2018/19 Gylfi Sigurdsson

[messymascot]

Sigurdsson falls into the same category as Cahill and Fellaini. They all suit the number 10 position and get reasonable stats playing there but it is to the ultimate detriment of the team. I think unless we get a world class striker in soon we need to look at different ways to play. This for me would mean dropping Sigurdsson and either replacing with Bernard who offers a different type of threat or changing the system.

 

[BlueToff]

Sigurdsson falls into the same category as Cahill and Fellaini. They all suit the number 10 position and get reasonable stats playing there but it is to the ultimate detriment of the team. I think unless we get a world class striker in soon we need to look at different ways to play. This for me would mean dropping Sigurdsson and either replacing with Bernard who offers a different type of threat or changing the system.

Maybe this is true. Although I can't say that either Fellaini or Cahill made the team worse by playing as a 10 - if anything they improved it.

I do think Gylfi could play in a flat three and would like to see that system used. But regardless, it still requires better movement from the players ahead of him to fill a gaping hole between attack and midfield.

 

[BlueToff]

It should also be noted that the majority of our play is focused down the wings, mainly Digne's side.

It's fine, but if Gylfi's in the middle, then less of the ball is going through him. He does drift wide, reflected that he has the 5th highest amount of crosses in the league (Digne is top), but again, there's then a gaping gap in the middle - even though he's doing what his critics say he doesn't which is 'get involved'.

 

[messymascot]

Maybe this is true. Although I can't say that either Fellaini or Cahill made the team worse by playing as a 10 - if anything they improved it.

I do think Gylfi could play in a flat three and would like to see that system used. But regardless, it still requires better movement from the players ahead of him to fill a gaping hole between attack and midfield.

They both scored goals but offered little else to the team overall. Sigurdsson is a far superior footballer to both of them. I remember Cahill's last 2 seasons he was finished and Moyes stubbornly kept him in the team he would have made a great impact sub. Fellaini in his final season had some great games but there were some games where it became too predictable and teams just concentrated on winning the 2nd balls. I want Sigurdsson to succeed as I feel sorry for him with the weight of expectation but some players find there level and I think he suited being a starman somewhere like Swansea where the expectations are slightly lower. 1 good game in 3/4 isn't good enough for a £45 million player at a big club.

 

[BlueToff]

They both scored goals but offered little else to the team overall. Sigurdsson is a far superior footballer to both of them. I remember Cahill's last 2 seasons he was finished and Moyes stubbornly kept him in the team he would have made a great impact sub. Fellaini in his final season had some great games but there were some games where it became too predictable and teams just concentrated on winning the 2nd balls. I want Sigurdsson to succeed as I feel sorry for him with the weight of expectation but some players find there level and I think he suited being a starman somewhere like Swansea where the expectations are slightly lower. 1 good game in 3/4 isn't good enough for a £45 million player at a big club.

Maybe in Cahill's case, ey. But in Fellaini's case he offered a lot to the team in that 12/13 season because he was so good at bringing others into the game. Though I agree it could be limited if a team got three around him.

And okay, that's a fair criticism, but what does he have to do to 'have a good game'. He creates chances in every game. What does he have to do then? Kick the ball in from the chance he creates?

 

[messymascot]

Maybe in Cahill's case, ey. But in Fellaini's case he offered a lot to the team in that 12/13 season because he was so good at bringing others into the game. Though I agree it could be limited if a team got three around him.

And okay, that's a fair criticism, but what does he have to do to 'have a good game'. He creates chances in every game. What does he have to do then? Kick the ball in from the chance he creates?

He's a victim of the brainless buying of Walsh/Koeman. He would ironically thrive in the Spurs team he left as they now have a proper goal scorer in Harry Kane. He would have linked well with Lukaku but he was a season too late. Get in a top class striker and things might change but currently I feel he's a bit of a luxury.

 

[BlueToff]

He's a victim of the brainless buying of Walsh/Koeman. He would ironically thrive in the Spurs team he left as they now have a proper goal scorer in Harry Kane. He would have linked well with Lukaku but he was a season too late. Get in a top class striker and things might change but currently I feel he's a bit of a luxury.

yet when him and Richarlison were playing together he was crucial, as his pressing and energy is vital to how we wanted to play

 

[Tubey]

yet when him and Richarlison were playing together he was crucial, as his pressing and energy is vital to how we wanted to play

He's a luxury in terms of him playing well only when the team is doing well. When you're struggling, he is the dictionary definition of a luxury player as he offers next to nothing.

For a playmaker in his role, it's supposed to be the other way around - it should be when he plays well, Everton play well - not when Everton play well, he plays well.

 

[messymascot]

yet when him and Richarlison were playing together he was crucial, as his pressing and energy is vital to how we wanted to play

Good player in a good team not one that will change things when the going gets tough. He's not the only one guilty of this but definitely a big culprit. Hopefully we get that striker that transforms things but until then I think we need to find different ways of playing.

 

[BlueToff]

Good player in a good team not one that will change things when the going gets tough. He's not the only one guilty of this but definitely a big culprit. Hopefully we get that striker that transforms things but until then I think we need to find different ways of playing.

Fair enough, as I've said I'm open to it, just don't think he deserves the stick he gets.

@Tubey But how can a player who was key to us playing well (when we were playing well) be classed as a luxury player.

By your logic, which may be correct, then our team is full of luxury players - which is probably the issue.

 

[Tubey]

Fair enough, as I've said I'm open to it, just don't think he deserves the stick he gets.

@Tubey But how can a player who was key to us playing well (when we were playing well) be classed as a luxury player.

By your logic, which may be correct, then our team is full of luxury players - which is probably the issue.

It's about the role specifically of a "playmaker". They are meant to dictate play; get the team playing.

Sigurdsson doesn't do that. Instead, he's a play "enhancer". He's someone who waits for the team to start flowing and then gets involved and makes it better, but he doesn't kick start it in the first instance.

It means that Sigurdsson relies on one or both of two things - he needs an able centre-forward who can hold the ball up and distribute well and/or a deep lying traditional playmaker who can make things tick from a deeper position, allowing Gylfi to work in the space between defence and midfield. It's no coincidence that Gylfi was great earlier in the season when Andre Gomes was on fire, and then fell off a cliff in terms of form in the last half a dozen or so games when Gomes hasn't been as influential.

I don't think he's a bad player; I just think he's not a player you build a team around. And I think he's an outright liability in a struggling, unbalanced side.

 

[messymascot]

Fair enough, as I've said I'm open to it, just don't think he deserves the stick he gets.

@Tubey But how can a player who was key to us playing well (when we were playing well) be classed as a luxury player.

By your logic, which may be correct, then our team is full of luxury players - which is probably the issue.

When a player accepts a contract of £500,000 a month and costs £45 million they deserve all the stick they get if they fail to perform. He isn't the only guilty player as most of them have fallen short but he is supposedly along with Richarlison the star player therefore he should get the most as Richarlison as offered slightly more.

 

[BlueToff]

It's about the role specifically of a "playmaker". They are meant to dictate play; get the team playing.

Sigurdsson doesn't do that. Instead, he's a play "enhancer". He's someone who waits for the team to start flowing and then gets involved and makes it better, but he doesn't kick start it in the first instance.

It means that Sigurdsson relies on one or both of two things - he needs an able centre-forward who can hold the ball up and distribute well and/or a deep lying traditional playmaker who can make things tick from a deeper position, allowing Gylfi to work in the space between defence and midfield. It's no coincidence that Gylfi was great earlier in the season when Andre Gomes was on fire, and then fell off a cliff in terms of form in the last half a dozen or so games when Gomes hasn't been as influential.

I don't think he's a bad player; I just think he's not a player you build a team around. And I think he's an outright liability in a struggling, unbalanced side.

Okay, I can agree with that, although not the liability point. I'd say we have many more players that are liabilities before Gylfi.

I'd like to see Silva fiddle with the system a bit. If that means Gylfi dropping out for a game or two, so be it, but we saw against Brighton that in a 3-4-3, we had nobody in midfield to get on the ball and transition it between defence and attack, with Gomes having an off day.

 

[BlueToff]

When a player accepts a contract of £500,000 a month and costs £45 million they deserve all the stick they get if they fail to perform. He isn't the only guilty player as most of them have fallen short but he is supposedly along with Richarlison the star player therefore he should get the most as Richarlison as offered slightly more.

He isn't 'failing to perform' though, that's my point.

Maybe he currently isn't playing well - I can accept that - yet he's still creating chances. So he's doing his job in the team. He could have had 10 assists this season, easy, if our finishing had been better. When he gets on the ball in the final third, he makes things happen.

 

[messymascot]

He isn't 'failing to perform' though, that's my point.

Maybe he currently isn't playing well - I can accept that - yet he's still creating chances. So he's doing his job in the team. He could have had 10 assists this season, easy, if our finishing had been better. When he gets on the ball in the final third, he makes things happen.

I do agree with better finishing by others he would have hit closer the standards I would have expected. I just think his set pieces have been poor and they are supposedly one of his strongest attributes. He is solely to blame when his corners are cleared by the first man or his free kicks crash into the wall.