Who suggested they were the same?
I've watched Eriksen since he was 17 playing for Denmark & Ajax's youth team.
I've watched Gylfi since he was 18-19 playing for Iceland & Reading's youth team.
They're very similar players.
Both footed Scandinavian Playmakers capable of playing in the middle or the wings = Not the same at all?
Eriksen is faster in acceleration, Gylfi is faster in full sprint.
Gylfi is stronger, but Eriksen is harder to get the ball off of.
They're both good on their left, but Gylfi's is on a completely different level.
Eriksen can shoot, cross & pass faster.
Gylfi can shoot, cross & pass better.
Eriksen might be good on his left, but he cant cross, shoot or pass nearly as well as Sigurdsson's.
People also like to point out that Sigurdsson is a ''set piece merchant'' but fail to acknowledge that 6 of Eriksen's last 7 assists in 2016/17 were all from set pieces.
Eriksen only registered 1 open play assist in the last 16 apps of 16/17.
They're clearly a lot more similar than people suggest. As an outright winger I would prefer Eriksen, as an overall player I will always prefer Sigurdsson.
Set pieces, heading, defensively, both feet, positions/roles, Sigurdsson offers things that Eriksen & most Playmakers never will.
They're totally different players precisely because Sigurdsson doesn't contribute as much to overall play. Eriksen is key to the way Spurs retain the ball, and spreads the ball all over the pitch.
Do you even watch Spurs? Do you know any Spurs fans? Tell them this and they will laugh in your face.
Eriksen is absolutely not key to the way Spurs retain the ball, and he does not spread the ball all over the pitch.
Eriksen doesn't win back possession or ''release'' players with his passes. He makes simple back passes to the keeper/back 4/DM's and lets them do the rest.
I made a highlight video of every single assist Eriksen registered last season, and you will be incredibly surprised over how many of them are ''tom carroll assists''
Kane/Son/Alli individually create most of Spurs goals.
Spurs beat Leicester 6-1 last season WITHOUT Eriksen.
They obviously don't rely him to create chances, retain possession or spreading the ball.
Passes per assist isn't a good measure of how effective a player is. Eriksen is one of the best midfielders in the league, and it's partly because he's good at moving the ball around the field that he's a more useful player than Gylfi.
Passes per assist/chance is the most accurate assessment regarding the efficiency of a player.
The whole point of playing more matches & more minutes rather being benched is because you get more passes per match.
When you're on the bench you cant create chances/assists because you're getting less passes per match.
So obviously having more passes & creating less chances is a negative trait.
Gylfi averages 24 passes per match this season, 27 passes last season & 35-37 in seasons prior.
Eriksen averages 48-55 passes per match, giving him literally twice as many chances to contribute with vastly better team mates.
Thus, pass for pass Gylfi is on a completely different level.
Eriksen has 3 more assists with 2350 more passes. Gylfi would've created 18-20 assists with that amount.
Regarding the ''moving the ball around the field'' Have you ever seen Gylfi play for Iceland or even Swansea? His distribution & ability to spread the ball around the pitch is on another level IMO.
The easiest way to prove that your metric is total rubbish is to point out that Kevin de Bruyne has 25 passes per chance created this season, even though I think we'd all agree he's probably the best creative midfielder in the league right now.
KDB is a great player, but is far from being flawless. As an overall player I would not prefer him over Gylfi.
However, he is the only player in my excel spreadsheet to beat Gylfi on passes per chance/assist.
KDB had 43.6% more passes last season, so he had a lot more chances to create while Sigurdsson was forced to defend. Not to mention that Gylfi was playing out of position, exactly like he is doing now.
I don't think any Playmaker in the world besides Gylfi could've saved Swansea last season, or could save them right now.
KDB is a great player, but how well would he do alongside Nathan Dyer & Wayne Routledge?
How well would Sigurdsson do alongside Sane & Sterling? Or Mane/Salah? I think he would do much better.
Just like Ozil (who is the better player, obviously), he's never going to be running games. Instead, you'll see him on the edge of the crowd where there is a bit more time and space for him to deliver or let fly.
And that's absolutely fine. Sure, he isn't a Coutinho or a KdB but as said above, Ozil plays completely different to these lads and still contributes buckets.
He isn't a ''Coutinho'' or a KDB is the sense that he will dribble past players.
But there is no a chance in hell those players can shoot, cross or pass like Sigurdsson. Both feet.
You people LOVE to criticize how slow Gylfi is, but you completely fail to acknowledge what he can do that those players cant.
Gylfi is slower, yes. But miles better than those players at heading, tackling, intercepting, man marking, being an extra body in the box.
Name a single Playmaker that could've shutdown Salah like Gylfi did?
The only moment Salah had in the derby was when Gylfi didn't mark him. Every other moment in the match Gylfi had him in his pocket.
Gylfi can play ST/CF/LW/RW/AM/CM/DM & defend as well as a fullback. That's pretty good for a weak/slow player.
He more than makes up for his lack of speed with his overall ability. I find it hilarious that some of you claim Eriksen is ''overall'' better when there probably has never existed a single player capable of shooting, crossing or passing on both feet as well as Sigurdsson.
Then you add on his defensive ability, his penalties, corners, free kicks & set pieces. His variety of roles & positions, lack of injuries, high football IQ.. It's a mismatch.
Great collection of terrible crossing and failed backheels there
One failed backheel, and maybe 2-3 bad set pieces at best?
