ESPN:
Ivan Rakitic, 6 -- Filled in for the suspended Sergio Busquets at the base of the midfield. Missed a great chance in the first half and didn't do too badly on what was his third start of the season.
Arthur Melo, 7 -- The Brazilian was Barca's motor as they finally got into the game toward the end of first half. One quarterback-like pass to Messi was particularly good. Surprisingly taken off after the break.
Frenkie de Jong, 7 -- Always one of Barca's best players. Rarely gives the ball away, and his driving runs are increasingly creating chances.
Sport360:
Arthur 7: Made good use of the ball when he received it, helping his team take control either side of the interval.
Ivan Rakitic 7: Operated as a defensive midfielder and did a solid job. Shot weakly with a decent first-half chance.
Frenkie de Jong 6: Grew into the game after a sluggish start, providing a steady link between midfield and attack.
90min:
Ter Stegen (7); Roberto (7), Pique (8), Lenglet (7), Firpo (6); Arthur (7), Rakitic (6), De Jong (7); Messi (8), Suarez (6), Griezmann (6)
I didn't post those pages outside of Spain.
Do you know why?
Because when we played against Man Utd in CL last season, people here claimed that Arthur was the best on a field.
Then I posted rating from 10 internet sites which popped up on my first page of a google search when I typed Barcelona:Man Utd player ratings.
And Arthur was rated as our worst midfielder in that match on those sites.
And do you know what people here replied?
= lol, why are you posting ratings from some random stupid football journos who know nothing about football? On these pages, it could be a stupid 13 years old English kid posting ratings who doesn't understand football and tactics
So, again:
1. when a favorite player plays well according to those sites=random sites and ratings are good
2. when a favorite player plays bad according to those sites=random sites are shit
This is why I have posted only Spanish or Catalan papers this time.
If I posted As or Marca, people would probably say: they are giving bad ratings to Arthur or Frenkie because they want to screw us and for us to sell them, lol.
Anyway, even if we take into the account ratings from Sport, which I posted and from 3 pages which you have posted, look at this:
Total:
Rakitic: Sport 5, Espn 6, Sport360 7, 90min 6=24 points
Arthur: Sport 4, Espn 7, Sport360 7, 90min 7=25 points
Frenkie: Sport 5, Espn 7, Sport360 6, 90min 7=25 points
They got 25, 25 and 24, where the maxium rating was 40.
Now, my questions:
1. according to papers, our 3 midfielders were all very average and got almost the same ratings (1 point difference).
How come that Rakitic is mentioned as a flop of the match on Barcaforum, while for example, Arthur was a MOTM (besides Messi and Mats) according to lots of users here?
2. when Rakitic lost the ball around the box against Dortmund and yesterday, 10 posters posted that incident IMMEDIATELY here.
On the other hand, when Arthur did a similar thing in the 1st half yesterday, only one user in Match chat topic mentioned that.
So, wait: Rakitic's error is worth 10 angry posts? While a similar mistake from Arthur didn't create a single negative post or mention of that incident on his topic, UNTIL I have mentioned it?
Do you smell an insane bias from fans here?
3. further, I am extremely glad that Catalan papers are slowly opening their eyes and that not everything is shiny and happy with new signings.
Look at a word "soft" which was describing Arthur's performance.
If you look at his number of tackles, interceptions, clearances and blocks, they are really shockingly low.
And now, a question for you guys: if Rakitic is so shit, how would you field a midfield today, IN THIS MOMENT?
You also don't like Busi.
You don't like Raki.
What is left?
If you put Frenkie as a pivot=he is good in defense, but he plays somewhat "all over the place" and plays as some box to box midfielder to some extent.
So, even though he is good in defending, if you put him as a lone pivot, he will too often venture into the attack or on some weird position on a field and when we will lose the ball, our pivot position will be vacant.
If you put Arthur as a pivot, he sucks in defending, so that is not an option in modern football.
So, you can't put Frenkie as a pivot, and you can't put Arthur as a pivot.
That means that you can:
1. either play Busi-Frenkie-Arthur, and that lineup was very lost and all over the place in this season
2. when you play Raki-Frenkie-Busi, we are less lost than with Busi, but you will still whine that Rakitic sucks.
3. the 3rd option is with Vidal, but then Frenkie will be a pivot, he will venture into the attack, Arthur can't cover for anyone, and Vidal is also (similar to Frenkie) all over the place (box to box player) who is rarely on one fixed position in defense.
So, this lineup would probably be extremely chaotic against on away matches.
4. the last option is Busi-Raki-Frenkie. When Frenkie has two babysitters in Busi and Raki. But then you guys will whine that a favorite Arthur is on the bench.
Also, a question for the future, how would you set a 433 with Frenkie and Arthur, since Frenkie is a too funky defensively for now, and Arthur also?
If you would pair them with Alena/Puig, where is defending in that trio?
And then, if you put Frenkie and Arthur as CMs, with a new, physical pivot, where is creation in that lineup, since creation is NOT Frenkie's forte. And it surely isn't Arthur's forte either.
You guys are fixated on Frenkie-Arthur duo, yet they have quiet similar virtues and flaws in this moment and it is quiet hard to fit them in a midfield trio and not to cause insane flaws either in defense or attack, or BOTH.
