Arshavin.....

[sotnas]

What about gazza? but i get what your saying. Maybe this is were we go wrong. Skillfull wingers an hard takeling midfielders. Food for thought.

Gazza never fullfilled what he promised, after kicking Gary charles and getting injured.

I'd say he was a great prospect that never blossomed.

I think ability always has place in a first team eleven. To win the ball back you don't have to be big tall guy full of strength. Positioning, antecipation and agility are the mark of great ball winners (Guardiola).

Look at Carvalho, is he the strongest defender in the PL? Probably he's the less strong defender, but his positioning his marking, his cleverness makes him a world class player.

Of course english clubs, by tradition, play 442. But lately they've tried to change to 451. Man Utd is the best example. But they don't play 4231, they play mostly 4141. There isn't the idea of a player in the hole in the british tradition.

Look at super France. They had Zidane now they don't use anyone look alike (Ribery clearly is not a thinker of the game). Portugal, for years had Rui Costa and now Deco. South american sides always have a ball player in the middle of the park.

But there is another problem, players are brought up according to a philosophy. For instance, Arteta was brought up in youth system that produced Guardiola, Iniesta, Xavi and even Fabregas.

All of them are players of tight control and clever passes. They read the game and occupy defensive space with intelligence. They're not thugs who go for a rough tackle.

Now, Arteta is playing on the wing, but not as winger because he's not a winger by nature. I've read that his crosses aren't that great, of course he has to work them out, he wasn't born a winger.

Sometimes I feel that the holding position in the midfield should be played by the best passer of the ball, the player who organize things from behind, the one who's always sure on his passing (look at Pirlo in Milan). But instead that role is played by the strongest and less gifted player of the midfield.

There are so many conceptions of the game that can work out, that discussing this matters can take forever.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

You talk a lot of sense sotnas

 

[ToxtethBlue]

Arteta doesn't play in the middle because he's shirks responsibility. He fails to dictate games and doesn't demand the ball enough. He's much better suited outide our in a midfield three. Simialar to players like Hleb, Rosicky and Beneyoun who just aren't cut out to being the main play makers. There moved outwide to get the best out of them.

Arteta is also to neat and tidy in his passing. He lacks adventure and never looks for the through ball or the 30 yard crossfield ball.

 

[sotnas]

I haven't seen him as much as you Sotnas (or is it Santos?), I've only seen him this season. I agree that against Holland he seemed to be playing a free role from a basic inside forward role. Could it be that he started out as a more authentic winger due to his pace and ability, but gradually started to impose his personality. Maybe in a similar vein to Figo. When he first started at Barcelona he seemed to hug the touchline a lot more but dveloped into the the more classic number ten (A much more defined role in latin countries than in England), popping up all over the place in the final third. As I say, I'm only speculating as I didn't see the lad before this season.

Well, talking about my all time favourite player...Figo.

He only became a winger when he got to Barcelona. Until then he was a run all the pitch player. He would start from the right or from the left but he would roam to wherever he wanted.

When Bobby Robson arrived at Sporting, he made him play on the wing more often. Then came Carlos Queiros, who had coached him to the U-20 World Cup victory, and gave him freedom to roam.

To me, he was much more spectacular when he played for Sporting. Is first season at Barcelona was something to sit and watch, such was his ability to take on opponents. But after that he became more effective as player but less spectacular. He grew in weight, in pace and in all ways you can think of, as a player.

But we're talking about a special talent that doesn't come along that often. He was special because at 22/23 he knew all there was to know about what to do in a football pitch. He only had to work out his physical to give him an edge over bigger opponents. And playing week in week out at the pace of the great matches, gave him that competitive breading that helped him to reach the heights.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Arteta doesn't play in the middle because he's shirks responsibility. He fails to dictate games and doesn't demand the ball enough. He's much better suited outide our in a midfield three. Simialar to players like Hleb, Rosicky and Beneyoun who just aren't cut out to being the main play makers. There moved outwide to get the best out of them.

Arteta is also to neat and tidy in his passing. He lacks adventure and never looks for the through ball or the 30 yard crossfield ball.

Completely agree, although I prefer that he never looks for adventurous "30 yard crossfield balls". If he did, to say, Neville or Hibbert, they would probably have a seizure rather than trying to control it.

 

[Toffee-nerd]

Gazza never fullfilled what he promised, after kicking Gary charles and getting injured.

I'd say he was a great prospect that never blossomed.

I think ability always has place in a first team eleven. To win the ball back you don't have to be big tall guy full of strength. Positioning, antecipation and agility are the mark of great ball winners (Guardiola).

Look at Carvalho, is he the strongest defender in the PL? Probably he's the less strong defender, but his positioning his marking, his cleverness makes him a world class player.

Of course english clubs, by tradition, play 442. But lately they've tried to change to 451. Man Utd is the best example. But they don't play 4231, they play mostly 4141. There isn't the idea of a player in the hole in the british tradition.

Look at super France. They had Zidane now they don't use anyone look alike (Ribery clearly is not a thinker of the game). Portugal, for years had Rui Costa and now Deco. South american sides always have a ball player in the middle of the park.

But there is another problem, players are brought up according to a philosophy. For instance, Arteta was brought up in youth system that produced Guardiola, Iniesta, Xavi and even Fabregas.

All of them are players of tight control and clever passes. They read the game and occupy defensive space with intelligence. They're not thugs who go for a rough tackle.

Now, Arteta is playing on the wing, but not as winger because he's not a winger by nature. I've read that his crosses aren't that great, of course he has to work them out, he wasn't born a winger.

Sometimes I feel that the holding position in the midfield should be played by the best passer of the ball, the player who organize things from behind, the one who's always sure on his passing (look at Pirlo in Milan). But instead that role is played by the strongest and less gifted player of the midfield.

There are so many conceptions of the game that can work out, that discussing this matters can take forever.

I know what you are saying sotnas but im not sure where you are going with it in regards to Arshavin. If we did get him, as unlikely as it seems, i was trying to point out earlier on that he could fit in at everton playing primarily on the left but being aloud to drift in and out on that wing, which is where he plays most of the time for Zenit and Russia, basically as a left forward. The team i would have if we got him and a new DM and manny would be:
---------yak----------------
ashavin----------------------
manny------cahill-------arteta
------------new DM----------
lesc-----yobo-----jags----nev
-------------how------------

Obviously it would be slightly lop sided on paper, but it work as a similar system to arsenal when they had henry on the left coming inside. When we have the ball it allows players to get forward in numbers, arteta, cahill, yak and arshavin bombin forward with manny coming inside holding with new DM. When we dont have the ball cahill, arteta and manny fill in to midfield with DM making a more traditional 4-4-2. That is the team i think will get us fouth but i doubt we will get arshavin now but we can still hope. I know i am getting a little ahead of myself thinking out the team in that but there is very little else to do at the mo in regards to EFC so why not.

 

[sotnas]

Arteta doesn't play in the middle because he's shirks responsibility. He fails to dictate games and doesn't demand the ball enough. He's much better suited outide our in a midfield three. Simialar to players like Hleb, Rosicky and Beneyoun who just aren't cut out to being the main play makers. There moved outwide to get the best out of them.

Arteta is also to neat and tidy in his passing. He lacks adventure and never looks for the through ball or the 30 yard crossfield ball.

When you talk about Hleb and Rosicky, keep in mind that Arsenal have Fabregas. See, there is a good example...Arsenal don't play two big lads to win balls. They play fabregas in the middle of the park.

One other thing, having a player in the hole doesn't imply necesseraly that the player has to be a master of long balls. I'd say that playing so further in the park he would have to have great vision and great ability to play one twos or two make that killer pass around the box.

Long pass ability should be an attribute for one of the holding midfielders.

 

[ToxtethBlue]

Having watched Arsavin a few times now I don't think he's a traditional "number 10". He's certainly not a Deco, Riquelme, Zidane or Van der Vaart type player.

I certainly don't see him as someone who can dictate the pace of the game. He doesn't have the ability to slow it down and speed it up like the players mentioned.

He's a second striker in the Rooney/Tevez mould. He has the ability to run in behind, drift outwide or drop deep into the hole. He's a very adaptable striker in my opinion. I'd definatly say he was more of a forward than a midfielder though.

I had doubts whether he'd be able to play in his natural position before this tornument but he's proved me wrong and I have a different outlook on his position. He'd definatly be a second striker in England and wouldn't have to be shifted to the wings like a Pienaar, Hleb or Elano etc.

 

[sotnas]

I know what you are saying sotnas but im not sure where you are going with it in regards to Arshavin. If we did get him, as unlikely as it seems, i was trying to point out earlier on that he could fit in at everton playing primarily on the left but being aloud to drift in and out on that wing, which is where he plays most of the time for Zenit and Russia, basically as a left forward. The team i would have if we got him and a new DM and manny would be:
---------yak----------------
ashavin----------------------
manny------cahill-------arteta
------------new DM----------
lesc-----yobo-----jags----nev
-------------how------------

Obviously it would be slightly lop sided on paper, but it work as a similar system to arsenal when they had henry on the left coming inside. When we have the ball it allows players to get forward in numbers, arteta, cahill, yak and arshavin bombin forward with manny coming inside holding with new DM. When we dont have the ball cahill, arteta and manny fill in to midfield with DM making a more traditional 4-4-2. That is the team i think will get us fouth but i doubt we will get arshavin now but we can still hope. I know i am getting a little ahead of myself thinking out the team in that but there is very little else to do at the mo in regards to EFC so why not.

In my conception of the game, what you're saying is we'll play 442, but arshavin won't sit upfront. He'll play from the left to the middle or he'll play the channels, that space between the full back and the center half.

I can see what you mean. So we're not talking about a role as pure winger but as false winger/striker. He's not there in the box but he arrives in the box. At the same time he's on the wing, but really he's not.

Am I following you?

 

[sotnas]

Having watched Arsavin a few times now I don't think he's a traditional "number 10". He's certainly not a Deco, Riquelme, Zidane or Van der Vaart type player.

I certainly don't see him as someone who can dictate the pace of the game. He doesn't have the ability to slow it down and speed it up like the players mentioned.

He's a second striker in the Rooney/Tevez mould. He has the ability to run in behind, drift outwide or drop deep into the hole. He's a very adaptable striker in my opinion. I'd definatly say he was more of a forward than a midfielder though.

I had doubts whether he'd be able to play in his natural position before this tornument but he's proved me wrong and I have a different outlook on his position. He'd definatly be a second striker in England and wouldn't have to be shifted to the wings like a Pienaar, Hleb or Elano etc.

Spot on!

In fact he's more of a forward than a midfielder, specially because he works the channels very very well. I agree.

But he also has a lot of a midfielder. He can hold the ball facing the goal and bring others into play. It happens a lot with players coming from behind. And he always looks to be far from Pavlyuchenko.

He's not a pure playmaker, but he's not a "Dalglish" either.

PS - Sorry about the rs mentioning.

 

[ToxtethBlue]

When you talk about Hleb and Rosicky, keep in mind that Arsenal have Fabregas. See, there is a good example...Arsenal don't play two big lads to win balls. They play fabregas in the middle of the park.

One other thing, having a player in the hole doesn't imply necesseraly that the player has to be a master of long balls. I'd say that playing so further in the park he would have to have great vision and great ability to play one twos or two make that killer pass around the box.

Long pass ability should be an attribute for one of the holding midfielders.

I didn't know you where talking about playing in the hole to be honest. I thought you where talking about him playing as a centre midfielder in the Fabregas, Scholes mould.

I don't think he's as effective as a centre midfielder as he is as a wide player who can roam wherever he wants. He shirks reponsibility as I've said and he's not creative enough from open play in my opinion. Players like Fernandes, Huddlestone, Gravesen etc yes and they demand the ball and try hard passes but not Arteta.

I doubt Arteta could play in the hole. I just couldn't see it. As the more attacking minded midfielder in a 4-3-3 yes but no positioned in the hole.

I'm not against having a ball player in the middle of the park and I think alot of people who read my posts back me up on that. I've discussed with alot of people that I'd rather see the likes of Osman, Fernandes and Arteta in the middle of the pitch before Cahill. An elegant creative midfielder is needed in my opinion.

We don't play with two big lads in the middle of the park. We play with one creative midfielder, one attacking midfielder and one defensive. Thats how Moyes tends to set us out.

 

[Toffee-nerd]

In my conception of the game, what you're saying is we'll play 442, but arshavin won't sit upfront. He'll play from the left to the middle or he'll play the channels, that space between the full back and the center half.

I can see what you mean. So we're not talking about a role as pure winger but as false winger/striker. He's not there in the box but he arrives in the box. At the same time he's on the wing, but really he's not.

Am I following you?

Yeah i think so, playing that system would allow us to still play our best players and not have to drop cahill, who would be the main man under pressure of being dropped if we played arshavin as a 2nd striker straight down the middle but it would also still allow us to get the best out of him aswell. Thats just my opinion though and some people may think its to attacking/aggressive which i understand but i think we need to score more goals next season to bridge the gap to fouth.

 

[sotnas]

I didn't know you where talking about playing in the hole to be honest. I thought you where talking about him playing as a centre midfielder in the Fabregas, Scholes mould.

I don't think he's as effective as a centre midfielder as he is as a wide player who can roam wherever he wants. He shirks reponsibility as I've said and he's not creative enough from open play in my opinion. Players like Fernandes, Huddlestone, Gravesen etc yes and they demand the ball and try hard passes but not Arteta.

I doubt Arteta could play in the hole. I just couldn't see it. As the more attacking minded midfielder in a 4-3-3 yes but no positioned in the hole.

I'm not against having a ball player in the middle of the park and I think alot of people who read my posts back me up on that. I've discussed with alot of people that I'd rather see the likes of Osman, Fernandes and Arteta in the middle of the pitch before Cahill. An elegant creative midfielder is needed in my opinion.

We don't play with two big lads in the middle of the park. We play with one creative midfielder, one attacking midfielder and one defensive. Thats how Moyes tends to set us out.

The Fabregas just came along after something I said in the thread. Wasn't specific to Arshavin playing as a center midfield. I rate him as a hole player.

Arteta could well play in the hole. With Manny and other guy behind him. Manny would be linking player. We need a holding player who can pass a ball.

I make a confession, I wouldn't find a place for Cahill by conception in my first eleven. But with the players we have in the squad I'd have to make some concedings. Which is what most managers do due to the particular circumstances of each squad.

 

[sotnas]

Yeah i think so, playing that system would allow us to still play our best players and not have to drop cahill, who would be the main man under pressure of being dropped if we played arshavin as a 2nd striker straight down the middle but it would also still allow us to get the best out of him aswell. Thats just my opinion though and some people may think its to attacking/aggressive which i understand but i think we need to score more goals next season to bridge the gap to fouth.

Do we have full backs to play that way?

Sometimes, during the match, we'll have to bring some width to our game, and the full backs should do that, since we don't play wingers or players that can open it up from the midfield.

I still think Zhirkov is the pick of the bunch.

 

[ToxtethBlue]

The Fabregas just came along after something I said in the thread. Wasn't specific to Arshavin playing as a center midfield. I rate him as a hole player.

Arteta could well play in the hole. With Manny and other guy behind him. Manny would be linking player. We need a holding player who can pass a ball.

I make a confession, I wouldn't find a place for Cahill by conception in my first eleven. But with the players we have in the squad I'd have to make some conceptions. Which is what most managers do due to the particular circumstances of each squad.

Cahill would only be in my team if we play 4-5-1 to be honest. If we switched to 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 then he'd be on my bench. Other Evertonians think he's undropable but in my opinion he's not. I think we have the same ideas there.

If you where the Everton manager of this current squad who would you play in the hole? For me it would be Pienaar or Osman before Arteta. Pienaar preferably because he's played it occasionly at Ajax and Dortmund. Pienaar for me is a hole type player. intelligent, Good touch, excellent movement, clever short passing and good on the ball.