Montolivo vs Arteta

I think I should've quoted his whole comment actually.The entire statement sounds inaccurate.

Since when did Arteta deserve to be mentioned along the world class Montolivo? Thread is fail!

Montolivo world class?

El Shaarawy wrote:

Surag wrote:

ynwa wrote:Aquilani > Montolivo

Really hope you're joking here.

I'll just pretend i didn't read that

But you did read it.

Aqua had a very, very good 1st part of the season, but it's the same old story:

injuries --> inconsistency --> mediocrity.

The only thing mediocre about Aquilani is his agent. And the fact that he's injured every third game or so. He's much more talented than Montolivo.

Point is the comparison between both of them doesnt even come close now.

And yes Montolivo is a borderline World class midfielder.Had a fantastic tournament at the EUROS and displaying consistency (something which he lacked) aside from his top performances with Milan this season.

I was very apprehensive about getting Monty before he joined Milan because of that inconsistency. However, I am glad to say that he has since proved me wrong.

He's no where near world class. In fact he's not even in the top 3 best Italian midfielders... Pirlo, Marchisio, De Rossi over him any day of the week. And you can add Aquilani in fourth place.

ynwa wrote:He's no where near world class. In fact he's not even in the top 3 best Italian midfielders... Pirlo, Marchisio, De Rossi over him any day of the week. And you can add Aquilani in fourth place.

On the contrary, DDR hasn't been that good this season.

Put Montolivo in his spot and he wouldn't do much better.

Roma has far too many internal problems. THey lack a consistent game style and I'm pretty sure they just signed another interim coach...

Look there's nothing wrong with Montolivo as a player - he's a good player. He's solid and does his job. But there is no way that he's one of the best players in his position in the world. I mean, he's not even the best in his respected league.

Let's not make the debate bigger than it is. We're only comparing Monty with Aqua, not Monty with every other player in the world. With that narrow scope, based on recent form and general attributes, I believe Monty to be the superior player.

As an aside, he's certainly having a better season than Aqua did at Milan.

As a DLP in Serie A Monty is second to Pirlo, in Fiorentina he suffered consistency problems as Forza said. But this season with is, he's playing the best football of his life, if you'd watch Milan, you'd know how we desperatly look when he is suspended or injured. Aquilani is good, but not better than Monty, he can do his flicks and and an amazing pass, but he can go missing for long periods. Monty might not be WC, but he is a pretty damn good midfielder to exclude from the Nazionale, as seen by Prandelli by deploying him as a TQ

Eivindo wrote:Since when did Arteta deserve to be mentioned along the world class Montolivo? Thread is fail!

Surag wrote:Point is the comparison between both of them doesnt even come close now.

And yes Montolivo is a borderline World class midfielder.Had a fantastic tournament at the EUROS and displaying consistency (something which he lacked) aside from his top performances with Milan this season.

If he's considered world class, he should be compared to every player in the world.
___

Aquilani is the better player. He's got a better footballing brain, he's a lot more creative and his better as a passer. You may argue that Montolivo is better because he's less injury prone but that's not really an argument. Montolivo is having a better season, but overall AA >>>> Montolivo.

That's not a debate. They were playing under different circumstances... I can just say Aquilani is playing better for Fiorentina than Montolivo did last season...

ynwa wrote:Montolivo is having a better season, but overall AA >>>> Montolivo.

That isnt saying much.You are hardly helping yourself by making this comment,especially considering Aquilani has never had a single consistent season in his career.Talent means sod all to me personally.Aquilani has never translated his talent into consistent performances at the highest level.

And calling Montolivo 'borderline world class' represents a difference too.

That's not a debate. They were playing under different circumstances... I can just say Aquilani is playing better for Fiorentina than Montolivo did last season...

Aquilani isnt even the best midfielder on his team.Both Pizarro and Borja Valero have comfortably been better than him.And may i add he is surrounded by a lot of quality and a lot of good players as opposed to Montolivo with Fiorentina last year.

BorjitoOoOoOo finally getting recognition

Zealous wrote:BorjitoOoOoOo finally getting recognition

Castilla

likeastar wrote:

Zealous wrote:BorjitoOoOoOo finally getting recognition

Castilla

Creator of relegated players Granero is next

ynwa wrote:

Eivindo wrote:Since when did Arteta deserve to be mentioned along the world class Montolivo? Thread is fail!

Surag wrote:Point is the comparison between both of them doesnt even come close now.

And yes Montolivo is a borderline World class midfielder.Had a fantastic tournament at the EUROS and displaying consistency (something which he lacked) aside from his top performances with Milan this season.

If he's considered world class, he should be compared to every player in the world.
___

Aquilani is the better player. He's got a better footballing brain, he's a lot more creative and his better as a passer. You may argue that Montolivo is better because he's less injury prone but that's not really an argument. Montolivo is having a better season, but overall AA >>>> Montolivo.

That's not a debate. They were playing under different circumstances... I can just say Aquilani is playing better for Fiorentina than Montolivo did last season...

Whether this has been derived from a failure to appreciate Montolivo or an overestimation of the worth of Aquilani I am not sure, however this could not be further from the truth.

It's not difficult to appreciate why Aquilani has such a following, even today. He's the most elegant Italian midfielder to emerge since Pirlo, however it is this quality which masks the greater questions of effectiveness and efficiency.

Aquilani's technical ability has never been called into question, however this is simply one aspect of football and tactically, defensively and physically, Aquilani has never been capable of taking the next step as a player throughout his career. Even then, there is little to suggest that Aquilani is superior in possession to Montolivo, which appears to be the basis of your argument. Playing both a short and long game, both are extremely capable, though they are similar in both preferring deeper roles to an advanced position behind a striker, though both have played this role. For first touch, shooting ability and set piece ability, it has always been a close run contest, which has often been reflected in the way fans have been split between the two.

If you were to simply have stated that you prefer Aquilani as a passer, I could stomach this as I believe they are equitable, however stating that Aquilani has a better footballing brain is one of the least justifiable statements that I have seen made in a section dedicated to utter madness. Football isn't simply what one does with the ball at one's feet. For the majority of a match, a player won't have the ball. Aquilani and Montolivo were both comfortable on the ball but given to succumbing to pressure at the starts of their career and could often be accused of doing too little in defence, even if effort was never particularly lacking.

When he doesn't have the ball, you can trust that Montolivo will be exactly where he needs to be. He recovers more balls than anyone else in our midfield through either the tackle of the interception, knowing when to step up to apply pressure, where to be when the ball is cleared, where to be to offer support to play out from the back, when to drop between the central defenders when we are under pressure. Montolivo's work off the ball is tireless and is the foundation of our midfield. What one does with the ball when there is no pressure on might be impressive and say a lot about how good a player can be, however Montolivo has come a long way from the youngster who could be physically intimidated and get lost in the pressure of a big game. Now he exudes confidence on the ball, even in the tightest of spaces. He's the valve that relieves pressure on our team, the player who slows the game down and speeds it up, the player who backs up the team member who has lost the ball. He's always there for the second effort, he's always back when the counter attack is on, he's always forward when the attack is building. Where as once he would win a tackle once every few matches, now he's a highly combative standing tackler, a brave slide tackler and always willing to make the tactical foul that others are sometimes too 'clean' to make.

Contrast this to Aquilani, who needs constant access to the ball to make anything happen. In Pizarro's absence, Fiorentina are a shadow of the side they can be, as Aquilani's lack of personality is frankly shown up. He's a clumsy tackler, often shirking from the contest, often loses off the ball runs and drifts in and out of important matches. Where as Montolivo is probably one of the most complete midfielders in Europe, Aquilani is what he was at 20. A pretty midfielder who can pull off the amazing but lacks the personality to control a team. He lacks the composure, he lacks the temperament, he lacks the leadership ability.

Essentially, Montolivo is an Aquilani who can actually defend, is composed, proven and doesn't get injured every three matches. I wonder which one I would pick. Montolivo is well worthy of comparison with the best midfielders in the world given his complete nature. Aquilani deserves comparison with the likes of Joe Allen. It's not that either are poor players, but they're both a tier below the likes of Montolivo.

As for your comment that he's not even amongst the best Italian midfielders, he's a completely different central midfielder to Marchisio, hardly giving anyone the right to call either of them superior to the other. They represent very different styles of midfielder and one would need to know who they would be lining up next to in order to prefer one over the other. Much the same could be said of De Rossi.

-------------------------------------------------

As for the general topic, I personally prefer Montolivo, however Arteta's an excellent player, who is in a much more different situation. Montolivo is really the heart of our midfield, whilst Arteta in many ways sacrifices himself for the team and doesn't get to express all of his qualities in his current role for Arsenal. In that sense it's a bit harsh to pass judgement, I'll give the matter some more thought.