Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A
The Mail Bag

Cahill Debate

Comments (47)

I know I'm probably going to cause a stir here, but I think Cahill should be dropped for the next match. For me he hasn't offered anything since Yakubu went away.

My idea would be to deploy Fernandes in the free role, behind Vaughan and Johnson. With Fernandes in recent games, he's been covering Carsley way too much and by time he gets to attack the lad is knackered...any thoughts?
Andrew Duncan, Merseyside     Posted 05/02/2008 at 11:29:40

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Graham Nolan
1   Posted 05/02/2008 at 16:23:11

Report abuse

For me, Cahill is a great goalscoring midfielder. He works hard and puts himself about. The thing I find about Cahill is that if he does not get on the scoresheet, he offers the team very little else, other than hard work which should be a pre-requisite. I think a in recent times he has been offering us less & less and his level of performance has dipped somewhat. Perhaps a spell on the sidelines might be good for him, he can recharge his batteries and could be good making an impact from the bench.
I do not think, however, that we should use Fernandes that high up the pitch. His strength is sitting deep and getting attacks started. Why not go 4-4-2 with AJ & the Yak up front, or push Osman further up the pitch in support of a lone front man?
Simon Gemine
2   Posted 05/02/2008 at 16:26:14

Report abuse

I agree, sorely because of the travelling involved with Australia. I would certainly have him on the bench though, just in case. I would play a 4-4-2, with Vaughan partnering AJ or Yak up front (If Yak is back).
Ian McDowell
3   Posted 05/02/2008 at 16:29:10

Report abuse

I would always go with Cahill in the strarting 11 at the momment. The team has been short of goals and thats what Tim gives us. I would also bring the Yak back this weekend and play him up front with AJ, and go 4-4-2.
Connor Rohrer
4   Posted 05/02/2008 at 16:34:59

Report abuse

Fernandes would look lost in the "Cahill role". I watched him play there for Valencia in the Champions League game and he was awful. He’s a central midfielder and should be played in his proffered position where he is effective.

If anyone’s going to play the Cahill role behind the striker then its Osman or Pienaar. Naturally both of there favored positions would be behind the front one or two. They’d both offer something different to Cahill in that role. They wouldn’t put themselves about as much and they wouldn’t play as a target man but they would offer more quality on the ball and excellent awareness.

I disagree with anyone who says Cahill is useless in a four man midfield. I’ve seen both Carsley and Neville do jobs in a four man midfield and Cahill is alot better footballer than both. He’s not a Fernandes or an Arteta but he is a capable Footballer. He’s not going to offer defense splitting balls but he’s physical, good in the air, a decent tackler, has excellent stamina and can chip in with the odd goal hear and there like he showed in the 05/06 season. People forget that for the Majority of that season we played 4-4-2 and Cahill scored 8 goals which is a decent number. I’d think it would be a different story if Cahill played alongside Fernandes. Someone who take take most of the ball duties and leave Cahill to play his box to box role. Its always worth a try.

His recent slump in form has got alot to do with Johnson. They just don’t play well together. When Johnson plays as the loan striker he likes to run behind alot which doesn’t give Cahill a chance to make his runs as he’s always behind him. With Yakubu its a different matter. Yak holds it up which gives Cahill time to make his runs from deep. When he plays with Johnson he more of less plays as an out and out striker which doesn’t suit him but when he plays with with Yakubu he does in fact play as an attacking midfielder.

Cahill has proven his worth to the team and when everyone is back I expect him to get back to his best. The 4-5-1 formation is also the best way to go until we find a defensive midfielder with legs and a bit of presence.

I doubt he’ll play on Saturday anyway. I expect it to be Fernandes and Carsley in midfield with Yakubu and Johnson leading the line.
Ben Jackson
5   Posted 05/02/2008 at 17:03:11

Report abuse

A few people here have hit the nail on the head, Cahill can’t offer as much when Johnson plays up front on his own. I do think he’s going to find himself on the bench because Johnson’s been doing enough to partner Yak in a 4-4-2 formation.

Technically Cahill isn’t the strongest, thats no secret so when he’s competing for a midfield place against the likes of Arteta, Pienaar, Osma and Fernandes he’s gunna struggle. He ’s a great addition to the team don’t get me wrong, but I think a few weeks on the side will do him the world of good.
Ian Short
6   Posted 05/02/2008 at 17:37:40

Report abuse

Cahill’s form has dipped since the Yak left but with the Yak back, Cahill may return to his best and he remains in the long term first choice front pairing. Having said that, with Cahill in Oz this week, Johnson playing well and us being at home to Reading, a 4-4-2 with Andy and the Yak would be the way to go for this weekend.
John Lloyd
7   Posted 05/02/2008 at 17:44:48

Report abuse

Manny is a defensive/holding midfielder, why dont people see that. Its not like its a revelation, thats what he was last time round, thats what he was for benfica & thats where he has played for us??? Why would play a holding midfielder as a 2nd striker or (as the dutch say) a no.10 role???
Mick Simo
8   Posted 05/02/2008 at 17:57:31

Report abuse

If the manager dosen’t play 4-4-2 against Reading he deserves to be sacked, no seriously we have got to play 4-4-2 at home against these teams. Cahill to me cant play effective in a four man midfield, but in 5 man midfield, and a stiker who can hold the ball up he is effective. I sometimes think Cahill is a frustrated out and out striker. Fernandes is a central midfield player, who will hold the space in midfield when his central midfield partner goes forward, he wont play the Carsley role in a five man midfield, when we depoly this set up, Fernandes will get forward in support of the strikers, but will also drop back to help out. Hes a class act and will get forward at times in the box. Central holding midfielder or attacking midfielder, I think he can do both.
Steve Ferns
9   Posted 05/02/2008 at 18:24:30

Report abuse

I agree that Cahill seems to offer a lot less when Johnson is upfront. I think that if Yakubu comes straight back in, in a 4-5-1 then we would see Cahill excel once more. You are a fickle lot. Cahill is a key reason behind a surge to 4th, so what he hasn’t scored for a few games, he’s already scored more than i think we’ll get from Johnson all season.

4-5-1 is our best formation, it suits our midfield, with Carsley able to sit deeper, the full backs able to get further forward, Cahill able to bomb on, and for Arteta, Osman and Fernandes to play with far less regementation. When we’ve supposedly played this defensive formation, we have been far more attacking than in a 4-4-2.

If Johnson has to play, then he should play with either Anichebe or Vaughan as he needs support to help him hold the ball up. Johnson simply cannot do this and requires assistance, which is why we struggle for goals with him leading the line in a 4-5-1.
Steve Ferns
10   Posted 05/02/2008 at 18:32:50

Report abuse

John Lloyd, I know what you are saying about Fernandes, but do you not recall him playing on the wing for us last season (against Watford at least)? He also did this against Chelsea in the Semi at Goodison.

Fernandes is not a holding a midfielder, but he could be in time. He goes missing at times and does not yet have the fitness levels required. He also lacks Carsley’s discipline and wants to go forward too much to play there. Therefore, Fernandes is better, and has the skills to play as a proper old fashioned centre midfielder. He can get back and get forward and can get on the ball and dictate play. He’s lacking a little fitness and experience / familiarity with the premier league. The signs are good with him and I think he can be world class if he continues to develope.
Ricardo Humphries
11   Posted 05/02/2008 at 18:38:33

Report abuse

Andrew, his form hasn’t been geat off late, but I’ll rather go for a out of form Cahill than no Cahill! He’ll bounce back
Tony McCann
12   Posted 05/02/2008 at 18:34:12

Report abuse

I think we are getting a bit to involved in tactics here, if we are going to talk tactics, you have got to take in account the opposition, their tactics, their players and threats. 4-4-2 or 4-5-1, in a 4-4-2 I would coach the midfield to support both defence and attack, one of the midfielders to get forward as much as possiable and the other to play a holding role to protect the defence, wide players have got to get forward but also protect the full backs. 4-4-1-1 to me can be successful if you deploy the right player in the hole, think of Alessandro Del Piero behind David Trézéguet. I agree 4-4-1-1 is our best formation, but why not play James Vaugn in the hole, you dont need to be a midfield player to play this, just a solid midfield behind you. Another formation you can play to accommodate two or more strikers is the Christmas tree formation, 4-3-2-1, two Strikers in the hole and one ahead, this would suite Cahill and the likes of Vaugn, who are energetic enough to chase back in midfield, not for me though, remember Hoddle playing this, though Venebles did have a bit of success with it.
Connor Rohrer
13   Posted 05/02/2008 at 18:54:03

Report abuse

John, Fernandes isn’t a defensive midfielder and never will be in England. I’ve watched him for Benfica, Everton, Portsmouth, Valencia and the Portugal Under 21s and he never played the "holding role". I remember once for Portugal v Holland he played a deeper role but it was hardly defensive.

He was compared to Makelele as a youth but anyone watching the Chelsea v Everton semi final would have seen how different they where. I remember Gravesen was called a defensive midfielder when he came to England and we can see perfectly that he is not at all and never was.

He’s a bit of both if you ask me. More attacking than defensive but very capable of tackling and breaking up play. Why waste him in a disciplined role? One of our few players capable of spotting a through ball and capable of brilliance as he showed against Spurs in the final third.
Tony McCann
14   Posted 05/02/2008 at 19:09:37

Report abuse

Conor I think you might be getting a bit confused with what a defensive / holding midfielder is in Moyes preferd formation 4-5-1. A holding midfielder is positioned in front of the back four. This provides freedom for the rest of the team to move forward and attack as the defense will be "protected" by the holding midfielder. This formation is also considerd a defensive set up to grind out 0-0 or protect a 1-0 This is Carsleys position. Right I will explain where Manny played for Pourtugal and Benfica, he played in a 4-2-3-1 which is simalar to 4-5-1 but you have a offensive midfielder and two defensive midfielders, with two wide players pushing forward. To understand it think of Carrick and scholes as playmakers in a defensive midfield playing behind Giggs playing behind the striker, this was the position Manure played in the champions league in 2006. So Manny would play in the Carrick or Scholes position. For me Fernandes, depending on formation would be a central midfielder, but holding, rather than making runs forward, especially in a four man midfield.
Connor Rohrer
15   Posted 05/02/2008 at 19:48:01

Report abuse

"John, Fernandes isn?t a defensive midfielder and never will be in England."

Tony McCann, I understand the difference which is why I said Fernandes will never be a defensive midfielder in "England". As you said the European version of a defensive midfielder is different from ours. Carsley is a typical British defensive midfielder whereas someone like Gilberto at Arsenal or Makelele at Chelsea would be your typical European/overseas defensive midfielder.

This is why I mentioned Gravesen. He was known as a defensive/holding midfielder in Germany and Denmark because he played a deeper role and used his passing range to dictate attacks. But in England we can just see that he would never be able to play that role.

Fernandes for me is an out and out central midfielder who likes to get on the ball. A deep lying play maker maybe but judging by his first spell hear he didn’t play as deep as he is playing now. There is a difference between someone like Alonso and Fernandes. Alonso has discipline and plays in more or less a box whereas Fernandes although not out and out attacking does get forward and isn’t used in a disciplined role.
Tony McCann
16   Posted 05/02/2008 at 20:25:46

Report abuse

Connor there is an argument that Moyes preferd formation is actually not a 4-5-1, but a modified 4-4-1-1, this being the case, you are right, because it means you only have four midfield players, for example Arteta right mid, Carsley and Fernandes middle and Pienar left mid, with Cahill playing in an advanced position in the hole behind the Yak, this being the case Manny as got to get forward more, because Carsley will need to play the holding role just in front of the back four, but as much as I like Carsley, he realy should be dictating the pace of the game with passes, thats what Gilberto and Makalee both do, he just hasent got that in his locker.
Tommy Banks
17   Posted 05/02/2008 at 20:47:23

Report abuse

Just a question to either Tony or Connor, If Moyes plays Arteta and Fernandes both as central midfield players in a 4-4-2, who would be the holding player and who would be the playmaker. 4-4-2 is all about balance through the middle. it is normal for one of the central midfielders to be a holding player to protect the back 4, allowing the other midfielder to be more of a playmaker, seeing both can be creative, but I see Arteta more of the playmaker and Fernandes the holding player. See what you think.
Paul Davis
18   Posted 05/02/2008 at 21:26:16

Report abuse

Forget about formations, Moyes will tell his players the way he wants them to play, when you have the ball, Cahill supports the main striker in the box, Fernandes or whoever will push forward and Carsley will hold the midfield. When we loose the ball Cahill will support the rest of the midfield and Carsley will break up any attacks, and should pass to a player in an advanced position of him, but sometimes he will hoof it. See its easy, no fucking 4-4-2 or 4-5-1 needed.
David Nicholls
19   Posted 05/02/2008 at 22:05:02

Report abuse

I’d play Cahill behind the Yak as they were awesome before the ACN. Cahill has a great goalscoring record as a midfeilder but when he doesn’t score for a while people assume he’s not playing well but he offers much more than goals. Against Wigan for example, his work-rate and defending were 1st class.
I agree with Connor about Manny, he shouldn’t play ’in the hole’ he’s a central midfielder and a cracking one at that. He’s not ready for a holding role either and wont be for a good few years although, I personally feel he could mature and grow into that role one day.
david pilling
20   Posted 05/02/2008 at 22:27:18

Report abuse

Basically, what i think we all surely agree on is that Cahill isn’t as effective in a 4-4-2, and that we are hopeless with Aj up front in a 4-5-1.

Which leaves us with 2 options.

1. Yak up front on his own, with cahill playing the supporting role

2. We play 4-4-2 with Yak and AJ and Cahill is on the bench.

Personally i think we cannot we play 4-4-2 with cahill but i’m sure many will disagree.

We need Cars in the midfield, so assuming its Arteta and Piennar out wide that leaves Manny or Tim. Hmmmm, interesting
Dick Fearon
21   Posted 05/02/2008 at 23:08:19

Report abuse

If there is a problem when Cahill parners AJ the answer is simple.
Drop the championship standard player. One guess who that will be.
If Everton wants to kiss goodbye to any current or future Australians just keep on their backs about them representing their country.
David Pilling
22   Posted 05/02/2008 at 23:26:44

Report abuse

calm down, Dick.

I dont think anybody here is having a go at Tim for being Australian. Who cares where a guy is from as long he’s an Evertonian thats fine by me. Stop being so sensitive just coz your from Oz
Connor Rohrer
23   Posted 05/02/2008 at 23:53:41

Report abuse

Tommy Banks, probably Fernandes in the holding role and Arteta in the more attacking role. Only because Fernandes has more defensive qualities. He’s more physical than Mikky and stronger in the tackle.

I think it would be a great idea to play them both in the middle in Europe. We’d be able to control games, keep the ball and not worry so much on the defensive aspects of the game. The aim of the game in European football is to keep the ball so playing two natural out and out ball players in the middle of the park would help us do this. Maybe not away from home but at Goodsion I’d definatly give it a go but I doubt Moyes will as he likes Arteta on the wing.

In premiership games though its different. Carsley is needed to give us a bit of steel aswell as some physicality in the middle of the park.
David Barks
24   Posted 06/02/2008 at 00:34:35

Report abuse

Please, let us not turn Cahill into the new boo boy at Goodison. He has went a couple of games without a goal but is still a threat. Fernandes should not be played in Cahill’s role because that is not what he is. Fernandes is a Defensive central midfielder. He’s not a holding midfielder like Carsley, but in a 4 man midfield can play in the middle instead of Carsley. Cahill probably won’t be in the team this week so hopefully Yakubu and AJ will get to partner each other and see how they do with Arteta, Fernandes, and hopefully Osman fit. It’s just too bad Pienaar got injured because I would have loved to have seen how our strikers played with Arteta, Fernandes and Pienaar. But soon they will all be healthy and ready to go. If we can stay healthy we could have a very successful run to end the season. And I for one think anything is possible in the UEFA Cup. Why not us?
Jason Lam
25   Posted 06/02/2008 at 03:44:58

Report abuse

Conner, you read my mind.

I would add that one other reason why Manny can play further back in the middle (or Moyes place him there) is his superb long range passing to compensate. Hit them with AJ on the break. And we have another body at the back for insurance.

For Premiership games played at 140mph, no-frills Cars in the middle to mop up definately.
Michael Tracey
26   Posted 06/02/2008 at 03:57:52

Report abuse

I think Dick is a fair point as there are a bunch of goemless wankers on here who keep questioning Cahillls passion and that he is saving himself for Australian games. Not too mention the fact the others who claim he should stay here as its only a meaningless World Cup Qualifier. It really pisses me that because he is Australian a lot seem to think that they are an inferior team or something. All I remember is the last time there was a game between the over hyped England and Australia the latter won by 3 goals to 1. Maybe Cahill is in a bit of a quiet patch at the moment but thats only because we expect him to score all the time. He still does a lot of other things in games. Arteta has played a quite badly in some games and he never gets called into question.
Cliff Zampost
27   Posted 06/02/2008 at 06:10:55

Report abuse

EFC simply dont have the depth and cannot afford to drop a player like cahill, who can turn a game from nothing into something, he’s a match winner, he’s to dangerous around goals to leave on the pine. Give the guy a break, you cant expect him to score every week. He will bounce back and proove all you doubters wrong.
Laurie Cooper
28   Posted 06/02/2008 at 07:48:39

Report abuse

Dick Fearon, as a staunch supporter of Australian football and lifelong Evertonian, I can tell you that I agree with the concerns expressed by Andrew Duncan.

In my view, we should forget the debate about which is Cahill?s preferred or best position; equally, we should forget about debating his form at the moment. We should focus on his commitment to Everton. Most young Australian players I know and deal with on a daily basis would give their eye teeth to represent a Club like Everton. Not so Mr Cahill.

What concerns me about Cahill, and has for a long while, is his propensity for putting Everton a distant second to his Australian duties, even when the Australian games are only friendlies. And, whilst the game against Qatar is a full international, there are enough players of substance locally who could fill his role for this match without threatening his long term security in the team. He knows this and so do the Football Federation of Australia.

This season, he has spent time on the injury list and has been suspended and, in my view, should be putting his Everton responsibilities at the forefront at the moment as he owes the Club and Everton supporters some return for their loyalty, support and patience. Flying 12,000 miles, playing on the Wednesday night and then flying back to the UK on Thursday evening (AST) isn?t going to help his performances in either the Australian or Reading matches.
Ajay Gopal
29   Posted 06/02/2008 at 08:15:03

Report abuse

I am surprised that nobody has mentioned about using Tim as a "super-sub". Kill 2 birds with 1 stone if you ask me. Play Yak & AJ or Yak & Vaugny to start with , with Cahill on the bench. After AJ/Vaugny have run the defense ragged, bring in Timmy at about the 60 ~ 70 minute mark. He would be deadly in these situations. And, if memory serves me right, that is how Australia used him very effectively in the World Cup and Asia Cup. He smashed a fair number of goals, coming on as a sub.
Cameron Hamilton
30   Posted 06/02/2008 at 09:11:01

Report abuse

Laurie, I have seen nothing with Cahill no suggest he is not both a) a proud Evertonian and b) a proud Australian. The claims you are making are totally without basis.





By the way, Cahill on the scoresheet in the first half - Australia leading 3-0... Perhaps this is a chance for him to get some goal scoring confidence back.
David Moore
31   Posted 06/02/2008 at 10:28:32

Report abuse

Socceroos game ended 3-0. Cahill came off in 65th minute. He had a pretty gud game. and scored.
Cliff Zampost
32   Posted 06/02/2008 at 10:38:02

Report abuse

I knew Cahill would proove all you doubters all wrong AGAIN! Played a great game tonight, scored a great goal tonight, ran hard all night and in respect to his club committments and moyes was subbed after 65 minutes. What more can you ask for from the man. OH And i forgot was named man of the match, BOG.
Peter Keating
33   Posted 06/02/2008 at 10:54:52

Report abuse

In what position did Cahill pay for the Socceroos? Interested to know if it is similar to where he is playing now or where he originally played for us in centre midfield
Robert Chan
34   Posted 06/02/2008 at 11:02:43

Report abuse

more information on the game http://www.foxsports.com.au/football/
Peter Smith
35   Posted 06/02/2008 at 11:10:08

Report abuse

http://www.foxsports.com.au/football
James Lewis
36   Posted 06/02/2008 at 11:28:40

Report abuse

For everyones info, Tim played as the attacking midfielder in a diamond midfield in a 4-4-2. From all reports did very well too.
Anj Stamos
37   Posted 06/02/2008 at 11:43:57

Report abuse

re: Peter Keating post. Cahill played just behind the front 2 similar as with everton. B.O.G performance and he could?ve ended up with 3-4 goals as well. Defended well, worked hard esp 1st half, your typical Cahill outstanding display. Didnt look too jetlagged to me. Bring on Reading ! COYB
Steve Nikolovski
38   Posted 06/02/2008 at 11:56:31

Report abuse

Guys.

Cahill is a champ.

We are 4th (and would be much better off if not for a bad decision)

Times are good.......

Get over it!
John Lloyd
39   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:03:22

Report abuse

Just in response to Stevie & Connor.

I dont think Manny played on the wing against chelsea, he was probably our most central player so I have to disagree, also the watford game away last year, being honest I cant remember, but if you look at the team from that day then I’m sure he wasnt on the wing/side in that game either!!

You can dress it up all you want but Manny is a holding midfielder in a yaya toure, Makalele, Diarra type of way. he will get involved with play & orchestrate play from a deeper position that the rest of midfield. I dont think you can look at his other clubs & where they played him for a number of reasons....
Benfica - played across the midfield (mostly central) due to youth & just breaking through
Pompey - never got fair crack & stated he was out of posistion more than not
Valencia - same as above really, hence why he is back here now.
I know (as always) its just opinions & peoples interpretations of a particular position. So if we re-christen it a depper role (rather than holding/defensive) than that suits him better. He is someone who will start attacks, keep possesion, dictate play etc etc. He could be our most important player if we manage to keep him.
So lets watch & enjoy him.
John Lloyd
40   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:14:28

Report abuse

To add my two penth worth to Cahill, no-one must be above dropping including Tim. And if we were ever going to do it then now is the time, Australia commitments coming up, lack of goals & I have to agree with some other posts on here. he has looked jaded in recent weeks.
Maybe exploding back into the team the way he did is taking a toll now. I dont know, I dont see him train everyday etc but I honestly believe that against reading that Vaughn (not victor) should start alongside AJ, until Yak is back & ready to go!!!
Damian Wilde
41   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:11:48

Report abuse

Andrew, I’m amazed that you didn’t mention the ’Yak’ in your foward line! The man is the best goal scorer at the club. Let’s be honest, AJ is only going to get about 10 a season.
Ian
42   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:16:28

Report abuse

I have to agree that Cahill’s form has been poor to say the least, but to drop him would be just stupid in my opinion. I’d like us to have the option of having someone of Cahill’s ability available to come in so we can say ’Cahill, it’s not good enough you can do better, you’re dropped’, but for me, there is no one to do that. We can’t drop him, he’s too important, even when he’s not at his best. He was on fire when he first came back from injury. It would have been impossible for him to keep up that form. Most pro’s say that after injury you come back strong (playing on adrenaline for a while), but then you have a dip in form where you kind of hit a wall. You get through that and then the good times return. I think Cahill will be ok. He has looked tired recently and maybe a week on the sidelines would be good for him, but not for the team. I’d rather be watching Everton with Timmy in the starting 11 whatever his form!
Paul OHanlon
43   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:17:18

Report abuse

John Lloyd, many did play wide against Watford last season and he also finished on the left against Chelsea in the 2nd leg.

But I agree totally with you that he’s a central midfielder and should be kept there. The more he plays I think the more we’ll see him pulling the strings. I’d also like to see him take more free kicks after the one against Blackburn. Arteta’s set pieces have been poor all season.

Regarding Cahill, a break would do him good this weekend. Leave him on the bench just in case and start with AJ and Yak up top. He’s been blowing bubbles lately at the end of games and I think tiredness is the only reason we’ve not see the best of him, nothing more sinister.
John Lloyd
44   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:33:21

Report abuse

I stand corrected regarding the Watford one,as i said I couldnt remember. The chelsea game he deffo started (& played most of game) central. I remember from the night but I’ve yet too watch it back on TV (too painful) and being honest the aussie whites & chang had deffo kicked in by then so you may be right.

Just in response to Ian, I would also pick my 11 including Tim most of the time & your right a little break this week might see him come back refreshed, but on his previous form. He’s not getting into positions he normally does, he is not as sharp as usual & if he is playing 2nd striker then he needs to be more of a threat.
Its also only fair to Vaughan, cos you cant say to the lads on bench "It doesnt matter what you do cos th lads in front of you will always play, even off form" they have to have an incentive. Just hope whoever DM picks that we do reading by more than 2 & get the confidence going again.
Connor Rohrer
45   Posted 06/02/2008 at 12:26:56

Report abuse

John Lloyd, There is a difference between Lassana Diarra and Manuel Fernandes. Fernandes is a central midfielder whereas Diarra is a defensive midfielder.

Diarra naturally plays deep and hardly moves away from the back four. Fernandes drops deep to start attacks because he is our only player capable of doing this. If Carsley could take pressure of the back four and pick a pass then Fernandes I suspect would play higher up the pitch. The problem is Carsley isn’t capable of this and doesn’t make himself available so Fernandes has to do it.

Lots of players drop deep and start attacks but it doesn’t necessarily make them defensive players. Scholes does it for United, Fabregas does it for Arsenal and Gerrard does it for Liverpool and none of those players are classed as defensive midfielders. They just have the bollocks and the talent to look for the ball when under pressure which all good midfielders should do.

Fernandes for me is a central midfielder who has more attacking attributes than defensive. He may have been billed as a defensive midfielder in Portugal in his youth but he has far to much ability and lacks the discipline to ever play like Makelele. Makelele’s game is more or less played in a box in front of the back four, he wins the ball and passes it five yards to the more creative player. Ive yet to see Fernandes do this in his Everton career. Even in the Chelsea match which is the deepest I’ve ever seen him play he still got forward and burst past the half way line on a number of occasions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VptyYcpLE54

I think we’ll all agree that his best game for the club so far is the Arsenal game last season. Judging by these clips he isn’t a defensive midfielder and plays his best stuff when he is playing in front of Carsley as he does for the majority of the game. He shows both defensive and attacking qualities but his positional play is not defensive.

Who knows though. Maybe I’m wrong or maybe I’m right. Just an opinion.
Ian Ankers
46   Posted 06/02/2008 at 14:19:22

Report abuse

John lloyd wrote:
Its also only fair to Vaughan, cos you cant say to the lads on bench "It doesnt matter what you do cos the lads in front of you will always play, even off form" they have to have an incentive. Just hope whoever DM picks that we do reading by more than 2 & get the confidence going again.

John, I agree with all of what you are saying, but the fact remains for me that I would at this current time pick Cahill (even on present form) above vaughan. Don’t get me wrong, I really like Vaughan, but just feel Cahill cannot be left out. I feel we would be weakend by leaving him out, whoever we put in instead. Just my opinion! I could be wrong, maybe putting vaughan in and leaving Cahill out would work, but I have my doubts if that would be a plus, even for one week!
John Lloyd
47   Posted 06/02/2008 at 14:20:04

Report abuse

Conor you are spot on, it is an opinion but I dont think that you can put Manny in same category as Scholes an that because he does sit deeper than all them & its also wrong to class Diarra as just a defensive midfielder, if you watched the portsmouth game v Chelsea (full game) you would see my point. His base is deeper but he gets involved with play a whole lot but can break attacks up from there. This is what I see Manny doing for us as he did for U-21s last night, was MOM by all accounts in a Pirlo role anchored to the centre of midfield, deeper than other midfielders. that is why I suggested re-think on the name/classification of the role I was trying to describe. i think perfect example is Pirlo of Milan.

I do agree he is a central midfielder, but also Diarra is......they just occupy different areas to the lkes of Gerrard, Cahill and Scholes (when Keane was alongside him).

I dont think this one is gonna get settled cos we have two different(similar) but different opinions. When I watch Manny he gets involved in play but his position I still say he is a deep holding midfielder rather than a box to box midfielder as you described

© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.