Another Striker

[BCFC_Dan]

True, Johnson really struggles when his team can't break the opposition down. He seems to run out of ideas very quickly and resort to the long ball.

I agree that he needs to get the players to understand that the long ball is not to be desired but I think it's a tricky thing to do. For one thing we need better players! Sometimes giving the ball a big boot is the best thing to do. I can't remember who it was against now but I can remember a game where we gave away a lead because Lee Johnson tried to play the ball calmly out of defence and ended up giving it away in his own 18 yard box. Most people, I think, would have preferred him to hoof it under that circumstance.

It's also a confidence thing. The players need to feel confidence in their own ability to play football. The long ball comes from a desire to not make a mistake and unfortunately it's ingrained in British football culture. Even at schoolboy level you'll hear people on the sidelines yelling at the kids to "get rid" when they're under pressure. The fear of making a mistake is so great that players would rather hoof the ball clear and avoid it being their mistake than trust in their ability and play their way out of trouble.

For these reasons I don't think a fine system would work. Firstly Johnson needs to keep the players confident enough to trust in their own abilities, which is easy enough to do with a winning team but must be nigh on impossible when they're struggling. Secondly he needs to develop the skills of the players and where necessary and possible replace them with better ones.

I think we can all agree that these are basic duties of a football manager and that Johnson already does a decent job at them. He just needs to do better. The signing of Hartley I think is a big step in the right direction. With better footballers in the team there will be less pressure and, hopefully, less hoofing.

My only disagreement on this topic is that I don't believe having a big forward is the cause of long ball football, I see it as mitigation for if it happens. I agree that the ideal signing would be a Brooker-style player who has the ability to hold the ball up but who has more to his game besides being an aerial presence. However if that player is not available I would like to see us sign somebody who can make something out of the long ball, just in case.

[Nibor]

My only disagreement on this topic is that I don't believe having a big forward is the cause of long ball football, I see it as mitigation for if it happens. I agree that the ideal signing would be a Brooker-style player who has the ability to hold the ball up but who has more to his game besides being an aerial presence. However if that player is not available I would like to see us sign somebody who can make something out of the long ball, just in case.

I've never said it's the cause nor do I believe it to be. It's a temptation.

Booze doesn't make people drink but you don't see shelves full of malt whiskey in rehab.

Unless we can improve on those players who are too often tempted by a long ball (specifically, Orr, McAllister, McCombe and to some lesser extent LJ) which for me would be great but is quite hard to do, playing a target man will make our football more direct like it did last season and the second half of the season before.

[BCFC_Dan]

I've never said it's the cause nor do I believe it to be. It's a temptation.

Booze doesn't make people drink but you don't see shelves full of malt whiskey in rehab.

Unless we can improve on those players who are too often tempted by a long ball (specifically, Orr, McAllister, McCombe and to some lesser extent LJ) which for me would be great but is quite hard to do, playing a target man will make our football more direct like it did last season and the second half of the season before.

So, let's say (and I know you're not advocating this, you want a strong centre forward with some skill, same as I do) we go into the season with only the strikers we have now. We get off to a terrible start and come October are in the bottom 3 after some heavy defeats. The players have no confidence and the crowd are on their backs. They're going to start hoofing it and poor old Maynard will get nowhere near anything. We'll lose more games and things will go downhill faster and faster.

Now, imagine the same situation, only we have the option of a big striker who can make something of the long balls. He nicks a couple of goals here or there, City get some draws and some wins and confidence comes flooding back along with the quality football (and at this point GJ has to be tough and drop the big man and bring back Maynard/Clarkson).

[Nibor]

So, let's say (and I know you're not advocating this, you want a strong centre forward with some skill, same as I do) we go into the season with only the strikers we have now. We get off to a terrible start and come October are in the bottom 3 after some heavy defeats. The players have no confidence and the crowd are on their backs. They're going to start hoofing it and poor old Maynard will get nowhere near anything. We'll lose more games and things will go downhill faster and faster.

I would play the extra man in midfield to give us some solidity, focus on keeping clean sheets and work hard on the players' confidence in training by doing lots of extra work with the ball.

Now, imagine the same situation, only we have the option of a big striker who can make something of the long balls. He nicks a couple of goals here or there, City get some draws and some wins and confidence comes flooding back along with the quality football (and at this point GJ has to be tough and drop the big man and bring back Maynard/Clarkson).

I don't think there is ever a situation where the best option we have is to hit long balls at a monster. I've never seen any team gain in confidence from reverting to that sort of game.

[Robbored]

Now, imagine the same situation, only we have the option of a big striker who can make something of the long balls. He nicks a couple of goals here or there, City get some draws and some wins and confidence comes flooding back along with the quality football (and at this point GJ has to be tough and drop the big man and bring back Maynard/Clarkson).

City already have that option in John Akinde. Sure he's still raw but he's powefull, quick and can hold up the ball and score goals. He's not going to be first choice but a regular place on the bench would be perfect situation for him and the team.

He would be involved in the first team, will probably get on most games all the while gaining that valuable experience.

Why do City another one in the same mould?

[BCFC_Dan]

With the extra man in midfield, and presumably therefore only one striker, it is even more important that the striker can hold the ball up. Otherwise the ball will keep coming back at the defence putting them under more and more pressure.

I think your approach is the correct one in theory but I don't believe it would work in practise with the players we have. There would still be hoofing but it would be ineffective.

I don't believe Akinde is the answer as he's not that type of player. He's powerful but he's in the Akinbiyi mould, happier running onto balls than holding it up. From what I've seen he's actually quite poor in the air and the ball just bounces off him.

[Nibor]

With the extra man in midfield, and presumably therefore only one striker, it is even more important that the striker can hold the ball up. Otherwise the ball will keep coming back at the defence putting them under more and more pressure.

Exactly, so lets get a strong striker in the Brooker mould who can hold the ball up on the floor and not a 6ft 6 monster with a 50p head who encourages low percentage long balls into orbit that 98% of the time come straight back...

[BCFC_Dan]

Exactly, so lets get a strong striker in the Brooker mould who can hold the ball up on the floor and not a 6ft 6 monster with a 50p head who encourages low percentage long balls into orbit that 98% of the time come straight back...

On this we are certainly in agreement. If the only requirement of a targetman is height then we might as well stick McCombe up front.

I, like you, believe a Brooker-style forward to be a requirement. I only disagree with the notion that it is the forwards affecting the type of football played as I believe it to be more a symptom of other problems.

[Nibor]

On this we are certainly in agreement. If the only requirement of a targetman is height then we might as well stick McCombe up front.

I, like you, believe a Brooker-style forward to be a requirement. I only disagree with the notion that it is the forwards affecting the type of football played as I believe it to be more a symptom of other problems.

Then you're not disagreeing because I am not suggesting it isn't a symptom of other problems. I'm just suggesting we should, acknowledging those problems, not do something that we have seen from the last 18 months aggravates the symptoms. Anyway, I'm off to the pub

[Riaz]

Exactly, so lets get a strong striker in the Brooker mould who can hold the ball up on the floor and not a 6ft 6 monster with a 50p head who encourages low percentage long balls into orbit that 98% of the time come straight back...

100% agree. I don't want a target man as such, but we need a bit of musle and someone who can hold the ball up.

A brooker type player would be perfect - but theres not too many of them about. not quick ones anyway.

[SnozRobin]

100% agree. I don't want a target man as such, but we need a bit of musle and someone who can hold the ball up.

A brooker type player would be perfect - but theres not too many of them about. not quick ones anyway.

Isn't this exactly how Dave Clarkson has been described?

[Riaz]

Isn't this exactly how Dave Clarkson has been described?

Really? If he's that type of player, then we are in for a very exciting season.

[SE23Red]

I've never said it's the cause nor do I believe it to be. It's a temptation.

Booze doesn't make people drink but you don't see shelves full of malt whiskey in rehab.

The alcoholic analogy is a bad one and suggests you believe that without the 'temptation' our defenders are capable of a long-ball free life. It completely fails to take into account the possibility of players playing long balls to a striker less able to deal with them (like we have done to Trundle in the past).

So to extend the analogy for you we find that after removing all of the drink we find our players are still drunk. It is nonsense.

Unless we can improve on those players who are too often tempted by a long ball (specifically, Orr, McAllister, McCombe and to some lesser extent LJ) which for me would be great but is quite hard to do, playing a target man will make our football more direct like it did last season and the second half of the season before.

You what? Did you forget writing 'I've never said it's the cause nor do I believe it to be.' a minute ago?

I'd have a genuine 6'+ target man in the squad for several reasons:

(1) As an option off of the bench when chasing the game in the last 10 minutes.

(2) As an option to start if our midfield doesn't click.

(3) As an option against an opposing side with a weak and/or short back four.

(4) As a way of pairing different strikers with different strengths in different formations as the season progresses.

It is not about a long ball footballing philosophy it is about options over a long hard season. Wolves played some very good football with width on both sides. They won the league. Chris Iwelumo started 25 games for them and scored 14 goals. Why should we deny ourselves that for the sake of football purism?

[Nibor]

The alcoholic analogy is a bad one and suggests you believe that without the 'temptation' our defenders are capable of a long-ball free life. It completely fails to take into account the possibility of players playing long balls to a striker less able to deal with them (like we have done to Trundle in the past).

So to extend the analogy for you we find that after removing all of the drink we find our players are still drunk. It is nonsense.

I don't believe that as I've clearly said. I'm just pointing out that if you hand them the bottle they'll drink more.

You what? Did you forget writing 'I've never said it's the cause nor do I believe it to be.' a minute ago?

Correlation and cause aren't the same thing, try reading the context around it if you're truly confused by what I'm saying. If I thought there were people here who genuinely had trouble understanding the point I'm making I'd try and make it even more clear, but the likelihood is you do understand it and are just arguing against a point I'm not actually making for the sake of it.

I'd have a genuine 6'+ target man in the squad for several reasons:

(1) As an option off of the bench when chasing the game in the last 10 minutes.

(2) As an option to start if our midfield doesn't click.

(3) As an option against an opposing side with a weak and/or short back four.

(4) As a way of pairing different strikers with different strengths in different formations as the season progresses.

It is not about a long ball footballing philosophy it is about options over a long hard season. Wolves played some very good football with width on both sides. They won the league. Chris Iwelumo started 25 games for them and scored 14 goals. Why should we deny ourselves that for the sake of football purism?

Because it's not a beneficial option IMO, we don't end up being more successful by taking it so I'd rather spend the same resources we'd waste on a long ball target man on a full back who can pass.

[SE23Red]

I don't believe that as I've clearly said. I'm just pointing out that if you hand them the bottle they'll drink more.

Hence alcoholism being a bad example. But I'll leave the analogy alone.

Correlation and cause aren't the same thing...

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make. I accept there is a correlation between Dele being signed and us playing less attractive football. There is also a correlation between us stopping playing with two wingers and us playing playing less attractive football. You then have to make a judgement as to which is more likely to be the cause of the entertainment value taking a dive.

The evidence suggests to me that it is the later. It also makes sense to me for it to be the later. At the beginning of 2007-08 we were still playing these long balls - hence Trundle receiving as many balls around his neck as he did into feet. But we had a nice balance to our midfield and to our play with short as well as long options available to the defenders.

For the later half of that season, and the whole of last season we lacked those short options so the ball went long more often. Taking the long ball away from the team at this stage would leave the defenders with no options not better ones.

So it is likely our defenders will continue hit the long one in the coming season - they always have. I just don't see the evidence to suggest not signing a Dele replacement will make any real impact on the ability of our defenders or our midfield. The solution with the current defenders (who do a fantastic job in their primary role and are worth sticking with) is to give them all the options they need. So to go back to the balance we had at the start of 07-08 by fixing the midfield and accepting they will still launch it and keep that a strength too.

...try reading the context around it if you're truly confused by what I'm saying. If I thought there were people here who genuinely had trouble understanding the point I'm making I'd try and make it even more clear, but the likelihood is you do understand it and are just arguing against a point I'm not actually making for the sake of it.

Believe me the point you are making is genuinely confusing. You are happy to accept that the relationship between having a big striker and the defenders launching the ball is not a causal one and yet you advocate taking one of our options away on the basis of it.

[Nibor]

Believe me the point you are making is genuinely confusing. You are happy to accept that the relationship between having a big striker and the defenders launching the ball is not a causal one and yet you advocate taking one of our options away on the basis of it.

I don't think it's really confusing. We have some players that like to hoof it too much. Ideally we'd improve/replace them but that's hard. I'm suggesting we shouldn't encourage them to hoof it more than they will anyway by playing a big target man. My observation was that when we played with a big target man, they did this more.

I simply disagree with you about the wingers being the problem. I think the behaviour of the team changed as they started to look further up the pitch knowing that the target man was there, we got into a vicious circle where whoever was playing in midfield didn't bother to look for it because they knew it was going long, the ball came back a lot and therefore we were under more pressure and hit it long more...

I advocate taking away the option and temptation to hoof the ball MORE purely on the basis that it's a s**t option which is ineffective, not good to watch and that we can do better than by spending the money we'd spend on a target man elsewhere. Like on players who can pass.

[fka dagest]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies for any repitition.

In general, I don't like the target man approach, as others have said, it seems to develop into unimaginative hoof ball, which is poor to watch and mostly ineffective. Having said that, there is a time and a place for it. With 15-20 mins left in a game and a goal to chase, I don't think it's a bad idea to have the target man come on and launch a few balls at him.

For me, it's all about options: if you've spent 70 mins playing pretty, but ineffective stuff, you can at least change things with a target man on the bench.

[Smokey]

My mate seems to think we are going to sign up Semih Aydilek, who he says is a "target man". Has anybody heard of him? I never have, and think hes talking poo. He said he was available on a free

[Nibor]

My mate seems to think we are going to sign up Semih Aydilek, who he says is a "target man". Has anybody heard of him? I never have, and think hes talking poo. He said he was available on a free

Google says he's a 20 yr old German of Turkish descent who's 6ft 3, signed to Brum and went on loan to Motherwell in January on Alex Mcleish's recommendation to Mark Mcghee, but didn't play.