Some time back, I failed to win a debate despite having superior intellect and knowledge of the subject matter. It happened one night as I was watching an Arsenal match alone in the lounge. An Indian guy in a Spurs jersey joined me after a bit, asking me how the game had been so far. I said I'd just got here myself, but that the passing didn't seem too fluid. This led to a long discussion of football in general. Somewhere along the way, I made a passing comment about how Arsenal had been undercompensated for the sale of Fàbregas, arguably the world's third best midfielder. Which sparked the debate, whether he was indeed the third best in the world.
The Spurs fan argued that he was not, because if you could play a midfield of any three players in the world, you wouldn't include Fàbregas. Case in point: Spain. They play Xavi, Alonso and Busquets (with Iniesta wide). Fàbregas can play in all their roles, but he does not have a single role in which he is the best. My opponent would consider Gerrard, Lampard, Sneijder and van der Vaart as better players than Fàbregas. Great players win trophies, and they step up in big games. Gerrard dragged Liverpool to a Champions League title in Istanbul, and van der Vaart transformed a previously weak team into title contenders. The Spurs fan also said that I only felt Fàbregas was that good because I was an Arsenal fan.
The above arguments are so flawed that I am surprised I didn't manage to properly counterargue on the day itself. Of course, people don't respond well to logical arguments against their views because they are emotionally invested (even were he not, he would be once the debate had started). There are many evolutionary psychological/sociological reasons for this, such as the cost of losing an argument to your reputation and the cost of switching sides. A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. What I failed to do was to put my argument in the right emotional rhetoric. But anyhow, here are my counterarguments, some of which appear as esprit d'escalier. Of course the best thing to do with those is to write them down on a piece of paper, walk back up the stairs and slip the note under your friend's door. Which works best not just because your reply is necessarily excellent given your extra time to ruminate, but also because your opponent has had time to cool down and reflect, and also the privacy to admit he was wrong.
The midfield of three argument ignores the difference in roles of midfielders. It is de rigueur to play at least one defensive midfielder these days. Fàbregas is not as good as Xavi or Iniesta, but he could still be the third best midfielder if the three best attacking midfielders were better than the best defensive one. One example comes from the 1970 World Cup, when the Italian coach decided to rotate his two best playmakers, Rivera and Mazzola, instead of playing them together. That does not make either of them a weaker player than the defensive midfielders. But let us restrict the argument to attacking midfielders (although honestly the line between attack and defence has been blurred in modern football; Xavi's tiki-taka might make him the world's best defensive player, although it violates our intuitive force-dynamic reasoning that he is only defensive if he directly applies force to tackle, intercept, block or mark).
The argument against versatility is clearly fallacious, given the above. Unsummable versatility shows as much of a lack of imagination as irreducible complexity. Players nowadays are expected to do everything. What is it that midfielders must do, supposedly? Strikers are better than them at scoring, and defenders better at defending, so it is their passing and versatility that matters the most. This positional determinism is a problem that blights England and its leagues. A player is a midfielder only because he is played in midfield, and not vice versa. Nonetheless, it is in practice naïve to ignore the fact that you would always play certain players in certain positions over others. So what is it that makes a player more suited for midfield than other roles?
This brings us to the heart of the problem with football debates: empiricism versus idealism. Empiricism might appear more definitive, where we consider simply the win rate with and without a certain player in the team. But this is confounded by so many other factors, not least the fact that a team is more than the sum of its players. The win rate differential strongly depends on the quality of that player's replacement as well. Individual stats fare no better; good play is not necessarily reflected in stats, and not all goals and assists are equal. Stats are also affected by your teammates, opponents and other factors footballing and otherwise. Nonetheless, they do provide a crude measure of a player, just like IQ provides a crude measure of intelligence. That said, Fàbregas has very impressive stats, topping Europe in terms of goals and assists for midfielders in 09-10, with 19 goals and 19 assists in 36 appearances.
Here my opponent raised the objection that the EPL is more attack-minded than La Liga or Serie A, so EPL players are more likely to score more goals. Looking at the goals per game from last season shows that the difference is much less than the stereotypes suggest: the Serie A average was 2.5, compared to 2.7 in Spain and 2.8 in England. In fact there is a large scoring disparity in Spain, with Real Madrid and Barcelona scoring about 100 goals each, while 12 teams in the league did not even hit 50. Compare that to England, where the goals are more spread out across teams: only Manchester United and Arsenal scored more than 70, and only 9 clubs scored less than 50. This means that big wins are much more common for the big teams in Spain, allowing their players to accrue more goals and assists.
Overall, the numbers suggest that Fàbregas was a more effective player than all of the other names my opponent raised, most of whom are already ageing. There is a feeling that Gerrard raises his game whenever Liverpool is in need, coming to their rescue by scoring goals. It is tempting to reply that if you had Fàbregas on your team you wouldn't need Gerrard to come to your rescue as you would be controlling possession. But this ignores the fact that Fàbregas does the same despite his less hurried appearance. Most exemplary is the match against Aston Villa, where, not fully fit, he was subbed on after 55 minutes, scored a brace and then limped off. Or the match against Barcelona where he stepped up to score a penalty despite having fractured his leg.
The argument about his lack of big game performances is entirely unfounded. Games don't come any bigger than the World Cup final. Fàbregas was brought on in 2010 against the Netherlands, and his introduction proved to be decisive, as he set up Iniesta for the winner. If he is such a good player, then why is he a perennial substitute for Spain and Barcelona? In fact he is not; he is now a crucial member of the Barcelona squad, with Guardiola willing to alter the formation in order to accomodate him (although to be fair Guardiola has a bit of a fetish for midfielders all over the pitch). The numbers speak for themselves once again – Fàbregas has scored and assisted more goals this season than anyone else in the team except for Messi. His success has even led Barcelona's vice-president Josep Maria Bartomeu to relent that Fàbregas is worth more than the €60 million asking price Arsenal had set.
Does my football affiliation affect my judgement of players? Possibly. It is far more likely that my opponent's affiliation is clouding his judgement. Nonetheless, most fans of rival clubs appreciate the quality of Fàbregas, and surprisingly I have even known a few Man U fans who consider him one of their favourite players.
Considering the above, there is a very defensible case for Fàbregas being the third best midfielder in the world. But can there truly be such a thing as "the third best midfielder in the world"? Join me for the next installment where we look at value in the world of football and the problem of evaluating players. Until then, may you find value in the beautiful game!
No comments:
Post a Comment