Zelalem And The Interpretation Of A Role

[craig 5,195]

I'm quietly content at the response of the piece -- it's certainly made the rounds! I knew it was going to be somewhat divisive, but I hope I've not offended anyone by implying I know more about these things than you; I was annoyed at that accusation. Incidentally, how do people regard 'Do The Bouncy' forum? I'm not a member but they seem to have gotten hold of the piece, and have come to the conclusion that "I'm a pseudo-intellectual hipster demeaning the intelligence of normal fans"? I think it's insulting to suggest that the normal fan doesn't have an understanding of these issues -- even if they get frustrated at the new terminology that comes out every couple of weeks, which can be a little 'hipstery', I admit.

 

Apologies if I have offended anyone; believe me, it was unconsciously done.

You often find that accusations are borne out of some form of jealousy that someone has come up with an intelligent piece of writing.

 

I wouldn't worry about it Rousseau.

 

Like the OP or not, it is thought provoking and debate creating. A fine piece of penmanship !!

Edited February 3, 2016 by craig

[Big Jaws 570]

Zelalem most certainly creates a polarised set of opinions from the fan base that's for sure and that's why its necessary to discuss in an article. The ad hominem responses are unnecessary at best. I don't believe it a pseudo-intellectual piece but what I can be absolutely sure about is that its most definitely not a twitter esque sound bite piece either. I'd rather spend 10-15 minutes of my time reading a reasoned thought out piece than wade through screeds and screeds of pithy sound bites. I guess that's why I was drawn to this forum rather than others as it offers thought provoking verbose opinions in posters styles and articles.

Edited February 3, 2016 by Big Jaws

[Tannochsidebear 2,306]

The whole (very well written - thanks R) argument for Zelalem in this role falls down on its very principal. This metronome (hate these coaching manual phrases) position is supposedly to tictate tempo. The biggest fault in our game when we dont play well is our tempo. If GZ is in charge of tempo, then he has failed, spectacularly on some occasions.

 

Not "in charge of tempo" per se, but certainly needs to influence it, like many players. I agree it's not something that's been good consistently enough.

 

 

 

It's normal for a team to adapt and target/negate our tactics, so it can't be a huge failing GZ. I'd certainly like to see him overcome these tweaks to the opponents set-up, but that'll come with age and experience.

 

 

 

I dislike the impression that these roles are not for us. They seem to be adopted by most of the best sides in the world, but they're not good enough for us? Do we really prefer the out-of-date, box-to-box players of the past, the ones that may give their all but lack any semblence of technical ability? To me, that is the reason Scotland and Scottish sides fail when we come up against better sides.

 

He's young, he makes mistakes, but I actually think he's quite accomplished for such a young man. He's got a good head on his shoulders, good game awareness and a deft touch.

 

 

 

I think that's true. However, I believe Arteta played a slightly different role for us, whereas I was comparing his current role for Arsenal -- When he is fit! And, yes, was a better all-round player with better players around him.

 

 

 

Again, he's 19. He's got flaws, but so has every player at that age. I understand some are more critical of them because he's not our player, and that's fair. But, I also think he has a positive influence on our team at his current level. I never suggested he'd walk into the Arsenal side today, but I think he could in the future; say, 3-5 years (and he'd only be 23). He needs to 'beef-up' substantially, but has the tools to get there. I think it's a bit short-sighted to suggest he "won't ever be a regular first team pick for a [...] top side".

 

 

 

I did touch upon the fact that it's very difficult to quantify a Metronomes influence. How do we gauge Sergio Busquets' undoubted influence we he only make sideways passes and doesn't tackle? (I am somewhat restricted by a lack of proper data at our level -- even the Scottish Premiership lacks proper data.) I'd certainly suggest he needs to add all those things you've mentioned to his game, but IMO, his role doesn't demand it. And, it's more than just a need to "make 5 yard sideways passes all day long and always be available to recycle the ball, at the right tempo", but I suspect you're deliberately being obtuse.

 

Thanks for the very detailed reply R. My main gripe with the metronome role is that it may be of tactical and positional importance to some sides like you mention, but none of those sides play against 10 man defences in over 80% of games. That is why I think it unnecessary for Rangers, and I believe we would have greater succes with more creative midfield players. Just my opinion. I would argue McKay is already a better all round player than GZ, Barry Ferguson was a fantastic rounded player at 19, so I don't give GZ an easy out by saying he is young as a cover for where his game is at. At 19 with the schooling he must have had to get the attention he had for Arsenal to invest so heavily in him, he should not have as many parts of his fairly simple game needing huge amounts of work. I was a huge fan of Makelele and he is a great example of how that position should be played, and it is nothing like what we are seeing from GZ at this level.

 

I don't watch a lot of Barca, (Real Madrid for me!) so I don't hold Busquets in such high regard, so I am happy to take your word for it. Of course I was being obtuse in my last para, but when in your defence you say he shouldn't be judged on the list I gave, it didn't leave much to judge him on other than the very simple pass/move!

 

I watched him very carefully last night, and as I said in the first half he was pretty much always open to receive the ball, looked to move it forward more than ever before, looked to get forward to support, and yes, kept it simple, very often simply passing the ball back to whoever had passed to him. But after HT, he was not available to receive the ball as often, didn't go forward, mishit passes, got into trouble on the ball. Assuming you agree with this assessment (not sure if you watched it from the ground or on tv - makes a huge difference to what you see a player do) what do you put this down to? Is he too easily put off his game by tight marking, doesn't have the legs for 90 mins, youthful inconsistency or something else?

[Rousseau 9,310]

Thanks for the very detailed reply R. My main gripe with the metronome role is that it may be of tactical and positional importance to some sides like you mention, but none of those sides play against 10 man defences in over 80% of games. That is why I think it unnecessary for Rangers, and I believe we would have greater succes with more creative midfield players. Just my opinion. I would argue McKay is already a better all round player than GZ, Barry Ferguson was a fantastic rounded player at 19, so I don't give GZ an easy out by saying he is young as a cover for where his game is at. At 19 with the schooling he must have had to get the attention he had for Arsenal to invest so heavily in him, he should not have as many parts of his fairly simple game needing huge amounts of work. I was a huge fan of Makelele and he is a great example of how that position should be played, and it is nothing like what we are seeing from GZ at this level.

 

I don't watch a lot of Barca, (Real Madrid for me!) so I don't hold Busquets in such high regard, so I am happy to take your word for it. Of course I was being obtuse in my last para, but when in your defence you say he shouldn't be judged on the list I gave, it didn't leave much to judge him on other than the very simple pass/move!

 

I watched him very carefully last night, and as I said in the first half he was pretty much always open to receive the ball, looked to move it forward more than ever before, looked to get forward to support, and yes, kept it simple, very often simply passing the ball back to whoever had passed to him. But after HT, he was not available to receive the ball as often, didn't go forward, mishit passes, got into trouble on the ball. Assuming you agree with this assessment (not sure if you watched it from the ground or on tv - makes a huge difference to what you see a player do) what do you put this down to? Is he too easily put off his game by tight marking, doesn't have the legs for 90 mins, youthful inconsistency or something else?

 

It's a good point, but I actually think the games where our opponents play 10-behind-the-ball is when we need this role the most; to keep shape, stay patient, to tire the opposition out rather than being a little more 'direct', because that is easier to deal with for these sides and allows them more opportunities to counter. I accept we need to mix it up. The role is not necessary all the time, or at all; I just feel it's beneficial, which is only my opinion.

 

Of course. I admitted it's difficult to measure. Almost every other position we can judge their success on some metric, but it's not absolute. Wingers were traditionally judged on the number of crosses, but if we consider our wingers, they generally don't cross at all; are they bad wingers? Like I said, there is not much data available to us, so it'll come down to gut-feeling or general impression from fans I suppose, for now. I've tried to make my case.

 

No, I didn't see the game at all (I mentioned it above). It could a bit of everything. Going by the reaction here and the match reports, every player struggled in the second-half, which suggests Raith's tactical change hampered the whole team game-plan, rather than some individuals not 'kicking-on'. I'll bow to your first-hand judgement on that, though.

Edited February 4, 2016 by Rousseau

[JTP 0]

Rousseau .... one question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you the Magic hat?

[Bruno55 0]

Rousseau .... one question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you the Magic hat?

 

Lololol brilliant JTP....

[Jimmy Mac 0]

Good article I knew Zelalem was a possession type player but didn't know the current name for it.

 

The one thing I would pick up on and you touched on it is I'd also like to see his pass completion rate as it's the one area I feel he lets himself down by being careless in possession on occasion.

 

Not a major issue as he's not our player and performs the role well enough for the division we're in but I'd like to see some real quality in there for our return to the Premiership.

[Rousseau 9,310]

Rousseau .... one question?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you the Magic hat?

 

Je Suis Magic Hat.

 

Nous Sommes Magic Hat.

[Rousseau 9,310]

The graph by GersReport is quite interesting -- especially the interactive one: http://b2resource.com/rangers/whosassistingwho.html

 

If we omit the unassisted, free-kicks and Penalties, I think GZ is the 4th best 'assister' in the team, behind Tavernier, McKay and Waghorn. However, he only assists two players (Waghorn and Tavernier); I wonder what that suggests? I'm not entirely certain, but I think GZ likes to drift -- with the ball -- to one side of the pitch (left), dragging the opposition left, and then is very good at changing the angle of attack towards the right (this is the type of influence I see GZ as having, in this Metronome role). Waghorn and Tavernier are the right-sided players.

[Bluedell 5,329]

. Waghorn and Tavernier are the right-sided players.

 

Although Waghorn has played much of the season in the middle.