 8 like Bruno or Fred.

Then Eriksen must be terrible passer, his pass completion is in high 70%s , which is a terrible completion rate for a CM. He is in bottom 30% for pass completion, which is a terrible position to be in for a CM.

At least for AM, its fine to lose possession as they create lot of chances and play lot of risky passes but for a CM who is known to have high IQ and knows when to play killer pass, that's not a good stat at all.

 

[roonster09]

Of course its theoretical given how small sample size we have. And you of course ignored the "thankfully" because it didnt suit your idea of the post.
My point is there is agreement that we dont really work as well without Bruno.
But despite us having huge issues controlling games in almost every match after Eriksens injury, still people claim we dont miss him.
Of course we had more control. Look at the games before and after. His passing is much more save. We give the ball away much more with Fred or Bruno next to Casemiro. They dont ever take the save option.

Not sure which games he controlled, we played on counter (or quick transition) averaging 35% possession vs big teams, same is true even today with or without Eriksen.

Only thing we miss is, his ability to pass between lines which initiated lot of attacks, something Fred or McTominay lacks.

 

[roonster09]

Having a hard worker as our number 10 helps, but often he needs to do that work because he lost the ball unnecessarily to begin with.

Oh my, is this the new "he tackled because he was out of position" thing that people will use all the time?

 

[The United]

Of course its theoretical given how small sample size we have. And you of course ignored the "thankfully" because it didnt suit your idea of the post.
My point is there is agreement that we dont really work as well without Bruno.
But despite us having huge issues controlling games in almost every match after Eriksens injury, still people claim we dont miss him.
Of course we had more control. Look at the games before and after. His passing is much more save. We give the ball away much more with Fred or Bruno next to Casemiro. They dont ever take the save option.

Eriksen controlling the game for us is one of the mysteries here that people spout.

He might have done that when he qas at peak. The current Eriksen is just a decent passer from the deep.

 

[Lyng]

Then Eriksen must be terrible passer, his pass completion is in high 70%s , which is a terrible completion rate for a CM. He is in bottom 30% for pass completion, which is a terrible position to be in for a CM.

At least for AM, its fine to lose possession as they create lot of chances and play lot of risky passes but for a CM who is known to have high IQ and knows when to play killer pass, that's not a good stat at all.

Brunos is just as low when he played an 8 though? So whats your point? That we shouldnt play a converted AM as CM? I agree, hence why I said earlier we should upgrade on Eriksen.
out of the two Christian is still a safer option than Bruno. Bruno will allways go for the risky pass. His Xag is much higher than Eriksen which tells you as much. (If I wanted to missuse stats I could now say that despite having a much higher xag and the same targets for said passes, Eriksen has a higher amount of assist, which indicated that his passes are of a higher quality, since they end up in goal more often percentage wise)

Do I say Eriksen is a better player than Bruno? No. But I am saying that even if he isnt a perfect 8 he is still a better choice there than Bruno. What makes Bruno excellent is his risky style, which is also why he is a bad idea at 8.

 

[zaafi]

Oh my, is this the new "he tackled because he was out of position"?

Yes, because stupid flicks in his defensive third is what we need when we're chasing a goal. Or how he kicks the ball completely random after a throw-in to give it away to an opponent's attacker for them to score a goal. Come on, you can't really look away from it. He can be the smartest player on the pitch only to become the dumbest within seconds. Consistency is key. You watch the games too, so it's baffling how it doesn't piss you off (or his other super fans for that matter). He gets way too much praise for his ability to create chances and work rate when there are a lot of other aspects he needs to work on. How many times has he basically gifted the other team a goal? What does the 5 chances he creates during the match matter then when they win?

 

[El Jefe]

Then Eriksen must be terrible passer, his pass completion is in high 70%s , which is a terrible completion rate for a CM. He is in bottom 30% for pass completion, which is a terrible position to be in for a CM.

At least for AM, its fine to lose possession as they create lot of chances and play lot of risky passes but for a CM who is known to have high IQ and knows when to play killer pass, that's not a good stat at all.

I agree with a lot of what you say but I think you have a tendency to look at pass completion numbers on its own, rather than in the context of the game.

Some of the stats available in football are too limited. There needs to be stats such as ball possession losses leading to chances for the opposition. Ball possession lost in dangerous areas etc.

Eriksen tries more expansive passes than your average CM so it's no surprise to see him not score as highly in the possession department. The difference between him and Bruno was clear to see in Sunday's game. When Bruno did lose the ball, it was in shocking areas from very sloppy play or ill advised passes. You can have two players with the same pass completion % but that only tells half the story. Where they lost it and how they lost it is more important.

In saying that, Eriksen isn't the perfect CM. Bruno and Eriksen are both AMs, Eriksen just happens to be the much better CM and Bruno is obviously a much better AM. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of the combo but it's what works best at present.

 

[Borys]

Is it? A lot of people have claimed that our latest results and the Liverpool one where simply down to fatigue.
What I see is a midfield that is frantic and lacks control. Fred moves all over the pitch, but often not to the right areas. Eriksen often anticipates the passes and movement of the game and occupies the areas giving an option for Licha and Case to pass to, Fred is often simply looking for the run forward, much like Bruno, which means the game becomes far more erratic. This might be fine against lesser teams, but we got punished bad against Liverpool, where Freds lack of spacial awareness was a crucial part of their first goal.
We beat Arsenal with Eriksen in the team and he was a massive part of that win.
Eriksens issue is his stamina after 60 minutes, so we should find an upgrade, but we need someone with that awareness and composure.

We lack control independent of if Eriksen plays or not. I don't think we're that kind of team simply, not yet. We average 53% possession (there are 5 teams that have significantly higher possession in EPL).
When we don't have the ball we look fairly good but I wouldn't call that control.

Liverpool game was fairly even until they scored a goal and 6 others with each shot, Eriksen wouldn't help in that as we were overrun by them.

We played some good football with Fred next to Casemiro just as with Eriksen next to Case.

 

[roonster09]

I agree with a lot of what you say but I think you have a tendency to look at pass completion numbers on its own, rather than in the context of the game.

Some of the stats available in football are too limited. There needs to be stats such as ball possession losses leading to chances for the opposition. Ball possession lost in dangerous areas etc.

Eriksen tries more expansive passes than your average CM so it's no surprise to see him not score as highly in the possession department. The difference between him and Bruno was clear to see in Sunday's game. When Bruno did lose the ball, it was in shocking areas from very sloppy play or ill advised passes. You can have two players with the same pass completion % but that only tells half the story. Where they lost it and how they lost it is more important.

In saying that, Eriksen isn't the perfect CM. Bruno and Eriksen are both AMs, Eriksen just happens to be the much better CM and Bruno is obviously a much better AM. Personally I'm not the biggest fan of the combo but it's what works best at present.

His short pass completion is at 50 percentile, long pass completion is at bottom 20%. His pass completion numbers are not good for a CM but looks like EtH doesn't have problem with that, as long as players progress the ball quickly with quick short passes.

Difference between Eriksen and Bruno is, one looks technically refined player and another looks like street smart shit cnut of a player. So usually fans are more forgiving when it comes to the player who looks easy on the eye rather than a player with Bruno play style.

 

[roonster09]

Brunos is just as low when he played an 8 though? So whats your point? That we shouldnt play a converted AM as CM? I agree, hence why I said earlier we should upgrade on Eriksen.
out of the two Christian is still a safer option than Bruno. Bruno will allways go for the risky pass. His Xag is much higher than Eriksen which tells you as much. (If I wanted to missuse stats I could now say that despite having a much higher xag and the same targets for said passes, Eriksen has a higher amount of assist, which indicated that his passes are of a higher quality, since they end up in goal more often percentage wise)

Do I say Eriksen is a better player than Bruno? No. But I am saying that even if he isnt a perfect 8 he is still a better choice there than Bruno. What makes Bruno excellent is his risky style, which is also why he is a bad idea at 8.

That's not a factual statement based on those stats. It just says Eriksen got luck with his chances or Bruno is unlucky with his chances.

Why is Eriksen being a better 8 even a discussion? Bruno is not playing as a 8, he is playing as attacking mid. Eriksen might be a better FB, CB, GK too, but it doesn't matter because that's not the position Bruno is playing.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yes, because stupid flicks in his defensive third is what we need when we're chasing a goal. Or how he kicks the ball completely random after a throw-in to give it away to an opponent's attacker for them to score a goal. Come on, you can't really look away from it. He can be the smartest player on the pitch only to become the dumbest within seconds. Consistency is key. You watch the games too, so it's baffling how it doesn't piss you off (or his other super fans for that matter). He gets way too much praise for his ability to create chances and work rate when there are a lot of other aspects he needs to work on. How many times has he basically gifted the other team a goal? What does the 5 chances he creates during the match matter then when they win?

I dunno. You tell us. You must have some specific examples in mind? To balance out the 5 chances he creates per game I’ll let you off with just one example of him “basically gifting a goal” from each of the last three games. Should be easy enough for you, right?

 

[roonster09]

Yes, because stupid flicks in his defensive third is what we need when we're chasing a goal. Or how he kicks the ball completely random after a throw-in to give it away to an opponent's attacker for them to score a goal. Come on, you can't really look away from it. He can be the smartest player on the pitch only to become the dumbest within seconds. Consistency is key. You watch the games too, so it's baffling how it doesn't piss you off (or his other super fans for that matter). He gets way too much praise for his ability to create chances and work rate when there are a lot of other aspects he needs to work on. How many times has he basically gifted the other team a goal? What does the 5 chances he creates during the match matter then when they win?

So Bruno works hard only when he loses possession or is that only Bruno losses possession in the team? because all I see is, even in 90th min, he bursts his ass to provide defensive cover.

What does 5 chances he creates mean when other teams wins? Maybe the player who got those chances should be scoring them? I mean Bruno can't create and finish it by himself, as much as we want the football to be like shaolin soccer.

Ofcourse it pisses me off or anyone with bit of sense but I don't rate players on their mistakes or what they can't do. I rate them based on what they can and bring to the team and whether the overall quality of the team improves or declines with the said player. I mean that's obvious for anyone.

 

[Lyng]

His short pass completion is at 50 percentile, long pass completion is at bottom 20%. His pass completion numbers are not good for a CM but looks like EtH doesn't have problem with that, as long as players progress the ball quickly with quick short passes.

Difference between Eriksen and Bruno is, one looks technically refined player and another looks like street smart shit cnut of a player. So usually fans are more forgiving when it comes to the player who looks easy on the eye rather than a player with Bruno play style.

That is simply bs and you know it. Are you really going to claim Bruno doesn't give the ball away in more dangerous areas??

 

[roonster09]

We lack control independent of if Eriksen plays or not. I don't think we're that kind of team simply, not yet. We average 53% possession (there are 5 teams that have significantly higher possession in EPL).
When we don't have the ball we look fairly good but I wouldn't call that control.

Liverpool game was fairly even until they scored a goal and 6 others with each shot, Eriksen wouldn't help in that as we were overrun by them.

We played some good football with Fred next to Casemiro just as with Eriksen next to Case.

That's true, we don't control the games (like possession teams) whether Eriksen plays or not. We play at higher tempo, short passes and nice combination plays. We are also not very high pressing team, we let the team to build the play before we start pressing in our own half (for most part).

I think the problem is, people are binary when it comes to most things, especially playing style. If it's not possession based approach like peak Barca then it must be Ole-ball or Jose-ball. There is no in-between at all.

IMO there is a clear change of style under EtH, our players movement off the ball has improved, we move the ball quickly and with short passes. More often than not we pull them off and then there are games like vs Newcastle where we just concede possession and play purely on counter, which isn't a bad thing considering the injuries, lack of proper CF and the number of games we played this season. It looks like there is a bit of tiredness in our play now.

 

[Lyng]

That's not a factual statement based on those stats. It just says Eriksen got luck with his chances or Bruno is unlucky with his chances.

Why is Eriksen being a better 8 even a discussion? Bruno is not playing as a 8, he is playing as attacking mid. Eriksen might be a better FB, CB, GK too, but it doesn't matter because that's not the position Bruno is playing.

Luck? So your statement about passing percentage doesn't matter since it's all luck?

Because some posters claimed he was just as good if not better there than Eriksen.

Personally I think we need both, until we can upgrade to a better CM

 

[Borys]

That's true, we don't control the games (like possession teams) whether Eriksen plays or not. We play at higher tempo, short passes and nice combination plays. We are also not very high pressing team, we let the team to build the play before we start pressing in our own half (for most part).

I think the problem is, people are binary when it comes to most things, especially playing style. If it's not possession based approach like peak Barca then it must be Ole-ball or Jose-ball. There is no in-between at all.

IMO there is a clear change of style under EtH, our players movement off the ball has improved, we move the ball quickly and with short passes. More often than not we pull them off and then there are games like vs Newcastle where we just concede possession and play purely on counter, which isn't a bad thing considering the injuries, lack of proper CF and the number of games we played this season. It looks like there is a bit of tiredness in our play now.

I agree and that's one of the most promising signs when it comes to Ten Hag, he's very elastic in his approach. I was afraid he will come here and start implementing ultra-possession-based style of football, but the truth is it can only be done if you're Pep joining Barca, Bayern and City with unlimited funds.

We're clearly improving on every aspect of the game, even if there's no clear style of play.

On the bolded part - this is what I see as well, but the truth is neither Fred and Eriksen are players who control the game, although I still think it's more about team setup than individual quality. But this setup takes time to implement, even if you have the players for it (I think we have, but only 10 or 11, not the squad).

 

[zaafi]

So Bruno works hard only when he loses possession or is that only Bruno losses possession in the team? because all I see is, even in 90th min, he bursts his ass to provide defensive cover.

What does 5 chances he creates mean when other teams wins? Maybe the player who got those chances should be scoring them? I mean Bruno can't create and finish it by himself, as much as we want the football to be like shaolin soccer.

Ofcourse it pisses me off or anyone with bit of sense but I don't rate players on their mistakes or what they can't do. I rate them based on what they can and bring to the team and whether the overall quality of the team improves or declines with the said player. I mean that's obvious for anyone.

That's correct. I didn't mean to say he doesn't have excellent work rate, and him busting his gut in the 90th minute is always appreciated. I was just saying that he needs to cut out some of the silly stuff he does that is meaningless. It's okay if he tries something that actually would have a chance of turning into something, but he even does these weird things that just scream unprofessional. Why he does it, I don't know, but I imagine he wants to pull off something that looks beautiful and unique.
Perhaps he doesn't have the technique or the skill to do the stuff that De Bruyne and Ødegaard does at times, and that's fine, but he can learn to make better decisions. He's a player who thrives with a chaotic playstyle, alright, but he does not need to do it at every opportunity. It's fine to just cool things down on the pitch every now and again. What I meant by how it sometimes is his fault that he (and his teammates) need to work harder is because of this reluctance to build-up play in a more relaxed manner. Not everything has to be flicks or a long ball across the entire pitch who often end up in a throw-in or even super quick one-twos who very seldom work out with the players we have.

And yes, he would've had more assists if our players could finish, but a chance isn't necessarily a clear goal-scoring chance. If he did and every chance was a sitter, he'd have 71 assists this season.

 

[roonster09]

Luck? So your statement about passing percentage doesn't matter since it's all luck?

Because some posters claimed he was just as good if not better there than Eriksen.

WTF are you even talking about?

That is simply bs and you know it. Are you really going to claim Bruno doesn't give the ball away in more dangerous areas??

I didn't say that, I was talking about pleasing playing style.

Checked few games randomly, Eriksen was tackled or took loose touch at least 2-3 times in defensive third vs Brighton, Arsenal and Liverpool (those are the only 3 games I checked), anyone even remember that? No. If it was Bruno, it would be highlighted even today. That's what I'm saying about playing style or the perception.

Also these are just by getting tackled, if it comes to passing then not sure how many more times considering the low pass completion percentage.

 

[roonster09]

That's correct. I didn't mean to say he doesn't have excellent work rate, and him busting his gut in the 90th minute is always appreciated. I was just saying that he needs to cut out some of the silly stuff he does that is meaningless. It's okay if he tries something that actually would have a chance of turning into something, but he even does these weird things that just scream unprofessional. Why he does it, I don't know, but I imagine he wants to pull off something that looks beautiful and unique.
Perhaps he doesn't have the technique or the skill to do the stuff that De Bruyne and Ødegaard does at times, and that's fine, but he can learn to make better decisions. He's a player who thrives with a chaotic playstyle, alright, but he does not need to do it at every opportunity. It's fine to just cool things down on the pitch every now and again. What I meant by how it sometimes is his fault that he (and his teammates) need to work harder is because of this reluctance to build-up play in a more relaxed manner. Not everything has to be flicks or a long ball across the entire pitch who often end up in a throw-in or even super quick one-twos who very seldom work out with the players we have.

And yes, he would've had more assists if our players could finish, but a chance isn't necessarily a clear goal-scoring chance. If he did and every chance was a sitter, he'd have 71 assists this season.

Not sure if you are talking about 2022-23 Bruno or Bruno who played under Ole.

Also yes, all goal scoring chances are not the same, that's why metrics like xA, xA/90, xA/KP are used.

 

[Lyng]

WTF are you even talking about?



I didn't say that, I was talking about pleasing playing style.

Checked few games randomly, Eriksen was tackled or took loose touch at least 2-3 times in defensive third vs Brighton, Arsenal and Liverpool (those are the only 3 games I checked), anyone even remember that? No. If it was Bruno, it would be highlighted even today. That's what I'm saying about playing style or the perception.

Also these are just by getting tackled, if it comes to passing then not sure how many more times considering the low pass completion percentage.

You brought up luck for some strange reason.

VP said Bruno would be a better 8 that was why I compared them.
Bruno's pass completion is even lower though so why highlight that?

I am not saying Eriksen is more press resistant. He clearly isn't, which is probably the main reason we should look to upgrade.
But he does more safe passes. Look a one game with both of them and it becomes clear.
Which is why I prefer Eriksen over Bruno at 8 but prefer Bruno over Eriksen further forward.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

He's the outfield footballer with the most minutes played in Europe this season (4,252).

There's only one person ahead of him - the Croatian Goalkeeper Livakovic... and he's only played 40 minutes more.

In 3rd place behind those two is a Centre Back who plays for feckin' Linfield (Bruno has played 5 more minutes then him).

In terms of actual games taken part in, Bruno is top outright with 49.

It's mental.

 

[Lemoor]

1: Because how you perform over the season is how a player should be measured, and not how we did with Pogba and called him an assist machine because he had 6 assists in his first 2 or 3 games some seasons back, and then went back to not assisting at all.
2: It's not a magic number. I could say 17 or 18 and Eriksen would still come better out of it because in every season he has played for Tottenham he has more goals and assists over a season than Bruno, apart from one season.
3: Because it is the league we play in and the league the majority care about. FC Copenhagen and FC Sheriff don't really interest me.
4: Because Eriksen was not on penalties, but Bruno takes our set pieces (Shaw has taken over now most of it now, though). It is also a lot more difficult to create/score from a set-piece than a penalty kick.
5: That's fair. His first season shouldn't be taken into consideration when we're talking about full seasons.
6: Well, I can if you want to. His first season he scored 7 goals and had 8 assists in 25 matches (1976 minutes played) which is a pretty good return, don't you think? In his second he scored 10 goals and assisted 2. Amount of goals are pretty good, but the amount of assists is very low.

That's not what I mean. You are comparing in how many seasons a player with 2.5 years in PL hit an arbitrary threshold and in how many seasons a player with 7(7.5 if you count Brentford) years in PL hit the arbitrary threshold and after that saying that bigger number = better player. Unless you normalise this a player with 7 seasons is obviously going to be at a massive advantage.
You could have also chosen 15 and then Bruno would even hit it in his half-season, or you could have chosen 25 and Eriksen would be 0 out of 7, while Bruno would still be 1 in 2.5. Choice of 20 is purely arbitrary.
I'm not really sure I get it. We don't play in domestic cups and European cups?
Ad 4 and 6, what I want is completely irrelevant. You're choosing metrics because of how they benefit Eriksen and after you do that unsurprisingly it turns out that Eriksen looks better.

 

[Lemoor]

On restricted role, Eriksen usually stays centrally when we're defending and paired with Casemiro, while Bruno runs around. When we start playing from the back he's also the one to help progress the ball with clever, and safe passing, as Bruno often occupies more advanced position. There are situations when they play in similar positions though.

That's fair, although with similar positions that's not exactly what I meant. Especially right before Eriksen injury there has been a decent amount of games where average positions looked like this. Casemiro behind and Eriksen and Bruno on the same line, so there had to be a decent amount of situations where Eriksen was in more advanced position for it to balance out too. Although I'm too lazy to rewatch those games and actually check where this quirk came from.

 

[Mcking]

He's the outfield footballer with the most minutes played in Europe this season (4,252).

There's only one person ahead of him - the Croatian Goalkeeper Livakovic... and he's only played 40 minutes more.

In 3rd place behind those two is a Centre Back who plays for feckin' Linfield (Bruno has played 5 more minutes then him).

In terms of actual games taken part in, Bruno is top outright with 49.

It's mental.

I like it, let him play.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He's the outfield footballer with the most minutes played in Europe this season (4,252).

There's only one person ahead of him - the Croatian Goalkeeper Livakovic... and he's only played 40 minutes more.

In 3rd place behind those two is a Centre Back who plays for feckin' Linfield (Bruno has played 5 more minutes then him).

In terms of actual games taken part in, Bruno is top outright with 49.

It's mental.

Just as well he doesn’t cover too much ground in each game he plays…

 

[Borys]

That's fair, although with similar positions that's not exactly what I meant. Especially right before Eriksen injury there has been a decent amount of games where average positions looked like this. Casemiro behind and Eriksen and Bruno on the same line, so there had to be a decent amount of situations where Eriksen was in more advanced position for it to balance out too. Although I'm too lazy to rewatch those games and actually check where this quirk came from.

Those average positions always confused me. Wan Bissaka plays in line with Eriksen and Bruno as well.

The fact that Bruno presses the keeper should make this graph impossible, but here we are.

 

[zaafi]

That's not what I mean. You are comparing in how many seasons a player with 2.5 years in PL hit an arbitrary threshold and in how many seasons a player with 7(7.5 if you count Brentford) years in PL hit the arbitrary threshold and after that saying that bigger number = better player. Unless you normalise this a player with 7 seasons is obviously going to be at a massive advantage.
You could have also chosen 15 and then Bruno would even hit it in his half-season, or you could have chosen 25 and Eriksen would be 0 out of 7, while Bruno would still be 1 in 2.5. Choice of 20 is purely arbitrary.
I'm not really sure I get it. We don't play in domestic cups and European cups?
Ad 4 and 6, what I want is completely irrelevant. You're choosing metrics because of how they benefit Eriksen and after you do that unsurprisingly it turns out that Eriksen looks better.

He has better stats because he was a more creative and a better footballer Bruno has ever been. He isn't now, but at their peaks respectively he was. You can try to tweak the stats as much as you want to make it seem like Bruno has better output, but more often than not Eriksen will come out as the winner. Maybe I could have included the European cups, but it is a bit more effort seeing as one season we're in the Europa League, and the next Champions League with Tottenham being the opposite. That's why comparing their Premier League output makes more sense to compare them, also because there's 38 games during a season. We could also include stats for their respective countries, but again, Premier League makes more sense to compare them.

 

[Yagami]

Rooney was better at him then all of those things, by some way too.

One of my abiding memories of Tevez for us, especially in his second season, will always be him chasing around his first touch like a madman... he couldn't trap a bag of sand at times.

Again, I disagree. I always thought Tevez was our 2nd best attacker behind Ronaldo and ahead of Rooney and Berbatov. I'm not saying that to insult Rooney either. He was great. That's just how high(ly) I rated Tevez during his time here.

I completely get preferring Rooney over him, though. At his peak, I do think he was better, which, unfortunately for us, came after Tevez and Ronaldo both had left and hit their peaks elsewhere. Preferring Bruno, though? As a player and leaving out the stuff off the pitch, not so much.

 

[roonster09]

Again, I disagree. I always thought Tevez was our 2nd best attacker behind Ronaldo and ahead of Rooney and Berbatov. I'm not saying that to insult Rooney either. He was great. That's just how high(ly) I rated Tevez during his time here.

I completely get preferring Rooney over him, though. At his peak, I do think he was better, which, unfortunately for us, came after Tevez and Ronaldo both had left and hit their peaks elsewhere. Preferring Bruno, though? As a player and leaving out the stuff off the pitch, not so much.

If you are bringing Berbatov then I'm assuming you mean Tevez's second season, there is no way he was ahead of Rooney. His second season was tragic, like a drunken idiot kicking the ball.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If you are bringing Berbatov then I'm assuming you mean Tevez's second season, there is no way he was ahead of Rooney. His second season was tragic, like a drunken idiot kicking the ball.

Yeah, he was gash. The revisionism about that season is one of the biggest myths around. So not surprising to hear it from someone who’s created his very own myth about Casemiro’s first half season.

 

[Jeppers7]

That's not what I mean. You are comparing in how many seasons a player with 2.5 years in PL hit an arbitrary threshold and in how many seasons a player with 7(7.5 if you count Brentford) years in PL hit the arbitrary threshold and after that saying that bigger number = better player. Unless you normalise this a player with 7 seasons is obviously going to be at a massive advantage.
You could have also chosen 15 and then Bruno would even hit it in his half-season, or you could have chosen 25 and Eriksen would be 0 out of 7, while Bruno would still be 1 in 2.5. Choice of 20 is purely arbitrary.
I'm not really sure I get it. We don't play in domestic cups and European cups?
Ad 4 and 6, what I want is completely irrelevant. You're choosing metrics because of how they benefit Eriksen and after you do that unsurprisingly it turns out that Eriksen looks better.

Eriksen has been a considerably better player than Bruno over his career.

 

[roonster09]

Who cares if Tevez or Eriksen were better players at their peak, we don't have the same players

 

[roonster09]

Yeah, he was gash. The revisionism about that season is one of the biggest myths around. So not surprising to hear it from someone who’s created his very own myth about Casemiro’s first half season.

Yeah, he was terrible and was running around the pitch like he was running in sand.

Can't believe those posts about Casemiro, terrible takes and then to double down on those idiotic takes