Versus

LOL, this is ******* hilarious. I am absolutely against Mario Gotze, and whilst I was initially only opposing his signature if he were to be utilised as a wide player, I am also now against signing him for the AM role.

But you didn't say if you want to play -
seems to me they're calling you...

Well, MD has thrown down the gauntlet, so I'm game. Let the games begin! I'm going home from work to start on my dissertation. Unfortunately for my fellow AM readers, MD has also got a knack for lengthy posts, so expect some epic posting.

I warned Djibs here about limiting post length. Guess it's too late now. See what will be learnt.

What's with the rest of the formalities, D? You have a game going on... ref(s), polls... and what are you going to do with us rowdy spectators, barging in whenever we feel like it, influencing the outcome (and outlaw) - just sayin', so this can continue smoothly. (Hope you're smiling now, D).

Not a fan of this thread myself but Yuvken, mate, if anyone ever feels the need to talk with me about Rosicky, he needs to realize that in the end, after the debate ends, he doesn't have to see the light of the day again.

(should be given better wages and the older he gets the better he looks )

TCR, are you sure you're not related to Simamu?

mate, I was always a Rosicky fan - admitting it was time for him to move on was really painful, and his decent games this year were a real treat - though I felt like I was stealing something.

Fat bastard looks more like Arshavin day by day, though (and should have burried that lovely chip from Benny the other day).

Teasing you is ssso easy .

Given that Gotze could be brought in to assume two roles within our team (AM and RFW), I will have to provide two arguments against the silky German.

AM-

It is worth establishing that I believe Gotze to have all the right tools in order to occupy the much coveted AM position. The issue I have is with the position itself, as opposed to the quality of the German. The problem with the pyramid shaped midfield is that it encompasses a specialist offensive role. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are various ramifications of implementing the AM role within the formation. The most obvious point is that the incumbent becomes highly integral to the performance of the team, given that he is essentially central to everything that occurs in an offensive sense. Again, there is nothing wrong with building the team around a player, but there are several problems that arise.

For one, the teams fails to function fluently without him, due to his significance to both the team and its strategy, which makes it all the more difficult when you're performing in several competitions and expect to switch and rotate players, particularly your best ones who will require resting, such as the AM. The second issue is the quite ridiculous need for a highly talented backup who will have to somewhat replicate his superiors quality, in order for the team to retain some stability when the starting AM is absent. Now unless you have Kaka to fall back on like Real Madrid do, you are bound to suffer immensely everytime the AM is absent. In the current era where the squad is more important than the first XI, it is imperative that able deputies are available for each position, but the very nature of the AM position and the standard of quality exhibited by your usual incumbent, means that it is nigh on impossible to adquately back it up. It is just far too important a role within the team, and even though I am a huge advocate of it, successfully implementing it over a long period of time in todays game is very difficult. You will no doubt get the occassional team with an uber AM who will produce the goods over a season, like Sneijder(Inter) or Kaka(Milan), but it really does has a short life span, because the side is far too reliant on the individual to remain fit, and retain his quality. It almost becomes a case of the team being only as good as the individual inhabiting the AM position. On the other hand, you can go down the route of Borussia Dortmund, and employ a different type of AM who isn't the most creative player within the side, as is the case with Kagawa, but then you have to wonder whether it is worth the change.

Alternately, we can continue down our current path where we don't have a specialist offensive midfield position what with the creative duties being shared, resulting in a fluid and dynamic midfield that isn't reliant on any one role to function. The last part is incredibly important as the manager can then change and juggle his midfield options without drastically affecting the efficacy of the team. This cannot be understated as we all know how important it is to change the personnel without the general strategy jumping out the window, but by having a specialist AM within the formation, it is incredibly difficult to manoever both in regards to rotation, and when the player is absent. To put it simply, it is just too difficult a position to manage.

I actually like the idea of this thread. More so on the grounds that it can be used for those debates that aren't 'thread worthy.' I've often thought about making a thread and just thought "I doubt it would get enough interest to be worth a thread.

Looking forward to the Outie - MG debate.

I'm at work, I'll have a reply later tonight, complete with multimedia props and cues.

The game is afoot

where's my popcorn?

Is MD going to mention Gotze in his opening post, or careful is the name of the game in the opening round? did they conspire to draw us into this, playing possession in their own half till we're off our guards, and BAM! fire the last posts in a salvo, leaving us stunned that we read 10 posts without going even close to the designated topic?

Yeah, ok, I'll shut up. but are you even coming? you thought you'll have all this space and time and we're not going to be teasing you? trash talk hasn't even started yet - this is not the fri***ng library. I really want to hear about this little German prodigy-tw*t. C'mon!

Bo-ring

I'd like to start off my rebuttal by saying that I highly respect outie's football knowledge, and I only jokingly said I wanted to debate him because I knew he'd provide a thoughtful response and be willing to go back and forth, point and counterpoint. In his post, which I will address in detail, he said he had to provide two arguments against Götze, one for him as the AM and one as the wide forward. I don't see that yet, so we'll cross that bridge when we get there I suppose.

In opening, I'd like to state something that should be obvious but may get overlooked. While its one thing to have an opinion on a player, to feel strongly about him, and to support him ending up at Arsenal, none of us really know for sure. The reason for this is threefold. Every team is set up differently, especially at the top level. Teams have different ways of doing things, they employ different types of training regiments, different systems, different everything. For some players, the fit is natural, for other players, the fit isn't natural and things don't work. As good as a player is, for any number of reasons it can go all wrong. That doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong about the player, it just means it is impossible to really know what will happen until it does.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way. I tend to look at football players on a 2-8 scale, which then follows a bell curve distribution. Most players fall in the middle, a 5, in terms of their capability on the pitch. You have 3 standard deviations from the mean. A 6 is an above average talent, a 7 is a well above average talent, and an 8 is the absolute best of the best on the planet. Conversely, a 4 is below average, a 3 is well below average, and a 2 is one of the worst players ever. At the highest levels, the Premier League and the top tiers of the other big European leagues, many players fall in the middle, like the bell curve illustrates.



For me, Mario Götze is either a 7 or an 8. At 19.5 years of age, he's one of the top talents in Europe.

The thing that separates good players from the best players, in my opinion, is something innate, something that you can't measure with sprint times, or bench press reps, or any other physical measure. The human brain processes information differently in different people. Some people have heightened spatial memory ability...which helps them process their surroundings. Some people have faster reactions than others. These things can be trained to some degree, but not to the same degree as physical, exterior traits. Take a player like Cesc. No matter where he was on the pitch, he always seemed to have a keen sense of awareness. From my time watching him, I feel Götze is cut from the same cloth.

My comments below are based on watching him play last season. I'd guess that I've probably seen him play 10-15 full games, and then a bunch of highlight packages. I'm no scout, I'm not saying my opinion is more valid than anyone else's, these are just my thoughts.

I see 3 reasons why he would be a perfect fit for Arsenal. First and foremost, his technical ability suits the team and our style of play. His close control, two footedness, and vision with the ball are all exceptional given his age. He played the entire 2010-2011 season at age 18, and he became the fulcrum of the Dortmund attack. Now I'm not going to argue the Bundesliga is on the same level as the Premier League, but its one of the 4 best leagues in the world, and to become the centerpiece of attack for a title winning team at 18 puts you in special company. In 2005-2006, when Cesc was 18, he made 50 total appearances, scoring 5 goals and providing 7 assists. Last season, Götze made 41 appearances, scoring 8 goals and providing 12 assists.

The second attribute that is going to make him one of the world's best is his anticipation and vision. I've seen games where he's played deeper, and every time he received the ball he'd picked his head up a split second earlier to see where the ball was supposed to go next. This is the same thing that made Cesc so good. He had already played out the next move in his head and executing the pass or dribble was just second nature. Vision and awareness are arguably the two most important traits a footballer can have, and in a lot of cases, based on what I've read, you can argue that it is innate.

The third trait that will make him a success at Arsenal is his adaptability. As I mentioned above, I've seen him deployed deeper in the midfield, as well as playing the AM role outie mentioned, and also playing as a wide forward. Despite his tender age and lack of experience, Klopp has been confident enough in him to use him all over the park. For a team like Arsenal, positioning is very fluid. The 6 non-defender outfield players for Arsenal interchange all over the pitch. Sometimes Song finds himself ahead of Arteta and Ramsey, sometimes its Arteta that is the deepest midfielder and sometimes he is closest to goal. For the three forwards, Walcott and Gervinho often switch flanks, both guys like cutting in to the center, and van Persie is notorious for dropping really deep to pick up the ball and bring himself in to the game. In this sense, Götze would not find himself out of place, as he'd be able to quickly adapt to whatever role was given to him.

Götze is just 5'9, but he possesses excellent pace. He can beat the fullback down the flank, and he's capable of skipping through the center of the pitch with the ball at his feet. He doesn't have the defensive nous to be a holding midfielder, but I would argue that with experience, he would be no worse than Arteta defensively playing in central midfield. From a size angle, he is very similar to Fabregas, and before pushing forward to the #10ish role, Cesc operated as a CM, often dropping very deep to pick up the ball.

I've seen him compared to Nasri and Hleb, though I don't think either comparison is really fair. I probably watched a bit less of Nasri when he was at Marseille. I thought he was a great prospect, but Götze has much more pace, his vision is superior, and his weaker foot was more developed at the same age. Hleb is a different type of player as well, with Götze again displaying much more pace and willingness to run past his man. Again, look at any of these players and examine what they did at age 18 and then compare it what Götze did at age 18.

The big issue outie seems to have is where Götze fits in to this team. I think I've kind of outlined where he would fit in, but I'm going to address his comments point by point

It is worth establishing that I believe Gotze to have all the right tools in order to occupy the much coveted AM position. The issue I have is with the position itself, as opposed to the quality of the German. The problem with the pyramid shaped midfield is that it encompasses a specialist offensive role. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are various ramifications of implementing the AM role within the formation. The most obvious point is that the incumbent becomes highly integral to the performance of the team, given that he is essentially central to everything that occurs in an offensive sense. Again, there is nothing wrong with building the team around a player, but there are several problems that arise.

In a sense, I agree. I assume by "pyramid" you are referring to two deeper midfielders and then the AM in front of the two. I don't think this type of setup is necessarily good or bad, I suppose it depends on the competition. And I think again, that is a plus for Götze. He does not have to play centrally in the AM role, and could realistically operate in any of the 6 spots in front of the back 4. The current team, as it is, is built around RvP. We don't have a viable backup option to van Persie, as has been illustrated quite clearly this season. As I mentioned above in my outline, Arsenal's positioning is very fluid when they collect the ball, with any of the 6 non-defenders willing to move up and move in to attacking positions. When talking formations, I think you're only looking at where players stand when the game starts and the expectations you have of players in terms of attacking/defending responsibilities.

I agree with your second long paragraph and conclusion. Building the team around one player, tailoring the entire formation and style of play around that player, is dangerous. But Arsenal haven't done that at any point. The problem now is a lack of depth in the squad. If RvP takes a knock, we're well and truly ****** because we don't have another central striker. Götze isn't the same type of attacker as RvP, but he's capable of playing wide forward and in the midfield, and that offers you the ability to use him in a number of different roles. Neither of our current wide forwards, Gervinho or Walcott, have proven themselves to be undroppable, dead certain starters week in and week out. Both players show glimpses of being great players, but both are flawed and show their weaknesses as well.

In summary. Götze is a special talent. Its possible that he is a generational talent. Right now, our team is set up one way under Wenger, using a 4-3-3 of some sort. But this is a recent change, as we played 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 forever before making this change. In a year or two, a player of Götze's caliber may well be completely unattainable. If he moves to Real Madrid or Barcelona, he's only leaving if his career goes off track, and at that point you might not want a reclamation project. We don't know how long Wenger will stay. We don't know what he will do with the formation or tactics going forward.

What I do know is, talent, special talent, is what propels you from good team to great team. For a team like Arsenal, where teams have the mindset to play very deep and try to form a defensive wall, you need creative match winners. You need people who can run at a defender, switch the ball to the other foot and either pick out a pass or take a quick shot. You need players with superior vision and awareness, willing to see the smallest glimmer of open space and make the perfect pass. Götze has that ability.

I understand the concerns outie has. But I don't feel we would need to change anything in terms of the setup of the team. Götze plugs in at either wide forward, and he can play in the midfield 3 as well, especially against a non-Barca/Man City type team. A player of his ability fits in to any team.

Time's yours.

(sorry for the lack of multimedia bells and whistles, I have a bunch of stuff to do and have to take off)

thank you very much for your help yuvken!


first of all, whoever feels like he or she wants to join in and have a debate themsleves, suggest a topic and find an opponent!

rules have been updated but it seems as if it went unnoticed.
max of 5 posts each. 3000 letters/figures excl. blanks allowed. keep it short, keep it on point, keep it simple.

because both outlaw and mdg have already fired their first shots, those will be allowed to remain as they are.


opinions regarding the debate or the topic are only to be made in THIS thread as long the debate is ongoing. until then the debate thread is for the debaters only. a poll that will be added if both debaters have made use of their 5 posts, will decide who won and afterwards comments can be made etc.etc.etc.


THIS is the way all debates will take place. suggest a topic. find an opponent. fire your shots. and let the crowd decide.

I'm off but again, i thank each and every one of you for participating.

one last thing, i'm a strong 4-4-2 advocate, if there's a volunteer for a formation debate 433/442 etc. ..please step forward. i'm ready!

I think you deserve some praise for the idea of these threads, Djibril. They're very different to the rest of the forum and even if people don't fancy partaking there'll be topics everyone enjoys reading. You seem annoyed they've been lumped into this section of the forum but I agree with the others that this is the best place for it and should prove good for the forum if this topic drags more people into a section they wouldn't usually visit regularly.

The only bit I have a slight problem with at the moment is how the winner of each debate is decided. It seems a poll would be the fairest way but I think it's important how the question of the poll is delivered.

For example I'll use the current debate; "Merits of signing Götze", before the debate started I was firmly sat in the 'sign Goetze group' and I very highly doubt that opinion will change after the debate. So if the poll question is along the lines of "Should we sign/not sign?" my opinion will be the same as before the debate started (it's very difficult to change someones mind when they already have it set on what they think) and if all other voters are similar then the end result will show a poll (near) identical as it would show pre-debate making the debate pointless in terms of the outcome.

Perhaps I've completely got the wrong idea of the voting system and it's not about what side each voter is on of the topic but we're supposed to vote for which member we think got the most clear cut key ideas across during the debate? In which case, I still think voters pre-debate opinions will effect the poll outcome a little but certainly not as much.

I also disagree that there should be limits to lengths of each debaters posts.

one last thing, i'm a strong 4-4-2 advocate, if there's a volunteer for a formation debate 433/442 etc. ..please step forward. i'm ready!

433>>>>>442

Personally, I think 3,000 letters is unrealistic.

My response contained 8,000 characters, and all of them were essential.

Yep, it's only five posts each as well so if people are interested in the topic discussed they're not going to lose interest because of a couple o long posts.

@macca some very good points raised there.

a poll is the best way to decide the winner. otherwise we'd have to appoint judges (who should they be) who would have to decide on the basis of certain termns (what should they be) and may disagree with the rest of ous because they have focused on different points (different point of views)

therefore, a poll, is the best way to have a somewhat "democratic" election of the winner


regarding your point of bias. look at it this way. the question is "merits of signing götze"...and not "mario götze". therefore they are discussing the signing of a player, and not only the player himself.

a good player doesn't have to necessarily fit into a already existing sytem(football team,coach,style of play etc...). and a "worse" player may fit into a system perfectly due to it playing to his strengths.

if the debater convinces you that mario götze is a worldclass player but doesn't fit into what we currently have, vote for him.
if the debater convinces you that mario götze is a wordclass player and is exactly what we need, vote for him.

i guess you can figure out the other examples yourself


@MDGoonah41

cut a long story short(er). infact, 3000 excl. blanks is quite a lot to prove your point. you have to consider that the more you wirte, the more has to be responded. it's a never ending cycle.


P.S.: IF everyone agrees that 3000 is way too less, please speak up, this is a forum no dictatorship

Well done, people - Djibril, Macca, outie and MD - great contributions. It seems to work very well, and the slight disagreements regarding form are all essential experience too, so fear not.

I tend to be with D for length, but I geuss best let the first battle run it's course in this free of constraints form - only fair. Thus I'll keep my remarks on this, and some of your ideas for later (like could it be 8000 or whatever are essential, and even if so should they be allowed; or - could mutual agreement allow a special case?) later, then. Let's enjoy the punches.

Wish someone threw in some vids of this punk... come to think of that, we need to think if these be allowed as part of the debate? how do you count characters in that case ?

regarding your point of bias. look at it this way. the question is "merits of signing götze"...and not "mario götze". therefore they are discussing the signing of a player, and not only the player himself.

a good player doesn't have to necessarily fit into a already existing sytem(football team,coach,style of play etc...). and a "worse" player may fit into a system perfectly due to it playing to his strengths.

if the debater convinces you that mario götze is a worldclass player but doesn't fit into what we currently have, vote for him.
if the debater convinces you that mario götze is a wordclass player and is exactly what we need, vote for him.

i guess you can figure out the other examples yourself

I'm not sure that you fully understood the point I was trying to make, on many of these topics many posters probably already have their own opinions on the subject prior to the debate starting. Unless they only had a weak opinion then it's unlikely the debate is going to sway their mind, so using the example you used most people (imo) will vote for what they thought initially regardless of the debate. Put another way, if someone tries arguing for a very unpopular view, but put across their ideas very well whilst the other debater delivers poorly; yet voters stil hold their initial opinion then the weaker(?) debater still wins. Perhaps that's how you want it to work, but for me it makes the debate pointless if it has no bearing on the outcome.

P.S. Do you not have a caps button on your computer

So, one essay per person and then a vote?

I love Outie and do think some of his points are valid re:Gotze, but there's no way in hell he'd be a bad fit here! Stop saying it mate!

So, one essay per person and then a vote?

I love Outie and do think some of his points are valid re:Gotze, but there's no way in hell he'd be a bad fit here! Stop saying it mate!

My understanding of it is that each competitor is allowed up to five posts (essays) each to allow for counter-arguments.

regarding your point of bias. look at it this way. the question is "merits of signing götze"...and not "mario götze". therefore they are discussing the signing of a player, and not only the player himself.

a good player doesn't have to necessarily fit into a already existing sytem(football team,coach,style of play etc...). and a "worse" player may fit into a system perfectly due to it playing to his strengths.

if the debater convinces you that mario götze is a worldclass player but doesn't fit into what we currently have, vote for him.
if the debater convinces you that mario götze is a wordclass player and is exactly what we need, vote for him.

i guess you can figure out the other examples yourself

I'm not sure that you fully understood the point I was trying to make, on many of these topics many posters probably already have their own opinions on the subject prior to the debate starting. Unless they only had a weak opinion then it's unlikely the debate is going to sway their mind, so using the example you used most people (imo) will vote for what they thought initially regardless of the debate. Put another way, if someone tries arguing for a very unpopular view, but put across their ideas very well whilst the other debater delivers poorly; yet voters stil hold their initial opinion then the weaker(?) debater still wins. Perhaps that's how you want it to work, but for me it makes the debate pointless if it has no bearing on the outcome.

P.S. Do you not have a caps button on your computer

you put the emphazise on "if the debater convinces you"...instead of the entire sentence. what is a good debater if he isn't able to convince people his point of you makes more sense than their previous ones?

a poor debater STILL has to provide facts and has to explain WHY the arsenal would benefit of the signing of mario götze for example. because few can argue that wenger building an entire team around one player (cesc) has done more harm than good. therefore the "poor" debater has to explain why in his case, we as a club, would benefit.

i feel like you miss the point of it. sure everybody has his own opinions. if a debater doesn't delivers enough arguments or facts on why his opinion is the right one, he simply loses the debate. bias towards players can easily be fought against with, LOGIC.


@macca/fabo. exactly. everyone has a vote once the debate is done(poll will be added). each debater has a maximum of 5 posts.

P.S. Do you not have a caps button on your computer

i've got my diploma, it's all anarchy now

Cheers MD for the kind words. I have also enjoyed your contribution over the last few years, and it's a travesty that you've not yet been promoted. What did you do to upset the powers at be?

Anyway, the reason why I needed to offer two arguments is because Mario Gotze could viably occupy two different positions within our team(AM and RFW). Two roles which require significantly different qualities for them to be successfully occupied, meaning that Gotze's suitability would expectedly vary depending on the position, therefore I would need to explain why I am unfavourable towards him for both the of them. Especially, as my response in reference to Gotze assuming the AM role is an argument against the system itself, whilst I am averse to him in a wide position because of his qualities as an individual.

I'm currently working on my argument, but I need to go out, so I'll hopefully have it posted up tomorrow! Be prepared to fall asleep upon reading it, because it is already very long, hehe!

Dude - that counts as one of your 5! you mad?!

outlaw pleading: "No, no, it surely musn't. I was just saying...." bla bla

Djibril - you gotta sit on the rules and the people here, or they'll drive you nuts (if you think outlaw is not going to say something like this then you are mad)

very quiet in here... Goetze project? hello?

looks like i win, no vote required!