2015/16 Barclays Premier League Thread

Can't wait til Mertesacker & Flamini fuck off

Why? The trequartista role differs enough from both the second striker and the attacking midfielder to deserve its own word, it would be difficult to properly describe a player like Francesco Totti without it. I suppose you could say number 10 instead, but number 10 is pretty much the most useless role description in football as it could mean just about anything.

But as usual the English media are already declaring him shit just because they've never heard of him.

Because it doesn't mean anything. I'm sure trequartista is a wonderful Italian word that sums up the nuances of the role perfectly, but for an English speaking audience its essentially meaningless and used by the sort of people who have read Inverting the Pyramid and now think themselves qualified to manage a football team.

In fact, I blame Jonathan Wilson entirely for this. His use of foreign words such as these and Cantera do absolutely nothing to clarify what he actually means and its just an exercise in using untranslated foreign words in an effort to sound smart. Not to mention that he seemingly makes no distinction between these terms, its a trequarista when an Italian club uses one, an Engance if its Argentinian or an attacking midfielder if its an English one.

At least with both of those you can at least see what the person is getting at.

But I blame FM, too, for fostering this notion that players perform 'roles' on the pitch. When even Guaridiola admits he gives his attacking players virtually no instructions do people really think the likes of Steven McLaren are saying anything more to their players than 'play behind the striker' and so on??

Players do perform roles though. There is a distinct difference between playing a position and a specific role that's been moulded around some set instructions given. They aren't one and the same. Take someone like Pirlo for example. While he lines up in midfield and is often be the deepest playing one. At face value he'd be considered the "holding player" for the position he takes on the pitch. However, his role and instructions for that position are nothing of the sort. Instead those defensive duties are largely carried out by the other two midfields he plays alongside.

A lot of sports have generic positions but those positions can contain different ways of being played aka roles. As someone that follows the NBA, it's something you'll see regularly there also. Football isn't much different in that sense.

See Pirlo is an interesting case in point of exactly what I mean. Do you think Pirlo plays like how Pirlo plays because he has been instructed to perform a 'role' or do you think its just because he's Andrea Pirlo and that is his game?

I think its the latter, and whilst I don't doubt that players get an incredibly detailed set of specific instructions to counter the opposition and to exploit them too as well as more generalised comments regarding how the manager wants them to approach the game the idea that they're performing specific player roles is a misnomer. More accurately players are individuals and bring their own take to a position.

It's definitely the former, considering he was never that type of midfielder until he was moved into that deeper role and instructed to play in the sort of way he has done. Over time he became a more refined player and this has allowed him to extend his career in the manner he has done.

Gattuso and Ambrosini are also similar cases because the roles they were given helped accommodate Pirlo and balance the side out. The same applied once he moved to Juventus and the change which was had to have the side work around him. Without these sorts of specifics there's no way a side could employ this sort of player and certain systems or styles.

Just because specific instructions are given doesn't mean a player still cannot have their own individual influence. There's still an element of freedom that can be had when assigned certain instructions. The level will differ though depending how structured the overall team is set out. Take a manager like Mourinho who is very rigid with his systems and likes his players to perform their role in a very specific way. Someone like Pep on the other hand works in a more free flowing way. While he still requests certain things from players, there's a greater freedom had in terms of how the job is performed.

Again, to take it back to the NBA for a moment. The perfect example is the point guard position. He's usually the main ball handler, he'll run the offence and organise the side overall. However, not all PG's operate in the same way. There are times when their role is reduced; a good example is when the 76ers had Iverson. Great creative player, scorer and ball handler and he'd often play the PG role from the SG position, Eric Snow (76ers PG) would take a secondary role at times. This wasn't just a natural move, though Iverson did command the rock and was the sides best player by a country mile, it was the way the Sixers were also designed to run and players were given specific instructions and roles to make sure the system ran in a smooth fashion.

Sometimes without roles and certain instructions systems fall apart because the continuity isn't there. While there is no hard and fast rule, there's certainly a valid argument.

Goalkeepers
1 Gomes 13 Gilmartin 34 Arlauskis Unassigned - Pantilimon
Defenders
2 Nyom 3 Britos 5 Prödl 6 Ekstrand 14 Paredes 15 Cathcart 16 Aké 25 Holebas 27 Belkalem 31 Hoban
Midfielders
7 Jurado 8 Behrami 17 Guédioura 21 Anya 22 Abdi 23 Watson 29 Capoue 33 Dyer Unassigned - Amrabat
Forwards
9 Deeney 10 Oularé 20 Berghuis 24 Ighalo

Actually you know what's worse than 'enganche' etc. -'Distribution' - when did passing or kicking become 'distribution'. And why do some people rate it so highly? - how many goals does a keeper contribute towards by having accurate kicking?