₦airaland Forum

Nihilist:
Ibime why wont you answer my question though....

[size=28pt]
Does Chelsea play 4-3-3? [/size]

Because you are a child, and acting like one.

raumdeuter:
That means almost every team that plays a lone striker plays 4-3-3. Because most teams would play 2 wingers on ether side of the striker

Bayern Robben Ribery Gomez (despite being common knowledge we played 4-2-3-1)
Arsenal 4-3-3 Ozil- Giroud Sanchez
Man Utd - Mata-Rooney-Martial

Yes, they are all variants of 4-3-3.

We are leaving out 4-2-3-1 and 4-5-1 for purposes of better comparability and comparing 4-3-3 with teams that play conventional central midfielders rather than fancy no10s. . . . which is why we chose Chelsea, Liverpool, PSG, Napoli and City (at-times) for better comparability.

I still want to know how Pedro is a striker but Anelka and Dirk Kuyt are wingers.

raumdeuter:
I asked you specifically in case you forgot

When did Liverpool and City play 4-3-3 and who were the 3 strikers at Liverpool and City

The question is as clear as day.

You took the pain to list out PSG and Napoli which no one asked but couldnt use that same time to list out the 3 strikers for City and Liverpool
Could it be that you were lying and know you are about to get caught?

Quit being funny my gee.

Once you have two wingers/wing-forwards lining either side of a central striker, that is a 4-3-3.

I never said the 3 of them have to be STRIKERS. . . . you tried to make that distinction in your desperate and laughable attempt to distinguish Iniesta from Lampard and Gerrard.

So I will ask again, and if you cannot answer, lets end the conversation.

Please explain how Pedro, Isaac Cuenca, Cristian Tello, Munir Haddadi and Neymar are strikers. . . . but Anelka, Kalou, Dirk Kuyt and Ryan Babel are wingers.


When you are finished, tell us how you classed Dries Mertens, Insigne and Lucas as strikers. . . .just so you can find a more favourable comparison for Iniesta.

raumdeuter:
^^ You are forgetting to list the 3 strikers at City and Liverpool who Yaya and Gerrard played behind

I never asked you about PSG and Napoli. So stop spamming the page with inconsequential facts

The 3 strikers when City, CHelsea and Liverpool played 4-3-3.

You have been yarning this nonsense for eons.

I put Napoli and PSG there because you want to count them as 4-3-3 teams, but claim Chelsea is not a 4-3-3. . . . just because you want to compare Iniesta to Matuidi, but not his mates like Lampard and Gerrard.

So please explain how Dries Mertens, Insigne and Lucas are strikers . . . . . but Anelka is not.

If you can convince me of this, then we can move on. . . . . otherwise forget it.

Nihilist:
Scholes didnt even become the deep lying midfielder till circa 2008, but I'ma let that slide because at least 2004 is when you agree that he started playing in central midfield.

In 2004 you had Ronaldo right wing, Giggs left wing, Rooney and Van Nistelrooy upfront. No space for another AM ontop.

We make the distinction because that is the year most teams started adopting 4-3-3, so the 2nd midfielder in 4-4-2 became a lot more defensive which is what Paul Scholes became from 2004 onward.

raumdeuter:
A 4-3-3 has 3 strikers who were the 3 strikers for Chelsea when they played 4-3-3 ditto Liverpool and City

Quit messing around with the same old nonsense.

Name the 3 strikers at PSG:

--------------Ibra

Lavezzi------------------Lucas




or Napoli:

-------------------------Higuain

Mertens/Gabbiadini-----------------Insigne


How is this different from:

-----------------Drogba

Kalou/Malouda-----------Anelka



Pedro is a striker at Barca, but Anelka is a winger at Chelsea. . . . . all because Iniesta is unproductive!

raumdeuter:
When did Gerard and yaya Toure play CM in a 4-3-3

What position were they playing? Left-back?

Liverpool midfield was Alonso-Sissoko-Gerrard or Alonso-Mascherano-Gerrard

Was Lampard playing on the wings also?

Nihilist:
Bros I thank you.

It's patently obvious that when Scholes moved down to central midfield, his Goal and Assist tally dried up significantly.

Abeg Compare Scholes (Above) from 2004 to Iniesta(Below) playing in the same position.

How can Scholes be 'Productive' and Iniesta 'Unproductive' based on what we can see here?

A little information in a child's hands is harmful. When I said you are a child in football, I wasn't joking.

If you give a clown a little information, he will abuse it. Just like when I told you Barry played left-back, you started shouting upandan.

My advice - sit back and let niggas who know more than you discuss.

So all this while we've been discussing, you did not know that Scholes output dropped from 2004 onwards? You are just realising now like a giddy kid with too much information on his hands, and doesn't know how to process it.

Now tell me how Scholes position post 2004 (deep midfielder in a 2 man midfield) is the same as Iniestas position (furthest of a 3 man midfield)?

This is abuse of information by a JJC.

raumdeuter:
Hamsik Gerrard lampard are the dead ball takers for their clubs including FK and penalties

Of all 5 only Iniesta and Matuidi dont take PK for their clubs

Since na only Matuidi you see to compare Iniesta with, then the point is made - Iniesta has found his level.

raumdeuter:
Can everyone stand down for 30mins Ibime oya lets do some numbers

In that list you gave Matuidi, Hamsik and Iniesta are the genuine 4-3-3 CM I can vouch for

I would need further evidence to show Gerrard and Yaya Toure played in a 4-3-3

So stats for Matuidi Hamsik and Iniesta coming

What is the difference between Matuidi, Hamsik, Gerrard, Lampard and Toure?

Care to explain?

For Matuidi, give us his yearly average since he joined PSG, same for Hamsik - let's compare with Iniesta.

ollah1:
Nobody is taking about the duration he spent there. The discussion is in line with your logic (goals and assists).. it means he is Madrid greatest player.

Before nko?

ollah1:
By Ibime's logic. Cr7 is the greatest Madrid player

Ronaldo arrived Madrid in 2009 and became that club's record scorer just 6 years later.

Would you like me to put Raul ahead of him who took 14 years to do the same, or Di Stefano who took 11?

Nihilist:
Ibime today is Thursday abeg.

The simple point is that Barry has more assists than Scholes despite playing in the Pivot(And Left and Centre Back ) for a really shitty team and with really shitty team mates. Is Scholes an unproductive nigga...yes or no?

Also using the equation that you recommended here:


Iniesta is more productive than Paul Scholes. Is Scholes an Unproductive Nigga? Yes or No


The rest of your 'childish' yarns dont't even follow. I entered Uni in 2004 and and attended my first EPL game in1999 - How I only 'understood myself in 2003' is as irrelevant as it is illogical.


Anyway, Just answer the question.

Nigga you were supporting Leicester in 2003. How could you know yourself?

£100 says Scholes is 50% more productive than Barry - place the bet. I no get time for all this long yarns. I want my money.

Dadehmola:
Scholes partnered Ruud in attack that season. We only reverted to a 4-3-3 in the UCL (especially away from home)

Solskjaer started 29 league games that season, Van Nistelrooy started 33 games.

Assuming 38 league games a season, please tell me how many matches Scholes could have played as a support striker.

It's simple Mathematics. Just because Scholes said he was pushed upfront a few times, don't twist facts nigga. By my calculation, that means he started upfront 9 times (in Solskjaers absence) if he wasn't injured himself.

Dadehmola:
Judging by your definition of productivity, Can we confidently say that Gareth Barry was more productive than scholes (despite the later playing in a much more advanced role for a considerable period of his career...and ofcourse, for better team)??

Scholes has 155 goals in his career. What productivity?

Nihilist is a child in football. He only started knowing himself in 2003. Don't get sucked into his foolish analogies based on incomplete information. He would be debating something not knowing I'm holding 3 times as much information as he does.

I could have told him that Gareth Barry's first season in 1998, he played left-back and centre-back the whole season, but I didn't, because he would use that to his advantage.

I could have told him that he spent the next 5 years after that playing as a left-winger, but I didn't. I could have told him he was Villa's set piece taker which is where most of his assists came from, but I didn't.

All I want is my £100 - I want Nihilist to put his money where his mouth is and let's calculate whether Paul Scholes productivity is not 50% higher than Gareth Barry's.

raumdeuter:
Give us 5 AM in a 4-3-3 with good goals return?

I am sure I have seen a post where you called Iniesta a CM

The main teams that play 4-3-3 are Barca, PSG, Liverpool, Chelsea and Napoli to a lesser extent - goalscorers include Gerrard, Lampard, Matuidi and Hamsik. In previous years, we had Man City with Yaya Toure scoring 15 goals a season.

Then we can take it to 4-2-3-1 which is a slight variant and then you have Ozil, De Bruyne, Muller etc etc etc.

Does Iniesta not two have arms and two legs like the players mentioned above?

Nihilist:
You've been told by various manyoo fans thar Scholes played in a more attacking position than Barry for most of his career. Supporting striker, Attacking Mid and only played deep towards the end of his career.

And he played with some of the best attackers ever to play in the UK...yet he has less assists than a DM playing with Agbonlahor and John Carew.

Scholes is less 'productive' than Iniesta....despite playing the same position for most of his career.

Is Scholes an unproductive nigga....yes or no?

You were not alive during that era. Leave experienced niggas to discuss.

1994 to 2004 (before 4-3-3), Paul Scholes did not play more than a handful of games as a 2nd striker. He was the 2nd midfielder in a 4-4-2 for the majority of that period.

2004 to 2013, he was a permanent deep lying midfielder.

Nihilist:
Who is the deeplying midfielder in a duo of Keane and Scholes in an era when 442 diamond was reigning ?

In a 4-4-2 era, you have 2 strikers and the CM can be expected to score 8-10 goals in an good season. Direct comparison with a 4-3-3 would place that player more toward the CM while the second forward would be closer to today's AM. Not direct but comparable.

Dadehmola:
...not to mention the 2002/2003 season when he partnered Van Nistelrooy, scoring 20goals or so.

Everybody wey dey watch ball that year sabi say scholes' sojourn as a permanent CMF started around 2004 Thereabout but Ibime dey find straws to grasp at.

See as e wan shift argument - he wants us to compare like for like when it became obvious that a defensive minded player could actually be more "productive" that an AMF (by Ibime's metrics)!

2003 was the only season Scholes played in a 3 man midfield with Veron and Keane.

He did not partner anyone upfront. Infact Veron was supposed to be the AM of the three, yet Scholes popped 20 goals.

Compare what a productive nigga did in his only season in a 3 man midfield vs what an unproductive nigga (Iniesta) produces every season.

afrodoc2:
Paul Scholes actually played quite a number of matches as a striker earlier on. Between 1994 when he broke into the team and around 1997 when Roy Keane injured his crucial ligament in the first Alf Inge Haaland tackle Paul Scholes was used mainly in attack while first choice midfield was Keane and Butt.
The injury allowed Scholes to gain a starting shirt in midfield with Butt and when Keano got back in 1998 it was Butt and not Scholes who went to the bench.

Jan 1995 to 1997, Andy Cole and Cantona were Utds 2 upfront. No space for Paul Scholes there.

I know what Dadehmola is talking about. His first couple of games he played as a 2nd forward. That was how he was introduced to the Old Trafford crowd.

Nihilist:
Btw using your equation...


Iniesta = (34 goals + 81 assists)/386 league games = 0.30 ga per game
Scholes = (107 goals + 34 assists)/499 league games = 0.28 ga per game


I hope this does not mean what I think it means...

Put your money where your mouth is on the G Barry vs Scholes metric nigga.

This calculation above shows Iniesta an attacking midfielder is barely outproducing a deep lying midfielder which is a shame.

Let us set our terms for comparability.

Xavi = deep lying midfielder. Compare his productivity with Scholes and Barry. Productivity is decreasingly important in that position.

Zidane is an attacking midfielder of the 1990s. Compare his productivity with all attacking midfielders of his time: Rui Costa etc

Iniesta is the attacking midfielder in a 4-3-3. Compare with Lampard, Gerrard etc.

Dadehmola:
I hope you are aware of the fact that scholes started out as a second striker ( he scored majority of his goals from that position) while Barry has played as an anchor man in a pivot almost throughout his career.

Scoles started as the 2nd midfielder in a 4-4-2 with Roy Keane.

He wasn't no 2nd striker, not where Sheringham, Solskjaer, Dwight Yorke, Andy Cole and Cantona dey. He can only have played a couple of games as a 2nd striker.

He and Barry have played the same position for the bulk of their career.

Nihilist:
Or Xavi. Or Zidane. Both of whom Barry played several hundred games more than.

Barry played for most of his career at rubbish teams like Villa and Everton providing assists to ediots like Agbonlahor and Steven Naismith.

Scholes played his entire career for the biggest and most successful team in the EPL era. Yet he has less assists than a bottom feeder than Gareth Barry.

Logic of Production states that if you have more assists supplying John Carew, Juan Angel and Gabby Agbonlahor, than the guy supplying Tevez, Ronaldo, Rooney, Van Nistelrooy and co....then you are more productive

Productivity is goals + assists nigga.

If you are having trouble with Maths, kindly supply us those Barry stats you claim you saw.

We will do the metric

Scholes - (goals + assists)/ games

vs

Barry - (goals + assists)/ games


You can bet £100 that Scholes is 50% more productive than Barry. Put your money where your mouth is nigga.

diggz:
Ibime ....! Nihilist dey find you o....!

Meanwhile @ Nihilist why you wan compare both players in terms of productivity when dem obviously no dey play same position?

Just asking bruv

Nihilist dey always find me.

Paul Scholes has scored double the no of goals of Gareth Barry, while Gareth Barry has played a hundred games more than Scholes so Scholes is way more productive than Barry.

Productivity = goals + assists. . . . .except your name is Hiddeniesta.

raumdeuter:
Well you have to question Barcelona tactics then. Their tactics is to have 3 attackers who are only about scoring goals and they have 3 midfielders who dont contribute to goal scoring rather to recover possesion and keep possesion

Show me a team that has 3 scorers on the level of Barca that still need a midfielder to score for them?

Are they playing defend with 7 and attack with 3?

Funny how I always see them camped in opposition half 80% of the time.

The above post would have me thinking they sat 7 men behind the ball.

Lets be honest nigga. Hiddeniesta cannot score regularly if he lived next door to a whorehouse. The nigga can't shoot and even lacks vision to find teammates in goalscoring positions.

MSN ain't scoring 10 goals a game anymore for the last 2 months. He should contribute something to win the game, like all his mates in his position at other clubs. Mr CarryAlong nigga!

All those models are ugly, both the black and white ones.

Anthony Knockaert would be a good signing for any Premier League club.

Nigel Pearson sidelined him last season over a contract dispute but he was the original Riyadh Mahrez in their promotion year.

Elxandre:
Lol
I think Iniesta's role primarily is to keep possession for Barca.

Even when he was younger, he had terrible goals and assists rate.

I've been saying it since last season that MSN is the secret, and thankfully for Barca they never get injured.

There are many midfielders that keep possession better than Hiddeniesta, if that is all he brings to the table. Xavi and Busquets were already masters of the possession game who can never be outpossessed with or without Iniesta. What we want to see is Iniesta being productive and having vision to find his teammates in goalscoring positions, not stories about how he dribbled 5 players in a harmless area of the pitch.

homesteady:
It seems like if someone does not answer you, your hormones won't stop raging!

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Photo/competitions/Draws/01/85/35/40/1853540_w21.jpg
You see this picture? He won the award before MSN! Or was it Pedro that was carrying him along?
And a reminder - he won the award even after giving just one assist in the Euro 2012 tournament! And his fellow contenders; Messi and Ronaldo, scored 73goals(world record) and 63 goals respectively!

Don't attack me. I'm just expressing my wish that the unproductive nigga contribute something at the business end of the pitch to help Barca through this sticky patch. . . . you know, like every other AM in the world is expected to do?

Telling me he was not able to produce anything at Euro 2012 does not help matters. . . how will that help him contribute to a few Barca goals over the next few weeks?

Spanish Alexander Hleb!!!

I hope that unproductive visionless nigga called Hiddeniesta has been practicing how to finish and make assists in training this week.

I don't want to hear next weekend that he was dribbling 5 men in a harmless area of the pitch, whilst waiting for MSN to carry him along to the 3 points.

Alli Boumbaye! Alli Boumbaye!

lordfalcao:
the guy is just 19 years. how good is he

He's a good number 3, maybe no 2.

He's scored about 18 goals in a team in the relegation zone in the Championship.

Fast, tall, dribbler type of striker.