Nigel de Jong

[SomGooner]

Why would he need to do another Karate chop?

We need him to do that to Shawcross, Evra and all the other vile human beings in the opposition teams.

I'd love to have both him and M'Vila at Arsenal but who am I kidding?

 

[Shadow Moses]

I've heard it all!

Barry's a safe passer, but his ability on the ball still sees him finding the likes of Silva with quick 15 yard forward passes.

De Jong is very good on the ball? Jesus. By that logic, Lucas must be world class in possession...

Barry is actually a **** player. England are lucky he's out of Euro squad. He can't pass & he's extremely slow and immobile. His turning circle is that of a lorry. City are luck to have Yaya in their midfeild and it's no coincidence they were much worse when Yaya was away at ACN or when he was injured during the season.

and it's Yaya that links with Silva/Nasri not Barry

 

[Dokaka]

Man, if Barry is a **** player and De Jong is good on the ball, then Ramsey isn't even a player with a heartbeat and Scott Parker is world class on the ball.

Barry does everything he's supposed to do right. He's basically Arteta. I've said it before, I'll say it again, he's one of those players you only appreciate if he plays for your own team.

You simply cannot have a wankfest over Arteta and say Barry is ****. And you can't say De Jong is very good on the ball because then what it a guy like Wilshere? Universe class?

 

[Shue]

Barry is basically not Arteta. He just isn't.

Arteta: 2011/12 Barclays Premier League
GAMES GOALS ASSISTS SHOTS
31 7 2 44


Barry: 2011/12 Barclays Premier League
GAMES GOALS ASSISTS SHOTS
34 1 3 23


Barry offers much less offensively. He's not a playmaker. He's a defensive CM. Not a DM, not a DLP. Barry make 0.9 key passes per game, as opposed to 2.2 key passes per game by Arteta. Arteta also makes an extra 14 passes per match, 63.6 vs 77.5. Arteta also had over 90% pass completion compared to 87% for Barry, and we've just seen how much more adventurous Arteta is too. The ONLY stat Barry has higher than Arteta is interceptions, Arteta even has a higher tackles per game stat.

Worlds apart.

 

[AFC-Phil]

Barry is basically not Arteta. He just isn't.

Arteta: 2011/12 Barclays Premier League
GAMES GOALS ASSISTS SHOTS
31 7 2 44


Barry: 2011/12 Barclays Premier League
GAMES GOALS ASSISTS SHOTS
34 1 3 23


Barry offers much less offensively. He's not a playmaker. He's a defensive CM. Not a DM, not a DLP. Barry make 0.9 key passes per game, as opposed to 2.2 key passes per game by Arteta. Arteta also makes an extra 14 passes per match, 63.6 vs 77.5. Arteta also had over 90% pass completion compared to 87% for Barry, and we've just seen how much more adventurous Arteta is too. The ONLY stat Barry has higher than Arteta is interceptions, Arteta even has a higher tackles per game stat.

Worlds apart.

What's your source?

I made a similar post a couple of days ago and my tackling stats were at 2.5 per game for both of them, with Barry ahead in that respect in Europe.

 

[Shue]

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.whoscored.com/Blog/c7i9tporfkopcfff2ownfq/Show" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.whoscored.com/Blog/c7i9tporf ... ownfq/Show</a>

Bit old, admittedly, but illustrates the difference between the two players over more than half a season.

 

[Dokaka]

Barry is basically not Arteta. He just isn't.

Arteta: 2011/12 Barclays Premier League
GAMES GOALS ASSISTS SHOTS
31 7 2 44


Barry: 2011/12 Barclays Premier League
GAMES GOALS ASSISTS SHOTS
34 1 3 23


Barry offers much less offensively. He's not a playmaker. He's a defensive CM. Not a DM, not a DLP. Barry make 0.9 key passes per game, as opposed to 2.2 key passes per game by Arteta. Arteta also makes an extra 14 passes per match, 63.6 vs 77.5. Arteta also had over 90% pass completion compared to 87% for Barry, and we've just seen how much more adventurous Arteta is too. The ONLY stat Barry has higher than Arteta is interceptions, Arteta even has a higher tackles per game stat.

Worlds apart.

Those stats don't really tell anything.

Barry doesn't need to come forward at all, he's got one of the world best attacking forces in front of him. His job is not to break down a defence, that's Silva, Nasri, Aguero, Toure and so on's job.

I'd think Arteta's role is basically the same, but with your lack of any penetration from deep he's been forced to come forward and be more adventures. He's certainly capable of doing so, but it doesn't make him "worlds apart" from Barry.

Perhaps their roles are slightly different, but in my opinion they're still very similar players. Perhaps Arteta does the offensive part a bit better and is a tad more adventurous, but Barry instead makes up for it defensively.

My main point from the beginning anyway was that Barry isn't ****, he's never been ****. He's certainly boring, no doubt about it, but football isn't always about entertainment, and the fact is the guy just won the league playing a VERY important role in the team being the defensive backbone in midfield.

So no, you can't call Arteta amazing and Barry ****, it just doesn't make sense. Most of what they do is the same thing, so if Barry is utter ****e, then most of what Arteta does is utter ****e.

For the record, I much prefer Arteta over Barry simply because he's better going forward, but it all depends on the system. I'd wager that if you swapped Arteta or Barry this season, you'd have let less goals in. If that amount is more or less than the 7 goals Arteta scored, however, is obviously something to think about.

 

[AFC-Phil]

I doubt Barry would've saw a defensive impovement on our team defensively. If anything, I'm convinced it would go the other way.

Barry's far too slow across the ground, and he wouldn't be able to cover the likes of Gibbs/Song/Jenkinson/Santos/Arshavin etc in the same way Arteta has. For one, he's tactically ahead of Barry, and can actually cover across and cope with being isolated/exposed.

I cringe at the thought of Barry being exposed without a man 5 yards away covering him. It would be a bloodbath. IIRC, Özil showed Barry up when exposed at the WC in the 4-1...

Edit - I'm getting drawn into too many Barry/Arteta discussions. It's probably best I don't derail this thread.

 

[Shue]

Imagine Barry trying to cope with Song charging forward 24/7?

 

[Jury]

Get him. Just get him. He'd give us steel, intelligence, experience, fear factor and I know there's a lot more to his game than he's showing at City. He'd flourish at Arsenal.

De Jong, Wilshere and Arteta would do me.

 

[Jury]

He'd be a class signing, a proper defensive shield but do not understate his technical ability - he used to be a wide player with a few skills!

Would rather M'Villa but would be happy with DeJong as long as it meant we

I remember watching him at Highbury for Ajax in a 2003 CL game as an 18 yo. He made a mug of Cashley when catching him out of position and scoring the equaliser in the 1-1 draw. It seems his all round game is vastly underrated here. He's dutch ffs. He grew up at Ajax!

 

[dpt49]

I've got no problem with De Jong rather than M'Vila.
At least De Jong has played at the top level in this country, so there would be no problem adjusting like most of our foreign signings have, especially players from the French league.

I'm resigned to the fact that we are not going to spend more than 15m on any player, so De Jong and a decent creative AM or winger, for a similar price, would be a better option than spending all our transfer money on one player.

 

[danccm]

we could also get Adam Johnson in as well since he might be out of it.

 

[GDeep™]

we could also get Adam Johnson in as well since he might be out of it.

Gervinho, Poldi, Theo and Chambo are all better players.

 

[say yes]

Adam Johnson is so infuriatingly overrated. There's a reason he barely plays for City.

Would love De Jong here, would be a great option to have and he seems quite friendly with RVP.

Oh and Barry is ****.

 

[DJ_Markstar]

we could also get Adam Johnson in as well since he might be out of it.

Gervinho, Poldi, Theo and Chambo are all better players.

Nope, not even once. Adam Johnson gets as many starts/games at City as any of those players would tbh bar maybe Podolski.

 

[truth_hurts]

I do rate Johnson but unless we move to 4-4-2 then we don't really need him.

 

[WengerFaithful]

Surely this is a no brainer for De Jong - since its City - is it not Buy 3 and We Get 1 Free?

 

[DiamondGooner]

I'd support this transfer if he's really interested.

He would add some proper maturity and physical prescence to our midfield, it would be a good buy imo.

I would still prefer M'Vila, and I hope we are not turning our attention to De Jong because he is the cheaper option.

Why don't we go for the best, rather than the best bargain.

Surely we're not that hard up, are we?

Nothing to do with being cheap its because M'Vila is turning out to be a petulant prima donna who believes his own hype.
From what I've read he's going to not answer until after the Euro's so he can whore himself to the football world and drive his wages up basically using Arsenal like Mata and co did last year for the attention and then will choose the highest bidder or go to Arsenal if he doesn't get a better offer.

Quite frankly I don't even want players/mercenaries like that at our club, I'd rather De Jong all day.

 

[Clrnc]

we could also get Adam Johnson in as well since he might be out of it.

Gervinho, Poldi, Theo and Chambo are all better players.

Nope, not even once. Adam Johnson gets as many starts/games at City as any of those players would tbh bar maybe Podolski.

Agreed. Don't know why people don't rate Adam Johnson. He is clearly a very good player.