Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Surely the most typical forwards in top flight football we have today are modern forwards, even if it's by the simplest of definitions. Just like, I'm sure, Alan Shearer and Chris Sutton were probably touted as the 'Modern Forward' in the 90s, Ronaldo in the late 90s/00's, and so on. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronaldo Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Right, enough's enough. Been fun, dude. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 By the way, I'm with Ronaldo on the issue of modern strikers. I'll believe you when teams start to sign Grant Holts instead of Naymars. 'Modern Forward' simply means the style of forward that is prevalent in the game today. It isn't any of the players you've mentioned. The second strikers of the 80s (Beardsley and co) are more akin to today's top flight forward. That style has always existed though, or rather the diversity of styles has. I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make to be honest. The likes of your Grant Holts have never been the typical forward in our game by the way, they have always existed of course but not to the point where that was the only type of striker around as I highlighted by naming several different types of striker over the last 20 years with the likes of Shearer, Fowler et al. Indeed, going back further you can add names like Jimmy Greaves, Supermac, Mickey Quinn, Wor Jackie, Bobby Charlton, Geoff Hurst, Trevor Brooking and even Hughie Gallacher - all different types of strikers. This line of players if you like proves this different type of modern forward you are err putting forward, is nothing new or different at all. Again, there has been no evolution of the striker. You're fine to disagree with what I see as a Modern Forward, and I'll disagree with whatever you think it is (Drogba?). But the fact is you don't see people sign these targetmen anymore, as they want mobility, creativity & finishers. Not so much 'fight football' as Dennis Mortimer kept calling it for some reason, where you're body to body to create space, but playing between the lines looking to draw defenders out of their compact defensive units. Look at teams over the last 20 years or more and only a handful will have lined up with a 'target-man' type striker, often accompanied by that more mobile, creative finisher you mentioned by the way. It wasn't as if every side had a target-man type up front or even played that way either. Its uneducated nonsense, nonsense that had the rest Europe labeling our game a long ball one and our players not good enough. Yeah... that's why in those decades our sides generally won the lot in Europe, playing carpet football as Clough would call it. We also produced a complete lineage of different types of striker or centre-forward to the point where ours were some of the best in the game. It wasn't up until recently that the likes of Spain and France could call on a range of strikers for example because historically those nations didn't have a diverse range of striking talent like England did and always have. Go back to the early 80s second division Newcastle United during a time when our game was considered uncultured, long ball and lacking diversity and who did we have up front? Kevin Keegan, Peter Beardsley and Chris Waddle. Waddle at that time even playing number 9. That's as diverse as a strikeforce you'll see or as err, 'modern'. And the reason clubs don't sign target-men type players now is simply because not many exist and that isn't down to those types dying out as is often peddled, its because there has never ever been a plethora of traget-men type forwards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 So you're saying that the second striker is now the main striker... which is my whole point. I'm not claiming it's something brand new in football. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 So you're saying that the second striker is now the main striker... which is my whole point. I'm not claiming it's something brand new in football. Eh?! Have you even read my post?! All I'm doing is refuting the modern forward idea which you seem to be peddling. Again, there has been no evolution of the striker/forward/centre-forward or whatever label you want to throw at them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Well clearly we're not going to agree. You think there's no such thing and I do. You've named players that were second strikers (Beardsley), which today are more or less the forwards leading the line for teams - the Modern Striker. If you don't think there's been a change in football/forwards at any point then I'm not sure how you've came to that understanding. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Well clearly we're not going to agree. You think there's no such thing and I do. You've named players that were second strikers (Beardsley), which today are more or less the forwards leading the line for teams - the Modern Striker. If you don't think there's been a change in football/forwards at any point then I'm not sure how you've came to that understanding. Which Beardsley type (or second striker) is leading the line for his respective team then? There has been many changes in football but there has been no change in the type of forward/striker other than physical attributes thanks to dietary and fitness improvements. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Beardsley 'type' - Smaller, Dynamic, Creator, Agile, Balanced, Robust, between the lines, finisher, quick feet. Tevez/Aguero - Man City. So you don't believe players have improved their technique at all? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Beardsley 'type' - Smaller, Dynamic, Creator, Agile, Balanced, Robust, between the lines, finisher, quick feet. Tevez/Aguero - Man City. So you don't believe players have improved their technique at all? First of all, for me a Beardsley type would be someone more akin to Wayne Rooney, the creative link up pay forward, the second striker as you put it. Neither of which are Tevez or Aguero. They do possess the attributes you listed but that doesn't make them a second striker or whatever, that just makes them good forwards/strikers. Types that have been around forever. As for technique, I believe there hasn't really been a large leap in the advance of technique. Players today are faster, stronger and fitter but technically are no better than players of past. If anything there is a big argument to say players today are less skilful and less technical than players past. I think the biggest shift or change in football has obviously come in the shape of tactics, style of play and systems and formations which has allowed for the diversity of forwards to play a more prominent role in their team these days. For example you can have 2 second forward types playing up top alongside one another given the right formation and tactics. In fact you can even get away with a lack of striker up top these days, but then that also applies to other positions. Barca can play with no recognized centre-backs for example. In previous eras, due to 4-4-2 you had to have a central striker and a second striker as you like to call them, but that didn't mean each side lined up with the same kind of forwards or a target-man each. Like I have said repeatedly, there has always been a diverse variety of strikers, especially in our own game, and that will never cease to be. This modern forward you talk of is basically a turn of phrase, no such thing exists, however. Just because an Augero type player plays higher up these days or leads the line doesn't mean there has been a change in the striker, all it says to me is that systems, tactics and styles of play have evolved so that such players CAN operate right up there or are trusted to lead the line. Beardsley today, despite being a playmaker type forward, could play anywhere up front just as Rooney can. Our very own Ben Arfa could easily play the so-called second striker role and I dare say even at the very top of the attack if we packed the midfield enough and built a system for that. Di Canio and Carbone played at the very top of the attack for both Sheff Wed and later for Di Canio, when he was at West Ham. Neither were strictly centre-forwards or strikers were they?! If anything, the actual role of the centre-forward is dying out, even if that type of player still exists. Same applies to the winger sadly. That's more down to the change in how we play the game or rather want to play the game, the managers and coaches etc. than the players themselves. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Well we clearly have very different views on football, especially if you don't believe the standard of technique has improved, but regressed. You say there is a big argument - where is this big argument? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Well we clearly have very different views on football, especially if you don't believe the standard of technique has improved, but regressed. You say there is a big argument - where is this big argument? Grassroots football, England vs the world etc. By the way, I didn't say I believe it has regressed, just that a debate exists asking such a question. For me, it hasn't advanced to any real extent, however. I think our defenders are generally technically better today but our midfielders and strikers are much the same as those before them in terms of technique. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'm sorry, did you give any examples for this 'big argument' that players are less skillful today or am I suppose to find them myself based on 'England v The World'? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'm sorry, did you give any examples for this 'big argument' that players are less skillful today or am I suppose to find them myself based on 'England v The World'? Its a huge debate especially at grassroots level. Again though, nowhere have I personally stated that I believe our players to be less technically gifted today. Stick to the points. Or maybe lets just call it a day regarding this debate as its going nowhere Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 As for technique, I believe there hasn't really been a large leap in the advance of technique. Players today are faster, stronger and fitter but technically are no better than players of past. If anything there is a big argument to say players today are less skilful and less technical than players past. No, I'm interested, you keep saying it's a huge debate, but you've not actually provided any information for me to read up on it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howaythetoon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 As for technique, I believe there hasn't really been a large leap in the advance of technique. Players today are faster, stronger and fitter but technically are no better than players of past. If anything there is a big argument to say players today are less skilful and less technical than players past. No, I'm interested, you keep saying it's a huge debate, but you've not actually provided any information for me to read up on it! I'm out, do your own research. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ObiChrisKenobi Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4142/4740816031_4247b01228.jpg Go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenham Mag Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Thought we had signed Veron Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 In Italian football he was one of the best players to watch. Brilliant passing range, long shooting and general all-round play. Thankfully, when he signed for Man Utd, he fucking flopped! Whatever Ferguson was playing at playing him on the left. (Although, I wouldn't necessarily say that's the sole reason to why he flopped.) Edit: Brilliant but wouldn't include him in the class of Scholes, Zidane, Xavi, etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Fergie's biggest flop? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenny Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 But, but, he was a left mid on CM 97/98! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dinho lad Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 But, but, he was a left mid on CM 97/98! Played his best football for Lazio in the middle. Slightly higher up but would also get back and help in the final third every now and then. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Possibly never seen a more one (right) footed player. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
themanupstairs Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 Very very highly. Until he came to England. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now