It's not just tactical understanding. It's the inability to make the right decision, to put proper weight on a pass, to see an opening before it gets closed down, or the tendency to dribble down into blind alleys. A lot of these things are precisely what makes Diaby appealing in highlights. It's just that they account for nothing on the field. Taarabt is another player like that. Quaresma is yet another. Built up from a young age because of a handful of exciting attributes, but give them enough rope to hang themselves and they will.

Either way, I'm glad he won't be our problem anymore come the summer.

Burnwinter™ wrote:

Dreamlord, Khanuppet and Jones all punked

I blame Dreamlord took his word for it! Moving on, haha should be a decisive match. Still haven't forgiven these fuckers for embarrasing us last season.

Think that's very harsh personally, the comparison to Taarabt and Quaresma. The weak areas of his game didn't need to develop into world class attributes, just good enough to not hold back his world class attributes and I don't think that was out of the question. One thing that's for certain though is his ability to dominate certain games, big games too such as the Carling Cup final. That's something the likes of Taarabt were never capable of, even on a good day.

I must say that the emergence of Diaby as a midfield folk hero in the past couple years has been really bizarre. I remember back in the 09-10 season when he was last relatively injury-free and played regularly, the argument surrounding Diaby was (irrespective of injury) is he good enough of a player to keep around the squad or should we get rid of him. While I thought he was a decent enough squad player at the time, I really don't remember anybody espousing the idea that he was a potentially dominant central midfielder which seems to have become so popular nowadays.

Klaus wrote:

I disagree. I think Diaby has always been a bit of a 'fake' talent. 70 percent of his game has been there. The rest has never emerged, injuries or no injuries. He's just an unfortunate mix of poor awareness and unbelievably bad biomechanics. There are plenty of players like him out there who amount to nothing despite having more robust bodies because having one good game in six is not acceptable at top level.

Does this concern (view) exist for Wilshere? 

Because he seems to be heading in that direction too (IMO). What is there to do but hope he overcomes injuries and gets to play consistently? 

I don't recall anyone ever claiming Diaby was the be all and end all, I think he's attracted support over the years out of sympathy, because he's always put his head down and tried to recover, and because when his game is "on" he's quite majestic to watch.

If anything, the tendency has been to slate him in the sort of terms Klaus does above, accusing him of idiocy, a lack of awareness, ball-dwelling, lackadaisical or clumsy defending etc. Alex Song got the same treatment. It's all a bit over the top. Wilshere is an obvious point of comparison since he has many similar attributes as a midfielder.

I reckon an injury free Diaby would be a very useful player, however at the moment I'd still question whether he'd ever deserve a start. Two or three of our best performers occupy his best positions.

MistaT wrote:

Does this concern (view) exist for Wilshere?

Because he seems to be heading in that direction too (IMO). What is there to do but hope he overcomes injuries and gets to play consistently?

No, I think Jack is ten times the player and twenty times the talent Diaby has ever hinted that he was. Injuries might be the reason why his potential ultimately goes unfulfilled; who knows at this point. I believe Diaby's case is the exact opposite: I think injuries are the reason he's still so revered for a handful of great moments.

Burnwinter™ wrote:

If anything, the tendency has been to slate him in the sort of terms Klaus does above, accusing him of idiocy, a lack of awareness, ball-dwelling, lackadaisical or clumsy defending etc. Alex Song got the same treatment. It's all a bit over the top.

There's some clear element of truth to the criticism in both cases. Song was always a much better player for what it's worth though. He was pretty useful for us. Still haven't missed a beat without him though.

Diaby is pretty good to play off of. You stick him in midfield and he'll do tons of good work that will free up the rest of the team. He's so skinny but i don't think i've ever seen him lose a shoulder to shoulder challenge. Fantastic duel winning potential.

Have to say i don't get the comparions to Taarabt and Quaresma. Just not at all that type of player.

I wasn't saying they were similar player types, just that they were overrated for similar reasons. Diaby had more upside than both of them in my opinion.

Klaus wrote:

I disagree. I think Diaby has always been a bit of a 'fake' talent. 70 percent of his game has been there. The rest has never emerged, injuries or no injuries. He's just an unfortunate mix of poor awareness and unbelievably bad biomechanics. There are plenty of players like him out there who amount to nothing despite having more robust bodies because having one good game in six is not acceptable at top level.

Except that he had plenty of good games when he got a run in the side. His problem was after that 6 games, he got injured again. It's impossible for anybody to build up his game if he keeps getting injured, psychologically and physically.

I get that Klaus. But how is it relevant that a defensive midfielder isn't as good at opening teams up and creating fluency in attack as, say, Mesut Ozil? If your defensive midfielder is "only" as good on the ball as Taarabt and Quaresma i'd say you're doing just fine.

All Diaby needed to do was simplify his game and focus on the basics more. A lot like Ramsey, actually.

I don't think Diaby has ever looked like a defensive midfielder in all his life, though. He certainly hasn't been deployed as one. Every single good performance has come playing as an attacking midfielder or a second striker.

He played as part of a midfield 2 with Arteta. That Liverpool game that people were talking about earlier was part of that run of games. Okay, maybe he wasn't THE dedicated defensive midfielder but he shared the defensive burden with Arteta equally. And that is definitely his best position.

That statement holds as much truth as the idea that Walcott is a centreforward.

It's not where Diaby has been played throughout his career, and for obvious reasons. Particularly post 2008 when we geared our game towards a different kind of football where we needed players who could pass quickly and efficiently in midfield. The tendency with Diaby was more often than not to move him further up the field.

He has always been played as a deep midfielder for us and France since 2009.

It's very different saying he likes to get forward from deep positions and him being deployed as a 2nd striker or attacking mid. I don't even remember more than a couple of games that he has ever started in those positions throughout his career here.

Klaus wrote:

There's some clear element of truth to the criticism in both cases. Song was always a much better player for what it's worth though. He was pretty useful for us. Still haven't missed a beat without him though.

Definitely some truth, I just think there's a tendency to lay it on a bit thick.

Diaby has largely played as a box to box midfielder to my mind. Obviously if he can't drive forward and join the attack a lot of good elements in his game are nullified, but he also shares defensive duties with more discipline than he's always given credit for. The players who would keep him out of this side are Ramsey and Özil though, not Coquelin.

Exactly - he offers much of what Ramsey does, and until Ramsey went into god mode you could see parallels in the criticism of Ramsey and Diaby.

Klaus wrote:

It's not just tactical understanding. It's the inability to make the right decision, to put proper weight on a pass, to see an opening before it gets closed down, or the tendency to dribble down into blind alleys. 

Ramsey had the same problems after coming back from his injury.

The only difference between the two is that one kept picking up more and more injuries and the other sorted out his fitness eventually.