The Arsenal Thread XXII

I'd say my reasoning above makes sensethoughts on my reasoning

Ashley Young is being played over ADM.

Lel

So we agree on Carrick-Coq.

With the others you were keen to bring in defensive stats yet you ignore them completely with Herrera-Ramsey... I wonder why. Because Herrera wins comfortably: http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2014/2015/ander_herrera/126/126/1538/0/p|premier_league/2014/2015/aaron_ramsey/126/126/377/0/p#interceptions/blocks/clearances/defensive_errors#90 so given you only put Ramsey slightly above him attacking wise, Herrera's defensive stats make up the difference so Herrera = Ramsey it is.

Mata-Cazorla is close this season, I'd probably even agree that Cazorla's been better, although you have to remember Mata's been taken in and out of the team, shoved out on the wing etc. But given you used "Ramsey has history on his side" to put him above Herrera, I will do the same to put Mata above Cazorla as surely you agree there's not much of a comparison there.

Di Maria-Sanchez, well first of all I'd say your goal + assist stats are misleading given Sanchez has played 2400 minutes to Di Maria's 1500. As you can see here http://www.squawka.com/comparison-matrix#premier_league/2014/2015/ángel_di_maría/126/126/1846/0/p|premier_league/2014/2015/alexis_sánchez/126/126/1581/0/p#goals_scored/pass_completion/key_passes/assists/chances_created/successful_take_ons_%#90 Sanchez wins but it's not a huge difference.

Anyway of course Sanchez has been better this year. But you say yourself Di Maria was hands down better in Spain, where they've both played far longer than England. So I think I was being very fair when I looked at their 3/4 years in Spain, where Di Maria was better, and their one year in England where Sanchez was better, and said they're about equal overall.
You've decided to dismiss their past and base it just on England because that suits your argument, but how often do we see players at new clubs/in new leagues struggle at first before hitting form? Looking towards next season, which I assumed was the point of the original discussion, I see no reason to laugh at Di Maria being considered about equal to Sanchez.

I'd say my reasoning above makes sense

thoughts on my reasoning

Merte really isn't as bad as people are making out to be. Granted he had a huge dip in form at the start of the season but can you blame him when our back 4 was constantly changing? Games were he's had to adapt to new partnerships out of the blue like Merte + monreal or Merte + Debuchy and Merte + Chambers, 3 defenders he didn't play with (at least not with Monreal CB) the season before. Don't understand why people are using age as an excuse either, he's 30 and doesn't utilise pace to his game, I'm sure he has another 2 years left in the tank..

But for some reason people wan't to get rid without thought...

So if Sanchez = Di Maria, and Young starts over di Maria, that implies Young > Di Maria, which by logical reasoning suggests Young > Sanchez. ****ing lel

Well, firstly, I was going to put this in my original post but then decided I cba for the discussion, but the idea that Di Maria was hands down better than Sanchez in Spain is wrong. Positionally, they played similar roles and were both subservient to a greater player in the team. And yet during Sanchez's time in Spain, Di Maria produced tallies of 7, 9 and 11 goals, and Alexis produced 15, 11 and 21, with Alexis playing 1.6 games per season more. It must be noted that Di Maria played deeper, as an attacking central midfielder for half a season, and credit has to be given for his great performances in Madrid's CL winning run, but even then that's half a season of consistency. And what distinguished him in the role was his work rate, which is hardly something you can accuse Alexis of not having. Also, it's not as if Alexis didn't perform in the big games for them. He scored a stunning winner in the Clasico, as well as an incredible volley that put them ahead in the title decider on the last day, in the season just gone by. Alexis has always been a player that adds more to teams, and Di Maria has always been known for inconsistency and a lack of end product. And why restrict it to just the time spent in Spain, look at Sanchez's career with Udinese, which is far better than Di Maria's with Benfica, or his first season at Madrid.

Furthermore, and crucially, we're talking about the 'best midfield in the league'. This league. Performances in THIS league. Aka the relevant parts of their career is their performances in this country. One season isn't a small sample, but I will agree that it's small enough for you to look at past performances as a minor tie breaker. Past performances are never a guarantee of success in the PL, look at Ozil and the jizzfest over him before he arrived ffs, but Sanchez wins anyway. But it's nowhere near relevant enough given that we have a season's evidence of a gaping chasm between both players in this league. You claim 'how often do we see players at new clubs/in new leagues struggle at first before hitting form? ', and yet somehow don't appreciate that there's also a large majority of players that a) don't hit form at all, or b) get a bit of form like Di Maria, and Deco etc did at first and then fail miserably. Why would we class potential form over proven, overwhelming success, like Sanchez to date? It doesn't make sense. The only reason Di Maria has played less minutes is because he's been dismal when he's been on the pitch. Assists are a really poor statistic in general, they're unreliable and largely useless season-on-season, and even then are reliant on the receiver, usually the team's strikers. What's a better indicator of quality is key passes, or key passes+assists which is chances created, and there they're as good as even. And taking it to a statistical discussion isn't really the right way to go about it; it skews in favour of Di Maria who was dropped when he underperformed, as opposed to Sanchez who's been playing through his period of bad form. Now that's an indication of how poorly Di Maria actually started playing. And in any case, in any football discussion, the one thing that takes paramount importance is goals. And it's 3 goals vs 14 this year in the league, 4 vs 20 overall. And I agree that ADM has played deeper at times, but in any discussion about players, goalscorers are always prioritised. It's why strikers and goalscoring attacking midfielders win the Ballon D'Or virtually every year. Because goals are the crux of this sport.

For the purposes of a 'best midfield in the league' discussion, firstly I wouldn't even involve Alexis because he's more of a forward than a midfielder. But ADM and Sanchez are comparable, and Alexis has proven himself tiers above ADM in this league. It's upto ADM to prove himself Alexis' equal in the PL, rather than for you to sit there and pretend that he was better in Spain, and pretend that actually has any major relevance to their performance in England.

Mata is better than Cazorla too.

anyway.. as of right now:

coq = carrick
ramsey = herrera
cazorla > mata
Sanchez > di maria

Overal for the past 2 seasons:

Carrick > coq
Ramsey > herrera
Cazorla = mata
Sanchez = di maria

And for the teams:
ozil, sanchez, walcott, ox, ramsey, wilshire, coq, cazorla, rosicky, arteta, flamini,

>

Di Maria, Mata, young, herrera, felleni, januzaj, carrick, blind,

As a midfield as a whole.

(my feelings on the matter)

Well no as of right now it's just:
Carrick > Coq
Herrera > Ramsey
Mata > Cazorla
Fellaini > Sanchez

I assume you mean for this season as a whole

And I said right at the start I was talking about the first choice midfield on paper, so bringing up Fellaini because he's currently playing better than Di Maria, and bringing up the depth, is irrelevant.

I agree he wasn't hands down better. I think he was better but as Acorns was the one said he was hands down better I wasn't going to ruin my argument by disagreeing lel.