#47 | Phil Foden - 2021/22 Performances

[ProofMCFC]

Foden, Dias and Haaland could hopefully be the new Silva, Aguero and Kompany, which was the new Lee, Bell and Summerbee. Happy days

 

[WallyA]

His improving displays as a F9 is slowly making the case for not playing with strikers.

I don't know if people realize this when they say "If only we had a striker, he'd score a hattrick every game", but when we play a F9, it gives us more control to our game and we create more chances for the wingers and attacking midfielders which causes score lines like these 5+ to be common.

When you play with a real striker you somewhat lose that control and don't create as many chances, you get the benefit of a more elite finisher though.

It's definitely an option you still need in your attack, and with someone like Haaland you probably make that sacrifice in control for it be your starting choice... but Phil is slowly showing Messi-esque reasons for F9 dominance.

 

[Kamaro011]

His improving displays as a F9 is slowly making the case for not playing with strikers.

I don't know if people realize this when they say "If only we had a striker, he'd score a hattrick every game", but when we play a F9, it gives us more control to our game and we create more chances for the wingers and attacking midfielders which causes score lines like these 5+ to be common.

When you play with a real striker you somewhat lose that control and don't create as many chances, you get the benefit of a more elite finisher though.

It's definitely an option you still need in your attack, and with someone like Haaland you probably make that sacrifice in control for it be your starting choice... but Phil is slowly showing Messi-esque reasons for F9 dominance.

Phil to have potential going to be half of prime messi was is still tremendous for us.

Can't wait to see Phil in the future in goat conversation.

 

[Project]

Used to laugh at the Stockport Iniesta tag , no one is laughing now , he is going to be better.

the only thing about the moniker is he’s nothing like Iniesta really.

 

[M16 citeh]

His improving displays as a F9 is slowly making the case for not playing with strikers.

I don't know if people realize this when they say "If only we had a striker, he'd score a hattrick every game", but when we play a F9, it gives us more control to our game and we create more chances for the wingers and attacking midfielders which causes score lines like these 5+ to be common.

When you play with a real striker you somewhat lose that control and don't create as many chances, you get the benefit of a more elite finisher though.

It's definitely an option you still need in your attack, and with someone like Haaland you probably make that sacrifice in control for it be your starting choice... but Phil is slowly showing Messi-esque reasons for F9 dominance.

If foden could make some torres like movements he could be made for the 9

 

[Craig]

If foden could make some torres like movements he could be made for the 9

Torres basically plays upfront there isn’t much false about him in the role. Foden would be completely wasted there. You see the difference when he can pick the ball up deep like the other night and against Chelsea away the only 2 real great involvements he had was when he was wide left and more as an 8 when he put Grealish through. The rest of the game he was wasted up top. The other night was the first time he’s played well there but they were very open at times.

Obviously this isn’t a dig at Foden he’s incredible and possibly our best false 9. I still think playing there regularly will be a waste of his supreme talents though.

 

[mosssideblue]

There aren't any, but I look forward to having a good laugh at the names he puts forward.

Paul Gascoigne was an absolute one-off. I've never seen a more talented English footballer in 60+ years of watching.

Not even Phil the face?

 

[Agueroooo9320]

Torres basically plays upfront there isn’t much false about him in the role. Foden would be completely wasted there. You see the difference when he can pick the ball up deep like the other night and against Chelsea away the only 2 real great involvements he had was when he was wide left and more as an 8 when he put Grealish through. The rest of the game he was wasted up top. The other night was the first time he’s played well there but they were very open at times.

Obviously this isn’t a dig at Foden he’s incredible and possibly our best false 9. I still think playing there regularly will be a waste of his supreme talents though.

complete disagree. if you play him on the wing you lose his playmaking if you play him on the midfield you lose his attacking threat but as a false 9 you can have the best of both worlds. the reason he was ineffective as false 9 at chelsea is because he didn't play well as he should have. Foden is still learning the false 9 position, there was no inherent flaw in the system, he just need to learn more and play at a higher level against top teams.

 

[Manchester33]

His improving displays as a F9 is slowly making the case for not playing with strikers.

I don't know if people realize this when they say "If only we had a striker, he'd score a hattrick every game", but when we play a F9, it gives us more control to our game and we create more chances for the wingers and attacking midfielders which causes score lines like these 5+ to be common.

When you play with a real striker you somewhat lose that control and don't create as many chances, you get the benefit of a more elite finisher though.

It's definitely an option you still need in your attack, and with someone like Haaland you probably make that sacrifice in control for it be your starting choice... but Phil is slowly showing Messi-esque reasons for F9 dominance.

Not necessarily. We could move to a back three instead of a back four. That would create a role for a real 9 in the starting XI. Probably wouldn't be great against the better sides, but games like Southampton at home, we could have done with one.

It's not the game like Brugge that matters, it's the Tottenhams, Southamptons etc where we struggle to break the other team down. That's when we need an out and out CF.

 

[Radiohead1981]

There aren't any, but I look forward to having a good laugh at the names he puts forward.

Paul Gascoigne was an absolute one-off. I've never seen a more talented English footballer in 60+ years of watching.

Did you see Tom finney play. His team mate Tommy docherty said he was the Messi of his day. Bill shankly said he was the best player he ever saw. Team mate Stanley Mathew's says he was up there with Maradona. De stefano, cruff, best, Pele etc.

Surely finney must have been more talented than gazza.

 

[M16 citeh]

I

Torres basically plays upfront there isn’t much false about him in the role. Foden would be completely wasted there. You see the difference when he can pick the ball up deep like the other night and against Chelsea away the only 2 real great involvements he had was when he was wide left and more as an 8 when he put Grealish through. The rest of the game he was wasted up top. The other night was the first time he’s played well there but they were very open at times.

Obviously this isn’t a dig at Foden he’s incredible and possibly our best false 9. I still think playing there regularly will be a waste of his supreme talents though.

I know what you mean and agree that there is nothing false about torres playing there. I just think phill might have the ability to become a complete 9. I don't know if it is a waste at all if we can get the best out of him in thst position. OK he will never have the strength but he's got everything else!

I'm gonna contradict my whole argument as say the kid can play anywhere and still be one of the best on the pitch

 

[oldius]

He needs the freedom of the pitch, like David Silva, or at least as much as you can get in a Pep side. Because he is so intelligent, he can damage any team we face given that role.

 

[MarsLlama]

I think we might be talking cross purposes here mate

Completely agree all the players you mentioned had far better careers than Gazza; but better players? No fucking chance

Gazza is the best English footballer I’ve ever seen either live or on TV. He could do things none of the players you mentioned would even try in training never mind a match. The guy was a complete one off but unfortunately had serious mental issues a head full of broken biscuits

Apologies for this last bit mate as I know this is all about opinions, but Beckham & Ferdinand universally agreed to be far far better than Gazza? PMSL…..agreed universally by whom? The Beckham’s & Ferdinand’s?

Beckham and Ferdinand have lived long in the memory- people still talk about them all the time today, they were good enough to play for one or more of the biggest clubs in the world and they turned up in the Champions League. None of those things are true of Gascoigne, who as I say is basically never talked about outside of conversations about England's best players.

At the end of the day you believe that being more technically gifted makes you a better player and I think there's a lot more to it than that, we aren't going to agree on this so let's leave it there.

 

[MarsLlama]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

You're dreaming if you think any of them had more individual talent/skill than Paul Gascoigne.

Including Beckham in your list is beyond bizarre.

Paul Gascoigne suffered serious injuries and very serious demons. I first met him when he was about 15 and knew he was going to be brilliant. I met him a few more times over the next four or five years, and a nicer, more honest lad you couldn't wish to meet. A humble superstar, a lad who couldn't himself believe how easy he made the game look.

He could do anything. If he'd been a goalkeeper, he'd still have played for England. He was the most naturally gifted sportsman I've ever seen.

The last time I saw him was at an England under 21 game, with Paul Stewart and a few other England squad players. He kept everyone entertained throughout the game, telling jokes and daft stories, but I could tell that he was trying too hard to live up to the reputation that the media had given him.

Only George Best came under the level of press scrutiny Paul Gascoigne was subjected to. Like George Best, Paul suffered psychological problems and tried to overcome them by drinking. That side of the story is well known.

To dismiss his career as you have is unfair and unrealistic. Paul Gascoigne WAS better than those you name. His career may not have been as glorious as those named, but the memory of his performances for every club he represented will live long in the memory.

To get back on topic, Phil Foden has that same cheeky confidence about his game. He seems to have a stronger support circle than Paul, and should, I hope, be able to ignore the shite that the media will no doubt throw around about him in the future.

Phil can be as influential as Paul Gascoigne for club and country, and will hopefully have a very long and very fruitful career, but I very much doubt he'll ever surpass Paul's level of individual skill.

Literally the second line of your post and we've already identified the problem.

I don't deny that Gascoigne probably had more "individual talent/skill" than them. What he didn't have more of than them is all the other stuff you need to be a great player. And that's a lot.

That's why they're remembered as all-time great footballers and he, except by a few people who saw him turn out for England, isn't. Do you think most people in Spain, Brazil or Germany really remember what kind of player Gascoigne was? I doubt it. There's no doubt they all know Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard and co.

And to address your last line, with how good Phil is already I'd be pretty staggered if he didn't reach that level. We're talking about probably the best young English talent in recent memory so I'm not sure why everyone is determined to talk him down and say he'll be lucky to live up Gascoigne.

It's unfortunate that his personal problems are likely the reason he wasn't as good as those guys, but if we're judging them on how good they were over whole careers instead of how good they were at their best form, it's not really a contest.

 

[Radiohead1981]

Beckham and Ferdinand have lived long in the memory- people still talk about them all the time today, they were good enough to play for one or more of the biggest clubs in the world and they turned up in the Champions League. None of those things are true of Gascoigne, who as I say is basically never talked about outside of conversations about England's best players.

At the end of the day you believe that being more technically gifted makes you a better player and I think there's a lot more to it than that, we aren't going to agree on this so let's leave it there.W

Beckham and Ferdinand have lived long in the memory- people still talk about them all the time today, they were good enough to play for one or more of the biggest clubs in the world and they turned up in the Champions League. None of those things are true of Gascoigne, who as I say is basically never talked about outside of conversations about England's best players.

At the end of the day you believe that being more technically gifted makes you a better player and I think there's a lot more to it than that, we aren't going to agree on this so let's leave it there.

What George Best said about Beckham sums him up . He has no left, cant beat a man, cant tackle , no pace but apart from that he is alright .

Maradona didn't think much of him either . Countless other pundits Chris Waddle, John Giles etc think Beckham was a celebrity footballer pure and simple . The only ones who rate Beckham are the stupid rag fans.

Gazza on the other hand was a real footballer respected by his peers . Maradona thought he could be his successor .The best player in the world.

He is still remembered among Lazio fans because when he was match fit he tore the serie a defences apart . Go on you tube watch some of his matches in serie a against AC Milan , Juventus etc where he was man of the match . Educate yourself .

 

[Maly]

Beckham and Ferdinand have lived long in the memory- people still talk about them all the time today, they were good enough to play for one or more of the biggest clubs in the world and they turned up in the Champions League. None of those things are true of Gascoigne, who as I say is basically never talked about outside of conversations about England's best players.

At the end of the day you believe that being more technically gifted makes you a better player and I think there's a lot more to it than that, we aren't going to agree on this so let's leave it there.

They played for one of the biggest clubs in the world? Do you mean the biggest & bestest Man United that Gascoigne could’ve played for but turned down in favour of Spurs lol?

That’s right, he turned them down, that’s why he didn’t play for United (are you too young to remember that or too old you’d forgotten?)

At the end of the day, you said it’s Universally accepted that Beckham, Ferdinand, Scholes, Lampard & Gerrard are considered better players than Gascoigne, which it absolutely isn’t as I for one completely disagree

I’d even hazard a guess that your thoughts would be In the minority if you asked only the people who have seen them all play (over 45’s maybe?) so it certainly isn’t universally accepted as you stated

You’re perfectly entitled to your opinion about who you believe is the best, but to back it up with universally accepted is about as far fetched as a comment can get pal

 

[Lavinda Past]

Literally the second line of your post and we've already identified the problem.

I don't deny that Gascoigne probably had more "individual talent/skill" than them. What he didn't have more of than them is all the other stuff you need to be a great player. And that's a lot.

That's why they're remembered as all-time great footballers and he, except by a few people who saw him turn out for England, isn't. Do you think most people in Spain, Brazil or Germany really remember what kind of player Gascoigne was? I doubt it. There's no doubt they all know Rooney, Lampard, Gerrard and co.

And to address your last line, with how good Phil is already I'd be pretty staggered if he didn't reach that level. We're talking about probably the best young English talent in recent memory so I'm not sure why everyone is determined to talk him down and say he'll be lucky to live up Gascoigne.

It's unfortunate that his personal problems are likely the reason he wasn't as good as those guys, but if we're judging them on how good they were over whole careers instead of how good they were at their best form, it's not really a contest.

I don't think there's any 'problem' to be identified!

It's all about opinions, differences of which shouldn't be 'problems'.

You obviously rate the players you've named as being great. I don’t agree. In fact, I think they're not much more than very good, hard working, professionals who were great team players and leaders. Of the three you've named, only Rooney had any genuinely natural talent. The others were grafters who never gave up.

We won't agree of course, because we look at players in different ways. I see Gascoigne, Best, Rodney Marsh, Frank Worthington, Tony Currie, Stan Bowles, Alan Hudson, Chris Waddle etc, and remember wonderfully entertaining football. Mavericks worth paying to watch.

Phil Foden isn't that type of player. He's more like Gerrard, Lampard, Hoddle, Bobby Moore, or Bryan Robson, in my eyes. The type of player who will still be fighting and setting a great example when the chips are down.

Phil has got a long way to go, but he's doing all the right things. Long may it last!

 

[twosips]

I don't think there's any 'problem' to be identified!

It's all about opinions, differences of which shouldn't be 'problems'.

You obviously rate the players you've named as being great. I don’t agree. In fact, I think they're not much more than very good, hard working, professionals who were great team players and leaders. Of the three you've named, only Rooney had any genuinely natural talent. The others were grafters who never gave up.

We won't agree of course, because we look at players in different ways. I see Gascoigne, Best, Rodney Marsh, Frank Worthington, Tony Currie, Stan Bowles, Alan Hudson, Chris Waddle etc, and remember wonderfully entertaining football. Mavericks worth paying to watch.

Phil Foden isn't that type of player. He's more like Gerrard, Lampard, Hoddle, Bobby Moore, or Bryan Robson, in my eyes. The type of player who will still be fighting and setting a great example when the chips are down.

Phil has got a long way to go, but he's doing all the right things. Long may it last!

I would have to disagree. Phil is incredibly entertaining to watch.

 

[Lavinda Past]

I would have to disagree. Phil is incredibly entertaining to watch.

I don't remember saying that he wasn't entertaining...

He's very disciplined and his youthful exuberance is a delight to watch, but he's not a maverick and probably never will be.

The modern game is far more system-based and disciplined than it was in the days of the 'great entertainers'.
Coaches like Pep, Tuchel, etc wouldn't tolerate the maverick type of player. Players nowadays are like robots compared to those of the past. That's why City are so good to watch - The team is poetry in motion when in full flow, regardless of who is playing.

There's not an individual player in the world now that I would make a trip to watch play if they weren't playing for or against City.

Compare that to the days when I (and many others) would pay good money to travel to matches just because Frank Worthington, or any other of the mavericks of the English game was playing.

It's a different game nowadays. There are no genuine characters any more... it's coached out of them in the development system.

 

[twosips]

I don't remember saying that he wasn't entertaining...

He's very disciplined and his youthful exuberance is a delight to watch, but he's not a maverick and probably never will be.

The modern game is far more system-based and disciplined than it was in the days of the 'great entertainers'.
Coaches like Pep, Tuchel, etc wouldn't tolerate the maverick type of player. Players nowadays are like robots compared to those of the past. That's why City are so good to watch - The team is poetry in motion when in full flow, regardless of who is playing.

There's not an individual player in the world now that I would make a trip to watch play if they weren't playing for or against City.

Compare that to the days when I (and many others) would pay good money to travel to matches just because Frank Worthington, or any other of the mavericks of the English game was playing.

It's a different game nowadays. There are no genuine characters any more... it's coached out of them in the development system.

To be fair you said you remembered 'wonderfully entertaining football' when describing those players, and that's what I consider Foden to bring :)

FWIW, I think most of those players probably aren't that better than what we see today, sometimes maybe not even as good technically - it's just the 'worst' players have gotten significantly better these days. You're bad premier league defender is milessss better than the bad defenders of that era. They're all now at very least exceptional athletes, ten times more professional, better trained etc. Defenders now pass as well as the creative midfielders back then, and why wouldn't they? The game demands it. I don't think it's that individuality is trained out of them, it's just that it's fucking hard to do what those lot did back then, cos football is just a lot, lot better.