And 2 out of 3 Italians agree...Kante as a DM brings you trophies. Try as you will to say he isn't a DM but you are just plain wrong. Sarri is playing him out of position. Fact...
Jorginho | Arsenal player
- Thread starter Zoo
- Start date
Clearly not as both choose to put a sitter behind him. Well one did try to make him a lone DM, and it resulted in 9 goals conceded in 6 games.
You'd probably be better off going with 'holding midfielder' rather than DM, because you are bound to be misrepresented. Defensive midfield is a kind of genenaralized role that doesn't exactly point to a particular position. The same way a forward doesn't explain if it is a winger or a centre forward that is being referred to.
Kante = Essien. A player with an unreal engine and explosiveness. He should play as a box to box midfielder. Not as a DM.
Essien had much more to his all round game than Kanté though.
Kanté doesn’t really offer very much if he’s not playing the role he did at Leicester and in his first season at Chelsea. If he’s not going to play that role for Sarri then Chelsea would be better off selling him. They’ll get a hell of a lot for such a limited player that could be invested in someone else.
Was Jorginho even hyped when he was signed? He was getting a lot of praise after his good start but I don’t remember him ever being considered an eye catching signing before the season started.
I sort of agree but, he lacks the versatility Essien had. Essien could excel at basically every midfield role, was a decent RB and was a CB at the start of his career.
Wow, personally I think Essien at his peak was a better player by some distance.
That's arguable. Carrick had numerous subtle attributes, and one that was top percentile in the world, was his two-footedness (ambidexterity), which meant he couldn't be pressed/forced to a 'bad' side and hurried into a-then poor or weak pass. It also meant he could shape towards the ball from any angle and immediately control or relay it without having to think about his actions - Carrick could drag opposing numbers out of position in this manner and render them redundant for a few moments - certainly enough for us to exploit the vacancy - and set us off on our way. He didn't have nimble feet, so could be gotten to in a double-press as he rarely dribbled out of a situation, but in committing more than one man to do that, the opposition also leave huge gaps and a simple pass to the more able Scholes to create chaos would nearly always be on for him.
Carrick's positioning was top percentile, for sure, but the way he could use both feet, as well as progress the ball with them, was absolutely intrinsic to our play. I don't know if it's right to say either attribute was better than the other, more it's right to say he was outstanding in both aspects.
I think the semantics of the term are the issue here. For some, the definition of a DM, is someone who sits at the base of midfield, covers that area specifically and does not go hunting for the ball; others use a much broader stroke of the bush and consider runners/terriers/harassers, or whatever interchangeable term you want to use, as DM's. There has even been a time when the two roles were identified separately as DM and DCM, with DCM meaning someone of the latter category who did run, ball/man hunt and harass all game long.
Some people call the likes of Keane, Vieira, Gattuso, Davids and Essien DM's, where for others, that's crazy talk with, for them, the DM being a strict definition of a midfielder who simply sits for the majority of the game and possibly ventures forward or towards the ball a tiny percentage of the time - the likes of Makelele, Dunga, Deschamps, Mauro Silva and so forth typifying that. I'm using players from past decades because it's easier to define than what we have now where roles are not as set in stone and the way systems are used blurs the lines of what players 'are' quite a bit.
If the issue is semantics, are you saying Kanté is a DM because he is a destroyer? Or are you saying it because you believe he sits and protects and does not vacate his position in pursuit of the ball?
I notice in your terminology, you have 'DM' and 'AM', where is 'CM' if we're to cover all of midfield? Surely that's what Kanté is best described as?
Essien was so much better on the ball.
B..b..but he passes a million times a game! (albeit, sideways).
The midfield metronome we don't deserve. /s
He's like Carrick without the defensive qualities... when Carrick went through that period of completely deferring to Scholes, Giggs or whoever he was paired with in midfield at the time. I could play that current Jorginho role...
He's like Carrick without the defensive qualities... when Carrick went through that period of completely deferring to Scholes, Giggs or whoever he was paired with in midfield at the time. I could play that current Jorginho role...
Do agree that Jorginho could contribute a little more in attack, but he is getting unfair stick. Chelsea has been very reliant on Hazard for some time now and when things don't go their way, you gotta start looking for flaws. Their midfield doesn't have creativity that f.e Fabregas used to bring. Kante is a dynamo, Jorginho runs the ball and Kovacic is similar to Kante. I'd guess if they added a creative force(James-type, not saying him, because Bayern would be fking insane to give him up) to Kante & Jorginho, they would be improve a ton. Obviously there are issues up top too, but i think the main issue right now is creative force from midfield like many of you have pointed out. Fekir could also be interesting
And then you should take into account the times their passe found a player in a dangerous position, who then was able to give the actual assist. They were wonderful, creative players. A very sharp contrast to the ultra conservative, creatively non existent duo of Jorginho and Kovacic.
I consider someone like Pirlo a holding midfileder and someone like Gattuso a DM. One sits deep and dictates the play. The other also plays deep but his job is to win the ball back. Both will join the attack at times but their main job is win the ball and control the ball to set up the attack
When did I ever say to play Kante as a lone DM? I clearly stated several times that they should work together like Pirlo and Gattuso did
Purely as a short fix until the end of the season and desperate attempt to finish top four i'd like us to do the following. Drop Jorginho and move Luiz in front of the back four and put Christensen in Luiz's place. Luiz played in that role under Rafa and was superb. That provides better protection of the back four and Luiz''s vastly superior passing from 5 yards plus will add a bit more creativity to the midfield. When fit again, RLC to takeover from Kovacic. I'd also like to see Drinkwater given some playing time. While not top class, he worked well with Kante and has at least provn himself in the EPL.
Certainly not universal definitions, then. As, Pirlo is generally renowned as one of the best ever deep-lying playmakers most often protected by others to enable him to do his job of dictating play, well that, much more so than defensive nous as he's certainly not the type of player who's going to hold the forte defensively like those usually associated with the actual DM role did/do.
Which is why Kante should be in the Gattuso role while Jorginho should be in the Pirlo role. Then I would put Hazard in the Kaka role with a striker in front of him and two wingers. The way Sarri is playing it, he just has Jorginho in the defensive position and Kante is playing as more of an attacking midfielder along with another midfielder. A similar set up to how City plays with Fernandinho at the base and DeBruyne (when healthy) and D Silva. Only problem is Kante is nothing like either of those two midfielders. This is why CHelsea should scrap the 4-3-3 and opt for a 4-2-3-1...
Oh I don't disagree - said as much myself a few pages back. Just that this confusion over the name of roles was in need of some exposition as when the term 'DM' is put out, things can get really confusing depending on whether a universal definition is agreed upon by those discussing the topic.
The problem is Sarri likes to dare teams to come and press them. His idea is to beat the press with quick passes, then launch a ball forward and counter quickly.
For that to work you need good 1 touch footballers in defence and midfield, but only really Jorginho/Luiz is capable of that.
Napoli were often excellent at doing this, but their team were perfectly suited to that type of 1 touch quick football. Chelsea's team isn't.
With those midfielders Sarri should use 4-2-3-1.
Certain Sarri is fixed in his ways with his possession based 4 3 3.
Chelsea squad has players more suited to 4 2 3 1 or with 5 at the back and wing backs as Conte played, counter attacking football and having less of the ball.
He has adapted this season but still kept 4 3 3. In the home league games against Liverpool and City we had less possession and passes, and drew with Liverpool and beat City. Also in the league cup game we won 2 1 at anfield we also had less possession and passes. In those 3 games we looked much more effective despite sitting deeper and not having as much of the ball.
In the Away games against Spurs and Arsenal where we got schooled, we had over 60% of the ball and far more passes but looked absolutely toothless / dreadful. Against Utd at home we also had far more possession and passes but scraped a draw in the 96th minute. Question is why we played like this when against the top sides we got much better results sitting deeper still with 4 3 3 but conceding possession and counter attacking?
I think 4 3 3 possession based with very high line can work against weaker opposition, especially at home. Still not convinced that having Kante so high up the pitch makes sense though. Would be better to play him deeper in 4 3 3 against the big teams as we did very successfully in 3 games mentioned above and rotate with a more natural attacking player, Barkley? the rest of the time.
Welp I can tell you from going back and looking at Leicester's average positions from their league winning season, Kante was either the deepest CM when playing next to Andy King who was pushed forward as an AM or sitting right next to Drinkwater. There were times where he was slightly behind him too. But safest to say most of the time they were both sitting deep.
I do like how people who havent bothered to look it up are telling the opposite though
Who has won sweet feck all.
I myself am glad others have cottoned on to the fact that he's an overrated manager who is probably only slightly above average
Although I haven't followed his career and hadn't heard about his before he was Napoli manager. I would have thought that he would have won something in that time to have such accolades as the ones mentioned above by such successful managers.
He doesn't seem to spend a lot of time at clubs. Average 1.17 years. He has managed 19 teams in 29 seasons, for some teams it was a very short time 1 game for Avellino where he reportedly had severe problems with the board and for his next team Hellas Verona he was was sacked after winning only 1 game in 6.
Although he had a couple of promotions early in his career.
His path isn't that from the average manager, he had to (quite literally) start from scratch to work his way up to where he is now.
Watching him right now and my word he is awful!
He’s the Italian Mark Noble.
He’s the Italian Mark Noble.
He's fecking wank
Between him and Fred what was Pep thinking? Unless it was part of the master plan?
Between him and Fred what was Pep thinking? Unless it was part of the master plan?
Noble is more dynamic.
He's in a totally unsuitable set up so maybe he'll do better under the next manager (though this one was supposed to get the best out of him like in Naples) but he's so slow and his passing range doesn't look that great. I was expecting a Pirlo/Alonso type after all the hype but he's more like a Leon Britton.
He is a sideways passing machine
How is this not a suitable set up? It's been built around him. Problem is Chelsea aren't as good a 'team' as Napoli were, and this guy isn't top tier anyway.
What? Have you not seen them? They've played the season without a striker or a pole who cant move like Giroud. Their wingers are shite (if Hazard plays inside) and the other midfielders aren't particularly good in tight spaces. It's not exactly ideal for a supposed passing number 6. But I expected to see more evidence of what supposedly makes him so great but there's not much so far.He has been awful for a while now.
He’s as far from a top level player as you’ll ever see.
Nice of you to deflect all the blame to other players. Chelsea are a good football side. The question currently is whether Jorginho is good enough for a club that consistently wins titles as opposed to the other way around.
Also, your explanation has nothing to do with the question. You're describing that's lacking in quality rather than suitability. How is this team not set up to cater to his needs? And how is that solely to blame for his mid table level peformances.
Italian Tom Cleverly getting found
Think you need to focus on your posts actually reflecting what you mean. Nobody is bothered to go through your posting history.
Not suited to this set up