If Martins is again dropped for the next match...

[Unbelievable]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around - just to name a few. The fact that those types of players are considered so special when they are around blows your argument out of the water, you simply cannot teach the sort of brilliance those men had. It's mostly innate and it obviously can be tuned and improved, but I think they are born with it.

 

Obafemi Martins is special physically. He is one of the fastest players in the game, he will also be up there in terms of agility and jumping and all of that. That is where his strength is, this is again something that you cannot coach into players. You cannot coach players to be quick, or to have an exceptional leap, there is a lot of football that is pure genetics. I'm not sure how you can take such a simplistic approach to it all. Football goes far deeper than coaching.

 

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

As for the Makelele/Hargreaves bit... again, how many of those sorts of players are there? Those two you mention play at two of the biggest clubs on the planet and at their peak will be/have been at the pinnacle of their position. Again, if everyone could have their abilities, they wouldn't cost so much.

 

You must see that?

 

Everything I thought put down into words much better than I could have..

[Keefaz]

Keefaz, get your own point and stop stealing mine.

 

Sorry, mate. I'm gonna watch the box now, anyway. The football forum's too tense for me at the minute.

[mrmojorisin75]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around - just to name a few. The fact that those types of players are considered so special when they are around blows your argument out of the water, you simply cannot teach the sort of brilliance those men had. It's mostly innate and it obviously can be tuned and improved, but I think they are born with it.

 

Obafemi Martins is special physically. He is one of the fastest players in the game, he will also be up there in terms of agility and jumping and all of that. That is where his strength is, this is again something that you cannot coach into players. You cannot coach players to be quick, or to have an exceptional leap, there is a lot of football that is pure genetics. I'm not sure how you can take such a simplistic approach to it all. Football goes far deeper than coaching.

 

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

As for the Makelele/Hargreaves bit... again, how many of those sorts of players are there? Those two you mention play at two of the biggest clubs on the planet and at their peak will be/have been at the pinnacle of their position. Again, if everyone could have their abilities, they wouldn't cost so much.

 

You must see that?

 

what the f*** are you talking about?  if intelligence was a factor we'd have more of the players you mention, the fact it's down to instinct is explained by the fact there are so few great players

 

same in any sport, natural ability is what counts...some players can improve with training more than other some don't improve at all

 

Great reply mate, the one of a beaten man.

 

sign of a winner, never know when you're beat

[Tooj]

Tell you one thing I thought was class from Oba. Everton at home last season, when he got subbed. His sprint to the dugout. 

[Wullie]

Keefaz, get your own point and stop stealing mine.

 

Sorry, mate. I'm gonna watch the box now, anyway. The football forum's too tense for me at the minute.

 

I know, wish I was back on holiday just for the simple fact I wouldn't be on here every five minutes. I'm like a fucking coiled spring.

[Wullie]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

[Tooj]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

I think everybody said that about Romario like. Still the greatest finisher I've ever seen like. Genuine footballing intelligence as well. If that does exist like and isn't actually a myth upon Loch Ness proportions.

[Dave]

Keefaz, get your own point and stop stealing mine.

 

Sorry, mate. I'm gonna watch the box now, anyway. The football forum's too tense for me at the minute.

 

I know, wish I was back on holiday just for the simple fact I wouldn't be on here every five minutes. I'm like a fucking coiled spring.

 

So THAT'S what you tell 'em.

[Unbelievable]

Intelligence, instinct, coachable or not, whatever.. All that matters at the current point in time is that we play to our best players' strength. Glad everybody on here seems to agree on that. Sadly, the men in charge of the football club don't seem to see things the way we do..

 

Edit: I mean "best players' strength" rather than "best player's strength". Not suggesting Martins is our best player per se, although he is up there with the best for me..

[mrmojorisin75]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

nup he was a natural goalscorer, instinctive if you will

[Rich]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

nup he was a natural goalscorer, instinctive if you will

 

I do admire your fight, it must be said.

[danswan]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around

 

Erm...

 

Tony Adams??

[mrmojorisin75]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

nup he was a natural goalscorer, instinctive if you will

 

I do admire your fight, it must be said.

 

dude i honestly think we're talking about the same think...take your "intelligent" and replace it with "instinctive", there's no difference

 

titus bramble was not an "intelligent" footballer, you might say he was instinctive but he was still shit, his instincts were those of a moron

[KaKa]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

 

You've completely missed the point, as tends to be your way.

 

The people debating the intelligence bit seem to be in complete agreement that Martins should be playing, possibly even as the first striker on the teamsheet. Nobody is currently using it as an argument of picking Owen over Martins, unless I've missed something? So what exactly are you going on about?

 

The issue that myself and others have taken issue with is the fact that some people are claiming that Martins, while being the African Superman in his spare time, is an "intelligent" footballer. Which I assume to mean that he's got good decision making, good positioning, makes good runs off the ball and generally works in the interests of the team. I perceive the truth as being the same as what you've just posted, for the most part, about him being someone who will be frustrating, but who could still be more valuable to the side than anyone else.

 

Read the posts before going off on one, man.

 

I guess I had more of an issue with the person who said, he is unintelligent and is therefore no the long term answer.

 

What the hell does that mean?

 

Some players are brilliant and effective because their footballing intelligence is better than others even though their athleticism might be inferior.

 

Some players are brilliant and effective due to their outstanding athletic abilities even though their footballing intelligence mightnot be as good.

 

Why is one of these supposedly better than the other?

 

In martins we have someone who can score goals in an astonishing variety of ways, yet because he is ot 'intelligent' enough he isn't good enough for us.

 

Why not appreciate his undeniable abilities and surround him with more 'intelligent' players and take advantage of the player he is.

 

Very irritating attitude some people have towards the guy. People will say Owen needs a partner with more strength and pace beside him because he is so pathetic in these areas, but won't say Martins needs a partner with more awareness and creativity to help get the most out of him.

[S.S.R.]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

nup he was a natural goalscorer, instinctive if you will

 

I do admire your fight, it must be said.

 

dude i honestly think we're talking about the same think...take your "intelligent" and replace it with "instinctive", there's no difference

 

 

Apart from being completely the opposite.

[mrmojorisin75]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

 

You've completely missed the point, as tends to be your way.

 

The people debating the intelligence bit seem to be in complete agreement that Martins should be playing, possibly even as the first striker on the teamsheet. Nobody is currently using it as an argument of picking Owen over Martins, unless I've missed something? So what exactly are you going on about?

 

The issue that myself and others have taken issue with is the fact that some people are claiming that Martins, while being the African Superman in his spare time, is an "intelligent" footballer. Which I assume to mean that he's got good decision making, good positioning, makes good runs off the ball and generally works in the interests of the team. I perceive the truth as being the same as what you've just posted, for the most part, about him being someone who will be frustrating, but who could still be more valuable to the side than anyone else.

 

Read the posts before going off on one, man.

 

Very irritating attitude some people have towards the guy. People will say Owen needs a partner with more strength and pace beside him because he is so pathetic in these areas, but won't say Martins needs a partner with more awareness and creativity to help get the most out of him.

 

that last part is a very, very good point...

[mrmojorisin75]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

nup he was a natural goalscorer, instinctive if you will

 

I do admire your fight, it must be said.

 

dude i honestly think we're talking about the same think...take your "intelligent" and replace it with "instinctive", there's no difference

 

 

Apart from being completely the opposite.

 

jesus who am i dealing with here?  the words aren't opposites at all, but i see where you're coming from

 

my point is i think we're talking about the same attributes in football(ers) but using two different words to describe them

 

clear enough?

[Rich]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around

 

Erm...

 

Tony Adams??

 

Complete plug off the field, by all accounts. Absolute beast on it. Lead the Arsenal backline for years? Captained England?

[Tooj]

So wait a minute.

 

Michael Laudrup for example, would you say he was instinctive as a player? As to me he's possibly the most intelligent footballer I've ever seen. On the pitch of course, as I'm not sure of his Geography abilities off it.

[Rich]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

 

You've completely missed the point, as tends to be your way.

 

The people debating the intelligence bit seem to be in complete agreement that Martins should be playing, possibly even as the first striker on the teamsheet. Nobody is currently using it as an argument of picking Owen over Martins, unless I've missed something? So what exactly are you going on about?

 

The issue that myself and others have taken issue with is the fact that some people are claiming that Martins, while being the African Superman in his spare time, is an "intelligent" footballer. Which I assume to mean that he's got good decision making, good positioning, makes good runs off the ball and generally works in the interests of the team. I perceive the truth as being the same as what you've just posted, for the most part, about him being someone who will be frustrating, but who could still be more valuable to the side than anyone else.

 

Read the posts before going off on one, man.

 

Very irritating attitude some people have towards the guy. People will say Owen needs a partner with more strength and pace beside him because he is so pathetic in these areas, but won't say Martins needs a partner with more awareness and creativity to help get the most out of him.

 

that last part is a very, very good point...

 

I was going to say the same thing, that last bit makes a lot of sense.

[danswan]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around

 

Erm...

 

Tony Adams??

 

Complete plug off the field, by all accounts. Absolute beast on it. Lead the Arsenal backline for years? Captained England?

 

Great player yes, but intelligent? And mentioned in the same breath as Pedro, Zola and Sheringham?

[S.S.R.]

And it's not just a player's receptiveness to training either, I bet some of the world's greatest players have been the worst trainers in the world or the players who hated training the most, because they felt they didn't need it as much as your Average Joe did.

 

Didn't Bobby Robson say the worst trainer he ever had was Romario? He was no Alan Smith like.

 

nup he was a natural goalscorer, instinctive if you will

 

I do admire your fight, it must be said.

 

dude i honestly think we're talking about the same think...take your "intelligent" and replace it with "instinctive", there's no difference

 

 

Apart from being completely the opposite.

 

jesus who am i dealing with here? 

 

Er, someone who knows the actual meanings of words?

[Rich]

Don't agree with any of that. If it was right, there would have been far more Peter Beardsleys, Teddy Sheringhams, Tony Adams and Gianfranco Zolas around

 

Erm...

 

Tony Adams??

 

Complete plug off the field, by all accounts. Absolute beast on it. Lead the Arsenal backline for years? Captained England?

 

Great player yes, but intelligent? And mentioned in the same breath as Pedro, Zola and Sheringham?

 

Intelligent on the field, surely? I was trying to get a broader range into the examples really, so that mms75 couldn't just say "well they're all attackers..." And also to highlight the different facets of intelligence on the football pitch, depending which position players are in.

 

On the field, as a defender, Tony Adams was as intelligent as they come, sort of like Woodgate is today, but off the field you'd be forgiven for thinking they were a can or two short of a six pack.

[KaKa]

How stupid is this argument?

 

Let me simplify things.

 

Would I rather have this 'unintelligent' player who will score 20 goals for my team, from headers, volleys, shots from outside and inside the box, right foot, left foot etc. or the intelligent player who does fook all unless he is 6 yards out and it is laid on a plate for him.

 

Martins is still raw and is not always pleasing on the eye, and will not always make the correct decisions, but he is a goalscorer, he scores goals. It's really that simple surely? Especially considering how poor we are in this department.

 

Give me the unintelligent goalscorer anyday thanks. You lot can keep watching Owens intelligent uneffectiveness all you want.

 

Ridiculous comments.

 

 

You've completely missed the point, as tends to be your way.

 

The people debating the intelligence bit seem to be in complete agreement that Martins should be playing, possibly even as the first striker on the teamsheet. Nobody is currently using it as an argument of picking Owen over Martins, unless I've missed something? So what exactly are you going on about?

 

The issue that myself and others have taken issue with is the fact that some people are claiming that Martins, while being the African Superman in his spare time, is an "intelligent" footballer. Which I assume to mean that he's got good decision making, good positioning, makes good runs off the ball and generally works in the interests of the team. I perceive the truth as being the same as what you've just posted, for the most part, about him being someone who will be frustrating, but who could still be more valuable to the side than anyone else.

 

Read the posts before going off on one, man.

 

Very irritating attitude some people have towards the guy. People will say Owen needs a partner with more strength and pace beside him because he is so pathetic in these areas, but won't say Martins needs a partner with more awareness and creativity to help get the most out of him.

 

that last part is a very, very good point...

 

You see despite Martins limitations in making the perfect runs, I would still argue that there are players who you could play beside him who would still recognize how to get him the ball and would actually communicate with him on the pitch during the game to give him a better idea of what spaces he needs to get into while they are both out there playing together.

 

Do any of you think he has ever played with anyone who even comes remotely close to doing this? Dyer was the closest and that is when Martins looked at his best for us.

 

Also I have to say, although I agree with the idea that some aspects of football intelligence just cannot be taught, i still believe some aspects can be improved.

 

Simply improving Martins runs into space is one thing that can certainly be improved despite how much some believe he lacks intelligence. Have him out on the training pitch working with a consistent strike partner and have them simulate different match situations and the types of movements they both should be making.

 

Oh wait ... he has never had a consistent partner has he! Also, I doubt we have ever done anything like the above with him outside of the actual team training sessions.

[Rich]

More good points KaKa. I've been a critic of Martins in the past, more out of frustration than anything, but I've always maintained that I hoped he would prove me wrong.