• ! ! ! IMPORTANT MESSAGE ! ! !

    Discussions about police investigations

    In light of recent developments about a player from Premier League being arrested and until there is an official announcement, ALL users should refrain from discussing or speculating about situations around personal off-pitch matters related to any Arsenal player. This is to protect you and the forum.

    Users who disregard this reminder will be issued warnings and their posts will get deleted from public.

Mesut Özil: Think This Might Be It For Me(sut)

Status
Not open for further replies.

kash2

More Consistent Than Arteta
You see this?

gee... what would happen to someone like Riquelme now... sad. No wonder liverpool get tonked 7-2 and city get smashed by leciester. Theres no one in the middle controlling the game. A midfield of henderson, milner and wijnaldum can win a champions league final.. lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A_G

Kav

Established Member
I am just using the same nonsense excuse you Özil fans have been treating us to since he has been here.
You know, blaming everyone and everything for Özil’s fragility and underperformances.
It’s Girouds fault.
It’s the Central midfielders fault. They are not good enough to get the ball to him.
It’s the defensive midfielder’s fault. They can shield princes Özil.
It’s the managers fault. They can’t get the best out of Özil.
It’s the boards fault, they’ve failed buy players that suit Özil’s style.
It’s this and that’s fault.....

Giroud Is the only striker that was involved in Özil’s best ever Assits season, 2015/16 with (19 assists).
Özil never managed to get 19 assists in the 3 seasons at Madrid when he had the likes of Ronaldo, Higuain and Benzema to assist. And that is when we were being told he was at the peak of his game, was a world class player and Best No10 in the world etc. But only with Giroud did he ever manage to hit 19 assists in a season.
Explain.

Again, if Giroud is the reason Özil has been an underwhelming signing for us then what about Laca and Auba? Özil’s stats have gotten worse since those 2 players joined.

Please explain?
;)
I will leave you to it then. I have no side to pick in this fight.
————————-
General discussion

on another note for those who are saying today’s players are better. I don’t agree at all too many factors and nuances at play. For those who are saying today’s players are fitter, well are they?


In the 80’s and 90’s the pitches were poorer, the ball heavier and tougher (did not fly and curve about the place), players could two foot tackle you, slide tackles, punches, kicks all sorts of things went on. No replays no VAR. they just got on with the game.
I say it takes considerable fitness to drink all night and get up the next day and sprint up and down a football field for 90 minutes. Not to mention they were doing all of that on poor nutrition and lifestyle habits.

the players of the past were certainly tougher, they might not run around like the younger players but they did their fare share. The game was very different and comparing eras is just pointless as there is no metric that can accommodate all the variables.

As unfit as maradona was compared to today’s players, he would walk rings around them. Not to mention Ronaldo, Rivaldo, Del Piero, Hagi, Bergkamp, baggio, Seedorf, Nedved, Zola, and the masters Zidane and Ronaldinho. Those guys got kicked and dragged down all the time. If Ronaldinho was playing today he would laugh at how easy it is because they could hardly even touch him then, he would make fools of today’s defenders who would get red carded so easily. Today’s game is soft.
 

say yes

forum master baiter
gee... what would happen to someone like Riquelme now... sad. No wonder liverpool get tonked 7-2 and city get smashed by leciester. Theres no one in the middle controlling the game. A midfield of henderson, milner and wijnaldum can win a champions league final.. lol.
Yeah City’s problem against Leicester was definitely that they didn’t have enough control of the game.

After all, they only played De Bruyne and Phil Foden in CM and had 71% possession.

How clueless can one poster be?
 

say yes

forum master baiter
Not buying this idea that there’s no space for “artists” in today’s game at all.

The ‘10’ position on a pitch has been phased out as it’s not an efficient use of space, but there is still plenty of room on the pitch for amazing footballers to excel. Guys like Bergkamp, Zidane or Iniesta would still be elite players in this era. They’d just likely have a different starting position on the pitch.
 

Kav

Established Member
I wasn’t
Go on then. Explain what aspect of control Liverpool and City are lacking in their midfield. We’re all waiting.
I wasn’t the one making that particular argument.

As per your comment about majority possession... you can control a game in different ways. Either through the ball, Control of the spaces or the transition or simply pacifying the opponents attack.

You can have 70 percent possession and still end the game with 0 shots or no attempts on targets. If your opponent scores and you don’t even get a shot on target they can also claim they control the game regardless of how much possession you may have had.

Possession helps but it does not equate to control of the game. Control is usually a combination of the foregoing.
 

say yes

forum master baiter
I wasn’t

I wasn’t the one making that particular argument.

As per your comment about majority possession... you can control a game in different ways. Either through the ball, Control of the spaces or the transition or simply pacifying the opponents attack.

You can have 70 percent possession and still end the game with 0 shots or no attempts on targets. If your opponent scores and you don’t even get a shot on target they can also claim they control the game regardless of how much possession you may have had.

Possession helps but it does not equate to control of the game.

If you’re not going to stand by his argument then maybe you shouldn’t have stuck your beak in? :lol:

I know you can read, so you’ll know we were talking about how City and Liverpool allegedly lack control in midfield, which is why they both got thrashed the other weekend.

City didn’t have 0 shots. In fact, they had more than double the amount of shots Leicester did. So what are you arguing about their lack of control again?

I think it’s important that people substantiate their points when they accuse others of talking nonsense. :cool:
 

Football Manager

Copy & Paste Merchant
Possession does not mean control. Someone should learn a thing or two about football before spouting nonsense.
Then please read this post again, but replace the word “possession” with “control”
He is a great final passer. I’m not going to doubt that. I rate this part of his game as much as wenger and mourinho. And they certainly rate him because of this ability.

However, Özil has a lot of weaknesses that makes him an inconsistent player.

1) He doesn’t like to have the ball much/doesn’t want to involved a lot in the general play. Unlike other attacking midfielders, he doesn’t create supply for others. He need supply from others so that he can make his final pass. For this reason he looked very uninvolved in games. He will just shine for a second if he has the chance to make those final passes. This lack of involvement in general play really hurt our possession game.

2) He doesn’t do much defensively

3) He can’t take on players/dribble past defenders like other attacking midfielders to create play for others.

In Madrid, all other players are :

1) good with general play (they have Benzema who will always drop deeper to help their build up, instead of a auba type who detached himself from the general play), so just having one uninvolved player like Özil is fine.

2) they are all pretty good at tracking back and defending, which covers for Özil weaknesses in this area.

3) they have the world top dribblers and skills masters to break opponent defence. Özil could just let others to do what he couldn’t.

In Madrid, he can just focus on making the final pass, which is the only thing he is good at.

At Arsenal, his weaknesses are exposed and he is inconsistent. Because if he gets no supply, he wouldn’t make his own supply. He couldn’t dribble his way out. So he did look invisible in quite a lot of games.
 
Last edited:

Kav

Established Member
Ok, it’s his argument to make though. I’m not going to die on that hill for him.
If you’re not going to stand by his argument then maybe you shouldn’t have stuck your beak in? :lol:

I know you can read, so you’ll know we were talking about how City and Liverpool allegedly lack control in midfield, which is why they both got thrashed the other weekend.

City didn’t have 0 shots. In fact, they had more than double the amount of shots Leicester did. So what are you arguing about their lack of control again?

I think it’s important that people substantiate their points when they accuse others of talking nonsense. :cool:

Fine I will play. So city had 72% possession, 16 shots, 5 shots on target and get this 680 passes with 90% pass completion. Under normal circumstances you can say they controlled the game however that was not the case in this instance.

city scores first but it didn’t swing the game in their favour because Leicester game plan was always the counter ad they knew they would get chances with city’s high line. Leicester only had 7 shots all game with all of them on target and scoring from 5 of those 7. They were efficient and ruthless. The foxes game plan was not a simple counter attacking game but a combination of a high press in city’s half with a low block in their own. They also controlled the spaces they wanted, giving city freedom of the wider spaces on the pitch. Their midfield controlled the game in the sense that there was no space in the final third for city to exploit nor any through balls down their spine. Further to that they attacked the spaces city left open by walker and mendy and were ruthless in their pursuits of goals.

Most interesting is that city had 13 fouls to the foxes 8. A few of which were transition fouls if I remember correctly including the one Ake got yellow for because mendy messed up and he was covering the space left open. City’s goals, came by a very good goal by Mahrez and a corner by Ake.

Leicester had control of the game from the second half begun as they already had figured out how city was going to play. You can win a game without having majority possession as Leicester proved by trouncing City 5-2. As someone I dislike said “you can control a game by controlling the space your opponent operates in and keeping them where you want them”.

Now look what you have done. You made me qoute Mourinho. Now I’m feeling sick and disgusted with myself. Are you happy?
 
Last edited:

Football Manager

Copy & Paste Merchant
Ok


I will play. So city had 72% possession, 16 shots, 5 shots on target and get this 680 passes with 90% pass completion. Under normal circumstances you can say they controlled the game however that was not the case in this instance.

city scores first but it didn’t swing the game I. Their control because Leicester plan was always the counter. Leicester only had 7 shots all game with all of them on target and scoring from 5 of those 7. They were efficient and ruthless. The foxes game plan was not a simple counter attacking game but a combination of a high press in city’s half with a low block in their own. They also controlled the spaces they wanted, giving city freedom of the wider spaces on the pitch. Their midfield controlled the game in the sense that their was no space in the final third for city to exploit nor any through balls down their spine. Further to that they attacked the spaces city left open by walker and mendy and were ruthless in their pursuits of goals.

Most interesting is that city had 13 fouls to the foxes 8. A few of which were transition fouls if I remember correctly including the one Ake got because mendy messed up and he was covering the space left open.
City’s goals. Came by a very good goal by Mahrez and a corner by Ake.

Leicester had control of the game from the second half begun as they already had figured out how city was going to play. You can win a game without having majority possession as Leicester proved by trouncing City 5-2. As someone I dislike said “you can control a game by controlling the space your opponent operates in and keeping them where you want them”.

Now look what you have done. You made me qoute Mourinho. Now I’m feeling sick and disgusted with myself. Are you happy?
You have just picked one game....
How many opponent teams did Pep destroyed over the years using the same tactics? What’s the win rate of his team? If you want to support Mourinho/Benitez/Tony Pulis, don’t watch Arsenal.
 

Kav

Established Member
You just pick one game....
How many opponent teams did Pep destroyed over the years using the same tactics? What’s the win rate? If you want to support Mourinho/Benitez/Tony Pulis, don’t watch Arsenal.
I’m not sure where you are going with this or why you’re having this particular angle of discussion.

Say yes and I were discussing whether or not possession means control and I without reservation argued that possession does not mean control. If you have something to add to the discussion please go ahead but do not Segway into a non sequitur statement.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
You have just picked one game....
How many opponent teams did Pep destroyed over the years using the same tactics? What’s the win rate of his team? If you want to support Mourinho/Benitez/Tony Pulis, don’t watch Arsenal.
Ha ha, great to read someone using my Wenger argument. Love to see it. He got tonked occasionally, but won the vast majority of his games with a much weaker and less expensive team than Pep ever had by using the same exciting tactics week in week out. But apparently, plenty of Arsenal fans wanted Mourinho, Pulis, etc. . this forum was littered with them.
 

scytheavatar

Established Member
Ok, it’s his argument to make though. I’m not going to die on that hill for him.


Fine I will play. So city had 72% possession, 16 shots, 5 shots on target and get this 680 passes with 90% pass completion. Under normal circumstances you can say they controlled the game however that was not the case in this instance.

city scores first but it didn’t swing the game in their favour because Leicester game plan was always the counter ad they knew they would get chances with city’s high line. Leicester only had 7 shots all game with all of them on target and scoring from 5 of those 7. They were efficient and ruthless. The foxes game plan was not a simple counter attacking game but a combination of a high press in city’s half with a low block in their own. They also controlled the spaces they wanted, giving city freedom of the wider spaces on the pitch. Their midfield controlled the game in the sense that their was no space in the final third for city to exploit nor any through balls down their spine. Further to that they attacked the spaces city left open by walker and mendy and were ruthless in their pursuits of goals.

Most interesting is that city had 13 fouls to the foxes 8. A few of which were transition fouls if I remember correctly including the one Ake got because mendy messed up and he was covering the space left open.
City’s goals. Came by a very good goal by Mahrez and a corner by Ake.

Leicester had control of the game from the second half begun as they already had figured out how city was going to play. You can win a game without having majority possession as Leicester proved by trouncing City 5-2. As someone I dislike said “you can control a game by controlling the space your opponent operates in and keeping them where you want them”.

Now look what you have done. You made me qoute Mourinho. Now I’m feeling sick and disgusted with myself. Are you happy?

So how the heck does having someone like Özil in the middle solve City's "control" problem? Cause all it does is to make City's middle softer and even more vulnerable to counter attacks. What do you expect Özil to be able to do if he is a City player?
 

Kav

Established Member
So how the heck does having someone like Özil in the middle solve City's "control" problem? Cause all it does is to make City's middle softer and even more vulnerable to counter attacks. What do you expect Özil to be able to do if he is a City player?

I don’t think you understand the discussion on hand. Nowhere has Özil come up in what I have said. I literally have not mentioned him. Why are you trying to make an argument about something that has not been stated?
 

Jury

A-M's drunk uncle
This thread has taken a nonsensical twist. Scraping the bottom of the barrel now.
Ok, it’s his argument to make though. I’m not going to die on that hill for him.


Fine I will play. So city had 72% possession, 16 shots, 5 shots on target and get this 680 passes with 90% pass completion. Under normal circumstances you can say they controlled the game however that was not the case in this instance.
Stop there. That’s control. What city did was exactly what they set out to do and that is their definition of controlling the game. Just because you think Leicester’s alleged plan to relinquish possession in order to execute their own strategy is your own definition of controlling a game, doesn’t make it so. Had City made more of their chances or shots and run them over 4-1 with 71% possession, which we’ve seen them do to teams on numerous times, nobody would argue that Leicester controlled the game. Well if it’s going to happen, let’s face it, it will probably happen in this thread...

Controlling the game doesn’t always bring you the result you’re after. That’s all there is to it. But you can’t go changing the definition of what controlling the game is when it doesn’t get the result.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom