"Notice, this provides a much more nuanced and complete context of Pirlo's time in Milan than your overly simplified assertion that Xavi had system working for him and Pirlo didn't." Did I assert this, though? And did I say lack of structure is worse? Because I am a huge fan of Ancelotti and his system which promotes individuality, especially as a spectator. I think you're responding to what you believe I was implying rather than what I said. My point is this: Xavi in the Barca system had a role that found him in favourable positions to assist a goal more often than Pirlo's role in the Milan system. To pull up a dictionary definition or get philosophical about what the word "system" actually means is really not necessary to understand my point. Regarding more rigid systems and Pirlo, we actually can see what it's like with Pirlo under Conte. Pirlo is not a better player post 2011 than he was in his athletic prime, but the highly rehearsed offensive patterns of Juve along with increased responsibility for Pirlo within that system enabled to him to assist 5 more goals in 2011/12 than in any of his Milan seasons. If you watch the assists, a few of them follow a pattern with Pirlo maneuvering in the center of the pitch, 25 - 45m from goal, with his team set in the offensive third, with players like Lichsteiner looking to make a run to the far post or a midfield ready to make a run through the middle. This structured play is not as prevalent at Milan under Ancelotti. That's all. It's an observation and yes I do think it meant Pirlo was in position less often to make an assist given his role in the more liberal AC Milan system. That doesn't mean the system was bad for the team, just that Pirlo wasn't always as often in the position to provide a final pass.
It is a fallacy to just focus argument on one side of the coin: "Stacking the deck is a fallacy where someone presents only the evidence that supports their argument, while deliberately ignoring or omitting evidence that contradicts it, creating a biased and misleading impression." It is an intellectual hygiene to present an argument in a way that considers both sides, which you’ve failed to do. You are stacking the deck for Pirlo, finding any argument that could point him in a greater light not considering the other side. I am imaging things? Okay, then answer me this: Are there any benefits to not playing in the reahearsed Pep's Barca? ... Based on what do you conclude that on average "structure" puts him in more favorable positions to assist? It is not a conclusion that can be derived from the statement that Barcelona was more structured. It logically doesn't follow. Perhaps you mean, Xavi played in more attacking/advanced roles/positions, therefore he was more often in favorable positions to assist. This excludes the notion of "structure" altogether and makes a point about something completely different - that Xavi operated in more advanced positison. That is an entirely different conversation. More advanced position/role therefore more favorable context to assist is logically valid. More positionally structured system therefore more favorable context to assist is logically invalid. It has nothing to do with positional structure of their teams. Such structure is a trade off and doesn't correlate with what you are saying it correlates. let me ask you this, who was on average in more favorable position/role to assist, Milan's Kaka, or Pep's Xavi? Kaka, of course. Why? Because he played in more forward positions. Period. Your assertion is non-obvious. Again, based on what exactly do you conclude that? And let me ask you the final question? Is "rehearsed" always better? ALWAYS? Are there, maaaaaybe, some, any downsides to structure being rehearsed? You don't see any value in freedom, unpredictability, individuality, relationism, etc. /things Pirlo had in abundance in Milan)? Regarding the notion that Pirlo assisted more under Conte one season is just an anecdotal evidence you've pulled out. It is funny, because in the same breath there is discussion that Xavi's 2009 season is a complete anomaly and that Pirlo assists as much as Xavi in bigger sample size, which invalidates this whole conclusion. Which is it?
I really don't believe my posts are in this spirit, or that I'm even making an argument at all let alone "finding any argument that could point him [Pirlo] in a greater light". I try not to engage in the partisan agenda-driven posting that some users on this forum engage in, though I admit to posting about my interests and having a biased lens as everybody else. Our back and forth here is about a minute part of one post I made in which I began by weakening another user's argument in favour of Pirlo. I then said that Pirlo and Xavi appear to have similar assists per team goal percentages, also assuming Xavi had a slightly better percentage and gave two reasons that I think could contribute to that - 1) a more advanced position on the pitch, and 2) the nature of the system and role Xavi plays within it. If you disagree with the second one, that is fine, but really it was a small point and not at all in the spirit of tearing down Xavi. I later provided the actual numbers with no argument accompanying them. Sure there are. Some players and teams benefit greatly from having less structure to their offensive plays. Players with speed on the counter attack but whom lack skills in tight spaces may prefer to play for a team with less Guardiola-esque structured play and thrive in a more direct style that relies more on individual qualities. When Xavi receives the ball at the top of the box with Alves and Messi to his right ready to run behind and Eto'o in the middle Henry on the far side, for example. Barca would dominate and push teams back and get into these positions frequently. I mean, do you not see these patterns emerge? Do you not see the pattern I pointed out for Pirlo/Juve? Do you not see the pattern of Barca creatings overload on side so Messi can hit his trademark pass to Alba who can then square it back to him in the box? These things do in fact exist. If we're talking about logically invalid, the very logic "play further forward inherently = more opportunity to assist" is a good case study. Playing further forward is but one factor among many to having more opportunities to assist, and for some reason, for the sake of this weird argument, you are trying to reduce it to the whole factor. Did Daniel Maldini playing for Monza last season have better opportunities to assist than Xavi for Barca under Pep because he played further forward? Did Crouch for Stoke have better opportunity? Whether Kaka has better opportunity or not, its not down to one single factor. When calculating xG, do you not think they include where on the pitch a striker received the ball and relative position to opposition and to teammates? And if they don't, don't you think they should include that important info? Yet, for assists, position on pitch and relativity to opposition and teammates position and movement suddenly goes out the window. The only thing that matters is where your heatmap shows you movement to be? It's not anecdotal evidence, its statistical evidence. I gave my reasons why I think Pirlo assisted more in that season than his others for Milan. You are free to disagree, but having studied his career closely, I know that Pirlo was a more limited player in his Juventus years who did not play further forward (he played deeper because he was less mobile to get forward), just that his output was greater because of the the system Juventus played and Pirlo's role within it. And notice, did I ever say that Xavi's 08/09 was an anomaly, or did I ever even rep a post that said that? Or perhaps are you arguing from a defensive mindset because of what you think may be the implication of what I said? You are projecting things onto me. Despite a few goals which were solo goals or ordinary passes you wouldn't expect to become assists, I think Xavi's 08/09 La Liga assists and campaign is extremely impressive. I have no problem saying that whatsoever. As well, I have no problem saying that Xavi assists slightly but significantly enough more on average (per team goals) than Pirlo, though this notion in not true in all circumstances and is complicated in terms of relative impressiveness when we look at factors such as position on the pitch, team system, international vs club, and many other things in terms of a comparison between the two players. If you look at raw numbers without context, Xavi blows Pirlo out of the water, but my intention here is never to bring down Xavi but to demonstrate why Pirlo's numbers may be more impressive than a surface impression might initially suggest. You are welcome to take that on board or not to.
Given that Xavi never delivered anything close to his 2008/09 season again, either before or after, it’s fairly obvious to me that Pep’s rigid system helped him a lot.
Anyway, after rewatching much Pirlo footage, I have come to conclude that his ability on the ball was underrated. Although I would not call him a good dribbler, he was exceptional at evading a press. A simple touch and shoulder drop to evade his opponent worked for him every time (very similar to Thiago Alcantara). Pirlo was also excellent at carrying the ball once facing his opponent, this game shows the variety in his skillset on full display:
I wouldnt limit the scope of players who would prefer unpositional football to only counter-attacking types and those who lack skills in tight areas. Individually great players actually "prefer" unpositional system because their ability to solve novel, complex situations on their own is highlighted in such system. But individually great players, who are tactically sound and willing to work for the system, also have no problem performing in such context. Real problem with positional play have only those players who are unable to solve complex situations on their own, are undisciplined in their approach or incapable and unwilling to accomodate to tactical patterns for the good of the system. Skills in tight areas are really not the issue here. For example, Ronaldo Nazario was phenomenal in tight areas, but wouldnt be able to play under Pep or at the very least, system would need to be heavily accomodated just for him. The pattern is undeniable, but my point is not that the pattern doesn't exist rather that it doesn't say what you subsequently conclude it does. You are talking about the pattern in the context of making assisting easier for Xavi by providing more opportunity to do so. You are saying that this pattern is what makes things easier for Xavi. The latter part is false because it assumes that the only alternative to such positional football is complete chaos (more difficult context on the pitch), that if teams are not playing with this patterns, they are incapable of producing opportunities for assists. It assumes that such positional football is the only, right way to play football. That is false. There is no one best way to play football. There are many non-positional, non-rigid, non-patternish systems that reliably produce opportunities for assists. Positional football has its own mechanism of progressing the ball and producing assisting opportunities, but this positionally rigid mechanism is not the only approach and not better than the rest. There are other positionally non-rigid mechanisms to reliably produce assisting opportunities. This is analogy that i really like: Positional football (positionally rigid system) can be thought of as architectural design and non-positional football (positionally non-rigid system that doesnt have those rigid patterns) as expressive painting. Architectural design is done by using precision tools like ruler, computer-aids, templates and blueprints. It is very methodical and structured in the way it is done. Likely, person who does it will have a structured work schedule as well. On the other hand, expressive painting is done by using rough tools like oil paints and techniques that allow for spontaneity, creativity and dynamic interaction. Also painter will likely work in more flexible, unplanned work schedule. Now, quality of final product in each case will be arrived to in different ways. Quality of final product would be analogous with output of created opportunities on the pitch. This is what football systems are designed to do - opportunities. You cant say that architectural design is better than expressive painting because it uses specific approach and tools to achieve quality product. You can make a shit design by using a ruler and someone can create an absolute masterpiece using nothing but pencil. Ultimately how you do things doesnt matter, but only the final product. This is what you are doing when you are saying that Pep's Barca used these triangles on the pitch. It is a fact, but it doesnt hold weight. From the observation alone, it doesnt logically follow that Barca is better. These could be the case tho. Xavi could have had it easier and had more opportunities to assist because he played in a better team, but notice this is not related to the style of play by Barca. In such case Barca is simply better. Not because they make triangles on the pitch, but because they were better at what they did. Concluding it is because of patterns on the pitch is anecdotal correlation. It just happens to be the case that they palyed like that. There are countless other great teams in football that didnt play like Barca did and they were as successful. Mechanism of play is not a common donominator here. That is my overarching point. Another point was that everything in football is a trade off. If you play with the system that looks for these positional patterns, you are sacrificing other valid, functional approaches to game. To come back to the point from above, ther eis no one, best approach. Each decision has its pros and cons. Positionally rigid system primarily simplifies and automates decision making for players, which often comes in handy, but it comes at the cost of individual expression, spontaneity, creativity, improvisation, etc. There is no single best approach here. It is pros and cons all the way. It is a trade off that teams make. Barca chosed theirs and were quite successful at implementing those. All in all, i think your argument about assists boils down to Xavi, individually, playing in more advanced (assist-friendly) areas within his system and Barcelona being a better team overall. How they played has nothing to do with it.
Not true, because Xavi played 3 additional seasons (4 including almost the same approach under Tito Vilanova) and never replicated those numbers. It is not down to Pep's rigid system. It would be like me saying that Xavi had such a great assisting season because they wore two stripes jersey that season. Correlation is obvious. When he wore jersey's with more than 2 stripes, he didnt produce so many assists. In one season with two stripes jersey, he put in great numbers... This is obviously not the case because correlation doesnt equate to causation.. your conclusion is especially not true because, s I said, Xavi played in the same systems in subsequent years and didnt produce the same output. There is no such correlation worth considering here.