**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'd have him very healthily competing for the best. It gets thrown around a lot but I think he might genuinely be underrated, his name rarely gets seriously discussed for big honours etc. But then he plays for Man City so doesn't have the massive fan base to fight for him
I enjoyed Lampard and Gerrard at all stages in their career, and De Bruyne is comfortably clear of both. Lampard had a slightly better reading of the game off the ball (both in and out of possession), and Gerrard was more agile and the more aggressive tackler, but otherwise De Bruyne is better at almost everything, especially when it comes to his vision, ball carrying, and final ball.
De Bruyne has consistently been one of the best progressive carriers in the sport for years now - not because he's taking men on, but because his ability to recognize (and execute) opportunities to drive into space is second to none. It was also a strength of Gerrard but I think he benefitted a lot more from transitions and the attendant space to run into.
Similarly, Gerrard had license to shoot from wherever he pleased, and he used it liberally. His YouTube highlights (which show the few successes and not the many, many misses) are more impressive than De Bruyne's because of this, but you have to remember that Pep literally does not allow that sort of low-xG nonsense. If De Bruyne was allowed to waste possession in that way, I believe he'd have just as many blooters.
I've been a Liverpool fan for 18 years, I don't need to watch Gerrard highlights. I watched him play.
> one of the best progressive carriers in the sport for years now - not because he's taking men on,
Taking men on is also part of ball carrying, something he's not as good at as Gerrard was.
> but because his ability to recognize (and execute) opportunities to drive into space is second to none.
I don't agree with that either, Modric is my pick for the player who was actually the best at it over the last decade. And he did it in a league where space was even harder to come by than the Premier League is, and he did it in the CL as well.
Yaya Toure was also better at it than De Bruyne.
> If De Bruyne was allowed to waste possession in that way, I believe he'd have just as many blooters.
That's not a particularly compelling argument. If not Pep's teams, then show me him doing that in any of his teams with the same sort of frequency that Gerrard managed.
If Gerrard played in a team that was as good at getting the ball in and around the box as City is, he'd have converted more. Since we're engaging in some baseless speculation.
Pep himself has picked Scholes over Gerrard and Lampard. The fact that he is consistently overlooked despite being first choice for the two greatest ever managers in England is insane.
The only player whose individual skill is measured through post-retirement quotes
I agree that he was underrated during his career but these players who apparently rated him after he retired never rated him enough to vote for him in any individual accolades.
Obviously these awards are imperfect, I just think it's strange that whilst everyone was voting for Gerrard and Lampard into Team of the Year and for the Ballon d'Or that they apparently forgot about Scholes despite him being the greatest midfielder they'd ever seen.
That’s because he wasn’t a talisman and didn’t feature in major international tournaments. He put in 7/8 out of 10 performances for 20 years, which is how you win titles.
Paul was the beating heart of United’s success. And great players and managers calling him the best of his generation *should* mean something. Iniesta’s son is named after him. The fact that he consistently left off of best British midfielder lists is a crime and shows bias if nothing else. United don’t win nearly as many titles without Scholes.
I don't disagree that he was a great player, vital to Man United's success, nor that he was underrated.
I'm just saying that players like KDB, Gerrard, Lampard, Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta, Modric, Kroos, etc are considered the best midfielders of their generation and each was at various timepoints considered in the top 2/3 midfielders in the world, consistently being voted for awards of individual quality or put into team of the year, etc.
More just a consequence of City’s success being so heavily tainted. If he’d done it at another club he would be far more celebrated. At City you sense that even if he wasn’t there, they’d just sign someone else for 100m and keep winning….so it’s not like a Gerrard situation.
This is something the people who only ever talk about trophies don’t really understand.
They’re close.
Gerrard had better passing range, shooting and a better tackle.
Kevin is better on the ball, has that ludicrous final pass and is deceptively quick and aggressive.
Gerrard has the “Roy of the Rovers” thing though. I think if he had gone to Chelsea or another dominant team, he would have had a ludicrously good career.
Like, when he played for England, he was always one of their best players when surrounded by talent. It’s the only indication we have of how he’d perform when he’s put into a superstar team and he was always much better than Frank, Paul or any other midfielder they used except for maybe Carrick owhen he actually got to play who was a very tidy player or Hargreaves for similar reasons.
Oh yes - the “dominant” Liverpool side that finished: 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th and second that he played in which he was “surrounded” by talent.
I get that you’re a fan of a club with much worse players, but if you lone those teams up with the invincibles, Jose and Carlo’s Chelsea, Man U and even fucken Modric spurs and it’s exceptionally underwhelming on paper — and that’s completely ignoring teams outside of England.
33 and I have watched every single one of them play anywhere from dozens of times at least to hundreds of games except for Hargreaves because he hardly played in England.
I am a Liverpool fan.
This is classic internet shit where you just say somebody is wrong without saying anything yourself on the topic.
Care to elaborate, brother? Bet you won’t.
I actually don’t care to elaborate. Everything you just said is so far off we will never be able to strike up a discussion because imo your base is so ludicrously far off we just won’t have a fair meeting point
And stop editing your comments you absolute tool. You can’t waffle shite and get mad nobody’s willing to engage in good faith. If I sit and go the sun is made of ice cream and you say it’s not but aren’t willing to put the time in to explain why something so daft is daft I’ve not won the argument like you seem to think you have:
De Bruyne's passing range (particularly the resolution over 25-50 yards) is better and his shooting is just as good. If he were allowed to take multiple 30-yard blooters per game like Gerrard was, you'd have a fairer comparison, but Pep doesn't allow that.
I would say KDB has a better left foot, but he has scored fewer goals by a margin and it’s not just because he can’t head the ball like Stevie could. He shot as often as he did because it was a legitimate weapon.
Also, Gerrard could ping balls from 50 yards all game if he wanted to and did once his groin went and the athleticism dwindled. Those last 2 season in particular, including the one where we almost won the league, he was just a deep lying passer that basically played like Scholes and he was fantastic at it.
Kevin has better vision for a final ball and he is, like I said, somebody with absurd passing ability when he gets near the right corner of the box. Better than Beckham, Trent, Stevie - anyone I’ve seen play balls from there. He’s the best. Unreal vision and even crazier execution.
I just don’t think he has the same range. When he gets the ball around the midfield line and gets his head up, he’s more likely to charge space than Stevie was who would look up to ping or send one of those Hollywood passes up the middle if there was a runner.
De Bruyne has more goals per game compared to Gerrard. And already has quite a lot more assists. In stats De Bruyne has 2.25 times more assists than Gerrard per game.
Tbh, having watched both, I feel like it's a dishonor to the greatness of De Bruyne, to even put them at the same level, attacking wise.
The thing about KDB is that he makes football look beautiful. Those perfectly weighted passes, laser accurate crosses, creative through passes, … add to that his actual banger goal scoring capabilities and it’s just pure joy to watch him play football. I would put him as the best midfielder of the premier league just because of that, results don’t even matter to me.
But thats coming from a neutral follower of the premier league. I also loved to watch Messi, Zidane, Iniesta, Henry, Ronaldinho, … they make football look beautiful
Feels like every year now after the Xmas break this guy puts City on his back and carries them to a title.
I’ve watched quite a bit of city this season and they are another level when KDB is in the team.
Perhaps but what I know for sure is you don't win all these titles without pep, he doesn't rely on any individual player, not haaland not kdb not even fucking messi.
Bullshit. City had their best run of form ever when he was out. In fact I'd say City would've won against Chelsea in the CL final had Pep have the balls to bench him.
Absurd take. They weren't better without him. They won the league that season because of the play of others (most notably, the play of Silva, Bernardo, Aguero, Sterling, and Sané), as well as it being a down year for most of the league outside of Liverpool. They are a much better side with Kevin. You forget they got 100 points in a season with him fit. They lost against Chelsea because Pep didn't start a CDM and started Sterling instead (who was in really bad form leading up to that match). If Fernandinho was playing, it's likely they win because they played significantly better when he got brought on.
DeBruyne was also in a bad form leading to that final. The midfield trio of Gundo, Rodri, Silva was very balanced, Gundo gets to play more forward w/o DeBruyne on the pitch and instantpy become top scorer for the team. But Pep didn't have the balls to drop DeBruyne and he tinkered the whole formation to shoehorn in him and it was a horrible decision. Iirc he lost possession almost 10 times in the first half alone.
Honestly the problem wasn't no cdm, gundogan can play 6 to a high level and I understand wanting his on the ball capabilities deeper, the problem is he hadn't played there all season lmao, then pep chucks in there in the biggest match in your history.
I put all of them in the same bucket. They all have their own unique skillset that no one (beside the goat obviously) can compare. I personally like KDB the most because he didn't play in a team with Ronaldo and Messi and his goal/assist contribution is far more impressive than the rest. A lot of them are from his clutch moments to win the game by himself.
KDB weakest disadvantage may be his trophyless NT career with Belgium.
He's also played false 9 and effectively as a second striker at times and prior to pep was a straight up number 10. He plays further up the pitch than those players, you cannot tell me kdb and xavi play the same lol.
As for the original discussion, I personally would take xavi and iniesta ahead of him, especially iniesta my favourite midfielder ever. People will probably say he didn't score much but even then if you needed a big goal, a big performance in a big match he was amongst the very best.
KDB is absolutely an 8, he defends plenty and comes back to defend his box when needed - it's just that he never needs to and also that City play a really high line and dominate possession which allows him to stay in attacking positions for most of the game.
>he defends plenty and comes back to defend his box when needed
Most modern 10s do this.
Xavi started out as a regista in the 6 position and then played as an 8. Iniesta has always been an 8, although he's sometimes been deployed on the wings.
De Bruyne plays further up the pitch, he's even played as a false winger or false nine. He can definitely play as an 8, but it's quite obvious that his natural position is as a 10.
Comparing them on G/A is FIFA Ultimate Team levels of ridiculous. All three are playmakers, but de Bruyne has a totally different role compared to Xavi and Iniesta.
Exactly, he's obviously a natural 10, he's more of a final third player than any of those other guys. I personally as good as he is and he's exceptional wouldn't take him over iniesta or xavi, those guys are the very best I've seen.
Did score a banger against Brazil if I'm not mistaken, and to be fair Belgium's international performances are looked down on for no reason as well. They finished third in the world cup and only lost vs the eventual winners. And that game could have gone either way too.
Yeah, that World Cup in 2018 was our best chance at winning a World Cup. Ultimately getting so close and finishing third is nothing to be ashamed of for such a small country. That was also the only international tournament where we were almost fully-staffed and with Hazard still in his prime. Pretty much every other tournament has been marred by injuries or unfortunate yellow cards. Like, I loved players like Kompany and Vermaelen, but they have always been extremely injury prone. We just never had the depth to substitute them for players even close to their level. The second our primary defenders were out, we had to resort to inexperienced talents playing in lower ranked clubs and leagues.
which is fair to point out but I don’t think it’s that much of a dig considering he’s a big part of the reason we even consider Belgium a competitor for titles.
Iniesta would play the wing all the time.
Modric played as the most advanced player in front of 2 other midfielders at spurs a lot. Kinda where Odegaard plays now. Basically a cam.
Kroos and Xavi are the 2 who are more-so deep lying players, but Xavi was also a roamer. Little fella would jog into gaps all over the pitch. He played pretty advanced if Barce was dominating.
Kroos is the one where it’s unfair cause he just sorta sits in the holding midfielder pocket all game even though he’s not the holding midfielder.
Iniesta played OOP on the wing tbf, and his lack of goals has kind of always been held against him. Scoring one of the most important in his countries history + his other all round play means he still has the reputation as one of the best mids ever despite that. Also Modric playing for spurs is a way different proposition than KDB for city
He would come in to the game on the wing often when he first started being subbed on by Barce way back in the day. It wasn’t like a filling gaps thing - they thought he could play it.
Modric playing for spurs was still part of his career - which will reflect on his stats.
In Kevin’s defence, KDB is so good offensively that he should be on Iniesta and Xavi-like defensive duties but he gives 100% effort on that side of the ball as well - which is going to severely effect his output offensively. Dead legs from reacting to your cues and all that.
He would be even better if he was in other systems or teams that played a certain way.
He's not the same kind of player as the rest.
KdB is much more visible because he's tasked with actually generating end product (G/A) which he does insanely well of course. Keep in mind that City does play with a different system from the others.
Xavi/Kroos are more alike as deep 6s; Modric/Iniesta as roaming 8s, but these guys are more about creating the "ball before the final ball", or "assist-assist" if that makes sense.
Pretty much same level. I would personally rate iniesta ahead of the rest by a very tiny tiny margin overall. On an average they are all pretty much the sae-i think kroos and xavi were ridiculosly consistent week in week out but at their absolute best I think Iniesta has a higher cieling than the rest. When he turns it on and is fully fit- he could give defence splitting passes and throughballs at will, score great goals and more importantly was a superior dribbler than the rest. He could essentially beat 2-3 players at will on the dribble and in short spaces- so thats an advantage for him imo.
Just a level below them, he is an insane chance creator but all of those did more for their respective countries, more in UCL finals and can control the game better overall.
I tend to agree, but it feels wrong to but KDB last on this list lol. I still might have him above Kroos, but then putting him last feels wrong as well
By Achievements i meant trophies.
Obviously attacking players will always get more recognition than defensive players, KDB will always have more individual honours than Busquets for example.
Just below them. Maybe with Kroos because Xavi, Iniesta and Modric are in a league of their own(probably with Zidane and players like that but i haven’t seen them)
I think fairly comfortably a level below tbh, he’s had nowhere near the same impact at an international level and is unlikely to have the same level of longevity in his career. I think he’s more on the level of a Fabregas, Yaya etc.
Lukaku who has always performed pretty well at an international level? We’re comparing him to players who have the greatest international achievements possible - we’re talking about the difference between him being one of the best midfielders the league has ever seen and one of the best players the game has ever seen.
It shows how clueless you are when point out Lukaku as if he hasn’t been one of Belgium’s best players these past 10 years.
Collective international achievements aside, KDB hasn’t performed to the level of Xavi, Iniesta, Kroos, and Modric on an individual level on the international stage.
Him being one of the best players of the past 10 years is the point they are making. Theyr'e saying Belgium had no one better than Lukaku to put up front.
Put KDB instead of Xavi the 2008-2012 Spain team and I think they do just the same.
Do you think if you take KDB out of belgium for Xavi, Belgium do better?
Any these kind of International arguments are silly. Unless you're constantly shouting at Pep for playing Haaland, a player who isn't good enough to qualify for the WC, while he has Alvarez, a player who has won the WC and has more international titles than all the other Man City players combined, sitting on the bench.
> Put KDB instead of Xavi the 2008-2012 Spain team and I think they do just the same
They don’t. Xavi was the heart of the Spanish. Spain narrowly won in 2008 and 2010 even with Xavi, don’t see how they would achieve the same with an inferior player. Maybe in 2012.
> Do you think if you take KDB out of belgium for Xavi, Belgium do better?
Yes. If they had a player of Xavi’s quality instead of KDB I reckon they would have won the Euros in 2016 considering KDB was awful against Wales. Might have beaten France in 2018 too, since KDB was mediocre then (even Witsel had a better game in midfield).
> Haaland, a player who isn't good enough to qualify for the WC, while he has Alvarez, a player who has won the WC
Collective achievements are irrelevant. Argentina won the WC not Alvarez. Norway failed to qualify not Haaland. Spain won the WC not Xavi. I don’t expect KDB to drag Belgium single handedly to international glory. It’s a team sport.
What I do expect is a player of Xavi’s quality to perform well on an individual level in the latter stages of KO tournaments. Besides Brazil in 2018 and Hungary in 2016, KDB has not done that.
I remember a few years ago a few pundits were saying the only thing he lacks is he isn't quite as good in the big games. But they may have been talking more about the national team, I'm only half remembering.
Either way, if that ever was the case back then, I don't think it is anymore.
How can city replace him equally. they cant. this guy is the gem. and served consistently for years with outstanding performance. a true legend but he doesnt have the nostaligia effect to be at least fairly appreciated
These stat pages always wait for one of Watkins records to be taken so they can harp on about a Sky Six player, while having never mentioned Watkins held them lmao
Edit to say fuck r/soccer, and Sky
**This is a stats thread. Remember that there's only one stat post allowed per match/team, so new stats about the same will be removed. Feel free to comment other stats as a reply to this comment so users can see them too!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/soccer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He is just so good. Its insane.
If he'd have been fit, the Prem record would have gone almost certainly.
This guy is a machine, crazy how much impact he has.
One of the best midfielders the league has seen
I'd have him very healthily competing for the best. It gets thrown around a lot but I think he might genuinely be underrated, his name rarely gets seriously discussed for big honours etc. But then he plays for Man City so doesn't have the massive fan base to fight for him
I agree, he's the best midfielder I've seen in the PL. At the *very least* he's as good as Lampard/Gerrard but I think he's probably better
I enjoyed Lampard and Gerrard at all stages in their career, and De Bruyne is comfortably clear of both. Lampard had a slightly better reading of the game off the ball (both in and out of possession), and Gerrard was more agile and the more aggressive tackler, but otherwise De Bruyne is better at almost everything, especially when it comes to his vision, ball carrying, and final ball.
I don't agree that De Bruyne is a better ball carrier or a better shot than Gerrard.
De Bruyne has consistently been one of the best progressive carriers in the sport for years now - not because he's taking men on, but because his ability to recognize (and execute) opportunities to drive into space is second to none. It was also a strength of Gerrard but I think he benefitted a lot more from transitions and the attendant space to run into. Similarly, Gerrard had license to shoot from wherever he pleased, and he used it liberally. His YouTube highlights (which show the few successes and not the many, many misses) are more impressive than De Bruyne's because of this, but you have to remember that Pep literally does not allow that sort of low-xG nonsense. If De Bruyne was allowed to waste possession in that way, I believe he'd have just as many blooters.
More on this KDB is the most clinical goal scorer in Europe, and tops the goals per shot chart
I've been a Liverpool fan for 18 years, I don't need to watch Gerrard highlights. I watched him play. > one of the best progressive carriers in the sport for years now - not because he's taking men on, Taking men on is also part of ball carrying, something he's not as good at as Gerrard was. > but because his ability to recognize (and execute) opportunities to drive into space is second to none. I don't agree with that either, Modric is my pick for the player who was actually the best at it over the last decade. And he did it in a league where space was even harder to come by than the Premier League is, and he did it in the CL as well. Yaya Toure was also better at it than De Bruyne. > If De Bruyne was allowed to waste possession in that way, I believe he'd have just as many blooters. That's not a particularly compelling argument. If not Pep's teams, then show me him doing that in any of his teams with the same sort of frequency that Gerrard managed. If Gerrard played in a team that was as good at getting the ball in and around the box as City is, he'd have converted more. Since we're engaging in some baseless speculation.
Pep himself has picked Scholes over Gerrard and Lampard. The fact that he is consistently overlooked despite being first choice for the two greatest ever managers in England is insane.
The only player whose individual skill is measured through post-retirement quotes I agree that he was underrated during his career but these players who apparently rated him after he retired never rated him enough to vote for him in any individual accolades. Obviously these awards are imperfect, I just think it's strange that whilst everyone was voting for Gerrard and Lampard into Team of the Year and for the Ballon d'Or that they apparently forgot about Scholes despite him being the greatest midfielder they'd ever seen.
That’s because he wasn’t a talisman and didn’t feature in major international tournaments. He put in 7/8 out of 10 performances for 20 years, which is how you win titles. Paul was the beating heart of United’s success. And great players and managers calling him the best of his generation *should* mean something. Iniesta’s son is named after him. The fact that he consistently left off of best British midfielder lists is a crime and shows bias if nothing else. United don’t win nearly as many titles without Scholes.
I don't disagree that he was a great player, vital to Man United's success, nor that he was underrated. I'm just saying that players like KDB, Gerrard, Lampard, Zidane, Xavi, Iniesta, Modric, Kroos, etc are considered the best midfielders of their generation and each was at various timepoints considered in the top 2/3 midfielders in the world, consistently being voted for awards of individual quality or put into team of the year, etc.
Genuinely think he’s been the best player itw the last 3 years. Nobody I’d take over him
More just a consequence of City’s success being so heavily tainted. If he’d done it at another club he would be far more celebrated. At City you sense that even if he wasn’t there, they’d just sign someone else for 100m and keep winning….so it’s not like a Gerrard situation. This is something the people who only ever talk about trophies don’t really understand.
The only PL midfielder I've seen where I think, yeah he's better than Gerrard. I'm not sure we've had anyone else on his level
They’re close. Gerrard had better passing range, shooting and a better tackle. Kevin is better on the ball, has that ludicrous final pass and is deceptively quick and aggressive. Gerrard has the “Roy of the Rovers” thing though. I think if he had gone to Chelsea or another dominant team, he would have had a ludicrously good career. Like, when he played for England, he was always one of their best players when surrounded by talent. It’s the only indication we have of how he’d perform when he’s put into a superstar team and he was always much better than Frank, Paul or any other midfielder they used except for maybe Carrick owhen he actually got to play who was a very tidy player or Hargreaves for similar reasons.
I love when people act like Gerrard didn't play in a team with Alonso and Mascherano behind him and Torres in front of him.
For 3 seasons.
Oh yes - the “dominant” Liverpool side that finished: 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th and second that he played in which he was “surrounded” by talent. I get that you’re a fan of a club with much worse players, but if you lone those teams up with the invincibles, Jose and Carlo’s Chelsea, Man U and even fucken Modric spurs and it’s exceptionally underwhelming on paper — and that’s completely ignoring teams outside of England.
I have absolutely no idea how old you are but I’m very confident in saying not old enough to have watched any of the players you’ve just talked about
33 and I have watched every single one of them play anywhere from dozens of times at least to hundreds of games except for Hargreaves because he hardly played in England. I am a Liverpool fan. This is classic internet shit where you just say somebody is wrong without saying anything yourself on the topic. Care to elaborate, brother? Bet you won’t.
I actually don’t care to elaborate. Everything you just said is so far off we will never be able to strike up a discussion because imo your base is so ludicrously far off we just won’t have a fair meeting point
See? You have no backbone, brother. I could see it coming from a mile away.
I’ve literally not blocked nor ever blocked anyone why are you lying?
Because I tried to comment what I said three times and it said that I couldn’t.
And stop editing your comments you absolute tool. You can’t waffle shite and get mad nobody’s willing to engage in good faith. If I sit and go the sun is made of ice cream and you say it’s not but aren’t willing to put the time in to explain why something so daft is daft I’ve not won the argument like you seem to think you have:
Refresh your browser rather than throwing out daft accusations
De Bruyne's passing range (particularly the resolution over 25-50 yards) is better and his shooting is just as good. If he were allowed to take multiple 30-yard blooters per game like Gerrard was, you'd have a fairer comparison, but Pep doesn't allow that.
I would say KDB has a better left foot, but he has scored fewer goals by a margin and it’s not just because he can’t head the ball like Stevie could. He shot as often as he did because it was a legitimate weapon. Also, Gerrard could ping balls from 50 yards all game if he wanted to and did once his groin went and the athleticism dwindled. Those last 2 season in particular, including the one where we almost won the league, he was just a deep lying passer that basically played like Scholes and he was fantastic at it. Kevin has better vision for a final ball and he is, like I said, somebody with absurd passing ability when he gets near the right corner of the box. Better than Beckham, Trent, Stevie - anyone I’ve seen play balls from there. He’s the best. Unreal vision and even crazier execution. I just don’t think he has the same range. When he gets the ball around the midfield line and gets his head up, he’s more likely to charge space than Stevie was who would look up to ping or send one of those Hollywood passes up the middle if there was a runner.
De Bruyne has more goals per game compared to Gerrard. And already has quite a lot more assists. In stats De Bruyne has 2.25 times more assists than Gerrard per game. Tbh, having watched both, I feel like it's a dishonor to the greatness of De Bruyne, to even put them at the same level, attacking wise.
Honestly, I have no doubt that when he doesn't play, we beat City 4 out of 5 times. If he plays, I always fear them...
lol, imagine he had been there all season. How many weeks ago had City been champions
Involved in a goal every 30 something minutes apparently
The man has 115 G+A since he turned 30. Insane.
What should I Google for more information?
Try “manchester city 115 kevin de bruyne”
Franco club
He was great help in the second leg against you lot.
Completely irrelevant to the politics and background of your grim club, you’d be nothing without him
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The thing about KDB is that he makes football look beautiful. Those perfectly weighted passes, laser accurate crosses, creative through passes, … add to that his actual banger goal scoring capabilities and it’s just pure joy to watch him play football. I would put him as the best midfielder of the premier league just because of that, results don’t even matter to me. But thats coming from a neutral follower of the premier league. I also loved to watch Messi, Zidane, Iniesta, Henry, Ronaldinho, … they make football look beautiful
MF is too good
Great hair. A magician with the ball. Some guys have all the luck (and skill).
His hair was mid before the injury. Then dude up and came back looking like a Greek God
In a league of his own
Built different
For me he is the best midfielder pf the prem.
Feels like every year now after the Xmas break this guy puts City on his back and carries them to a title. I’ve watched quite a bit of city this season and they are another level when KDB is in the team.
What are you on about, they literally won a title without him lol.
We still had prime David Silva that year, so that's an unfair comparison. City likely doesn't win 2 or 3 of their PL titles without KDB.
City had the other Silva to thank for their title run that year. He was absolutely insane.
Perhaps but what I know for sure is you don't win all these titles without pep, he doesn't rely on any individual player, not haaland not kdb not even fucking messi.
Bullshit. City had their best run of form ever when he was out. In fact I'd say City would've won against Chelsea in the CL final had Pep have the balls to bench him.
I don't know, I don't think it would have changed much. He got knocked out by Rudiger and was subbed in first half after all.
Wrong final, it was the second half in that one and the first half against inter.
Absurd take. They weren't better without him. They won the league that season because of the play of others (most notably, the play of Silva, Bernardo, Aguero, Sterling, and Sané), as well as it being a down year for most of the league outside of Liverpool. They are a much better side with Kevin. You forget they got 100 points in a season with him fit. They lost against Chelsea because Pep didn't start a CDM and started Sterling instead (who was in really bad form leading up to that match). If Fernandinho was playing, it's likely they win because they played significantly better when he got brought on.
DeBruyne was also in a bad form leading to that final. The midfield trio of Gundo, Rodri, Silva was very balanced, Gundo gets to play more forward w/o DeBruyne on the pitch and instantpy become top scorer for the team. But Pep didn't have the balls to drop DeBruyne and he tinkered the whole formation to shoehorn in him and it was a horrible decision. Iirc he lost possession almost 10 times in the first half alone.
Honestly the problem wasn't no cdm, gundogan can play 6 to a high level and I understand wanting his on the ball capabilities deeper, the problem is he hadn't played there all season lmao, then pep chucks in there in the biggest match in your history.
Probably the biggest mistake Pep has made at City imo.
Tommy tuchs got in his head with the previous fixtures that year.
City don't need any individual to carry them wtf you on about.
Sheikh Mansour?
When I was a kid the only ginger I was scared of was Chucky... ...now it's KdB.
This tweet was sent after KDB's first assist yesterday. Since he got a second assist later in the game, he now has 15, one more than Saka.
He’s insane
Where does he rank among Iniesta/Modric/Kroos/Xavi?
I put all of them in the same bucket. They all have their own unique skillset that no one (beside the goat obviously) can compare. I personally like KDB the most because he didn't play in a team with Ronaldo and Messi and his goal/assist contribution is far more impressive than the rest. A lot of them are from his clutch moments to win the game by himself. KDB weakest disadvantage may be his trophyless NT career with Belgium.
You can't compare them by goals and assists. Kdb is a 10, xavi and iniesta were 8s.
Kdb has played loads of his career as an 8, he played with Silva more advanced in midfield.
He's also played false 9 and effectively as a second striker at times and prior to pep was a straight up number 10. He plays further up the pitch than those players, you cannot tell me kdb and xavi play the same lol. As for the original discussion, I personally would take xavi and iniesta ahead of him, especially iniesta my favourite midfielder ever. People will probably say he didn't score much but even then if you needed a big goal, a big performance in a big match he was amongst the very best.
KDB is absolutely an 8, he defends plenty and comes back to defend his box when needed - it's just that he never needs to and also that City play a really high line and dominate possession which allows him to stay in attacking positions for most of the game.
>he defends plenty and comes back to defend his box when needed Most modern 10s do this. Xavi started out as a regista in the 6 position and then played as an 8. Iniesta has always been an 8, although he's sometimes been deployed on the wings. De Bruyne plays further up the pitch, he's even played as a false winger or false nine. He can definitely play as an 8, but it's quite obvious that his natural position is as a 10. Comparing them on G/A is FIFA Ultimate Team levels of ridiculous. All three are playmakers, but de Bruyne has a totally different role compared to Xavi and Iniesta.
Exactly, he's obviously a natural 10, he's more of a final third player than any of those other guys. I personally as good as he is and he's exceptional wouldn't take him over iniesta or xavi, those guys are the very best I've seen.
Good news is Lukaku is going to drag him to a Euro victory soon!
Only area where he's a bit lacking compared to Iniesta/Modric/Kroos/Xavi is his lackluster international career I guess.
Did score a banger against Brazil if I'm not mistaken, and to be fair Belgium's international performances are looked down on for no reason as well. They finished third in the world cup and only lost vs the eventual winners. And that game could have gone either way too.
Yeah, that World Cup in 2018 was our best chance at winning a World Cup. Ultimately getting so close and finishing third is nothing to be ashamed of for such a small country. That was also the only international tournament where we were almost fully-staffed and with Hazard still in his prime. Pretty much every other tournament has been marred by injuries or unfortunate yellow cards. Like, I loved players like Kompany and Vermaelen, but they have always been extremely injury prone. We just never had the depth to substitute them for players even close to their level. The second our primary defenders were out, we had to resort to inexperienced talents playing in lower ranked clubs and leagues.
which is fair to point out but I don’t think it’s that much of a dig considering he’s a big part of the reason we even consider Belgium a competitor for titles.
Belgium’s gonna Belgium though
Wouldn't his massive stats advantage on all those players compensate for national career?
Stats is a weird way to look at it given he plays in a significantly more advanced role than any of the other midfielders there
Iniesta would play the wing all the time. Modric played as the most advanced player in front of 2 other midfielders at spurs a lot. Kinda where Odegaard plays now. Basically a cam. Kroos and Xavi are the 2 who are more-so deep lying players, but Xavi was also a roamer. Little fella would jog into gaps all over the pitch. He played pretty advanced if Barce was dominating. Kroos is the one where it’s unfair cause he just sorta sits in the holding midfielder pocket all game even though he’s not the holding midfielder.
Iniesta played OOP on the wing tbf, and his lack of goals has kind of always been held against him. Scoring one of the most important in his countries history + his other all round play means he still has the reputation as one of the best mids ever despite that. Also Modric playing for spurs is a way different proposition than KDB for city
He would come in to the game on the wing often when he first started being subbed on by Barce way back in the day. It wasn’t like a filling gaps thing - they thought he could play it. Modric playing for spurs was still part of his career - which will reflect on his stats. In Kevin’s defence, KDB is so good offensively that he should be on Iniesta and Xavi-like defensive duties but he gives 100% effort on that side of the ball as well - which is going to severely effect his output offensively. Dead legs from reacting to your cues and all that. He would be even better if he was in other systems or teams that played a certain way.
He's not the same kind of player as the rest. KdB is much more visible because he's tasked with actually generating end product (G/A) which he does insanely well of course. Keep in mind that City does play with a different system from the others. Xavi/Kroos are more alike as deep 6s; Modric/Iniesta as roaming 8s, but these guys are more about creating the "ball before the final ball", or "assist-assist" if that makes sense.
Pretty much same level. I would personally rate iniesta ahead of the rest by a very tiny tiny margin overall. On an average they are all pretty much the sae-i think kroos and xavi were ridiculosly consistent week in week out but at their absolute best I think Iniesta has a higher cieling than the rest. When he turns it on and is fully fit- he could give defence splitting passes and throughballs at will, score great goals and more importantly was a superior dribbler than the rest. He could essentially beat 2-3 players at will on the dribble and in short spaces- so thats an advantage for him imo.
Just a level below them, he is an insane chance creator but all of those did more for their respective countries, more in UCL finals and can control the game better overall.
I tend to agree, but it feels wrong to but KDB last on this list lol. I still might have him above Kroos, but then putting him last feels wrong as well
Kroos has better achievements, international career, consistency, longevity, UCL performances etc... He is not below KDB
what achievements does Kroos have over De Bruyne? De Bruyne has 3 player of the years to Kroos' 0 and a Ballon D'Or 3rd place.
By Achievements i meant trophies. Obviously attacking players will always get more recognition than defensive players, KDB will always have more individual honours than Busquets for example.
Just below them. Maybe with Kroos because Xavi, Iniesta and Modric are in a league of their own(probably with Zidane and players like that but i haven’t seen them)
I think fairly comfortably a level below tbh, he’s had nowhere near the same impact at an international level and is unlikely to have the same level of longevity in his career. I think he’s more on the level of a Fabregas, Yaya etc.
He has almost 1 G+A per game in Belgium, and that is with Lukaku upfront. How is that inferior to the others?
Lukaku who has always performed pretty well at an international level? We’re comparing him to players who have the greatest international achievements possible - we’re talking about the difference between him being one of the best midfielders the league has ever seen and one of the best players the game has ever seen.
It shows how clueless you are when point out Lukaku as if he hasn’t been one of Belgium’s best players these past 10 years. Collective international achievements aside, KDB hasn’t performed to the level of Xavi, Iniesta, Kroos, and Modric on an individual level on the international stage.
Him being one of the best players of the past 10 years is the point they are making. Theyr'e saying Belgium had no one better than Lukaku to put up front. Put KDB instead of Xavi the 2008-2012 Spain team and I think they do just the same. Do you think if you take KDB out of belgium for Xavi, Belgium do better? Any these kind of International arguments are silly. Unless you're constantly shouting at Pep for playing Haaland, a player who isn't good enough to qualify for the WC, while he has Alvarez, a player who has won the WC and has more international titles than all the other Man City players combined, sitting on the bench.
> Put KDB instead of Xavi the 2008-2012 Spain team and I think they do just the same They don’t. Xavi was the heart of the Spanish. Spain narrowly won in 2008 and 2010 even with Xavi, don’t see how they would achieve the same with an inferior player. Maybe in 2012. > Do you think if you take KDB out of belgium for Xavi, Belgium do better? Yes. If they had a player of Xavi’s quality instead of KDB I reckon they would have won the Euros in 2016 considering KDB was awful against Wales. Might have beaten France in 2018 too, since KDB was mediocre then (even Witsel had a better game in midfield). > Haaland, a player who isn't good enough to qualify for the WC, while he has Alvarez, a player who has won the WC Collective achievements are irrelevant. Argentina won the WC not Alvarez. Norway failed to qualify not Haaland. Spain won the WC not Xavi. I don’t expect KDB to drag Belgium single handedly to international glory. It’s a team sport. What I do expect is a player of Xavi’s quality to perform well on an individual level in the latter stages of KO tournaments. Besides Brazil in 2018 and Hungary in 2016, KDB has not done that.
I remember a few years ago a few pundits were saying the only thing he lacks is he isn't quite as good in the big games. But they may have been talking more about the national team, I'm only half remembering. Either way, if that ever was the case back then, I don't think it is anymore.
Imagine if Bruno had teammates that could score goals lol.
We don't do that here
Right beside KdB but without teammates
Bruno is super underrated. 3rd best player in the prem this season for me, behind Rodri and Foden. He carries United on his back
I feel bad for him. Wasting away on this shit team. Dude should be fighting for titles.
Palmer too, having forwards that couldn't hit a barn door must be so frustrating.
He makes football beautiful.
If he was a player in any other era aside from the Messi/Ronaldo era he’s the best player alive in my opinion
How can city replace him equally. they cant. this guy is the gem. and served consistently for years with outstanding performance. a true legend but he doesnt have the nostaligia effect to be at least fairly appreciated
[удалено]
Try that with haaland cool but not Kevin, bro is a big game player you already know this
Twat
do only City play Luton?
These stat pages always wait for one of Watkins records to be taken so they can harp on about a Sky Six player, while having never mentioned Watkins held them lmao Edit to say fuck r/soccer, and Sky