Kevin De Bruyne

It’s the fact that he can play any midfield role, deep, wide, 10, whatever’s asked of him and he still plays to such a ridiculously high standard. It’s pretty unique in the modern era where players are boxed into certain roles and can’t play another one without a dip in quality. A great great player who’d probably be remembered even more favourably if he hadn’t played for a non-club
 
T00lsh3d said:
It’s the fact that he can play any midfield role, deep, wide, 10, whatever’s asked of him and he still plays to such a ridiculously high standard. It’s pretty unique in the modern era where players are boxed into certain roles and can’t play another one without a dip in quality. A great great player who’d probably be remembered even more favourably if he hadn’t played for a non-club
Click to expand...

De Bruyne is clearly a no.10 or advanced no.8. He doesn't play to the same standard in a deeper role.
 
Shane88 said:
He's definitely in the all-time greatest Premier League midfield, isn't he? Who he knocks out of a midfield spot is up for discussion though.

Ginger bollocks.
Click to expand...

He'd take the place everyone puts Gerrard in.
 
sherrinford said:
De Bruyne is clearly a no.10 or advanced no.8. He doesn't play to the same standard in a deeper role.
Click to expand...
don’t know why people make stuff up instead of just praising a player for what he’s good at, always have to exaggerate the praise to “he’s got the lot”, already see it happening all the time with Bellingham
 
Not all that out of peps team. Im infact counting him having 1 of his CL quiet games in the final.
 
Why didn't we sign him again...? a very obvious replacement for scholes to continue the ginger prince title.
 
Gringo said:
He's Gerrard but good.
Click to expand...

Literally thought the same last night.

Gerrard was obviously brilliant, but De Bruyne is like Gerrard without the flaws and the Captain marvel complex that was his major weakness.
 
Hughes35 said:
Literally thought the same last night.

Gerrard was obviously brilliant, but De Bruyne is like Gerrard without the flaws and the Captain marvel complex that was his major weakness.
Click to expand...

Disagree with this. Gerrard is not as likeable but he he played so many different roles for Liverpool even at times when they were struggling. De Bruyne is an incredible player but in an equally incredible team. He's also not as versatile as Gerrard imo.

But... I don't think it's that crazy of a thing to say he's better than StevieMe. Just don't agree with it personally.
 
shamans said:
Disagree with this. Gerrard is not as likeable but he he played so many different roles for Liverpool even at times when they were struggling. De Bruyne is an incredible player but in an equally incredible team. He's also not as versatile as Gerrard imo.

But... I don't think it's that crazy of a thing to say he's better than StevieMe. Just don't agree with it personally.
Click to expand...
He's a lot better than Gerrard. He's a much better passer, for one.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
He has excellent physicality, he's better positionally, his long shooting is as good as Gerrard's was... In which department was Gerrard better?
Click to expand...
Hammondo said:
Better touch, close control, moving with the ball, more intelligent with the ball, more mobile, a lot more technical.
Click to expand...

For me, Gerrard had a better long shot and in general was a better finisher and goal scorer.

Defensively, Gerrard was the more physical player. Had really good tackling and could shut down passing lanes. He was the engine of the team when he played in that position. This was all backed by his incredible overall work rate, stamina and pace (he wasn't blistering but he had some really good pace on him).

Finally I rate mental attributes a lot. Gerrard was a leader on the pitch and had that peak Rooney bulldog sorta attitude. He's one of those players that could lift the whole team up. Not shy of a challenge, always ready to take on the opposition. Every player who has successfully played a box to box role needs to be good at all of that.

Thats also why Gerrard throughout his career could play multiple roles all across the midfield.

So overall, I think Gerrard was the better player because the attributes he does posses, De Bruyne just isn't that sort of player and while the stuff De Bruyne is better at, Gerrard isn't too far behind (except for passing but De Bruyne is a mind boggling insane passer of the ball).

Anyway, as I said earlier there's not much between them I see why you'd think De Bruyne is better. Some people don't rate the mental/defensive attributes I'm talking about but personally I think StevieMe was the better player.
 
shamans said:
For me, Gerrard had a better long shot and in general was a better finisher and goal scorer.

Defensively, Gerrard was the more physical player. Had really good tackling and could shut down passing lanes. He was the engine of the team when he played in that position. This was all backed by his incredible overall work rate, stamina and pace (he wasn't blistering but he had some really good pace on him).

Finally I rate mental attributes a lot. Gerrard was a leader on the pitch and had that peak Rooney bulldog sorta attitude. He's one of those players that could lift the whole team up. Not shy of a challenge, always ready to take on the opposition. Every player who has successfully played a box to box role needs to be good at all of that.

Thats also why Gerrard throughout his career could play multiple roles all across the midfield.

So overall, I think Gerrard was the better player because the attributes he does posses, De Bruyne just isn't that sort of player and while the stuff De Bruyne is better at, Gerrard isn't too far behind (except for passing but De Bruyne is a mind boggling insane passer of the ball).

Anyway, as I said earlier there's not much between them I see why you'd think De Bruyne is better. Some people don't rate the mental/defensive attributes I'm talking about but personally I think StevieMe was the better player.
Click to expand...
I know this is not going to be popular, but for me this is a typical British view of footballers, physical, direct, bullish.
 
Hammondo said:
I know this is not going to be popular, but for me this is a typical British view of footballers, physical, direct, bullish.
Click to expand...
Also, for as many "top leader" performances Gerrard had (Istanbul), there were as many where his bullishness was the cause of his team's defeat (all his "leadership" in the slip season). He was a determined player, but that led to some dubious leadership at times. I feel De Bruyne is a more reserved character on the pitch but leads technically, when he's on the front foot, the whole team performance lifts by a bit.
 
Hammondo said:
I know this is not going to be popular, but for me this is a typical British view of footballers, physical, direct, bullish.
Click to expand...

Thing is that's not all Gerrard was. Also, every nation has valued a midfielder with box to box skills. Even some of the best attacking players like Zlattan or R9 went a notch higher due to their physicality.
 
Rooney in Paris said:
Also, for as many "top leader" performances Gerrard had (Istanbul), there were as many where his bullishness was the cause of his team's defeat (all his "leadership" in the slip season). He was a determined player, but that led to some dubious leadership at times. I feel De Bruyne is a more reserved character on the pitch but leads technically, when he's on the front foot, the whole team performance lifts by a bit.
Click to expand...
He got himself sent off against us within 30 seconds.
 
shamans said:
Thing is that's not all Gerrard was. Also, every nation has valued a midfielder with box to box skills. Even some of the best attacking players like Zlattan or R9 went a notch higher due to their physicality.
Click to expand...
Yes but they had more technical ability as well, also midfielders have more requirements for it.
 
Hammondo said:
He got himself sent off against us within 30 seconds.
Click to expand...
God that was so beautiful.

At that point I hoped we would take the game to them even more and spank them something like 5-0. Still, great memory.
 
shamans said:
Disagree with this. Gerrard is not as likeable but he he played so many different roles for Liverpool even at times when they were struggling. De Bruyne is an incredible player but in an equally incredible team. He's also not as versatile as Gerrard imo.

But... I don't think it's that crazy of a thing to say he's better than StevieMe. Just don't agree with it personally.
Click to expand...
He's clearly better than Gerrard
 
tenpoless said:
Why didn't we sign him again...? a very obvious replacement for scholes to continue the ginger prince title.
Click to expand...
This bugs me. Every worldclass player we have been in for these past 10 years choses for another team. For me it started with Hazard then there was De Bruyne now we have Haaland. Three players I felt that would make a defining impact on our team. Pretty sure we would have a title by now if we would have signed one of these players. Add Grealish to that list. Who have I missed?

Can’t think of a single signing we’ve made these past 10 years where I’ve had the same feeling of awe.

Same feeling with our managers actually with the exception of Ten Hag.
 
AlexiV said:
This bugs me. Every worldclass player we have been in for these past 10 years choses for another team. For me it started with Hazard then there was De Bruyne now we have Haaland. Three players I felt that would make a defining impact on our team. Pretty sure we would have a title by now if we would have signed one of these players. Add Grealish to that list. Who have I missed?

Can’t think of a single signing we’ve made these past 10 years where I’ve had the same feeling of awe.

Same feeling with our managers actually with the exception of Ten Hag.
Click to expand...

It's not new - Ronaldinho, Essien, Robben all during Fergie's time. The problem is there's a greater need for these players since he left.
 
Botim said:
He's not even having the greatest of seasons, but he's still on 16 assists and 7 goals in 29 games.
All that's missing to be considered a true great is a stellar performance in a CL final.
Click to expand...
Not sure the numbers mean much in the current team where money spent and individual talent of the team means sterling was high on top scorers list every year. But unlike haaland numbers set to the side he is incredible and has been consistently
 
shamans said:
For me, Gerrard had a better long shot and in general was a better finisher and goal scorer.
Click to expand...

I kind of take issue with this. I know KDB is playing in a much better side, but if you remove penalties, KDB has a better goal to game ratio by quite some distance. Not saying Gerrard wasn't a great goalscorer, but I think you're underrating how many goals De Bruyne has scored (and plenty of great long shots too).
 
AlexiV said:
This bugs me. Every worldclass player we have been in for these past 10 years choses for another team. For me it started with Hazard then there was De Bruyne now we have Haaland. Three players I felt that would make a defining impact on our team. Pretty sure we would have a title by now if we would have signed one of these players. Add Grealish to that list. Who have I missed?

Can’t think of a single signing we’ve made these past 10 years where I’ve had the same feeling of awe.

Same feeling with our managers actually with the exception of Ten Hag.
Click to expand...
You are in awe of Grealish?
 
amolbhatia50k said:
You are in awe of Grealish?
Click to expand...
When he played for Villa I was yeah. Think a Pep team doesn’t play to the strenght of his abilities which has tanked his status a bit but he remains a world class player imo.
 
Noot said:
I kind of take issue with this. I know KDB is playing in a much better side, but if you remove penalties, KDB has a better goal to game ratio by quite some distance. Not saying Gerrard wasn't a great goalscorer, but I think you're underrating how many goals De Bruyne has scored (and plenty of great long shots too).
Click to expand...
You don't have to remove penalties. He has a better goal to game ratio in the PL even if you keep all of Gerrard's pens.
 
AlexiV said:
When he played for Villa I was yeah. Think a Pep team doesn’t play to the strenght of his abilities which has tanked his status a bit but he remains a world class player imo.
Click to expand...
Grealish was never world class, he was a big fish in a small pond at Villa.
However he is a very good player and has massively improved this season and has adapted more to this City team. What's this strength of his that city don't play to though ? I mean he's not just going to carry the ball for as long as he wants (which isn't very effective by the way) in this city team and disrupt their style of play.
 
Andrade said:
Exactly. He doesn't realise that though.
Click to expand...

The best players of all time have been physical direct and bullish, Maradona, Pele Di Stefano etc. Nothing wrong with being like that, France have been the most successful national team of the past 10 years being the exact same.

It’s a sport and physicality will always be important, I remember saying this a few years ago on here that England should not try recreate Spain because England has different demographics to Spain, France should be the template. There should always be impetus to carry on producing physical direct and bullish players who also are technically good, like De Bruyne himself ironically, very few midfielders more direct than him, compare him to an Odegaard for example and there is a small difference in their approach to the game.
 
Righteous Steps said:
The best players of all time have been physical direct and bullish, Maradona, Pele Di Stefano etc. Nothing wrong with being like that, France have been the most successful national team of the past 10 years being the exact same.

It’s a sport and physicality will always be important, I remember saying this a few years ago on here that England should not try recreate Spain because England has different demographics to Spain, France should be the template. There should always be impetus to carry on producing physical direct and bullish players who also are technically good, like De Bruyne himself ironically, very few midfielders more direct than him, compare him to an Odegaard for example and there is a small difference in their approach to the game.
Click to expand...
You mention 3 players, claim they are the best of all time and say physical and bullish when most people would describe some of them as being technical more so. Also notably they are old players, nothing remotely modern.

You also state France have been the most successful team when they have not, Argentina has. You could even say France have under performed a lot of the time, and other teams have over performed.

It's always a better idea to look at the over performing teams rather than underperforming.
 
Hammondo said:
You mention 3 players, claim they are the best of all time and say physical and bullish when most people would describe some of them as being technical more so. Also notably they are old players, nothing remotely modern.

You also state France have been the most successful team when they have not, Argentina has. You could even say France have under performed a lot of the time, and other teams have over performed.

It's always a better idea to look at the over performing teams rather than underperforming.
Click to expand...

You can be physical bullish direct and still technical Rooney was an example of such, so was Tevez. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, if you’re lucky and blessed enough of course, Pele is one of the greatest technicians of all time but he isn’t Pele without also being one of best physical specimens of his era also.

Maradona is technical but it’s also his tenacity toughness, those tree trunk like legs that allowed him to be considered arguably the greatest footballer of all time, he was also quite nippy, a slower less robust less aggressive and determined Maradona doesn’t climb to the pinnacle of football, in both cases they were renowned for their technique but it’s this combined with their physicality that allowed them to reach the pinnacle and heights of this sport we love.

Also France have been more successful than Argentina in the last 10 years, and they don’t have a one off once every 50 years years footballer to build around.

In the last 5 years they’ve both won one World Cup each, but it’s France that have reached back to back finals, Argentina have won a Copa America but France have also won a European Championship in a much stronger continent.

Like I said again France have done this without the one off talent of Messi, a player who’s peers have only been produced on the South American continent, Mbappe can be an all time great but he isn’t on that level, it’s far more realistic for any country to produce a level of talent comparable to Mbappe than it is a Messi, especially in Europe.

Which is why I say the right template for England to follow would be naturally a neighbouring country they actually have similarities in demographics to rather than a Argentina or Spain.

Physicality is not something unique to England the problem in the past may have been an over emphasis on it but physicality can never be a bad thing in a sport like Football. Ironically the most successful nation in football history have been prototypes of fast and physical football, Brazil. The flair and technique gets highlighted the most but how many strikers were as fast and strong as Ronaldo? How many midfielders as strong as Ronaldinho and how many number 10s as direct as Kaka..

Brazil don’t really have a host of midfield playmakers like Xavi they have produced to a high level, a lot of their star midfielders have been the Dunga Emerson Gilberto Silva type or the direct number 10/8 hybrids like Kaka.

Point is nothing wrong with being direct and bullish the overemphasis on it is the problem, a midfield that just contains Xavi types will lead to the same problem on the flip side, balance is key.
 
Righteous Steps said:
You can be physical bullish direct and still technical Rooney was an example of such, so was Tevez. It doesn’t have to be one or the other, if you’re lucky and blessed enough of course, Pele is one of the greatest technicians of all time but he isn’t Pele without also being one of best physical specimens of his era also.

Maradona is technical but it’s also his tenacity toughness, those tree trunk like legs that allowed him to be considered arguably the greatest footballer of all time, he was also quite nippy, a slower less robust less aggressive and determined Maradona doesn’t climb to the pinnacle of football, in both cases they were renowned for their technique but it’s this combined with their physicality that allowed them to reach the pinnacle and heights of this sport we love.

Also France have been more successful than Argentina in the last 10 years, and they don’t have a one off once every 50 years years footballer to build around.

In the last 5 years they’ve both won one World Cup each, but it’s France that have reached back to back finals, Argentina have won a Copa America but France have also won a European Championship in a much stronger continent.

Like I said again France have done this without the one off talent of Messi, a player who’s peers have only been produced on the South American continent, Mbappe can be an all time great but he isn’t on that level, it’s far more realistic for any country to produce a level of talent comparable to Mbappe than it is a Messi, especially in Europe.

Which is why I say the right template for England to follow would be naturally a neighbouring country they actually have similarities in demographics to rather than a Argentina or Spain.

Physicality is not something unique to England the problem in the past may have been an over emphasis on it but physicality can never be a bad thing in a sport like Football. Ironically the most successful nation in football history have been prototypes of fast and physical football, Brazil. The flair and technique gets highlighted the most but how many strikers were as fast and strong as Ronaldo? How many midfielders as strong as Ronaldinho and how many number 10s as direct as Kaka..

Brazil don’t really have a host of midfield playmakers like Xavi they have produced to a high level, a lot of their star midfielders have been the Dunga Emerson Gilberto Silva type or the direct number 10/8 hybrids like Kaka.

Point is nothing wrong with being direct and bullish the overemphasis on it is the problem, a midfield that just contains Xavi types will lead to the same problem on the flip side, balance is key.
Click to expand...

https://www.topendsports.com/events/soccer/uefa-euros/winners.htm. ??

France has a squad that's much better than everyone else, and Messi is at the end of his career. France should have won more, they really have not had much competition.

https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/2022-fifa-world-cup/history

If you look at the teams in recent history who won the world cup or European championship, you will see it dominated by technical teams, not overly physical ones.

The reason we produce the type of football players we do its down to culture, not the body type more common in the UK (which I assume you were talking about).

Gary Neville and Carragher had a discussion about it before an international competition, and the conclusion was our culture needs to change to produce more technical players. This was because with the type of players we produce we will never have a top team.
 
Noot said:
I kind of take issue with this. I know KDB is playing in a much better side, but if you remove penalties, KDB has a better goal to game ratio by quite some distance. Not saying Gerrard wasn't a great goalscorer, but I think you're underrating how many goals De Bruyne has scored (and plenty of great long shots too).
Click to expand...
If you play in a superior team, you’ll score more goals, so it’s a very flawed stat to compare them with
 
Hammondo said:
https://www.topendsports.com/events/soccer/uefa-euros/winners.htm. ??

France has a squad that's much better than everyone else, and Messi is at the end of his career. France should have won more, they really have not had much competition.

https://www.foxsports.com/soccer/2022-fifa-world-cup/history

If you look at the teams in recent history who won the world cup or European championship, you will see it dominated by technical teams, not overly physical ones.

The reason we produce the type of football players we do its down to culture, not the body type more common in the UK (which I assume you were talking about).

Gary Neville and Carragher had a discussion about it before an international competition, and the conclusion was our culture needs to change to produce more technical players. This was because with the type of players we produce we will never have a top team.
Click to expand...

Most the teams are physical, Spain is actually the anomaly and have gone back to a period of no success just like before they’re one golden generation.
 
Truly generational player. Does he really need to win the champions league to get his flowers?
 
BlueMoonOutcast said:
Truly generational player. Does he really need to win the champions league to get his flowers?
Click to expand...

He's already one the best midfielders ever for me. Complete vision, work rate, assist machine and scores important goals. He's like Scholes but doesnt lack the ability to tackle and doesnt rack up pointless yellow and red cards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.