*** Tottenham Hotspur vs. Burnley OMT ***

[Pirate55]

Thanks. I had a look at Kane's heat map from the Everton game. Would you say that he played as an AM in that game?

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/matchcentre/tottenham-hotspur-vs-everton-30112014/#divHeatmap

I could only open half the pitch on his heat map. But I don't get your point. He was playing with both SoldAdo AND Kane in that game. So he was playing a role coming off the left in a wonky, no?

From the bit of the heat map I could open, it certainly looked like he was playing that role. Completely different when he has two forwards in front of him.

 

[milo]

I could only open half the pitch on his heat map. But I don't get your point. He was playing with both SoldAdo AND Kane in that game. So he was playing a role coming off the left in a wonky, no?

From the bit of the heat map I could open, it certainly looked like he was playing that role. Completely different when he has two forwards in front of him.

I was referring to Kane's heat map in the Everton game, not Eriksen. Based on his heat map and what you were saying earlier in this thread, was Kane playing as an AM in that game?

 

[braineclipse]

No, but it is the perfect description of someone playing in the middle rather than as a number 10, which is the point I was making.

He's playing no deeper than Lamela or Chadli. To me Bentaleb and Mason/Stambouli played in the middle. Eriksen played centrally, but more advanced.

To my mind there is a subtle distinction between a central AM and a traditional no 10. The number 10 is more of a support striker in a final 1 1 formation, while a central AM operates all over the middle of the park to spray the play around rather than primarily try and link with the main striker as well as getting in the box himself to get on the end of things.

Eriksens lack of getting in the box against Burnley and his heat maps showing his position all over the attacking half illustrates for me the difference in the roles.

If the central attacking midfielder of the 3 in a 4-2-3-1 is described as an attacking midfielder or a #10 is largely a distinction without a difference for me.

My point was that Eriksen fitted into that 3 in a 4-2-3-1, much more than he fitted in with Bentaleb and Mason/Stambouli.

 

[Pirate55]

I was referring to Kane's heat map in the Everton game, not Eriksen. Based on his heat map and what you were saying earlier in this thread, was Kane playing as an AM in that game?

Sorry, my bad. I thought we were discussing Eriksen. I think from the heatmap of Kane he was playing more as an AM in that game. Funnily enough, if you look at Soldado's heat map it wasnt significantly different from Kanes. So they both played rather deeper than I would have liked them too - possibly as a result of a dangerous opponent. Against lesser sides, I would have expected them to have been a bit further forward and then Kane would be a No 10. Iirc, we didnt have a major share of possession in this game which would explain their deeper roles.

 

[Pirate55]

He's playing no deeper than Lamela or Chadli. To me Bentaleb and Mason/Stambouli played in the middle. Eriksen played centrally, but more advanced.



If the central attacking midfielder of the 3 in a 4-2-3-1 is described as an attacking midfielder or a #10 is largely a distinction without a difference for me.

My point was that Eriksen fitted into that 3 in a 4-2-3-1, much more than he fitted in with Bentaleb and Mason/Stambouli.

And that is where I beg to differ. For me, there is a distinction between the roles of a No. 10 and a central attacking midfielder, as I have set out above.