I already said what it results in -- more space for other players to work. It forces opposing players to go back towards their own goal rather than attacking ours. Where Rose is different to Sissoko is that Rose gets the ball and immediately looks to pass/run forward. Sissoko doesn't have the confidence or technical ability to do that; he gets the ball and his immediate thought is to pass so that he doesn't lose it (not necessarily a bad thing, play to your strengths).
All teams need direct players, there is no side in the world (that is any good) that doesn't have them -- and the best two teams in England have plenty of them, including their fullbacks. We don't have many, especially with Son out. So, imo, Rose becomes more important. If it's 11 plodders/safety first players, then teams can defend more aggressively against us, which makes life harder for players like Winks, Eriksen etc.
Then you can add intangibles that certain players bring, particularly in derby games and home games. Some players just do things that get the crowd up, that swing the momentum of games our way. There are no stats for this, but imo it's an important part of football, the flip-side of going away from home and quietening the crowd. A player making a hard run at an opponent, drawing a foul, the crowd is up, the team is on the front foot. I've seen Spurs on the receiving end of this enough times over the years to know it's a thing, even if we can't measure it in stats. Rose is one of those players imo.
Sissoko blunders forward constantly, technical ability be damned, and most often it just doesnt actually create much.
There is something to the idea it creates space, but IMO that worth is grossly over stated. Its the same in the Sissoko thread. Like its some sort of golden value attribute. Its only really of value if something can be made of it. And if a player bombs forward and loses it/crosses to no one etc then really what is it thats so great about it?
I certainly think there is something to his attitude. I think that adds real value, particularly in big games. Its a big benefit to him.
I just contest that this idea of being direct and creating space etc as some sort of top level thing.
Whilst Rose's end product may not always be that effective, I still feel his marauding runs and ability to get to the by-line create a much bigger problem for opponents than when they have to deal with what Davies offers.
Sometimes it's just about getting numbers in the attacking third and knowing there's a threat there, rather than it having to result in a key pass or direct assist.
Intercepting a BD cross into the box for example seems to be far easier for defenders to deal with than trying to handle an extra player on the flank in Rose. The way he links up with Son and midfielders, cute one-twos to get into box. He causes panic and is a penalty threat to an extent. He has a tendency to get shots away far more frequently than Davies. Rarely do i see him being caught out positionally from being too far up the pitch, if anything he prevents opposition from pushing on in fear of leaving him space.
I just don't get that threat from BD. He may offer something else defensively, but for me that support was more useful when we were fielding the likes of Foyth. BD is conservative, but not without his defensive frailties. And his lack of pace has been exposed before on more than one occasion.
I dont know if he has special invisibility powers, but Im starting to think I am the only one who notices Davies in that final third/top quarter of the pitch persistently. He is always up there, always aiding play, always looking for an attacking angle.
And when your team is predominantly in the ascendency, someone able to probe and move and keep things ticking in those areas is a big benefit. Just as, someone direct and marauding is somewhat neutered.
I believe Rose at his best (which is near enough has been for the last couple of months) is better than Davies at his best. Certainly can't recall any performances from Davies that matched Rose at the Nou Camp for example. Davies is fine and dependable and I'd be sorry if we sold him but as others have said, Rose is more aggressive and has an edge to his game which is vital when you play the big teams.
Not sure why you keep using the word "dynamic" in every post. I haven't used it once to describe him.
"Dynamic" is a personal bug bear with me. This is a conversation Ive held many times and its a vague and woolly term used to describe some sort of benefit to him. Its nothing personal to you, more a frustration for me.
Rose certainly has an edge. I do believe Davies is a very aggressive player, but Rose is certainly more so.
Lets forget Davies though. If this is Rose at his very best - do you think its actually providing enough? Where is the end product?
He is, for me, a player that huffs and puffs a hell of a lot, catches the eye as this busy little tasmanian devil, and can very easily give the impression of doing lots - but if you actually focus on key contributions, I just dont think the product lives up to the hype.
). He gets noticed more while Davies just gets on and does the job. Personally i think he is a better defender then Rose and is more reliable at doing that.
