Watched only the first half and he was terrible. Had problems even controlling the ball.
Luis Nani | 2013/14 Performances
- Thread starter Cina
- Start date
- Status
But he does try? He puts a shift in, every game without any debate. He's just not great (or penetrative) with what he does anymore. He smacks it off the full-back's shins, wins a corner, rinse and repeat. I didn't say I was happy with Valencia. I'm simply saying I prefer what he brings to the table, compared to the shite Nani puts out match after match, regardless if he might produce a bit of 'magic' once or twice a season.
Of course his play is defensive, predictable, pragmatic etc but he's not losing the ball all the time like Nani. He's not smacking it into row Z from ridiculous distances. He's not scared to put his foot in at least. Again, I don't rate Valencia highly at all but I'm simply arguing who I would rather have on the team sheet and why.
The rest of your post is simply more of the same. I don't agree, simply. I'd rather both were sold and played their football elsewhere but Valencia is much, much less frustrating to watch for me. That's amazing given how repetitive his play is but that's just how bad I find Nani.
Actually surprised there's such a divided opinion on Nani's performance yesterday, though I suppose I really shouldn't be.
I'd accept that it's harsh to say he had a bad performance when he scored a goal and had a few good shots/crosses but it's hardly right to call it a good performance either when he screwed up so many simple pieces of play as well. That's without even going into his somewhat lacklustre defending for USA's first goal.
Tbh you don't even need to have seen the game to understand what sort of performance it was. "Typical Nani" says it all, both the good bits and bad.
I also don't get why some people are so certain he'll flourish under LVG either. I thought LVG was supposed to rate intelligence over all other qualities? Hard to see him rating Nani on that count.
I'd accept that it's harsh to say he had a bad performance when he scored a goal and had a few good shots/crosses but it's hardly right to call it a good performance either when he screwed up so many simple pieces of play as well. That's without even going into his somewhat lacklustre defending for USA's first goal.
Tbh you don't even need to have seen the game to understand what sort of performance it was. "Typical Nani" says it all, both the good bits and bad.
I also don't get why some people are so certain he'll flourish under LVG either. I thought LVG was supposed to rate intelligence over all other qualities? Hard to see him rating Nani on that count.
Why not watch the game and form your own opinion?
The issue here is that you are letting your hate for Nani's frustrating decision making cloud your opinion. It is the entire issue in terms of Nani contra Valencia, everybody likes Valencia as a person and plenty of people absolutely hate Nani as a person. So the posts comparing the two is incredibly biased like stating Nani has a shit match every game - which isn't correct by any means.
This season Nani had the highest amount of successful dribbles per game in United, more so than Januzaj/Rooney/RVP/Mata. Young and Valencia together has less dribbles per game than Nani alone. Nani loses the ball less by making a mistake or by an opponent getting it from him than Welbeck, Rooney, Mata, Januzaj. He has 1.5 shots per game, so the talk about him sending it to row Z with his shots repeatedly through-out games are generalizing bullshit. Nani has more successful tackles per game than Rooney/Mata/Young/Kagawa.
Nani has poor statistics in terms of interceptions, similar amount as Mata, Januzaj and Young who with RVP(and Nani) are the worse in teh team in terms of this.
Nani had one bad game this season against Everton, he has been among our higher rated offensive players most often when he has played.
Valencia has been picked because he suits tactic of using defensive wingers better.
And this is where I stopped reading. You haven't a clue what's driving my opinion.
I can't watch all the games.
Note the fact I'm not commenting on whether Nani had a good game... I'm commenting on whether Nani and Sanchez were equally wasteful... Which is a simple question to solve... By looking at the stats.
Do the stats count the number of times the ball rolled under his foot out of play, everytime he miscontrolled it, or gave a shit pass that a teammate couldn't control?
Yes they include loss of possession through poor control in the statistics. They don't as far as I know count it against him if a player makes a pass which the teammate controls - then loses because the opponents closed in. If a pass is so bad that the teammate won't reach it or it becomes a 50-50 then it counts as a missed pass I believe.
This is a very difficult question because it is true that LVG rates intelligence extremely high, but more than intelligence he rates tactical discipline. Two things that Nani is quite bad at, at least the intelligence bit but LVG wants his wingers to stretch the pitch in a 4-3-3 like offense, stay out wide until they receive the ball but when they do it is nothing he rates higher than dribbling ability.
LVG's tactics are really shit for someone like Ribery who wants to get involved around the pitch, who is extremely intelligent as a player and has world-class tactical discipline.
LVG's tactics basically has the wingers in the least intelligence demanding role, they camp out wide and that is it and when they receive the ball they always have to beat one opponent but more often than not it is two as the opponents knows this about LVG's tactics as well.
Who do you want between Nani and Valencia to be up against two defenders, if the only existing option is to beat them and passing back-wards again is unacceptable? That is Nani's ace game and Valencias worst one.
So there is some logic behind why Nani ought to be better with a stricter role, it means less free thinking for him and more pragmatic crosses or plays centrally as soon as he beats his man. He doesn't even need to beat his man, just staying wide and having the opponents doubling up on the winger means there is more space centrally.
I rate Nani, but I wish nothing else than us buying Draxler and playing him and Januzaj while keeping Nani as a back-up for whenever Draxler/Januzaj are out of form. It will happen inevitably as they are young as we have seen with both of them, especially Januzaj.
There's your answer.
classic Nani. Nice goal, followed by plenty of wrong decisions, miscontrols and poor play
And a couple of nice passes and crosses.
I am not sure if Nani is mentally strong enough to stay in England, some of our fans and the media are far too openly critical of him.
A couple of relatively poor games and they will all jump on him.
He would have to start off with a bang next season and keep playing at a high standard to win most of them over.
A couple of relatively poor games and they will all jump on him.
He would have to start off with a bang next season and keep playing at a high standard to win most of them over.
Doubt anything he does will turn people. Even when he was possibly the worlds best winger the same people was on his back every time he made a poor decision or had an off game. People have decided how he always plays and who he is and it'll stick.
The main difference between Nani and Sanchez is that Nani created just 0.5 chances (passes that led to a shot) a match while Sanchez created 1.7 chances per game. Three times more.
Now some can say that not all dangerous passes are marked as "chances created", true enough, but it's like that for both players. Sanchez was integral in the first goal against Spain, but he did not get assist, key pass or nothing substantial out of it as well. Not to mention that Sanchez is also dribbling considerably often (5.3 against Nani's 3), so more loses of ball are understandable.
Now some can say that not all dangerous passes are marked as "chances created", true enough, but it's like that for both players. Sanchez was integral in the first goal against Spain, but he did not get assist, key pass or nothing substantial out of it as well. Not to mention that Sanchez is also dribbling considerably often (5.3 against Nani's 3), so more loses of ball are understandable.
You're ignoring crosses.
Anyhow, my point wasn't that Nani is as good as Sanchez. He's not. I'm just saying we have people in here complaining that he's giving the ball away far too much in his matches at the World Cup, while going crazy about Sanchez in another thread. Yet Sanchez has given the ball away more.
Today was another 7 times tackled
People are happy if a player give ball more, but delivers something really threatening. Or dribbles. But when a player just loses the ball and creates really little as Nani, all these loses become simply unjustified.
And yes i ignore those crosses that failed to find a teammate. Nani did that way too much as well. Look at Portugal's second goal. And look at the quality of Ronaldo's delivery. Straight to the head of Varela. Chance created and an assists as well. Nani's crosses mostly were simply nowhere near this quality.
I suspect you're making this up as you go along. Got a link to back any of that up?
Every website has a different name for it. Whoscored defines it as this in their statistics for example "
Turnover
- Loss of possession due to a mistake/poor control"
Failed dribbles which leads to loss of possession counts as Turnovers as well, whereas if you lose the ball because your opponent took it from you without you attempting to dribble him it is called "Dispossessed"
So the less a player dribbles, the more likely he is to have great turnover statistics. Zlatan and Suarez are in the top 15 in this, so if you are a creative and dribbling player you will have a worse turnover rate.
Dispossessed, meaning losing the ball without even attempting a dribble is the worst stat to score highly in. Rooney, Ribery, Hazard and Gotze scores really high in terms of losing the ball per game.
Rooney should be excused in my eyes as I consider him a second striker more than a playmaker, if you do consider him a good number 10 he shouldn't be excused of course in comparison to the other AM's out there.
Last edited:
Nani created and scored. He also put in crosses like Ronaldo's, I guess its was Nani's fault that someone wasn't in a good position and could shoot on target like Varela with the goal
He found teammates with his crosses only once in the whole two games. That is a Nani's fault. A good player do not just cross the ball, he crosses it to smb. There were three USA defender there with Varela, Nani would have probably picked out on of the defenders, and you would say "oh, dangerous cross, not his fault Varela did not make it". But Ronaldo actually crossed the ball, so that all of the opposition defender were duped and the ball came straight to Varela.
You're falling over yourself.
Nani has found teammates with his crosses 2 out of 12 attempts so far. A good cross is not always met with a good leap from a forward, or rather it might be met with a better one from the defender. You have to actually watch and see that he put some good balls in, which you'd be blind not to have seen.
Okay two, just did not check the stats, only one of which ended with a shot though. Still a dreadful delivery. And i don't care what half-assed crosses people label as a good ball in. If you are a top player, you need to make sure you get the ball to the partner and he can shot. Not get the ball somewhere in a dangerous area close to the partner. But to the partner. Sanchez manages that, creating a lot of chances. Moutinho manages that. But not Nani, he just managed to create a single chance for his partner in two games.
Why is that exactly?
If there are only a few players in the box and you have time then you can pick out a player. If there are many people in the box then the winger needs to cross the ball into dangerous areas leaving it up to the attackers to get to it.
Being dangerous or producing magic is fine but most important are the foundations; being able to scare the living craps out of a defender means little if you can't retain possession during simple build-up play. As a manager you'd take all day a player competent in possession who is okay at crossing than someone who gives the ball away a lot and delivers a brilliant cross per half. The team isn't all about one player and the bread and butter of passing the ball and retaining possession in the build up is er...the bread and butter.
Stats also suggest that Leon Britton is one of the best midfielders in the premiership. Stats in football can be very misleading especially if used blindly, as you admit in this case.
There are many different ways to lose the ball. One is by failing to make a simple pass, another is by dribbling past two players and marginally running out of space. If you fail to take subtleties into account the stats are meaningless. There are players who hardly ever lose the ball but they are not normally the best players.
Put in a better overall performance against Ghana.
Was Portugal's best player in the World Cup - not a big achievement considering the side is impoverished. Created a few chances and showed great link-up play. However, not very effective as a whole. I'm not sure what the plans are for him, but there's definitely something to work with.
Was Portugal's best player in the World Cup - not a big achievement considering the side is impoverished. Created a few chances and showed great link-up play. However, not very effective as a whole. I'm not sure what the plans are for him, but there's definitely something to work with.
He wasn't really involved today. His head didn't seem in the game too much, maybe he wanted to play a safer game after giving the ball away so much against USA. His cross led to Ronaldo's first goal, and also a great cross for Ronaldo at the end, but that's all really.
i have never seen such poor passing by a team of Portugal's standing. Everyone misplaced passes including Ronaldo. A lot were also weighted poorly.
Even so Ronaldo could have had 4 or 5 goals.
Nani seemed to be on a safety first mode but still made some good plays in the second half. Hopefully a good preseason should set him straight.
Even so Ronaldo could have had 4 or 5 goals.
Nani seemed to be on a safety first mode but still made some good plays in the second half. Hopefully a good preseason should set him straight.
Agreed. I honestly don't mind if Nani is sold. He's not, in any, integral to our side. His best spells (second half of 09/10, 10/11, and the first half of 11/12) gave me hope that he would produce very good performances for us consistently. I still don't know what happened at the end of 11/12 that led to Fergie wanting to sell him, but he's not exactly done much since. Part of that is injuries. He was much more explosive. However, he's 27 and a very talented winger. Bar the game against Germany, he's been consistent for Portugal since the game against Greece. I wouldn't be surprised if he stays, under a manager who will probably have more belief in him than Moyes ever did.
Didn't see the game but heard a Portugese journalist saying he was fairly anonymous. Poor team generally so I wouldn't read too much into his WC though, either good or bad. There were an awful lot of players on that team who contributed less than him though.
Don't think Nani being kept or sold will have any major impact on us next season. If he is sold it really won't be difficult to replace him, if he's kept then we can expect the limited impact we're used to.
Reading what journalists covering us have been saying though I'd be surprised if he's still here after the summer. Sounds like we'll snap their hands of if a club puts in a decent bid.
Don't think Nani being kept or sold will have any major impact on us next season. If he is sold it really won't be difficult to replace him, if he's kept then we can expect the limited impact we're used to.
Reading what journalists covering us have been saying though I'd be surprised if he's still here after the summer. Sounds like we'll snap their hands of if a club puts in a decent bid.
He improved second half and actually put in a few dangerous crosses. First half he was typical off-form Nani, took too many touches and gave the ball away very cheaply.
Allegedly happy with his/Portugal's World Cup although I'm not sure the quotes justify the headline.
http://talksport.com/football/man-united-man-nani-pleased-portugal-world-cup-showing-14062698634
http://talksport.com/football/man-united-man-nani-pleased-portugal-world-cup-showing-14062698634
Barely seems happy with that, just seems as if the Portugal camp as a whole have accepted they didn't deserve to go through, which is true, Nani was one of their better performers, if not their best performer and he as also woeful. Really weird, every single Portuguese player looked so rusty and uninterested, I wonder why
It didn't look like a happy team did it?
Turns 28 in the first half of next season. Fecking depressing that he seems to have regressed as he enters his peak years. Valencia's done the same.
Really unusual for footballers to deteriorate as they enter their late 20s. Sucks balls that this has simultaneously happened to our two best wingers. Especially when you consider that it was only a few years back you could make a very good case for them being the best wingers in the league, with seriously bright futures ahead. Ironically, the two of them probably peaked the last time they played against our incoming new manager.
Really unusual for footballers to deteriorate as they enter their late 20s. Sucks balls that this has simultaneously happened to our two best wingers. Especially when you consider that it was only a few years back you could make a very good case for them being the best wingers in the league, with seriously bright futures ahead. Ironically, the two of them probably peaked the last time they played against our incoming new manager.
He's happy with that one game, nothing more. So the headlines is definitely misleading.
Good point, makes you wonder if they're worth keeping for one more chance under a manager who is known for getting players back on track. The CL match against Bayern was incredible, they were both immense, so effective but at the same time so enjoyable to watch.
- Status