Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

Mark Viduka

lovejoy

by lovejoy
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Tooj

Tooj

Posted
Posted

Think Shearer's first touch was as good as Viduka's, tbh. He may not have been as comfortable on the ball in general, but I can't imagine there have been many better in football at putting the ball exactly they want it with their first touch (and that includes balls launched at him from all angles and heights).

 

Exactly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted

Such an underachiever Viduka, speaks volumes about the extent to which tenacity plays a part.

He achieved enough. Very good at some points, but his limiations made it so he'd never be a top class player.

 

You could easily compare him with some of the best 10 players in the premiership (I can think of at least 2 at Chelsea) and say that Viduka had more natural talent for the game. The difference being, they've worked to get better and better. Viduka's natural talent easily outweights Shearer's for example, but Shearer was determined to make the absolute best of it by maintaing (and eventually adapting) fantastic physical condition. And of course, showing professionalism on and off the pitch.

 

In what way?

 

Certainly his technique, superior touch, you could also argue his finishing was more clinical from an earlier age. And of course the obvious one, size.

 

I don't think his touch was any better than Shearer's, he just looked more classy on the pitch. Plus look at Shearer's scoring record, so no you can't really argue he was a more clinical finisher. Size doesn't mean anything if you don't use it effectively, Viduka as we know was soft as s**** and useless in the air. Very good with his back to goal, but Shearer used his strength and size far more effectively.

 

In his later days he did. I'm by no means arguing that Viduka was half the player that Shearer was. I just think he was more naturally gifted. For example, irregardless of how he used that size, he had more of it than Shearer (that comment supports my initial point btw)

 

With regard to touch, this is the one area where Viduka had a massive advantage over Shearer imo

 

How did he have a massive advantage? Like I said Viduka looked more classy but that doesn't mean he had a massive advantage with regards to his touch. I can barely ever remember Shearer miscontrolling a ball.

 

Viduka's first touch was magnificent to the extent you cannot teach. Shearer's was very consistent to be fair but not quite in the same league imo. He seldom miscontrolled it but couldn't really manipulate the ball as well as the Duke.

 

We all know who the better player by far was. I think Shearer had to work a lot harder to become the player he was, is all i'm saying. In a nutshell, Shearer's mentality and discipline combined with Viduka's natural talent (including size) would just about equal the man himself, almost  O0

 

The bit in bold. Viduka could do a lot more with the ball at his feet, he was very inventive, whereas Shearer stuck to the basics of trapping and laying the ball off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
macca888

macca888

Posted
Posted

On the subject of strikers, Robbie Fowler is playing for a new team called North Queensland Fury out of Townsville here in Australia. So far, and the season is young, he has contributed several really quality goals and whilst I know many of you will be saying it is only the Australian A League, the quality of his strikes shown by deft first touches, awareness of keepers and defenders and calm finishing are far and away superior to anything else we have here.

 

Considering he is only on a million dollars a year (half a million pounds or 10K per week), he would have been an extremeley useful addition to our forward line at SJP in the CCC.

 

Pity it is too late as he is really committed to NQF this season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ronaldo

Ronaldo

Posted
Posted

Claiming Viduka has better control then Shearer is just wrong, Viduka is maybe a bit "smoother" but Shearers control of the ball is miles better hence why he pretty much got the ball with him everytime he went towards goal.

you dont score as many goals as Shearer did if you don't know how to handle a ball, end of.

 

Viduka could have been as good as Henry/Shearer/Anelka/Drogba etc if he had a body who could handle the game of football, which he did not have.

 

Poor mans Bergkamp imo

 

what an absolute load of tosh, and nobody said Shearer couldn't control a ball

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tooj

Tooj

Posted
Posted

Claiming Viduka has better control then Shearer is just wrong, Viduka is maybe a bit "smoother" but Shearers control of the ball is miles better hence why he pretty much got the ball with him everytime he went towards goal.

you dont score as many goals as Shearer did if you don't know how to handle a ball, end of.

 

Viduka could have been as good as Henry/Shearer/Anelka/Drogba etc if he had a body who could handle the game of football, which he did not have.

 

Poor mans Bergkamp imo

 

Viduka and Bergkamp were nothing alike at all. Ridiculous comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...