Kevin de Bruyne

[SykikJV 146]

So DeBruyne is a weak tackler, as is Josh McEachran and Oscar will track back but not known for tackling either. However it's not a requirement of a deep lying playmaker, just be great at positioning to intercept passes and harass. For me Josh has the best vision and passing accuracy of them all and should be in that first team next season. There will be room for all three once a handful of players are let go next season.

You can't draw conclusions like that from some internet statistics-page. He's played his best games in the CM position in a team that's dominant over their opponents.

With all respect to Josh, i doubt that he has better vision/passing then De Bruyne at the moment.

[Bir_CFC 3,455]

Josh is nowhere near KDB's level right now. At the moment, I'd say KDB is better than Oscar too. KDB will be fine, because he's a player who can still influence a match even when his team and players around him are playing bad which we have't seen from even our own attacking mids Hazard, Mata and Oscar. He's a strong character.

I also don't think he'll be right for the double pivot. His passing is way too aggressive, his work rate and positioning is very good but he can't tackle and fouls way too much. Plus you loose so many of his qualities if you push him to the pivot.

He should be a CM in a 4-3-3 or any one of the attacking mids in the 4-2-3-1, he's versatile and good enough to play any 3 of those positions. He'll be a squad player next season for sure. Very excited to see him, I love his play style, so effortless, he makes the game look easy.

[nadavTKL 1,787]

I read (on WAGNH) that De Bruyne's tackle pct% is around 25% which is atrocious. Whoscored.com lists his tackling as "very weak". That's worse than Mata's rating. He does have potential for the pivot but can't see Chelsea handing him an uncontested starting job.

Sorry but its pretty ridicilous that you're saying stuff like that based on stats and what some site listed him. I dont know myself if those sites are wrong because i havent seen him enough, but im definitely wont judge him by stats. For now i will listen more to the guy who saw him every game, but anyway i'll watch him more from now and see myself.

[Mufassir08 2,400]

imo he is the most natural winger we have ....he certainly is the best crosser ... now we have Ba and hopefully soon another striker orLukaku ..I would use him on the right wing

Agreed,His crossing is just wonderful.

[ja1 1,166]

He would be a perfect winger if he had acceleration.

You guys do know it is not just about tackling? I think some of you expect him to be rushing around slide tackling players, an interception is just as good, and effective and something that KDB with his reading of the game and awareness could do well. As I said before he also presses very well, so at least the other player in possession can not just skip past him. He could take adapting to a new role - yes - but if we show patience I believe he could really grow into a great DLP.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

Sorry but its pretty ridicilous that you're saying stuff like that based on stats and what some site listed him. I dont know myself if those sites are wrong because i havent seen him enough, but im definitely wont judge him by stats. For now i will listen more to the guy who saw him every game, but anyway i'll watch him more from now and see myself.

It's not ridiculous. Someone who has a 25% success rate in tackling IS a very bad tackler. There are plenty of stats that don't tell the whole story, but plenty of them also tell you a lot. If someone has a 60% passing rate, they're not a good passer. If someone has 4 goals on 90 shots, they're a poor finisher. One of the positives of stats is that they can bypass subjectivity. It is not possible to have a 25% tackle success rate and not be a very bad tackler. That said, that is right now. Tackling is something can a player can improve on.

[JDY 1,290]

It's not ridiculous. Someone who has a 25% success rate in tackling IS a very bad tackler. There are plenty of stats that don't tell the whole story, but plenty of them also tell you a lot. If someone has a 60% passing rate, they're not a good passer. If someone has 4 goals on 90 shots, they're a poor finisher. One of the positives of stats is that they can bypass subjectivity. It is not possible to have a 25% tackle success rate and not be a very bad tackler. That said, that is right now. Tackling is something can a player can improve on.

His tackle success rate is 76%, not 25. Think you might have confused it with his unsuccessful rate, which is 24%.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

His tackle success rate is 76%, not 25. Think you might have confused it with his unsuccessful rate, which is 24%.

I took it from WAGNH. "He's a terrible tackler at this point, committing fouls or coming up empty on over 3/4 of his attempts to dispossess an opponent."

[JDY 1,290]

I took it from WAGNH. "He's a terrible tackler at this point, committing fouls or coming up empty on over 3/4 of his attempts to dispossess an opponent."

That is pretty wrong then. They are confusing his tackling ability with his concentration when faced with an opponent. His tackling is pretty consistent, but he often gets bypassed too easily. Two different things.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

That is pretty wrong then. They are confusing his tackling ability with his concentration when faced with an opponent. His tackling is pretty consistent, but he often gets bypassed too easily. Two different things.

Then why does whoscored (which is based entirely on statistics) rate his tackling as "very weak"?

[JDY 1,290]

Then why does whoscored (which is based entirely on statistics) rate his tackling as "very weak"?

I don't know. Why does whoscored rate Ba's holding on to the ball as 'weak'? Or Ramires passing as 'weak'. Neither are true. De Bruyne's defensive contribution is not as bad as people make out. He's contributed more in a midfield 3 than Lampard has in the pivot.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I don't know. Why does whoscored rate Ba's holding on to the ball as 'weak'? Or Ramires passing as 'weak'. Neither are true. De Bruyne's defensive contribution is not as bad as people make out. He's contributed more in a midfield 3 than Lampard has in the pivot.

Ramires' passing is weak, 3 assists in 80 Premier League games most of them in attacking positions, shows that pretty emphatically and maybe Ba has been poor holding on to the ball this year. We've seen him in only a handful of games and only had Torres to compare him to. I'm not saying their scoring system is perfect, but it's pretty damn good and "very weak" is extreme and is definitely worth noting. No Chelsea player is graded at very weak for anything which means that statistically, De Bruyne must be awful at tackling. It's something I'm sure he can work on, but I certainly don't think he's ready to start inthe pivot right now.

[JDY 1,290]

Ramires' passing is weak, 3 assists in 80 Premier League games most of them in attacking positions, shows that pretty emphatically and maybe Ba has been poor holding on to the ball this year. We've seen him in only a handful of games and only had Torres to compare him to. I'm not saying their scoring system is perfect, but it's pretty damn good and "very weak" is extreme and is definitely worth noting. No Chelsea player is graded at very weak for anything which means that statistically, De Bruyne must be awful at tackling. It's something I'm sure he can work on, but I certainly don't think he's ready to start inthe pivot right now.

Yeah, was going to say it must take into account assists, key passes etc. I think Ramires' passing is really underrated for the role that he plays. Sure it could be better but I certainly wouldn't say it's weak. Regarding the Ba point, whenever I've seen him his hold up play has been good, but as you say Torres is woeful in this regard, and even previously Drogba could be clumsy at times when keeping it. I'm only going by his time at Bremen, and I would say 'very weak' is quite harsh (76% success is pretty good infact) I didn't see him at all at Genk so maybe he has improved since then, and the rating reflects his time there to?

Don't get me wrong, I wasn't arguing because I think he should play in the pivot, I actually don't think he should (been back and fourth). He could probably develop and do a decent job there, but I don't think it will totally suit him or be worth the hassle in the end (when we have someone like Oscar more suited). De Bruyne's playstyle is too aggressive for the pivot, both with his passing and running with the ball. I'd like to see him on the right or behind the ST where he can utilize his strengths fully.

I think a lot of people see De Bruyne and want to fit him in the team anywhere possible. We see the attack with the likes of Mata, Hazard etc and wonder how he would get in, and he's too talented not to be playing every week.

[DDA 9,937]

So far from what I have witnessed De Bruyne's passing range and selection is better than Hazards. I do love Eden but KDB has a special passing game in my humble opinion.

[TorontoChelsea 4,064]

I think a lot of people see De Bruyne and want to fit him in the team anywhere possible. We see the attack with the likes of Mata, Hazard etc and wonder how he would get in, and he's too talented not to be playing every week.

I think his flexibility is key. He can play any of the three attacking midfield slots immediately, can play midfield in a 4-3-3 and could play in the pivot in a pinch (and a pinch is all we seem to have these days). He could come in next year and play regularly all over the pitch. The only problem is what Chelsea plan to do with Oscar. If they spend big on another central midfielder, then attacking midfield with Hazard, Mata, Oscar, Moses, and De Bruyne means that playing time would be tough to come by. (Look at how much time Marin has received this year).

[The only place to be 11,313]

Then why does whoscored (which is based entirely on statistics) rate his tackling as "very weak"?

Because statistics don't tell the whole story. They need interpretation, which is why they're helpful to interpret what you see on the pitch but aren't a good substitute for that.

It's why some of us still like to watch the matches.

[bushman 2,043]

To watch games at the stadiums is just fine but to see replays on TV gives you a better or closer look at the players & plays.

Almost all of games on TV are analyzed, plays are revised...by reporters.

[The only place to be 11,313]

To watch games at the stadiums is just fine but to see replays on TV gives you a better or closer look at the players & plays.

Actually that's not strictly the case. You're restricted by the director's choices. When you see a player in person you can watch everything he does, the way he moves around the pitch and even his body language. It's why scouts are invaluable to clubs.

So you don't end up with another Bebe.

[bushman 2,043]

Actually that's not strictly the case. You're restricted by the director's choices. When you see a player in person you can watch everything he does, the way he moves around the pitch and even his body language. It's why scouts are invaluable to clubs.

So you don't end up with another Bebe.

quite the contrary.

Scouts are there to view players & I am certain these scouts have those players on videos too for later evaluation.

Even though, I must admit to be at the stadium alive,it must be one heck of a thrill. The surroundings, the ability to boo...

To see it on TV it gives you closer look, details on the players. Today´s technology allows it.

[The only place to be 11,313]

quite the contrary.

Scouts are there to view players & I am certain these scouts have those players on videos too for later evaluation.

Even though, I must admit to be at the stadium alive,it must be one heck of a thrill. The surroundings, the ability to boo...

To see it on TV it gives you closer look, details on the players. Today´s technology allows it.

So you're essentially agreeing with my earlier point that statistics and videos don't tell the whole story.

It's the problem with certain modern-day fans - they rely on statistics without necessarily understanding them. The tackle statistic for example isn't just a number. It's maybe dozens of individual acts that essentially have one of two outcomes (tackle made/not made). But each of those individual acts is a complex series of acts that tell their own story.

In De Bruyne's case, he may have a low tackling percentage but he may only need small adjustments to his game to make him a more effective player. But there's no statistic on whoscored.com that tells you that.