₦airaland Forum

That moment when you want to swallow your vomit but it's too late.

Man utd Play 433, Liverpool play 433, but you wont answer when they ask if Chelsea plays 433.



You did not even at least wait till age forty to become a fool. Ibime the dim one. I hail o

Ibime:
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.

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

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

[size=28pt]Ibime does Chelsea play 4-3-3 yes or no?[/size]

Ibime:
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.

You mean Chelsea plays 433 now?

Ibime:
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.

Roy Keane and Paul Scholes played in that midfield together in 2004. Are you saying that Scholes was the more defensive of that duo?

Walahi you will twist yourself into a Gordian knot today.

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.

Extremely inconsequential facts.

I don't understand how stating that 'Barry' played at Left Back is some sort of arcane knowledge that nobody actually knows.

Like shouldn't that even make Scholes look worse? A left Back having more assists than him?

Ibime:
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.

I specifically zoomed in on 2004 because you said this:

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

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.

Compare and Contrast his output from 2004 when he entered midfield. Is that the output of a 'Productive Midfielder'?

Assists in Green, Goals in Blue...

See so so 1 assist a season from a so called productive midfielder.

Iniesta 582 Total Games for Barca, 180 Goals and assists for Barca. Thats 0.31ga per game

Scholes 696 Total games for Manyoo, 194 goals and assists for Barca. Thats 0.27ga per game.

Scholes has played 114 games more than Iniesta and only has 14 more goals + assists to show for it.

Abeg who is unproductive here?

raumdeuter:
When did Liverpool play 4-3-3 with gerrard there, who were the front 3 for liverpool then and what was their goal return

When did Man city play 4-3-3? Who were the 3 strikers for Man City that time?

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?

I think I've made my point here

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

What does this nonsense even mean.

This is me in 2014

Nihilist:
I'm trebling up on Hazard, Costa, and Fab.

Leicester my 1st love, but dem must chop am

Nihilist:
PvA debut assist btw

And Leicester have fvcking scored!!!!!! 2-2

August last year

Nihilist:
I can only smile at Leicester's blistering start.

Up the Foxes

Let's just hope that Chelsea also do something lovely today

I still clearly dont know myself

Bros....Why does Barry have more assists than Scholes despite playing at Centreback? Is Scholes an Unproductive Nigga...Yes or No?

Ibime:
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.

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:

Ibime:
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

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.

Ibime:
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.

Its a simple question.
Who was the deeplying midfielder and who was the attacking mid in Scholes and Keane?

Ibime:
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.

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

Ibime:
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.

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?

Ibime:
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.

Yes lets do the Maths.

Agbonlahor 73 league goals in 10 seasons (7.3 goals per season or 0.2 goals per game)

Emile Hesky 9 league goals in 4 seasons (0.4 goals per season or 0.09 goals per game)

These are examples of the Wastemen than Barry was assisting. Try and factor these profligate wastemen into your calculations abeg.

And then compare to Scholes playing with Rooney(177 league goals), RVN(95 league goals)

And tell me why Scholes has only 34 premier league assists


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...

Ibime:
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.

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

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

Barry and Scholes are both central midfielders

I no mention anybody name, I just dey report wetin I see for BBC sport

Does anybody remember when Coogar and Starboard were calling for Martinez?

I remember elampiro's defence tgat Bobby was mainly an imposter riding on Moyes coat tails.

ElampiRo was slandered mehn...


Oh the slander...

Just saw in BBC sport that Gareth Barry has more EPL assists than Scholes.

#ProductiveNiggaAlert

raumdeuter:
Are you saying jambody Lukaku is a dead striker?

Lukaku is the only goal threat they have...and is the 4th highest goal scorer in EPL....how can he be a dead striker?

The fact that he has done this inspite of that dummy Martinez should be applauded.

SailorXY:
Talking of Young being preferred by LvG is not a point if you're trying to make sense. We all know LvG is bordering on lunacy.
~ this is the same man that was persistent with Fellaini/Carrick pivot despite dropping easy points like hot potatoes when he had Schneiderlin/Herrera on the bench ~
~ the very same man who introduces defenders for strikers when we are chasing a game & introduces strikers for defenders when we need to close shop ~
~ the same man who moves Martial from LW to RW when he's the only live wire in a game to accommodate Memphis ~
The list is endless but if you are here to mock us you fit start from "e no go better for you", we go understand you better.

I read an article somewhere detailing how Rashford has shown more rare potential in front of goal than Martial. Of this there's no doubt but let me point out here that not every player develop @ same pace regardless of raw skill.

A classic example is Rooney & Ronaldo. Many can argue that Rooney possessed the finer eye in front of goal than Ronaldo when they were newly both under SAF.
Their development trajectory saw Rooney hone his skills more of a support forward & Ronaldo more of finisher. In fact Ronaldo turned out as one of the greatest goal scorers the world will ever see irrespective of his position on the pitch.

Yet nothing suggest Martial & Rashford can't develop a strike partnership akin to Cole & Yorke. I know it's rare you see -2- strikers these days but Suarez/Sturridge come to mind. It is a possibility as long as a manager can improvise & both players are not exactly "hyenas" (in elampiro's voice).

I'm not particularly sure what this epistle has to do with Rashford being a better striker than Martial though...

lalaboi:
My Underestimation of Spurs and and thier title chance is doing me strong thing. . odindin 21points on the bench. and i have the stinkers from Leicester occupying space.

Bros tell me about it. See me watching Everton press conference today to hear if Lukaku would start or not.

And that Oloshious Martinez is saying that the Derby is a priority. Mogbe.

But why is it even up for debate who the better striker is?

At Monaco, Martial played mostly on the left. For United mostly on the left. For France, mostly on the left. In fact, Martial is so untrusted as a 9 that Ashley Young was preferred in that position to him.

Why is it so hard to believe that Rashford is the better 9...especially when he is currently the top striker in team?

Any excuse for insults I guess...

gidola:
What if lukaku comes and bang an hat trick ?

There's as much chance of Lukaku scoring a hattrick tommorow as my grandad doing so...

He's been dead 30 years too

Make Lukaku and Cathcart no just play again this week o.

Make Martinez and Sanchez Flores just save them for the FA cup Jare.

That Alli+Dier combo needs to sub in.

I don't mind sneaking into Lukaku's house and putting laxatives in his tea at all.

Ibime:
In that case Jose should have no problem with De Bruyne because De Bruyne doesn't like to dribble.

DeBruynes game is first time everything - first time pass, first time cross. If he dribbles, its only to create space quickly for pass or cross.

KDB dribbles roughly as much as Silva, Sterling and Navas

The only way your excuse can work is if KDB is seen as a Mourinho-type player that runs himself into the ground, and doesn't waste time on the ball.
But we've seen Dayo's post where Mourinho point blank told KDB that he wasn't good enough for his system...

bigkesh:
We all saw it,didn't we?
Schurrle was average,Willian was clearly better
Salah was just doing rubbish
Cuadrado that was going down more than the naira
As you already said KDB was playing Shit
For those 6months Oscar was clearly better than Mata,I can recall 3 games which Mata started,played trash,Oscar came in and scored.......

Willian and Azpi weren't starters in the beginning,they fought to earn a place....
KDB didn't want to fight for anything.......

I regret losing him though

I don't think Willian has ever been better than Schurrle, though I agree that Cuadrado was crap.

But what we're discussing, or rather what I'm discussing here is whether Jose was directly responsible for KDB's departure

I don't think it's a coincidence that we has only 2 artists in our team last season.

Ibime:
You're just repeating lazy English journalists mantra.

Cuadrado who can barely trap a ball can never be described as skillful.

Schurrle was known as the hardest working winger in football before he contracted the immunovirus which still troubles him to date.

Salah simply suffered the same fate as the DeBruyne - he is the 'small boy' brought in to make up the numbers and take the 6th choice AM position.

Its not a lazy Mantra- It's a fact.

All those players are the type that like to dribble. Remember how Schurrle lost his job?

Willian and Oscar have more in common with each other than with DeBruyne Schurrle or Mata.

You have a point with Cuadrado, though, but it's no coincidence that both Ronaldo and Hazard who are the skilful type clashed heavily with Jose

Ibime:
Nihilist, this is for you.

Don't believe what lazy English journalists float in the Press. The hear the story of how De Bruyne left Chelsea and turn it into hyperbe saying he's lazy and hates running. I heard one fool on 5Live repeating the same mantra yesterday.

When we played Genk in 2011/2012 UCL, De Bruyne covered so much ground that day and you could see then he wasn't lazy. He is a 12km a game man which is as good as any of the hardest working central midfielders in the game today.

I never said KDB was lazy. I just said what ii remembered from him with us, was useless shots and misplaced passes.

Ibime:
Schurrle, Salah and Cuadrado are actually workhorses.

That has nothing to do with it.

Dont assume because Jose got rid of Mata that he can't carry De Bruyne. Matas own case of laziness and physical deficiency is that of a 12 year old boy playing with grown men.

The same Jose that carried Ozil for 3 years in Spain will carry De Bruyne easily.

The funny thing is De Bruyne is actually hardworking. Don't let the debate in the press deceive you.

The situation at Chelsea then was extraordinary in that Chelsea had a nonexistent midfield and Jose had to get the wingers to cover their part of the job.

Only a foolish manager would play Hazard, Mata and DeBruhne ontop midfield of Lampard and Ramires (our starting DMs at the time). The disbalance in the midfield caused Jose to play Schurrle almost every time at the start.

So there are many political, financial and tactical reasons why De Bruyne would not start matches straightaway.

It is nothing for Jose to play DeBruyne when he plays Ozil and Ronaldo in the same midfield.

Come on man, let's not pretend that Jose could do that much transfer-wise at Madrid. How won't have to carry Ronaldo? Could he sell him? Ozil is simply a one of a kind talent that he couldn't afford to sell.

At Chelsea, Jose had a bit more authority, and it showed. Any player percieved as 'skillful' was shipped out and that includes Cuadrado, Schurrle, Salah, Mata and KDB.

The team that won the league last season, weren't exactly Stoke City...but...you know what I mean.

Im not discounting your theory- But Jose would have played KDB if he thought he was good enough...he didn't, so he didn't and so we missed out. I just can't seem anyway Jose is not squarely to blame for that, politics or cost not withstanding

Afterall, Lukaku, Schurrle, Mata, felipe luis etc all cost a fairly large wodge each, and he still chased them all away...