Luis Nani | 2013/14 Performances

[MoneyMay]

Rooney can't and never will be able to dribble like Robben/Nani/Ibra and he doesn't have the burst pace and quick feet of them either to get past players. It is not an outlandish statement.

He has stuff the other three do not have, so it is no criticism of Rooney.

MM is defining natural talent as the sort of talent that these three players have, which I don't think is an odd definition of it. Just trying to explain his POV.

Yep, it's definitely not an outlandish claim and I stick by it - it's funny seeing the reactions after I told them I was WUMming, when I clearly wasn't. Anyway, there were many of these Rooney v Nani comparisons in the previous Nani thread.

It doesn't mean you're going to find more consistency. Vela is technically very good IMO, but lacked the mentality and work rate to succeed at Arsenal. Fletcher isn't as technically good, but his work rate and drive was on a different level. He played a good role for us from 2008 to 2011. The best players are the ones that find find a balance between these things.

It's not as outlandish as claiming Rooney is a #10 because he links midfield and attack. The same logic that seen us witness the Ronaldo is a winger because he plays on the wings posts.

 

[Massive Spanner]

I don't think it's particularly outlandish to suggest Nani is as/more "talented" with the ball at his foot as/than Rooney, he is exceptionally talented, by all accounts if he had the attitude and footballing brain that Rooney does he'd probably be one of the best footballers in the world by now, and a lot of Utd supporters when remarking about Nani generally say "he should be amazing, but he's shit!".

Even on the Caf a few years ago there was a poll as to who had the higher threshold of the two and Nani won it, I think. Sadly he does not have the footballing brain or mental attitude that Rooney does and thus is a far inferior player, probably one of the reasons people get so frustrated about Nani, because by all accounts he should be one of the best in the world, he's just never (bar a super 12-18 month spell) lived up to that.

 

[dev1l]

I don't think it's particularly outlandish to suggest Nani is as/more "talented" with the ball at his foot as/than Rooney, he is exceptionally talented, by all accounts if he had the attitude and footballing brain that Rooney does he'd probably be one of the best footballers in the world by now, and a lot of Utd supporters when remarking about Nani generally say "he should be amazing, but he's shit!".

Even on the Caf a few years ago there was a poll as to who had the higher threshold of the two and Nani won it, I think. Sadly he does not have the footballing brain or mental attitude that Rooney does and thus is a far inferior player, probably one of the reasons people get so frustrated about Nani, because by all accounts he should be one of the best in the world, he's just never (bar a super 12-18 month spell) lived up to that.

Not to mention that with Nani around, as the team loses ball possession, it's like playing with 10 players.

 

[Ash_G]

One thing I think Nani gets unfairly criticized for is the "football brain", mostly it seems that if he tries a shot/ difficult pass and it doesn't come off then that's him being stupid, it's not, it's him being selfish/arrogant, however you want to put it, he's seen the pass, but he thinks he can do something spectacular. It's the same with Ronaldo, they know the pass/option is on, but he's not going to always take it. I mean he does sometimes make some odd decisions but I think atm that's more driven by being worried of making a mistake and being dropped for it and not playing as on instict as he would do if he were more assured of his role. I think Giggs has spoken that regardless of his experience his best approach is still on instinct and not over-thinking things and for me that comes from confidence.

Where as there are genuine players who do stupid things. Walcott for england is continually making poor choices when in possession of the ball/choice of movement, or Lenon seems to drift inside for no reason when the real opportunity for him is out wide. They for me, although slightly harsh with Walcott, are more examples of not being the sharpest in terms of football thinking. I'm sure there are better examples but those are two wingers I can think off who can make silly decisions.

 

[MoneyMay]

Not to mention that with Nani around, as the team loses ball possession, it's like playing with 10 players.

Which is a myth.

 

[Theon]

I don't think it's particularly outlandish to suggest Nani is as/more "talented" with the ball at his foot as/than Rooney, he is exceptionally talented, by all accounts if he had the attitude and footballing brain that Rooney does he'd probably be one of the best footballers in the world by now, and a lot of Utd supporters when remarking about Nani generally say "he should be amazing, but he's shit!".

Footballing brain is a part of talent though Cina, we're not just talking about technique or dribbling because talent encompasses far more than that.

Defenders like Ferdinand or Nesta are talented for completely different aspects of football than Nani - such as the ability to read the game - and the fact that they're poor dribblers doesn't make them any less talented.

Regardless of that, with Rooney its a far easier comparison. Rooney is just a supremely gifted all round footballer and much more talented than Nani. He can pretty much do everything.

 

[Brophs]

In terms of first touch and ability to beat a man, Nani is better. In terms of passing, vision, awareness and consistent ability to influence a game it's Rooney.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Footballing brain is a part of talent though Cina, we're not just talking about technique or dribbling because talent encompasses far more than that.

Defenders like Ferdinand or Nesta are talented for completely different aspects of football than Nani - such as the ability to read the game - and the fact that they're poor dribblers doesn't make them any less talented.

Regardless of that, with Rooney its a far easier comparison. Rooney is just a supremely gifted all round footballer and much more talented than Nani. He can pretty much do everything.

Depends how you define it really, I've always seen 'talent' as what you can actually do with the football, the rest is then how you make the most of that talent, but I can see how others would interpret the word differently. "You can have the talent in the world but if you ..." etc etc

 

[Rossa]

Footballing brain is a part of talent though Cina, we're not just talking about technique or dribbling because talent encompasses far more than that.

Defenders like Ferdinand or Nesta are talented for completely different aspects of football than Nani - such as the ability to read the game - and the fact that they're poor dribblers doesn't make them any less talented.

Regardless of that, with Rooney its a far easier comparison. Rooney is just a supremely gifted all round footballer and much more talented than Nani. He can pretty much do everything.

Ferdinand was considered, arguably, the best CB in the world at some point. A lot of that was down to his physical attributes. He was lightning quick. Terry was as good as reading the game and was arguably a stronger tackler, but Rio´s pace gave him an advantage. Nani´s pace and especially his agility gives him a clear advantage over players like Rooney - he´s also one of the best at using his pace when in form. Nani is also a much better dribbler than Rooney, can run with the ball better, crosses the ball better and his short passing is also very good. As Cina said, it´s his decision making that lets him down. On paper, Nani would have more talent than Rooney. Obviously, that does´t translate into him being a better footballer.

 

[MoneyMay]

Ferdinand was considered, arguably, the best CB in the world at some point. A lot of that was down to his physical attributes. He was lightning quick. Terry was as good as reading the game and was arguably a stronger tackler, but Rio´s pace gave him an advantage. Nani´s pace and especially his agility gives him a clear advantage over players like Rooney - he´s also one of the best at using his pace when in form. Nani is also a much better dribbler than Rooney, can run with the ball better, crosses the ball better and his short passing is also very good. As Cina said, it´s his decision making that lets him down. On paper, Nani would have more talent than Rooney. Obviously, that does´t translate into him being a better footballer.

Spot on.

 

[Theon]

Ferdinand was considered, arguably, the best CB in the world at some point. A lot of that was down to his physical attributes. He was lightning quick. Terry was as good as reading the game and was arguably a stronger tackler, but Rio´s pace gave him an advantage. Nani´s pace and especially his agility gives him a clear advantage over players like Rooney - he´s also one of the best at using his pace when in form.

Nani is also a much better dribbler than Rooney, can run with the ball better, crosses the ball better and his short passing is also very good. As Cina said, it´s his decision making that lets him down. On paper, Nani would have more talent than Rooney. Obviously, that does´t translate into him being a better footballer.

Separated this into two parts because I don't understand what you're getting at in the first part.

What is the relevance of pace? Are you saying that pace is a factor that goes into whether someone is more talented, and that because Nani has more, that is a factor which makes him more talented than Rooney? It's not a clear point. Rooney is stronger, can run further and has a better leap for headers, he's a better athlete than Nani.

But like I say, I'm not sure why any of this is relavant. If you're just saying that pace is something that makes Nani is the more talented footballer/athlete then why not just include it in the second part of your post, where you list other things that you think Nani is better at? You'll need to clarify this pace point.

On the second part I flatly disagree and I think most people would say Nani is a less talented footballer than Rooney. Rooney can do everything on the pitch, he's the definition of a natural footballer and the game comes naturally to him in a way few other players can match.

Nani isn't a better passer, short or long, and I don't think there is much to seperate them when it comes to crossing. Rooney is the better passer, finisher, set piece taker, has more heading ability, is a better athlete and has a natural understanding of the game that dwarves that of Nani. Nani is a better dribbler, but not much more than that. I'm surprised this is even a discussion.

 

[Rossa]

Separated this into two parts because I don't understand what you're getting at in the first part.

What is the relevance of pace? Are you saying that pace is a factor that goes into whether someone is more talented, and that because Nani has more, that is a factor which makes him more talented than Rooney? It's not a clear point. Rooney is stronger, can run further and has a better leap for headers, he's a better athlete than Nani.

But like I say, I'm not sure why any of this is relavant. If you're just saying that pace is something that makes Nani is the more talented footballer/athlete then why not just include it in the second part of your post, where you list other things that you think Nani is better at? You'll need to clarify this pace point.

On the second part I flatly disagree and I think most people would say Nani is a less talented footballer than Rooney. Rooney can do everything on the pitch, he's the definition of a natural footballer and the game comes naturally to him in a way few other players can match.

Nani isn't a better passer, short or long, and I don't think there is much to seperate them when it comes to crossing. Rooney is the better passer, finisher, set piece taker, has more heading ability, is a better athlete and has a natural understanding of the game that dwarves that of Nani. Nani is a better dribbler, but not much more than that. I'm surprised this is even a discussion.

First of all, stop being a prick - then we can have a proper discussion:

What I meant about pace is that pace/speed on the ball/acceleration is often a deciding factor in measuring people´s talent. Walcott and Agbonlahor were both thought of as great talents at one point, and that was more or less down to one thing - their insane pace. Having great pace is a clear cut asset in modern football. If you can combine that with proper footballing skills you get Giggs and Ronaldo. If your other skills are good, but not world class you end up with Agbonlahor and Walcott. Rooney does´t have that pace, but Nani is just about there, and he knows how to use his pace. His best season here he played at very direct style which meant that he would simply run past players. Rooney can´t do that. Additionally, when Nani has the ability to go past two and three players with ease, like he did against Arsenal to score that magnificent goal, he showcases skills that Rooney simply cannot do.

That Rooney can run further and leap higher than Nani is arguable at best. Nani runs quite a lot, and few players ran further than Beckham; would you argue that he was a better athlete than Nani or Ronaldo? I have no idea who has the better leap of Nani and Rooney as Nani rarely heads the ball and isn´t good at it when he tries. Rooney is the more complete striker, but not because of his athleticism.

Rooney´s short passing can be quite atrocious, and imo Nani is better at linking up with his players with quick one two touch short passes. That is certainly up for discussion. Also, I think it makes for a very good discussion.

 

[Theon]

First of all, stop being a prick - then we can have a proper discussion:

What I meant about pace is that pace/speed on the ball/acceleration is often a deciding factor in measuring people´s talent. Walcott and Agbonlahor were both thought of as great talents at one point, and that was more or less down to one thing - their insane pace. Having great pace is a clear cut asset in modern football. If you can combine that with proper footballing skills you get Giggs and Ronaldo. If your other skills are good, but not world class you end up with Agbonlahor and Walcott. Rooney does´t have that pace, but Nani is just about there, and he knows how to use his pace. His best season here he played at very direct style which meant that he would simply run past players. Rooney can´t do that. Additionally, when Nani has the ability to go past two and three players with ease, like he did against Arsenal to score that magnificent goal, he showcases skills that Rooney simply cannot do.

That Rooney can run further and leap higher than Nani is arguable at best. Nani runs quite a lot, and few players ran further than Beckham; would you argue that he was a better athlete than Nani or Ronaldo? I have no idea who has the better leap of Nani and Rooney as Nani rarely heads the ball and isn´t good at it when he tries. Rooney is the more complete striker, but not because of his athleticism.

Rooney´s short passing can be quite atrocious, and imo Nani is better at linking up with his players with quick one two touch short passes. That is certainly up for discussion. Also, I think it makes for a very good discussion.

Jesus, chill out. I wasn't trying to be a prick I just didn't understand why you separated pace from the rest of your post and made it its own point - which I still don't understand. We should probably leave this.

 

[Rossa]

Jesus, chill out. I wasn't trying to be a prick I just didn't understand why you separated pace from the rest of your post and made it its own point - which I still don't understand. We should probably leave this.

You were the one who separated my post in the first place. I wrote this:

Nani´s pace and especially his agility gives him a clear advantage over players like Rooney - he´s also one of the best at using his pace when in form. Nani is also a much better dribbler than Rooney

The word also should give you a clear indication that there was no separation at all. Pace was one attribute just like dribbling was that I mentioned. I then compared him to other players that are/were regarded as big talents to some extent or a large extent due to their athleticism. I´m not sure what is unclear about that, or do you not agree that Walcott was thought of as a great talent because of his pace, or that Rio separated himself from many other good CBs because of his pace?

 

[Theon]

You were the one who separated my post in the first place. I wrote this:

Nani´s pace and especially his agility gives him a clear advantage over players like Rooney - he´s also one of the best at using his pace when in form. Nani is also a much better dribbler than Rooney

The word also should give you a clear indication that there was no separation at all. Pace was one attribute just like dribbling was that I mentioned. I then compared him to other players that are/were regarded as big talents to some extent or a large extent due to their athleticism. I´m not sure what is unclear about that, or do you not agree that Walcott was thought of as a great talent because of his pace, or that Rio separated himself from many other good CBs because of his pace?

That wasn't all of what you said, you started the whole post replying to my point about Ferdinand and Nesta by saying that pace is the reason Ferdinand was better than Terry. And then you went on to apply it to Rooney/Nani by saying that pace is what is what makes Nani more talented/have an advantage over Rooney. I don't understand the relevance of pace in this discussion, its just one attribute amongst many and I think you are giving it too much emphasis.

I wasn't sure of what you meant which is why I tried to clarify it here - "Are you saying that pace is a factor that goes into whether someone is more talented, and that because Nani has more, that is a factor which makes him more talented than Rooney?"

If that is what you mean then fair enough, it wasn't clear to me at first so chill out.

So yeah, pace is a factor in how talented someone is. Don't disagree with that at all. It doesn't change me thinking Nani is less talented than Rooney - even if he a bit slower.

 

[Amar__]

Not to mention that with Nani around, as the team loses ball possession, it's like playing with 10 players.

 

[Annahnomoss]

That wasn't all of what you said, you started the whole post replying to my point about Ferdinand and Nesta by saying that pace is the reason Ferdinand was better than Terry. And then you went on to apply it to Rooney/Nani by saying that pace is what is what makes Nani more talented/have an advantage over Rooney. I don't understand the relevance of pace in this discussion, its just one attribute amongst many and I think you are giving it too much emphasis.

I wasn't sure of what you meant which is why I tried to clarify it here - "Are you saying that pace is a factor that goes into whether someone is more talented, and that because Nani has more, that is a factor which makes him more talented than Rooney?"

If that is what you mean then fair enough, it wasn't clear to me at first so chill out.

So yeah, pace is a factor in how talented someone is. Don't disagree with that at all. It doesn't change me thing Nani is less talented than Rooney - even if he a bit slower.

Not sure how it is so hard to understand. He did not merely mention pace, you are trying to clutch for straws to create an argument. Basically "natural talent" is by many(as seen in here) defined as talents that are more physical than mental. There are absolutely nothing to say that definition is better than yours which may include mental aspects as well. It is just really pointless to start arguments and claim the other person is wrong because you define it differently.

Nobody in his right mind would say Nani is more naturally talented than Rooney if we do include every possible attribute. But then however "Natural talent" suddenly just means the exact same thing as talent.

The same way I think nobody in their right mind will say Rooney has more "natural talent" than Nani if we exclude the mental aspects.

 

[Theon]

Not sure how it is so hard to understand. He did not merely mention pace, you are trying to clutch for straws to create an argument. Basically "natural talent" is by many(as seen in here) defined as talents that are more physical than mental. There are absolutely nothing to say that definition is better than yours which may include mental aspects as well. It is just really pointless to start arguments and claim the other person is wrong because you define it differently.

Nobody in his right mind would say Nani is more naturally talented than Rooney if we do include every possible attribute. But then however "Natural talent" suddenly just means the exact same thing as talent.

The same way I think nobody in their right mind will say Rooney has more "natural talent" than Nani if we exclude the mental aspects.

Don't talk rubbish about starting an argument. He responded to me and I all I did was ask for clarification on what he meant.

The pace point didn't make sense to me because I felt it was being made into a far bigger deal than it merited, for both Rio and Nani. It's just one attribute of many and it was being given more weight than it deserved.

I'm not too fussed about trying to define natural talent because it will never be something everyone agrees on - for example I'm sure some people wouldn't want to even include pace. Regardless of a definition and just using common sense it seems clear to me that Rooney is clearly the more natural footballer. As I said above he can do pretty much anything football related, you could stick him in any position on the pitch and he would excel. To me that demonstrates a natural ability and affinity with the game that Nani can't come close to matching.

I think you put far too much emphasis on dribbling, as its the attribute which keeps cropping up here. As I said before a view of talent which has a bias towards technique makes judging defenders or midfielders problematic, so I don't think its a good approach at all. If you think Nani is the more technical footballer then just say he has better technique and stop conflating it with natural talent which encompasses more than that.

 

[Annahnomoss]

Don't talk rubbish about starting an argument. He responded to me and I all I did was ask for clarification on what he meant.

The pace point didn't make sense to me because I felt it was being made into a far bigger deal than it merited, for both Rio and Nani. It's just one attribute of many and it was being given more weight than it deserved.

I'm not too fussed about trying to define natural talent because it will never be something everyone agrees on. Regardless of a definition and just using common sense it seems clear to me that Rooney is clearly the more natural footballer. As I said above he can do pretty much anything football related, you could stick him in any position on the pitch and he would excel. To me that demonstrates a natural ability and affinity with the game that Nani can't come close to matching.

I think you put far too much emphasis on dribbling, as its the attribute which keeps cropping up here. As I said before a view of talent which has a bias towards technique makes judging defenders or midfielders problematic, so I don't think its a good approach at all. If you think Nani is the more technical footballer then just say he has better technique and stop conflating it with natural talent which encompasses more than that.

You start with: "I'm not too fussed about trying to define natural talent because it will never be something everyone agrees on." Then you follow it up with yet another argument based on how your definition of "naturally talented" is better.

"Regardless of a definition and just using common sense it seems clear to me that Rooney is clearly the more natural footballer."

It is like you are making fun of yourself as you first state that we can't have an argument about it as everybody has a different opinion - then in the next moment you start another argument by saying "Regardless of definitions - my opinion is an ultimate truth.".

One thing is that in your eyes it seems like Rooney is more naturally talented, but it is being a dick claiming that applies "regardless of definitions". Obviously if there is a word being discussed that has no actual definition - using the term "regardless of definition" - is borderline retarded.

It is like saying "regardless of definitions about which heights are favorable my height is better than yours".

 

[Ash_G]

game

I agree with MoneyMay. Natural talent is not the deciding factor to how far you will go but players like Ibrahimovic/Nani/Robben have every natural talent there is except strength in the latter twos cases.

Ibra took the step from being a complete natural talent to a complete footballer at the age of 29, Robben did it at what 28?

Rooney has very little natural talent in comparison(since he lost his pace/dribbling) and instead has the opposite end of the spectrum mastered. He has great decision making, amazing vision, great work-ethic and leadership etc.

Neither sides means you will be a better footballer but what MoneyMay is saying isn't very out there. I think it is quite easy with a lad like Ravel Morrison, he is an extremely talented player but that doesn't mean he will become the best in the world. Sometimes it won't even get you to a professional contract because the player is worthless at the other side of the game.

I think though you're defining "natural talent" as athleticim and dribbling ability when there's more to it then that, things like vision, understanding of the game etc these are all as intuitive and natural as the traits you've described. And in these things Rooney exceeds Nani. It's a toss up as to whats worth more. In general I agree that were Nani to have kept up with his form from 09 to 11 then this argument would be valid and I hope with a consistent run we can talk about it again, but right now the traits that Rooney has, that are both natural to him and things he's developed put him ahead of Nani and have been a reason why he's stayed in the team during poor spells where as Nani has fallen out of the team.

 

[Theon]

You start with: "I'm not too fussed about trying to define natural talent because it will never be something everyone agrees on." Then you follow it up with yet another argument based on how your definition of "naturally talented" is better.

"Regardless of a definition and just using common sense it seems clear to me that Rooney is clearly the more natural footballer."

It is like you are making fun of yourself as you first state that we can't have an argument about it as everybody has a different opinion - then in the next moment you start another argument by saying "Regardless of definitions - my opinion is an ultimate truth.".

One thing is that in your eyes it seems like Rooney is more naturally talented, but it is being a dick claiming that applies "regardless of definitions". Obviously if there is a word being discussed that has no actual definition - using the term "regardless of definition" - is borderline retarded.

It is like saying "regardless of definitions about which heights are favorable my height is better than yours".

This is barely intelligible, seriously its just rambling nonsense.

I'll make this clear for you - I don't want to argue semantics (which you said as well, so no idea why that has you so riled) but I don't think its even necessary to do that. My point about common sense wasn't defining natural talent, read the post again. I said that even without defining natural talent simple common sense says that Rooney is the more natural football because he can do more things on the pitch and play virtually every position to a high standard.

It's you who is trying to argue semantics and define natural talent as excluding mental attributes, but including things like pace and dribbling. I didn't do that, so settle down and stop talking shite.

 

[Annahnomoss]

game

I think though you're defining "natural talent" as athleticim and dribbling ability when there's more to it then that, things like vision, understanding of the game etc these are all as intuitive and natural as the traits you've described. And in these things Rooney exceeds Nani. It's a toss up as to whats worth more. In general I agree that were Nani to have kept up with his form from 09 to 11 then this argument would be valid and I hope with a consistent run we can talk about it again, but right now the traits that Rooney has, that are both natural to him and things he's developed put him ahead of Nani and have been a reason why he's stayed in the team during poor spells where as Nani has fallen out of the team.

I think the problem with defining stuff like vision and decision making as "natural talent" is that they are traits you can develop from 0 at a later age. Robben, C.Ronaldo and Ibrahimovic are great examples of this. That is why it is preferable, in my opinion, to use the term "natural talent" for the other part of the game.

Rooney will never get faster or become a better dribbler. Because these attributes are decided naturally more so than vision and passing for example which you can add when you are 35 like Giggs has shown.

Also a determining factor is that natural talent is something that you can lose and it will affect you greatly. I have never heard of a player who lost his vision/decision making. I am sure Scholes still has one of the best footballing brains in the world just not the other attributes to use it.

 

[Ash_G]

I think the problem with defining stuff like vision and decision making as "natural talent" is that they are traits you can develop from 0 at a later age. Robben, C.Ronaldo and Ibrahimovic are great examples of this. That is why it is preferable, in my opinion, to use the term "natural talent" for the other part of the game.

Rooney will never get faster or become a better dribbler. Because these attributes are decided naturally more so than vision and passing for example which you can add when you are 35 like Giggs has shown.

Also a determining factor is that natural talent is something that you can lose and it will affect you greatly. I have never heard of a player who lost his vision/decision making. I am sure Scholes still has one of the best footballing brains in the world just not the other attributes to use it.

But that's the thing Giggs vision isn't something that he's added, it was always there. I think Bruce commented a number of years ago about his vision and that he expected him to end up in the middle and so did some others. Vision isn't something I think you get with age, it's an understanding of the game you either have or don't have. Some players will be able to add some stuff to their game through experience such as maybe controlling the tempo but again even then that's usually limited. Gerrard is playing a deeper role and has been pretty good at it, yet he doesn't and I don't think ever will do it as well as Scholes did do it, because Scholes had an inherent understanding that was intuitive to him, likewise I think Gerrard will do it better than Lampard.

As for developing them thats like any physical trait you have. Ronaldo wasn't always going to be the beast he's become, nor Nani spend as much time practising dribling the ball, these were all things they worked on through hard work. When Nani is older he won't be able to run past people because his physical attributes will decline, but his technical ability will still be there for as long as he practices with the ball. Likewise I;m sure Scholes if he kept practising every day could still ping an accurate pass until he physically can't practice it through physical barriers.

Ultimately there's a base amount of natural physical talent you can have, and a base amount of natural intuition you can have imo. Nani arguably has more of the former, Rooney more of the latter, right now though Rooney has a better mix of both, but also the all important factor of matching talent with performance. As I said I think if Nani is given a fair chance to get back to what he was, then he could feasibly get to Rooneys level, but he's not there now and regardless of talent there's one thing he doesn't seem to have which makes Rooney the better play which is that competitor spirit.

 

[Annahnomoss]

But that's the thing Giggs vision isn't something that he's added, it was always there. I think Bruce commented a number of years ago about his vision and that he expected him to end up in the middle and so did some others. Vision isn't something I think you get with age, it's an understanding of the game you either have or don't have. Some players will be able to add some stuff to their game through experience such as maybe controlling the tempo but again even then that's usually limited. Gerrard is playing a deeper role and has been pretty good at it, yet he doesn't and I don't think ever will do it as well as Scholes did do it, because Scholes had an inherent understanding that was intuitive to him, likewise I think Gerrard will do it better than Lampard.

As for developing them thats like any physical trait you have. Ronaldo wasn't always going to be the beast he's become, nor Nani spend as much time practising dribling the ball, these were all things they worked on through hard work. When Nani is older he won't be able to run past people because his physical attributes will decline, but his technical ability will still be there for as long as he practices with the ball. Likewise I;m sure Scholes if he kept practising every day could still ping an accurate pass until he physically can't practice it through physical barriers.

Ultimately there's a base amount of natural physical talent you can have, and a base amount of natural intuition you can have imo. Nani arguably has more of the former, Rooney more of the latter, right now though Rooney has a better mix of both, but also the all important factor of matching talent with performance. As I said I think if Nani is given a fair chance to get back to what he was, then he could feasibly get to Rooneys level, but he's not there now and regardless of talent there's one thing he doesn't seem to have which makes Rooney the better play which is that competitor spirit.

I think a player like Carrick(Zlatan, Robben, Scholes etc) proves that it is much easier to increase your intuition with time by having his best season at the age of 32 at a time where his physical attributes had declined already.

Any player can at any given time suddenly take huge leaps in these areas. I think C.Ronaldo showed that when he in pretty much one moment decided to become the worlds-best and not just very good.

Of course "Natural talent" has little bearing in who is a better player, especially not currently.

 

[Rossa]

That wasn't all of what you said, you started the whole post replying to my point about Ferdinand and Nesta by saying that pace is the reason Ferdinand was better than Terry. And then you went on to apply it to Rooney/Nani by saying that pace is what is what makes Nani more talented/have an advantage over Rooney. I don't understand the relevance of pace in this discussion, its just one attribute amongst many and I think you are giving it too much emphasis.

I wasn't sure of what you meant which is why I tried to clarify it here - "Are you saying that pace is a factor that goes into whether someone is more talented, and that because Nani has more, that is a factor which makes him more talented than Rooney?"

If that is what you mean then fair enough, it wasn't clear to me at first so chill out.

So yeah, pace is a factor in how talented someone is. Don't disagree with that at all. It doesn't change me thinking Nani is less talented than Rooney - even if he a bit slower.

That's exactly what I said as I copied it from my original post. You are clutching at straws here.

Ferdinand (I never said Nesta) excelled over the likes of Terry because of his pace, not his other attributes because they were quite similar in many of them. It was Ferdinand's pace that made it possible for him to cancel out Eto'o, just as it was Ronny Johnsen's pace who cancelled out Michael Owen's threat. It's a massive asset if you can combine it with proper football skills and the know-how on how to properly use your pace.

To answer your question clearly: I don't think pace alone is enough to be a great footballer. If it was, Walcott and Agbonlahor would be the best players in the EPL. However, if you were to compare two players and their attributes and they are both very skilled on the ball, both are great technically and both know how to shoot etc etc, then having great pace is a great asset and can be enough to separate the great talents from the top talents. (Obviously Rooney is a top talent, and I'm not arguing that you cannot be a top talent if you don't have great pace - Xavi and Scholes would beg to differ for instance). Imo, Nani ticks more boxes than Rooney for being a top talent than Rooney does, but I'm sure that most disagree with me. Rooney's footballing brain is much better than Nani's for instance.

Having talent doesn't necessarily translate into being the best footballer. Walcott had all the talent in the world, but he's no Ronaldo these days. There are too many stories of extremely talented players who never make it. Saying that Nani was/is the greater talent than Rooney due to his pace, agility, dribbling and whatnot isn't absurd. Natural talent is a very loose definition. However, most great young talents like Ronaldo, Neymar, Giggs etc were considered great talents because of their physical attributes and their dribbling/flair attributes - hence why many said that Beckham was never the greatest talent, but became one of the best still.

 

[Ash_G]

I think a player like Carrick(Zlatan, Robben, Scholes etc) proves that it is much easier to increase your intuition with time by having his best season at the age of 32 at a time where his physical attributes had declined already.

Any player can at any given time suddenly take huge leaps in these areas. I think C.Ronaldo showed that when he in pretty much one moment decided to become the worlds-best and not just very good.

Of course "Natural talent" has little bearing in who is a better player, especially not currently.

Why have Carricks physical attributes declined already? I don't see him showing noticable less energy, and that doesn't account for maybe him getting the confidence he didn't have before? I'd say he's not suddenly learnt something he didn't know before, but rather utilising all his qualities more. I'd say that's a far bigger factor. Obviously players can mature and that increases their performance. That's something that impacts both physical and mental natural qualities. For someone like Robben/Bale/Ronaldo that might be their decision making for Carrick it might mean his defensive reading of the game, all things that come with experience.

But as I said that doesn't take away there being some mental qualities which are as much a natural quality as the raw phsycial potential another player might have. Both need to be harnessed in the right way to make the most of them, and that's a combination of hard work and practise and then the confidence to take that in to a competitive environment.

For me Scholes's vision, Ruud's poaching ability and Nani's speed/balance are all things that they just naturally have and which they have utilized to make them successful footballers or varying degree's, just as Rooney has utilized his natural abilities. I feel that this seems to be more about technique. If you want to say for example that Nani has better control of a football then I'd agree, but then I'd say Rooney has a better passing range, nani's speed/balance allows him to use that control to get past players, Rooney's strength allows him to shrug of players and then ping a cross field pass, there's no saying which is the more useful skill to have as it depends on the situation.

If you're saying that your physical ability is something you're born with then again I'd agree, though only partially, it takes a lot of work to take that potential and make it in to something real. But as I've said I'd argue that vision, an awareness of where to go etc are also something you're born with and developing that also requires training/practise to make the most off. I don't think a player is suddenly going to gain vision or become a Ruud like poacher, they might get better at it, just like Rooney will become leaner and then be able to take on players a bit better as he has this season, but there's always a limit.

 

[Theon]

That's exactly what I said as I copied it from my original post. You are clutching at straws here.

Ferdinand (I never said Nesta) excelled over the likes of Terry because of his pace, not his other attributes because they were quite similar in many of them. It was Ferdinand's pace that made it possible for him to cancel out Eto'o, just as it was Ronny Johnsen's pace who cancelled out Michael Owen's threat. It's a massive asset if you can combine it with proper football skills and the know-how on how to properly use your pace.

To answer your question clearly: I don't think pace alone is enough to be a great footballer. If it was, Walcott and Agbonlahor would be the best players in the EPL. However, if you were to compare two players and their attributes and they are both very skilled on the ball, both are great technically and both know how to shoot etc etc, then having great pace is a great asset and can be enough to separate the great talents from the top talents. (Obviously Rooney is a top talent, and I'm not arguing that you cannot be a top talent if you don't have great pace - Xavi and Scholes would beg to differ for instance). Imo, Nani ticks more boxes than Rooney for being a top talent than Rooney does, but I'm sure that most disagree with me. Rooney's footballing brain is much better than Nani's for instance.

Having talent doesn't necessarily translate into being the best footballer. Walcott had all the talent in the world, but he's no Ronaldo these days. There are too many stories of extremely talented players who never make it. Saying that Nani was/is the greater talent than Rooney due to his pace, agility, dribbling and whatnot isn't absurd. Natural talent is a very loose definition. However, most great young talents like Ronaldo, Neymar, Giggs etc were considered great talents because of their physical attributes and their dribbling/flair attributes - hence why many said that Beckham was never the greatest talent, but became one of the best still.

No idea what you are on about in the first part. Why would I be clutching at straws? All that happened is that I didn't understand that part of your post because I found it bizzare you would place so much emphasis on pace. I don't know why you think that would be a big deal to me or I would feel the need to clutch at straws.

Well I've read all this and my opinion hasn't changed - I think you place far too much focus on pace as a determinant of natural ability. Ferdinand wasn't better than Terry solely due to his pace either, and there are slower defenders than Rio who were better than him - such as Milan era Nesta. Or even just sticking with Ferdinand his best season was around 2008 when he was 30 years old, but his pace had dipped slightly by then.

Aye, Rio being fast did let him keep up with someone like Eto'o but I don't see why that's a big deal. Highlighting a strength of Rio is no different to highlighting Vidic being dominant in the air, or Nesta being a master at reading of the game. Pace is just one thing of many that can make someone a great footballer. Players like Passarella or Kohler never had blistering pace but were still better defenders than Rio.

On this part - "However, if you were to compare two players and their attributes and they are both very skilled on the ball, both are great technically and both know how to shoot etc etc, then having great pace is a great asset and can be enough to separate the great talents from the top talents."

Yeah no shit, if two players are virtually equal in everything else then being faster will separate one of them. But that would be the same for any attribute - if two players are virtually the same but one is a better passer, or finisher, then that is enough to separate them. Again I think you're focusing too much on pace here.

On the last part you've just been selective and highlighted players who happened to be fast to try and make your point. They also all happen to be the same type of player which is why I've criticised your definition/approach throughout this whole thing. If you're not a winger, or possibly a striker, then on your view you're at a huge disadvantage because you are naturally going to have less "pace, agility and dribbling ability" - the things you attach value to.

I mean you just said that Walcott had "all the talent in the world" which I completely disagree with. It's clear you place a huge emphasis on being quick. For me Walcott never possessed an abundance of natural talent because he couldn't do basic things on a football pitch, he was just quick.

I think this is similar with Nani, he's a great dribbler and more agile than Rooney - but that doesn't mean he has more natural talent in my mind. It just means he's a better dribbler. Whereas Rooney is better at virtually every other aspect of football, not only in terms of individual skills, like passing, but in being able to naturally play any position on the pitch and get involved in all areas of the game.

 

[edn33]

Nani is indeed a good dribbler and can create openings.

Don't understand why we took off Nani when he was playing well against Newcastle and replaced him with Zaha.

 

[Rossa]

No idea what you are on about in the first part. Why would I be clutching at straws? All that happened is that I didn't understand that part of your post because I found it bizzare you would place so much emphasis on pace. I don't know why you think that would be a big deal to me or I would feel the need to clutch at straws.

Well I've read all this and my opinion hasn't changed - I think you place far too much focus on pace as a determinant of natural ability. Ferdinand wasn't better than Terry solely due to his pace either, and there are slower defenders than Rio who were better than him - such as Milan era Nesta. Or even just sticking with Ferdinand his best season was around 2008 when he was 30 years old, but his pace had dipped slightly by then.

Aye, Rio being fast did let him keep up with someone like Eto'o but I don't see why that's a big deal. Highlighting a strength of Rio is no different to highlighting Vidic being dominant in the air, or Nesta being a master at reading of the game. Pace is just one thing of many that can make someone a great footballer. Players like Passarella or Kohler never had blistering pace but were still better defenders than Rio.

On this part - "However, if you were to compare two players and their attributes and they are both very skilled on the ball, both are great technically and both know how to shoot etc etc, then having great pace is a great asset and can be enough to separate the great talents from the top talents."

Yeah no shit, if two players are virtually equal in everything else then being faster will separate one of them. But that would be the same for any attribute - if two players are virtually the same but one is a better passer, or finisher, then that is enough to separate them. Again I think you're focusing too much on pace here.

On the last part you've just been selective and highlighted players who happened to be fast to try and make your point. They also all happen to be the same type of player which is why I've criticised your definition/approach throughout this whole thing. If you're not a winger, or possibly a striker, then on your view you're at a huge disadvantage because you are naturally going to have less "pace, agility and dribbling ability" - the things you attach value to.

I mean you just said that Walcott had "all the talent in the world" which I completely disagree with. It's clear you place a huge emphasis on being quick. For me Walcott never possessed an abundance of natural talent because he couldn't do basic things on a football pitch, he was just quick.

I think this is similar with Nani, he's a great dribbler and more agile than Rooney - but that doesn't mean he has more natural talent in my mind. It just means he's a better dribbler. Whereas Rooney is better at virtually every other aspect of football, not only in terms of individual skills, like passing, but in being able to naturally play any position on the pitch and get involved in all areas of the game.

Fair enough - I think we just disagree (good post btw).

I don't think I'm the only one who thought of Walcott as having a lot of natural ability, and a lot of that came down to him having blistering pace. If I'm placing too much emphasis on pace, then surely that seems to be the general consensus atm. Whether you like it or not, natural ability seems to be more strongly connected with athleticism than footballing brain as that is rarely matured till you hit your twenties (earlier for Rooney), and talent is something you are more or less born with. Thus, for me, Nani has more natural ability, but I see that we define that term differently.

Varane is a great talent as a CB because of his pace that lets him outpace Messi and also his strength and general athleticism. He wouldn't be considered such a great talent if he only read the game well. The same logic applies to Smalling vs Evans where Smalling is obviously a stronger athlete and thus why many argue that he is the bigger talent, but most would argue that Evans is the better defender atm because of his reading of the game and general distribution - Smalling is considered, by most, the greater talent though.

I think it has to do with it being easier, or more possible, to learn how to read the game and practice being a good passer than to drastically improve your athleticism. Do you not agree that Giggs was a much greater talent than Beckham, yet at one point one might argue that Beckham was the better player?

The same applies for Rio; his reading of the game combined with his great pace made him near impossible to get past. For all his tackling and heading abilities, Vidic would always struggle against quick players, but I can recall Rio having Drogba in his pocket. (Imo, Rio at his best is arguably the best CB I've ever seen because of his natural ability in terms of athleticism and his reading of the game - one of the few CBs who could play 90 minutes with a pair of clean white shorts).

Having great talent isn't the same as being the best player. One thing that is often overlooked is mentality - the ability to work hard enough and focus hard enough to become the best - like Beckham and Ronaldo had, but Ronaldo's natural abilities certainly gave him the edge over Beckham.

It's not just about pace though - let me be clear about what I meant. It's when you have such a physical presence that gives you a clear advantage over everyone else that makes it a great asset. Walcott was a great talent because of his pace, just like Lennon was. Micah Richards was tutored as one of the great young defenders because of his insane strength combined with blistering pace (wasn't he a 100m runner in his teenage years?). That's not something you can learn, and if Darren Fletcher spent his whole lifetime in a gym, he still couldn't look like Micah Richards. Lukaku is a great talent too because of his physical presence, and that he is able to combine that with good technique and finishing skills may set him apart from everyone else.

Basically, Wenger said the exact same thing I'm saying when he said that players like Giggs and Henry who could run faster than anyone else gave them an advantage.

Not much about Nani here, but I hope I made myself a bit clearer?

 

[Bilbo]

Nani is indeed a good dribbler and can create openings.

Don't understand why we took off Nani when he was playing well against Newcastle and replaced him with Zaha.

You thought Nani was playing well against Newcastle? I thought he was awful. Not the answer to any of our problems.

 

[Massive Spanner]

He clearly wasn't awful, awful would've been giving the ball away and taking silly shots, a.k.a. Stoke. He was average.

 

[moses]

Now that's splitting hairs, being average in the circumstances, was awful, surely?

 

[Massive Spanner]

Now that's splitting hairs, being average in the circumstances, was awful, surely?

Eh?

Look at the match day thread, he's regarded as being one of our better players on the day, certainly better than most on the pitch, although to be fair, Adnan was the only outfield player there who looked like he proper gave a feck.

I don't think you can call him awful, he just wasn't anything special.

 

[moses]

Eh?

Look at the match day thread, he's regarded as being one of our better players on the day, certainly better than most on the pitch, although to be fair, Adnan was the only outfield player there who looked like he proper gave a feck.

I don't think you can call him awful, he just wasn't anything special.

I was joking you numptie. The great average v awful debate, it just seems ...

 

[Massive Spanner]

I was joking you numptie. The great average v awful debate, it just seems ...

awful?

it's early, how am I supposed to detect jokes, you culchie git!

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Eh?

Look at the match day thread, he's regarded as being one of our better players on the day, certainly better than most on the pitch, although to be fair, Adnan was the only outfield player there who looked like he proper gave a feck.

I don't think you can call him awful, he just wasn't anything special.

Maybe not awful, but well below average. The fact that he was in MOTM is that there were none better and that is something to say for the state of the team. From most fans hope here an average Nani should surely be better that that performance!

 

[moses]

awful?

it's early, how am I supposed to detect jokes, you culchie git!

Nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Nicest thing anyone has ever said to me.

You know me, always the charmer, y'old bogger.

 

[moses]

Maybe not awful, but well below average.

Now we are getting scientific. Have we got a scale of awful/average that we could place him on accurately? How far below average is awful?

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Now we are getting scientific. Have we got a scale of awful/average that we could place him on accurately? How far below average is awful?

50 shades of Nani.

"MotM" - Excellant
"Did OK today" - Very Good
"Did you catch that one pass to xxx?" - average (and normal)
"What did he do today?" - below average
"Sell him, before dinner" - Awful