I have a mad theory that the reason why there aren't any good wingers these days is because everyone turns fast tricky players into strikers.
Suarez:' I wont be forced out'
- Thread starter HC
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=48256.msg1469724#msg1469724 date=1327415633]
I have a mad theory that the reason why there aren't any good wingers these days is because everyone turns fast tricky players into strikers.
[/quote]
Yeah. They've seen Wenger turn Henry from a winger into a striker then they're all at it.
I have a mad theory that the reason why there aren't any good wingers these days is because everyone turns fast tricky players into strikers.
[/quote]
Yeah. They've seen Wenger turn Henry from a winger into a striker then they're all at it.
If Barnes, for example, was playing now I reckon he'd be moved to centre forward when he was about 20. Maybe it's not old style wingers that are disappearing, it's old style centre forwards.
Exactly.
[quote author=themn link=topic=48256.msg1469741#msg1469741 date=1327416368]
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
[/quote]
Because he is quick but not very good at putting the ball in the net?
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
[/quote]
Because he is quick but not very good at putting the ball in the net?
Walcott just isn't that good anywhere.
[quote author=themn link=topic=48256.msg1469741#msg1469741 date=1327416368]
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
Same with Rafa and Babel.
[/quote]
Because they don't have the brainpower to stay onside.
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
Same with Rafa and Babel.
[/quote]
Because they don't have the brainpower to stay onside.
[quote author=gene hughes link=topic=48256.msg1469730#msg1469730 date=1327415990]
If Barnes, for example, was playing now I reckon he'd be moved to centre forward when he was about 20. Maybe it's not old style wingers that are disappearing, it's old style centre forwards.
[/quote]
It's both IMO. The trend with wingers started when they stopped being regarded as specifically attacking players (like they were through most of our glory days for example) and began to be regarded as midfield players.
If Barnes, for example, was playing now I reckon he'd be moved to centre forward when he was about 20. Maybe it's not old style wingers that are disappearing, it's old style centre forwards.
[/quote]
It's both IMO. The trend with wingers started when they stopped being regarded as specifically attacking players (like they were through most of our glory days for example) and began to be regarded as midfield players.
[quote author=themn link=topic=48256.msg1469741#msg1469741 date=1327416368]
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
Same with Rafa and Babel.
[/quote]
Because about 5 years ago Managers copped onto the fact that in a traditional 4-4-2 set-up, the only players in the side with space in front of them and no direct opponent were full-backs.
So, they did a variety of things to make the most out of this rude awakening: Bought attacking ones (Evra, Alves, Glenjo etc), moulded the ones they had into attacking ones (Cole, Clichy, Assou-Ekotto), brought in a defensive midfielder to cover their arse and got to 3 at the back when the full-backs bombed forward (see what Scolari attempted to do at Chelsea here with Mikel sitting back), played the wide midfielders on the opposite flank to normal so they could tuck in and leave the flank to the full-back (Bellamy, Pires, Ronaldo), and on and on...
Full-backs became the attacking outlet from nowhere. And revolutionised how teams attacked. It's true.
To counter this, teams started sticking incredibly quick and direct players out wide to pin the full-backs back. Teams went 4-5-1, they stuck strikers out wide, and fortced the full-back to think twice about marauding forward. The role of the striker then became one of a target man responsible for unsettling centre backs, and holding possession until whichever one of the 5 suporting midfielders got up to heklp out. It's why footballers like Peter Crouch got a career they wouldn't ordinarily have had.
And why strikers like Theo Walcott who 10 years ago would have performed a similar role to someone like Michael Owen - hanging off the back of a big centre forward waiting for knockdowns - all of a sudden got stcuk out wide. Cos he wasn't strong or smart enough to play the big centre forward role, and because he could use his pace and ability to carry a ball deep and quickly would negate the threat of a full-back.
That and a whole lot of other stuff about playing on the counter and drawing teams in whilst breaking quickly. But I've typed enough and can't be bothered going on anymore, cos you're probably not interested by now.
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
Same with Rafa and Babel.
[/quote]
Because about 5 years ago Managers copped onto the fact that in a traditional 4-4-2 set-up, the only players in the side with space in front of them and no direct opponent were full-backs.
So, they did a variety of things to make the most out of this rude awakening: Bought attacking ones (Evra, Alves, Glenjo etc), moulded the ones they had into attacking ones (Cole, Clichy, Assou-Ekotto), brought in a defensive midfielder to cover their arse and got to 3 at the back when the full-backs bombed forward (see what Scolari attempted to do at Chelsea here with Mikel sitting back), played the wide midfielders on the opposite flank to normal so they could tuck in and leave the flank to the full-back (Bellamy, Pires, Ronaldo), and on and on...
Full-backs became the attacking outlet from nowhere. And revolutionised how teams attacked. It's true.
To counter this, teams started sticking incredibly quick and direct players out wide to pin the full-backs back. Teams went 4-5-1, they stuck strikers out wide, and fortced the full-back to think twice about marauding forward. The role of the striker then became one of a target man responsible for unsettling centre backs, and holding possession until whichever one of the 5 suporting midfielders got up to heklp out. It's why footballers like Peter Crouch got a career they wouldn't ordinarily have had.
And why strikers like Theo Walcott who 10 years ago would have performed a similar role to someone like Michael Owen - hanging off the back of a big centre forward waiting for knockdowns - all of a sudden got stcuk out wide. Cos he wasn't strong or smart enough to play the big centre forward role, and because he could use his pace and ability to carry a ball deep and quickly would negate the threat of a full-back.
That and a whole lot of other stuff about playing on the counter and drawing teams in whilst breaking quickly. But I've typed enough and can't be bothered going on anymore, cos you're probably not interested by now.
[quote author=Ryan link=topic=48256.msg1470017#msg1470017 date=1327451798]
[quote author=themn link=topic=48256.msg1469741#msg1469741 date=1327416368]
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
Same with Rafa and Babel.
[/quote]
Because about 5 years ago Managers copped onto the fact that in a traditional 4-4-2 set-up, the only players in the side with space in front of them and no direct opponent were full-backs.
So, they did a variety of things to make the most out of this rude awakening: Bought attacking ones (Evra, Alves, Glenjo etc), moulded the ones they had into attacking ones (Cole, Clichy, Assou-Ekotto), brought in a defensive midfielder to cover their arse and got to 3 at the back when the full-backs bombed forward (see what Scolari attempted to do at Chelsea here with Mikel sitting back), played the wide midfielders on the opposite flank to normal so they could tuck in and leave the flank to the full-back (Bellamy, Pires, Ronaldo), and on and on...
Full-backs became the attacking outlet from nowhere. And revolutionised how teams attacked. It's true.
To counter this, teams started sticking incredibly quick and direct players out wide to pin the full-backs back. Teams went 4-5-1, they stuck strikers out wide, and fortced the full-back to think twice about marauding forward. The role of the striker then became one of a target man responsible for unsettling centre backs, and holding possession until whichever one of the 5 suporting midfielders got up to heklp out. It's why footballers like Peter Crouch got a career they wouldn't ordinarily have had.
And why strikers like Theo Walcott who 10 years ago would have performed a similar role to someone like Michael Owen - hanging off the back of a big centre forward waiting for knockdowns - all of a sudden got stcuk out wide. Cos he wasn't strong or smart enough to play the big centre forward role, and because he could use his pace and ability to carry a ball deep and quickly would negate the threat of a full-back.
That and a whole lot of other stuff about playing on the counter and drawing teams in whilst breaking quickly. But I've typed enough and can't be bothered going on anymore, cos you're probably not interested by now.
[/quote]
Nah... Liverpool (and many other teams) always had attacking full backs, right from Lawler in the 70's, Neal in the 80's, McAteer in the 90's etc etc, and they all scored goals. More goals than full backs do now. Nothing revolutionary, nothing new.
[quote author=themn link=topic=48256.msg1469741#msg1469741 date=1327416368]
So, why the frig has Wenger stuck Walcott out on the wing when he patently isn't a wide player ?
Same with Rafa and Babel.
[/quote]
Because about 5 years ago Managers copped onto the fact that in a traditional 4-4-2 set-up, the only players in the side with space in front of them and no direct opponent were full-backs.
So, they did a variety of things to make the most out of this rude awakening: Bought attacking ones (Evra, Alves, Glenjo etc), moulded the ones they had into attacking ones (Cole, Clichy, Assou-Ekotto), brought in a defensive midfielder to cover their arse and got to 3 at the back when the full-backs bombed forward (see what Scolari attempted to do at Chelsea here with Mikel sitting back), played the wide midfielders on the opposite flank to normal so they could tuck in and leave the flank to the full-back (Bellamy, Pires, Ronaldo), and on and on...
Full-backs became the attacking outlet from nowhere. And revolutionised how teams attacked. It's true.
To counter this, teams started sticking incredibly quick and direct players out wide to pin the full-backs back. Teams went 4-5-1, they stuck strikers out wide, and fortced the full-back to think twice about marauding forward. The role of the striker then became one of a target man responsible for unsettling centre backs, and holding possession until whichever one of the 5 suporting midfielders got up to heklp out. It's why footballers like Peter Crouch got a career they wouldn't ordinarily have had.
And why strikers like Theo Walcott who 10 years ago would have performed a similar role to someone like Michael Owen - hanging off the back of a big centre forward waiting for knockdowns - all of a sudden got stcuk out wide. Cos he wasn't strong or smart enough to play the big centre forward role, and because he could use his pace and ability to carry a ball deep and quickly would negate the threat of a full-back.
That and a whole lot of other stuff about playing on the counter and drawing teams in whilst breaking quickly. But I've typed enough and can't be bothered going on anymore, cos you're probably not interested by now.
[/quote]
Nah... Liverpool (and many other teams) always had attacking full backs, right from Lawler in the 70's, Neal in the 80's, McAteer in the 90's etc etc, and they all scored goals. More goals than full backs do now. Nothing revolutionary, nothing new.
- Status
