Oscar

[didierforever 7,349]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:52, Barbara said:

indeed completely unsurprisingly... then I have to trust some fan-made site as his source. We shouldn't even bother tbh

http://www.transfermarkt.com/oscar/profil/spieler/85314

http://www.transfermarkt.com/isco/profil/spieler/85288

http://www.transfermarkt.com/mario-gotze/profil/spieler/74842

http://www.transfermarkt.com/koke/profil/spieler/74229

http://www.transfermarkt.com/thomas-muller/profil/spieler/58358

http://www.transfermarkt.com/james-rodriguez/profil/spieler/88103

yes, transfermarkt is a completekly made up site. but then who am i to say anything which does not suit barbara the great's argument!!!

so please go thru those stats and shut up about things that you dont know.

[Dion 2,476]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:52, didierforever said:

world cup???

Oh, it's Club World Cup, fair enough. It's weird anyway. On Whoscored Isco has only 1 goal in the World Cup, in Transfermarkt he has 1 goal and 1 assist. Whoscored is usually right though.

Isco:

Whoscored.com - 4 goals, 5 assists.

Goal.com - 3 goals, 5 assists. (CWC not included).

Transfermartk - 4 goals, 10 assists.

Espn.com - 4 goals, 7 assists.

Honestly I haven't slept this last night so I'm tired and not willing to dig the truth behind the numbers.

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:54, didierforever said:

http://www.transfermarkt.com/oscar/profil/spieler/85314

http://www.transfermarkt.com/isco/profil/spieler/85288

http://www.transfermarkt.com/mario-gotze/profil/spieler/74842

http://www.transfermarkt.com/koke/profil/spieler/74229

http://www.transfermarkt.com/thomas-muller/profil/spieler/58358

http://www.transfermarkt.com/james-rodriguez/profil/spieler/88103

yes, transfermarkt is a completekly made up site. but then who am i to say anything which does not suit barbara the great's argument!!!

so please go thru those stats and shut up about things that you dont know.

Was I even part of this argument?

I'm just saying last time you used Wikipedia (or something just as bad), now a site that has a different criteria... next will be comments in the daily mail articles

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:47, lionsden said:

Result is greater than performance around here apparently

What's wrong with that?

[didierforever 7,349]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:58, Barbara said:

Was I even part of this argument?

I'm just saying last time you used Wikipedia (or something just as bad), now a site that has a different criteria... next will be comments in the daily mail articles

were not you bitching about me and my fan based sources? so that makes you a part of the argument.

i am giving you the sources. tell me which of those are wrong? tell me which of that stat is wrong. if u cant, then like i said, shut up!!

[lionsden 4,689]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:59, RoyalBlues said:

What's wrong with that?

What wrong is that posters are basing MOTM voting and rating which for the most part is heavily influenced by overall performance ( in any sport) on result. Oscar scored two goals but his overall performance was anything but good/decent/great. I lost count on the amount of easy passes he messed up.

It's called performance rating for a reason.

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:02, didierforever said:

were not you bitching about me and my fan based sources? so that makes you a part of the argument.

i am giving you the sources. tell me which of those are wrong? tell me which of that stat is wrong. if u cant, then like i said, shut up!!

boo hoo, are you mad? trololol

I won't bother checking them... that was the argument I said I wasn't part of - the stats - my only comment was about you being obnoxious - as usual - with the always so creditable sources. I stand by it. As many times as necessary.

I'll continue the discussion, not with you though... as I said, we shouldn't bother with you, it's the biggest waste of time in this forum...

as someone said the other day, three certain things in life, death, taxes and a response from you

[OhForAGreavsie 5,916]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:53, lionsden said:

This is a big misconception. No our team has been improved because we have a better manager than AVB, Di matteo and Rafa in charge now and secondly because we have a significantly better team than the one mata had. i,e Matic, Costa, Fabregas,Azpi (he's greater than the washed up version of Cole), A Much matured , more consistent and much improved Hazard and so on.

Oscar was a regular fixture during the mata days when we sucked too, we are not better because we replaced Oscar with mata, we are better now because we have one of the best manager in the world and a better team.

I agree with you. All of the things you mention are, in my opinion correct however, I meant my comparison in a direct sense. Take today's squad, include Jose as manager, add Mata to the side at the expense of Oscar and there will be a new calculation to be made. We will gain something on the swings but lose somewhat on the roundabout. Will we gain more than we loose? I would not say so.

[RoyalBlues 4,050]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:02, lionsden said:

What wrong is that posters are basing MOTM voting and rating which for the most part is heavily influenced by overall performance ( in any sport) on result. Oscar scored two goals but his overall performance was anything but good/decent/great. I lost count on the amount of easy passes he messed up.

It's called performance rating for a reason.

every goal or assist one player made in a game will influenced his rating big time on that game. You cannot separate it. It's not surprising Oscar get a high rating yesterday. Check out the player ratings on several newspaper online websites and you will see Oscar on top.

[didierforever 7,349]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:06, Barbara said:

boo hoo, are you mad? trololol

I won't bother checking them... that was the argument I said I wasn't part of - the stats - my only comment was about you being obnoxious - as usual - with the always so creditable sources. I stand by it. As many times as necessary.

I'll continue the discussion, not with you though... as I said, we shouldn't bother with you, it's the biggest waste of time in this forum...

as someone said the other day, three certain things in life, death, taxes and a response from you

Oh sonow its mt mistake that I responded to an idiotic , bitchy, asenine comment from someone whose iq is lesser than the room temperatire!! Well in hindsight it is.

If it was the first time u had tried to be almighty and a know it all, then I would not have said anything. But poor barbara simply can't stop being bitchy can she?

And creditable sources? I am challemging u to find if anything is wrong with these soirces. So rather than side stepping it, and then taking another pot shot at my sources, please try and prove me wrong. If u can't, why don't u just shut up, or atleast try writing anither one of yiur useless long essay like comments which more o ften than not don't have anything related to the subject at hand

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:09, OhForAGreavsie said:

I agree with you. All of the things you mention are, in my opinion correct however, I meant my comparison in a direct sense. Take today's squad, include Jose as manager, add Mata to the side at the expense of Oscar and there will be a new calculation to be made. We will gain something on the swings but lose somewhat on the roundabout. Will we gain more than we loose? I would not say so.

but how the best manager in the world chose one over the other? Couldn't Jose keep Mata if he thought there would be space for him when he set up a 'better team'?

Mata never suited the style Mourinho wanted - or his plans - and never will. And that discussion has absolutely zero to do with Oscar. Oscar was the replacement Mourinho found in the squad. The moment he's not satisfied with him he'll negotiate him the same way he did with Mata and KdB. Or people think there aren't clubs that would like to have Oscar if Mourinho puts him in the sidelines?

so using the argument that we have a better manager now than we did back then and that's why Mata would do better now, when said manager concluded Mata didn't fit his present and future plans (otherwise he wouldn't have sold him) is contradictory.

[OhForAGreavsie 5,916]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:18, Barbara said:

but how the best manager in the world chose one over the other? Couldn't Jose keep Mata if he thought there would be space for him when he set up a 'better team'?

Mata never suited the style Mourinho wanted - or his plans - and never will. And that discussion has absolutely zero to do with Oscar. Oscar was the replacement Mourinho found in the squad. The moment he's not satisfied with him he'll negotiate him the same way he did with Mata and KdB. Or people think there aren't clubs that would like to have Oscar if Mourinho puts him in the sidelines?

so using the argument that we have a better manager now than we did back then and that's why Mata would do better now, when said manager concluded Mata didn't fit his present and future plans (otherwise he wouldn't have sold him) is contradictory.

Thanks Barbara.

You appear to have misunderstood the point I'm making. Not surprising given that I maybe didn't express it as well as I should have done. I was saying that, despite Mata being, in my opinion, the better passer of the ball, Oscar makes a better overall contribution to our team and that therefore Jose was quite right to make that switch.

Meanwhile, I only introduced Mata to the discussion (a few posts back from the one to which you replied) as an example of the fact that passing is not the only contribution a player makes to his team. If Jose always preferred the better passer then I think he'd have kept Juan and sold Emboaba. If he did that however, he would not be the manager we all think he is. As it is Jose did what we would expect, he choose the better player, not the better passer.

I am simply arguing that out there somewhere there is a better player than Oscar. A player whose overall package of passing, pressing, and everything else will add more to our side than Oscar does. I think we should be perusing that player as a matter of urgency.* That said, I know you disagree with my assessment of Oscar but these disagreements are the essence of good conversations on a chat forum, are they not?

*As a matter of fact I think we have such a player coming through our development ranks but Charlie Colket is too young and, in any case, seems currently to be being groomed for the Cesc role not the 'ten'. Mind you development players are given chances in several roles so that a- they get the chance to find their true place and b- can gain an understanding of all the roles around them.

[Barbara 15,149]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:36, OhForAGreavsie said:

Thanks Barbara.

You appear to have misunderstood the point I'm making. Not surprising given that I maybe didn't express it as well as I should have done. I was saying that, despite Mata being, in my opinion, the better passer of the ball, Oscar makes a better overall contribution to our team and that Jose was therefore quite right to make that switch.

Meanwhile, I only introduced Mata to the discussion (a few posts back from the one to which you replied) as an example of the fact that passing is not the only contribution a player makes to his team. If Jose always preferred the better passer then I think he'd have kept Juan and sold Emboaba. If he did that however, he would not be the manager we all think he is but he didn't do that. He choose the better player, not the better passer.

I am simply arguing that out there somewhere there is a better player than Oscar. A player whose overall package of passing, pressing, and everything else will add more to our side than Oscar does. I think we should be perusing that player as a matter of urgency.* That said, I know you disagree with me but this is the essence of good conversations on a chat forum, no?

*As a matter of fact I think we have such a player coming through our development ranks but Charlie Colket is too young and, in any case, seems currently to be being groomed for the Cesc role not the 'ten'. Mind you development players are given chances in several roles so that a) they get the chance to find their true place and can gain an understanding of all the roles around them.

I have no doubts there are better players out there than Oscar... my main point throughout this whole thing is that he's young, why can we not wait?

Willian is the one on his peak age that despite contributing with the defense has nearly zero attack return and the one we shouldn't expect much improvement from. Actually, someone should watch the last two matches closely... his energy level is slowing down - which is expected and completely acceptable as he's been running like the energyzer bunny since the season started. Yesterday Willian's defensive contributions weren't good, although I thought he looked better in the attack.

I feel we need a better RW more than we need a better CAM because when we need a better CAM than Oscar we just move Cesc higher in the pitch and problem solved. I think we also need to address a replacement for Cesc - not only for those times Mourinho decides to employ him higher, but also for when he's suspended/injured (knock the wood). I think those are more critical now than replacing Oscar as he's been delivering good return despite his problems (which I admit he has, sloppy passing at moments, carelessness at others, inconsistency, frail physique, etc). Even getting an upgrade from Cahill should be addressed before upgrading Oscar. He's renewed my hopes that he can have a big and great future here - something I was getting a bit doubtful lately given his presentations throughout December and the overall feeling of stagnation.

[Gilvorak 3,734]

  On 18/01/2015 at 16:02, didierforever said:

Player Appearances Goals Assists Minutes Minutes/(goals+assists)

oscar 26 7 7 1922 137

eriksen 26 8 4 2071 172

james 29 10 8 2130 118

KDB 25 6 13 2251 118

muller 23 11 9 1749 88

gotze 22 11 4 1641 109

isco 30 4 10 2044 146 (though to be fair he has played a very withdrawn role this season after modric's injury)

koke 28 3 15 2456 136

so stats-wise, he is only better than eriksen.

You definitely don't have an agenda. You're adding in cup competitions when we're talking about League only here.

[didierforever 7,349]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:56, Gilvorak said:

You definitely don't have an agenda. You're adding in cup competitions when we're talking about League only here.

LOL. U wanted someone to do a stat comparision, I did.

The main problem with oscar is consistency, be it cup competitions or whatever. How does just counting league in this solve any purpose. Consistency is counted over the course of the season.

[lucio 5,418]

why is he being compared to ,muller.

and not people like coutinho and ramsey?

more useful than looking at muller and madrid players. who are always bound to have high stats

[Johnny Kills 164]

  On 18/01/2015 at 17:43, Barbara said:

I have no doubts there are better players out there than Oscar... my main point throughout this whole thing is that he's young, why can't we not wait?

Willian is the one on his peak age that despite contributing with the defense has nearly zero attack return and the one we shouldn't expect much improvement from. Actually, someone should watch the last two matches closely... his energy level is slowing down - which is expected and completely acceptable as he's been running like the energyzer bunny since the season started. Yesterday Willian's defensive contributions weren't good, although I thought he looked better in the attack.

I feel we need a better RW more than we need a better CAM because when we need a better CAM than Oscar we just move Cesc higher in the pitch and problem solved. I think we also need to address a replacement for Cesc - not only for those times Mourinho decides to employ him higher, but also for when he's suspended/injured (knock the wood). I think those are more critical now than replacing Oscar as he's been delivering good return despite his problems (which I admit he has, sloppy passing at moments, carelessness at others, inconsistency, frail physique, etc). Even getting an upgrade from Cahill should be addressed before upgrading Oscar. He's renewed my hopes that he can have a big and great future here - something I was getting a bit doubtful lately given his presentations throughout December and the overall feeling of stagnation.

Barbara, I'd like to see if you agree with me or not since you're generally very level-headed with Oscar. I believe the main disconnect in the Mata/Oscar debate was the creator vs the central midfielder. Mata can make something out of nothing, all over the pitch making himself available for a return pass which seemed like always. Oscar is rigid in his positioning, his first touch can be awful at times (I always laugh when I see articles talking about his silky first touch), and his passing range and ability is nothing like his predecessor. However, he works his ass off, which generally gets fans on your side, and he's still capable of producing around the box. He doesn't really contribute to the buildup play like Mata, Hazard, or Fab.

That's where I think lies the problem. He doesn't contribute to the buildup like a #10 should - but he still produces at times like the match vs Newcastle. Fans who don't care about him contributing more to the team while we're on the ball say, "look at him scoring, look at him assisting" and then there are fans that notice he hasn't had a good game at all minus that moment of the goal/assist. His deficiencies have been masked by Fab becoming the best CM in the league and Eden elevating his play. God forbid one of them suffers an injury, we have to rely on an inconsistent 10 and RW to pick up the pace and then we're RIGHT back to last season, which is why it never made sense to me that Mata was never made the 10. Really, that was reflected in our inability to beat the lower sides. For our team's needs last season, Mata shouldn't have been on the wing.

[lucio 5,418]

  On 18/01/2015 at 18:12, Johnny Kills said:

Barbara, I'd like to see if you agree with me or not since you're generally very level-headed with Oscar. I believe the main disconnect in the Mata/Oscar debate was the creator vs the central midfielder. Mata can make something out of nothing, all over the pitch making himself available for a return pass which seemed like always. Oscar is rigid in his positioning, his first touch can be awful at times (I always laugh when I see articles talking about his silky first touch), and his passing range and ability is nothing like his predecessor. However, he works his ass off, which generally gets fans on your side, and he's still capable of producing around the box. He doesn't really contribute to the buildup play like Mata, Hazard, or Fab.

That's where I think lies the problem. He doesn't contribute to the buildup like a #10 should - but he still produces at times like the match vs Newcastle. Fans who don't care about him contributing more to the team while we're on the ball say, "look at him scoring, look at him assisting" and then there are fans that notice he hasn't had a good game at all minus that moment of the goal/assist. His deficiencies have been masked by Fab becoming the best CM in the league and Eden elevating his play. God forbid one of them suffers an injury, we have to rely on an inconsistent 10 and RW to pick up the pace and then we're RIGHT back to last season, which is why it never made sense to me that Mata was never made the 10. Really, that was reflected in our inability to beat the lower sides. For our team's needs last season, Mata shouldn't have been on the wing.

we could have kept bruyne. mata was never likely to stay. too valuable in the case of a transfer, and pretty much physically impossible for him to fulfil the managers vision. de bruyne needed work on that, but had the tools to achieve it.