I don't think you have an agenda (and I think that's a needlessly inflammatory comment because I've never said that), just that I think you're being harsh in your assessment of him. I think the 'glass half empty' description is absolutely right. It's about perception and you could choose to give him more props if you wanted to, and you don't, which is fine.
Also saying I've 'completely brainwashed myself on the player' is also some attempt to make me look delusional when nothing I have said is in any way outrageous. That's needless too. To say only this season is one where he hasn't been a 'complete liability' is just nonsense. It doesn't matter whether he played last year because of injuries to Dembele or Winks or not, he still played and if the margins were small and he was a complete liability, we wouldn't have gotten the points that we did.
I tried to pick up on some of your specific criticisms of Sissoko last season - admittedly with some lengthy posts - which boiled down to trying to show actual examples of players that are good at some of the off the ball defensive work, the shape, the awareness of danger, and again you called me delusional and crazy.
It shouldn't need to be said, but I'm not. I've never said that last season Sissoko was anything more than a 7 and most often a 6. This season, he's doing better in possession and ending matches as quite fairly one of our best players on the pitch. These are not outrageous statements. This is not using special criteria. This is fairly reflecting what is happening on the pitch. It's still subjective and you can still choose to rate him however which way you like, I just think it's harsh.
Youve repeated things as mantra until they sound like truth, even when they are not. Taken a single good action or result as proof of something, when it is not. Youve been pushing his performances as way beyond reality for a very long time, if not delusional then you choose the word - but you most certainly have built a whole agenda at defending him at any cost.
While also painting any naysayers as the similarly driven by ego or agenda. Far from completely reasoned yourself.
The off the ball stuff, frankly, I find offensive. The argument effectively being "well he does this really good stuff that you just cant see or pick up on".
I can, I have, and Ive given credit where its due. And you and I had a conversation in particular, in this thread, about how we have each always shared an appreciation for understated players that do the simple things well (such as Jenas).
For you to then try and throw that one at me? What do you expect?
"Oh Yes! BoL you are so right! Despite being someone who has had detailed conversations with you on this very subject - I just needed to be patronised to see the truth!"
I very simply havent seen him as a stand out player. Useful? Yes. Hard working? Yes. Actually particularly good? No.
People keep mentioning him running the ball to nowhere late against Wolves as having value, and so demonstrative of a good game. At that moment, yes, it was useful. However, he was doing exactly the same all through the game, and when he arrived at nowhere, and did nothing with it, was that useful? No. So how is it, this trait that was handy literally just for the dying minutes of the game suddenly indicative of a good performance?
Against Palace, yes, his passing was much improved. He put a few balls around that really caught the eye - they were unexpected from him. However, it was literally 2 or 3 passes. All his other passes, even those that found their target, were not good. They were not forward, they were not into the spaces, they were not furthering our game. So yes, improved passing. Good passing? Not for me.
And herein lays the real catch. It seems to me that people are really rather easily impressed, and I honestly think it is just because he was so poor before. Whether consciously or not, I am sure people are using that very low bar as a baseline when looking at him.
Someone argued before that had Winks played the same game he wouldnt be getting so much stick (what stick? honestly?).
He most certainly would. And you can flip it very easily. Had Dier played the same game would you have called him a stand out? I think not.
But Sissoko? "Stand out player" "A 6 is being really harsh".
I would also say, and I think I have - against Wolves Sissokos movement was attrocious. He left us and Winks exposed countless times, and while people were enjoying his running, it seems they were missing the problems he was creating.
Against Palace he was exactly the same, but Wanyama did an excellent job in covering for him and keeping things somewhat secure. I thought Wanyama did some excellent work - primarily because of Sissokos poor movement. Post game, Sissoko is a stand out player and all comment on Wanyama is how poor he was and how he wasnt his old self. Now THATS harsh.
