[VOTE] Team of the 21st Century - CDM - Quarter Finals

[Michael]

27 minutes ago, Stan said:

What's this 'silent job' thing you keep mentioning?

It's probably not the silent job your thinking about.

[Inverted]

Kante over Busquets lol. Busquets basically defined the modern CDM, and Kante has never played as one. 

[Cicero]

2 minutes ago, Inverted said:

Kante over Busquets lol. Busquets basically defined the modern CDM, and Kante has never played as one. 

Yeah never really got why people picked Kante 

[Inverted]

1 minute ago, Cicero said:

Yeah never really got why people picked Kante 

Played as the box-to-box player in a 2 under Ranieri and Conte, and since then has played advanced in a 3. 

I think if any manager was ever actually dumb enough to use him as a CDM, he'd be completely wasted. 

[Stan]

49 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think it's that whole thing of the unsung midfielders that do a lot of the work that's not necessarily the most flashy, but they do the basics right 99 times out of 100.

Yeah thought so. Just think it was weird seeing it called that. 

I personally wouldn't really say silent job. I think it's more an 'unsung hero' kind of thing. They do the dirty work and put in the hard yards defensively. It gets noticed but as you say it's not as noticeable as the flair players in the side that would grab the goals and do all the silky skills. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

Yeah thought so. Just think it was weird seeing it called that. 

I personally wouldn't really say silent job. I think it's more an 'unsung hero' kind of thing. They do the dirty work and put in the hard yards defensively. It gets noticed but as you say it's not as noticeable as the flair players in the side that would grab the goals and do all the silky skills. 

Tbh, I think most players playing at CDM would probably fall into that unsung hero role as well. You're not going to be a good deep lying midfielder if you're not doing the basics right all the time.

[Mpache]

52 minutes ago, Michael said:

I think it's little to do with them being in the EU. Look at Serbia, Turkey and Bosnia(Non EU nations) as some examples, they have loads of players around Europe, with many at top clubs in top leagues. There are scouts everywhere this day and age and if there is a good talent in South America, believe you me the European clubs will know about it. Football is big business and the European clubs are always on the look out for talent, wherever it may be in the world.

I can tell you that most Russian players stay in Russia, because the Russian clubs pay good money, that's why it's only a few of their best players who play in the Western Leagues. Ukraine already has loads of players at European clubs, so you are wrong with Ukraine, a large number of their players play in the West, look it up.

I understand the knockout competition perfectly well and that teams can sometimes get an easier draw. But I beg to differ about Croatia, they had an excellent team and they deserved their place in the final. I wouldn't say that Brazil, Belgium and Uruguay were better than Croatia either, I think all those teams are at a similar standard, well at least they were at the World Cup.

 

 

The EU does hold big importance. Serbia is a good counter argument due to their past but could you imagine if they were apart of the EU? They'd look as stacked as Croatia. I don't think I've heard of many Turkish players and looking at their squad really doesn't strike up my memory much. Bosnia have had Dzeko at top clubs and that's it. Also, all 3 are European countries. Not being in the EU hinders them a bit, but being European makes them easier to identify. Also I checked Ukraine's national team and most of their players are still in Ukraine. Meanwhile some of their best such as Yarmolenko are at clubs like West Ham. That's not a top team and proves my point further. If Croatia wasn't part of the EU, they'd have at most 1 or 2 players at top clubs.

I am a scout and I work for a club. The use of Instascout and Wyscout helps a lot, but there is also a barometer for what will make said player succeed at a certain club. It's risky to bring players from South America to Europe if they don't have an EU passport and don't dominate their leagues because of genetics. Europeans are often taller and European clubs put an emphasis on strength way more than South American clubs. So there's a large criteria, but it doesn't mean the talent and attitude isn't there. Also some players are made to look worse and less useful at certain clubs. I know Peru is a good example of this because once our players leave the Liga 1, they get way better. Raul Ruidiaz and Luis Abram being good examples of this.

Agents play a big part too. Agents in Peru are a disaster. Some of them aren't even registered, which doesn't say much about their actual talent but the lack of work and need to fill in their pockets does. Andre Carrillo going to Saudi Arabia is a big example of this, after a successful World Cup there was a selling point and they agreed to send him to Saudi Arabia. Our agents are terrible.

When it comes to having an EU passport, I'd say Venezuela and Argentina are the ones that have the most. Venezuelans because of the large Spanish influx and Argentina because of the Italians and Germans. Meanwhile Brazil is a 5 time world champion and have had some absolute legends of the game both in the past and in recent times, so it's obvious they are going to look in a place that has a strong reputation. The same goes for Uruguay.

As for the west side of South America, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia and Bolivia have all had some top players yet only had at least 2 players at top clubs at a time. Disregarding the legendary Peru team of the 1970's because rules were different and that was before all the money kicked in, in the fantastic 4 era, the only one to play for a top club was Pizarro. Farfan was one of the best players at Schalke, and Vargas was one of Fiorentina's best when he had joined. Guerrero was in Brazil still coasting and not yet fully matured. Ecuador had good players between 2000-2010 yet the only player that comes to mind to have played for a top club this century was Antonio Valencia. Chile's golden generation had plenty of top players. Medel, Aranguiz, Bravo and Vargas all capable of playing for top clubs, yet the only 2 that did were Sanchez and Vidal unironically their 2 best. Colombia's golden generation had them at lots of western European clubs but the only ones who played at "top clubs" were Cuadrado, James and Falcao. Finally, Bolivia haven't had any top players this century but in the 1990's they had some great players that were disregarded for being Bolivian and not having an EU passport. The likes of Etcheverry and Platini Sanchez. The latter did play for Benfica though.

I've talked to big clubs when I tried to offer players to them and they always ask me first "does he have an EU passport" and if they don't, they try to get out of the situation by saying "we can't sign him because he doesn't have an EU passport". I only offer players now to the club I work for but I have a close friend who's an agent and has the same issue. Being part of the EU is extremely important for top clubs.

 

[Mpache]

Also, Croatia were not excellent in the World Cup. They had an easier side of the bracket and had no game plan most of the time. They relied on Modric and Mandzukic to put their quality to use. They also didn't win a single game in regulation in knockouts, which doesn't always mean much but from what I saw there was a perfectly good reason they didn't.

They were the feel good story of 2018 and that made people think they are better than they actually were. Uruguay and Brazil would have shat on Croatia if they met just as France did in the final.

We are all entitled to our opinions but they were about as good as Denmark coming from my side.

[Dr. Gonzo]

Tbf to Carrillo's agent, going to Saudi Arabia was likely a guaranteed way to make sure that Carrillo got a huge payday. It might not have been the best move for career longevity and being taken seriously as a top player - but it also may have been the best way for him to make money after looking seriously shite at Watford.

[Mpache]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

Tbf to Carrillo's agent, going to Saudi Arabia was likely a guaranteed way to make sure that Carrillo got a huge payday. It might not have been the best move for career longevity and being taken seriously as a top player - but it also may have been the best way for him to make money after looking seriously shite at Watford.

His Watford form didn't help him, but he at least had a selling point to his talent and that was international form. Something Casarreto (his agent) could have taken advantage of. Instead he decided to fill his pockets and send him to Saudi Arabia, which in fairness isn't the worst league and is much better than is made out, but it's still a massive step down.

Carrillo was also very good at Sporting before he started to deny a new contract in favour of a move to Benfica. Since then he's not been the same at club level.

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Vader said:

His Watford form didn't help him, but he at least had a selling point to his talent and that was international form. Something Casarreto (his agent) could have taken advantage of. Instead he decided to fill his pockets and send him to Saudi Arabia, which in fairness isn't the worst league and is much better than is made out, but it's still a massive step down.

Carrillo was also very good at Sporting before he started to deny a new contract in favour of a move to Benfica. Since then he's not been the same at club level.

International form doesn't always translate to club form. And when you start looking much better as an international than you do at the club level, I think it says something about your talent overall tbh. I'm not sure Carrillo's agent can be blamed, when it looks as though he'd had a pretty decent career growing for himself before he pushed for a move to rivals and didn't kick on and in fact regressed. And I think that's something that says something about his attitude tbh - seems like a "money first" sort of player.

Which I can't really begrudge, because at the end of the day it's a job. And it's a job where you put your body on the line. But I do feel like often times agents are given a lot of shit simply because they're pushing for what their client works, and people want to blame the agent behind the scenes - rather than blaming the person that's given instructions to their agent and had the agent run off to do their jobs. It's easy to blame people like Mino Raiola and Aidy Ward, because they're unlikeable dickheads, but they are really just doing what they've been told to do. They just don't have any shame in trying to accomplish their goals for their clients and push their clients to behave unprofessionally.

I think Carrillo instructed his agent: "find me a move that makes me a lot of money" and at first he was given a chance to perform at Watford. And if that loan had gone well with Watford, he'd have suitors in England and likely would have gotten a lot of money. But instead he looked pretty shit. And a move to a league in a country where the wealthy are extra wealthy because of the black gold that comes out of the ground may have been the best way to get close to premier league wages... without needing to be good enough to be a premier league player.

[Mpache]

Just now, Dr. Gonzo said:

International form doesn't always translate to club form. And when you start looking much better as an international than you do at the club level, I think it says something about your talent overall tbh. I'm not sure Carrillo's agent can be blamed, when it looks as though he'd had a pretty decent career growing for himself before he pushed for a move to rivals and didn't kick on and in fact regressed. And I think that's something that says something about his attitude tbh - seems like a "money first" sort of player.

Which I can't really begrudge, because at the end of the day it's a job. And it's a job where you put your body on the line. But I do feel like often times agents are given a lot of shit simply because they're pushing for what their client works, and people want to blame the agent behind the scenes - rather than blaming the person that's given instructions to their agent and had the agent run off to do their jobs. It's easy to blame people like Mino Raiola and Aidy Ward, because they're unlikeable dickheads, but they are really just doing what they've been told to do. They just don't have any shame in trying to accomplish their goals for their clients and push their clients to behave unprofessionally.

I think Carrillo instructed his agent: "find me a move that makes me a lot of money" and at first he was given a chance to perform at Watford. And if that loan had gone well with Watford, he'd have suitors in England and likely would have gotten a lot of money. But instead he looked pretty shit. And a move to a league in a country where the wealthy are extra wealthy because of the black gold that comes out of the ground may have been the best way to get close to premier league wages... without needing to be good enough to be a premier league player.

On the first point, international form may not always translate to club form, but if you find yourself showing more talent, it's for something don't you think? A player like Carrillo doesn't look so shite for a club consistently then play out of his skin for the national team if he wasn't good.

And yeah - he's a money first player as he's proved before. As we would say in South America, he's a "pecho frio". Very weak attitude, but his agent still has a track record of not sending his players to the best clubs.

[Michael]

5 minutes ago, Vader said:

The EU does hold big importance. Serbia is a good counter argument due to their past but could you imagine if they were apart of the EU? They'd look as stacked as Croatia. I don't think I've heard of many Turkish players and looking at their squad really doesn't strike up my memory much. Bosnia have had Dzeko at top clubs and that's it. Also, all 3 are European countries. Not being in the EU hinders them a bit, but being European makes them easier to identify. Also I checked Ukraine's national team and most of their players are still in Ukraine. Meanwhile some of their best such as Yarmolenko are at clubs like West Ham. That's not a top team and proves my point further. If Croatia wasn't part of the EU, they'd have at most 1 or 2 players at top clubs.

I am a scout and I work for a club. The use of Instascout and Wyscout helps a lot, but there is also a barometer for what will make said player succeed at a certain club. It's risky to bring players from South America to Europe if they don't have an EU passport and don't dominate their leagues because of genetics. Europeans are often taller and European clubs put an emphasis on strength way more than South American clubs. So there's a large criteria, but it doesn't mean the talent and attitude isn't there. Also some players are made to look worse and less useful at certain clubs. I know Peru is a good example of this because once our players leave the Liga 1, they get way better. Raul Ruidiaz and Luis Abram being good examples of this.

Agents play a big part too. Agents in Peru are a disaster. Some of them aren't even registered, which doesn't say much about their actual talent but the lack of work and need to fill in their pockets does. Andre Carrillo going to Saudi Arabia is a big example of this, after a successful World Cup there was a selling point and they agreed to send him to Saudi Arabia. Our agents are terrible.

When it comes to having an EU passport, I'd say Venezuela and Argentina are the ones that have the most. Venezuelans because of the large Spanish influx and Argentina because of the Italians and Germans. Meanwhile Brazil is a 5 time world champion and have had some absolute legends of the game both in the past and in recent times, so it's obvious they are going to look in a place that has a strong reputation. The same goes for Uruguay.

As for the west side of South America, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Colombia and Bolivia have all had some top players yet only had at least 2 players at top clubs at a time. Disregarding the legendary Peru team of the 1970's because rules were different and that was before all the money kicked in, in the fantastic 4 era, the only one to play for a top club was Pizarro. Farfan was one of the best players at Schalke, and Vargas was one of Fiorentina's best when he had joined. Guerrero was in Brazil still coasting and not yet fully matured. Ecuador had good players between 2000-2010 yet the only player that comes to mind to have played for a top club this century was Antonio Valencia. Chile's golden generation had plenty of top players. Medel, Aranguiz, Bravo and Vargas all capable of playing for top clubs, yet the only 2 that did were Sanchez and Vidal unironically their 2 best. Colombia's golden generation had them at lots of western European clubs but the only ones who played at "top clubs" were Cuadrado, James and Falcao. Finally, Bolivia haven't had any top players this century but in the 1990's they had some great players that were disregarded for being Bolivian and not having an EU passport. The likes of Etcheverry and Platini Sanchez. The latter did play for Benfica though.

I've talked to big clubs when I tried to offer players to them and they always ask me first "does he have an EU passport" and if they don't, they try to get out of the situation by saying "we can't sign him because he doesn't have an EU passport". I only offer players now to the club I work for but I have a close friend who's an agent and has the same issue. Being part of the EU is extremely important for top clubs.

 

I don't get your point as regards to Croatia and Serbia. They are both nations that are equally scouted by the teams in the Western European Leagues. Serbia's national team is full of foreign players playing in the big leagues of Western Europe, similar to the Croatian players. Serbia being out of the EU is irrelevant, it wouldn't make a difference if they were in the EU. Well, if you did know more about Turkish players, you will know that most of their best players play in Western Europe. Cengiz Under, Cenk Tosun, Merih Demiral, Caglar Soyuncu and Ozan Kabak to name a few.

As for Bosnia, they have had a history of players playing for top teams in the West, even when they were Yugoslavia, they had Safet Susic. Since independence they have had players like Hasan Salihamidzic(Bayern), Sergej Barbarez(Dortmund), Elvir Baljic(Real Madrid) off the top of my head from the 2000's and today they have many players plying their trade in the West, besides Dzeko, so really your point doesn't stack up. Being in the EU or outside the EU makes little difference.

Nice try with Ukraine's national team, but Ukraine have many players playing overseas, the only players who stay are at Shakhtar Donetsk or Dynamo Kiev...why? Because like the rich Russian clubs, they pay high wages and they are the two dominant teams in the country. What the hell has Yarmolenko playing at West Ham got to do with anything? You do know that he joined West Ham from Dortmund(an elite club!), but they were looking for elite players so they sold him to West Ham. As for Croatia, whether they were in the EU or not, they'd still have the same players, I don't know what you are on about to be honest. Those players they have today, wouldn't vanish if Croatia wasn't in the EU. They would still be snapped up by the Western European clubs, just as the Serbian, Brazilian, Nigerian players are. Bottom line mate, if you are good enough, you will be bought.

I understand the concerns of clubs regarding certain players from certain countries and how they see them adapting to their country and their respective league. Physique obviously plays a big role, especially in today's football, but also clubs look at how prospective players are likely to adapt. But to be completely honest, for the elite clubs this is less of an issue. The players at the top clubs get high class treatment and they are made very comfortable, which helps most players settle.

As for the South American players who were internationals for their countries, the ones who were good enough would of gone to Europe, while the ones who weren't wouldn't have, its as simple as that. You mentioned that from Chile that only Sanchez and Vidal played at top European clubs, did you forget about Bravo, who essentially flopped at Man City. Didn't a Marcelo Salas play for Juventus in the 2000's? Tell me, why do you think that a European club wouldn't buy a South American player if he is good enough? Heck there are loads of African players who come to Europe at a very early age and no African country is a part of the EU as far as I am aware.

I know that you fancy South American teams, but to say that Brazil and Uruguay would of certainly shat on Croatia at the World Cup is a joke. What like how Croatia shat on a Messi led Argentina 3-0 at the World Cup? lol

Anyway, you are entitled to your opinions, but I guess we disagree on this one.

 

[Mpache]

Argentina were way behind Brazil and Uruguay in the World Cup my friend. It's not even a close debate. I even said back then that Argentina made Croatia look better than they were.

I didn't forget Bravo. He also played at Barcelona and was pretty good. The problem is he rotated a lot and I don't think it's fair to completely base him off that. So I didn't mention him. I'm also talking about current times, so I could have mentioned Salas, Zamorano, Caszely, Figueroa and players from other nations such as Cubillas, Palacios, Julio Cesar Valdivieso, Willington Ortiz, Pibe Valderamma, Alex Aguinaga and many more.

I'll disagree on everything else, but you're wrong on that Europeans don't care about an EU passport. They only get a few spaces and want to preserve it for the best of the best, leaving them to be picky. I know it's a fact because I've offered South American players to Molde and Charleroi a few years ago. They both just asked me if they have EU passports as the first thing. When they didn't, they went with the excuse that they wont sign him because of that.

So it's important to all clubs I'm afraid. Agree to disagree on Croatia at the World Cup, but the EU mattering is actually a fact I'm afraid.

[Dr. Gonzo]

40 minutes ago, Vader said:

On the first point, international form may not always translate to club form, but if you find yourself showing more talent, it's for something don't you think? A player like Carrillo doesn't look so shite for a club consistently then play out of his skin for the national team if he wasn't good.

And yeah - he's a money first player as he's proved before. As we would say in South America, he's a "pecho frio". Very weak attitude, but his agent still has a track record of not sending his players to the best clubs.

Imo if you play well only in internationals, you’re probably a player that does well as a big fish in a small pond. This is a pretty extreme example but it being extreme proves my point.

David Healy for a while was constantly banging goals in for Northern Ireland. Despite being a striker that delivered on the international stage, he wasn’t a great striker by any means and was never a top flight level striker.

I suspect we’ll never really agree on how we value international footie. But for me on these lists, it’ll always be my last consideration of how I view these players and it’ll carry less weight than how the players performed at their clubs.

[Michael]

35 minutes ago, Vader said:

Argentina were way behind Brazil and Uruguay in the World Cup my friend. It's not even a close debate. I even said back then that Argentina made Croatia look better than they were.

I didn't forget Bravo. He also played at Barcelona and was pretty good. The problem is he rotated a lot and I don't think it's fair to completely base him off that. So I didn't mention him. I'm also talking about current times, so I could have mentioned Salas, Zamorano, Caszely, Figueroa and players from other nations such as Cubillas, Palacios, Julio Cesar Valdivieso, Willington Ortiz, Pibe Valderamma, Alex Aguinaga and many more.

I'll disagree on everything else, but you're wrong on that Europeans don't care about an EU passport. They only get a few spaces and want to preserve it for the best of the best, leaving them to be picky. I know it's a fact because I've offered South American players to Molde and Charleroi a few years ago. They both just asked me if they have EU passports as the first thing. When they didn't, they went with the excuse that they wont sign him because of that.

So it's important to all clubs I'm afraid. Agree to disagree on Croatia at the World Cup, but the EU mattering is actually a fact I'm afraid.

Yes, granted Argentina were not as good as Brazil and Uruguay at the World Cup, but I just made that point to emphasise that Croatia were a very good side who won 3-0(a heavy result) and that no way would Uruguay or Brazil be guaranteed to beat them easily. I honestly don't see much of a difference between Croatia, Uruguay and Brazil, they are all great national teams, who have many good players. 

I understand that there are limitations in terms of the number of Non EU players that certain European clubs are allowed. But look at Belgium, they have loose restrictions on the number of foreign players at their clubs. Some of their clubs have like 16 to 20 Non EU players in their squads. Even in the leagues where there are tighter restrictions, yes there may be limits, but like I said, if the non-EU player is good enough, they will be snapped up as one of the players in their non EU quota.

As you already know, with you being a scout yourself, there are scouts from European clubs all over South America. They are always looking for talent over there. 

I don't know why Charleroi used the excuse that they gave you. Perhaps it was their polite way of saying that they weren't interested in the player. Because Charleroi have like 16 non EU players in their squad and they are not the only Belgian side that has loads of non EU players, some sides have like 20 non EU players.

Either way, I think that the restrictions on non EU players that certain leagues have, only makes a small difference. If a player in South America is good enough, you can guarantee that the many European clubs will be after him.

[Mpache]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Imo if you play well only in internationals, you’re probably a player that does well as a big fish in a small pond. This is a pretty extreme example but it being extreme proves my point.

David Healy for a while was constantly banging goals in for Northern Ireland. Despite being a striker that delivered on the international stage, he wasn’t a great striker by any means and was never a top flight level striker.

I suspect we’ll never really agree on how we value international footie. But for me on these lists, it’ll always be my last consideration of how I view these players and it’ll carry less weight than how the players performed at their clubs.

Looking at David Healy's record, he's scored plenty vs the likes of Lichtenstein, San Marino, Azerbaijan and the likes. Sorry I'm not having that example. 

Anyways as you said, agree to disagree.  

[Michael]

5 hours ago, Vader said:

His Watford form didn't help him, but he at least had a selling point to his talent and that was international form. Something Casarreto (his agent) could have taken advantage of. Instead he decided to fill his pockets and send him to Saudi Arabia, which in fairness isn't the worst league and is much better than is made out, but it's still a massive step down.

Carrillo was also very good at Sporting before he started to deny a new contract in favour of a move to Benfica. Since then he's not been the same at club level.

The Saudi Arabian League is probably the best league in Asia alongside the Chinese League. These two leagues have wealthy clubs that are able to buy decent foreign players. The Saudi clubs are allowed 7 foreigners per club, so no doubt that increases the strength of their clubs. Carillo actually plays for Al-Hilal, who are top of the league and who are traditionally considered the best team in the country. But having said that, you are right, playing in Asia for a player of Carillo's quality is a huge stepdown. I thought he used to play very well, back when he was at Sporting Lisbon as well. As you have said, he's clearly gone to Saudi Arabia for the money.

I personally think that when he finishes his stint in Saudi Arabia, that Carillo should try his luck at a Spanish club. There would be no language barrier there and the style of football in La Liga would probably suit him more than the Premier League. But he definitely needs to challenge himself at a stronger league, to test himself at a higher level.

 

[Michael]

1 hour ago, Vader said:

Looking at David Healy's record, he's scored plenty vs the likes of Lichtenstein, San Marino, Azerbaijan and the likes. Sorry I'm not having that example. 

Anyways as you said, agree to disagree.  

David Healy only really grabbed the headlines when he scored the winning goal in a World Cup against England. Northern Ireland beat England 1-0 and David Healy's photo was pasted all over the British papers the next day. He also subsequently scored a hattrick against Spain in a European Championship qualifier and he also bagged a goal against Germany. You're right though, most of his other international goals were against teams of the level that you mentioned.

At club level, Healy only really hit it off when he was at Preston and when he played for Leeds United. He pretty much flopped at the other clubs that he was at.

[Spike]

I don't think De Rossi, Keane, or Kante are/were really CDMs. A lot of these players attack too much. When I think of DMs I think of players that don't attack at all, Busquets, Mikel, van Bommel, Nigel De Jong, etc.

[RandoEFC+]

I think people are best off voting on who they think the best player is. I tried to organise them into three groups of 16 similarish players but that was always going to be far from ideal. If you get too hung up on which position it is then that's where players start losing out because they've been shoe-horned into a different type of midfield role, or they played multiple positions in their career and I had to choose one.

[RandoEFC+]

Anyway, semi final time.

[Mpache]

5 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I think people are best off voting on who they think the best player is. I tried to organise them into three groups of 16 similarish players but that was always going to be far from ideal. If you get too hung up on which position it is then that's where players start losing out because they've been shoe-horned into a different type of midfield role, or they played multiple positions in their career and I had to choose one.

It's like comparing a striker to a defender.

It's excusable when it comes to a left back or a right back (similarly in advanced positions) but comparing a box to box to a holding midfielder is unfeasible. Completely different type of players.

We all make mistakes and that's fine. People should vote on what they believe is the best philosophy for a lineup I think.

[Stan]

Just now, Vader said:

It's like comparing a striker to a defender.

 

Behave.

[Mpache]

Just now, Stan said:

Behave.

Comparing a box to box (which is all round a dynamic player) to a primarily anchor man is completely unfeasible.

Putting Lahm as a LB is annoying but really Rando is right when it comes to that because they are very similar to right backs, just it really takes adapting with similar traits.