DonAndres
Wild Man of Borneo
It's honestly just a very low quality article. Exactly the level of writing I'd expect from any one of those "twitter experts" who try their hand at being actual journalists.
The article isn't very long at all to start with, and on top of that a vast majority of it is fluff and unsubstantial.
The main points he makes are:
-Rakitic is this under the radar player that does all of the intangible things perfectly yet doesn't get recognition because he doesn't make flashy, hollywood plays. Then in the very next lines goes on to praise Rakitic for exclusively flashy plays (2 winning pens in shootouts) in the WC, when Rakitic was pretty much neutral/average performance wise in every knockout game except for the one against Russia.
-Rakitic is underrated by fans relative to Vidal/Arthur/Cou/Busi despite being deceptively crucial and constant for this team...... because he always plays. Yup, the writer used Rakitic's irrationally consistent playing time as an argument for why he is so vital. Talk about a circular argument
-Then posts a stat from the Celta game citing how Rakitic may have been "quiet" offensively but recovered 7 balls defensively to show how much he "hustles" and "works". He claimed that no other player had even close to 7 recoveries, the next closest being 3.
This is blatantly FALSE. Busquets had 2 tackles and 5 interceptions for 7 total ball recoveries, not 3. Rakitic had 1 tackle and 5 interceptions so that 7th one must've just been a loose ball recovered or something.
So in total this guy makes 1 completely contradictory/hypocritical argument, 1 completely circular argument, and 1 completely false argument. And those are all of them. Not one other point he made of substance, just a lot of fluffy/pretty literary words. Articles like this gets hyped up because people only read the title, see how contrarian it is, and get all excited. I'm willing to bet there are a ton of other (way better) arguments one could find to actually praise Rakitic, and a bunch of other writers who could do 10x a better job at this.
Really, really poor work from top to bottom.
The article isn't very long at all to start with, and on top of that a vast majority of it is fluff and unsubstantial.
The main points he makes are:
-Rakitic is this under the radar player that does all of the intangible things perfectly yet doesn't get recognition because he doesn't make flashy, hollywood plays. Then in the very next lines goes on to praise Rakitic for exclusively flashy plays (2 winning pens in shootouts) in the WC, when Rakitic was pretty much neutral/average performance wise in every knockout game except for the one against Russia.
-Rakitic is underrated by fans relative to Vidal/Arthur/Cou/Busi despite being deceptively crucial and constant for this team...... because he always plays. Yup, the writer used Rakitic's irrationally consistent playing time as an argument for why he is so vital. Talk about a circular argument
-Then posts a stat from the Celta game citing how Rakitic may have been "quiet" offensively but recovered 7 balls defensively to show how much he "hustles" and "works". He claimed that no other player had even close to 7 recoveries, the next closest being 3.
This is blatantly FALSE. Busquets had 2 tackles and 5 interceptions for 7 total ball recoveries, not 3. Rakitic had 1 tackle and 5 interceptions so that 7th one must've just been a loose ball recovered or something.
So in total this guy makes 1 completely contradictory/hypocritical argument, 1 completely circular argument, and 1 completely false argument. And those are all of them. Not one other point he made of substance, just a lot of fluffy/pretty literary words. Articles like this gets hyped up because people only read the title, see how contrarian it is, and get all excited. I'm willing to bet there are a ton of other (way better) arguments one could find to actually praise Rakitic, and a bunch of other writers who could do 10x a better job at this.
Really, really poor work from top to bottom.