Ramires to Chelsea for £20M

[x42bn6]

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.

Ferreira was injured and Belletti is a utility player who isn't that good himself. The right-back situation was poor which was why they went out and got Bosingwa the next season.

Chelsea's midfield in that final was Makélélé-Ballack-Lampard - not the worst midfield in the world (a good midfield of course) but none are really capable of playing right-back - Essien, on the other hand, is. So they lost Essien's ability in the middle but replaced him with Ballack, which may have been considered better than Essien in the middle but Belletti on the right.

Essien was poor but then again he was up against a player who scored goals for fun that season - understandably he wasn't that good. Not sure it detracts from the fact he's a fantastic player who is capable of playing at right-back and centre-back on the odd occasion.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It was to accomodate another, better, player.

True that.

You shouldn't really play your best player out of position unless there's a short-term very severe injury crisis and you have literally no other choice, or if you've got another player in the squad who can do the same job as they do, only better.

 

[x42bn6]

You shouldn't really play your best player out of position unless there's a short-term very severe injury crisis and you have literally no other choice, or if you've got another player in the squad who can do the same job as they do, only better.

Then that player wouldn't actually be their best player, would he?

You shouldn't but I suspect the idea in the Final was to combat Ronaldo, which in hindsight was a rather rubbish idea - although I'm not sure Belletti was going to fare any better personally.

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Chelsea scored 45 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?

Hmm that's a very interesting statistic. I though the gulf minus the lost players would have been much bigger given Lampard and Malouda's return.

 

[Berlinknives]

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.

Roy Keane even played defence with the likes of Phil Neville and John O'Shea playing in midfield!!! He'd would've done fullback for United if he was ever needed there, but he was a central player who stuck to a central position.

Secondly maybe not Del Horno and Boulahrouz but will Tal Ben-Haim and an injury prone Paulo Ferreira do then?

Thirdly Claude Makélélé was one of the few defensive midfielders in the world at the time near Essien's level, he retired the following season. Frankly physically Essien was more suited to defensive duties than Claude, quite often they were in the same midfield.

Post Makélélé, Chelsea did all they could to avoid it.

When was versatility such a handicap?

Steven Gerrard plays wide and behind the striker or upfront, as does Giggs, Iniesta, Xavi, Ronaldo, Messi etc. Ronaldo and Messi upfront on their own!

What's the difference in attacking players like Iniesta, Ronaldo and Messi who can play upfront, in comparison to the more defensive players of Essien, Hargreaves, Mascherano, Diarra, Yaya etc. playing in defence?

So then extending the arguement Ronaldo playing upfront for Manchester United in place of Carlos Tévez was because he wasn't as good on the wing as the likes of Park, Nani, Giggs, Rooney etc.

Or perhaps he was played on the wing originally because he wasn't one of the best forwards in the world then?

 

[cesc's_mullet]

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.

Chelsea having all their RB's injured (or being incredibly shite) had to turn to another options. Mikel being slow and cumbersome is one option, though he can screen the defense very well from midfield. Essien, being a better all-round player and more physically suited to either role was another option, and was obviously turned-to by his manager to minimise the impact on the side. It's simple really.

Someone else brought it up too using Rooney as an example. He was asked to play out wide for the team. If the Manager thinks it's better to move a player into a different position for the overall benefit of the team then he's going to do it. Rooney and Essien have been asked to play in other positions because it helped with the team balance - not because they're shit.

And yes you can be a better player if you're not playing. Essien is a superior player, and it's ridiculous to suggest he's not a good player simply because he's injured. So Torres and van Persie aren't excellent strikers now because they're always crocked?

It's your opinion that Fletcher's been better over the last few years. And you may be right. But I can tell you now who'd win in a poll if you asked every single football fan in the world who they'd rather in their side. It'd be a fecking blowout.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Then that player wouldn't actually be their best player, would he?

You shouldn't but I suspect the idea in the Final was to combat Ronaldo, which in hindsight was a rather rubbish idea - although I'm not sure Belletti was going to fare any better personally.

Yeah, my post would make more sense if it was "best players" and there was a a "one of your" in their somewhere.

 

[beardsleybob]

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?

Its called team balance, glad you're not a manager or you'd shove any old player in RB purely vecause you had to have Essien laying CM every game.

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.

We could make a list a mile long of players that were roasted by Ronaldo, fact of the matter is that Essien was filling in at RB with Lyon too. Injuries brought about that choice of him filling in at Chelsea. Obviously their midfield has much better reinforcements than the RB position so the managwer felt it was worth the sacrifice to play him there. Lampard certainly couldnt play there, so who you think is gona be played there then?

 

[Feed Me]

Then that player wouldn't actually be their best player, would he?

You shouldn't but I suspect the idea in the Final was to combat Ronaldo, which in hindsight was a rather rubbish idea - although I'm not sure Belletti was going to fare any better personally.

Belletti though was a thoroughly experienced player who had done it all at the top level - at right full back. Sometimes, it's not all about pace, but the ability to know what you're doing positionally. Essien was all over the shop at right back - it was a terrible decision to play him there.

It's a bit like United turning around and saying that if we get to the CL final this season and our only right back is an ageing and slightly out of sorts Gary Neville, that you'd select Fletcher at right back. Two things: 1) That weakens the central midfield and 2) It actually weakens the right back area, because Neville is still a better right back than Fletcher.

Essien is obviously not rated as highly by his consecutive managers as he is by the fans because he wouldn't be habitually moved otherwise. Not if you're one of the best in the world.

 

[Brwned]

Hmm that's a very interesting statistic. I though the gulf minus the lost players would have been much bigger given Lampard and Malouda's return.

I don't know what you mean?

Anyway, we had 47 goals from midfield in all competitions. Chelsea had 56, including the players who left. If you take away Ballack and Joe Cole they had 48 goals.

One more goal in that midfield - where's the problem?

 

[x42bn6]

Belletti though was a thoroughly experienced player who had done it all at the top level - at right full back. Sometimes, it's not all about pace, but the ability to know what you're doing positionally. Essien was all over the shop at right back - it was a terrible decision to play him there.

It's a bit like United turning around and saying that if we get to the CL final this season and our only right back is an ageing and slightly out of sorts Gary Neville, that you'd select Fletcher at right back. Two things: 1) That weakens the central midfield and 2) It actually weakens the right back area, because Neville is still a better right back than Fletcher.

Essien is obviously not rated as highly by his consecutive managers as he is by the fans because he wouldn't be habitually moved otherwise. Not if you're one of the best in the world.

Belletti is an experienced right-back but clearly Grant thought having Ballack in midfield would compensate for it - personally, I think it wasn't a terrible idea, but in hindsight maybe not.

If we had a half-fit Wes Brown as our only right-back option I would not be surprised if Ferguson turned to Fletcher to play at right-back. He can do a job there and in the absence of a good option it isn't a terrible idea.

There are other examples of course. Iniesta at left-wing to accommodate Keita, Messi in the middle to accommodate Pedro/Henry/Bojan, Puyol at right-back (or left-back on occasion) to accommodate Márquez or Milito, Kaká in a wider attacking midfield (not playing anyone centrally at all), Anelka on the right to provide a wide option when Anelka is clearly not a winger, and so on.

All this is about teamwork. There is nothing wrong with deploying a player in a weaker position if it benefits the team as a whole. It just so happens that Grant preferred Essien at right-back than Belletti - in hindsight that was a bad idea but Ronaldo raped full-backs for fun that season and you can't say Belletti was going to be any better.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

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.

Stupid argument. Scholes is far more suited to an attacking role, you won't ever see him being asked/forced to play in defense.

And it's all clearly relative.

Essien's game is far more suited to playing further down the pitch than further up it. He can excel at CB and RB, and he has because his 'game' and physicality allows it.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

Feed Me's on a reverse-WUM.

 

[Berlinknives]

Belletti though was a thoroughly experienced player who had done it all at the top level - at right full back. Sometimes, it's not all about pace, but the ability to know what you're doing positionally. Essien was all over the shop at right back - it was a terrible decision to play him there.

It's a bit like United turning around and saying that if we get to the CL final this season and our only right back is an ageing and slightly out of sorts Gary Neville, that you'd select Fletcher at right back. Two things: 1) That weakens the central midfield and 2) It actually weakens the right back area, because Neville is still a better right back than Fletcher.

Essien is obviously not rated as highly by his consecutive managers as he is by the fans because he wouldn't be habitually moved otherwise. Not if you're one of the best in the world.

Speaking of 2007-08... Wasn't Owen Hargreaves playing right-back against Barcelona, semi-final?

I don't believe that Ferguson feels Hargreaves was a better full back than O'Shea or a worse defensive midfielder than Carrick. He simply thought that way he had a more balanced team.

And I suppose for Barcelona, maybe Yaya Toure taking the centreback place off of Puyol in 2008-09.

 

[Feed Me]

Roy Keane even played defence with the likes of Phil Neville and John O'Shea playing in midfield!!! He'd would've done fullback for United if he was ever needed there, but he was a central player who stuck to a central position.

I can't believe that Roy Keane at his peak - 98-02 - would have been shifted into the backline. He was one of the best central midfielders in Europe. He did a few stints in the backline when the injuries took a grip and we started talking about playing him at centre half thinking that it would extend his career. He was no where near as good at the back and that particular venture didn't last long.

Secondly maybe not Del Horno and Boulahrouz but will Tal Ben-Haim and an injury prone Paulo Ferreira do then?

Belletti would have done.

Thirdly Claude Makélélé was one of the few defensive midfielders in the world at the time near Essien's level, he retired the following season. Frankly physically Essien was more suited to defensive duties than Claude, quite often they were in the same midfield.

Essien isn't really a defensive midfielder like Makelele though is he? He's always presented as being a more dynamic player than that. Makelele was always a superior defensive midfielder compared to Essien. I'd be quite happy if Essien was played at the base of the Chelsea midfielder regularly.

Post Makélélé, Chelsea did all they could to avoid it.

When was versatility such a handicap?

Steven Gerrard plays wide and behind the striker or upfront, as does Giggs, Iniesta, Xavi, Ronaldo, Messi etc. Ronaldo and Messi upfront on their own!

What's the difference in attacking players like Iniesta, Ronaldo and Messi who can play upfront, in comparison to the more defensive players of Essien, Hargreaves, Mascherano etc. playing in defence?

It's completely different. Messi and Ronaldo have always been hybrid attacking players. They don't really even have fixed positions. They just play anywhere in the front third.

Gerrard is better in an advanced position than central midfield- it was one of Benitez's good decisions to move Gerrard out of the central midfield.

Giggs was always a left winger before his legs started to go - at his peak, he was, on the whole, played in his main position.

Xavi always plays central midfield so feck knows what you're on about there.

Hargreaves isn't one of the best midfielders in the world - he, when fit, plays his role as a utility player. Mascherano is a limited destroyer.



So then extending the arguement Ronaldo playing upfront for Manchester United in place of Carlos Tévez was because he wasn't as good on the wing as the likes of Park, Nani, Giggs, Rooney etc.

Ronaldo played up front because of his awesome movement and finishing. In any case, he was equally proficient in a number of positions. On the right wing, he was the best in the world. On the left, best in the world. Through the middle, best in the world. So I'm not really sure what your point is TBH.

Or perhaps he was played on the wing originally because he wasn't one of the best forwards in the world then?

That really was a clusterfeck of a post.

 

[Feed Me]

Belletti is an experienced right-back but clearly Grant thought having Ballack in midfield would compensate for it - personally, I think it wasn't a terrible idea, but in hindsight maybe not.

If we had a half-fit Wes Brown as our only right-back option I would not be surprised if Ferguson turned to Fletcher to play at right-back. He can do a job there and in the absence of a good option it isn't a terrible idea.

There are other examples of course. Iniesta at left-wing to accommodate Keita, Messi in the middle to accommodate Pedro/Henry/Bojan, Puyol at right-back (or left-back on occasion) to accommodate Márquez or Milito, Kaká in a wider attacking midfield (not playing anyone centrally at all), Anelka on the right to provide a wide option when Anelka is clearly not a winger, and so on.

All this is about teamwork. There is nothing wrong with deploying a player in a weaker position if it benefits the team as a whole. It just so happens that Grant preferred Essien at right-back than Belletti - in hindsight that was a bad idea but Ronaldo raped full-backs for fun that season and you can't say Belletti was going to be any better.

It's clearly a terrible idea, even without hindsight, if you believe he's one of the best central midfielders in the world.

Fergie would pick Wes Brown at right back and keep Fletcher in midfield.

All you keep doing is naming attacking players who play fluidly across the front line. Messi has never been moved anywhere to accomodate anyone else. He goes where he pleases. It's obvious that defensive players have more rigidly defined positions than forwards.

 

[Feed Me]

Stupid argument. Scholes is far more suited to an attacking role, you won't ever see him being asked/forced to play in defense.

And it's all clearly relative.

Essien's game is far more suited to playing further down the pitch than further up it. He can excel at CB and RB, and he has because his 'game' and physicality allows it.

Feed Me's on a reverse-WUM.

I'm not on a reverse WUM at all - whatever that is.

You can't be one of the best midfielders in the world if you seldom play there because of a mixture of fitness problems and plugging holes.

 

[Feed Me]

Speaking of 2007-08... Wasn't Owen Hargreaves playing right-back against Barcelona, semi-final?

I don't believe that Ferguson feels Hargreaves was a better full back than O'Shea or a worse defensive midfielder than Carrick. He simply thought that way he had a more balanced team.

And I suppose for Barcelona, maybe Yaya Toure taking the centreback place off of Puyol in 2008-09.

1) Hargreaves isn't one of the best central midfielders in the world and thus, I have no problem with him plugging any holes in our team. He's not even one of the best midfielders in our squad.

2) I believe that Hargreaves is a better right than John O'Shea, who himself is a jack of all trades, master of none.

3) Hargreaves is a worse holding midfielder than Carrick.

Edit: Yaya Toure isn't one of the best central midfielders in the world, so it doesn't really matter if he's shifted out of the central midfield.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

You're missing the point.

These players have been asked to fill the void elsewhere because they're more suited to it than others. It's irrelevant how well they're regarded in their 'true' positions. Yaya Toure was Barcelona's best holding midfielder, but still he was forced to play at CB because the team required it - and he could because his game allows it, much like Essien.

Essien could be the best player in the history of the world ever, but if his team needs him to play at RB then he'll have to. Here's a simple equation for you:

Player A, is rated at 80 at CM, and 60 at RB.
Player B, is rated at 70 at CM, and 30 at RB.

Now player A is obviously the better CM, but for team dynamics it would be better if he played at RB as opposed to player B. Doesn't mean he's shite at CM or that player B's better, it just means that to fill the gap it would be better for the team if he was forced to play out of position.

That's the situation Essien has found himself in on occasions.

 

[Feed Me]

You're missing the point.

These players have been asked to fill the void elsewhere because they're more suited to it than others. It's irrelevant how well they're regarded in their 'true' positions. Yaya Toure was Barcelona's best holding midfielder, but still he was forced to play at CB because the team required it - and he could because his game allows it, much like Essien.

Essien could be the best player in the history of the world ever, but if his team needs him to play at RB then he'll have to. Here's a simple equation for you:

Player A, is rated at 80 at CM, and 60 at RB.
Player B, is rated at 70 at CM, and 30 at RB.

Now player A is obviously the better CM, but for team dynamics it would be better if he played at RB as opposed to player B. Doesn't mean he's shite at CM or that player B's better, it just means that to fill the gap it would be better for the team if he was forced to play out of position.

That's the situation Essien has found himself in on occasions.

So in a mammoth squad, the only player that was capable of filling in at right back for Chelsea was Essien?

I've just told you that Belletti was on the bench in the CL final. He was a better rightback option than Essien. So Chelsea were weaker in midfield and at right back as a result.

Also, I never said Essien was shit because he'd been moved around. I said that it was indicative of the fact that he's not as good/highly regarded by consecutive managers as he is by some fans.

 

[Feed Me]

Also, Yaya wasn't Barca's best holding midfielder. In that season, Busquets had displaced him. It was an easy decision to play Yaya in at centre back because he wouldn't have played central midfield anyway.

 

[x42bn6]

It's clearly a terrible idea, even without hindsight, if you believe he's one of the best central midfielders in the world.

Fergie would pick Wes Brown at right back and keep Fletcher in midfield.

All you keep doing is naming attacking players who play fluidly across the front line. Messi has never been moved anywhere to accomodate anyone else. He goes where he pleases. It's obvious that defensive players have more rigidly defined positions than forwards.

Messi played a much more central role this season with three forward buzzing around. His own position became much more rigid.

Fergie isn't guaranteed to pick Brown anyway. 1999 Champions League Final - both Giggs and Becks are sacrificed in their best positions with Greening (who can play in the middle) on the bench. Phil Neville could have done a job there too. In 2008, he kept Giggs and Nani on the bench and played Hargreaves at right-wing, a position he's barely played in.

Why do managers do this? It's a team thing, not a player thing. Players are sacrificed to play in positions they are less good in for the benefit of the team.

You need to understand that even if they're the best players in the world, they may be capable of playing in multiple positions. If Xavi was quicker and a slightly better dribbler, he could well be a decent winger who could be sacrificed to play there in order to deploy a more defensive midfield to shut out games, for example. Ancelotti has also suggested Drogba could be an emergency centre-back during injury crises - surely Chelsea would promote a young centre-back instead? Maybe not...

More examples. David Villa sacrificed to play on the left for Fernando Torres. Alessandro Del Piero sacrificed to play on the left instead of his natural trequartista role - Del Piero has said multiple times he doesn't like playing on the left - Lippi found a rather unusual way of playing with 3-4 forwards but not a single second-striker or trequartista. Pienaar, a better right-winger, plays centrally for his country because he's the best passer of the ball and dictates the play better than anyone on his team. Valencia has done that role once or twice too. Ferreira deployed on the left for a while for Portugal because they had no good left-backs available - why didn't they just blood a youngster? Pepe playing in defensive midfield for Portugal despite the fact he's a centre-back and a good one for Portugal. Nasri, played on the left a lot for Arsenal despite the fact he's better in the middle. Eboué - clearly a right-back but gets tossed on at right-wing a lot, at the expense of more natural wide players like Walcott. Gerrard deployed all over the field under Houllier.

The list simply goes on and on. Sometimes it does make sense to sacrifice even your best player for the benefit of the team. Sometimes it doesn't but the manager has a different mindset. Sometimes it doesn't work out - sometimes it does (Pienaar, for example). You simply can't say the best players in a team should only play in their best position. You can bet if Fergie finds a way to play Rooney on the left while scoring twice as many goals as a team and conceding half as many, he'd put Rooney on the left and keep that tactic.

I've just told you that Belletti was on the bench in the CL final. He was a better rightback option than Essien. So Chelsea were weaker in midfield and at right back as a result.

Alternatively, they were slightly less strong at right-back and midfield but compensated for a poor right-back and strong midfield.

Also, I never said Essien was shit because he'd been moved around. I said that it was indicative of the fact that he's not as good/highly regarded by consecutive managers as he is by some fans.

I prefer it as seeing as he's regarded as so good, he can play at right-back despite not possessing some of the knowledge of how to play at full-back.

 

[cesc's_mullet]

Also, Yaya wasn't Barca's best holding midfielder. In that season, Busquets had displaced him. It was an easy decision to play Yaya in at centre back because he wouldn't have played central midfield anyway.

It was Basquets first season in the first XI, and Yaya played more games than him. It's probably safe to assume Baquets made a lot of those appearances as a substitute - but that's just me assuming.

 

[Berlinknives]

That really was a clusterfeck of a post.

Roy Keane even played defence with the likes of Phil Neville and John O'Shea playing in midfield!!! He'd would've done fullback for United if he was ever needed there, but he was a central player who stuck to a central position.

I can't believe that Roy Keane at his peak - 98-02 - would have been shifted into the backline. He was one of the best central midfielders in Europe. He did a few stints in the backline when the injuries took a grip and we started talking about playing him at centre half thinking that it would extend his career. He was nowhere near as good at the back and that particular venture didn't last long.

Keane played centreback against title chasing Newcastle in one of his earlier seasons when he was one of the best central midfielders in the world, he had a decent game there against Juventus in 2004. You look at the likes of Toulalan, Diarra, Touré, Gattuso, Senna, Mascherano, Hargreaves, Barry, Motta, Palacious, Javier Zanetti. Petit played at centreback before and after joining Arsenal

Secondly maybe not Del Horno and Boulahrouz but will Tal Ben-Haim and an injury prone Paulo Ferreira do then?

Belletti would have done.

Thirdly Claude Makélélé was one of the few defensive midfielders in the world at the time near Essien's level, he retired the following season. Frankly physically Essien was more suited to defensive duties than Claude, quite often they were in the same midfield.

Essien isn't really a defensive midfielder like Makelele though is he? He's always presented as being a more dynamic player than that. Makelele was always a superior defensive midfielder compared to Essien. I'd be quite happy if Essien was played at the base of the Chelsea midfielder regularly.

Post Makélélé, Chelsea did all they could to avoid it.

When was versatility such a handicap?

Steven Gerrard plays wide and behind the striker or upfront, as does Giggs, Iniesta, Xavi, Ronaldo, Messi etc. Ronaldo and Messi upfront on their own!

What's the difference in attacking players like Iniesta, Ronaldo and Messi who can play upfront, in comparison to the more defensive players of Essien, Hargreaves, Mascherano etc. playing in defence?


It's completely different. Messi and Ronaldo have always been hybrid attacking players. They don't really even have fixed positions. They just play anywhere in the front third. Gerrard is better in an advanced position than central midfield- it was one of Benitez's good decisions to move Gerrard out of the central midfield. Giggs was always a left winger before his legs started to go - at his peak, he was, on the whole, played in his main position.Xavi always plays central midfield so feck knows what you're on about there.Hargreaves isn't one of the best midfielders in the world - he, when fit, plays his role as a utility player. Mascherano is a limited destroyer.

I don't think it's different in the slightest, Versatility is versatility be it the Maldini playing leftback or centreback, be it Johan Neeskens playing across the Dutch midfield and forwardline, being it Jorge Campos playing upfront for Pumas ... I'm not going to buy into this hybrid player malarkie because I'm sure it doesn't extend to defensive midfielders who you'll underrate no matter what they do, and it will probably extend to competent intermediates like Michael Carrick and Anderson who neither are orthodox defensive nor attacking midfielders and who can play on neither wing. Holding playing in defence against Essien is no more different than lambasting any other player forced to different positions, world class or otherwise ...

So then extending the arguement Ronaldo playing upfront for Manchester United in place of Carlos Tévez was because he wasn't as good on the wing as the likes of Park, Nani, Giggs, Rooney etc. Or perhaps he was played on the wing originally because he wasn't one of the best forwards in the world then?

Ronaldo played up front because of his awesome movement and finishing. In any case, he was equally proficient in a number of positions. On the right wing, he was the best in the world. On the left, best in the world. Through the middle, best in the world. So I'm not really sure what your point is TBH.

How well do you think the likes of Messi and Ronaldo would do at fullback?

They might put a tackle in against an attacking fullback once and again, but you couldn't trust their positional sense.

Essien played defence because he was strong, a great tackler, and had great defensive common sense and composure there, (awesome movement and finishing not so big a priority in the back four), he was an awesome defensive midfielder ... he wasn't played there for laughs, why else do you think he was played there? Because John Obi Mikel was such a better midfielder?

I'm not saying Essien was the best rightback in the world at the time, but even there he was better than most of the world's rightbacks. On form Essien is one of the best defensive midfielders in the World, if not the best.

 

[charlenefan]

I don't know what you mean?

Anyway, we had 47 goals from midfield in all competitions. Chelsea had 56, including the players who left. If you take away Ballack and Joe Cole they had 48 goals.

One more goal in that midfield - where's the problem?

How many of those goals were from the penalty spot out of interest?

 

[Berlinknives]

1) Hargreaves isn't one of the best central midfielders in the world and thus, I have no problem with him plugging any holes in our team. He's not even one of the best midfielders in our squad.

2) I believe that Hargreaves is a better right than John O'Shea, who himself is a jack of all trades, master of none.

3) Hargreaves is a worse holding midfielder than Carrick.

Edit: Yaya Toure isn't one of the best central midfielders in the world, so it doesn't really matter if he's shifted out of the central midfield.

1) So you'd be happy playing him in goal or upfront then?

2) Exactly, you'd have a player who has rarely played fullback or wingback at fullback over one who has now played hundreds of games there for a top level club and a middle-tier country ... this is a great advertisement of your own personal judgement here.

Next we will see a "why Micheal Carrick is a better midfielder than Michael Essien" post.

3) If Carrick was such a great defensive midfielder, why was Hargreaves signed in the first place?

But back to Essien, when Makélélé left, it was his replacement Lassana Diarra that was shifted to fullback duties and not Essien. Of course Lassana Diarra, nor Essien, nor Makelele, nor Mascherano, nor Hargreaves, nor Yaya Toure, nor Nigel De Jong, nor Cambiasso nor Sergio Busquets nor Javier Zanetti apparently are great defensive midfielders as players who can win the ball in midfeild are not world class (yet somehow Roy Keane is) ... so I take it you believe no midfield in the world would get past the robust solidity of an Alonso-Fabregas-Scholes-Schweinstiger-Xavi midfield. Are you one of these fans who define averageness by the ability to win the ball?

Why are Chelsea even signing Ramires he's a defensive midfielder not a "holding midfielder"!

Maybe because for on average over 86 minutes in the game, a footballer does not have the ball at his feet.

 

[Berlinknives]

So in a mammoth squad, the only player that was capable of filling in at right back for Chelsea was Essien?

I've just told you that Belletti was on the bench in the CL final. He was a better rightback option than Essien. So Chelsea were weaker in midfield and at right back as a result.

Also, I never said Essien was shit because he'd been moved around. I said that it was indicative of the fact that he's not as good/highly regarded by consecutive managers as he is by some fans.

Yes because starting a game out of position is somehow a punishment, or shows that manager lacks of regard for your ability.

What did Rooney do wrong?

Avram Grant simply looked at his players and prefered to wedge in Makelele and Ballack over the likes of Belletti (who is a makeshift rightback himself) and Ben Haim. In hindsight his midfield was weaker with Makelele which was the manager's fault, not Essien's, who you're criticising simply for being professional. I'm sorry but Essien would not have been dropped in that final whether or not Beletti played, Ballack was more expendible, Makelele was more expendable, Joe Cole and Malouda would've been more expendible if needs must. If Grant or Mouriniho thought Essien wasn't as good as the fans said he was, they'd have dropped him!!!

To base things on one game is as stupid to assert that Hargreaves must be a better right winger than Nani and Rooney must be a better left winger than Nani, indeed as stupid as to assert Hargreaves is a better fullback than O'Shea.

 

[Feed Me]

1) So you'd be happy playing him in goal or upfront then?

Yes. Of course. I'd be delighted with that

2) Exactly, you'd have a player who has rarely played fullback or wingback at fullback over one who has now played hundreds of games there for a top level club and a middle-tier country ... this is a great advertisement of your own personal judgement here.

Hargreaves has played all over during his career. During his limited United career he played three separate positions. He's the epitome of a utility player.

Next we will see a "why Micheal Carrick is a better midfielder than Michael Essien" post.

Well no we won't. I haven't said Fletcher is better than Essien either. I just railed against the notion that Essien is one of the best central midfield players in the world. I think Essien and Fletcher are much closer than is made out.

3) If Carrick was such a great defensive midfielder, why was Hargreaves signed in the first place?

Erm, because it is possible for a club to want to sign players without it being a direct affront to an existing player. By your logic you'd never replenish your squad. In any case, Carrick had a really good first season with the club - there's no way Hargreaves was bought in to replace Carrick as you're trying to intimate. For the record - Carrick is a superior central midfielder to Hargreaves, whose best form came at full back and right wing for us.

But back to Essien, when Makélélé left, it was his replacement Lassana Diarra that was shifted to fullback duties and not Essien. Of course Lassana Diarra, nor Essien, nor Makelele, nor Mascherano, nor Hargreaves, nor Yaya Toure, nor Nigel De Jong, nor Cambiasso nor Sergio Busquets nor Javier Zanetti apparently are great defensive midfielders as players who can win the ball in midfeild are not world class (yet somehow Roy Keane is) ... so I take it you believe no midfield in the world would get past the robust solidity of an Alonso-Fabregas-Scholes-Schweinstiger-Xavi midfield. Are you one of these fans who define averageness by the ability to win the ball?

It's perfectly conceivable for a ball playing combination to win out. For instance, our very own Carrick-Scholes combination in 06-07. In any case, I'm not quite sure why you're having a pop at me here. Not once have I said that a ball winning midfielder can't be defined as top class. You appear to have pulled that straight out your arse. I'm standing here bigging Fletcher up FFS!

Why are Chelsea even signing Ramires he's a defensive midfielder not a "holding midfielder"!

Maybe because for on average over 86 minutes in the game, a footballer does not have the ball at his feet.

I'm not sure why you've gone off on this strange tangent. Read through the thread - not once did I deride or belittle the contribution of ball winning midfielders.

 

[Feed Me]

Yes because starting a game out of position is somehow a punishment, or shows that manager lacks of regard for your ability.

What did Rooney do wrong?

Avram Grant simply looked at his players and prefered to wedge in Makelele and Ballack over the likes of Belletti (who is a makeshift rightback himself) and Ben Haim. In hindsight his midfield was weaker with Makelele which was the manager's fault, not Essien's, who you're criticising simply for being professional. I'm sorry but Essien would not have been dropped in that final whether or not Beletti played, Ballack was more expendible, Makelele was more expendable, Joe Cole and Malouda would've been more expendible if needs must. If Grant or Mouriniho thought Essien wasn't as good as the fans said he was, they'd have dropped him!!!

To base things on one game is as stupid to assert that Hargreaves must be a better right winger than Nani and Rooney must be a better left winger than Nani, indeed as stupid as to assert Hargreaves is a better fullback than O'Shea.

Rooney was subservient to a more talented player - Ronaldo. Once Ronaldo left, Rooney became the fulcrum of the side and was, for the first time, deployed consistently in a central role. All this example proves is that the best player is the one who should be given the most prominent role in the side. Or at least, the side should be set up to use his gifts.

Why on Earth would you take a player that you claim to be one of the best central midfielders in the world and then play him in a less important/less prominent position? It's totally illogical.

Juliano Belletti was a far more experienced player in the right back role than Essien. People are making out as though he would have been some sort of disaster - nonsense. He would have done a solid job and it would have released Essien into his more favoured role.

If Essien truly was one of the best midfielders in the world, I believe his managers would have made a far greater effort to showcase his talents in his rightful position. Now that is not to say Essien is a shit player - it's so black and white on here sometimes! It merely means to say that I don't think he's one of the best midfielders in the world.

In any case, it's all elementary because he's made just 40 appearances in two seasons.

 

[peterstorey]

If Essien truly was one of the best midfielders in the world, I believe his managers would have made a far greater effort to showcase his talents in his rightful position. Now that is not to say Essien is a shit player - it's so black and white on here sometimes! It merely means to say that I don't think he's one of the best midfielders in the world.

In any case, it's all elementary because he's made just 40 appearances in two seasons.

Yeah, I think you're right. Essien 'looks' like he should be a monster box-to-box CM but he hasn't done anything like it for 3 years

 

[Canuckred64]

Rooney was subservient to a more talented player - Ronaldo. Once Ronaldo left, Rooney became the fulcrum of the side and was, for the first time, deployed consistently in a central role. All this example proves is that the best player is the one who should be given the most prominent role in the side. Or at least, the side should be set up to use his gifts.

Why on Earth would you take a player that you claim to be one of the best central midfielders in the world and then play him in a less important/less prominent position? It's totally illogical.

Juliano Belletti was a far more experienced player in the right back role than Essien. People are making out as though he would have been some sort of disaster - nonsense. He would have done a solid job and it would have released Essien into his more favoured role.

If Essien truly was one of the best midfielders in the world, I believe his managers would have made a far greater effort to showcase his talents in his rightful position. Now that is not to say Essien is a shit player - it's so black and white on here sometimes! It merely means to say that I don't think he's one of the best midfielders in the world.

In any case, it's all elementary because he's made just 40 appearances in two seasons.

Yeah, I think you're right. Essien 'looks' like he should be a monster box-to-box CM but he hasn't done anything like it for 3 years

I agree that Essien looks like he could be a great box to box CM. I wonder if it's a case of needs must. Essien plays the defensive or holding midfielder because they have not had anyone who could since Makélélé left? If they pick up Ramires wouldn't he play the Makelele role for Chelsea freeing Essien up to be more attack minded?

 

[MrMarcello]

Didn't Keane play some RB in his early years at United?

 

[Shimo]

So Ramires, provided Essien is fit - does he take Mikel's spot? How do Chelsea setup with:

Ramires, Lampard, Essien and Malouda in their diamond?

 

[arjwiz]

Didn't Keane play some RB in his early years at United?

Yup, he did. Center Back in a couple of games as well, IIRC.

 

[Berlinknives]

Originally Posted by Berlinknives

Yes. Of course. I'd be delighted with that
Fair enough.

Hargreaves has played all over during his career. During his limited United career he played three separate positions. He's the epitome of a utility player.

Well no we won't. I haven't said Fletcher is better than Essien either. I just railed against the notion that Essien is one of the best central midfield players in the world. I think Essien and Fletcher are much closer than is made out.

Hargreaves was England's first choice defensive midfielder despite being a so called utility player, ahead of Carrick. Played rightback four or five times for United, probably the same number of times Carrick's been at centreback. Rarely displaced Willy Sagnol or Wes Brown at rightback, displaced Michael Carrick more often.

Erm, because it is possible for a club to want to sign players without it being a direct affront to an existing player. By your logic you'd never replenish your squad. In any case, Carrick had a really good first season with the club - there's no way Hargreaves was bought in to replace Carrick as you're trying to intimate. For the record - Carrick is a superior central midfielder to Hargreaves, whose best form came at full back and right wing for us.

I'm simply stating you don't believe he provides even competition for him, but Hargreaves kept Carrick out of the side for many games in 07-08 when fit. If Carrick was so great, they wouldn't have signed the player who kept him out of the England squad as well. The 3-0 drobbing by Milan showed exactly why we needed a player like Hargreaves.

It's perfectly conceivable for a ball playing combination to win out. For instance, our very own Carrick-Scholes combination in 06-07. In any case, I'm not quite sure why you're having a pop at me here. Not once have I said that a ball winning midfielder can't be defined as top class. You appear to have pulled that straight out your arse. I'm standing here bigging Fletcher up FFS!

So good that it needed even more competition the following season, with no real detriment to the Fletcher and O'Shea backup. Personally I think Shevchenko was more to blame for Chelsea losing the league (11 draws) than their rightback dilemna, but then again it's just me.

I'm not sure why you've gone off on this strange tangent. Read through the thread - not once did I deride or belittle the contribution of ball winning midfielders.



Mascherano, Essien, Hargreaves, Yaya Toure ... I see a strange tangent here as well.

 

[Berlinknives]

So Ramires, provided Essien is fit - does he take Mikel's spot? How do Chelsea setup with:

Ramires, Lampard, Essien and Malouda in their diamond?

Essien right, Malouda left, Ramires defensive central, Lampard attacking central I'd guess

 

[Berlinknives]

Rooney was subservient to a more talented player - Ronaldo. Once Ronaldo left, Rooney became the fulcrum of the side and was, for the first time, deployed consistently in a central role. All this example proves is that the best player is the one who should be given the most prominent role in the side. Or at least, the side should be set up to use his gifts.

Why on Earth would you take a player that you claim to be one of the best central midfielders in the world and then play him in a less important/less prominent position? It's totally illogical.

Juliano Belletti was a far more experienced player in the right back role than Essien. People are making out as though he would have been some sort of disaster - nonsense. He would have done a solid job and it would have released Essien into his more favoured role.

If Essien truly was one of the best midfielders in the world, I believe his managers would have made a far greater effort to showcase his talents in his rightful position. Now that is not to say Essien is a shit player - it's so black and white on here sometimes! It merely means to say that I don't think he's one of the best midfielders in the world.

Perhaps...

Essien was subservient to a more talented player - Makelele. Once Makelele left, Essien became the fulcrum of the side and was, for the first time, deployed consistently in a central role. All this example proves is that the best player is the one who should be given the most prominent role in the side. Or at least, the side should be set up to use his gifts.

Why on Earth would you take a player that you claim to be one of the best attackers in the world and then play him in a less important/less prominent position? It's totally illogical.

Ryan Giggs was a far more experienced player in the left wing role than Wayne Rooney. People are making out as though he would have been some sort of disaster - nonsense. He would have done a solid job and it would have released Rooney into his more favoured role.

If Rooney truly was one of the best attackers in the world, I believe his managers would have made a far greater effort to showcase his talents in his rightful position. Now that is not to say Rooney is a shit player - it's so black and white on here sometimes! It merely means to say that I don't think he's one of the best forwards in the world.

It's all elementarly because Rooney only scored 5 international goals in the last year.

 

[Brwned]

So Ramires, provided Essien is fit - does he take Mikel's spot? How do Chelsea setup with:

Ramires, Lampard, Essien and Malouda in their diamond?

Didn't they give up on the diamond midway through the season?

Even still you'd imagine that if they were to play the diamond, Essien would go back to his usual role instead of Mikel and Ramires would move to the rights-sided spot, don't you think? He's played as a right winger for both Benfica and Brazil occasionally, while generally playing in a slightly withdrawn right mid role for Brazil throughout the qualifiers in the role Elano played. Makes sense to leave Essien where he is and bring in Ramires to replace Ballack/Deco, I'd have thought.

Personally I think they'll stick to the 4-3-3 they've been so good with over the years and play Malouda on the wing, midfield three of Essien, Lampard and Ramires.

 

[antihenry]

So in a mammoth squad, the only player that was capable of filling in at right back for Chelsea was Essien?

I've just told you that Belletti was on the bench in the CL final. He was a better rightback option than Essien. So Chelsea were weaker in midfield and at right back as a result.

Also, I never said Essien was shit because he'd been moved around. I said that it was indicative of the fact that he's not as good/highly regarded by consecutive managers as he is by some fans.

Beletti is not a good defensive option. He is an attacking fullback, kind of like a Brazilian version of Glen Johnson, someone who is impressive going forward but regularly gets caught out of position and leaves gaps behind.

If you're playing Scunthorpe at the Bridge and you're trying to unlock the defense that "parked the bus", using Beletti makes sense. Playing him against Cristiano Ronaldo in the CL final is asking for trouble.

 

[Stretch]

Hec-fecking-tic!

This thread has gone of on a tangent to the furthest galaxy. Interesting arguments though.