But as others have mentioned, it's always that same excuse. Kagawa had it and now it seems Mata will. van Gaal seems reluctant to play him through the middle he just seems too weak and immobile to really get a good grip on the game.
8
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 54
- Goals
- 11
- Assists
- 11
- Yellow cards
- 7
- Red cards
- 1
- Status
He still wouldn't do it. It's him and his limitations that hold him back. Not so much his position or other people.
He was a magician all over the pitch if you ever watched him at Chelsea. Wasn't limited in any way there.
They played a completely different way, and his limitations weren't exposed.
I was all for Mata playing on the right last season, where he had Herrera to link up with, but if we're going to continue playing a 4231 system, with two defensive mids, we're going to need quick wingers who will keep the width and be able to take players on.
If we get Pedro, we should put Mata as a 10 or just drop him because he's just not effective enough on the wing, in my opinion.
If we get Pedro, we should put Mata as a 10 or just drop him because he's just not effective enough on the wing, in my opinion.
This. It's quite funny how many just assume putting Mata in the middle will instantly solve our and his own limitations going forward.
I don't see it ever happening consistently under LvG. Mata can't truly excel in this setup until we consistently play our controlled game at a much higher tempo, which only happens in very specific circumstances with our continuing squad limitations.
We could at least give it a try. I mean it's not like he's actually been given an extended run at #10 here within a functioning, settled side.
Play Depay LW, Mata AM and Pedro RW. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. It can't be that much worse than the alternatives though and at least we'll have given our best attacking players a chance in their best positions.
And how long would we have to give him in that position that the squad isn't 'settled' to justify if he doesn't perform? I do agree we should be playing Memphis on the left with a potential Pedro signing on the right, but I'd much rather see Ander play as a third midfielder through the middle to add some mobility and somebody to instigate the tempo of a game a little quicker.
Don't know really, we'd have to see how he's doing. Five or so games would be enough for us to know if he's progressing or at least if the team in general is functioning better, I'd have thought. If he is as badly suited to that role as some here think then it would likely be apparent by then.
Yeah, maybe Herrera would work better as a #10 than Mata. Mata has previously reached a higher level in that position than Herrera ever has though, so I'd have thought letting him prove himself one way or another first would be a wiser move. Especially as Herrera is really more of a box to box CM imo.
Put it this way: If both of them are playing to their absolute best then Mata is the better player. Maybe Herrera has more chance of reaching his highest level here but for the sake of a month or so of our time it'd be worth trying it out.
Saw someone ask how many of Rooney's assists were from set plays over the years. and it got me wondering how many of Mata's were from set plays back when he was at Chelsea and was apparently really creative (which I think is untrue, but that's another debate entirely).
First season: 6 out of 13 league assists were from set plays.
Looking for the 12/13 season now.
First season: 6 out of 13 league assists were from set plays.
Looking for the 12/13 season now.
Ahhh here it is
Lovely stuff, if only there was an alternate angle.
Lovely stuff, if only there was an alternate angle.
He had 52 assists for Chelsea in 135 games. 33 from open play, 19 from set pieces. Overall, I make it 89 assists from 360 games.
A fair rate of assists but it's obvious he's not what you'd call a creative player regardless of stats. Still, he's one of our better players and imo easily better than Pedro so he should still start games for us.
Yeah, as I imagined, a fair number of set pieces in there.
Agreed he's not an overly creative player. Not sure I'd say he's better than Pedro, myself - especially in this system, but I can see why others may think he is.
I still think Mata's valuable, as he takes gret set-pieces and is a great finisher, but I don't think he's ideal for any role in a 433/4231 - especially a possession-based one.
My view on him remains unchanged from last season - Mata is very aesthetically pleasing both on and off the pitch, but he doesn't actually offer a huge amount in terms of penetration and creativity. He is for me, a luxury player whose strongest attributes are his technique and finishing. As a playmaker, he simply does not do a great deal outside of the opponents penalty box. He doesn't dribble and take players on, he doesn't play defence splitting passes, his work rate is nothing special nor is his defensive contribution.
It's the same as last season where we looked completely devoid of creativity, and whilst the caf was only too happy to heap the blame on Young and Fellaini, we offered nothing from the right flank. We went 3 games without scoring and yet Mata was always absolved of any sort of blame. For his role in the team he should have been and should still be one of our primary playmakers, and I just don't see him doing that, compared to others like Silva, Coutinho, Cazorla, Fabregas etc...
Having said all that, I can see a place for him along with Rooney and Memphis in a fluid front three, provided we sort our midfield shape out rather than having two defensive midfielders and a #10 who basically operates as a second striker.
If it had been me however, I would have loved to see Nani and Memphis as our wide men in a proper 4-3-3.
It's the same as last season where we looked completely devoid of creativity, and whilst the caf was only too happy to heap the blame on Young and Fellaini, we offered nothing from the right flank. We went 3 games without scoring and yet Mata was always absolved of any sort of blame. For his role in the team he should have been and should still be one of our primary playmakers, and I just don't see him doing that, compared to others like Silva, Coutinho, Cazorla, Fabregas etc...
Having said all that, I can see a place for him along with Rooney and Memphis in a fluid front three, provided we sort our midfield shape out rather than having two defensive midfielders and a #10 who basically operates as a second striker.
If it had been me however, I would have loved to see Nani and Memphis as our wide men in a proper 4-3-3.
I wouldn't mind seeing a young player (Januzaj/Pereira/Lingard/Wilson) for Young or Mata at some point.
He needs to play behind the striker. He's wasted as RW as he simply do not have the pace to cover that role
But he doesnt have the balance and dribbling to play center in a possession based side.
He's certainly better than Depay on that regard
We've got 6 players whose natural in that role (Mata, Fellaini, Herrera, Januzaj, Rooney and Perriera). Depay should be play on the flanks, were his pace and technique will cause havoc in the opponents defense
Depay has twice as much balance as Mata got, both not great dribbles but Depay can carry the ball better than Mata can. Mata is more creative though, wouldnt want Depay playing there either.
For every one of those, there is about 10 of these.Ahhh here it is
Lovely stuff, if only there was an alternate angle.
He was shite on Saturday. Dallied more or less every time he was given the ball. A higher tempo will help him, though, in his defence.
Whether he plays centrally or out wide is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. He's probably played more professional football games in a wider role than he has done centrally and he's more than capable of excelling in either role. It's up to him to make more of an influence, which he's certainly capable of doing.
Whether he plays centrally or out wide is a bit of a red herring, to be honest. He's probably played more professional football games in a wider role than he has done centrally and he's more than capable of excelling in either role. It's up to him to make more of an influence, which he's certainly capable of doing.
I got this from the Louis van Gaal Tactics thread so as to not derail that.
It's only since he's moved to us that Mata's become much less of a playmaker and more of a goalscoring, supporting player, almost like a wide forward/second (third?) striker.
Mata at Chelsea was quite similar to Silva at Man. City with the only difference being that Silva operated deeper and took more control of the match whilst Mata operated more in the channels and in the final third. I remember the matches where Chelsea badly missed Mata's creativity and guile, and that was when they even had Hazard and Oscar playing for them.
It's only since he's moved to us that Mata's become much less of a playmaker and more of a goalscoring, supporting player, almost like a wide forward/second (third?) striker.
They were never similar. Silva dictated play in a possession team, whereas Mata scored and assisted in a counter-attacking team.
Silva is the guy who assists the assist as well as assists the goal-scorer. Mata is just the guy who assists the goalscorer.
Silva's ability to sit on the ball, turn and dribble his man, create, dictate... is all significantly better than Mata's.
Hence Silva has always been ahead in the pecking order for Spain.
Mata isn't even as creative as Herrera, and has always been a second striker.
Put Mata in possession team and reduce his space.. and he gets bullied out of the game, and only offers goals and safe passing. Give him space to play into and a stretched defence to exploit, and he's effective.
Silva thrives in teams who suffocate the opposition.
Not alike, and never were.
Exactly, hence why I said that Silva dropped deeper and took more control of the match. The similarities between them are in the fact that both are small, not fast, and not quick on the ball. As well as the physical traits, both have quite a good control of the ball and can maintain it under pressure (Silva more than Mata, of course). Also, both are quite good at spotting key passes (Silva is more than a playmaker than Mata, of course).
The only big difference between them is in their playing style. Mata isn't one to dictate play and be the side's main playmaker, whilst Silva is. However, Mata is more direct and more of a goalscorer than Silva is. Mata cannot thrive in playing a possession-based game as he's quite direct and a final-third-based player. Silva is more all-rounded.
Okay... so if you're saying all this, why did you say they were quite similar? You've just listed loads of differences (and there are even more we could list).
You've said they're quite similar and then said 'the only big difference... is in their playing style' So surely they aren't similar.
He's genuinely more similar to Rooney (when his technique isn't atrocious) than Silva.
It's amazing how people still bundle Silva and Mata together, when Mata has never shown the capability to do what Silva does.
His game is all about finishing, assisting once the defence is stretched, and set pieces. Silva's game is completely different.
For me, quite similar doesn't mean 100% similar i.e. exactly the same. I was thinking back at his Chelsea days and wondering how essential he was for them before Mourinho came in. When Mata was absent, Chelsea had a tough time breaking down opposition defences, particularly those that sat back with numbers. This is quite similar to how Man. City miss Silva. Both were very good at breaking down opposition defences albeit with different approaches. That's where the majority of their similarities lie.
Just read in the MEN that they think Pedro would replace Mata and not Young... They're having a laugh, right??
Don't want the thought to even cross my mind.
It's highly probable. van Gaal rates the diligence and mobility of Young bizarrely highly. I don't think Mata should be starting, but he's definitely a better option than Young.
I could not have put it better.
Wouldn't be that surprising.
I think it's clear that van Gaal really likes Young, and probably doesn't regard Mata and Herrera as crucial players, like most on here do.
nah I can't say both do the same with different approaches. Silva with his creativity forces space to appear, and that is breaking down defences. while Mata, for the reasons stated above, has to wait for space in defences to appear before he can act himself. not quite similar at all
Your posts are right on the money
In my own opinion I wish we hadn't bought Mata...gave Chelsea a huge amount of money for a problem we both didn't/don't want
That's how I have always imagined it would go. Wouldn't surprise me at all.
Fair enough, I can see what you mean with that. I was thinking of something different when I mentioned "breaking down defences" but I guess I was thinking of that incorrectly anyways.
Ultimately, though, Mata and Silva are completely different players, and with Silva having more in his locker, I see him as being better than Mata. However, at Chelsea, he was still key as he was the one putting players through on goal with his more direct approach. Still, though, I do find his transfer here unnecessary at that time, but now, he's useful for us given the transfers that we have conducted.
Quite possible. Hopefully it means Memphis-Mata-Pedro though.
Actually no, i am also under the same suspicion. The thing is that in this 4-4-2 (or 4-4-1-1) with the two holding midfielders we rely heavily on the wings to build up our attacking plays and get the ball forward. Which means that our wingers must spend a lot of time in the middle third of the pitch, effectively hold onto the ball under pressure, provide defensive contribution and of course carry the ball forward.
This is what made Young "irreplaceable" in the first place despite his lack of qualilty, his overall contribution. Last Saturday i almost felt sorry for Mata when i was watching him running up and down the right flank and trying to make himself useful. Against a more creative FB we would probably have more problems.
On the other hand, both Mata and Pedro flourish when they're given the opportunity to stay in the final third. Tracking back full backs and contributing on both ends of the pitch isn't really their cup of tea. You can't have four players who can only contribute in the attacking third (Rooney, Memphis, Pedro and Mata), it's too risky. Even Barca has three.
Pedro is stronger than Mata and he can offer much more in our pressing game. But the main difference is that Pedro will pass the ball and then look for a run in the box, behind the defense and he will try to beat his marker when Mata will pass and look for the next open space in the midfield to occupy. Pedro's better at making things happen in tight spaces than Mata.
In the best case scenario we'll hopefully see a return to last season's 4-3-3 with Carrick-Schweinsteiger sharing the holding role, Morgan and Herrera as the two b2b midfielders (a more fit Bastian could also play there) and Pedro-Rooney-Memphis up front and Mata being the first to come on whenever we want to try something different.
I tend to agree with that. The reasons for Young being nearly irreplaceable at the moment are his defensive work and his pace in 1:1 situations. It does not make him a fantastic footballer but our attacking players don`t offer this.
I thought that Memphis might have similar strengths to Young and will replace him on the left wing. However, LvG does not see it this way.
You get the feeling that the pecking order of the 3 behind Rooney is Young-Memphis-Mata atm and as soon as a right winger comes in Mata will be benched.
- Status