Xavi vs Pirlo

Kimbo wrote:

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:If only they had 10 hopeful long range punts per game like some midfielders.

Cabaye? Yes, he is a bit of a hit and hope merchant, but he does score occasionally. I just get the feeling that for all the people sucking xavi off, he really can't shoot from distance, which for me is like a midfielder not being able to tackle well (e.g. scholes) or not having good stamina (e.g. Pirlo). Basically every midfielder has their weaknesses, but we seem to overlook those of xavi and pirlo because we're too busy admiring the passing ability.

Not at all Cabaye. Very good player though, France did well to choose him as their playmaker, I wish England had someone that could play that role in midfield.

He does well in France's 3-man midfield. He'd be on his way home in England's 2-man midfield.

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:If only they had 10 hopeful long range punts per game like some midfielders.

Cabaye? Yes, he is a bit of a hit and hope merchant, but he does score occasionally. I just get the feeling that for all the people sucking xavi off, he really can't shoot from distance, which for me is like a midfielder not being able to tackle well (e.g. scholes) or not having good stamina (e.g. Pirlo). Basically every midfielder has their weaknesses, but we seem to overlook those of xavi and pirlo because we're too busy admiring the passing ability.

Not at all Cabaye. Very good player though, France did well to choose him as their playmaker, I wish England had someone that could play that role in midfield.

He does well in France's 3-man midfield. He'd be on his way home in England's 2-man midfield.

Certainly if he had to play alongside one of England's unathletic donkeys.

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:If only they had 10 hopeful long range punts per game like some midfielders.

Cabaye? Yes, he is a bit of a hit and hope merchant, but he does score occasionally. I just get the feeling that for all the people sucking xavi off, he really can't shoot from distance, which for me is like a midfielder not being able to tackle well (e.g. scholes) or not having good stamina (e.g. Pirlo). Basically every midfielder has their weaknesses, but we seem to overlook those of xavi and pirlo because we're too busy admiring the passing ability.

Because passing is singlehandedly the most important trait of a midfielder...

Hlebagone wrote:

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:If only they had 10 hopeful long range punts per game like some midfielders.

Cabaye? Yes, he is a bit of a hit and hope merchant, but he does score occasionally. I just get the feeling that for all the people sucking xavi off, he really can't shoot from distance, which for me is like a midfielder not being able to tackle well (e.g. scholes) or not having good stamina (e.g. Pirlo). Basically every midfielder has their weaknesses, but we seem to overlook those of xavi and pirlo because we're too busy admiring the passing ability.

Because passing is singlehandedly the most important trait of a midfielder...

I don't know if that works in any area of the pitch in the modern game and least of all the central midfielder. It's like with keepers, is the ability to save shots single-handedly the most important trait of a keeper? The Nigerian keeper was pretty awesome at that, but then he spilled a cross and game over.

For me there is no single trait that a midfielder has to have. He has to be pretty good in a range of them (both technical and physical), and they are all inter-related. If he can read the game then he can defend and attack, if he gets into a defensive position then being able to tackle helps, if he gets into an attacking position then being able to shoot also helps. The ability to shoot from long-range is a trait for a central midfielder because he is the one most likely to be in front of goal 20 metres out.

Oh yay another tedious debate.

In my conception of football it's pretty clear that the ability to use the football well in midfield is a fundamental aspect to any team's success, regardless of if it's ticki-tacka, or quick ruthless breaks, initiated  by a midfielder.

The idea that *that* Barcelona team were flawed because Xavi wasn't twatting them from 25 yards enough is preposterous.

Obviously there are more aspects to being a midfielder, but I think this is the most important one, as illustrated by the vast majority of successful teams, and England's perpetual failings at World Cups. But no, Gerrard can tackle and shoot well, so he must be a better midfielder.  

Then don't make it about gerrard. My point was still about both xavi and pirlo being overrated, and pointing out their weaknesses. Fine you prefer midfielders who are good at one thing whether it is short passing like xavi, long passing like pirlo, covering a lot of ground like roy keane, shooting like lampard etc. I prefer midfielders who can do everything pretty well while not being the best at any one particular thing. You can make it about all about yaya toure. If he was the best passer maybe he'd have been wished happy birthday.

Like who? What jack of all trades would you have other Xavi or Pirlo?

I just said yaya. Also sweinsteiger, maybe modric. I prefer pirlo to xavi, but I prefer other midfielders to pirlo.

Hlebagone wrote:Like who? What jack of all trades would you have other Xavi or Pirlo?

Gerrard

Hlebagone wrote:Oh yay another tedious debate.

In my conception of football it's pretty clear that the ability to use the football well in midfield is a fundamental aspect to any team's success, regardless of if it's ticki-tacka, or quick ruthless breaks, initiated  by a midfielder.

The idea that *that* Barcelona team were flawed because Xavi wasn't twatting them from 25 yards enough is preposterous.

Obviously there are more aspects to being a midfielder, but I think this is the most important one, as illustrated by the vast majority of successful teams, and England's perpetual failings at World Cups. But no, Gerrard can tackle and shoot well, so he must be a better midfielder.  

Meh

You would have Schweinsteiger or Modric over Pirlo or Xavi? Ok, think that'll do.

Hlebagone wrote:You would have Schweinsteiger or Modric over Pirlo or Xavi? Ok, think that'll do.

Obviously I'm saying that I don't have iniesta and buquets to tiki-taka with, to bore the fuck out of me. If I could just choose one midfielder on their own I'd rather have a good all-rounder.

I don't think Schweinsteiger is an bad suggestion, much better than Gerrard, right 110%?      

I'm unsure know whether this is a discussion as to who's the better midfielder, or who we'd rather invite round to dinner.

I'm still flabbergasted that someone could watch English teams, and the English national team for so many years, and conclude: the way forward for midfielders are those that get around the park, can pass a bit, and let to hit one from 20 yards. Every England performance must be a major shock for you.

Even using the example of Modric - it's passing that makes him the player he is. He's just marginally better at covering ground, and tackling than Xavi is.

De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

Kimbo wrote:I don't think Schweinsteiger is an bad suggestion, much better than Gerrard, right 110%?      

Better than cabaye at least

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I don't think Schweinsteiger is an bad suggestion, much better than Gerrard, right 110%?      

Better than cabaye at least

ZINGGGGGG

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

Joey Barton can run, pass, tackle, elbow, be homophobic, injure team mates. The complete package.

Hlebagone wrote:I'm unsure know whether this is a discussion as to who's the better midfielder, or who we'd rather invite round to dinner.

I'm still flabbergasted that someone could watch English teams, and the English national team for so many years, and conclude: the way forward for midfielders are those that get around the park, can pass a bit, and let to hit one from 20 yards. Every England performance must be a major shock for you.

Even using the example of Modric - it's passing that makes him the player he is. He's just marginally better at covering ground, and tackling than Xavi is.

Modric was a maybe, there are just a lack of all rounders these days. I preferred in the past players likes gullit and rijkard to xavi and pirlo. I wouldn't mind Pirlo coming round for dinner, seems like a nice chap, xavi seems like a rat-faced c**t though

Isn't that then indicative of how the game has changed, and the attributes required to be reach the highest level of the game in that position?

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

It should be along the lines of read game, run, pass, tackle, shoot in no particular order. De rossi can do 4 out of the 5 pretty well, pirlo can do 2 extremely well. The solution for Italy was therefore to make de rossi do the running and tackling to free up pirlo to do the passing, so Pirlo gets to look better, and everyone gets to cream themselves over him, while Italy go out. We'll never know if they might have been better off without pirlo.

Hlebagone wrote:

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

Joey Barton can run, pass, tackle, elbow, be homophobic, injure team mates. The complete package.

About the same as cabaye   

110% wrote:

Kimbo wrote:I don't think Schweinsteiger is an bad suggestion, much better than Gerrard, right 110%?      

Better than cabaye at least

It won't be long until Cabaye is world champion, and such arguments will be futile.

110% wrote:

Hlebagone wrote:

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

Joey Barton can run, pass, tackle, elbow, be homophobic, injure team mates. The complete package.

About the same as cabaye   

Barton, Cabaye, Gerrard, 2 of these players have been involved in a cowardly drunken assault, who is the other one?

110% wrote:

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

It should be along the lines of read game, run, pass, tackle, shoot in no particular order. De rossi can do 4 out of the 5 pretty well, pirlo can do 2 extremely well. The solution for Italy was therefore to make de rossi do the running and tackling to free up pirlo to do the passing, so Pirlo gets to look better, and everyone gets to cream themselves over him, while Italy go out. We'll never know if they might have been better off without pirlo.

2010 World Cup?

or perhaps you should have a look at what Italy's midfield was like like before Pirlo came along.

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:

110% wrote:

BoBo Vieri 32 wrote:De Rossi > Pirlo because De Rossi can do everything - run, pass, tackle, elbow etc.

It should be along the lines of read game, run, pass, tackle, shoot in no particular order. De rossi can do 4 out of the 5 pretty well, pirlo can do 2 extremely well. The solution for Italy was therefore to make de rossi do the running and tackling to free up pirlo to do the passing, so Pirlo gets to look better, and everyone gets to cream themselves over him, while Italy go out. We'll never know if they might have been better off without pirlo.

2010 World Cup?

or perhaps you should have a look at what Italy's midfield was like like before Pirlo came along.

But the running and tackling are so much easier than the passing. Simone Perrota did the running and tackling bit for Italy. And he's not very good at football. For every 100 running and tackling players, there's one Pirlo/Xavi.

Joey Barton could have been so much better, his managers have generally misunderstood what he's good at along with everyone else.

110% wrote:I just said yaya. Also sweinsteiger, maybe modric. I prefer pirlo to xavi, but I prefer other midfielders to pirlo.

Yaya Toure over Xavi. 

Yes the same Yaya Toure who plays shit in the CL every year. Other teams midfielders just buzz around him while the big lazy oaf just stands there.