This is a very interesting discussion. If I was a coach I would choose Latapy over Nakhid any day because it is easier to replace a defensive midfielder than a creative midfielder.
For example Makele or Zidane.......Emerson or Ronaldinho. A French coach and Brazilian coach will easily select Zidane and Ronaldinho..that is a no brainer although Makele and Emerson are good players.
It is difficult to compare a defensive midfielder and an offensive midfielder..as someone said that is comparing apples to oranges. However if I was Parreira I will select Ronaldinho and find one someone else to replace Emerson. Do you think it easier to replace Ronaldinho or Emerson? Do you think it easier to replace Zidane or Makele? Do you think it easier to replace Latapy or Nakhid?
not to say Nakhid wasn't a creative midfileder too. We laugh at the Americans when they start to count 'assists", but I think this would highlight Nakhid's greatest strength. Correct me if I wrong too, but it seemed to me to appear as though, the defence Nakhid was playing in front of was more shaky than the one Latapy was playing in front of (in their primes), so yuh find Nakhid had to play that kind of role more.
and I disagree with the automatic pick for the more attacking midfielder, cuz if we have a side and is four ah we on this forum in defence, with a midfield of Zidane, baggio, latapy, and we lookin for a 4th...b/c we defence shaky yuh ent feel we go go for a defensive?