Christian Eriksen

Status
Not open for further replies.
Devil may care said:
I said this league is tougher because it is, I didn't say the German league was soft, what you said is nonsense though, how many top German players or stars from their league ply their trade for a top PL team? Ballack? Ozil has struggled at Arsenal, Kagawa was a dud here, in fact our top teams have barely ever bought players from the Bundesliga. This list is far shorter than the amount bought form Spain or even France.

It may be a no contest for you and that is fair enough, but we have people thinking we should buy Berahino or Ings which is far more ridiculous than the idea that Eriksen is as good as De Bruyne.
Click to expand...

And yet Kompany who was only a decent player for Hamburg became one of the best PL defenders at ManCity and a very average and slow Mertsacker could become an important CB for Arsenal. The Özil example is also bad, he might not fullfil the expectations of "Superstar who totally owns the league" but he is still a quality player in the EPL and his reputation was built in Spain while he was been an inconsistent player in the Bundesliga who also struggled with ups and downs of his form. You will find examples for everything in every league. Looking at international club competitions and NT tournaments I see no reason to believe that the EPL is really ahead of the other top leagues in average.
In regards to De Bruyne... that guy has been a bigger factor for the belgium NT than Hazard and showed that at the WC too while Eriksen was a total disappointment for Denmark and doesn't carry his team like De Bruyne does at the moment so you don't even need to look just at the leagues, it's also obvious outside of them.

Devil may care said:
Most players disagree, Ozil for instance has been hitting the gym after admitting it's a harder transition than Germany to Spain which he managed with ease. Then you have our own manager who has worked in both openly admit he was not prepared for the physicality or pace of the PL and that it had taken him by surprise.
Click to expand...

A harder transition doesn't mean the league is of higher quality. I'm sure it's also harder to move from Germany to Russia. :p
The Özil example is also yet again really bad because I don't see any physical improvements by Özil. He played a better WC in 2010 and wasn't more physical in 2014 after a year in England.
I also tend to ignore everything LvG uses to excuse his own mistakes. In his first season in Germany he also said that he underestimated the german league.
All those arguments about and pace of the PL really fall apart if you look at european games or the NT level. If that's really so important/different then why is there nothing to see of it?
In truth teams like Germany and Spain were those who covered the most distance at the last two WCs and in Europe clubs like Atletico Madrid and Dortmund used their physical abilities to be successful.
At the same time we see an english NT with zombie passing and hardly any intensity/ability to put opponents under pressure and clubs like Chelsea who sit back or clubs like ManCity who can't even get the ball from Barca/Bayern.
It's easy to show a fast paced game if your opponents allow it but a lot of teams in Spain and Germany are all about preventing that.
I could even post stats to prove those points, I have done that in the past but can't be bothered to make such a long post another time. There is just no data to support that clubs in England are more physical (= covere more distance, have more sprints and so on) than the other top leagues. There is of course a difference in the style but that is not down to the physical abilities of the teams.
 
Last edited:
Fabregas is different for me, more like a "once every generation a unique talent gets born" type of player. He was already so good when he was 17 or 18 and he's done so many wonderful things during his career. And he's only 27 now, it's insane. Can't believe Barca didn't make him stay, and how Mourinho got him for only 30 million. Definitely worth building your team around.

Eriksen gave much more assists than he scored goals at Ajax and based on his potential I'd say he could be a world class player at any club in the world. He's more direct at Spurs like you say, but he might actually be even better suited to a continental style. Same for De Bruyne, started watching him a lot after his transfer thread on here boomed. He's been unstoppable at times, possibly even better than Eriksen. Can't really choose between De Bruyne and Eriksen to be honest.

As for Mata, Van Gaal gave him a lot of matches this season, but his stats aren't great. Which isn't purely his fault, but he doesn't offer many other things than goals, assists and some nice passes so it's difficult. Wouldn't surprise me if Van Gaal would like Rooney better as a #10 for the long term, he used Muller there at Bayern and Litmanen was Ajax top scorer in the CL playing as a #10. Some of Rooney's best moments for us in the last years came when he was playing behind another striker.

With Carrick getting older + Blind and Herrera not exactly being Kroos & Modric I think our focus in the summer will be more on a midfielder who is not a #10. Though you could also say that with RVP getting older or injured, Rooney could mostly be a #9 next season and we could buy another #10, a lot will depend on the market too I guess. If De Bruyne is available and someone like Vidal isn't, then that could decide who we're going to bring in and replace and how we will line up next season.
 
Last edited:
LinkesAuge said:
And yet Kompany who was only a decent player for Hamburg became one of the best PL defenders at ManCity and a very average and slow Mertsacker could become an important CB for Arsenal. The Özil example is also bad, he might not fullfil the expectations of "Superstar who totally owns the league" but he is still a quality player in the EPL and his reputation was built in Spain while he was been an inconsistent player in the Bundesliga who also struggled with ups and downs of his form. You will find examples for everything in every league. Looking at international club competitions and NT tournaments I see no reason to believe that the EPL is really ahead of the other top leagues in average.

In regards to De Bruyne... that guy has been a bigger factor for the belgium NT than Hazard and showed that at the WC too while Eriksen was a total disappointment for Denmark and doesn't carry his team like De Bruyne does at the moment so you don't even need to look just at the leagues, it's also obvious outside of them.
Click to expand...

Again people seem to be somehow saying I think the PL is better, I never said that at all. I said I think it is harder and rougher on the creative players than Germany and Spain, which I feel is accurate. Ozil is a prime example, he's weak as water and has struggled at Arsenal as the role he is best at is one we barely use here, hence why Wenger moves him wide a lot as these little #10's get bullied too easily centrally in the PL, now someone like Silva has adapted to this wide AM role brilliantly but so far Ozil has struggled. This league is more geared for the likes of Hazard and Sanchez type AM's, blisteringly fast and with that strong core.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Belgian team is far superior to the Danish one though? I'm in such a weird argument here as I don't really want us to buy either of them. :lol:
 
Why did chelsea sell de bruyne? Had no idea he was as good as people in here think.
 
Balu said:
You're losing the plot mate. Really.
Click to expand...

I might be but I just don't fancy Bruyne. No doubt he's a very effective player just not my cup of tea. Its like the Neymar v Gotze debate.. I preferred Neymar, its just Eriksens style of play which probably explains my bias towards him.

I can't deny KDB's stats are remarkable and so were Mata's at Chelsea. But I'd have Eriksen at United over him.
 
Raees said:
I might be but I just don't fancy Bruyne. No doubt he's a very effective player just not my cup of tea. Its like the Neymar v Gotze debate.. I preferred Neymar, its just Eriksens style of play which probably explains my bias towards him.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, if you talk solely about elegance or whatever excites you when watching a player, fair enough. But the moment you bring actual quality, effectivity, productivity into the equation, then it's a bit silly.
 
Devil may care said:
Then you have our own manager who has worked in both openly admit he was not prepared for the physicality or pace of the PL and that it had taken him by surprise.
Click to expand...
He said the same about the Bundesliga after his bad start at Bayern. It's a silly excuse to cover for his bad preparation for the job.
 
Devil may care said:
Most players disagree, Ozil for instance has been hitting the gym after admitting it's a harder transition than Germany to Spain which he managed with ease. Then you have our own manager who has worked in both openly admit he was not prepared for the physicality or pace of the PL and that it had taken him by surprise.
Click to expand...
Devil may care said:
Again people seem to be somehow saying I think the PL is better, I never said that at all. I said I think it is harder and rougher on the creative players than Germany and Spain, which I feel is accurate. Ozil is a prime example, he's weak as water and has struggled at Arsenal as the role he is best at is one we barely use here, hence why Wenger moves him wide a lot as these little #10's get bullied too easily centrally in the PL, now someone like Silva has adapted to this wide AM role brilliantly but so far Ozil has struggled. This league is more geared for the likes of Hazard and Sanchez type AM's, blisteringly fast and with that strong core.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that the Belgian team is far superior to the Danish one though? I'm in such a weird argument here as I don't really want us to buy either of them. :lol:
Click to expand...


But your Özil example is just weird because in Germany he was most of his time also used as winger. That's where he got his first experience at Schalke and there is a reason why they let him go because they weren't fully convinced by him. Diego was the AM for Bremen when Özil was there and only in his last season he really moved towards the AM position but was still very inconsistent (in the season before the WC 2010 it was a player like Marin who outshone him in the 2nd half of the season) and at the last WC even Löw moved him out wide despite being the biggest Özil-fanboy in Germany.
Özil doesn't "struggle" as AM because he plays in the EPL, he "struggles" because he has never been THAT consistent and is simply not someone to carry a team on his own. So it's more a problem of expecations and I had similar discussions before in regards to the german NT (I already argued against Özil as AM for the german NT when he was still playing for Real for the very same reasons). Put Real Madrid with Özil in the EPL and it's a different story but people just ignored why Özil worked for Real the way he did and the same is happening at the moment with Di Maria while Sanchez on the other hand is for Arsenal a much better player than he was for Barca.
You just can't break down player performances/abilities based on the league. There are far bigger differences between each club within a league than between leagues themselves (a club like Arsenal could just as easily be from Spain while Atletico Madrid or Dortmund would also be an excellent fit for the EPL).
 
Last edited:
Balu said:
Well yeah, if you talk solely about elegance or whatever excites you when watching a player, fair enough. But the moment you bring actual quality, effectivity, productivity into the equation, then it's a bit silly.
Click to expand...

Nah you can't fault his productivity. I see De Bruyne as more of a Rooneyesque powerhouse type player - he has a great mentality too.. very determined. Nevertheless I see Eriksen as having a higher ceiling if he makes the right move and he needs to do so soon to avoid stagnation (before 25). But yeah it comes down to personal opinion.

Obviously I love guys like Isco, Coutinho but none of them are available. He's someone that has a big move in him and once he does, I think he'll excel.
 
Raees said:
Nah you can't fault his productivity. I see De Bruyne as more of a Rooney style powerhouse type player; I see Eriksen as having a higher ceiling if he makes the right move. But yeah it comes down to personal opinion.

Obviously I love guys like Isco, Coutinho but none of them are available. He's someone that has a big move in him and once he does, I think he'll excel.
Click to expand...
Remember? This started when you wrote that de Bruyne is decent, but isn't fit to tie Eriksen's laces. Now, if we agree that that comment was plain nonsense, then we don't have to fault Eriksen's productivity.
 
Raees said:
Nah you can't fault his productivity. I see De Bruyne as more of a Rooneyesque powerhouse type player - he has a great mentality too.. very determined. Nevertheless I see Eriksen as having a higher ceiling if he makes the right move and he needs to do so soon to avoid stagnation (before 25). But yeah it comes down to personal opinion.

Obviously I love guys like Isco, Coutinho but none of them are available. He's someone that has a big move in him and once he does, I think he'll excel.
Click to expand...

You really don't know De Bruyne if you compare him to Rooney. De Bruyne has in average more than two times the number of successful dribblings than Eriksen in the league, he is not a "powerhouse" player but simply a wonderful player on the ball and with great passing (plays a lot more key passes than Eriksen) too while you make it sound like De Bruyne is all about efficiency/scorers and some sort of physical ability while in reality that's not De Bruyne's main strength at all. His current productivity is just the next step in his development but he is absolutely a flair player.
 
Balu said:
Remember? This started when you wrote that de Bruyne is decent, but isn't fit to tie Eriksen's laces. Now, if we agree that that comment was plain nonsense, then we don't have to fault Eriksen's productivity.
Click to expand...

My comment was based on style of play and yes it was rather harsh of me to put it that way and unjustified at this moment in time. Nevertheless at no stage did I say De Bruynes not an effective footballer. De Bruyne is the more productive footballer? I don't dispute that but for me Eriksen has that ability to control games in an eye catching way which compensates for his lesser productivity. Iniesta wasn't extremely productive but anyone could tell he was great .. now obviously Eriksen is not that good but the analogy remains here for me.. I just think he is better.
 
Henrik Larsson said:
Fabregas is different for me, more like a "once every generation a unique talent gets born" type of player. He was already so good when he was 17 or 18 and he's done so many wonderful things during his career. And he's only 27 now, it's insane.
Click to expand...
He's nowhere near as good as he was, which is why Barca sold him and Wenger didn't buy him back.
 
Raees said:
My comment was based on style of play and yes it was rather harsh of me to put it that way and unjustified at this moment in time. Nevertheless at no stage did I say De Bruynes not an effective footballer. De Bruyne is the more productive footballer? I don't dispute that but for me Eriksen has that ability to control games in an eye catching way which compensates for his lesser productivity. Iniesta wasn't extremely productive but anyone could tell he was great .. now obviously Eriksen is not that good but the analogy remains here for me.. I just think he is better.
Click to expand...

What big game has Eriksen controlled then?
 
De Bruyne like Rooney? Err... Right then.
 
Raees said:
My comment was based on style of play and yes it was rather harsh of me to put it that way and unjustified at this moment in time. Nevertheless at no stage did I say De Bruynes not an effective footballer. De Bruyne is the more productive footballer? I don't dispute that but for me Eriksen has that ability to control games in an eye catching way which compensates for his lesser productivity. Iniesta wasn't extremely productive but anyone could tell he was great .. now obviously Eriksen is not that good but the analogy remains here for me.. I just think he is better.
Click to expand...
I think you underrate how much De Bruyne adds to controling the midfield. The Rooney comparison is very very odd.
 
Spurs 5-3 Chelsea off the top of my head, Kane got the plaudits but Eriksen destroyed Matic that game. @links the Rooney thing was meant as a compliment in that he is direct and industrious. . powerful runner with the ball too. He has a great hunger for the game which is similar to Rooney when he's in the mood.
 
Bojan11 said:
So why did Barca sell Sanchez then? Was he not good enough too?
Click to expand...
Terrible fit for Barca, his individual performances have masked his difficulties in fitting into overall Arsenal team play too.
 
I think his game would change under LVG just as Mata and Ander have and he'd end up passing sideways like the rest.

Which is also why I dont think De Bruyne would be on LVG's radar. He gives the ball away a lot trying to make things happen
 
Raees said:
My comment was based on style of play and yes it was rather harsh of me to put it that way and unjustified at this moment in time. Nevertheless at no stage did I say De Bruynes not an effective footballer. De Bruyne is the more productive footballer? I don't dispute that but for me Eriksen has that ability to control games in an eye catching way which compensates for his lesser productivity. Iniesta wasn't extremely productive but anyone could tell he was great .. now obviously Eriksen is not that good but the analogy remains here for me.. I just think he is better.
Click to expand...

I really think you should watch more Wolfsburg games, because what you praise about Eriksen is exactly the role De Bruyne plays for Wolfsburg. He is their nerve center in the offense, having a part in 80%-90% of their attacking plays from open play. His scores show the strong form of him and their primary striker Dost, but they are actually only secondary. His play making and overall influence on the game is far more important for his team. He is their main man, their show runner and pretty much irreplacable for them. At least this is what his coach seems to think, starting him in every official match this season so far.

De Bruyne is the kind of player, who can lift a team on another level. However, I do think that De Bruyne needs this role as main man to really show his potential. He thrives in that role similar to how Mario Götze did at Dortmund (he was Klopp´s prime candidate in 2013 as his successor after all). Götze was also the last player of that mould in the Bundesliga.
 
Unless he's the next Messi we shouldn't think about buying him. We Need to buy the next Messi.
 
peterstorey said:
He's nowhere near as good as he was, which is why Barca sold him and Wenger didn't buy him back.
Click to expand...

Wenger didn't buy him because his team had lots of depth at Cesc's position and weaknesses elsewhere. Hindsight is clear he should have done it though. Wilshere and Ramsey are always injured anyways.
 
We shouldn't even think about a #10 until we properly play one. Haven't done so since I started watching Manchester United play. Unless that position is locked in every game there is no point splashing the cash. Kagawa and Mata have both been bought without their preferred position being too much involved. We've seen it more this season but it's inconsistently used and 6 different players have played there.
 
Getting away from the De Bruyne debate, and back to Erikson, so many times I've watched Spurs the last couple of years and he's floated out of the game, he can be anonymous at times, but can pop up with big moments, as we've seen this year, it would be silly to get rid of Mata and buy someone who has the same drawback?
Checking the thread a few others have noticed similar.
 
Last edited:
BennyBlanco said:
Getting away from the De Bruyne debate, and back to Erikson, so many times I've watched Spurs the last couple of years and he's floated out of the game, he can be anonymous at times, but can pop up with big moments, as we've seen this year, it would be silly to get rid of Mata and buy someone who has the same drawback?
Checking the thread a few others have noticed similar.
Click to expand...

Spurs fans think the same tbh based on what I have read from their forums but at the same time they talk of him as if he is on borrowed time and that he will leave in the next few years to a bigger club once he becomes more consistent.
 
He's playing better than Mata right now but if Mata can regain his old form, he's a much better player. Don't think Eriksen would solve anything for us, even though I've been positively surprised by how well he's done at Spurs.
 
He'd have the same issues Mata does for us tbh
 
Colin129 said:
We should have brought him when he was £12M, but Moyes. Now, with Spurs tax, it would not be worth it. There are better/cheaper options.
Click to expand...
I know normally it is easy to say with hindsight that we 'should have bought Player X when they went to that other club for £Ym, but with Eriksen it was obvious at the time that £12m was a bargain.
 
You would think that van Gaal knows Eriksen and his qualities from Ajax. I think Mata will stay and play an important role next season. No need for Eriksen
 
Sparky Rhiwabon said:
I know normally it is easy to say with hindsight that we 'should have bought Player X when they went to that other club for £Ym, but with Eriksen it was obvious at the time that £12m was a bargain.
Click to expand...

Sir A1ex said:
Agreed. Never understood how he went for so little.
Click to expand...

The low price was being mentioned then as well but truth is, none of the top english clubs needed a No 10 at the time. Neither do they now.
 
BennyBlanco said:
Getting away from the De Bruyne debate, and back to Erikson, so many times I've watched Spurs the last couple of years and he's floated out of the game, he can be anonymous at times, but can pop up with big moments, as we've seen this year, it would be silly to get rid of Mata and buy someone who has the same drawback?
Checking the thread a few others have noticed similar.
Click to expand...
agreed, but I guess Erricksen's little bit more mobile and maybe the best dead ball specialist in the league. Mata 's not that worse either. SO is he worth the money? I don't think so, we should spend elsewhere, if we paly mata as 10 in working system(rather 4-2-3-1 than stupid 2 strikers diamond.. he will still do wonders for us..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.