So just how significant is pace to the game?

[Guest Knightrider]

During 90 minutes a player will

 

Make 1,200 changes of direction

 

Stand still 18% of the time

 

Walk 38% of the time

 

Jog 18% of the time

 

Run at low speed 15% of the time

 

Run at high speed 2% of the time

 

Run at a moderate speed 8% of the time

 

Run at full out sprinting just 1% of the time

[S.S.R.]

Outfield player, obviously.

[Keefaz]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

[Parky]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

 

:giggle:

[Guest Pie]

Very significant. It is almost mandatory in the modern game. There are very few exceptions to that rule. Solano was never slow in his prime. By any standard Lee Clark and Milner were/are.

[80]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

 

That puts an end to that line of argument.

[Dr Venkman]

very significant and very handy

[Keefaz]

Some day there will be a player who can run faster than the ball... and he will win the Universe!

[S.S.R.]

Jardel lost 50% of his pace, and hasn't been the same since.

[Guest Knightrider]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

 

Of course shooting is a crucial part of the game, but a speedy player isn't so crucial, contrary to popular opinion. Indeed a speedy player will very rarely get to utilize that pace as these stats show.

 

Don't know what kind of point I'm making btw, I guess I'm just sick of seeing players and indeed teams downgraded because they lack pace, Milner and our own team being the prime source of this issue at times on here, and of course the emphasis placed on pace in youth football/player development which I personally believe to be a retarded way of thinking.

 

The "lacks pace" mentality really bugs me, because fans, managers, pundits and academy directors alike are all overrating it in my opinion to a point where it's starting to have a detrimental effect on the game.

 

The stats btw come from an article  in a magazine called "Total Youth Football" discussing the importance and significance of pace and the article basically states that pace isn't half overrated. It also states that quick reaction times is and always will be more significant to the game and more use to a player and a team along with skill and mental strengths of course.

 

(I guess the article is trying to force coaches of kids to think differently, to not place too much emphasis on pace which is a good thing IMO)

 

I'm also reading other articles that kind of change your outlook on the game, based on stats of course. For example most footy fans and indeed managers and pundits will consider tackling to be vital yet stats are saying different. We don't need reminded of Souness' era where the ability to tackle it seems was the key to success.

 

I'm also reading stuff on why certain players are significantly better than others and surprisingly individual ability has very little to do with for example why a player like Michael Owen is 10 times the player Shola Ameobi is. Mental strengths are what separate the two, that "experiences" in development years.

 

Just little gripes of mine.

[Guest RodrigoPalacio]

What happened when Laurent Blanc marked Craig Bellamy at SJP that time?  Yeah, speed counts for nothing.

[Baggio]

That's because Blanc didn't have the right mental strength though.

[Guest Knightrider]

That's because Blanc didn't have the right mental strength though.

 

Or his reaction time had faded with age?

[Baggio]

It was because he was too slow and didn't have the positional sense to make up for it tbh.

[johnnypd]

saying pace is unimportant cos it is only used for 3% of a match is as ludicrous as saying a player's main strengths are how well they can stand still and walk, as these make up 56% of their game.

[fredbob]

Pace isnt significant in the slightest, its a merely an advantage, nothing more, nothing less, you can drag out a number of players who were affected by loss of pace due o injury etc, but then again you can dig up just as many who have been completely unaffected by loss of pass.  The poorer technichal players are the ones who rely on their natural attributes, for example Martins, if he lost his places he would struggle in the first division, but players who's are able to utilise this attribute but not make it there primary weapon are the most dangerous player, for example Owen.

[NSG]

At middle of the premiership table level and lower, it's vital. Against class defenders, the advantage disappears massively, as mental quickness is as important as physical speed.

[The College Dropout]

Owen is still dangerous but now is pretty much strictly a box player.

 

I don't think he has the legs to score a goal like his winer in the FA Cup.

 

Every team needs pace within the last 3rd. Teams can then emply a very high defensive line which causes a long list of problems.

 

 

It's rare to find a winger without pace these days who is any good.

[TRon]

How many good teams can you name off the top of your head that don't have pace?

 

 

[ohmelads]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

 

Of course shooting is a crucial part of the game, but a speedy player isn't so crucial, contrary to popular opinion. Indeed a speedy player will very rarely get to utilize that pace as these stats show.

 

Indeed, but those few times when he can use his pace it can be the difference between winning and drawing or losing. Petrov outsprinting Taylor last week was probably the most significant moment of the game. Trying to prove that sort of point with statistics is ludicrous to be honest.

 

Even if that player doesn't get the opportunity to use his pace, it might often be because a sensible defence isn't holding such a high line (as we did to our cost). As a result of them sitting deeper, space opens up for your midfielders. So there's a bigger picture, having pace can force the opposition to adjust their tactics accordingly. We didn't do that and got punished for it.

 

Of course pace doesn't get you anywhere on its own, otherwise Vassell and the like would be scoring for fun. However, it can give you the advantage in tight games, certainly.

 

You're mostly talking about pacy players as individuals, but with regards to the dynamics of a team and a football game, I think pace is very important.

[Guest Pie]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

 

Of course shooting is a crucial part of the game, but a speedy player isn't so crucial, contrary to popular opinion. Indeed a speedy player will very rarely get to utilize that pace as these stats show.

 

Don't know what kind of point I'm making btw, I guess I'm just sick of seeing players and indeed teams downgraded because they lack pace, Milner and our own team being the prime source of this issue at times on here, and of course the emphasis placed on pace in youth football/player development which I personally believe to be a retarded way of thinking.

 

The "lacks pace" mentality really bugs me, because fans, managers, pundits and academy directors alike are all overrating it in my opinion to a point where it's starting to have a detrimental effect on the game.

 

The stats btw come from an article  in a magazine called "Total Youth Football" discussing the importance and significance of pace and the article basically states that pace isn't half overrated. It also states that quick reaction times is and always will be more significant to the game and more use to a player and a team along with skill and mental strengths of course.

 

(I guess the article is trying to force coaches of kids to think differently, to not place too much emphasis on pace which is a good thing IMO)

 

I'm also reading other articles that kind of change your outlook on the game, based on stats of course. For example most footy fans and indeed managers and pundits will consider tackling to be vital yet stats are saying different. We don't need reminded of Souness' era where the ability to tackle it seems was the key to success.

 

I'm also reading stuff on why certain players are significantly better than others and surprisingly individual ability has very little to do with for example why a player like Michael Owen is 10 times the player Shola Ameobi is. Mental strengths are what separate the two, that "experiences" in development years.

 

Just little gripes of mine.

Arsene Wenger is obsessed with pace tbh. Not sure his thinking is retarded.

[NSG]

How many good teams can you name off the top of your head that don't have pace?

 

 

Chelsea aren't stunningly quick.

 

 

Oh, you said good teams.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Pace can make a below average footballer a valueable player, ie Lennon.

[Guest Knightrider]

Not sure what your point is, HTT. A player only shoots at goal 0.000001% of the time, but it's a crucial part of the game.

 

Of course shooting is a crucial part of the game, but a speedy player isn't so crucial, contrary to popular opinion. Indeed a speedy player will very rarely get to utilize that pace as these stats show.

 

Don't know what kind of point I'm making btw, I guess I'm just sick of seeing players and indeed teams downgraded because they lack pace, Milner and our own team being the prime source of this issue at times on here, and of course the emphasis placed on pace in youth football/player development which I personally believe to be a retarded way of thinking.

 

The "lacks pace" mentality really bugs me, because fans, managers, pundits and academy directors alike are all overrating it in my opinion to a point where it's starting to have a detrimental effect on the game.

 

The stats btw come from an article  in a magazine called "Total Youth Football" discussing the importance and significance of pace and the article basically states that pace isn't half overrated. It also states that quick reaction times is and always will be more significant to the game and more use to a player and a team along with skill and mental strengths of course.

 

(I guess the article is trying to force coaches of kids to think differently, to not place too much emphasis on pace which is a good thing IMO)

 

I'm also reading other articles that kind of change your outlook on the game, based on stats of course. For example most footy fans and indeed managers and pundits will consider tackling to be vital yet stats are saying different. We don't need reminded of Souness' era where the ability to tackle it seems was the key to success.

 

I'm also reading stuff on why certain players are significantly better than others and surprisingly individual ability has very little to do with for example why a player like Michael Owen is 10 times the player Shola Ameobi is. Mental strengths are what separate the two, that "experiences" in development years.

 

Just little gripes of mine.

Arsene Wenger is obsessed with pace tbh. Not sure his thinking is retarded.

 

Wenger looks for the complete package and can afford to. Most don't though. Skill, technique, power and mental strengths rank as high or higher than pace on his list of "must haves"

[Guest Knightrider]

saying pace is unimportant cos it is only used for 3% of a match is as ludicrous as saying a player's main strengths are how well they can stand still and walk, as these make up 56% of their game.

 

I'm not saying it's unimportant, ideally a player will be quick and skilful, with all the right mental strengths, but I do strongly believe it's overrated and not as significant as often considered.