Ramires to Chelsea for £20M
- Thread starter Uncle Junior
- Start date
Great so lets just call every player in the world a top player because they do their respective job as different they may be in importance, difficulty and influence. Park is a top player, Messi is a top player, infact he world is full of top players which means there aren't players out there, just top players.
I was talking about two things.
A) Top quality midfielders. Chelsea have Essien and Lampard and now possibly even Malouda. I personally don't think we have any. A few that could be.
B) Goal threat. Malouda and Lampard as I mentioned scored loads from midfield We don't have that.
Rafael is better than Cech.
I've said the same things again and again with Essien and every single time, the people who disagree with me fail to properly address my arguments. It's always the same response: he just is better. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
He's made 40 appearances in the past two seasons. So he certainly hasn't been producing his best form in that time. His last season of putting a consistent run of matches together was 07-08.
During that season, he was shifted left, right and centre. He spent a large chunk of the season playing right full back as well. If you're one of the best central midfielders in the world, that doesn't happen. It doesn't happen to Xavi, it didn't happen with Pirlo, it didn't happen with Keane, it didn't happen with Vieira.
Meanwhile, Fletcher has been the dogs bollocks for us. He's perennially dominated the big game fixtures he's played. He's often been recognised as one of the best player on the park - okay, maybe not the most finesse, but there is more than one way to play. Anyone that says otherwise is just being a myopic snob - aka Arsene Wenger.
id agree with that, lads got loads of potential...plus hes not missing part of his brain
It does cut it. If Ronaldo, Messi or Xavi got injured this coming season, it doesn't mean Fletcher's as good as them.
Agree.
If you want to.
I'm just comparing the best midfielders in both teams. It's hardly the same thing. You brought Park into the equation.
Typical response. Comparing Fletcher and Essien makes sense. They're similar players on similar levels. Ronaldo, Messi and Xavi are three of the best in the world.
So you going to answer my questions then? When was the last time Xavi played games at right back for Barca? Just to fill in like?
Gerrard got shifted around Liverpool's midfield.
Scholes got shifted around England's midfield.
Doesn't make them any lesser.
Essien is more powerful player than Fletcher going forward but, Fletch is far better all around in terms of passing, crossing, heading. I also think Fletcher's close control is better than Essien. You don't often see Essien soaking up pressure from a player pressing him and just work his way out with the ball.
Essien is class when he is fit but, if I had to choose between the two - what Fletcher gives us trumps Essien's qualities.
Personally I don't see Malouda having as productive a season as last year. Not sure why but, a feeling I have - maybe a wishful feeling.
Lampard - he is a good goal scorer for them no doubt but, take away his penalties and he is not as impressive. He is not top class midfield for me. He is Chelsea class - he works in that system and that team but, I don't think he'd be as good elsewhere.
Anyway - Ramires could be a good signing for them - young and talented. They need some youth in midfield and team in general.
Essien is class when he is fit but, if I had to choose between the two - what Fletcher gives us trumps Essien's qualities.
Personally I don't see Malouda having as productive a season as last year. Not sure why but, a feeling I have - maybe a wishful feeling.
Lampard - he is a good goal scorer for them no doubt but, take away his penalties and he is not as impressive. He is not top class midfield for me. He is Chelsea class - he works in that system and that team but, I don't think he'd be as good elsewhere.
Anyway - Ramires could be a good signing for them - young and talented. They need some youth in midfield and team in general.
Gerrard was shifted around the midfield because it was realised (correctly) that he's not got the discipline or awareness to be a top class central midfield player.
Scholes was shifted around the England midfield - it is one of the worst mistakes ever made by an England manager. One of the most gifted players we've ever produced retired.
Gerrard and Scholes have never played a run of games at right full back.
Much the way I see it. Fletcher has a better fitness record. He's got Park-like levels of stamina. He's better on the ball - especially in tighter spaces. And he made some class assists last season.
A ridiculous generalisation, Keane has played fullback and centreback for Man Utd and has suffered injuries for Manchester United too, Essien wasn't switched to defence to accomodate the likes of Lampard and Ballack and Mikel (with all due respect
) but to limit the damage done by the likes of disasterous fullbacks like Boulharouz and del Horno. Johan Cruyff one of the greatest midfielders on the planet was a utility player, as was Ruud Gullit, as was Franz Beckenbauer as were many others.
Actually the discussion was around comparing options in central midfield.
You then brought up Nani (for reasons best known to yourself) at which point I mentioned that Park and Valencia should also be included, if you intend broadening the discussion to include wide midfielders.
You can't just pick the best players in Chelsea's team and compare them with United players at random, because it happens to suit your stance that we're desperately in need of more new signings.
That's because they can't. Essien can. You're reading too much into that. And you seem to blame Scholes being shifted around on the manager but Essien being shifted around on Essien.
It's not the point. You don't really take one of the best central midfielders in the world and play him at right back. If he's one of the best in his position - arguably the most important on the pitch - then why wouldn't you do everything in your power to play him there?
A ridiculous generalisation, Keane has played fullback and centreback for Man Utd and has suffered injuries for Manchester United too, Essien wasn't switched to defence to accomodate the likes of Lampard and Ballack and Mikel (with all due respect
Johan Cruyff one of the greatest midfielders on the planet was a utility player, as was Ruud Gullit, as was Franz Beckenbauer as were many others.
Keane played the odd game to fill in towards the tail end of his United career. At the peak of his powers, he was the first name on the team sheet as a central midfield player. At no point would we have taken Keane and put him at full back because we were worried about the standard of our full back. In any case, in 07-08, I don't believe Boulahrouz was at Chelsea in 07-08. Del Horno was a left full back.
Scholes was shifted from central midfield to left wing. It's no where near as extreme as shifting a midfielder into the backline.
Of course I can!
I was simply stating that they have midfielders who I believe are top class and have goal threat, and that IMO we have neither.
So having clearly stated midfielders why would my statement be limited to central midfielders (granted you guys were talking about central midfielders)?
And park and valencia shouldn't be included IMO because they aren't absolutey top notch IMO, good players all the same.
If you're classing Malouda as top notch, then I'm having Valencia.
Khalid Boulahrouz didn't play for them in 07-08. His stint at Chelsea was extremely short lived.
Edit: And it still doesn't explain why you'd take the best central midfielder and play him out of his position.
You're all over the place, mate.
Are you comparing our midfield with Chelsea in it's entirety or not? Comparing the central midfield players only you'd have to give it to Chelsea but looking at the overall options in midfield then United look to have the stronger squad.
United are much stronger than Chelsea out wide. We've got Valencia, Park, Giggs and Nani as compared to Benayoun, Malouda and... er...
In the middle Chelsea would shade it with their best XI but lack depth.
Essien and Lampard are both class but Essien is very often out injured, which leaves them relying on Mikel or Malouda (who is not a natural central midfielder, any more than Valencia is) to try and run their central midfield, alongside Lampard.
This is up against Scholes, Carrick, Giggs, Fletcher, Anderson, Hargreaves (if Chelsea get to include their crock, so do we)
I think Essien and Lampard definitely are. Malouda was last season but needs another to prove that he really is. Valencia was very good but not as good as Malouda last season.
Just checked, Malouda scored 15 goals last season. That's a terrific return.
Strange statement man.
For the last time, I'm talking about:
1) Top midfielders
2) Goal threat from midfield
There's nothing wrong with playing a good player out of position every now and then. Mascherano played at right-back a couple of times, we've put Rooney on the left, Fletcher plays the odd game at right-back and right-wing, Fàbregas has been deployed on the wing and in the hole on the odd occasion, Giggs has played on the right, Messi has been played on the left, Kaká has been played in a less familiar left-sided role for Real Madrid, and so on.
Essien has a good engine and is good at bringing the ball forward and in some games it's not a bad idea to stick him at right-back and let the likes of Mikel get some game time.
Essien has a good engine and is good at bringing the ball forward and in some games it's not a bad idea to stick him at right-back and let the likes of Mikel get some game time.
And Valencia scored more goals in his first season with us then his years at Wigan - a great first season for a player that is still just 25 and likely to continue to grow here.
Malouda was hardly as good as Valencia in his first season with Chelsea, what makes you think that Valencia can't improve on his goal tally? Also, Nani didn't play a lot of games last season but, ended up with a few goals and assists - you think he might not be a lot bigger threat this season?
Malouda started left centre mid in 6 of his 41 starts, Park started there 3 times in 30.
And I don't see how you can call the positon Malouda was playing in was a conventonal central midfield position, and not Park. They both played slightly advanced, except Malouda was slightly advanced out on the left with Anelka or Kalou tucking in as they always do and allowing Malouda to pull out wide.
Not particularly important but I just thought I'd look in a bit to how true it is that Malouda played as a centre mid a lot.
Valencia was in his first season at the club. He may not have been as prolific, but he set up an absolute feck load. Factor in the respective ages and I'm happier with our player.
I'll give you Lampard because anyone that scores 30 from midfield deserves respect.
I'm not having a perma-crock as one of the best midfielders in the world though. Talent without being to apply it is worthless. The fitness record of a player is vital when deciding if they're top class or not.
Sure they could very well do. I think Nani will end up a better player than Malouda personally. But as things stand, I'd have to say Malouda provides a much bigger goal threat than either Nani or Valencia. I do think that Nani will prove the best of them over time.
1) makes no sense, we're either comparing all midfielders (wide, central, top, whatever) or we're not
2) is clearly an issue but didn't stop us scoring a shit-load of goals last season
But if you are one of the best central midfielders in the world, then why on Earth would you be moved for a sustained spell? Surely, if he was that great, the managers would find a solution to the right back position?
Central midfield, generally, is a more vital position than right back.
In any case, how good was Essien at right back? I seem to recall him getting roasted by Ronaldo.
Let me clarify again.
1) I'M saying that they have top quality midfielders and we don't. Whether they play on the right or in the middle is irrelevant. That's what I was saying, whether it makes sense to you doesn't matter to me.
2) Yes, but Chelsea scored more, and generally had more ideas in attack. Because they weren't one dimensional. They had three or more players who consistently won them games. We were overly reliant on one to do it all. So yes it did affect us. It's good to have goals from midfield. Not absolutely necessary but it really helps.
Players play where they're required most. Carrick was required to play at CB last year - not because he's a shite midfielder, but because he was needed there more. Essien's been forced to fill holes in the Chelsea side for various reasons, most notably because he's a fantastic player and can actually play a variety of roles.
Anyone who watches football, including every single neutral (non Chelsea/United supporter) will tell you Essien's a better player. Because he is.
Just because he's been hit with injuries these last two seasons doesn't change that fact.
So why did we stick Rooney out wide-left? Hint: It was to accommodate another player.
Right-back has been a problematic area for Chelsea in recent seasons due to injuries (Ferreira, Belletti and now Bosingwa) - it's not surprising they turn to Essien. It shows the level of faith managers have in the likes of Mikel to do a job there.
If all our left-wingers get injured or lose form you can bet Fergie will call upon Rooney to play there in an emergency. A good striker that still happens to be a decent option on the left.
It's no fault of these players that they are so good, they can play in multiple positions, after all...
Good point.
Was he most needed in that right back position with both Ferreira and Belletti in the squad? He's being touted as the best central midfielder in the world - you don't shift those sorts around. In any case, as I said, he wasn't even that good a right back - all over the shop at times in the CL final.
Injuries change everything. You can't be a better player if you're not playing. Superior talent doesn't equal superior performance.
It's abundantly clear who has played better over the last 2 - 2 and a half years.
It was to accomodate another, better, player. Even then, it wasn't ideal and no one was really happy about it.
If we now had a problem on the left wing, Rooney would be way down the list in terms of players filling in. It is not in any way logical to shift a player from a vital area of the field and deploy him into a less important area. Rooney has become one of the best strikers around less his days on the flanks. He won't be moving back now.
Chelsea scored 45 league goals from midfield from last season, but they've lost 8 goals from midfield through players leaving. That makes 37. We had 30.
I don't really see the big deal about goal threat?
EDIT: We had 17 goals from midfield in other games too. Chelsea had 11.