Possibly. Back to his best in recent days.
Has Ozil been the leagues best player...
- Thread starter Randall Flagg
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
I think the biggest difference between Mata and Özil is the passing vision, touch and inventiveness of the latter. Not many will agree with this - but I think Özil's 'vision' is just a notch behind the likes of Zidane and Xavi, and up there with almost any #10 since the start of the 2000s. The ease with which he can regularly execute really difficult skills to go with his vision was what set him apart from other #10s/ attacking midfielders in La Liga, and I'd include even Iniesta in that because even though Iniesta is a wonderfully gifted player technically, his passing vision and ability to manipulate the game is quite poor compared to Xavi (which is why he can't be the conductor Xavi was for the Barcelona), and he's more about dribbling and linking up in the final third. Another very underrated aspect with Özil is his touch/ movement on the turn when he receives the ball. Something like this:
Obviously he slipped in the clip, but it's small stuff like this which can matter. You see him pull that off regularly and that gives him a lot of room behind the defenders. It's kind of Zidane-esque, and you can see other elements of Zidane's game when you watch Özil - particularly in terms of just gliding on the turf, and decision-making because when Özil is as the top of his game, he rarely makes bad decisions with his passing - like Zidane.
He also has the ability to make others play around him, that's what he was best at for Germany when he first emerged, and even at Madrid he was the creative heartbeat of the team in the pre-Modrić days. I just think him and Mata are fundamentally different players. Özil is more of a classic dedicated playmaking attacking midfielder the likes of which are becoming rare because they require lesser defensive responsibilities in an era where football is increasingly about work-rate and teamwork. And Mata is more of a half and half between attacking midfielder and support striker.
His got good numbers, but to me, he's playing just like he's been playing since his arrival at Arsenal. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.
I think it's Mahrez, he's been phenomenal this season. But Özil has certainly been great, too.
I would not say Ozil and Mata are fundamentally different players. Their are only small differences in their ability and playing style, with both regarded as attacking playmakers in the dedicated sense who emphasize creativity. The difference that you may base your perception of is what makes every player unique. However, categorically, Mata and Ozil falls into the same bracket of footballer like Silva, Payet, Canales, Pastore, etcetera; who as you stated are becoming a rarity in football. Compared to other attacking midfielders like Barkley, Coutinho, Snjeider, Isco, etcetera, those players are where the fundamental difference lies that you mentioned. Not between Ozil and Mata.
I agree that Ozil touch is a notch behind Zidane. I would not even care if you say he is as good as Zidane in that regard. Ozil vision and touch is a bit above Mata and that is why his performance is above Mata at the moment. Mata has the ability to improve upon these attribute because to a player like Mata, they are should be intuitive because he has shown glimpse of proficiency in that regard and his other footballing ability complement that.
It's annoying that a thread on Ozil inevitably becomes a Mata discussion, but for what it's worth, the thing I find frustrating with Mata is that he actually does look capable of doing his interesting things on the dribble, but for whatever reason, almost always plays the safe option of the backwards pass.
He is consistent now.
When I look at him I feel saddened by Di Marias decision to quit United. Ozil and Wenger stuck it out and its now paying off.
True. Amazed any of his play could be compared to Zidane.
Mahrez has been better.
Definitely far better this season. Before his injury my man of the season was Sanchez.
Hes largely been missing IMO
I would not say Ozil and Mata are fundamentally different players. Their are only small differences in their ability and playing style, with both regarded as attacking playmakers in the dedicated sense who emphasize creativity. The difference that you may base your perception of is what makes every player unique. However, categorically, Mata and Ozil falls into the same bracket of footballer like Silva, Payet, Canales, Pastore, etcetera; who as you stated are becoming a rarity in football. Compared to other attacking midfielders like Barkley, Coutinho, Snjeider, Isco, etcetera, those players are where the fundamental difference lies that you mentioned. Not between Ozil and Mata.
I agree that Ozil touch is a notch behind Zidane. I would not even care if you say he is as good as Zidane in that regard. Ozil vision and touch is a bit above Mata and that is why his performance is above Mata at the moment. Mata has the ability to improve upon these attribute because to a player like Mata, they are should be intuitive because he has shown glimpse of proficiency in that regard and his other footballing ability complement that.
If you can recall that crazy flick Mata did against Wolfsburg for Smalling goal, that is something Ozil does and makes him to so brilliant. If Mata can add more of those inventiveness and creativity to his game, he can easily be our Ozil.
I really think they are different types of players. A player's position (from a broader perspective) doesn't necessarily dictate the type of footballer he is intrinsically. To cite an example - Shevchenko and Inzaghi were both strikers so we could bracket both in the same category as Raúl, van Nistelrooy, Eto'o, Vieri. But Inzaghi was fundamentally different from the likes of Eto'o and Raúl in that even though almost all of his best work came from within the box, his overall play/ linkup ability was much inferior to both of these players - his game was more about beating the offside trap and ghosting into the box, mentally outwitting the defense to score goals. Another one - Dani Alves and Zabaleta are both rightbacks who can add to the attacking game, but one is more offensive oriented in the opposition half with much greater output compared to the other who is better defensively.
Özil and Mata's approaches to the game are very different. I don't think all attacking midfielders should be qualified under the same bracket. You have attacking midfielders like Zidane and Laudrup whose games were based on trying to control the game and bringing their team-mates to the fore from open play instead of scoring a massive number of goals themselves. Then you have ones like Platini who didn't just set others up, at the top of their game they were quite selfish with their scoring instead of setting things up on a platter - evidenced by the number of goals he scored compared to a Zidane or Laudrup. Or Kaká whose game was more about goalscoring than passing. Then you have someone like Gullit who was an entirely different player - maybe not as technically skilled as some of those players but he was the total offensive midfielder with great workrate and physical ability unlike some of the others mentioned above.
Mata and Özil are attacking midfielders yes, and who have to offset some of their defensive responsibilities, but Mata's game has always been more about scoring goals rather than playmaking and setting them up for his team-mates - like Özil or Silva. I think Mata's assist numbers at Chelsea skewed people's expectations and estimations of his 'creativity' - because a lot of them were from set pieces and corners rather than open play, which inflated his numbers. Özil doesn't have the goalscoring record of Mata, but he is extremely influential in open play, and he likes to bring his team-mates into the game, and he likes to take charge of the game. Which is why one of the biggest reasons Madrid failed in big games when he was there was because he was the primary creative source in the team - and when the opposition took care of him, they couldn't open teams up.
I honestly don't think it's simply a matter of Mata adding more creativity to his game. He just doesn't have the natural eye for passes that Özil does, and it's very hard to train that talent or skill at this stage in his career. It's like saying Iniesta is technically brilliant and skillful so he should be able to do the job that Xavi did when he doesn't have Xavi's natural passing ability. Even Thiago is a better passer than Iniesta, and he was a better replacement for Xavi. I think Mata is in a separate bracket because he's more of a support striker+attacking midfielder combo because of his qualities around the box and in terms of scoring than a pure playmaker like Özil or Silva, that's the fundamental difference between.
considering how good the arsenal fans claimed he was before, i'm sure there is little doubt he is now the best footballer who has ever walked the earth.
Apart from him currently being injured, I don't see how you can say that. He helped Arsenal tear us another one.
Sorry Randy, I love you to bits, but that thread title is hurting my eyes. Sort it out could you?
I already cited examples in my post that elaborated what you just stated. To use your example and compare it to mine, Inazghi is a goal poacher and even though he is a striker, he is different for our strikers like Van Persie who is a technical striker and Benteke who is a target man, etcetera. Ozil is a creative playmaker and as I stated, so is Mata. Their is no huge fundamentally difference between them. On the other hand players like Fellaini plays in the attacking midfield role is different from Ozil/Mata because he is a suffoco, so is other attacking midfielder like Rooney is more of a second striker and Barkley/Coutinho who are more multi-dimensional explosive attacking midfielder. Sneijnder, Isco, etcetera are attacking midfielders who are also fundamentally different in that role. So, I am aware that a player position does not dictate the type of footballer a player is. Which, is why I m aware of the similarity between Ozil and Mata in the creative playmaking attacking midfield role.
Their is not much different in their approach to be honest. Refer to my post above for explanation and previous stats shows that they are very similiar, with key passes, passing accuracy and percentage, among other factors that shows their similarity.
Mata assist numbers are not skewed. It is like saying Ozil assist number is skewed aswell because this season many of his assist came from set pieces. To elaborate on Mata statistic, in his better season here at United when he just arrived, he average 2.8 key passes a game which is as good as Ozil in his first season at Arsenal, who was at 2.9. Their has been a decline since then for Mata, while Ozil has improved his own return, but that is due to different management and the respective clubs philosophy, which improve certain aspect of a player's game. When Mata was at Chelsea playing great football, the similarity in this regard was apparent.
I think this where our opinion divides our perspective. You say Mata does not have the natural eye for picking out a pass, but I have seen him done that multiple times for United to say otherwise. Even recently against Wolfsburg, Mata provide a great pass to Martial for his goal in that game. To get the best out of a player you need great leadership and philosophy. If Ozil was playing for United I would not be surprised if you shared the same opinion you have on Mata with Ozil because our boring football these past few years has not allowed some of our players to express themself. We made one of Europe best creator in Di Maria look average, so it is no surprise that their is a possibility that Mata is not playing to his potential despite still being one of our most productive player in terms of creative output.
Before the match, Moyes said he still needs to prove himself.
For me yes. And to think that I was laughed off at the russian sites when I said that Ozil was a better buy than Mata (whom I still love and worship by the way).
With Vardy you know that it's just a purple patch, Mahrez is a genuine contender but we look at him through his potential and right now Ozil is the best player out of three.
With Vardy you know that it's just a purple patch, Mahrez is a genuine contender but we look at him through his potential and right now Ozil is the best player out of three.
Mahrez this season definitely hasn't been judged on 'potential'.
Quite easily. I'd say he's probably been top 3 in the world, period.
Mahrez is good too but not on Ozil's level. The guy is just an absolute joy to watch.. Still find it hilarious that people doubted him.
Mahrez is good too but not on Ozil's level. The guy is just an absolute joy to watch.. Still find it hilarious that people doubted him.
Don't be so biased.
No he really hasn't.
I don't like the fact that he just doesn't seem bothered when he loses the ball the odd time but he has been very good. It just shows how many top players have been injured or just haven't performed for Ozil to be considered one of the best in the league.
Ozil is a terrific dribbler and is fast when he sprints, Mata doesn't have that in his locker. Nor does he have his vision or passing range. TBH tbey are totally different kinds of players.
Yeah it's because Sanchez and Aguero are injured that Ozil has 12 assists and 4 goals this season.
He's a very hit and miss player but he has massively improved this season
'Key Passes' isn't an appropriate metric to measure a player's creativity or vision on it's own without context.
That is something someone who has not seen Mata play will say.
Moreover, as mentioned before I will not say Ozil is a terrific dribbler, but moreso a smart, technical one; like Mata. I m not sure if you are being sacastic when you say Mata does not have his passing range. Ozil vision though is better than Mata as I said before.
Key passes is a good measure for creativity, however it should not be the only measure. To note Ozil key pass is around 4.3 this season(I believe the highest in his career) and it is no surprise he is the most creative player in the league. Vision is harder to put into statistic. Perhaps successful keep passes percentage and assist could be assessed as a measuring factor for such ability.
Last edited:
I don't like Özil threads.
Well first off, that goals tally is nothing to shout about. Secondly it is obvious that a fit Aguero or Silva is better than Ozil any day of the week. Plus, Vardy has been better than Ozil.
Yeah it's because Sanchez and Aguero are injured that Ozil has 12 assists and 4 goals this season.
Ok mate if you say so
Mata is not a 'creative playmaker' in the mold of Özil or Silva, and he isn't as effective as either when trying to create from open play. You can keep repeating it, but it's not true. Mata is a hybrid attacking midfielder/ second striker. And there is a huge difference in terms of how him and Özil approach the game. Özil is the prototypical 'schemer'. He sets up to manipulate the game, build towards the goal and let his team take the finishing touch from open play - that's his style. Mata sets up near the box to score first and foremost, and then he thinks about laying it off for his team-mates, evidenced by his volume of goals relative to the number of assists from open play. Mata can be as effective as Özil when they're both at the top of their game (not in terms of being a creative presence - but as a combination of goals and assists), but they're still very different type of players.
I don't agree with your explanation.
Yes they are. They were even more skewed at Chelsea:
That's a set play to open play assist ratio of almost 0.80, suggesting a very heavy set play dependence. You compare that with some of the other 'attacking midfielders' across Europe in recent years and for example Kevin De Bruyne had 3 set play assists and 17 open play assists last season for a ratio of 0.18 for Wolfsburg last season. Mata's numbers are more similar to what Fabregas had with Chelsea last season - with a lot of set piece stats.
Just to provide visual proof for what I'm talking about wrt Mata and Özil:
I counted :
Goals (including set pieces): 31.
Open play assists: 25.
Set Play assists: 20.
Set play to open play assists ratio: 0.80 (maybe I mixed up one or two there, but by and large it's fairly accurate).
Compare that with Özil in 2012:
I counted :
Goals (including set pieces): 13.
Open play assists: 23.
Set Play assists: 5.
Set play to open play assists ratio: 0.22. There's massive, massive difference between this number and the 0.80 figure for Mata. And there's visual proof for it. Özil's forte is being creative from open play, especially when he was at his peak for Real Madrid and Germany. Mata's forte is being influential in the final third for goals, and to a lesser extent being a creative presence. Moreover, Mata was the primary set piece taker for Chelsea. By comparison, Özil wasn't even the primary set piece taker at Madrid (Ronaldo was), and he still ranked at the very top of European assist standings. I don't see how anyone can state they're similar in terms of being creative when more 82% of Özil's assists were coming from open play compared with 55% for Mata.
And they key passes stat doesn't even tell anything without adding context to the stat. And the similarity in this regard isn't apparent if you only look at statistics. Why? Because during the 2012/ 2013 season where Mata was at his best for Chelsea, he was creating 3.12 chances per 90 minutes. Whereas Özil is creating 4.52 chances per 90 minutes right now; and the difference between key passes was 0.90. There's a big, big difference both statistically and visually in terms of their creativity. Because if there's not a big difference then Rooney of 2 years ago was as creative as Mata and Özil statistically.
Yes there is a difference is terms of perspective. And FWIW I never said Mata doesn't have an eye for the pass. What I said was - Özil's eye for pass and vision is Top 3 post 2000 level. Mata would be behind a lot of players. And it's not about providing passes vs Wolfsburg either, it's about Özil's ability to constantly probe and prod defenses until he can find an opening - that's where he is at his best - unlocking defenses by subtle passes and touches. I don't think Mata can do that on a consistent basis like Özil can, and he cannot be your team's creative focal point in a way Özil can.
They are very different players with different strengths, but for some reason United fans want Mata to become an orchestrator like Özil or Silva when his strengths actually lie elsewhere. It's just not going to happen. If Özil played for United, I wouldn't share the same opinion because he has a track record for being an overwhelming creative presence from open play, that's what his style is predicated on. It's not about being at United, or Arsenal, I'm not that subjective in the assessment. Let's just realize that Mata is at his best as a supporting striker, rather than an orchestrator like Özil. Because if you continue to rely him for being your creative spearhead, the team will suffer. Mata might be 'productive' statistically on the sheet in terms of creativity, but football isn't just about productivity and it's not played on per, it's also about being influential in the overall passage of play and.
PS: This thread is being derailed. You can PM me and we can discuss this further.
Last edited:
The story at the time was that United was Ozil's preferred option when leaving Real but Moyes turned him down as he felt he didn't need a number 10 because he had Rooney. He then signed Mata a few months later. If true it was a horrendous decision.
Ozil is absolute class. His only flaw is that he plays for Arsenal.
That's a major flaw 
Before his hattrick vs Leicester he was MIA, and then after that game and the next two games (United & Watford) he has again been MIA.
He hasn't affected a lot of PL games this season, he has only scored and assisted in those 3 games too.
Ozil has been streaks ahead of him IMO.
Yes.
IMO, he's always been better than Silva. He was just slightly out of form and adapting to the PL.
IMO, he's always been better than Silva. He was just slightly out of form and adapting to the PL.
We can agree to disagree on our perspective. Despite your claim saying Özil is a fundamental different player to Mata, I only see meaningful anecdotal evidence that could sway some people's opinion in your post. However, those evidence is entirely subjective.
On the other hands, I have giving explaination towards how their play is similiar through empirical evidence and when comparing those evidence with other attacking midfielders of different footballing style, their difference is more apparent than similiarity. However, I m not using stats as my only tool in comparing these two, if you watch them play closely, it becomes more apparent to see they are more similiar than other attacking midfielder aforementioned. Ozil might be an anomaly, just like Berbatov as a striker, but there are still apparent similarity to other players in those position. E.g., Mata and Özil can be compared to Berbatov and Van Persie. The former are both creative midfielder, although Ozil is very unique and the latter are both technical forward, however Berbatov is very unique, but overall their is not a huge difference between them as you stated their is between Mata and Özil.