• ! ! ! 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.

scytheavatar

Established Member
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?

You seem to be arguing in favour of Kash2's argument that "no wonder liverpool get tonked 7-2 and city get smashed by leciester. Theres no one in the middle controlling the game." In another words that City wouldn't get smashed by Leicester if they had a player like Özil in the middle. Which is something I find extremely hard to agree with.
 

Jury

A-M's drunk uncle
You seem to be arguing in favour of Kash2's argument that "no wonder liverpool get tonked 7-2 and city get smashed by leciester. Theres no one in the middle controlling the game." In another words that City wouldn't get smashed by Leicester if they had a player like Özil in the middle. Which is something I find extremely hard to agree with.
Some commenters are hardly worth the reference. It is literally random nonsense with every other post an attack on someone or a whole group of people, with the odd totally baseless racist accusation thrown in as well for good measure.
 

say yes

forum master baiter
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 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?
Great. So basically City and Liverpool, two of the most dominant teams in English footballing history, don’t have control in the middle of the field because it’s possible to counter them.

Now, to complete this wonderful circle, you need to explain how the likes of Özil and Riquelme would solve that issue for them.
 

Makingtrax

Worships in the house of Wenger 🙏
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Saliba
'Control'' is a nothing word. The only things worth talking about in football are things that can be measured, else it's just hot air.

Expected goals (xG), possession, sequences, defensive coverage etc.

But ultimately football is just a game of odds, and the team with better players that carves out the most chances will win most often.

But not always, the team with fewer chances will occasionally convert theirs and win. The problem is that people will try and make out that they did so with some master plan or their manager was better :lol: . . . and that's where the b*llocks comes in.
 
Last edited:

Jury

A-M's drunk uncle
'Control'' is a nothing word. The only things worth talking about in football are things that can be measured, else it's just hot air.

Expected goals (xG), possession, sequences, defensive coverage etc.

But ultimately football is just a game of odds, and the team with better players that carves out the most chances will win most often.

But not always, the team with fewer chances will occasionally convert theirs and win. The problem is that people will try and make out that they did so with some master plan or their manager was better :lol: . . . and that's where the b*llocks comes in.
:lol: You’ve had an awakening lad.
 

Jury

A-M's drunk uncle
Great. So basically City and Liverpool, two of the most dominant teams in English footballing history, don’t have control in the middle of the field because it’s possible to counter them.

Now, to complete this wonderful circle, you need to explain how the likes of Özil and Riquelme would solve that issue for them.
On the plus side I view our 2005 FA Cup Final performance against Manchester United in a different light. We had those bastards just where we wanted them!
 

Blood on the Tracks

AG's best friend, role model and mentor.
Trusted ⭐

Country: England

Player:Rice
Plenty of people on here know more about tactics than me, I'd be happy to be set right.

What does 'Control' of a football match even mean? What about a Mourinho park the bus masterclass. Going into a game planning on having minimal possession and nicking a 1-0 win. If that plan comes to fruition surely you have controlled the match in some sense? Even though you've been dominated in every metric other than the score line.

I'm not certain that dominating the football in terms of xG, possession etc necessarily means having control over the match in a broader sense.

Am I wrong?
 
Last edited:

Paddy from Sweden

Well-Known Member
It seems that Özil has bought the whole dressing room some shiny new shoes, judging by some insta stories.
So he's bribing his teammates. Once again trying to make himself look the good guy with a new social media stunt. Guess it's the only place he can have an impact nowadays as it seems he's not very eager to kick a ball anymore.
 

Godwin1

Very well-known
'Control'' is a nothing word. The only things worth talking about in football are things that can be measured, else it's just hot air.

Expected goals (xG), possession, sequences, defensive coverage etc.

But ultimately football is just a game of odds, and the team with better players that carves out the most chances will win most often.

But not always, the team with fewer chances will occasionally convert theirs and win. The problem is that people will try and make out that they did so with some master plan or their manager was better :lol: . . . and that's where the b*llocks comes in.
So you think a lesser opponent looking at stronger opponents weaknesses and exploiting them through specific drills or tactics set up by a manager is b*llocks and it's all luck?
 

CaseUteinberger

Established Member

Country: Sweden
'Control'' is a nothing word. The only things worth talking about in football are things that can be measured, else it's just hot air.

Expected goals (xG), possession, sequences, defensive coverage etc.

But ultimately football is just a game of odds, and the team with better players that carves out the most chances will win most often.

But not always, the team with fewer chances will occasionally convert theirs and win. The problem is that people will try and make out that they did so with some master plan or their manager was better :lol: . . . and that's where the b*llocks comes in.
Think what you are basically saying is that it’s the goals that count. Guess we can all agree on that... ;)
 

scytheavatar

Established Member
So you think a lesser opponent looking at stronger opponents weaknesses and exploiting them through specific drills or tactics set up by a manager is b*llocks and it's all luck?

It is something that is harder to win with then just dominating possession and patiently dissecting your opponent's defense. Just because you beat your opponent doesn't mean you have control over them, if your counter attacks didn't work you would have easily lost the match instead.
 

Jury

A-M's drunk uncle
Plenty of people on here know more about tactics than me, I'd be happy to be set right.

What does 'Control' of a football match even mean? What about a Mourinho park the bus masterclass. Going into a game planning on having minimal possession and nicking a 1-0 win. If that plan comes to fruition surely you have controlled the match in some sense? Even though you've been dominated in every metric other than the score line.

I'm not certain that dominating the football in terms of xG, possession etc necessarily means having control over the match in a broader sense.

Am I wrong?
A team can control a game and still be undone by a well executed strategy. Controlling the game is a strategy. Relinquishing control of the game to play on the counter can be a strategy. But you can’t say setting up to play on the counter and have far less possession is setting out to control a game. It’s an enforced tactic used mostly by the inferior team who acknowledge that they haven’t got the quality to control the game. Seems like a bit of a silly argument, but that’s where we are!
 

Godwin1

Very well-known
It is something that is harder to win with then just dominating possession and patiently dissecting your opponent's defense. Just because you beat your opponent doesn't mean you have control over them, if your counter attacks didn't work you would have easily lost the match instead.
I'm not arguing that though, just seems trax has this thing for luck and I'm saying that, though they often are, winning on the back foot and luck aren't always mutually exclusive.
 

Oxeki

Match Day Thread Merchant
Trusted ⭐

Country: Nigeria

Player:Saliba
Plenty of people on here know more about tactics than me, I'd be happy to be set right.

What does 'Control' of a football match even mean? What about a Mourinho park the bus masterclass. Going into a game planning on having minimal possession and nicking a 1-0 win. If that plan comes to fruition surely you have controlled the match in some sense? Even though you've been dominated in every metric other than the score line.

I'm not certain that dominating the football in terms of xG, possession etc necessarily means having control over the match in a broader sense.

Am I wrong?
If team A dominates and controls the game and have lots of chances to score but fails to convert them. But team B have less of the ball and just one chance but scores and converts it, would you say team B 'controlled' the game?
 

Trilly

Hates A-M, Saka, Arteta and You
Trusted ⭐

Country: England
tenor.gif
 

Dj_sds -

Active Member
So you think a lesser opponent looking at stronger opponents weaknesses and exploiting them through specific drills or tactics set up by a manager is b*llocks and it's all luck?

It's very subtle but it's just another squad cost justification post.
 

Dj_sds -

Active Member
You can control a match even when you give up possession. Look how many times in the wenger era teams packed the center of the pitch to force us wide, when we had no target man, thus nullifying our biggest attacking threat and making us toothless in the process. Mourinho made a living of controlling the game without possession.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kav
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts+

Top Bottom