bannedfromHandV Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I see what Morpheus is saying but don't see why that would apply exclusively to KEA. None of our midfielders are anything special and our midfield remains one of the worst in the division but that's down to all of them, not just KEA. Who, outside of the obvious, has a better midfield than us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 For me still not good enough to push us on and one reason why our midfield is so weak. Although he has improved I am still undecided whether he is good enough to push us on. Delph definitely is. He is outstanding! KEA 4th in the league for most successful tackles. Delph is 10th Yes but not sure football is a game where you can use stats to judge how good a player is. Cricket yes! good point, never see stats saying "good decision making" which is essential in a good player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I see what Morpheus is saying but don't see why that would apply exclusively to KEA. None of our midfielders are anything special and our midfield remains one of the worst in the division but that's down to all of them, not just KEA. Who, outside of the obvious, has a better midfield than us? Actually a good point, I really can't think of a side whose midfield is better, it certainly isn't one of the worst. Granted they need to add more going forward. I'd say teams like Newcastle, Everton, Southampton are stronger, but the rest are I'd say on par. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 If we had purchased Sissoko and the Karate Kid do you not think that a 6-7 finish would have been the expectation of the fans? I certainly feel with a midfield containing those two and maybe Delph in conjunction with our forward line that certainly no less than 7th would have been the expectation. Sissoko is terribly overrated. Had a good first 3 games at newcastle and has been poor since. Sylla has offered us more than Sissoko has to Newcastle since arrival Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I see what Morpheus is saying but don't see why that would apply exclusively to KEA. None of our midfielders are anything special and our midfield remains one of the worst in the division but that's down to all of them, not just KEA. Who, outside of the obvious, has a better midfield than us? Outside of the 'big 6', I'd say Everton, Newcastle, Swansea, West Ham, Norwich, Southampton, Smethwick and possibly Fulham and Sunderland (on paper at least) also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I see what Morpheus is saying but don't see why that would apply exclusively to KEA. None of our midfielders are anything special and our midfield remains one of the worst in the division but that's down to all of them, not just KEA. Who, outside of the obvious, has a better midfield than us? Outside of the 'big 6', I'd say Everton, Newcastle, Swansea, West Ham, Norwich, Southampton, Smethwick and possibly Fulham and Sunderland (on paper at least) also. None of their midfielders are particularly special either they do a job just as ours do. I'd agree on Everton, Newcastle, Soton and possibly Swansea. But you would take a player from Sunderlands midfield and put them into our side, thats just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) No I'm comparing their central midfield options compared to ours. Delph, KEA, Westwood and Sylla vs Cabral, Larsson, Gardner, Cattermole and Ki. You can certainly make the arguement that on paper they have the better CM options. Secondly, you are correct. Lot's of those midfields aren't anything special. Yet still superior to ours... Edit - What is actually 'ridiculous' is the fact that you said 'possibly Swansea' as if there is a dispute that they have a better midfield. Edited October 8, 2013 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 No I'm comparing their central midfield options compared to ours. Delph, KEA, Westwood and Sylla vs Cabral, Larsson, Gardner, Cattermole and Ki. You can certainly make the arguement that on paper they have the better CM options. Secondly, you are correct. Lot's of those midfields aren't anything special. Yet still superior to ours... So superior they are all below us considering our fixture list. I would not take any one of there midfield options to replace ours so how are they superior? on par possibly but superior do me a favour. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 when Cattermole is in your list then your argument is lost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Newcastle and Swansea are also below us. So by your logic we have better a midfield then them also? Hull are above us, so they clearly have a superior midfield to us? Moronic argument... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 when Cattermole is in your list then your argument is lost He's hardly any worse then Sylla though is he? Both good off the ball and not particularly good on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Is someone really suggesting our midfield is good ? That's our midfield that can barely create a chance never mind score themselves. It's about as bad a midfielder as we've ever had IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Is someone really suggesting our midfield is good ? That's our midfield that can barely create a chance never mind score themselves. It's about as bad a midfielder as we've ever had IMHO its a midfield that dominated the league leaders in midfield and beat title favourites Man City Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Our midfield is the weak link. Delph is good enough for where we want to be but we need two others as good or better in their midfield roles before we really start going places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Newcastle and Swansea are also below us. So by your logic we have better a midfield then them also? Hull are above us, so they clearly have a superior midfield to us? Moronic argument... Ironic considering your profile pic but hey thats another story. My point here is you constantly state we have one of the worst midfields, you then name Sunderland and list down their midfielders to try and do a bit of point-scoring, now explain if you can how their midfield is 'superior' to ours? So would you take any of their midfielders and put them into ours? Like I said our midfield isn't the greatest but your making it sound like we have a Championship midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SikhInTrinity Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 My argument is not whether our midfield is good, is whether its one of the worst, which is clearly not the case. The problem in itself isn't the midfield anyway, its the fact we play two strikers on the wings which is where our creativity should come from. If you go through the midfields of the other sides, they are hardly creating huge amounts or scoring goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulver Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Is someone really suggesting our midfield is good ? That's our midfield that can barely create a chance never mind score themselves. It's about as bad a midfielder as we've ever had IMHO its a midfield that dominated the league leaders in midfield and beat title favourites Man City If you believe that you need a trip to specsavers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isa Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 (edited) Newcastle and Swansea are also below us. So by your logic we have better a midfield then them also? Hull are above us, so they clearly have a superior midfield to us? Moronic argument... Ironic considering your profile pic but hey thats another story. My point here is you constantly state we have one of the worst midfields, you then name Sunderland and list down their midfielders to try and do a bit of point-scoring, now explain if you can how their midfield is 'superior' to ours? So would you take any of their midfielders and put them into ours? Like I said our midfield isn't the greatest but your making it sound like we have a Championship midfield. Well I don't really see what my avatar has to do with anything firstly? Secondly, you've clearly missed the part where I said 'possibly' and 'on paper' in regards to Sunderland which means that they were not one of the teams mentioned who I thought were definitely superior to ours. Even if we dismissed Sunderland, there are many other teams on my list, thus in my eyes making our midfield one of the worst in the division. Sunderland are certainly the most disputable team on my list but I still included them as I felt the argument could be made (as stated above) that they have better midfield options then us. My argument is not whether our midfield is good, is whether its one of the worst, which is clearly not the case. The problem in itself isn't the midfield anyway, its the fact we play two strikers on the wings which is where our creativity should come from. If you go through the midfields of the other sides, they are hardly creating huge amounts or scoring goals. Why is this 'clearly not the case'? Because we're 10th after 7 games played? Positions at this stage of the season mean very little. Certainly not enough to make cast-iron judgements. Halfway through the season maybe but not now. What makes your original argument more laughable is that if we were in the bottom three now you'd be one of the first to remind us how early in the season it is and how we shouldn't rush to any conclusions. Finally, there is no set position as to where creativity should come from but usually any team playing 4-3-3 has at least one of those midfielders who is expected to contribute offensively and be involved in most attacks. Edited October 8, 2013 by Isa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Is someone really suggesting our midfield is good ? That's our midfield that can barely create a chance never mind score themselves. It's about as bad a midfielder as we've ever had IMHO its a midfield that dominated the league leaders in midfield and beat title favourites Man City If you believe that you need a trip to specsavers Really? I believe we beat Man City and except maybe 15 minutes we dominated Arsenal midfield at the Emirates. Delph won man of the match of most people that day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Newcastle and Swansea are also below us. So by your logic we have better a midfield then them also? Hull are above us, so they clearly have a superior midfield to us? Moronic argument... As the use of the phrase "on paper" when discussing footballers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts