BCFC_Dan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Have we played in the last ten years good football with a big man up front? Yes. Most agree that City played decent football under Wilson. Wilson's teams included Lee Peacock, Lee Matthews, Lee Miller, Peter Beadle and Steve Jones, all of whom were big guys capable of holding the ball up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Yes. Most agree that City played decent football under Wilson. Wilson's teams included Lee Peacock, Lee Matthews, Lee Miller, Peter Beadle and Steve Jones, all of whom were big guys capable of holding the ball up. Well Lee Peacock did a reasonable job for a while but the rest were absolute pants .... The decent football under Wilson was, IMO, mainly down to the likes of Murray and Tinnion .. and not forgetting Mickey Bell, who could actually take a free kick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbored Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Well Lee Peacock did a reasonable job for a while but the rest were absolute pants .... The decent football under Wilson was, IMO, mainly down to the likes of Murray and Tinnion .. and not forgetting Mickey Bell, who could actually take a free kick. Don't forget that under Wilson City were in Div 1 and generally the opposition defenders weren't up to Championship standard. That said Wilson did produce some good stuff despite having 'targetmen' up front. If you draw a parallel with his squad and the current squad there are similarities. Tinnion - Kilkenny. Murray - Adomah but currently there is no comparison to Peacock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Well Lee Peacock did a reasonable job for a while but the rest were absolute pants .... The decent football under Wilson was, IMO, mainly down to the likes of Murray and Tinnion .. and not forgetting Mickey Bell, who could actually take a free kick. Are you saying that Murray, Tinnion and Bell forced "good" football out of a team featuring a big forward whilst Adomah, Kilkenny and Cisse, despite playing at a higher level and being international players would instantly start hoofing it if a big forward were added to their team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Are you saying that Murray, Tinnion and Bell forced "good" football out of a team featuring a big forward whilst Adomah, Kilkenny and Cisse, despite playing at a higher level and being international players would instantly start hoofing it if a big forward were added to their team? No, I was mainly responding to a post listing a load of disasterously bad footballers (Peacock excluded) as the reason for good football under Wilson. How on earth anyone can look at the likes of Miller, Beadle, Matthews and Jones as anything other than failures - and league 1 failures at that - is beyond me. As far as the Championship is concerned we obviously looking for a target man in January, Del has already said that he prefers two up front, but won't play Pitman and Maynard together, so I guess that means a big man with Maynard/Pitman alongside. Hopefully we'll get somebody good and we have played decently in the Championship with big forwards - Adebola did a job and the late loan recruitment of Iwelumo one year saved our season. Will be interesting to see who arrives and, when we go 2 up front, which of our midfielders is sacrificed and how that will effect what is already, IMO, a week and uncreative department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 No, I was mainly responding to a post listing a load of disasterously bad footballers (Peacock excluded) as the reason for good football under Wilson. How on earth anyone can look at the likes of Miller, Beadle, Matthews and Jones as anything other than failures - and league 1 failures at that - is beyond me. Ah ha! Well there we go. I was responding to someone asking "have we ever played good football with a big forward in the last 10 years" so I gave an example of a time during the last 10 years when a City team featuring a big forward played attractive football. I did not claim that any one of those forwards was a good player, or responsible for the good football (although I'd contest that a number of them were both decent players and contributed to the quality football, but that's not the point.) There's an assumption by many that big forwards cause poor football, and I don't believe it's necessarily the case (as the examples under Wilson prove.) In my opinion just because McInness is looking for a "presence" up front (that doesn't even have to be a particularly big man - Brooker was a presence yet under 6' tall) it does not necessarily follow that City will always play a more direct style, though it may enable them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Before we worry about physical presence up front we need to worry about movement. There was precisely NONE from any of the wide players, Maynard or even the midfield on Saturday. Without movement, putting a "physical presence" up front will do only one thing: Encourage the defenders to lump it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Ah ha! Well there we go. I was responding to someone asking "have we ever played good football with a big forward in the last 10 years" so I gave an example of a time during the last 10 years when a City team featuring a big forward played attractive football. I did not claim that any one of those forwards was a good player, or responsible for the good football (although I'd contest that a number of them were both decent players and contributed to the quality football, but that's not the point.) There's an assumption by many that big forwards cause poor football, and I don't believe it's necessarily the case (as the examples under Wilson prove.) In my opinion just because McInness is looking for a "presence" up front (that doesn't even have to be a particularly big man - Brooker was a presence yet under 6' tall) it does not necessarily follow that City will always play a more direct style, though it may enable them to. Not cause, encourage. If Stead had been on the pitch Saturday, those passes along the back line would all have been lumped forward earlier and 9.8/10 times we'd have had possession turned over and been under pressure again. You need movement, confidence and players to travel with the ball until an opportunity opens up. If you add a strong centre forward to that, fine. If you add one to a side with no movement lacking confidence and not travelling with the ball, hand out neck braces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murraysrightplum Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Yep movement is what made the team so effective when Del first arrived. We need to get back to that somehow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calculus Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Ah ha! Well there we go. I was responding to someone asking "have we ever played good football with a big forward in the last 10 years" so I gave an example of a time during the last 10 years when a City team featuring a big forward played attractive football. I did not claim that any one of those forwards was a good player, or responsible for the good football (although I'd contest that a number of them were both decent players and contributed to the quality football, but that's not the point.) There's an assumption by many that big forwards cause poor football, and I don't believe it's necessarily the case (as the examples under Wilson prove.) In my opinion just because McInness is looking for a "presence" up front (that doesn't even have to be a particularly big man - Brooker was a presence yet under 6' tall) it does not necessarily follow that City will always play a more direct style, though it may enable them to. I don't disagree - a good big forward would be a good thing. Players like Drogba, Crouch and even Carroll are much more that just big forwards. I hope Del does get his big man but that's it's not just some lump to hump the ball to. Devon White anybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzle Jordan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I'm not a fan of playing with a target man. I much prefer a team that plays neat football that has a striker who can pass it around aswell. Hopefully this target man isn't just a physical presence, let's hope he can play a bit aswell! Not many about though.. In Del we trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Not cause, encourage. If Stead had been on the pitch Saturday, those passes along the back line would all have been lumped forward earlier and 9.8/10 times we'd have had possession turned over and been under pressure again. You need movement, confidence and players to travel with the ball until an opportunity opens up. If you add a strong centre forward to that, fine. If you add one to a side with no movement lacking confidence and not travelling with the ball, hand out neck braces. If Stead's only winning the ball 2% of the time then either he's not doing his job right or the passes are truly terrible. Maybe that's why McInness wants to sign somebody else. I agree with you in that it's confidence and movement which make the difference. Aimless long balls are a feature of side lacking confidence and creativity, not necessarily of one with a big forward (Barcelona were still a passing side with Ibrahimavic in the team for instance.) So, given that City lack confidence and movement, we are looking at the choice you outlined above - namely sideways passes along the back, or long balls forward. Now, without wanting to drop to Charles Reep levels of statistical misuse, if you can get a targetman who can receive a long pass and hold it a decent amount of the time, the team ought to find themselves in a better position to create and score chances, leading to goals and possibly victories and increased confidence. The ability to go long should be an option, not the default style of play, for sure, and as results improve it should be phased out, but with a team lacking confidence it at least presents a way of attacking they wouldn't otherwise have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 If Stead's only winning the ball 2% of the time then either he's not doing his job right or the passes are truly terrible. Maybe that's why McInness wants to sign somebody else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 I'm not a fan of playing with a target man. I much prefer a team that plays neat football that has a striker who can pass it around aswell. Hopefully this target man isn't just a physical presence, let's hope he can play a bit aswell! Not many about though.. In Del we trust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiledinwatford Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Defenders aren't that bothered about playing against a physical presence - pace is the thing that scares them all. Whoever we get let's hope he's a quick 'un. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 You're not counting the number of times a big forward will win the ball only to have the knock down snaffled up by a defender easily because (shock horror) there's no movement from the players supposed to be around the big forward. All very well in theory but observable recent data (ie the last two years under GJ and most of Millen's reign) suggests that it doesn't happen like that. Aimless or otherwise, long balls forward from a team lacking confidence lead to loss of possession and strings of defeats. It's not a factor of the quality of the target man it's to do with the confidence and movement of the players around him. A good target man might hold the ball for a few seconds, but no runs from team mates and nobody wanting the ball will mean we lose it. A target man isn't a solution to anything really, and long balls should always be a very last resort motivated by playing "safe" out of defence when no other option is present rather than as a preferred attacking option. Agree again that there needs to be support, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Play quick players like Adomah and Bolasie off a big striker and they'll get in behind off knock-downs. Sunderland under Peter Reid degenerated into nothing more then Quinn knocking down long balls for Phillips, but that worked until Quinn retired (then went wrong badly, demonstrating both the importance of the quality targetman to the tactic and the foolishness of relying on it.) Furthermore, if you do have some decent midfield players breaking around a targetman it's still possible to play some very decent football. Look at Norwich. They can hit the ball up to Grant Holt and he's usually got another forward to flick the ball on to, or a midfielder like Hoolahan there to support. I'm not suggesting City have the players to do that, just making an argument for the general case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Agree again that there needs to be support, but that doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. Play quick players like Adomah and Bolasie off a big striker and they'll get in behind off knock-downs. Sunderland under Peter Reid degenerated into nothing more then Quinn knocking down long balls for Phillips, but that worked until Quinn retired (then went wrong badly, demonstrating both the importance of the quality targetman to the tactic and the foolishness of relying on it.) Furthermore, if you do have some decent midfield players breaking around a targetman it's still possible to play some very decent football. Look at Norwich. They can hit the ball up to Grant Holt and he's usually got another forward to flick the ball on to, or a midfielder like Hoolahan there to support. I'm not suggesting City have the players to do that, just making an argument for the general case. You're basically saying that when all the other conditions are right, a target man can work. I agree. It's just that when all the other conditions are right, not having a target man can work too - as we saw in the new manager's first few games. Adding a target man to Saturday's performance would have turned it into a defeat IMO. We therefore have things to fix before we worry about physical presence up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 At least with a more physical pressence up front we might be able to vary it a bit. We've been sussed out by many teams now and have become predictable, especially our use of Albert passing it to a lone striker. We need a strong, skillful player who will give the defenders a problem. We are too nice in all areas of the pitch. Toughen up a bit and look like there is fight and passion and the stomach for a relegation scrap. Fast flowing, passing football is a joy to watch but sometimes we need to mix it up a bit too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Who? Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Greetings from St Johns Town I would be amazed if Del didnt make a move for Andrew Driver at Hearts. He has just been told he has no future at Hearts due to a clash with the manager, some bampot called Paulo Sergio but suspect it is more to do with their bigger bampot owner. They are in dire financial trouble and would likely have to sell him off at a cheaper price. Could be wrong but I beleive he is capped at U21 for England as was playing very well until injured earlier in the season. Can play wide or just off a Striker. Still fairly young too. Good to see you guys out the relegation zone. Didnt think it would take Del long! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendy Who? Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 This guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Driver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC_Dan Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 You're basically saying that when all the other conditions are right, a target man can work. I agree. It's just that when all the other conditions are right, not having a target man can work too - as we saw in the new manager's first few games. Adding a target man to Saturday's performance would have turned it into a defeat IMO. We therefore have things to fix before we worry about physical presence up front. You saw it, I didn't, so I'll have to believe you. I've been arguing more that having a big man up front doesn't have to mean poor football, not necessarily that City should have one (though McInnes must have his reasons for wanting one.) If City weren't hoofing the ball on Saturday, then you're probably right that it's best to keep that team and work on movement and passing (Maynard's fairly good at holding the ball up himself anyway.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red colin Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 You're basically saying that when all the other conditions are right, a target man can work. I agree. It's just that when all the other conditions are right, not having a target man can work too - as we saw in the new manager's first few games. Adding a target man to Saturday's performance would have turned it into a defeat IMO. We therefore have things to fix before we worry about physical presence up front. Target man doesnt mean 6ft 6 to head on only it means someone who can get it down from goalkicks freekicks etc and use it and control the bad passes, lets face it there are a lot of dead ball kicks from within your own half so every team needs that sort of physical hold up type, maynard doesnt even try to head it and it comes straight back , hoofball doesnt come into it, yakobu rooney van persie zamora none known for heading but hold up types thats what del means im sure.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 This guy: http://en.wikipedia....i/Andrew_Driver Looks good to me. I'm sure I've seen his name mentioned on here quite a while back. As for Hearts, nothing surprises me about them. Really feel for their fans having such madmen in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTR Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Doesn't matter what type of player you've got up front when teams sit deep,like most teams that come to ashton do,we need to improve our set pieces.Tight games like most in this division are won or lost with good free kicks and corners ours are very poor,and as some one has said our throw ins are and always have been apalling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Target man doesnt mean 6ft 6 to head on only it means someone who can get it down from goalkicks freekicks etc and use it and control the bad passes, lets face it there are a lot of dead ball kicks from within your own half so every team needs that sort of physical hold up type, maynard doesnt even try to head it and it comes straight back , hoofball doesnt come into it, yakobu rooney van persie zamora none known for heading but hold up types thats what del means im sure.. I respectfully direct my right honourable friend to the answers I gave earlier? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snufflelufagus Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Target man doesnt mean 6ft 6 to head on only it means someone who can get it down from goalkicks freekicks etc and use it and control the bad passes, lets face it there are a lot of dead ball kicks from within your own half so every team needs that sort of physical hold up type, maynard doesnt even try to head it and it comes straight back , hoofball doesnt come into it, yakobu rooney van persie zamora none known for heading but hold up types thats what del means im sure.. If we are hoping for the target man to knock it down form goal kicks then we are in trouble. James can't kick for toffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 All top strikers are physically strong these days, even the short ones (think of Messi, Aguerro, Tevez etc) I think he wants someone who can keep posession further up the pitch so we can build attacks. NM is too weak to play up front alone IMO Yes. I think you are about right. I suspect NM is on the way come January as the bottom 8 clubs in the Prem look to get some goals on the cheap. It will be upto Stead/Pitman/Taylor to prove they are strong enough in the box and if they dont then another striker is likely Our big problem is we are not as strong as we should be all over the field, so I expect to see the midfielder from St Johnstone come in as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintees! Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Absolutely right. It doesn't mean it necessarily, but what has happened every time we have a presence up front? Have we played in the last ten years good football with a big man up front? Players at this level will lump it, and they'll try to get away with it more if there's "presence" there You are the one jumping to conclusions ...about McInnes...and your tone seems more than a bit cynical. Can I ask how exactly you know what his plans are? Or do YOU jump to conclusions after a few weeks!! Also, a wee thought....a few of the posters seem to see it the same way as me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hippy273 Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 Defenders aren't that bothered about playing against a physical presence - pace is the thing that scares them all. Whoever we get let's hope he's a quick 'un. Should have played Ivan Sproule up front all season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bristolcitysweden Posted December 19, 2011 Report Share Posted December 19, 2011 We did not ask Forest any questions because they were the better side. We should strengthen our footballing ability rather going for presence as long as this is not a short term solution because of Steads (played a full game for the reservs last week) and Taylors injuries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.