Interesting isn't the word I'd use.You rate Alex Iwobi but not Richarlison. Interesting.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Interesting isn't the word I'd use.You rate Alex Iwobi but not Richarlison. Interesting.
Iwobi and Richarlison are the same level of player. And in fact they have very similar issues holding them back from being better players. Richarlison has always needed to be made a full time #9. He's absolute atrocious in the middle third and doesn't have any ability to pick passes or consistently create. He's good as a wide player because he gets into #9 positions a lot and it makes his figures look good. But the rest of his game out there actively harms you and you can't be a complete side. Not getting to commit to a position that suits his abilities has held him back.
And that is the story with Iwobi too who is clearly better suited to a central role. The amount of time he's spent wide right has killed him. They both play at an average level and both could be better if coaches had made different decisions.
Richarlison fooled everyone by scoring goals as a "wide player" when he was actually closer to a striker making his goal total unimpressive and by being the hard working player Brazil needed to balance out the team.Interesting isn't the word I'd use.
Good God.Iwobi and Richarlison are the same level of player.
60 million bid for Iwobi in the summer goat?.Good God.
60million yen.60 million bid for Iwobi in the summer goat?.
Errr, scoring pretty much one in three with more games as a wide player than a striker, surrounded by some dross, isn't unimpressive in my eyes.Richarlison fooled everyone by scoring goals as a "wide player" when he was actually closer to a striker making his goal total unimpressive and by being the hard working player Brazil needed to balance out the team.
He's never been anything but average. I'm just glad we sold before everyone figured it out.
It's kind of my point though. He started wide and defended wide but his final third play was that of a striker regardless of starting position.Errr, scoring pretty much one in three with more games as a wide player than a striker, surrounded by some dross, isn't unimpressive in my eyes.
Glad I put that melt on ignore months ago.Good God.
Iwobi and Richarlison are the same level of player. And in fact they have very similar issues holding them back from being better players. Richarlison has always needed to be made a full time #9. He's absolute atrocious in the middle third and doesn't have any ability to pick passes or consistently create. He's good as a wide player because he gets into #9 positions a lot and it makes his figures look good. But the rest of his game out there actively harms you and you can't be a complete side. Not getting to commit to a position that suits his abilities has held him back.
And that is the story with Iwobi too who is clearly better suited to a central role. The amount of time he's spent wide right has killed him. They both play at an average level and both could be better if coaches had made different decisions.
The only difference is what Richarlison is good at is quantified by the one number everyone agrees matters and you can't do that with Iwobi or the things Richarlison is crap at.My god. I don’t rate Richarlison as highly as some on here but this is a wayward take.
The only difference is what Richarlison is good at is quantified by the one number everyone agrees matters and you can't do that with Iwobi or the things Richarlison is crap at.
Richarlison is absolutely as shocking in moments as Iwobi is. But Richarlison's good moments show up with his name on the scoresheet and Iwobi's usually open the game up so others can score.I’m strictly talking about their ability to play the game of football and not taking any numbers into account here.
You rate Alex Iwobi but not Richarlison. Interesting.