Gökhan Inler - Central Midfielder - Udinese (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
89,018
With Pirlo here already, we should go full power on securing Lass. Too bad Melo will leave if Lass comes and the third CM will be the ghost :sergio:
We complicate way too much. 4-3-3 should be our priority and we should play something like Pirlo - Fernando (?) - Marchisio

Lass is great IMO, but I think we have 0 chances of seeing him here.
 

Alen

Ѕenior Аdmin
Apr 2, 2007
53,998
We complicate way too much. 4-3-3 should be our priority and we should play something like Pirlo - Fernando (?) - Marchisio

Lass is great IMO, but I think we have 0 chances of seeing him here.
Pirlo, Fernando, Marchisio is a not better at all than what we had last year with Melo, Aquilani, Marchisio. It will be foolish to replace almost the entire midfield and not to improve it. Hell, it might even be worse than what we had.
 

Dostoevsky

Tzu
Administrator
May 27, 2007
89,018
Pirlo, Fernando, Marchisio is a not better at all than what we had last year with Melo, Aquilani, Marchisio. It will be foolish to replace almost the entire midfield and not to improve it. Hell, it might even be worse than what we had.
Nah, it's different. Fernando is good while Pirlo can offer more than Aquilani. 4-3-3 is the way to go IMO.

We sucked with 4-4-2, when Marchisio played out left
 

Red

-------
Moderator
Nov 26, 2006
47,024
Pirlo, Fernando, Marchisio is a not better at all than what we had last year with Melo, Aquilani, Marchisio. It will be foolish to replace almost the entire midfield and not to improve it. Hell, it might even be worse than what we had.
On paper it's not better, but in practice I believe it would be.

Pirlo is still a better player than Aquilani and Marchisio will do better with a settled role in the team in a system he should be better suited to.

I'm not convinced about Fernando v Melo.
 
May 22, 2007
37,256
On paper it's not better, but in practice I believe it would be.

Pirlo is still a better player than Aquilani and Marchisio will do better with a settled role in the team in a system he should be better suited to.

I'm not convinced about Fernando v Melo.
Fernando doesn't lose his head. And to be honest, I've seen better performances from him than I have from either Inler or Felipe Melo, even though it's only been 4 or 5.
 

Bjerknes

"Top Economist"
Mar 16, 2004
116,149
We complicate way too much. 4-3-3 should be our priority and we should play something like Pirlo - Fernando (?) - Marchisio

Lass is great IMO, but I think we have 0 chances of seeing him here.
Well, we have to complicate things, because all indications are that Conte will play a 4-2-4 or 4-2-3-1 or whatever hybrid of the two. It looks almost certain that he'll go with two central midfielders instead of three, so that means Pirlo takes one spot next to someone else.

If we fail to get Inler we may simply go with Pirlo, Melo, Marchisio, Pazienza as our 4 central midfielder crew, or we sell Melo and buy Palombo. Lass isn't coming. So we could end up with Pirlo and Marchisio starting together in midfield. Conte seems to like those two as well. Fernando? Perhaps, but Marotta will balk at Porto's demands.

Pirlo, Fernando, Marchisio is a not better at all than what we had last year with Melo, Aquilani, Marchisio. It will be foolish to replace almost the entire midfield and not to improve it. Hell, it might even be worse than what we had.
It could be worse if Pirlo can't work in a two-man central midfield, but there's no doubt Pirlo is better than Aquilani. Fernando? Uncertain about him, but I don't think he's better than Melo. Marchisio is Marchisio, a guy who works best in a midfield 3 which we probably won't see.

On paper it's not better, but in practice I believe it would be.

Pirlo is still a better player than Aquilani and Marchisio will do better with a settled role in the team in a system he should be better suited to.

I'm not convinced about Fernando v Melo.
By in practice you mean a midfield 3? In that case I would agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)