Oscar

[Chelsea Legend 11 4,062]

People get caught out by the Sky Sports line-up infographic. Our midfield formation is very definitely this:

Oscar - Matic

Willian - Fabregas - Hazard

If people had that mental picture they'd understand Oscar's role better, but since this is the most circular argument on the forum I'll withdraw at this point.

I'd say its more this from an attacking sense

Matic

Oscar Fabregas

Willian Hazard

[manpe 10,861]

People get caught out by the Sky Sports line-up infographic. Our midfield formation is very definitely this:

Oscar - Matic

Willian - Fabregas - Hazard

If people had that mental picture they'd understand Oscar's role better, but since this is the most circular argument on the forum I'll withdraw at this point.

Sorry, have to disagree here. Fabregas is usually clearly the deeper one. Defensively it doesn't matter, our formation is then anyway all 5 back doing whatever necessary to get the ball and help to defend.

Offensively in transition:

Fabregas - Matic

Willian - Oscar - Hazard

In final third looking for the breakthrough:

Matic

Willian - Fabregas - Oscar - Hazard

True Oscar drops deep sometimes, but in general Fabregas is deeper. I think if you look at some games' average position graphics, you would see it.

[BlueLion. 21,491]

Sorry, have to disagree here. Fabregas is usually clearly the deeper one. Defensively it doesn't matter, our formation is then anyway all 5 back doing whatever necessary to get the ball and help to defend.

Offensively in transition:

Fabregas - Matic

Willian - Oscar - Hazard

In final third looking for the breakthrough:

Matic

Willian - Fabregas - Oscar - Hazard

True Oscar drops deep sometimes, but in general Fabregas is deeper. I think if you look at some games' average position graphics, you would see it.

Certainly think that might be the case in home matches but he certainly is the deeper of the two away from home, IMO.

[Joker10 946]

The nominees for the Premier League Player of the Month awards have been announced.

Crystal Palace striker Dwight Gayle, Chelsea's Brazilian goalscorer Oscar, Southampton defender Jose Fonte, Liverpool midfielder Emre Can, Tottenham's Harry Kane and Arsenal's Santi Cazorla are the six players vying for January honours.

Nominated for POTM, while some on this forum will try to convince you he is garbage.

[WNDS 502]

Nominated for POTM, while some on this forum will try to convince you he is garbage.

A lazy argument. I don't happen to think he is 'garbage', and yet I DO think that his nomination for player of the month for January is ridiculous. Awful against Spurs, poor (but pleasingly decisive despite this) against Newcastle, excellent against Swansea, poor against Man City, and awful in two of the three cup games he played in as well (Watford and Bradford). Can you really claim that that is genuinely good enough? Surely there are more deserving nominees? It simply looks like those who have put him up for nomination have seen him get a couple of goals and assists on some highlights programme, and so come to the conclusion that Oscar obviously had a great month.

[The Skipper 20,593]

Nominated for POTM, while some on this forum will try to convince you he is garbage.

This is not the argument. The argument is that he isn't good enough to be a starter for the next decade. No one is saying Oscar is a bad player.

[Joker10 946]

A lazy argument. I don't happen to think he is 'garbage', and yet I DO think that his nomination for player of the month for January is ridiculous. Awful against Spurs, poor (but pleasingly decisive despite this) against Newcastle, excellent against Swansea, poor against Man City, and awful in two of the three cup games he played in as well (Watford and Bradford). Can you really claim that that is genuinely good enough? Surely there are more deserving nominees? It simply looks like those who have put him up for nomination have seen him get a couple of goals and assists on some highlights programme, and so come to the conclusion that Oscar obviously had a great month.

Lazy argument by me? I just pointed out two simple facts. One he ha been nominated POTM and second some here think he is useless/garbage/weak link/ etc

Btw I do not engage in arguments.

My openion is that Oscar hasent looked his best in recent games, that goes for most of our players with the exception of Willian who is playing his best football in Chelsea uniform. But I certaintly don't think he is deserving of the criticism either.

[DanishBlue 426]

Oscar is still young, he will be a far better player in a couple of years so I could easily see him being a big part of Chelsea in the long run.

[didierforever 7,349]

Nominated for POTM, while some on this forum will try to convince you he is garbage.

Fifa nominated luiz as the defender of the year despite the fact that he played half a season with us in mid, the other half on the bench and got thrashed while playing for brazil.

[WNDS 502]

Lazy argument by me? I just pointed out two simple facts. One he ha been nominated POTM and second some here think he is useless/garbage/weak link/ etc

Btw I do not engage in arguments.

My openion is that Oscar hasent looked his best in recent games, that goes for most of our players with the exception of Willian who is playing his best football in Chelsea uniform. But I certaintly don't think he is deserving of the criticism either.

I apologise for being too bluntly dismissive of your previous post, but I maintain that the POTM nomination is far too superficial an argument to be used in Oscar's defence. At least, the way in which you phrased the sentence certainly made it SEEM like you were presenting an argument in defence of the player; it reads as 'he's nominated for POTM, so he's had a far better month than most of you are willing to acknowledge'. The problem is that this POTM nomination is second-hand evidence; many who have watched the majority of our games (and not just the highlights) since the turn of the year can see that Oscar's general play is currently well below the standard required, even with his goals and assists taken into account.

You can (of course) disagree with my assertion, but you WILL find yourself engaging in an argument of some kind if you do .

[Rekin 835]

chances created is a farce because wherever the pass preceding a shot was done and regardless of where the shot was taken it counts as a chance created.

This is a stat for stupid people, that don't watch football.

Assists and goals are one of the few precise stats. Dribbles, aerial duels, chances created/key passes don't tell the whole story at all. But if that's what you want to bring the conversation so do it.

It's hard for me to ignore a player that scores and assists... but when suits YOU (bunch of moaners, who love to criticize the team and moan), you ignore it. A lot of you who are now slamming Oscar and ignoring his direct stats even said that Hazard needed to add that to his game. So yeah, the ones who don't make sense are you. But go on and continue to believe in CC. Might as well expect the Easter Bunny in a couple of months too - after all, if we're going to talk about living in a world of fantasy, let's talk about those things as well.

Now you ignore the reality - that is goals and assists - some of them that actually won us matches (meaning he was directly involved in all goals in some matches) and come here talk about dribbles, chances created and chocolate eggs brought by a mammal.

Assists and goals are precise stats? Sure, they tell you the end result, but show nothing behind the scenes. Key passes and dribbles for example show the opposite, what kind of a player we are dealing with and the players strengths. Goals and assists gain power the higher they amount to, but when you are in the grey zone (which one could argue Oscar is) there is absolutely no telling whether the goals scored were the 4-0 and 5-0 in a victory against Swansea, and whether the assist is of the type I describe below. In other words they could be utterly useless if not combined with supportive stats (and again, the higher the G&A amount, the less this is true. You dont need Ronaldo and Messi's supporting stats to know they are absolutely amazing players).

I remember one assist Fabregas got early in the season where he was strolling around the box without a target and eventually just let Hazard get it. Hazard went on to dribble his way through several defenders and score. How important was Fabregas in this? There was no creative or technical or even positional effort behind it, the pass could have been from Cahill and it would have led to the same end result.

I really dislike that you feel the need to use ad hoc arguments like describing people using chances created as "stupid". It is actually a very common measure for creativity, and you will find that combined with other stats, it is very revealing. Sure, it is easy enough to see that a player like Silva for example is creative without checking his stats, but that is beside the point. We want to see how good a player is in an area, not if they are good at all. You can also use other supporting stats to create a context for the other stats.

Now, Oscar has scored important goals and assists, Im the first one to admit that. I enjoyed his assisting crosses for Costa and Hazard in particular. I also really enjoyed his goal from a free-kick.

Personally the issue for me is not whether he is a good player, we all know he is. The issue is whether he can realistically be improved upon. I see a lot of people who believe that he can, and I have yet to see you or anyone else provide a very strong argument for why they are wrong.

To be fair, it is rather impossible to prove either side wrong. The replacement-hunters side(which includes me) can show how poor creatively he is, how poor he is technically and argue for someone else who could do a better job as a 10. How are you going to argue against that? It is impossible to prove that (my favorite example) Firmino or any other player who has done a great job in their current club would be worse in Chelsea. Every single transfer has risk attached to it, and hindsight is always 20/20.

I mean, look at Willian. He had scored one goal during the whole season from the flank. Yesterday he started centrally and got a goal in his first game. It is a very small sample, but it still implies that it is easier to gather points from that position, even for a player who is constantly bemoaned for lacking end-product.

On the other side of the coin those who want Oscar to remain as 10 could say that he has scored this many goals and this many assists while bringing "balance". How is the other side going to prove that someone else would have done a better job? It is also impossible. It is a speculative zone that neither of us can prove.

All we can do is state our opinions about whether Oscar is the right player. The opinion cant be wrong in this scenario. How we argue for our opinion can be wrong.

I personally think that Chelsea had a lot more important problems to solve than Oscar. We had Ramires and Lampard in the pivot last season, Eto'o as a striker and an aging defense.

Those were much more important problems than getting a small/medium amount of potential optimization from replacing Oscar.

Now however, we have managed to acquire an absolute smashing 11, while also having a strong bench. Now is the time to focus efforts on replacing good players with great ones (if the market allows of course. If the only potential replacements are too expensive, not found or otherwise unavailable then the club of course waits).

I further personally believe that Chelsea can do better than Oscar. To me he is this CFC-generations Mikel (although an offensive version ofc, one is better staying back while the other is better going forward). A solid, hardworking and comfortable on the ball player who fits perfectly as a squad player and occasionally have good games. You like having him in the squad, you start him when someone else who is better cant play, but ultimately you find him limited as a player and suspect there is someone else out there who would do a better job on that position. Since he is young though, he can still hide behind the "developing" label.

Again, just my opinion. If Mou keep playing him for the next few seasons and he magically turn into twice the player he is today, I will be wrong but still very happy. I assure everyone it is possible to not find Oscar great while at the same time wishing Chelsea the best.

[pHaRaOn 2,131]

Fifa nominated luiz as the defender of the year despite the fact that he played half a season with us in mid, the other half on the bench and got thrashed while playing for brazil.

It wasn't FIFA. It was another footballers.

[Jase 43,479]

Nominated for POTM, while some on this forum will try to convince you he is garbage.

A lazy argument. I don't happen to think he is 'garbage', and yet I DO think that his nomination for player of the month for January is ridiculous. Awful against Spurs, poor (but pleasingly decisive despite this) against Newcastle, excellent against Swansea, poor against Man City, and awful in two of the three cup games he played in as well (Watford and Bradford). Can you really claim that that is genuinely good enough? Surely there are more deserving nominees? It simply looks like those who have put him up for nomination have seen him get a couple of goals and assists on some highlights programme, and so come to the conclusion that Oscar obviously had a great month.

Hilarious when people use questionable nomination/award system to justify their point(s). Makes it even more unconvincing. Mourinho has won so many games, gone on long winning runs in the Premier League and yet, he has won only 3 Manager of the Month awards. That tells one something about the way this monthly award works, doesn't it?

[yuvala 2,167]

Assists and goals are precise stats? Sure, they tell you the end result, but show nothing behind the scenes. Key passes and dribbles for example show the opposite, what kind of a player we are dealing with and the players strengths. Goals and assists gain power the higher they amount to, but when you are in the grey zone (which one could argue Oscar is) there is absolutely no telling whether the goals scored were the 4-0 and 5-0 in a victory against Swansea, and whether the assist is of the type I describe below. In other words they could be utterly useless if not combined with supportive stats (and again, the higher the G&A amount, the less this is true. You dont need Ronaldo and Messi's supporting stats to know they are absolutely amazing players).

I remember one assist Fabregas got early in the season where he was strolling around the box without a target and eventually just let Hazard get it. Hazard went on to dribble his way through several defenders and score. How important was Fabregas in this? There was no creative or technical or even positional effort behind it, the pass could have been from Cahill and it would have led to the same end result.

I really dislike that you feel the need to use ad hoc arguments like describing people using chances created as "stupid". It is actually a very common measure for creativity, and you will find that combined with other stats, it is very revealing. Sure, it is easy enough to see that a player like Silva for example is creative without checking his stats, but that is beside the point. We want to see how good a player is in an area, not if they are good at all. You can also use other supporting stats to create a context for the other stats.

Now, Oscar has scored important goals and assists, Im the first one to admit that. I enjoyed his assisting crosses for Costa and Hazard in particular. I also really enjoyed his goal from a free-kick.

Personally the issue for me is not whether he is a good player, we all know he is. The issue is whether he can realistically be improved upon. I see a lot of people who believe that he can, and I have yet to see you or anyone else provide a very strong argument for why they are wrong.

To be fair, it is rather impossible to prove either side wrong. The replacement-hunters side(which includes me) can show how poor creatively he is, how poor he is technically and argue for someone else who could do a better job as a 10. How are you going to argue against that? It is impossible to prove that (my favorite example) Firmino or any other player who has done a great job in their current club would be worse in Chelsea. Every single transfer has risk attached to it, and hindsight is always 20/20.

I mean, look at Willian. He had scored one goal during the whole season from the flank. Yesterday he started centrally and got a goal in his first game. It is a very small sample, but it still implies that it is easier to gather points from that position, even for a player who is constantly bemoaned for lacking end-product.

On the other side of the coin those who want Oscar to remain as 10 could say that he has scored this many goals and this many assists while bringing "balance". How is the other side going to prove that someone else would have done a better job? It is also impossible. It is a speculative zone that neither of us can prove.

All we can do is state our opinions about whether Oscar is the right player. The opinion cant be wrong in this scenario. How we argue for our opinion can be wrong.

I personally think that Chelsea had a lot more important problems to solve than Oscar. We had Ramires and Lampard in the pivot last season, Eto'o as a striker and an aging defense.

Those were much more important problems than getting a small/medium amount of potential optimization from replacing Oscar.

Now however, we have managed to acquire an absolute smashing 11, while also having a strong bench. Now is the time to focus efforts on replacing good players with great ones (if the market allows of course. If the only potential replacements are too expensive, not found or otherwise unavailable then the club of course waits).

I further personally believe that Chelsea can do better than Oscar. To me he is this CFC-generations Mikel (although an offensive version ofc, one is better staying back while the other is better going forward). A solid, hardworking and comfortable on the ball player who fits perfectly as a squad player and occasionally have good games. You like having him in the squad, you start him when someone else who is better cant play, but ultimately you find him limited as a player and suspect there is someone else out there who would do a better job on that position. Since he is young though, he can still hide behind the "developing" label.

Again, just my opinion. If Mou keep playing him for the next few seasons and he magically turn into twice the player he is today, I will be wrong but still very happy. I assure everyone it is possible to not find Oscar great while at the same time wishing Chelsea the best.

Exactly my thoughts.

Turns out that if you say we can do better than Oscar then you hate him and think he's a shit player.

If there's a better option out there we should be going for it, that is if we want to be the BEST team around and not only one of the best. If we really want to compete in the UCL and in general win titles we need to have the best team possible.

[Ryand23 3]

His work rate is tireless and his pressing of defenders high up the pitch is missed when he is not in the team. Fabregas hasn't got the legs to press

[The Skipper 20,593]

His work rate is tireless and his pressing of defenders high up the pitch is missed when he is not in the team. Fabregas hasn't got the legs to press

Willian does.

[Joker10 946]

Hilarious when people use questionable nomination/award system to justify their point(s). Makes it even more unconvincing. Mourinho has won so many games, gone on long winning runs in the Premier League and yet, he has won only 3 Manager of the Month awards. That tells one something about the way this monthly award works, doesn't it?

You have to use nominations/awards and stats to justify your points. You some time have to use reporters/ websites rating system to justify your points. You can't ignore all of them, you can't only rely on your own perception because we are all bias, some more then others and some less then others.

Our brains has a tendency to do the following: Delete, distorte, and generalize. Try this where ever you are. Close your eyes for 10 seconds, then open your eyes and count all the blue things you see. Soon you will try to count things that are purple as blue and anything that resemble the color blue you will distorte it that way. Then you make an instant generalisatin that there are more blue things then any other color, often time that is not the case. What you do is delete all other colors and only see what you want to see.

Same things apply in analyzing players, we look for things that reinforce our perceived notions. For example if you are a critic of Oscar you will only see the negatives and delete every positive things he does in the game. When you only focus on the negative, no shit you will only see him as a bad player. Then minimize all of his contribution in our potential title winning season, some posters believe his only good game was against juve or only has had handful of good games in his career. In contrast ignore all of the accolades, states, and nominations that really supports that Oscar is one of our best players.

If you ignore every evidence and dismiss everything that does not support your perception then honestly you can't be helped and I can't waste my time on you.

[Jase 43,479]

You have to use nominations/awards and stats to justify your points. You some time have to use reporters/ websites rating system to justify your points. You can't ignore all of them, you can't only rely on your own perception because we are all bias, some more then others and some less then others.

Of course people will use stats to justify their points, even if they can be maneuvered to suit one's argument, but stats are not the be all and end all.

And to use nominations and/or awards with flaws like the Premier League ones? They certainly do not making a convincing case in an argument at all.