Kevin De Bruyne 2016/17

[Shaelumstash]

I can't get my head around how quickly people feel or maybe pretend to feel offended on a forum.

I haven't said that YOUR judgement is biased by what supporters around you are shouting, I merely meant as a general remark re watching live at the stadium, that it's more difficult to focus on watching the match in detail when surrounded by a bunch of loud supporters.

Neither did I claim that watching from home is better than watching live. I told you I much prefer watching in the stands as well and I do it almost every week, Anderlecht home games, Belgium home games and occasional Chelsea home games (through my friend the former Chelsea scout - it's hard to get any tickets for us Belgians otherwise).

I only said, to agree with Daxx's point, that to watch the game at home on a screen with the comfort of replays, etc. is much better suited for objective in depth analysis. Whether or not you actually want to do that or like doing that, is something else.

So I would appreciate if you stopped twisting my words like that just to create some kind of a conflict.

And I appreciate your love & admiration for David Silva, but I'm quite sure he's not the only player in the world who you can only truely appreciate inside the stadium...

It's just a different atmosphere, a different experience, a much better one than watching from home yes ... but that was never the point.

Let's just take atmosphere's out of it, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You were the one who claimed to have been offended / patronised in the first place, not me. I merely explained to you that I am polite to every poster on here, and if they choose to change the tone, I will happily play along.

The difference of opinion boils down to you think you can better analyse a team and a players individual performance by watching on TV, and I vehemently disagree. As I said earlier, you are the only person I have ever come across who has this view, so it's really a waste of your time trying to change my mind.

 

[schfc6]

"I only said, to agree with Daxx's point, that to watch the game at home on a screen with the comfort of replays, etc. is much better suited for objective in depth analysis. Whether or not you actually want to do that or like doing that, is something else."

Would you or Dax care to explain why Sky TV have launched a whole new way to watch televised games then?

It seems odd that Sky's expert analysists have frequently said they use the 'tactical cam' to gain their info. As it gives them a much better perspective of the game than the tradition footage.

I do wonder why Sky would spend their money making this facility firstly available to their pundits and then secondly to its viewers if it's not as good as the traditional camera view.

There is literally no sane arguement to suggest watching a game on TV or through highlights is better than seeing the entire game in front of you.

As you've been asked and you've ignored, why the hell would clubs spend money, waste time sending directors of football, scouts even managers to games all over the World if watching on TV was not only comparable but according to you better?

Surely that can't make sense to anyone?

 

[KDBestplayerintheworld]

The difference of opinion boils down to you think you can better analyse a team and a players individual performance by watching on TV, and I vehemently disagree. As I said earlier, you are the only person I have ever come across who has this view, so it's really a waste of your time trying to change my mind.

I'm not trying to change your mind, I've long given up on trying to change people's minds. Just posting how I see it.

It is not correct that I am the only one btw, as Daxx on here has already stated exactly the same (which started this whole discussion in the first place).

Football analysts and pundits analyse through video as well by the way, they sit in front of the telly (gigantic screens) all day/night long and watch every little detail. Zoom, replay, etc.

So I don't think I'm alone on this. Matter of fact, I'd be surprised if the majority wouldn't agree that analysis works better via telly. Just because you think something is the truth, doesn't mean that everybody thinks it's the truth. That counts for me as well.

 

[Dax777]

Your opinion is that you can watch a Youtube video 3 months later and look at some Opta pass completion stats and have as good an analysis as someone who was at the game and could see all of the movement off the ball. You're wrong, and that's why you've got a fundamental misunderstanding of the game.

Not necessarily agreeing with how he sees the game (like you I prefer Silva to De Bruyne as playmaker remember), just saying that he is a fantastic debater. His arguments are excellent and well formulated too. So I was more commenting on his debate skills than actual football ideas.

I don't necessarily prefer DeBryune at the CAM position. My arguments here are pretty narrow.

1. That DeBryune wasn't 'diabolical' against Newcastle
2. That it is not a certainty that he was moved to RM because he was being 'diabolical'

And if you want to add other supporting positions I have held, you can add

3. DeBryune can be successful at the CAM position.

4. Watching a game 3-4 times leisurely after the fact, is superior to any average person who only saw it oncein an emotional state as it was happening.

5. As a matter of fact, rewatching the first 25 minutes that was at issue specifically for a present argument, is better than any previous viewing anyone can have.

These were my positions. My opinion on who should play where isn't as entrenched. I'd play One of Sterling/Navas right, and let Silva/DeBryune interchange between left and Center.

But if I were forced to make a choice, I'd go with DeBryune centrally because of his production, and Silva's history and capacity to control and run the game from any attacking position.

People forget he was playmaking from the wings for the most part of the laat 3-4 years. My only worry about Silva on the wings is his defensive support work. I think it's inferior to that of the other 3, which would suggest it might be best for the team if he is in the middle with less defensice responsibilities.

These are all the factors one has to balance, hence why I wouldn't fault anyone who concludes otherwise differently about how we should play going into the future. What I can argue against though, is the why part. Coz that often is a matter of fact, not projection.

 

[KDBestplayerintheworld]

4. Watching a game 3-4 times leisurely after the fact, is superior to any average person who only saw it oncein an emotional state as it was happening.

5. As a matter of fact, rewatching the first 25 minutes that was at issue specifically for a present argument, is better than any previous viewing anyone can have

Yes, I understood that and agree.

Don't know how it got twisted into preferring telly over stands ...

Only counter argument which I found useful was that of Pablo re helicopter view, but I still think regular telly view gives you enough to judge build-up play properly.

 

[mancity1]

The biggest two problems with the team at the moment are the continued insistence on starting Yaya and the continued absence of Kompany.

I think the link between midfield and attack is the biggest issue with the team.

Silva I doubt hasn't been close to 100 per cent fit and on top his game for much of the season , Kun likewise.

Anybody who knows us despite our defensive frailties when we don't have the ball in the main ( 23 goals conceded in the first 23 games this year and last year ) knows if you stop Silva and stop decent supply to Kun you have a decent chance of getting something from us after 96 minutes.

if both stay fit and hit even near their best from here on in we will be hard to stop this year despite.

If not Navas and Sterling will have to step up to the plate and I have my doubts on Sterling to do that at this stage of his career,

 

[Dax777]

"I only said, to agree with Daxx's point, that to watch the game at home on a screen with the comfort of replays, etc. is much better suited for objective in depth analysis. Whether or not you actually want to do that or like doing that, is something else."

Would you or Dax care to explain why Sky TV have launched a whole new way to watch televised games then?

It seems odd that Sky's expert analysists have frequently said they use the 'tactical cam' to gain their info. As it gives them a much better perspective of the game than the tradition footage.

I do wonder why Sky would spend their money making this facility firstly available to their pundits and then secondly to its viewers if it's not as good as the traditional camera view.

There is literally no sane arguement to suggest watching a game on TV or through highlights is better than seeing the entire game in front of you.

As you've been asked and you've ignored, why the hell would clubs spend money, waste time sending directors of football, scouts even managers to games all over the World if watching on TV was not only comparable but according to you better?

Surely that can't make sense to anyone?

This is a silly argument to be in really, as there are no satisfactory answers. So I'll simply show why that is.

1. Managers, Directors, and scouts who go watch players live, don't solely watch those players live, they also watch videos of them. So asking 'why do they go to games if video viewing was better' is silly because it presumes they don't watch videos. Which they all do.

It's like asking why do business people also use bar charts for their presentations if pie charts were better. The answer is simple, because more ways of viewing the same thing is often better than fewer ways of viewing it. This though says little about which one is better.

2. If the question was which one is better for analysis, watching a game once at the stadium or the option of repetitive views on a video. Repetitive views on a video is better. And the reason has little to do with your view, and more to do with your ability to manipulate. Your ability to manipulate a video, pause it, rewind it, analyze short sections over and over, beats any ability to see the whole field once. Thus, in that respect video is better. And it's not even close.

3. You can use the same reasoning in point #1 to understand tactical cam. It's just like video, or being at the stadium, an additional way to view what's going on. Generally, you are more able to view the formation, and group movement of the players, how compactly they play e.t.c But most of this is apparent on a regular broadcast.

That said, I understand the emotional connection humans have with traditional ways of doing things. This connection though, is not proof of superiority.

 

[Shaelumstash]

I'm sorry @KDBestplayerintheworld and @Dax777 but I agree with @schfc6 .The idea that the directors view, the Match of the Day view is better for analysing a player's and team's performance, particularly in terms of movement off the ball and pass selection, is so absurd that it really doesn't warrant serious debate, so let's just leave it there.

 

[mancity1]

I pretty much think he is in MP's best eleven and his injury record along with YAYA's ( over a reasonable period of time is the best at the club.

That is what matters , you can disagree with formations, the other starters etc even whether both should start ( personally I would only start Yaya if we play against a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 provided Delph , Fernando and Ferny are in the starting line up.

 

[Dax777]

I'm sorry @KDBestplayerintheworld and @Dax777 but I agree with @schfc6 .The idea that the directors view, the Match of the Day view is better for analysing a player's and team's performance, particularly in terms of movement off the ball and pass selection, is so absurd that it really doesn't warrant serious debate, so let's just leave it there.

You are a strawman argument machine. You just can't help but throw up strawmen. It's quite amusing.