Davies shouldn’t big him up too much, there’s a vacancy in the spacegoat chair that he might end up in himself!What would Davies know!.... Football London need to stop interviewing these nobodies and interview Nayimfromthehalfwayline instead!![]()
Davies shouldn’t big him up too much, there’s a vacancy in the spacegoat chair that he might end up in himself!What would Davies know!.... Football London need to stop interviewing these nobodies and interview Nayimfromthehalfwayline instead!![]()
Davies shouldn’t big him up too much, there’s a vacancy in the spacegoat chair that he might end up in himself!
I didnt see it as a diamond really. I saw Dier and Sissoko sitting in and giving security to the rest to play. As you say, we do play a fluid formation, and so at times of course either venture forward - but it was absolutely notable Sissoko was checking his instinct to run forward and playing a much more positionally disciplined role.
If you think he played in any way similar to Wolves or Palace then I suggest we were simply watching different games.
Frustratingly I cannot find heatmaps for the games, I am certain they would look very different to illustrate what Im saying.
Opinions and assholes and everyone has one, and all that
I dont look too much into formations, mainly for a few reasons. 1) as you said yourself ours are always very fluid, 2) Poch is in the habit of changing them frequently in-game, and 3) they tend to inform your thinking too much on players (IE, he was this position so must be this and this...).
Given all that fluidity we could argue all day just about what shape we were in.
I prefer to think in roles, and IMO both Sissoko and Dier were defensive, allowing the rest to go do their stuff. Of course there is room in that for players to venture forward (or back!) but in essence, they were doing defensive work in midfield.
And as I said, I think it was a noticeable change in Sissokos positioning and actions. He was restraining himself a lot, and playing a very disciplined and focused game (something even his biggest fans must admit isnt his strong suit)
In a box to box capacity I dont think he "allows" anything, I think he is a compromise, and the team has to compensate for his weaknesses.
In this capacity Id sell him with Dembele and Wanyama and not think twice about it.
IF he can nail down a role like Chelsea? Then I can see him as having value. In that role I thought he was very good - and based on the last year or so definitely better than Wanyama has been. Though he doesnt and never will compare to Dembele, entirely different jobs.
I disagree that Sissoko was playing as an outright DM on Saturday. I think Dier was playing that role (and played it very well). My thoughts were that Sissoko was playing more in the 'Dembele' type role, although it seemed more as though we were playing four in midfield with Dier holding, Eriksen left sided, Sissoko right sided and Ali further forward, with specific instructions to track Jorginho when Chelsea got possession.
I disagree that Sissoko was playing as an outright DM on Saturday. I think Dier was playing that role (and played it very well). My thoughts were that Sissoko was playing more in the 'Dembele' type role, although it seemed more as though we were playing four in midfield with Dier holding, Eriksen left sided, Sissoko right sided and Ali further forward, with specific instructions to track Jorginho when Chelsea got possession.
I don't think there needs to be right and wrong. But I think it's hard not to do that when someone has gone so hard on one direction which was never likely to be the reality - which was that last season talking him down as someone not capable of performing in his profession. The reality was that he was adding some value then and is adding more now and that he had a very hard start which turned a lot of people against him. Given his prior accomplishments and the fact that one of our best ever Managers chose to keep him around, there was always likely to be a player in there, as he is now proving beyond hopefully any doubt.
I disagree that Sissoko was playing as an outright DM on Saturday. I think Dier was playing that role (and played it very well). My thoughts were that Sissoko was playing more in the 'Dembele' type role, although it seemed more as though we were playing four in midfield with Dier holding, Eriksen left sided, Sissoko right sided and Ali further forward, with specific instructions to track Jorginho when Chelsea got possession.

Excellent post and fine paragraph above.
I also couldn't agree more with your assertion of the holding midfielder role in terms of what it demands. 'Tis why there's so few good ones. In Dier we have a superb one who is generally not recognized nearly enough IMO. The fact that people were saying Sissoko "lacked a footballing brain" means that he would actually be the worst possible choice (were that true)...
The truth is he has proven to be a good all-round squad player who has finally found a seam of confidence imbued by being played in positions which suit him and by the faith of a manager who believes in him. Your Stamboulli and Capoue points underscore that, as does the sale of Bentaleb who I personally thought would captain this club one day.
I disagree that Sissoko was playing as an outright DM on Saturday. I think Dier was playing that role (and played it very well). My thoughts were that Sissoko was playing more in the 'Dembele' type role, although it seemed more as though we were playing four in midfield with Dier holding, Eriksen left sided, Sissoko right sided and Ali further forward, with specific instructions to track Jorginho when Chelsea got possession.
Similar to Steff then. As I said to him, you can argue semantics on positions all day long, and probably never agree. Which is why for me its about roles.
Would you say Sissoko was playing as he was against Palace and Wolves, or would you agree he was in a much more defensive role?
I would have to look back and see if I ever vaulted him as a DM. I have to say I find it hard to believe. I might well have said he could pair up in midfield alongside a Dier, but I would never want him to be the sitting player by choice. Can he do a job there when, say, Wanyama/Dembele/Winks are out? Yes. But I think he works best as a central midfielder with license to move and the responsibility to cover. I've held that line pretty firmly, so again, in the knowledge that I am happy to concede when wrong, I have to say there must've been a misunderstanding or I did not state my case clearly enough in that specific moment.
Regarding Wolves and Palace...different games so obviously not the same role, especially given who was playing around him/what the balance was. He was certainly swapping off holding/pushing with Winks, and furthermore, he had to switch roles in the 7th minute to drop in beside Winks and replace the Moose, where the pair eased their way through an understanding of balancing each other. It was great to see them able to do that. The genius of Poch against Chelsea was utilizing Dele's versatility and actually only putting dedicated holding responsibilities on Dier. I doubt Dier got into their half more than 6 times all match. As for Sissoko's instinct against Chelski, he simply played a very good game. You make it sound like he is a nutter who needs constant monitoring. In fact, he has filled in all over for us in the last couple of seasons. I simply think he enjoyed the formation and furthermore, his relationship with the vastly-improving Aurier allowed him to push on. You cannot deny he was a threat on Saturday, adding to the already superb threat our dynamic quarters bought.
I would've sold Dembele in the summer. Poch would've too. Ditto Wanyama. I would want either Winks or a player of the manager's choice bought in. I would absolutely keep Sissoko for his versatility and squad value.
In closing (I think we've exhausted this chat?) Dembele in his prime? Superb talent. I wish Poch had got him when he was 22-23 because he'd have been a world class footballer. As it is he will always be supremely gifted yet frustratingly unfulfilled. His ability to power through poor decision-making at critical moments is diminishing, and he has been getting caught on the ball for, far too often in the last season or so. I say all this without comparison to Sissoko, of course they are different players! As it lies, I believe long-term our CMs should be Dier and Winks, Dier IS a sitting player, shield who does just that, and Winks will mature into one of the best Modric-esque players in Europe.
Good debate.
If we look specifically at roles, I believe his role on Saturday was to win possession and transition quickly using strength, speed and athleticism. I don't think anybody believes Poch is looking for him to create like Alli and Eriksen, but I think it is very fair to say that he was given license to push on when the situation required and see what he could do. Not Frank Lampard but not Makalele either! Anyway, let's hope we can continue this debate after a similarly positive result on Sunday!!!!
I dont deny he did break, but as Ive said a few times now - it was absolutely notable he checked his instinct to break forward a number of times, which IMHO infers instruction to do so.
And, as Ive said, I think the way he performed was notably different to how he played against Palace and Wolves.
Yes, he did get forward. Yes, he did roam a bit. AND yes he did stay deeper and protect the defence a hell of a lot more than usual - seemingly tactically.
I think any tactical summary of the game that I have seen (some good ones out there like The Coaches Voice and also various ones I've seen from the Twittersphere) all acknowledge we were playing a 4-4-2 diamond or a 4-3-1-2, with a midfield of Dier in the middle, Sissoko and Eriksen either side and Dele at the tip, man marking Jorginho. But, considering we ended up getting into a deeper mid block for most of the second half in particular, I can see why it looked like Sissoko was operating as more of a DM - certainly more than Eriksen considering he was more likely to use his physicality to make tackles on the defensive end. Overall it's much of a muchness, because the whole team started to contribute to the deeper defensive effort, but yes I don't think Sissoko was a pure DM.
I think Nayim, why people seem to be assuming that you don't want to be 'proven wrong' is because it seems like any comment you make on Sissoko, even positive, is damming with faint praise or cloaked in a lot of qualifiers so that what you are saying now can remain consistent with what you said before. This idea of 'if he is given a very specific role, asked not to do or think too much then he can have some value' just looks like a way of talking him down as a player. That the only way we can get anything out of him is if we totally compensate for all of the weaknesses he brings, rather than just appreciating him as a member of the squad with his own attributes and performing well. Again, it is the perception and how it is framed. His different attributes could be seen as advantageous, and providing balance in the squad, but this way they are seen as the stick to beat him with. It's the equivalent of lacing any comment on Eriksen with 'if he had more pace and strength' or Dier with 'if he was better at dribbling out of tight spaces'. Of course those attributes would be advantageous, and of course those players are adding a tonne of value to us anyway, but they along with almost everyone else in the squad are appreciated for what they are, not what they are not.
I just find it interesting - I argued for a lot of last season that Sissoko was excellent defensively (because he wasn't adding much on offence and I didn't believe he'd be in the side if he was adding absolutely nothing, or being actually detrimental in an elite sport with such fine margins) and I saw him now as then as someone who is always aware of danger, always fantastic at covering his nearest team-mates, near enough always one of the players who is bombing back if the opposition has managed to breach our lines, and a player that very rarely loses his duel - he's very strong in 1v1 situations. And someone that has the physical and mental attributes to play the pressing game (not just the physical ability to run and press, but the tactical awareness and concentration to know when to do it). But I was told I'd gone mad for trying to present arguments to support this, even though now it seems to be his ideal spot (how otherwise can someone be an ideal DM if they are no good defensively? If they are told to stay where they are and keep it very simple I suppose...). I actually think he is adding more on offence now too, so I can see Steff's point that you wouldn't want to pidgeon hole him as a DM. The runs he makes from deep are dangerous and pull the opposition out of place, and as long as he isn't in possession when bearing down on the opposition and required to think too much, he can deliver some decent final passes. One of the things I've noticed that if he is leading a break out, he'll dish it quickly to an attacker and then make a run, providing an option and delivering a first time ball, rather than needing to be the playmaker in the attack himself, which suits him.
But if we say he has no value offensively, and that when not played as a DM he 'goes missing' and 'leaves the midfield exposed' (despite his job as the box to box player to offer options in attack too, and against Palace the players didn't seem to think he had gone walkabout too much considering they were chanting his name in the changing room after the game, not Wanyama's) then you can still maintain the viewpoint that you had before, which was that he lacked the basic skills required for PL football. So if we say we play him only as a DM, not asked to think or move much, and keep it simple so as to not show off his Championship / League 1 standard technical skills, then you can still look consistent, and not like you are wrong. That's why it looks like you don't want to admit it.
I don't think there needs to be right and wrong. But I think it's hard not to do that when someone has gone so hard on one direction which was never likely to be the reality - which was that last season talking him down as someone not capable of performing in his profession. The reality was that he was adding some value then and is adding more now and that he had a very hard start which turned a lot of people against him. Given his prior accomplishments and the fact that one of our best ever Managers chose to keep him around, there was always likely to be a player in there, as he is now proving beyond hopefully any doubt.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.