It's an interesting point because that's what I saw from him with PSG. Granted that he wasn't the only one like that but he was a contributor in the fact that their midfield was very timid with the ball outside of Vitinha.
25
Season Average Rating
- Appearances
- 19
- Goals
- 0
- Assists
- 1
- Yellow cards
- 3
It's an interesting point because that's what I saw from him with PSG. Granted that he wasn't the only one like that but he was a contributor in the fact that their midfield was very timid with the ball outside of Vitinha.
Will be fascinating to see his development throughout the course of the campaign and whether he will be a little more expansive in possession at times.
The later the game wore on against Twente the more trepidation I felt in his game in quickening our tempo and passing more through the middle.
Interesting signing really.
The later the game wore on against Twente the more trepidation I felt in his game in quickening our tempo and passing more through the middle.
Interesting signing really.
You've already been corrected but Fletcher is a really bad example. He came into the team competing with Ronaldo on the RW in his breakout year. He Fletcher was really good technically and was a good passer. His strength was getting around the pitch and workrate but he could play too. Hargreaves was the closest thing to a pure destroyer that Fergie signed and even he could cross a ball and was class at set pieces.
I love how you just skipped all the examples of players I listed who were crap from the beginning and those who were impressive from the start. Your Suarez example also happens to be a terrible one. He was very good from the very start, he absolutely destroyed us at Anfield in one of his first PL games. He was never a player that was seen as bad/poor before hitting his world class level.
Another one skipping examples of recent players to find examples from nearly 20 years ago. Btw they joined in January so obviously have a longer grace period. In their first full season they were flying from the start.
More often than not players are good from the start if they are to be successful unless they are teenagers or joining a very complex system like Peps.
Surely you don't expect me to pick a more recent example when almost all of our post-Fergie signings haven't been a success. Fred is the first one that jumps to mind, as he improved a lot during his second season, but I'm not going to pretend that he was a success, just like the majority of signings under the Woodward and Murtough stewardship.
Actually pointing were anointing James the best signing since RVP after his first 3-4 games, which just goes to show the folly of making such snap judgments. Likewise, Mkhitaryan was hardly considered a flop right away nor was Antony. I guess the real point here is that it is certainly worthwhile to hold off on snap judgments.
My question would be how will a Ugarte-Mainoo midfield mesh, neither have an extensive passing range. Mainoo can progress the play in different ways but as yet hasn't shown a range of passing. Ideally you would prefer one of the midfield pair to have that range, maybe Mainoo ends up pushed forward but I have my doubts that will suit his physical qualities.
So much of Ten Hag's approach in transition has been the deep pass in behind paired with pedestrian passing in more possession based play(what little we have seen of controlled possession under Ten Hag.)
Getting the best out of Uagrte will mean getting the balance correct around him, but the same is true for Mainoo.
So much of Ten Hag's approach in transition has been the deep pass in behind paired with pedestrian passing in more possession based play(what little we have seen of controlled possession under Ten Hag.)
Getting the best out of Uagrte will mean getting the balance correct around him, but the same is true for Mainoo.
I used to listen to Tim Vickery a lot on various things, and he regularly used to say how a three man midfield needs "one to win it, one to give it, one to go". Really, just describing a #6 (DM), #8 (box to box), #10 (creator).
A Ugarte, Mainoo / Mount, Fernandes midfield looks to have the potential to have the necessary tools if utilised correctly with good tactics - Ugarte to 'win it' as the DM (#6), Fernandes to 'give it' as the creator (#10), Mainoo / Mount to 'go' as the box to box player (#8).
Why do you need a creator in midfield when the attackers are the ones primarily responsible for the offense? Casemiro - Kroos - Modric / Busquets - Xavi - Iniesta / Fabinho - Wijnaldum - Henderson, some of the best and dominating teams in recent times did not have a creator in their midfield. If you're gonna play with a number 10, it should be the playmaker of your team who can dribble and control the ball (David Silva, Ødegaard, Wirtz, Musiala, Özil), not make as many key passes as possible at the cost of the team.
I'd have thought players like Xavi, Iniesta, Modric, Kroos did their fair share of creating as midfielders?
My point remains the same. Fans need to be more patient. Moving to a new country, league, team, manager and players all contribute to what happens on the pitch. Also let's not forget players have families too.....
So has Frenkie de Jong, Koke, James Ward-Prowse and even Pascal Gross done, but I wouldn't call them creators. I thought you were talking about attacking midfielders/number 10s when you mentioned creators. Every midfielder can create chances, which is why a team doesn't need a number 10 or a designated creator in midfield to be successful.
Personally, I think it would be a mistake to replace Bruno with another 10 - unless it is Wirtz or Musiala, which is highly unlikely. We've seen we can create a bunch of big chances this season with the new signings that have a lot of technical quality, we're just missing the midfield control and finishing, and I don't think we're going to get that if we insist on needing a creator unless he has the skill set of the two Germans.
Xavi, Iniesta, Modric and Kroos listed as not being creators?
I don't think they're creators the same way Bruno Fernandes, De Bruyne, Ødegaard, Griezmann are, no. Two of them are deep lying playmakers and the other two are B2B midfielders that contribute a good amount offensively. Would you call Pirlo, Carrick or Scholes creators as in the ones primarily responsible for the team's chance creation?
That wasn't what you originally stated though, the point you made was why do you need a creator in midfield, and then listed some of the most successful creative midfielders ever as a reason for not needing them.
Barcelona were so successful because of players like Iniesta and Xavi being able to both control and create from midfield. Same goes for Madrid with Kroos and Modric, its why they are so highly regarded.
I assumed the poster was talking about a triangle midfield as a #6, a #8 and a #10. A creator is someone that creates a lot of chances, in my eyes, anyway. I think being creative is not the same as being a creator. Creativity comes in many forms and happens all over the pitch. Creating chances is not necessarily the same as being a creative footballer. Modric, Kroos, Iniesta and Xavi were undoubtedly creative footballers, but creators? I don't think so. Not in the number 10 mould like De Bruyne/Bruno/Özil.
I've lost about half my hair in the last 5 mins trying to work this one out.
Did you seriously just describe the likes of Kroos, Modric, Xavi and Iniesta as not being creators?
That’s easily one of the most insane takes I’ve ever seen on these pages. You’re trolling right?
To be honest, you just sound confused by the difference between nouns and adjectives.
Are you actually just trying to argue for the importance of a system that has a 10 over one that doesn’t? Seems like your argument is over positionand midfield set up, and not this meaningless nonsense about creative versus creator. Those players listed were absolutely creators, they just didn’t usually play at 10.
Yes but certainly not 10s, they were more complete midfielders.
Yes you are right, but there are still different types of being creative. The player who makes the final or Hollywood ball are not the only players or the only ways to be creative. You can be creative without directing making chances.
Well yes, but that’s not the case here. Those players listed as not being “creators” had high numbers of assists, despite playing deeper. By any metric, they were incredibly creative players, who created lots of direct chances and openings and goals, and were therefore creators.
But they weren’t 10s. So is he really just trying to argue that they weren’t 10s, and other players are 10s, and the word “creator” is just being used as some sort of weird substitute for “10”?
I'm not sure, but creativity is, like many things more complicated than just labels. We like to assign individuals labels like this rather than teams
But is it not objectively true that those players were creators in any reasonable understanding of the word in a footballing context?
Xavi had 185 assists for Barca.
Iniesta had 136 assists for Barca.
Modric had 80 assists for Real.
Kroos had 92 assists for Real.
I don't remember saying they didn't get assists. Also total numbers really doesn't say much, you need to look at each season.
Do you think those four players are creators or not?
Yeah, I could see how it looks now, and it is indeed confusing. What I mean by creator is the ones that consistently create a chance, or the final ball if you will, not the ones that keep the game rolling with ball retention. Iniesta created many chances, but I wouldn't put him in the creator mould like De Bruyne, David Silva or Özil.
What the hell is that reaction? Relax
They are not creators, in my eyes. They can create chances and assist, but it can't be compared to KdB/Bruno/Özil. There is a reason Modric and Iniesta were on around 7 assists each season and not 15-17. I think Iniesta got 15 once actually, so of course a case could be made for him.
Yeah, I could see how it looks now, and it is indeed confusing. What I mean by creator is the ones that consistently create a chance, or the final ball if you will, not the ones that keep the game rolling with ball retention. Iniesta created many chances, but I wouldn't put him in the creator mould like De Bruyne, David Silva or Özil.
What the hell is that reaction? Relax
They are not creators, in my eyes. They can create chances and assist, but it can't be compared to KdB/Bruno/Özil. There is a reason Modric and Iniesta were on around 7 assists each season and not 15-17. I think Iniesta got 15 once actually, so of course a case could be made for him.
I’m just amazed by the this place sometimes. Choosing four of most creative midfielders ever to argue they’re not “creators”.
Modric's most assists in a season is 8 and that was in his 10th season for Real Madrid. Özil had 16 and 18 in his first two seasons for Real. Do you see the point I'm trying (poorly) to get across?
Yes, and it backs up the exact point I made in response, which is that it seems to be a question of position, not a question of whether those players are creators or not. Because they very obviously are creators, they’re just deeper lying creators, not 10s.
Kroos, Modric, Iniesta and Xavi are all creators by any reasonable definition of the word, but they played their careers in deeper roles than the likes of Ozil and De Bruyne, who primarily played further upfield with fewer defensive responsibilities as 10s. So of course their assist stats will be less, because they played different roles in a different part of the pitch. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t creators. The fact that they still all consistently created so much despite playing deeper just reaffirms the fact that they’re all very effective creators.
I’ll repeat the original claim you made which me and others took issue with:
“Some of the best and dominating teams in recent times did not have a creator in their midfield.”
Using four of the most creative midfielders ever as an example to back that statement up is ludicrous - it’s the fact that those midfields had such creators that made them so effective and so dangerous.
So did you actually just mean they didn’t play with a designated “10”?
Because otherwise it either seems to be a misunderstanding of how nouns are different to adjectives, or you have a completely arbitrary definition of a “creator” as someone who plays exclusively at 10. Because by any normal definition, anyone that creates is a creator.
Nah they were so successful mainly because they had the best player on the planet for 15 years.
By definition anyone who creates a chance is one.
Exactly. Which is why I don’t think using four of the most creative midfielders ever in an example of dominant teams not having a “creator” makes much sense. Those two teams each just had two deeper lying creators instead of one “10” creator as a focul point. Different systems for sure, but still reliant on having effective creators for success.
Last edited:
I would also argue off the ball movement is creative and can be a bigger part of it.
The issue is, those teams you are saying lacked creators largely didn't play with a "#10 creator". So, in a way, you are descrediting your own argument against the need for creativity from deep which was the point being made to begin with.
Then I don't think you fully followed the conversation. The poster I initially replied to mentioned that Tim Vickery regularly used to say that a midfield needs "one to win it, one to give it, one to go", describing a #6 (DM), #8 (B2B) and a #10 (creator) and made a point that a midfield trio of Ugarte (6), Mainoo (8) and Bruno (creator #10) could potentially be very good.
The point I was trying to make is that you don't need a #10 (creator) in your midfield, because all midfielders are able to create chances, particularly if your midfielders have excellent ball retention and are superb in possession (Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta / Casemiro, Kroos, Modric). So, the primary goal should not be to have a creator, but a good and balanced midfield that ensures you control the midfield. Perhaps I should have clarified that initially, but I didn't think it needed to seeing as the poster had already mentioned a number 10 as the creator.
So, instead of playing Bruno as the number 10, I think we'd improve overall and create more chances as a team if we had another box-to-box midfielder (#8) that is good on the ball and who contributes offensively. Who that is, I don't know, but that is my opinion.
Xavi had 30 assists in 2008/09, 20 in La Liga alone. Can a case be made for him to be as good of a creator as Bruno Fernandes?
Also, who are the two box-to-box midfielders out of Iniesta, Xavi, Kroos & Modrić? I genuinely have no idea.
Wow, I was not aware of that. That is genuinely insane for a deep lying playmaker. Is that some extreme one off season?
Modric and Iniesta. The most advanced midfielders of their midfield trio, but still B2B midfielders.
Last edited:
It was by far his most productive one but Xavi at his peak gave pretty much the same final third output as your regular number 10 as well as controlling the middle of the pitch. If we're using fbref (they're only counting La Liga & CL and as always with assists there are different ways of counting them, so the numbers may slightly vary — and they don't include any cups), Xavi had 24 assists in 08/09, 16 assists in 09/10 and 14 in 10/11 — that's comparable to, say, Özil (22 in 10/11, 21 in 11/12, 17 in 12/13).
I'm not sure what definition of "box-to-box" are you using — I assume not, well, the actual one as neither Modrić nor Iniesta participated in defending their own penalty box and at their peak always played as a furtherest midfielder in a midfield 3 whose main function was to progress the ball forward (via either passing or dribbling) and to, quite literally, create chances. If Andrès Iniesta is closer to Roy Keane (an actual box-to-box midfielder) than, say, to Mesut Özil in your classification, there's something wrong with your classification.
The fanbase never learn. People, be more patient and stop spreading toxicity around the club. We have more than enough already from external sources.
Fair enough! I'll have a look at his assists later, wouldn't surprise me if a decent amount is a regular pass to Messi who dribbled his way through 7 players and finished it low in the corner
As for Iniesta, I don't remember as much as I do with Modric but he had brilliant work rate and helped out defensively when required. Maybe not a box-to-box midfielder, but a centre midfielder nonetheless, so I'll take that back. Modric, however, most definitely defended in his own box. I've been to Santiago Bernabéu 5 times as my friend is a massive Real Madrid fan and we regularly watch them, and one of the things that stood out was how Modric was everywhere on the pitch. Absolute machine. So yeah, his main function is to progress the ball, but it was also expected of him to help out defensively. Not a B2B if you only think of the Matuidis, the Keanes, Vieiras, Seedorf, Schweinsteiger etc, but still think he should be considered as a B2B midfielder. I think watching a silky player who is excellent at progressing the ball will subconsciously trick people into thinking they don't do the dirty work defensively, but Modric did his fair share.
I think Mainoo could be the same mould, progressing the ball (although, I don't think he has nearly the same passing repertoire), and if we were to play Mainoo more advanced, he'd still be expected to help out defensively, like he has been doing this season.