• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Christian Eriksen

I'm not getting this "he is still young" argument. Agewise he is. But he has been playing first team football at a high level and was an international since he was 18. So he is at least 2-3 years ahead of where most players his age would be. In terms of football he's a 27-year old and should be at his peak now.
 
milo said:
Do you agree that he created the most chances and had the most assists last year?
Click to expand...

That's his primary purpose in the team though. It's like saying Vorm saved the 2nd most shots of everyone.

What I'm saying is a better player might create 25% more chances, and I think there is a 25% improvement to be had in that position. Whereas no forward in the world would be able to add anywhere near that extra value compared to Kane.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
The create or tackle argument is a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to do both.
Click to expand...
Yup. But not for EVERY player. Those players who combine Roy Keane with Zidane are few and far between (and would be out of our price range).

Hoddle, for example, created more than he tackled. Eriksen, while no Hoddle by a long distance, creates more than he tackles. Therefore, he does a job that the team needs, as evidenced by his continual selection by Poch. There is a group on here who look at what Eriksen is not best at, the physical side of the game, and place that above what he does do.
 
Gutter Boy said:
That's his primary purpose in the team though. It's like saying Vorm saved the 2nd most shots of everyone.

What I'm saying is a better player might create 25% more chances, and I think there is a 25% improvement to be had in that position. Whereas no forward in the world would be able to add anywhere near that extra value compared to Kane.
Click to expand...
Which player who fits those criteria could we afford to buy and pay their weekly wage? Or which player in our academy/squad could perform in the way you wish?
 
Gutter Boy said:
That's his primary purpose in the team though. It's like saying Vorm saved the 2nd most shots of everyone.

What I'm saying is a better player might create 25% more chances, and I think there is a 25% improvement to be had in that position. Whereas no forward in the world would be able to add anywhere near that extra value compared to Kane.
Click to expand...

But of the three behind the striker he created the most chances and had the most assists per 90 minutes. Agreed?
 
90291Spur said:
There is a group on here who look at what Eriksen is not best at, the physical side of the game, and place that above what he does do.
Click to expand...

But despite that, he is still the player that Poch most frequently asks to drop back and make a three at the base of midfield against the better teams when they are in possession or we are initiating an attack.
 
90291Spur said:
Which player who fits those criteria could we afford to buy and pay their weekly wage? Or which player in our academy/squad could perform in the way you wish?
Click to expand...

Isco earns less than Eriksen's new deal and will potentially need rescuing in January. While Coric will be on pauper wages and seems ready for a move to a big league. It will also be interesting to watch Edwards against Gillingham.
 
milo said:
But of the three behind the striker he created the most chances and had the most assists per 90 minutes. Agreed?
Click to expand...

Yes. But Alli's job is to get into the box to support Kane, while Lamela plays on the deeper side of the wonky and has more defensive responsibilities. Eriksen is supposed to be the playmaker.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Yes. But Alli's job is to get into the box to support Kane, while Lamela plays on the deeper side of the wonky and has more defensive responsibilities. Eriksen is supposed to be the playmaker.
Click to expand...

I don't think that they have such narrowly defined roles. But I'm glad that we agree that Eriksen was the most creative.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Yes. But Alli's job is to get into the box to support Kane, while Lamela plays on the deeper side of the wonky and has more defensive responsibilities. Eriksen is supposed to be the playmaker.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.... Eriksen and Lamela have the same job defensively. Their defensive role is largely centred around ensuring they track their opposing full-backs's forays forward.
 
Gutter Boy said:
That's his primary purpose in the team though. It's like saying Vorm saved the 2nd most shots of everyone.

What I'm saying is a better player might create 25% more chances, and I think there is a 25% improvement to be had in that position. Whereas no forward in the world would be able to add anywhere near that extra value compared to Kane.
Click to expand...
So instead of replacing the player who created the most chances in our team why don't we instead replace the player who has an identical role in the team but created less chances? If we could have a 25% improvement on chance creation by replacing Eriksen, why not instead replace Lamela and have a 35% improvement?

Additionally while you feel that it is easy to improve upon Eriksen, the fact is that in the PL last season very few players indeed created more chances (as I said before I think it was only Ozil that Eriksen was behind and I would argue that Eriksen plays a far bigger part defensively than Ozil does). So the reality of the situation is that it would be nigh on impossible for us to improve upon Eriksen for chance creation.
 
Last edited:
90291Spur said:
Yup. But not for EVERY player. Those players who combine Roy Keane with Zidane are few and far between (and would be out of our price range).

Hoddle, for example, created more than he tackled. Eriksen, while no Hoddle by a long distance, creates more than he tackles. Therefore, he does a job that the team needs, as evidenced by his continual selection by Poch. There is a group on here who look at what Eriksen is not best at, the physical side of the game, and place that above what he does do.
Click to expand...
Indeed.... In our team we also have a high number of players who tackle..... Ignoring the defence there is Dier, Dembele, Alli and Lamela (although sometimes I feel he needs to attempt a few LESS tackles and stay on his feet). I don't think tackling is something we need to think about if looking for a player to replace Eriksen. Our team does not have a problem in winning possession of the football.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Isco earns less than Eriksen's new deal and will potentially need rescuing in January. While Coric will be on pauper wages and seems ready for a move to a big league. It will also be interesting to watch Edwards against Gillingham.
Click to expand...
Isco doesn't want to play for us. He turned down a move to us (even just a loan) before we turned to Sissoko.

Coric is nowhere near ready to replace Eriksen in our first team. He clearly has talent, but would be lost playing for us at the moment.

Edwards is further away from being ready than Coric.
 
Nobody expects him to play like Roy Keane. What they do want, is to see a halt to his ducking out of challenged headers and his refusal to make a second effort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back