Wow, I have never understood why people don't like Aquilani. When he played for Liverpool I thought he was quite good and to be honest I think they could use him right now.

His style isn't a perfect fit for the EPL and I think Aqua and Montolivo would both benefit playing in La Liga.

As for Montolivo, I think he's a very good player and usually when I watch Italy play he is one of the better performers in the squad.

I don't understand how people can claim that Aquaman is so much better than Montolivo..

Everyone seems to agree that Montolivo's major flaw is consistency... but I think that also happens to be Aquilani's so I don't get it.

On a good day they're both about the same in my opinion. Matter of fact, when's the last time either of them directly determined the outcome of a game?

Aquilani becomes inconsistent because he consistently (bar this season) gets injured.

He hasn't been seriously injured for a while and is a pretty good run of form at the moment.

https://goallegacy.forumotion.com/t5370-aquilani-vs-montolivo?vote=viewresult

I see it has taken this forum all of three months to completely reverse its opinion, nice

Aquilani, though Montolivo is preferred in that thread, was always generally considered the more talented however his injury record and thus inconsistency led most to prefer Montolivo, so it's understandable that when Aquilani has had a solid start to the season, voices quickly prefer AA.

Montolivo however can't wait to get out of Florence, the fans hate him and his transfer in the summer was probably blocked by Fiorentina in an attempt to get a higher transfer fee.

Montolivo has a good work rate however I would still classify him as weak defensively; he can be physically intimidated and he has the lowest testosterone count of any living Italian midfielder and several dead ones, so his response to a nasty tackle isn't to get stuck back in. If you've got a physical opposition you need a destroyer next to him, however if you're playing a pressing game and do not require Montolivo to physically retrieve possession then he's fine in a deep role.

People often speak only about his shooting technique when they discuss Montolivo near the box, however his carry and delivery in the final third is underrated - his statistics remain unimpressive however due to the fact that Gilardino routinely ruins his good work.

He has a psychic link to Pazzini though, even after all these years apart. Put them on the field and Pazzini will score.

Inconsistent, however he's in a strange side who have their fair share of problems and it's unfair to rate Aquilani significantly higher when he's at a more stable club. They're roughly equal over a year.

Glad to see we're on the same page Dos...

dostoevsky wrote:https://goallegacy.forumotion.com/t5370-aquilani-vs-montolivo?vote=viewresult

I see it has taken this forum all of three months to completely reverse its opinion, nice

Aquilani, though Montolivo is preferred in that thread, was always generally considered the more talented however his injury record and thus inconsistency led most to prefer Montolivo, so it's understandable that when Aquilani has had a solid start to the season, voices quickly prefer AA.

Montolivo however can't wait to get out of Florence, the fans hate him and his transfer in the summer was probably blocked by Fiorentina in an attempt to get a higher transfer fee.

Montolivo has a good work rate however I would still classify him as weak defensively; he can be physically intimidated and he has the lowest testosterone count of any living Italian midfielder and several dead ones, so his response to a nasty tackle isn't to get stuck back in. If you've got a physical opposition you need a destroyer next to him, however if you're playing a pressing game and do not require Montolivo to physically retrieve possession then he's fine in a deep role.

People often speak only about his shooting technique when they discuss Montolivo near the box, however his carry and delivery in the final third is underrated - his statistics remain unimpressive however due to the fact that Gilardino routinely ruins his good work.

He has a psychic link to Pazzini though, even after all these years apart. Put them on the field and Pazzini will score.

Inconsistent, however he's in a strange side who have their fair share of problems and it's unfair to rate Aquilani significantly higher when he's at a more stable club. They're roughly equal over a year.

Agreed. Montolivo hasn't been great this season, but we could chalk that up to him wanting out of Florence, a change in scenery would do him some real good. I always liked the guy, but he's kind of disappointed me. A few years ago, I thought he was going to be much better than he currently is. I saw him as the future of the Italian national team, back when he was with Atalanta. Then again, I did see him in that trequartista role which he is currently occupying for Italy, so I'm glad I was accurate in part.

All that being said, I would take an in-form Aquilani over him without question. Much more physical (despite being one of the most injury-prone players I've ever seen) and has a better right foot on him; everything else is about equal imo.

So all in all, a good, versatile midfielder, though I expected him to be better at this point in his career.

Mike we can both agree because we did speak about this in the past. No need for explanations. Montolivo sucks,.

Montolivo and Aquilani are both average dudes, nothing special from what I've seen. Italy deserve better.

both are poor man's thiago motta, when fit

he has the skills, the vision , the potential but he is inconsistent if he can sort that maybe he will thrive for now he is on Aquilani's current level maybe slightly better