Monkeh Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm interested to know that the 'modern' term for a target man is? fat slow bastard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliftonCliff Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 As for RR's original point, I do actually see your point although I do believe you're reading far too much into it. Millen has shown the way he would like to play in my opinion and is merely increasing his options up top. Well, we all see Robbo's point, Phil. It's just that a lot of us don't accept it and quite a few on this thread have already very cogently explained why. I'm probably one of the few who tend to agree with quite a bit of what he posts, but he's like a dog with a bone on this issue and it does get bloody tedious, which is I suppose why some people have suggested (probably correctly) that he just does it as a wind-up - which in itself is also tedious. Robbo's stance is to absolutely, relentlessly insist on equating the presence of a certain type of forward with what he likes to decry as "hoofball". The argument is that if you put a so-called target man in the side, it automatically results in ugly football as sure as night follows day. Many of us regard this as a lot of old male genitalia, if you catch my drift. In this thread, he's introduced a variation on a very old theme by claiming, when confronted by a well-argued refutation of this central point, that it was actually Millen's use of language he was objecting to, as if that had anything to do with anything. It's actually Robbo's terminology you want to watch out for. Note, for example, how tall forwards he disapproves of become "lumps", target man by implication becomes a term of abuse, any pass that travels 40 yards and bypasses the midfield is an example of hoofball and, in another context, any potential signing by which he's unimpressed of a player who happens to have played for a number of clubs is downgraded by the use of the tag "journeyman", which in the Robbored dictionary is again a subtly derogatory term. Thus, Stead, who's height, assumed playing style and previous scoring record did not cut much ice with our man, was dismissed as a journeyman before he got here, though it all went very quiet on that front in a certain quarter when it turned out the bloke is, by common consent, clearly a more than decent player. Don't fall for it. Robbo's an old hand at this game and a past master at shifting the ground of the discussion when somebody's posted a response that drives a coach and horses through the holes in his argument. I quite like him, actually. He's usually got something interesting to say, You just have to spot when he's leading you up the garden path and either laugh it off or ignore it. Robbo, you've long since been rumbled, mate, and not just by me. See above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bris Red Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 and the Dutch are no better than england, and their club sides are terrible. Are you thick or deluded or both? The dutch have produced players over the years that we could only dream of. The arrogance of us English is what is holding us back, the sooner we admitt we are not good enough and need to change the quicker we will actually win something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 'un' Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm interested to know that the 'modern' term for a target man is? probably some americanism eg netminder, numerical counterpart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'd love to wield the ban hammer, but then people would go to the other extreme and the mods would get moaned at. (People still moan about Malone, and that was years ago) I quite liked Badgers 'Bitch thread' - let them all go and argue about who's dad has the biggest willy in that thread and leave the rest of us to discuss more interesting topics. Rather than a thread, how about a new subforum... something like the "Retard's Rubber Room". You could limit some people to only post in there. Then anyone who wants to read that inane drivel can opt in if they like and nobody needs to get sand in their vaginas about freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riaz Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Just dish out bans. People moan anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Are you thick or deluded or both? The dutch have produced players over the years that we could only dream of. The arrogance of us English is what is holding us back, the sooner we admitt we are not good enough and need to change the quicker we will actually win something. Umm well I'm pretty confident I'm not as thick as you, but then I'm not sure that's much to brag about. The Dutch have won the European championship, we've won a world cup. So no real difference if you include their better record in reaching finals. At the moment they have a better side than England, but then I suspect that will change again, as it had with France, Spain, Germany, Portugal...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Horsman Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Well, we all see Robbo's point, Phil. It's just that a lot of us don't accept it and quite a few on this thread have already very cogently explained why. I'm probably one of the few who tend to agree with quite a bit of what he posts, but he's like a dog with a bone on this issue and it does get bloody tedious, which is I suppose why some people have suggested (probably correctly) that he just does it as a wind-up - which in itself is also tedious. Robbo's stance is to absolutely, relentlessly insist on equating the presence of a certain type of forward with what he likes to decry as "hoofball". The argument is that if you put a so-called target man in the side, it automatically results in ugly football as sure as night follows day. Many of us regard this as a lot of old male genitalia, if you catch my drift. In this thread, he's introduced a variation on a very old theme by claiming, when confronted by a well-argued refutation of this central point, that it was actually Millen's use of language he was objecting to, as if that had anything to do with anything. It's actually Robbo's terminology you want to watch out for. Note, for example, how tall forwards he disapproves of become "lumps", target man by implication becomes a term of abuse, any pass that travels 40 yards and bypasses the midfield is an example of hoofball and, in another context, any potential signing by which he's unimpressed of a player who happens to have played for a number of clubs is downgraded by the use of the tag "journeyman", which in the Robbored dictionary is again a subtly derogatory term. Thus, Stead, who's height, assumed playing style and previous scoring record did not cut much ice with our man, was dismissed as a journeyman before he got here, though it all went very quiet on that front in a certain quarter when it turned out the bloke is, by common consent, clearly a more than decent player. Don't fall for it. Robbo's an old hand at this game and a past master at shifting the ground of the discussion when somebody's posted a response that drives a coach and horses through the holes in his argument. I quite like him, actually. He's usually got something interesting to say, You just have to spot when he's leading you up the garden path and either laugh it off or ignore it. Robbo, you've long since been rumbled, mate, and not just by me. See above. Extremely well put old chap, spot on in fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Rather than a thread, how about a new subforum... something like the "Retard's Rubber Room". You could limit some people to only post in there. Then anyone who wants to read that inane drivel can opt in if they like and nobody needs to get sand in their vaginas about freedom of speech. I've got a perfect vision of this from a photo I took a few years back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliftonCliff Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm interested to know that the 'modern' term for a target man is? As far as I know the modern word for a target man is, er, target man. Which is unfortunate when it's been corrupted to constitute a derogatory term meaning slow, immobile, unskillful, low-scoring small gorilla in football kit whose sole purpose is to act as the intended end point for a ceaseless stream of aimless passes from sub-standard defenders and midfield players, playing a style of football that would shame a Downs League side, whilst simultaeously elbowing as many opponents as possible before getting sent off. By definition, you cannot be a target man and still be any good. Target men, if ever they were any good, which of course they aren't - we have that on the highest authority - would hold the ball up with back to goal and under pressure from burly defenders; they would take a lot of the physical stick for players of slighter build and help to create space for them in doing so; they would be a focal point for the attack ('lead the line', to use the old-fashioned phrase); link the play and bring others into the game. Oh, and score perhaps a dozen or so goals a season themselves, as well. In otherwords, absolutely bloody useless and a complete waste of space. Footballers who perform somewhat similar functions, but in a midfield area, are often termed 'holding' players. Perhaps if we dropped the name target man and called them link-men or focal forwrads or any other daft term we'd care to invent, we'd actually have a bit more time for them. Or alternatively, we could just pay a bit more attention to what they actually do on the field of play (which is to say a lot of hard and by no means unskillful work that tends to go unappreciated) instead of clinging to prejudicial stereotypes about 'old-fashioned center forwards'. Only trouble with that idea is we'd be left with nothing to argue about on internet forums. Best just stick with target man, then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'd like the forum rules changed so that posters who consistently derail threads into pointless little slanging matches get shitcanned at the earliest opportunity. We'd only need to lose three or four to make this place a whole lot more pleasant to use. Well said Nibor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Can I just say , Spurs have Peter Crouch but they still manage to play nice football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I'm interested to know that the 'modern' term for a target man is? Ah an interesting question. For me a target is something you just hit. I will go for link-man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Reynolds Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Are you thick or deluded or both? The dutch have produced players over the years that we could only dream of. The arrogance of us English is what is holding us back, the sooner we admitt we are not good enough and need to change the quicker we will actually win something. I think over the last few years we have. In the media over the last 6 months a lot has been made of how we should be looking to produce more Jack Wilshere-type players. In regards to the topic, RR has shown numerous times that he knows nothing about football. He's taken to pure wind-ups now, which for a man of his age is more than a little strange. I'm also guessing that he was one of those people who claims to have been the first person to have found something brilliant, then disregards it at the first sign of mass-popularity saying he knew all along how poor it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Well said Nibor. turkeys voting for Christmas. whatever next. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Horsman Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Can I just say , Spurs have Peter Crouch but they still manage to play nice football. Great and apt point, he is also extremely good on the deck for a big fella. Not exactly route 1 at White Hart Lane.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Unless i have missed it, RR is still to offer a better term of description than was offered by KM, dispite ridiculing him over his words. People previously mentioned Norwich, their sucess and fluent style of play - Grant Holt anyone..?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Best just stick with target man, then. Years ago people with learning difficulties were labled very differently, but now that derogatory term is no longer in use. Same with the word 'geriatric'. Another term no longer commonly in use. Alcoholic - yet another term not used by health care professionals because of the negative impact of the word. There are endless examples of words/terms going out of use because the world has moved on. As for 'target man' - why use it at all? All it does is stir up an imagine which many fans don't want to see any longer in our game. Simple 'striker' is fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliftonCliff Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Great and apt point, he is also extremely good on the deck for a big fella. Not exactly route 1 at White Hart Lane.......... Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Tansley Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Great and apt point, he is also extremely good on the deck for a big fella. Not exactly route 1 at White Hart Lane.......... An outstanding name change, Sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Years ago people with learning difficulties were labled very differently, but now that derogatory term is no longer in use. Same with the word 'geriatric'. Another term no longer commonly in use. Alcoholic - yet another term not used by health care professionals because of the negative impact of the word. There are endless examples of words/terms going out of use because the world has moved on. As for 'target man' - why use it at all? All it does is stir up an imagine which many fans don't want to see any longer in our game. Simple 'striker' is fine. what type of striker? or are they all the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Reynolds Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 what type of striker? or are they all the same? Of course they are. Why not go even further? They all play on the same pitch so why should we differentiate between different sections of it? We have one handballer and 10 footballers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glynriley Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 How about swapping the term 'Target Man' for 'Goodintheaircanholdtheballupandbringothersintoplayandhasagoodtouchforabiglad' Rolls off the tongue don't it !? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Of course they are. Why not go even further? They all play on the same pitch so why should we differentiate between different sections of it? We have one handballer and 10 footballers. stop labelling people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Simple 'striker' is fine. No offence, but utter rubbish! At least "target man" is slightly descriptive ( I agree with an above post, that "link man" is the best alternative offering thus far) Do you really regard Maynard, Clarkson and Stead as being all the same type of player? "striker" is far to simplistic a term and makes your initial post look a bit un-thought out. Would you like it if KM signs a defender, which we clearly need 2/3 of, for different areas, who was slightly unknown to most of us and his interview description was " well, his position is defender, he defends"? Personally i would prefer he ellaborated on that and told me if he was a 1st ball winning centre back, and left/right back, defensive minded or likes to get forward... etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Horsman Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Unless i have missed it, RR is still to offer a better term of description than was offered by KM, dispite ridiculing him over his words. People previously mentioned Norwich, their sucess and fluent style of play - Grant Holt anyone..?! I've got to be honest, I can't see the problem. A target man holds the ball up and brings others into play. Against two footballing, pacey centre backs, the likes of Maynard and Pittman may get little change so replacing them with a physical, powerful striker who will present them with a totally different challenge, whilst bringing those other attackers into play would be a very useful plan B in my humble view. Watching Grant Holt last season, he ceratinly did just that, unsettling defences with his physical presence and bringing the likes of Simeon Jackson, Wes Hoolihan and Andrew Crofts into play, whilst remaining a major threat himself The lad at QPR, Heidar Helgusson is another prime example of a classic target man, although compared to 6'2" RT he is a dimninutive 5'10". He is strong and excellent aerially, and was QPR's second top scorer last season. Not bad for a target man. Hardly call QPR a route 1 side either. Wish England had a target man now like Alan Shearer................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
numbeast Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Perhaps if KM had refered to Taylor as an "Old Fashioned Cenre Forward" it may have appeased Robbo because to me this conjures up images of Bob Latchford, Malcom McDonald and even our own Joe Royle and Paul Cheesley, all of whom conform to either description. As has already been said with Keith's desire to play with wingers we need someone to get on the end of the crosses they are, hopefully, going to provide. Any one remember Toshack and Keegan at Liverpool? Would you say they played hoof-ball? I though not. As for Millens termenology, I for one don't care if we play with 4 doda's at the back 2 whascallum's in the middle with Albert and Bolasie as out and out ugymaphlops providing opportunities for whoever is playing wotnot up front. As long as I get entertained on a Saturday afternoon or Tuesday night I don't care what he calls them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted June 21, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I like the term 'link man' which was mentioned earlier. 'Link up-striker' even. Tells you exactly what to expect. Says a lot more that a dinosaur term like 'target-man'. That tells you what to expect as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SC_Red Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 I like the term 'link man' which was mentioned earlier. 'Link up-striker' even. Tells you exactly what to expect. Says a lot more that a dinosaur term like 'target-man'. That tells you what to expect as well. not necessarily. sage doesnt tell us what to expect so why should target man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted June 21, 2011 Report Share Posted June 21, 2011 Ok who is 'sitsonthebenchearning14grandaweekcosheisshite'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.