Welcome to LiquidFootball. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Henry, to a large extent, dictated the way the Arsenal invincibles played -on the counter. The same can be said for the opposition who were petrified of playing a high defensive line due to his pace, they therefore sat a lot deeper and this influenced the amount of space Arsenal's midfielders were afforded.
You don't just have to sit in the middle of the park sprayng passes around to dictate a game.
I can accept that logic. To that extent then yes, but I'd still say that is more defining a way that a team plays rather than dictating. But you make a good point.
How has Ronaldinho not been mentioned? He is the classic example IMO.
Vieira was not a definer
Scholes
Seriously, Frank Lampard is an absolute legend of the game. He needs to be recognised in some way eg. Frank Lampard OBE, Sir Frank Lampard or some kind of lifetime achievement award.
AntMcfc
Greatest ownage machine: Scholes. Absolute animal when he was a regular poster, I always knew I was in the right when he was backing me up, and I couldn't wait to read a topic that he was posting in because I knew he'd be tearing someone apart
Alonso is a dictator, he also scores goals, but that doesn't make him a true definer.
Scholes
Seriously, Frank Lampard is an absolute legend of the game. He needs to be recognised in some way eg. Frank Lampard OBE, Sir Frank Lampard or some kind of lifetime achievement award.
AntMcfc
Greatest ownage machine: Scholes. Absolute animal when he was a regular poster, I always knew I was in the right when he was backing me up, and I couldn't wait to read a topic that he was posting in because I knew he'd be tearing someone apart
I thought i'd leave Ronaldinho for you to suggest Scholes
Winner.
"If I go to Anfield and someone puts the ball into the box and Carragher hammers it out of play the fans applaud. At Camp Nou you would never be applauded for that." - Xavi
Vieira was a dictator of the game, but he had it in him to define a game.
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
I don't really agree with you about Vieira, I would say that to define a game would be to come up with a moment of inspiration / incompetance that sums up the outcome of a match; an example is United vs Arsenal when Barthez passed it to Henry twice - those moments defined that game, not Vieira's control of the game's pace.
To dictate is to be in control of the shape of the game.
That's how I would describe them anyway.
Winner.
"If I go to Anfield and someone puts the ball into the box and Carragher hammers it out of play the fans applaud. At Camp Nou you would never be applauded for that." - Xavi
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
I don't really agree with you about Vieira, I would say that to define a game would be to come up with a moment of inspiration / incompetance that sums up the outcome of a match; an example is United vs Arsenal when Barthez passed it to Henry twice - those moments defined that game, not Vieira's control of the game's pace.
To dictate is to be in control of the shape of the game.
That's how I would describe them anyway.
By controlling the game, do you not in the process shape or define it? You can have 'moments' that define the game, such as a red card, a penalty decision, a goal, a pass etc, and you can have things that shame the game in a less obvious fashion, but ultimately still define it. That's where the dichotomy is here, but I think we're arguing over semantics.
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
I don't really agree with you about Vieira, I would say that to define a game would be to come up with a moment of inspiration / incompetance that sums up the outcome of a match; an example is United vs Arsenal when Barthez passed it to Henry twice - those moments defined that game, not Vieira's control of the game's pace.
To dictate is to be in control of the shape of the game.
That's how I would describe them anyway.
By controlling the game, do you not in the process shape or define it? You can have 'moments' that define the game, such as a red card, a penalty decision, a goal, a pass etc, and you can have things that shame the game in a less obvious fashion, but ultimately still define it. That's where the dichotomy is here, but I think we're arguing over semantics.
Stop using long words like 'is'.
You have a point, but i still don't think dictation of a game is the same as defining it.
My example would be Chelsea's defensive performance against Barcelona in midweek. That dictated the way the game was played; but the 0-0 draw, i would say, was defined by Drogba's, Bojan's and Eto'o's misses - not by the resilient Chelsea backline.
Like you said, it's semantics and we're probably just interpreting the two words differently.
"If I go to Anfield and someone puts the ball into the box and Carragher hammers it out of play the fans applaud. At Camp Nou you would never be applauded for that." - Xavi
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
I don't really agree with you about Vieira, I would say that to define a game would be to come up with a moment of inspiration / incompetance that sums up the outcome of a match; an example is United vs Arsenal when Barthez passed it to Henry twice - those moments defined that game, not Vieira's control of the game's pace.
To dictate is to be in control of the shape of the game.
That's how I would describe them anyway.
By controlling the game, do you not in the process shape or define it? You can have 'moments' that define the game, such as a red card, a penalty decision, a goal, a pass etc, and you can have things that shame the game in a less obvious fashion, but ultimately still define it. That's where the dichotomy is here, but I think we're arguing over semantics.
Stop using long words like 'is'.
You have a point, but i still don't think dictation of a game is the same as defining it.
My example would be Chelsea's defensive performance against Barcelona in midweek. That dictated the way the game was played; but the 0-0 draw, i would say, was defined by Drogba's, Bojan's and Eto'o's misses - not by the resilient Chelsea backline.
Like you said, it's semantics and we're probably just interpreting the two words differently.
Both defined the game, you have just made the distinction between momentary definition and general definition. Both were the reason for the end result were they not?
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
I don't really agree with you about Vieira, I would say that to define a game would be to come up with a moment of inspiration / incompetance that sums up the outcome of a match; an example is United vs Arsenal when Barthez passed it to Henry twice - those moments defined that game, not Vieira's control of the game's pace.
To dictate is to be in control of the shape of the game.
That's how I would describe them anyway.
By controlling the game, do you not in the process shape or define it? You can have 'moments' that define the game, such as a red card, a penalty decision, a goal, a pass etc, and you can have things that shame the game in a less obvious fashion, but ultimately still define it. That's where the dichotomy is here, but I think we're arguing over semantics.
Stop using long words like 'is'.
You have a point, but i still don't think dictation of a game is the same as defining it.
My example would be Chelsea's defensive performance against Barcelona in midweek. That dictated the way the game was played; but the 0-0 draw, i would say, was defined by Drogba's, Bojan's and Eto'o's misses - not by the resilient Chelsea backline.
Like you said, it's semantics and we're probably just interpreting the two words differently.
Both defined the game, you have just made the distinction between momentary definition and general definition. Both were the reason for the end result were they not?
Very true; but I think momentary definition is what I, and most people on the rest of the thread, are talking about. I agree with you completely if you have been discussing 'general defintion' all along.
Winner.
"If I go to Anfield and someone puts the ball into the box and Carragher hammers it out of play the fans applaud. At Camp Nou you would never be applauded for that." - Xavi
As I said before, I think this is a superficial distinction. There is more than one way in which a player can define a game. Vieira defined games through his dictation of the pace and flow of the game; Fabregas defines games through world-class visionary passes; and Gerrard defines games through scoring penalties. You cannot limit the definition of a definer to someone that simply scores goals.
I don't really agree with you about Vieira, I would say that to define a game would be to come up with a moment of inspiration / incompetance that sums up the outcome of a match; an example is United vs Arsenal when Barthez passed it to Henry twice - those moments defined that game, not Vieira's control of the game's pace.
To dictate is to be in control of the shape of the game.
That's how I would describe them anyway.
By controlling the game, do you not in the process shape or define it? You can have 'moments' that define the game, such as a red card, a penalty decision, a goal, a pass etc, and you can have things that shame the game in a less obvious fashion, but ultimately still define it. That's where the dichotomy is here, but I think we're arguing over semantics.
Stop using long words like 'is'.
You have a point, but i still don't think dictation of a game is the same as defining it.
My example would be Chelsea's defensive performance against Barcelona in midweek. That dictated the way the game was played; but the 0-0 draw, i would say, was defined by Drogba's, Bojan's and Eto'o's misses - not by the resilient Chelsea backline.
Like you said, it's semantics and we're probably just interpreting the two words differently.
Both defined the game, you have just made the distinction between momentary definition and general definition. Both were the reason for the end result were they not?
Very true; but I think momentary definition is what I, and most people on the rest of the thread, are talking about. I agree with you completely if you have been discussing 'general defintion' all along.
Excellent, we have an accord.
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)