You'll survive, I happily said I'd apologize if I was wrong and am happy to do that. Thing is, you have put forth so many differing opinions on Sissoko/got into it with BoL, it is easy to confuse your position from one week to the next!!!!
Excellent. At least we have clarity!
I have always been clear in my thoughts on Sissoko. Consistent in saying what I see, both positive and negative. So I find these statements odd.
Unless Im supposed to just pick on single view on the player and stick to it no matter how he performs? That does seem to happen in here...
Now I am confused. I have always felt he is best used running into space from central positions! Having consistently said that there was a player in there, that he was bravely doing a job for us and that Poch obviously trusted him, I feel comfortable with my perspective mate
I made the argument he should be a DM. You quite strongly disagreed, then a few days later argued he should be a DM. I thought it was funny, particularly in light of your accusing me of not holding a consistent opinion on him
Well somewhere along the line you're going to have to either admit that a) you're seeing it differently to many including the manager or b) you never really liked him and are perplexed by the fuss. Against Wolves, the biggest issue was Tripper, end of. HE imbalanced everything. We were cruising to a 3-0 victory before Tripps decided to lose focus.Sissoko had nothing to do with it that day. He did a job for us but so did Winksy, who selflessly dropped in and sat too. I believe long-term Poch would love to be able to play a second deep midfielder who can go box-to-box and not just sit. Palace? Again, he and Wanyama worked together. See it as you wish. I will tell you right now I'd flog Wanyama before Sissoko.
I dont see why I would have to admit either. I can only state, ad infinitum, I say it as I see it. People seem to think there is some personal investment in him being poor and my being justified, as if I WANT to be right that he isnt good enough. I couldnt be happier with his performance Saturday, honestly I didnt think he had it in him, its hardly like Ive lost out is it? All I have ever done is told it as I see it.
Wolves? Trippier was terrible. No argument for me. Are there rules now that we can only have one poor performer in a match though?
People were creaming about Sissoko after Wolves, I just didnt see it. I saw a player galavanting up the pitch, doing fudge when he got there, and exposing our midfield. And I saw someone, so often proclaimed for their fitness and ethic, criminally just meandering back to position while Winks was trying to hold it together on his own. I think Sissoko had a LOT to do with the late collapse and tension we had seeing that game out.
Palace? I thought Sissoko was much the same, but Wanyama was much better equipped to cover than Winks. It also helped that Palace offered no threat at all, which basically meant Sissoko wouldnt be shown up at all (nobody would have, we could have given an academy kid their debut and they'd have looked good).
OK. I heartily disagree. Let's break this down. We play a fluid formation, clearly, but are you genuinely telling me you saw Sissoko at the base of the diamond? Here's what I saw. Dier at the base, Sissoko on the right, Eriksen left and Alli at the tip with Kane and Son up top but ALL those four given absolute license to drift into #10/swith positions/be fluid. To my vision, Sissoko was absolutely working a tandem with Aurier, and Dier was providing the security to allow Sissoko to win back balls and steam forwards/feed others/sit in and allow the other 4 to get on with what they do best and destroy teams. Dier was the sitting DM. There were times when we switched to two sitting, but it was the diamond which killed Chelski in the first 30 mins of the game. In essence (and directly to your point about Kante) Chelski's biggest mistake was where they plated Kante in relation to Jorghino . We did not make that mistake. Dier did what Dier does so so well (frankly unnoticed by too many IMO)...
I didnt see it as a diamond really. I saw Dier and Sissoko sitting in and giving security to the rest to play. As you say, we do play a fluid formation, and so at times of course either venture forward - but it was absolutely notable Sissoko was checking his instinct to run forward and playing a much more positionally disciplined role.
If you think he played in any way similar to Wolves or Palace then I suggest we were simply watching different games.
Frustratingly I cannot find heatmaps for the games, I am certain they would look very different to illustrate what Im saying.
Nope. I broke down what I saw above, so I disagree. he played deeper than, say Eriksen of course, but if you think he played as shield, then you are suggesting that he had no license to push forward (he clearly did push forward often, especially in the first half, especially off Aurier). Dier was the shield. We did not line up 4-2-3-1...again, these are fine distinctions I appreciate that and I understand you know your tactics, but it started as a diamond. In fact, what the four creatives/attackers did is what they/we do! We simply have not been able to play them that way for most of the season as they have been unavailable to us!
Opinions and assholes and everyone has one, and all that
I dont look too much into formations, mainly for a few reasons. 1) as you said yourself ours are always very fluid, 2) Poch is in the habit of changing them frequently in-game, and 3) they tend to inform your thinking too much on players (IE, he was this position so must be this and this...).
Given all that fluidity we could argue all day just about what shape we were in.
I prefer to think in roles, and IMO both Sissoko and Dier were defensive, allowing the rest to go do their stuff. Of course there is room in that for players to venture forward (or back!) but in essence, they were doing defensive work in midfield.
And as I said, I think it was a noticeable change in Sissokos positioning and actions. He was restraining himself a lot, and playing a very disciplined and focused game (something even his biggest fans must admit isnt his strong suit)
I think he allows us to play with one traditional sitting player in Dier. Against "lighter" teams, he allows us to play with Winks and him sitting and taking turns to push or hold (Winks is no doubt the future and as many have said will become Luka-esque with continued time). I would sell Dembele and Wanyama ahead of him right now. The Moose is losing pace and gets caught in possession far too often. He'd have cost us yesterday.
In a box to box capacity I dont think he "allows" anything, I think he is a compromise, and the team has to compensate for his weaknesses.
In this capacity Id sell him with Dembele and Wanyama and not think twice about it.
IF he can nail down a role like Chelsea? Then I can see him as having value. In that role I thought he was very good - and based on the last year or so definitely better than Wanyama has been. Though he doesnt and never will compare to Dembele, entirely different jobs.
