I don’t get the logic here. So anyone against wars, massacres and imperialism should not be playing in the US or Europe?
Since the US and Europe participated in invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, since they openly support the war crimes commited in Gazza, does that mean every professional, earning money in these countries cannot be against wars or war crimes?
Or anyone earning money in Russia, should be blamed for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
Tough one. First of all, I disagree with anyone saying “one is much better than the other one”, “oh this is not even close”.
I don’t think either of them are clear choices here and I wouldn’t contest anyone’s choices here.
I personally regard both of these players very highly as well. But I think I’d go with De Bruyne. His passing ability is just unreal, he really makes life a lot easier for his teammates. He’s like Beckham with Iniesta’s vision.
Modric has quite a few advantages over KDB as well though. Modric is a much better leader, more natural on the ball, has better defensive contribution with his positioning and more active playstyle. That’s why it’s tough; but I’m still giving KDB a slight edge.
No one, really cannot think of a single player that reminds me of Zidane. As this is a role simply does not exist in football anymore.
Zidane was a maestro, the job was to give him the ball and let him control your offense like a general. He had complete freedom on the pitch as he didn’t press, cover passing lanes or make off the ball dummy runs. Players simply don’t have that kind of freedom anymore.
Since Zidane, I think the closest player to him was Mesut Özil. I can also see Pogba had a rather similar skillset but he never had Zidane’s role on the pitch.
Chelsea
They’ve got a good roster with talented young players. They’re likely to get Osimhen too next year.
I don’t like United’s roster. Aging stars like Casemiro, Varane and Eriksen; with Bruno approaching his 30’s.
Rashford is always a mystery, Sancho’s career in United isn’t looking salvagable, Antony never showed the potential to become an elite player. Only Hojlund looks like a positive but he’s far from being ready.
Before 2008, this wasn’t a discussion. People would think you’re crazy for comparing these two.
While Xavi always was a capable midfielder, it was Pep to truly play to his strengths. Before Pep, he had to play a more defensive, stationary role behind traditional number 10’s such as Ronaldinho and Deco. But Pep sent Ronaldinho and gave the Xavi-Iniesta duo the freedom to rule the midfield. Without needing to carry the load of a lazy number 10.
Pep knew what Xavi needed, because Pep himself was a very similar player. I mean Pep was more physical and a better holding midfielder, but he too would’ve shined if any manager gave him the role that he gave to Xavi.
All that being said, I’d actually consider Xavi and Pirlo equals. I think Xavi managed to catch up with Pirlo; but I wouldn’t say completely surpassed. Pirlo was just as good of a playmaker, a maestro in the midfield who led his teams to the top.
I thought Chelsea robbed Arsenal and United by selling this duo for a total of 125m Pounds. Personally, I never rated either of these guys. Not just their fees, also their salaries are ridiculously high.
That being said, I can at least understand being fooled by the idea of Havertz. It’s the football equavilant of the “I can save her” syndrome. Havertz looks like a dream on paper. Ridiculously tall and well built, despite his length he looks natural on the ball. He can see the pitch, has the tools to become a good playmaker.
But similar to Joao Felix, those tools just somehow don’t end up creating an effective player on the pitch. So I thought Havertz was a stupid transfer for Arsenal; yet again, I can understand Arteta’s point of view.
However with Mount…can someone please explain to me why has he played for Chelsea and United; while Prowse spent his career in Southampton and now West Ham? Seriously, what do people see in Mount?
He’s a midfielder with below average playmaking skills and technique, a winger with no dribbling and quickness. Hard working but poor defensively so cannot play a holding role.
So what’s the point? What good is his versatility when he’s not suitable for any position whatsoever? What did ETH to get out of him?
One thing I can give him is that he plays a very direct, daring game that could be valuable in high pressing play. You can keep him on that pocket behind the striker, where he can press and make runs to score a goal.
But which contending team is going to give Mount that kind of role? So I think he could do well in a mid table team.
Chelsea fans, more importantly the board needs to be patient. I think they’ve got a nice roster with talented young players and Poch is a solid manager.
They should make sure their players continue to develop and form their chemistry. Next year with a signing like Osimhen, Chelsea should be good enough to compete for higher positions again.