Answers in bold…
QUOTE=braineclipse;545556]Instead of comparing Sandro to the nebulous popular opinion, how about comparing him to other players playing his role. Who on the world stage would you compare him with in terms of passing?
As much as I would love to have an Alonso, I think he is comparable to Xabi. Both break up play, both can pass short, both can find a long ball (Alonso is world class in this regard I agree) but when playing regularly, Sandro's game is top-class. Pirlo has become one, ditto Gerrard, as much for their twighlight years but it's working. Impossible to say whether a Busquets is better because Busquets plays at Barca in front of the likes of Pique and with the likes of Alves at FB instead of Dawson and Rose (not to mention the attacking talent around him). I think, on form, he is a better player than Carrick. So for Tottenham Hotspur, unless you can upgrade me to Alonso, Sandro's my man.
I was trying to say compare his passing to other defensive midfielders, not compare his worth to other players playing similar positions, but different roles. (Although I briefly do the same later).
For me there are many better passers out there playing his role. Including as you say later the many top defensive midfielders at top clubs that I think are far from limited.
Did you watch the game tonight? Did you watch how Real played their way through the Bayern pressure time and time again in that second half, building from the back. Modric brilliant, Alonso excellent and of course the back 4 consistently playing just about perfect passes in tight spaces whilst moving the ball quickly, often two touch football. I know Sandro would add something completely different to that side compared to Modric and Alonso, but do you think he could parttake in that kind of football? I don't think so.
I didn't at any point defend Sherwood for dropping Sandro. I'm talking about the general truth in what Ferdinand said in an interview.
He's a top class defensive player, no doubt. Overall I'm not as sure. In the right setup I think he is top class, but he is limited.
I just think that comment applies to so many players. Very very few players in world football are top class in any set-up. Again, for me it's a 'footbalism'.
This is of course true. Although my argument that Sandro is limited seems to have fallen largely on deaf ears, so I'm not quite sure why he would need a setup that suits him?
He has a lot of the qualities you mention. He is more creative than he gets credit for imo, his movement going forward is also quite good. We've seen that he can strike a ball too. But he's not a consistent short and mid range passer. He's not someone that moves the ball around effectively and quickly with one and two touch passing. And he's not good enough at moving into space to make himself available during buildup play in deeper positions.
I could not disagree more. With Modric he was excellent in this regard. And if our superbly brilliant young manager had the knackers to pay him with Paulinho (has it actually happened, I don't believe so) for a number of games, i think you'd see this myth destroyed again. Modric and Sandro were a great duo, as were Modric and Parker. I would concede that the denominator there is Modric (a player so ludicrously under-appreciated by some it's laughable). Not a consistent enough short-passer? I think that one of the biggest things we missed last season when he was hurt was that deep winning of possession and quick feed to initiate a counter-attack. Sorry, we will have to agree to disagree as I'm sure neither if us has the time to start trawling youtube to try and prove points. You don't rate him in that regard, I do.
We agree on Modric. Modric was also fantastic, arguably better, alongside Huddlestone by the way.
You're right that we'll just have to agree to disagree. I will mention that people mention "form" a lot. Palacios was a pretty good passer when on form. Sandro is better for sure, but if you have to be at top match fitness to be a good passer you're not really a good passer.
A lot of those can be worked on, I have no doubt he has the hunger to improve. He could become immense (again?) under the right manager in the right system. But right now, as good as he is and has been, he's not a world class/top class player for me. I would trade him for Modric in a heartbeat. I'd give Real £25m on top of that. Different players, different player styles. But still.
I can't even consider the Modric bit here mate. Already commented on what I think, but as you said, different players and styles. Sandro (like Paulinho, Vertonghen - a player I have criticized for his attitude, Soldado and Lamela even) have obviously seen their roles negated somewhat at various time during Sherwood's tenure, and his man-management appears to have fallen seriously short. Right now, I'd say it's taking everything for him not flip his stack. World Cup year, he got injured, he worked damn hard to try and get back and now this self-serving loose-lipped 'genius' is mugging him off? Put yourself in his shoes...
Like I said, **** Sherwood. I cannot be bothered.
**** Sherwood then, I'm sick and tired of even talking about the man. Every single conversations devolves. Look at Ferdinand's comments at a time when he wasn't being self serving and discuss those points. I don't think it can be dismissed as BS.
Les Ferdinand, for me, has been an abject failure as a coach at this club. Striker coach. Analyse that and tell me what you think of the net results. Let me offer an example of a coach who HAS worked. Tony Parkes. Came in, sorted out Gomes, helped settle Lloris and continues to do something right because generally, our goalies are consistently good. Once again, whilst Ferdinand might have a point worth debating it was poorly stated and poorly defined. Name me a side of any notable success in the last decade that has not ever used what could be considered a 'DM' in some capacity. And to reinforce, I was very very clear as to what about Sherwood I think is BS. I'm sticking firmly with it.
This again? Hasn't Ferdinand primarily been a youth coach whilst at the club? A youth coach at probably our best youth production period in decades that is. At the very least that's been Sherwood's job...
But I honestly don't really care much about Ferdinand either. It's his statement, his opinion on this one topic I'm interested in. Is there a chance we can discuss that without having to discuss how Sherwood treated Lamela or how Ferdinand supposedly didn't teach Defoe to place a shot or whatever the completely irrelevant point here is? Because I think that's the interesting discussion to be had (as long as it lasts - which seemingly isn't long because everything ends with Sherwood and devolution). And the defensive midfield discussion is at least somewhat related to this thread.
And without blowing my own horn I think I supported a similar opinion fairly well with my initial post on the topic. And other than "Real are sometimes also vulnerable defensively" there hasn't really been much in terms of counter arguments.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your original point was that Makalele was a good player but due to the tight role he played, ushered in the notion that you can have a deep lying midfielder who is not necessarily great on the ball. I disagree. Strongly. I cannot think of ANY top club who has utilized such a player, not one who has gone on to win things/qualify for CL, etc. There are no Cattermoles at top clubs. I invite you to name a top club who has utilized such a 'limited' player in said-position. No, in truth, I think there's a strong argument for saying that Ferdinand, and in turn Sherwood, were inarticulate in their initial statements and that (in fact) they showed a rudimentary 'fear-of-change' type reaction to a role in football which has developed into a sophisticated and multi-faceted role. Not that I'm surprised. There's my counter argument…consider my horn blown! :lol:
Great debate BTW mate...
Of course most top clubs will mainly have midfielders that aren't limited. They can attract and afford the higher end of the spectrum and replace Nicky Butt with Micheal Carrick.
Ferdinand wasn't talking about just the top clubs, but English football in general. I don't think he was talking about Wenger and Ferguson, in fact I think it's pretty obvious that he wasn't. (Although that probably means reading his statement without the initial assumption that he's an idiot).
I disagree about what the recent change has been. The change that now sees Gerrard as the deepest midfielder at Liverpool isn't a change of a defensive midfielder to fulfill a different sophisticated role. It's a change where footballers that are primarily ball players are taught how to defend instead of trying to teach athletes, tacklers, cloggers, how to half way decently control a football. It's the realization that being a passenger in attacking play is as bad as being a passenger when defending. This development is the development Ferdinand is praising whilst trying to partly explain why the pendulum at one point swung the other way.
I can believe that you think Sherwood is inarticulate. And this time I'm not trying to blow my own horn, because I certainly could have articulated myself more elegantly, but I really don't think I could have been much clearer than when I said: "**** Sherwood then, I'm sick and tired of even talking about the man. Every single conversations devolves." Yet half your answer is about Sherwood, Lamela, Ferdinand's role as a coach and all the other repeats of boredom of non-sequitur upchuck we get in all the other threads including those actually marked with the warning to mental health label that is now Tim Sherwood's name.
If you really appreciate this debate, can we please keep it on topic and away from Tim Sherwood? At least when you're answering me. Please. Pretty please. With cherries on top.
…but the 'current orthodoxy' your speak of is, IMO, a bit of a myth. In fact, the current 'orthodoxy' would be far more about 4-3-3 surely? It appears that this is 'the current rage'…I still believe Ferdinand was inarticulate, proven by the fact that both you and brain have had to extend yourselves to explain what you believe he meant. I think it's all becoming a matter of opinion at this point, either we see a role for Sandro or we don't. I frankly cannot contemplate any manager worth their salt not finding Sandro a centre-piece of any future plans. Sherwood obviously wouldn't. Thus…role on the summer! ;-)
