Lucas has not improved.

[LFC 6 Times]

he's boss, he has a poor game on saturday after traveling half the way across the world and arriving on thursday. Saturday's game was the first time i remember him having a poor game for a very long time, some of you cunts have a vendetta against an honest player who does a very good job for us. I ask what are you looking from your defensive midfielder? he does the essentials very well, his tackling is immense, his first touch is nearly always spot on his passing although not spectacular keeps the play ticking over and he consistently has a completion rate of 80% plus. His finishing is very poor and is a facet of his game that needs some serious work, but let's not forget he Mascherano was equally poor in front of goal if not worse.

[zigackly]

I think that that is true of some statistics, but your example of Sissoko is poor.

 

It really isn't. Poor players often have to tackle a lot more to cover up for bad positional sense and/or a poor idea of how to jockey a player into a less dangerous situation. I am not saying this is the case with Lucas, but WHENEVER I see someone talk about pass completion or tackling it sets off big flashing red lights and whirling sirens in my head because if you dig a bit deeper you will often find someone who does not know how to watch the goddamn game.

 

I could make all the arguments on the world based on what I see, but they would be largely wasted on people who simply see the game in a different way.

 

With Didi (and again I am not comparing him as a player with Lucas, so hold fire with the hysteria) I could talk about his strengths all day without resorting to a single stat. Are you honestly saying there is so little

in common with how you and I see football that you cannot defend Lucas except through recourse to stats, or is it that you actually have little to say about him otherwise?

 

I find that very disappointing, whatever the reason. I reckon I could have a good go at defending Lucas through talking about his attributes, yet you say you cannot.

 

How do I see football by the way?

 

I'm well aware of exaggeration as a literary device. It's not the first time I've seen you claiming to redress the balance. You do not do that, you principally just add more weight to the negative arguments and justify it by saying people are eulogising him. You seldom argue against anybody who is insulting his ability. Again, it's bollocks to say that the truth is somewhere in the middle. You might find essays excusing his slightest of errors on RAWK, but not here, so why are you posting about it here?

 

Actually I reckon if you go back through the history of Lucas threads you will find me defending him against hyper-criticism when he was poor, stating that he was neither great nor shit when he became a little better, and questioning him slightly now he's sliced bread. That's consistent with me not being entirely convinced either way about him, which is still, funnily enough, precisely what I am saying now. You can't lump me in with the people calling him shit just because you have a massive hardon for him. He's average to decent, which is all I've said all along.

 

And if you'll excuse me, I won't be conceding that you with your 1350 posts since May last year have been party to every Lucas discussion that I have on here. In fairness far less people blow smoke up his arse than used to, so perhaps I should quit the fence and start to be more critical, because to be frank he's been here long enough without ever showing that he has any chance of a place in the Liverpool pantheon.

 

I don't think he was awful but he wasn't great. I'm sure you're right the break played a part in it, but his critics haven't tempered their criticism with that in mind, have they? It's fair enough to say he's had a poor game, but people come in here and talk about how he's not good enough for a top 4 club, he's holding us back, he's shit... etc., etc., when his contribution on Saturday was fairly innocuous and would be unworthy of comment from pretty much any other player. He plays a blinder like he did against Chelsea last season or the Mancs, and it's either glossed over or 'it has to become a more regular thing'... it is nowhere near a balanced portrayal of his worth as a player,

 

Are you asking me to justify his worst critics now? You are clearly conflating me with other people's points of view, which is ok for a bit of pointscoring perhaps, but doesn't exactly enable a mature discussion.

[shaunstrudwick]

pwned

[Heinze]

Here's more than 20 midfielders miles better than Lucas in the Premiership. As you can see, most clubs have at least one. We have three.

 

Gerrard

Adam

Henderson

Feillani

Arteta

Tiote

Cabaye

De Jong

Milner

Toure

Barton

Modric

Parker

Meireles

Ramires

Rodwell

McCarthy

Mulumbu

Petrov

Essien

Wilshere

Cleverley

How many of them can pivot?

[silverlining]

Yup, that's a full on arse-kicking, right there.

To be honest, I skim-read it at first, saw the use of the word 'conflated' and knew it was all over.

 

You see 'conflate' in a post, and you know the other guy is going *down*

[TheResonator]

It really isn't. Poor players often have to tackle a lot more to cover up for bad positional sense and/or a poor idea of how to jockey a player into a less dangerous situation. I am not saying this is the case with Lucas, but WHENEVER I see someone talk about pass completion or tackling it sets off big flashing red lights and whirling sirens in my head because if you dig a bit deeper you will often find someone who does not know how to watch the goddamn game.

 

You will find that with people who refer to stats and who do not. The reason it is beneficial to refer to stats particularly in his case is that he has often been criticised for giving the ball away too frequently -- which leads people to quote pass completion. Other people will claim we need a better 'destroyer'... well, what is a destroyer if not someone who makes tackles and disrupts play?

 

It's not my fault you can't see this. I'm not arguing those points for the sake of disagreeing with you personally. I think his best attributes are the speed at which he moves the ball and keeps possession, his reading of the game, and the support he offers to the full backs. But I do not take issue, principally, against the people who hold a difference of opinion on those areas of his game. My argument is with people who just come in and give it the blanket 'he's shit' or 'we've got to do better'.

 

With Didi (and again I am not comparing him as a player with Lucas, so hold fire with the hysteria) I could talk about his strengths all day without resorting to a single stat. Are you honestly saying there is so little

in common with how you and I see football that you cannot defend Lucas except through recourse to stats, or is it that you actually have little to say about him otherwise?

 

Why do you presume that I am disagreeing with you, or your viewpoint?

 

For all your pomp, you have totally missed the basic points of my argument, which are these: 1) that stats do have a certain merit in advocating or negating the ability of a player - the point you initially pulled me up on, and 2) that you come across as very negative towards Lucas and that I find your claims that you are just 'redressing the balance' to be an unfair portrayal of your role in these discussions, whether you realise that or not.

 

Understand that I am not biased, I couldn't care less about who you are and whether you like or dislike Lucas, but I will happily call you on talking shit, and when you are in here claiming total objectivity and dismissing everybody elses opinions, you are patently talking shit.

 

I find that very disappointing, whatever the reason. I reckon I could have a good go at defending Lucas through talking about his attributes, yet you say you cannot.

 

The difference between us is that I can see that would be a waste of time. Let me give you an example. Myself and someone who thinks Lucas is totally shite watch the same game. We see the same passages of play and form different opinions on the merits and virtues of the player playing. My opinion on what he has done that is 'good' and the other persons opinion on those exact same things have led to two completely antipodal points of view. When you watch a match, you come away from it with an overarching opinion of what has happened, but that is an opinion basic on a myriad of unscientific, chaotic data, which both paints a more and less 'real' picture of the truth than statistics.

 

A recourse to statistics is that whilst they are innately imperfect, they do add a degree of incontrovertible objectivity on certain matters. For example, a striker who scores a lot of goals is probably a better footballer than one who doesn't, wouldn't you say? Whether they're tap ins, or screamers, 'they all count' as the saying goes, and if a player is knocking in 20 a season he'll be seen as a good goalscorer no matter where they came from.

 

I agree that some stats are pointless, but your homogenisation of them all is indicative of your totally simplistic point of view on the matter and the reason I took issue with them in the first place. I see 'tackles made' by a player whose job it is to disrupt possession as an important statistic. You don't - that's fine. But there is a method to the reason that I argue it rather than simply a lack of having any other arguments to make; that method being that I tailor the argument - in some respects - to the audience. A consummate detractor can deride what you say you have seen, but it is more difficult for them to deride statistics. And, to be honest, I would have liked to credit you with more intelligence than having to spell that out.

 

Actually I reckon if you go back through the history of Lucas threads you will find me defending him against hyper-criticism when he was poor, stating that he was neither great nor shit when he became a little better, and questioning him slightly now he's sliced bread. That's consistent with me not being entirely convinced either way about him, which is still, funnily enough, precisely what I am saying now. You can't lump me in with the people calling him shit just because you have a massive hardon for him. He's average to decent, which is all I've said all along.

 

I can't think of any way worse way to spend my time... and who thinks he's sliced bread? Who has a hard-on for him? Me? I've acknowledged that I think he's a decent centre-mid by premiership standard, good enough for a top four team, I'm not saying he's the best player in the league or in Europe.

 

Again, I don't think you're aware of how you put yourself across.

 

You're arguing with people like Jairzinho and myself who are not calling him sliced bread or whatever but just saying that he's come on and doesn't deserve to be pilloried for one poor performance, but when silverlining is writing ridiculous lists of 20 players in the league better than him, all you have to say is 'I suspect that's going a bit far the other way'.

 

In other words, you are far more willing to argue against the people who are in here supporting them than those calling him shit. Where are your essays against people who are saying he's not good enough?

 

And if you'll excuse me, I won't be conceding that you with your 1350 posts since May last year have been party to every Lucas discussion that I have on here. In fairness far less people blow smoke up his arse than used to, so perhaps I should quit the fence and start to be more critical, because to be frank he's been here long enough without ever showing that he has any chance of a place in the Liverpool pantheon.

 

On the first part, I guess I've only read your opinions over the last year. Forgive me. I'm sure the vicissitudes of your ideas throughout the preceding period were compelling fare, and would completely preclude me from disagreeing with how you present yourself in the here and now.

 

On the second part, that is your honest opinion - fine. So say that without trying to play the high-and-mighty arbiter of discussion. What I am principally arguing against is not only your snidey comments about stats but your self-delusion or misrepresentation - whatever it is - when you remark that 'the truth is somewhere in the middle'. You come across as a complete hypocrite as far as I'm concerned.

 

Are you asking me to justify his worst critics now? You are clearly conflating me with other people's points of view, which is ok for a bit of point scoring perhaps, but doesn't exactly enable a mature discussion.

 

A perfect example of your hypocrisy, deriding me for refusing to take part in a mature discussion after accusing me of having a 'hard-on' for a player in the paragraph above. Deary me.

 

I don't confuse you with posters like silverlining. You just purport to be a lot fairer than you are and come across as a pompous twat as a result.

Edited October 18, 2011 by TheResonator

[zigackly]

The reason it is beneficial to refer to stats particularly in his case is that he has often been criticised for giving the ball away too frequently -- which leads people to quote pass completion. Other people will claim we need a better 'destroyer'... well, what is a destroyer if not someone who makes tackles and disrupts play?

 

Making tackles is or should be a subset of what a defender or a "destroyer" does. As I have mentioned, good positioning and an ability to guide or jockey an opponent into a less dangerous position are just as important, as are closing down opponents or passing angles and making interceptions.

 

Whilst tackling stats are relevant to judging these players therefore, they are not by any means the whole picture. As far as it goes, I think Lucas is a decent player in the midfield but perhaps a little reactive, though not half so as was Momo Sissoko, who I gave as an example specifically because he was tackle-hungry and energetic, but not otherwise a great defensive midfielder.

 

If you want my opinion on great defensive midfielders, I would give you Guardiola, Hamann and Effenberg off the top of my head, none of whom were prolific tacklers.

 

I think his best attributes are the speed at which he moves the ball and keeps possession, his reading of the game, and the support he offers to the full backs. But I do not take issue, principally, against the people who hold a difference of opinion on those areas of his game. My argument is with people who just come in and give it the blanket 'he's shit' or 'we've got to do better'.

 

Now that's more the way I like to discuss football. Now we are talking about his attributes as a player and how you see him. That's the kind of discussion I personally prefer to have about football, rather than some disconnected numbers which mean very little in the context of play and do not offer the kind of objective comparison between players which they purport to.

 

I disagree as much as you do with people who give blanket opinions on players. Whether it's "he's shit" or "he's great". Both are meaningless mouth-noises.

 

Why do you presume that I am disagreeing with you, or your viewpoint?

 

Because you took pains to attack me as a poster rather than speak to me about the subject in hand. That I responded in kind is to my shame, but I was a bit put out that you would do that when I don't believe we have ever even talked before. It seems a bit forward of you to say the least.

 

For all your pomp, you have totally missed the basic points of my argument, which are these: 1) that stats do have a certain merit in advocating or negating the ability of a player - the point you initially pulled me up on, and 2) that you come across as very negative towards Lucas and that I find your claims that you are just 'redressing the balance' to be an unfair portrayal of your role in these discussions, whether you realise that or not.

 

There you go again. I don't think I have missed your point that stats have some merit, but I don't think I ascribe them with as much as you do. I happen to think that most football stats which are quoted on discussion fora such as these are entirely blunt instruments, unsuitable to do anything except paint a wall one colour. There are finer brushes, but the likes of you and I, on the whole, do not have access to them. To rely on the published opta-style stats though is to make a very poor approximation to reality.

 

If I come across as very negative towards Lucas then I am being misunderstood, as I am much more nearly neutral in my view of him. I do not regard him as unworthy of a place in our team in the context of the current squad, but I do not see him as a "Liverpool player". That this also goes for most of the rest of the squad is a source of distress to me, and perhaps that is what you are hearing, but I actually think Lucas is a trier and probably a nice bloke, and have no problem with him playing more often than not from our current set of midfielders.

 

Of course, if you see him as more than that then it will sound negative to you. I expect to Brendan and others I sound too positive. I can't help that.

 

Understand that I am not biased, I couldn't care less about who you are and whether you like or dislike Lucas, but I will happily call you on talking shit, and when you are in here claiming total objectivity and dismissing everybody elses opinions, you are patently talking shit.

 

Here you go again with the personal stuff. Do me a small favour. Go back over all my posts to you in this thread and show me where I have said anything personal to you except for saying that you had a "hardon" for Lucas, which was after you began the ad hominem shit? You won't be able to, and yet you try to paint me as the one with bias and a lack of objectivity here. I don't believe I have dismissed your opinion. In fact as recently as my last post I asked you what it really was. Your opinion, not some stats. What do you think?

 

The difference between us is that I can see that would be a waste of time. Let me give you an example. Myself and someone who thinks Lucas is totally shite watch the same game. We see the same passages of play and form different opinions on the merits and virtues of the player playing. My opinion on what he has done that is 'good' and the other persons opinion on those exact same things have led to two completely antipodal points of view. When you watch a match, you come away from it with an overarching opinion of what has happened, but that is an opinion basic on a myriad of unscientific, chaotic data, which both paints a more and less 'real' picture of the truth than statistics.

 

Without wishing to insult you, that seems to be a terribly sterile way to view the game. For me it is not about objectivity or "scientificness" (both of which I would strongly argue do not and should not apply to a sport, which is part artform, part monument to human endeavour, part tribal identification and part pure instinctive and emotional response). I can't and don't want to view the game dispassionately, and I come here to talk about it with other people who love it. I don't want to take the argument into personal territory, but I think you have outlined above the way you see it, and I don't think there's much compatibility or point in us discussing it because for me what you describe as ideal is uninteresting. I would much rather argue with someone whose perspective I completely disagree with than nod sagely as our calculators tell us all the same answer. Not that they can.

 

A recourse to statistics is that whilst they are innately imperfect, they do add a degree of incontrovertible objectivity on certain matters. For example, a striker who scores a lot of goals is probably a better footballer than one who doesn't, wouldn't you say? Whether they're tap ins, or screamers, 'they all count' as the saying goes, and if a player is knocking in 20 a season he'll be seen as a good goalscorer no matter where they came from.

 

If that's all they can tell us, then they tell us worse than nothing. A striker who scores a lot of goals when the team is set up to feed him will not score as many in a team which is not. What do Torres stats at Liverpool tell us about him as a player? What about his stats at Chelsea? Is it even the same person? I have some background in statistics, pattern recognition and the like, having worked in research in Artificial Intelligence at a high level for some years, and I can tell you that there is no instrument like the human brain for collating and analysing data and discerning pattern, nor will there likely be in our lifetimes. I would much rather hear a human opinion, and if I don't agree then maybe there is something I can learn from it.

 

I agree that some stats are pointless, but your homogenisation of them all is indicative of your totally simplistic point of view on the matter and the reason I took issue with them in the first place.

 

Is my view really simplistic? I don't think so, but I do know that stats are only as useful as the rigor with which they are collected, the size of the sample used to make conclusions, and the degree to which their applicability is tested. It is also important that you measure the right ones.

 

Whilst you are quite correct to state that statistics can in many circumstances present an unbiased and objective view of something, the picture is by definition incomplete and often poorly drawn, even with the best set of statistics you can collate, unless you are looking at a simple model with few variables. The game of football arguably has as many variables as blades of grass on the pitch. Now we try to narrow it down and get objective by analysing some numbers, but pick the wrong ones or get too narrow and you've lost focus.

 

For instance, if two midfielders make the same number of tackles who is better at tackling? You can't say. Let's say though, that one of them makes more successful tackles. Is he a better tackler? What if he plays in a defensively minded team, has more cover and a better partner than the other player? Now which one is the better tackler? How can you quantify it?

 

If I use only numbers to describe the world, I miss essential qualia. I have one orange, and you have two. Who is richer in oranges? The numbers say that you are, but mine is bigger, sweeter and juicier, so the picture the numbers present is misleading.

 

I see 'tackles made' by a player whose job it is to disrupt possession as an important statistic. You don't - that's fine. But there is a method to the reason that I argue it rather than simply a lack of having any other arguments to make; that method being that I tailor the argument - in some respects - to the audience. A consummate detractor can deride what you say you have seen, but it is more difficult for them to deride statistics. And, to be honest, I would have liked to credit you with more intelligence than having to spell that out.

 

For you it is preferable to look at statistics. For me that is inherantly inadequate and unsatisfying. In a world where hopefully we can both acknowledge their inability to completely describe an incredibly complex phenomenon, is it really less intelligent to take my stance and say that they don't interest me? Perhaps it is. I don't claim to have oracular wisdom, even if you believe I do.

 

I can't think of any way worse way to spend my time... and who thinks he's sliced bread? Who has a hard-on for him? Me? I've acknowledged that I think he's a decent centre-mid by premiership standard, good enough for a top four team, I'm not saying he's the best player in the league or in Europe.

 

Again, I don't think you're aware of how you put yourself across.

 

I did allow myself that little dig. If it has wounded you I apologise. I don't think anyone is aware of how they put themselves across by the way, especially as that depends in large part on the observer!

 

You're arguing with people like Jairzinho and myself who are not calling him sliced bread or whatever but just saying that he's come on and doesn't deserve to be pilloried for one poor performance, but when silverlining is writing ridiculous lists of 20 players in the league better than him, all you have to say is 'I suspect that's going a bit far the other way'.

 

I was being just a little bit sarcastic to Brendan. I'm sure he'll get over it though. That boy has very thick skin.

 

I pulled Jairzinho up on a point he made that it is difficult to appreciate the role in the team that Lucas plays. I happen to disagree, and I used Didi Hamann as an example of a footballer most of us appreciate who played in that position. Perhaps to an extent the reason Lucas is not so appreciated is that he's not half the player Didi was, but that's by the bye. It was not my intention to belittle Lucas in comparison to Hamann, but to comment on Jairzinho's theory that Lucas is not appreciated because of where he plays. I think Jairzinho and myself had a decent little discussion about it, and I don't believe either of us walked away thinking less of the other, although I stand to be corrected on that of course. I do appreciate his humour by the way, and there was a little bit of banter going on there, but I doubt either of us felt it to be malicious. Anyway I'm sure he's old enough and ugly enough to speak for himself without your help.

 

The way I respond to various people is often not directed by a fundamental disagreement to the death on the merits of a player but by a minor irk with how they present their argument. In his case, the idea that people who do not rate Lucas are incapable of appreciating the role of a defensive midfielder in the team. In yours, an over-reliance on broadbrush and if you will forgive me, naive statistical analysis over and above an appreciation of the qualities of a player.

 

In other words, you are far more willing to argue against the people who are in here supporting them than those calling him shit. Where are your essays against people who are saying he's not good enough?

 

I think you are looking at this wrong. It's not a battleground where we all sally forth on our horses and swing bits of metal at each other until only the victor is left in the field. We come here to talk about footie. Often we will disagree. Often we will be wrong or biased, or lacking in a real understanding of the game. I have defended Lucas in the past. I have also criticised him. I may very well do both or neither again. I don't have to justify my participation in these discussions to you or anyone else though, and I don't have to march around making sure I am all things to all people or take sides either. I made a couple of throwaway comments about things you and Jairzinho said which I disagree with. I don't know why you want to paint me as some kind of enemy of Lucas as a result unless you are building up to admitting some bias of your own which you have heretofore denied?

 

On the first part, I guess I've only read your opinions over the last year. Forgive me. I'm sure the vicissitudes of your ideas throughout the preceding period were compelling fare, and would completely preclude me from disagreeing with how you present yourself in the here and now.

 

Step down from your ivory tower of self-righteousness for a minute and realise that I was saying that in response to your assertion that I only ever criticise Lucas. I have not and don't. I don't expect you to have read everything I have posted on the subject and would actually be a little frightened if you had and remember it all. However, I do know that I have defended him in the past and may again. Your accusation of bias against him is unfounded as far as I'm concerned notwithstanding that you are entitled to your opinion, however ill-formed.

 

On the second part, that is your honest opinion - fine. So say that without trying to play the high-and-mighty arbiter of discussion. What I am principally arguing against is not only your snidey comments about stats but your self-delusion or misrepresentation - whatever it is - when you remark that 'the truth is somewhere in the middle'. You come across as a complete hypocrite as far as I'm concerned.

 

A perfect example of your hypocrisy, deriding me for refusing to take part in a mature discussion after accusing me of having a 'hard-on' for a player in the paragraph above. Deary me.

 

I don't confuse you with posters like silverlining. You just purport to be a lot fairer than you are and come across as a pompous twat as a result.

 

Thanks. If I might make an observation of my own, I think you may be taking this all far too seriously. I concede that I am an utter cunt at times though, and a bit of criticism always helps in mitigating that. I'm not going to defend myself except to say that many other people don't find me so or at least put up with that for other qualities they find in me and that I am not therefore going to make any special effort to change myself in order to accommodate you.

Edited October 18, 2011 by zigackly

[silverlining]

 

I concede that I am an utter cunt at times though, and a bit of criticism always helps in mitigating that

 

 

I agree with this bit.

 

As for the rest, I think Ressie's main problem is that he doesn't appear to have a sense of humour, and as such can come across sometimes as perhaps a bit pious/ boring/ pedantic/ preachy/ sanctimonious/ smug/ pretentious/ irritating etc.

 

You are all of the above aswell - and a cunt, obv - but at least you do have a decent sense of humour, for which I can forgive any personality dysfunction.

[zigackly]

I agree with this bit.

 

As for the rest, I think Ressie's main problem is that he doesn't appear to have a sense of humour, and as such can come across sometimes as perhaps a bit pious/ boring/ pedantic/ preachy/ sanctimonious/ smug/ pretentious/ irritating etc.

 

You are all of the above aswell - and a cunt, obv - but at least you do have a decent sense of humour, for which I can forgive any personality dysfunction.

 

I'm sure you're quite correct. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything mean to say about you.

[silverlining]

I'm sure you're quite correct. Try as I might though, I can't think of anything mean to say about you.

 

*beams*

[Gym Beglin]

Understanding the modern concept of the DM is not an easy task, and sometimes I think that it offers respite for under-performers, because people don't have a solid criteria by which to mark them.

I think Lucas has benefited from this for a long time, when he's done things wrong people have said it's not his job to do that, and when he's done it right, people have said how brilliant he was.

For me, the DM position is currently a passenger seat, and Lucas is very comfy in it.

[silverlining]

Understanding the modern concept of the DM is not an easy task, and sometimes I think that it offers respite for under-performers, because people don't have a solid criteria by which to mark them.

I think Lucas has benefited from this for a long time, when he's done things wrong people have said it's not his job to do that, and when he's done it right, people have said how brilliant he was.

For me, the DM position is currently a passenger seat, and Lucas is very comfy in it.

 

I don't think that's quite fair re: DM/ holding player/ whatever.

 

Or do you think that the role is generally diminished or anachronistic?

 

You wouldn't find a place in the team for ex-Liverpool players like Hamann or Mascherano? Or current Premiership players like De Jong?

 

Or would you like the player who "sits" to have a few more strings to his bow, like Scott Parker and Yaya Toure (who seems to have played every position in midfield for Shitty).

 

Personally, I loved Hamann, and I'd love a player like him or De Jong or Parker in our midfield. That "platform" is important I think.

 

I just don't rate Lucas at all.

[Gym Beglin]

That's my point, I do rate the DM position personally and love seeing multi-talented players in there. Hamann's ability was physical but also mental, he read things so well.

But my point is that you can also hide there, which Lucas does. Nothing's expected of a player there. When a goal is conceded, it's not directly ever his fault, nobody expects any assists from him, nobody expects any goals from him, very average players can hide there for years if a manager isn't careful.

It the only position on the pitch that offers that protection, where you can't be measured properly, there's always an excuse, always a reason why you don't have to have the best tackle %, or don't have to have perfect pass completion, and so on.

If we continue to waste the DM position, like we do with Lucas, then we'll not kick-on as a team.

[Gym Beglin]

The role of the DM has changed more than any other position because you can't get away with a fouling cunt in there any more. It used to be easy, stick a hard-man in there and let him kick people.

That position, along with GK, have changed drastically in the last 10 years.

[silverlining]

That's my point, I do rate the DM position personally and love seeing multi-talented players in there. Hamann's ability was physical but also mental, he read things so well.

But my point is that you can also hide there, which Lucas does. Nothing's expected of a player there. When a goal is conceded, it's not directly ever his fault, nobody expects any assists from him, nobody expects any goals from him, very average players can hide there for years if a manager isn't careful.

It the only position on the pitch that offers that protection, where you can't be measured properly, there's always an excuse, always a reason why you don't have to have the best tackle %, or don't have to have perfect pass completion, and so on.

If we continue to waste the DM position, like we do with Lucas, then we'll not kick-on as a team.

 

OK, well, I think I see where you're coming from now.

 

And I tentatively agree.

 

But I suppose one could argue the point by saying: why was Hamann a much better DM than Lucas? What proof can you use to make your case?

[zigackly]

OK, well, I think I see where you're coming from now.

 

And I tentatively agree.

 

But I suppose one could argue the point by saying: why was Hamann a much better DM than Lucas? What proof can you use to make your case?

 

If we judge it on tackling stats I suspect Lucas may come out ahead. Only a braindead idiot would argue that he's better than Didi though.

 

Come to think of it, was Didi ever player of the season?

 

Maybe we are both very wrong.

[silverlining]

If we judge it on tackling stats I suspect Lucas may come out ahead. Only a braindead idiot would argue that he's better than Didi in any sense though.

 

Yeah, and the fact that Didi whalloped in a volley or two every season doesn't really add much to the debate.

 

And simply stating the truth - that Hamann was fucking miles better - may not be the empirical evidence required either.

 

What to do?

[Markmywords]

He's a great man to have in the squad but that's as far as it goes for me. When everyone is fit, Liverpool's best starting XI v Manks at home shouldn't have to contain Lucas as holding midfielder. He's decent but very limited.

 

I hoping Henderson's going to become what we need.

[zigackly]

What to do?

 

Turn off your TV set and go out and do something less boring instead I imagine.

[Ezekiel 25:17]

It say's an awful lot that their is this much fallout when he puts in a bad performance, if he were indeed shit saturday would not have had this reaction.

[Gym Beglin]

Yeah, and the fact that Didi whalloped in a volley or two every season doesn't really add much to the debate.

 

And simply stating the truth - that Hamann was fucking miles better - may not be the empirical evidence required either.

 

What to do?

 

If Lucas hit a couple of goals a season it would certainly dampen my Suspicion that he is very average

Guardiola said recently that he reckons he wouldn't have succeeded in todays game. You have to ask how he bases that statement.

[nedved11]

[quote name='moof;2961524

Gerrard

De Jong

Toure

Modric

Parker

Meireles

Wilshere

 

]i'll give you those 7

 

The rest he's on par with (or better than) imo.

 

You've been waiting for him to have a poor game for fucking ages so you can prove you were right.

 

You though Henderson was shite last week' date=' now 1 decent sub performance and he's suddenly quality?

 

You crazay man![/quote']

 

fuck i will not even give those seven

 

i'd have lucas over anyone of them except gerrard and modric

 

let alone u r throwing all kind of midfielders not only DMs

 

this is just crazy, we've got a superb player and still people dont want to be happy and admit it

 

To me he is the best DM in the league unless Modric is considered a DM

 

to be honest, and that might piss some, i think he is better than both alonso and mascherano at the moment

[Code]

Are you a regular in Comedy Store?

[silverlining]

fuck i will not even give those seven

 

i'd have lucas over anyone of them except gerrard and modric

 

let alone u r throwing all kind of midfielders not only DMs

 

this is just crazy, we've got a superb player and still people dont want to be happy and admit it

 

To me he is the best DM in the league unless Modric is considered a DM

 

to be honest, and that might piss some, i think he is better than both alonso and mascherano at the moment

 

Yeah, but the problem is: you're a fucking *moron*

[spider-neil]

it's a little unfair to list the likes of gerrard or any other attacking midfielder as better than lucas because that isn't the job lucas has been asked to do, however the job lucas IS asked to do he does in a very vanilla, meh, blah kind of way. in mash you had a destroyer who hunted for the ball high up the pitch thus the attacking players received the ball faster and in alonso you had a destroyer who had a player who shielded the defensive but had the ability to start attacks from the back and hurt team from a deep position.

 

lucas does neither, he isn't the most mobile of players, he is pounderous and takes far too long to release the ball (a weakness manu exploited time and time) and he doesn't have the strength to shield the ball.

I think lucas is reasonably competent in what he does but I don't think he has the ability to allow us to dominate games especially away from home.

 

I'd be tempted to go with a midfield three of henderson, adam and gerrard, because whilst none of them would sheild the defense as well as lucas (you may disagree but that how I see it) all three of them without question carry more of a threat and if we occupy the opposition half then that gives them less chance to get at our defense.

 

bottom line is I don't think lucas is as bad as we make out because we can field a team that doesn't include him and carry more of a threat going forwards and then defend as a unit when we lose the ball rather than relie on a dedicated holding midfielder.