Have You Stopped Laughing Yet? - OTT

Willian functions best as a part of a cohesive side, and what he mostly offers is decent quality on the ball with excellent workrate. He presses extremely well and makes decent decisions with the ball. The problem is that he lacks the ability to take players on - not what he does. When he's the only creative player, he struggles. The idea is for him to be a third banana next to Oscar and Hazard, though Oscar's off-form, which has forced Willian to play more. He's very solid for this level, though generally unspectacular (although he's certainly occasionally capable of a spectacular shot). He's not worth 30mm - though we'll see how he plays next season. He had an odd season last year (moving to Anzhi for a cup of tea) and first seasons in England often go poorly. I don't expect him to be much better, but he may well be somewhat better.
Jitty doesn't like him because his offensive output isn't sufficient for his price tag, but I mostly find that a bit of a joke, because his designation of "drones" is so ridiculously selective. Jitty sings the praises of Klopp and his "modern football", despite Dortmund employing utter clods like Kuba and (chortle) Grosskreutz.

TLDR - he's a much better version of Valencia.

 

So Willian is basically a Mourinho's version of Park? That's not worth 30 mil.

 

Inflation...

 

I just flat out don't understand what the problem is, then. If Kroos and Muller embody modern football, and they're perfectly complementary with (and even reliant on) virtuoso talents like Ribery and Robben, then modern or 'drone' football seems to be in pretty good shape. I'm not sure much can be made from pointing to Welbeck and Jones starting versus Madrid (aside from the fact that lumping them together seems harsh on Welbeck). That's an approach necessitated by an unbalanced squad, it's not an ideal that's being striven for. I don't see how the coping mechanisms used by English sides that have fallen behind the curve are somehow twisted into being indicative of what's happening in football generally.

I can understand disliking Jose's approach. The whole 'better back in the day' wistfulness in DS' post and that seems to underlie the disdain for 'drones' seems exaggerated, though. Jose's pragmatism is hardly representative of football generally, and even Jose's recent and current sides have featured the likes of Ozil, Hazard and now Salah as well.

I also think it's worth noting when those posts by DS were originally made, and what has happened subsequently. This was before Fabregas emerged as arguably the best Premier League midfielder, before Xavi-Iniesta dominated international football and before Pirlo carried Italy to the Euro 2012 finals. That powerful Chelsea side, in other words, hasn't necessarily proven to be a blueprint or a sign of things to come.

 

DS' point though was that this emphasis on physicality was the direction that football in general was heading. Thus his lamentation about Brazil, Argentina and Ivory Coast being outliers at the 2006 World Cup. I don't think that's proven to be the case, though.

I don't see why you would have quoted him approvingly if that wasn't the claim you were also making. If you're making the much narrower point that, essentially, some English sides erroneously prize physicality over technique, well, that's hardly debatable but it's not particularly interesting either. SAF at the end of his reign was a dinosaur, and Mourinho uses a very particular style that (and this is key) hasn't been widely emulated. City have built around Silva (while also incorporating Nasri and Aguero), and Liverpool around a unique and singular talent like Suarez, while Rodgers and Martinez are generally seen as the most promising young managers in English football. Wenger's obviously stuck to his guns at Arsenal as well.

DS (and yourself) clearly disagree with Jose's approach. That's fine, but DS' post loses quite a bit of its force at this stage because it was predicated on the Jose era Chelsea being a sign of things to come, but even if that ever was the trajectory of football generally, it changed dramatically when Spain dominated Euro 2008 and Barca dominated Europe.

 

He isn't even worth half of the price.

Abramovich just bought him so Pool couldn't sign him I guess

 

This is what he said:

I don't see how I'm misrepresenting his argument. He's explicitly saying that Essien is the type of midfielder that is going to become ubiquitous, and that this midfielder is technically poor but a monstrous athlete. That hasn't happened precisely because diminutive but technically brilliant players like Xavi subsequently reached the apex of the game.

If Iniesta is a drone, then I don't see why the term is used disparagingly, or that it's really precise enough to be used at all meaningfully. If drone = players who have stamina and can follow tactical instructions, but it can refer simultaneously to magicians like Iniesta or powerhouses like Essien, then I'd suggest it doesn't add much to the discussion. Who's not a drone, then? Cassano? Robinho? Has Robben achieved drone status since he's proven he can work under Guardiola?

 

Is anyone 'shocked' that FIFA has retracted the transfer ban on Barcelona ?

 

He's a significantly better player than Park. The argument that he and Jones are "muscle drones" is laughable on its face, as is the concern about drones becoming more prevalent. English football is constantly derided as "kick and rush" that relies on speed and physicality. Yet drones are predominating now? It's a ludicrous argument. Again, anyone who's seen videos of Helenio Herrera's sides can't seriously complain this is a modern phenomenon.
By this argument, only players like Ozil aren't drones, but that's because they don't play any defense or do any meaningful pressing. This is actually a corollary to the statistical arguments that have been developing in basketball, which show that all offense players are often a hindrance rather than being useful (see Ellis, Monta). So yes, sports that feature instant transitions between offense and defense are coming to value both sides more equally. If that's the "dronification" of football, it's only natural, and the most "modern" coaches are its biggest proponents.

While I think Xavi never reached the "apex of the game" (in large part because I see that Barca side as the obverse of Mourinho-style defensive systems - they're about control, not attacking), if Muller/Kroos are drones, than the only types of players that aren't are, almost by definition, players that perform no defensive duties, and especially individualists. Basically, #10s or wingers with no defensive responsibilities. These have been phased out of the game in the last decade, that's certainly true, though largely because more and more managers realize that only looking at one half of the game (offense) by necessity ignores the other half.

 

After reading all this, and sitting with @JamesA not knowing what drone is, I came up that a drone is a player with multiple good average assets, instead a non drone player is world class in one asset but poor in the others?

 

How did you come up to this "significantly" better than Park? He was a very good player in his PSV times, but got used as a so called "drone," just like Willian. Even at United, Park had played good when he got the chance to play more than twice per month, but injuries always disrupted that run. Willian was good at Shakhtar just like Park at PSV, but he's not used in the same manner and he's not going to hit his former numbers (8 goals per season) in the PL often.

 

So was Vermont Red male or female?

 

Park's stock fell significantly after he embarassed himself by marking Andrea Pirlo out of a couple of games. He never lived that down.

 

the haven't? barça is appealing.

 

What's everyone's prediction for today's match?

I'm thinking 2-1 Madrid. (maybe 3-1 even?)

 

Is Ronaldo fit?