This one sparked my interest during an argument about the subject as I challenged the idea that being a ‘system player’ is a negative, as some of the best players in history have been system players in some of the most successful systems (E.G. Sergio Busquets).

The problem seemed to stem from the fact that my understanding of what system player meant was someone who needed to be in the right set up to play at their, often world class, best and that taking them out of that system or in a team with a very different play-style would result in a big drop off in performance.

The person I was arguing with defined it as a player who is made to look better because they’re surrounded by better players in a ‘good system’, and is by definition not a key part of that system they just play a role.

I think this severely underestimates the importance of tactics and systems which are implemented by managers as well ignores the nuance of what it means to be a ‘good’ player. I also can’t help but worry that it’s a symptom of FIFA playing that people view players through the lens of ‘what would they be like to use in a FIFA game’ and this colours opinions.

To me, a system player can be better than a non-system player as they are more adaptable and coachable rather than always just playing ’their game’.

  • ChelseaDagger14@alien.topB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think a lot of DM’s in the Alonso, Pirlo, Jorginho mould. You’d need a box to box CM who was capable of covering the running like Mascherano, Khedira, Gattuso, Kante. You’d also need very good defensive backs, as if your DM loses the ball then there’s no cover for your CB’s. I know good CB’s are useful, but with this type of DM - you don’t need so much centre backs that are good on the ball as the holding mid can link the midfield and defence - it’s about pure defensive acumen.