Ok, so why have successive managers at Chelsea put him up front, if he is one of the finest midfielders in the world? Really, you should be managing a premiership club, all the managers AVB, De Matteo, Wenger, know nothing about managing or running a team. Why don't you apply?
TT why not take a rest for a while - and think why so many disagree with you? End of season approaching - FA need Refs, and Clubs will need new managers. Update your CV.
Come on, Mata is a midfielder. Rosicky and Ramsey have played more forward for us this year at times, but you wouldn't call them strikers.
Yeah but Mata is playing through the middle right now, and was at the week-end. He has virtually no defensive duties, at least not in his own half. He is playing the identical position to Rooney right now. You can call him a midfielder , but I think Chelsea realised his defending is awful and had to move him up. These guys can go on about him, but I think we dodged a bullet on this one. He wouldn't be a good fit for us.
I think you're getting backed into a corner on Mata. He is a quality midfielder, very creative and scores goals.
So defensive duties define a striker ?? It doesn't matter how he was played at the weekend, Mata is an offensive midfielder/wide man who can play in a forward role but who certainly is not a striker.
mata is not a striker. he is an attacking midfielder. maybe you could get away with calling him a second striker, except they occasionally overlap their partner. for example on Sunday when Drogba moved out wide occasionally, a second striker would have gone for the box, as would a normal striker. Mata moved towards Drogba and the ball, because he wanted to set up someone else for a goal. That is not a striker's mentality, so he is not a striker.
Don't care what you call him, but I have a hard time thinking about where he would play for us. I don't know where you have the idea that he is a viable option wide, because he hasn't a lot of pace for that position. Jayram thinks I have been backed into a corner, but all I see is the accepted hype that Mata is great and no one is even watching the guy play, let alone thinking where he would play for us. I just cant see who he can replace, unless we get rid of RVP and get a Drogba type striker.
What I meant by you being backed into a corner, is that you seem to letting your view that he is not good enough for us (which is fair enough even if I dont agree) turn into some incorrect logic that he is a striker. Back out of that one - he's a midfielder - and stick with the view of his quality. That's all I am saying. On that basis, why do you think he wouldn't be successful at Arsenal (other than pace)?
Because our play demands that we win the midfield battle. Our "midfielders" need to be box-to-box players for us to win games. Mata has failed to win a spot in Chelsea's "midfield", which I really don't think is as good as ours, and so I don't think Song and Arteta, for example, can be expected to carry him defensively. Out wide, he just doesn't have the pace or the defensive ability to provide real width, or cover the opposition full back. I know a lot of people want us to get a real attacking midfielder, but that is NOT the system we play right now. I have never said he is a bad player, or "Not good enough", I'm pointing out the dilema Chelsea have had with him. And I said that I am not sure he would improve us. One of the reasons Torres has had such a hard time is that he and Mata struggle to play together. This is the problem debating this crap with people on here, who don't seem to understand any more about football than brilliant and rubbish.