4 - Ronald Araújo

[vegitot]

Let's compare Rakitic in 2018/19 Liga to Arthur in the same season. Rakitic had 0,1 through ball completed per game, Arthur had 0. Rakitic also had 1 assists from through ball (5 assists total) compare to Arthur 0 from through ball (1 assist total).

Same team, same teammates.

 

[Bobo32]

Just check a random Xavi game on youtube and try to follow where he will pass, I would be surprised if you couldn't predict most of it.
Or as I think I urged you to do before, check one of his "greatest passes" compilations, and point out which passes he made that were truly surprising (over a 20 year carreer, most of it playing against worse teams)

I will not discuss Xavi any more in this thread, and if I am to discuss Xavi compared to Arthur, I will not do it by comparing Arthur to Rakitic or Messi, who are obviously much less predictable players than both Xavi and Arthur.
I might make a thread for analysing whether Xavi was an unpredictable player playing with high risk or not.

 

[Fati_Future_BallonDor]

Just check a random Xavi game on youtube and try to follow where he will pass, I would be surprised if you couldn't predict most of it.
Or as I think I urged you to do before, check one of his "greatest passes" compilations, and point out which passes he made that were truly surprising (over a 20 year carreer, most of it playing against worse teams)

I will not discuss Xavi any more in this thread, and if I am to discuss Xavi compared to Arthur, I will not do it by comparing Arthur to Rakitic or Messi, who are obviously much less predictable players than both Xavi and Arthur.
I might make a thread for analysing whether Xavi was an unpredictable player playing with high risk or not.

Yeah these passes were so easy thats why we dont see this kind of passes at barca anymore

 

[vegitot]

Just check a random Xavi game on youtube and try to follow where he will pass, I would be surprised if you couldn't predict most of it.
Or as I think I urged you to do before, check one of his "greatest passes" compilations, and point out which passes he made that were truly surprising (over a 20 year carreer, most of it playing against worse teams)

I will not discuss Xavi any more in this thread, and if I am to discuss Xavi compared to Arthur, I will not do it by comparing Arthur to Rakitic or Messi, who are obviously much less predictable players than both Xavi and Arthur.
I might make a thread for analysing whether Xavi was an unpredictable player playing with high risk or not.

Xavi's assist to Henry at Bernabeu is greater than anything Arthur has ever done. Pick any of Xavi season and he still completed more through ball than Arthur.

I don't know what your "Predictable" is. If you mean by the way you will know what he will do next then Messi is the most predictable player. Everyone will know what he will do but can not do anything to stop.

A quote from Cruyff: Technique is not being able to juggle a ball 1000 times. Anyone can do that by practicing. Then you can work in the circus. Technique is passing the ball with one touch, with the right speed, at the right foot of your team mate.

Xavi was the example of Cruyff's technique definition.

 

[serghei]

Just check a random Xavi game on youtube and try to follow where he will pass, I would be surprised if you couldn't predict most of it.
Or as I think I urged you to do before, check one of his "greatest passes" compilations, and point out which passes he made that were truly surprising (over a 20 year carreer, most of it playing against worse teams)

This has some merit only in the sense that Xavi was more of a center-midfield machine of passes, rather than a no10 last third playmaker, who was waiting for service higher up to reel in the last pass. He was much much more involved in midfield than any no10-type. And this is why Messi makes a mediocre Xavi.

Ozil had more decisive passes than both Xavi and Iniesta at Madrid in the same timeframe I think. Not because he was better in the last third. But because Xavi and Iniesta had more important roles, that went way past Ozil's capabilities on the field. They made sure Barca pretty much dominated every team they ever played against, domestically or in Europe. Almost all of the teams that beat us back then didn't even attempt to win the midfield against Xavi and Iniesta. They just assumed from the start they were gonna have to defend deep to stand a chance.

The "problem" of Xavi, in particular, was that he had probably the most intelligent and relentless movement out of any midfielders. He was impossible to mark out, and even dangerous to do so because he'd move so much, you were never able to stand between him and the passer. Because by the time you think you had him blocked, he'd already pop more to the left or to the right of the marker to receive the ball. 99.9% of the other top midfielders don't have this commitment to moving. They try to evade marking once, twice, but if they can't do it they give up and leave their teammates to receive the ball. You can take them out of the game for prolonged periods of time. Not Xavi.

So, in other words, those passes were only obvious for him, because he did the pre-pass work to perfection. And this stems not from having great stamina to put in 11-12km in the big games, but also from having the biggest football brain out there to always know where to place himself to complete a pass the way he wanted it.

 

[Bobo32]

This has some merit only in the sense that Xavi was more of a center-midfield machine of passes, rather than a no10 last third playmaker, who was waiting for service higher up to reel in the last pass. He was much much more involved in midfield than any no10-type. And this is why Messi makes a mediocre Xavi.

Ozil had more decisive passes than both Xavi and Iniesta at Madrid in the same timeframe I think. Not because he was better in the last third. But because Xavi and Iniesta had more important roles, that went way past Ozil's capabilities on the field. They made sure Barca pretty much dominated every team they ever played against, domestically or in Europe. Almost all of the teams that beat us back then didn't even attempt to win the midfield against Xavi and Iniesta. They just assumed from the start they were gonna have to defend deep to stand a chance.

The "problem" of Xavi, in particular, was that he had probably the most intelligent and relentless movement out of any midfielders. He was impossible to mark out, and even dangerous to do so because he'd move so much, you were never able to stand between him and the passer. Because by the time you think you had him blocked, he'd already pop more to the left or to the right of the marker to receive the ball. 99.9% of the other top midfielders don't have this commitment to moving. They try to evade marking once, twice, but if they can't do it they give up and leave their teammates to receive the ball. You can take them out of the game for prolonged periods of time. Not Xavi.

So, in other words, those passes were only obvious for him, because he did the pre-pass work to perfection. And this stems not from having great stamina to put in 11-12km in the big games, but also from having the biggest football brain out there to always know where to place himself to complete a pass the way he wanted it.

Exactly.
I don't think there is anything I want to oppose here, or anything I want to add really.
I can just say that I think Xavi could probably play like Ozil if he wanted (I watched some compilations from Qatar where he seemed more relaxed and played more freely). He had the passing technique and the vision for it, but he decided against it, which made his team much better, which in turn benefitted him as well.
I watched the video Fati posted, and made some comments on it that I might post in the Xavi thread later instead.
Let's keep this thread about Araujo, no?

 

[khaled_a_d]

Xavi discussion in Araujo thread is just one of the weirdest off topic discussions I've seen in this forum, and I've seen plenty

 

[vegitot]

Exactly.
I don't think there is anything I want to oppose here, or anything I want to add really.
I can just say that I think Xavi could probably play like Ozil if he wanted (I watched some compilations from Qatar where he seemed more relaxed and played more freely). He had the passing technique and the vision for it, but he decided against it, which made his team much better, which in turn benefitted him as well.
I watched the video Fati posted, and made some comments on it that I might post in the Xavi thread later instead.
Let's keep this thread about Araujo, no?

And how Arthur play more risk than Xavi??? Because you can not predict Arthur's play??? If so, im sure you watch football with your eyes closed. No wonder you consider De Jong best postion is CB and Puig is top 5 midfielder in the world right now.

Xavi used his passing skills and vision in his position. And he was not a number 10 like Ozil.

 

[serghei]

Exactly.
I don't think there is anything I want to oppose here, or anything I want to add really.
I can just say that I think Xavi could probably play like Ozil if he wanted (I watched some compilations from Qatar where he seemed more relaxed and played more freely). He had the passing technique and the vision for it, but he decided against it, which made his team much better, which in turn benefitted him as well.
I watched the video Fati posted, and made some comments on it that I might post in the Xavi thread later instead.
Let's keep this thread about Araujo, no?

He already showed he can play as an AM and even score key goals pre-Pep, like in 2008 Euro he was even better than anything Ozil produced in the last third as a playmaker-attacking midfielder. It's just that he was too valuable as a CM to deploy him in more advanced positions constantly. Man is probably the best CM of all time. Why would you wanna use him AM or No10?

 

[Joan]

And how Arthur play more risk than Xavi??? Because you can not predict Arthur's play??? If so, im sure you watch football with your eyes closed. No wonder you consider De Jong best postion is CB and Puig is top 5 midfielder in the world right now.

Xavi used his passing skills and vision in his position. And he was not a number 10 like Ozil.

Bobo talks about risk in passing, while the rest of us talk about creativity. And he's right in a sense. Xavi had an eye to execute the most exciting of passes with impeccable timing.

But if anything, that goes in favor of Xavi's creativity.

Arthur is a dull player, with no forward passing in him. Plain and simple.

 

[serghei]

Bobo talks about risk in passing, while the rest of us talk about creativity. And he's right in a sense. Xavi had an eye to execute the most exciting of passes with impeccable timing.

Too much risk in passing is not something you'd want a CM to have. Can easily be a flaw. You'd want your CMs to move well enough and be smart enough to judge when a pass is on, and when it's not. Xavi was a master at that.

 

[Bobo32]

Bobo talks about risk in passing, while the rest of us talk about creativity. And he's right in a sense. Xavi had an eye to execute the most exciting of passes with impeccable timing.

But if anything, that goes in favor of Xavi's creativity.

Arthur is a dull player, with no forward passing in him. Plain and simple.

Creativity is a word that needs to be defined. If it is simply "to create chances" then Xavi was creative; he was the one most responsible for the way the whole game played out, and he created a high absolute number of chances (but a low number relative to his touches).
When I use the word, I mean something like "ability to improvise, to find unusual/unexpected solutions". Ronaldinho and Messi are very creative, Iniesta was more creative than Xavi, and Busquets is very creative as well.
I think Xavi, as serghei pointed out, stood out the most in being a perfectionist, always correcting his position, always looking around him to find space and numeric advantages. He didn't look specifically for the final ball, but let the final ball come to him when the moment was there.
Arthur was similar, but he was not as patient or quite as much of a perfectionist, and he also played in a team that didn't really want him to play like that. He tried passes sometimes that I don't think he really believed in. I remember Xavi taking Arthurs side when he was criticized for not playing daringly enough, and I think Xavi himself would agree with me on most of what I've written here.

 

[vegitot]

Creativity is a word that needs to be defined. If it is simply "to create chances" then Xavi was creative; he was the one most responsible for the way the whole game played out, and he created a high absolute number of chances (but a low number relative to his touches).
When I use the word, I mean something like "ability to improvise, to find unusual/unexpected solutions". Ronaldinho and Messi are very creative, Iniesta was more creative than Xavi, and Busquets is very creative as well.
I think Xavi, as serghei pointed out, stood out the most in being a perfectionist, always correcting his position, always looking around him to find space and numeric advantages. He didn't look specifically for the final ball, but let the final ball come to him when the moment was there.
Arthur was similar, but he was not as patient or quite as much of a perfectionist, and he also played in a team that didn't really want him to play like that. He tried passes sometimes that I don't think he really believed in. I remember Xavi taking Arthurs side when he was criticized for not playing daringly enough, and I think Xavi himself would agree with me on most of what I've written here.

Yet somehow he created the second most chance created in world cup history, more than even Maradona at 1986 or Messi at 2014... And he could manage 1 through ball completed per game in his career. How can someone just wait for final ball come to him do something like that??? It is likely to say Messi is not someone have eyes for goals.

Arthur is mediocre passer with no risk or creativity. Fact is Roberto played more through ball than him when they played together.

 

[vegitot]

Bobo talks about risk in passing, while the rest of us talk about creativity. And he's right in a sense. Xavi had an eye to execute the most exciting of passes with impeccable timing.

But if anything, that goes in favor of Xavi's creativity.

Arthur is a dull player, with no forward passing in him. Plain and simple.

What is risk in passing??? Xavi played through ball, long ball in his entire career with incredible accuracy.

 

[Joan]

What is risk in passing??? Xavi played through ball, long ball in his entire career with incredible accuracy.

The possibility of a pass failing to meet its destination. Xavi often had that in mind but managed such numbers of through balls and chances created due to exquisite creativity. Basically, that's Xavi pushing the brake pedal, his cost benefit analysis.