Can you clarify your last 2 sentences please?Eriksen got a run in the team and started to shine.
Lamela hasn't even started 2 in a row
Run of games and he will shine.
I take skill and intelligence over brawn any day.
It's hardly helped Lennon has it.
He has an eye for a pass and some subtly. I agree he hasn't got that top end physicality to match his skills. I worry he has a touch of BentleyMerely my own opinion. Other opinions welcomed of course, but don't shoot me down in flames just because I dare to challenge the popular view.
I get the feeling/sense that Lamela will never actually fulfil his potential/reputation at THFC.
My reasoning for this is simple. He plays as an inside forward and neither has the pace to beat a man on the outside nor the physicality to drop his shoulder and drive inside. These are 2 my 2 major concerns with Lamela. I feel he would be better suited and adapt a lot quicker to a league where physical prowess plays a lesser significance, ie Serie A.
Without seeing lots of Lamela (who has??), what I have seen would suggest he is not technical enough to play off the front, nor does he have the blistering pace of a wideman to play in a 4, across the midfield.
As a fairly optimistic person I would love to be proved wrong, as I do genuinely love to see young players progressing at THFC. Thoughts are welcome, as long as they are constructive and not based on a 4 minute YouTube clip.
With that said, I give Lamela till Xmas before a lot of fans start to lose faith and patience with him, before seeing him loaned out in January.
I'd say lennon has no skill.Can you clarify your last 2 sentences please?
Are you saying Lennon has no skill but brawn lol.
Edit- Or did you mean John Lennon lol.
Do you think Eriksen can bench press more than Lamela?
or is faster than Lamela?
You're comparing an inside forward who will be predominantly responsible for isolating defenders in 1v1 situations and running at pace with the ball, with a central attacking midfielder.
Ericksen's role within the attacking unit will to be to find space between the oppositions defence and midfield. When in this space he will be expected to create goal scoring opportunities with clever movements to drag defenders out of position and thread accurate forward passes to team mates in goal scoring positions. Goals scored from this position are a bonus, ask any manager/coach and they would take a higher number of assists then someone who didn't create much but chipped in with the 'odd' goal.
The comparison between Eriksen and Lamela is a flawed one IMO.
All this talk of bench press and 100m is irrelevant. Nobody has said bench press or 100m times make any difference to a players ability to play football.
My dog can do the 100m in 7 seconds... But ask him to control a ball and...
Eriksen got a run in the team and started to shine.
Lamela hasn't even started 2 in a row
Run of games and he will shine.
I take skill and intelligence over brawn any day.
It's hardly helped Lennon has it.
Id say bit of skill, bit of strength and lot of pace.I'd say lennon has no skill.
You think he has?
Lennon has put on a lot of extra top half muscle.
Has the brawn made him a better footballer. I think not.
I think your perception of the system is too rigid. You focus too much on the 'roles' so-and-so will occupy which completely misses the point that the front three (or four including the striker) is supposed to be fluid and constantly moving. Why do you think Poch puts so much emphasis on fitness? Its too ensure that our players can keep moving long after the opposition are worn out. Notice how the key to this system is not who can run the fastest or who can stay on the ball the longest, but rather who can perform best as part of a fluid attacking line. Its a system which requires players who are technically proficient, can move the ball quickly and versatile enough to do so from a variety of positions in the oppositions half. You should have a look at LukeBB's post on the Seattle game for greater insight. Its a system which requires the attacking mechanism to be greater than the sum of its individual parts. Ergo rigidity in terms of player position will hardly be of use to us. Lamela will not simply be an inside forward but a fulcrum and spearhead as well, depending on his position at the time. The same goes for Eriksen and whoever else is part of the attacking line. In that way the scoring burden is distributed across the front four to maximize goal scoring opportunities.You're comparing an inside forward who will be predominantly responsible for isolating defenders in 1v1 situations and running at pace with the ball, with a central attacking midfielder.
Ericksen's role within the attacking unit will to be to find space between the oppositions defence and midfield. When in this space he will be expected to create goal scoring opportunities with clever movements to drag defenders out of position and thread accurate forward passes to team mates in goal scoring positions. Goals scored from this position are a bonus, ask any manager/coach and they would take a higher number of assists then someone who didn't create much but chipped in with the 'odd' goal.
The comparison between Eriksen and Lamela is a flawed one IMO.
All this talk of bench press and 100m is irrelevant. Nobody has said bench press or 100m times make any difference to a players ability to play football.
My dog can do the 100m in 7 seconds... But ask him to control a ball and...
Do you think Eriksen can bench press more than Lamela?
I think your perception of the system is too rigid. You focus too much on the 'roles' so-and-so will occupy which completely misses the point that the front three (or four including the striker) is supposed to be fluid and constantly moving. Why do you think Poch puts so much emphasis on fitness? Its too ensure that our players can keep moving long after the opposition are worn out. Notice how the key to this system is not who can run the fastest or who can stay on the ball the longest, but rather who can perform best as part of a fluid attacking line. Its a system which requires players who are technically proficient, can move the ball quickly and versatile enough to do so from a variety of positions in the oppositions half. You should have a look at LukeBB's post on the Seattle game for greater insight. Its a system which requires the attacking mechanism to be greater than the sum of its individual parts. Ergo rigidity in terms of player position will hardly be of use to us. Lamela will not simply be an inside forward but a fulcrum and spearhead as well, depending on his position at the time. The same goes for Eriksen and whoever else is part of the attacking line. In that way the scoring burden is distributed across the front four to maximize goal scoring opportunities.
I'm trying to think of some good PL attackers that lack upper body strength - there's Crouch who handles himself pretty well but his height helps though can't hold up the ball which is hardly needed of Lamela. Torres was once a great player, speed perhaps helped!
Can anyone think of any others and how they cope without the strength? Would Messi or Neymar cope in the PL? I think so but there seem to be a lot of players who flop here without the UBS. Surprised that he hasn't developed himself more over the last 6 months.
Hi TPd....I'm not so sure many of us expect Lamela "to score a shed-load in the first few games"; but in all fairness he has to show enough to warrant a starting place.From recollection, most on here start out with;
Excitement being replaced by optimism when a new player doesn't score a shed-load in the first few games. Optmism takes over with the hope that this player 'needs time to adapt', 'learn the language', 'get match fitness' etc etc.
Usually around Oct/Nov the optimism has died a death and pessimism rears it's ugly head. Pessimistic views about "how the money could of been better spent on 'X, Y and Z' and let's not forget the famous "with the same money we could have bought...*insert flavour of the month*" (who remembers the Amir Zaki fan club up until Xmas, only for them to dissapear by May).
Finally pessimism is seen off by Hatred and abuse. Before said player is sold/loaned or dropped. In this case the Jan transfer window.
Now this may sound ironic, judging by my initial concerns but to make it clear, I would give my left ball bag for Lamela to pull up trees on his way to being a top player. However, as I sit here and type this I have major reservations.
I would love to be proven wrong. So whilst he wears that big chicken proudly on his chest I will support him throughout and cheer him on like everybody else. We are after all "One Club"
Eriksen's game is based on passing. He rarely takes on a large defender with the ball at his feet and tries to bypass him.
Lamela's game is based on dribbling and beating men one-on-one.
Thus Eriksen's slight frame is not a problem for him, but Lamela's lack of physical strength to withstand barging and obstruction is a major problem for him.
As for the spurious comparison that keeps being made with Modric and has appeared again on this thread: Modric is a wiry, extremely strong man with a small frame. He's tough as hell and has exactly the kind of upper body strength that Lamela lacked last season. It's not about bulk, it's about torso strength.
Eriksen's game is based on passing. He rarely takes on a large defender with the ball at his feet and tries to bypass him.
Lamela's game is based on dribbling and beating men one-on-one.
Thus Eriksen's slight frame is not a problem for him, but Lamela's lack of physical strength to withstand barging and obstruction is a major problem for him.
As for the spurious comparison that keeps being made with Modric and has appeared again on this thread: Modric is a wiry, extremely strong man with a small frame. He's tough as hell and has exactly the kind of upper body strength that Lamela lacked last season. It's not about bulk, it's about torso strength.