|
Post by Hobhead on Jan 5, 2019 9:34:35 GMT
Why the fuck is a large section of our fans so desperately wedded to this archaic notion that having a target man is an effective target? In the face of some of the best attacking football I’ve seen us play since ‘99, dishing out regular bummings and seeing some high quality, free-flowing, passing football we’ve still got a sizeable chunk saying that a priority in this window is a big lad up front to (apparently) ‘give us options’. It’s utter bollocks at best, and it’s regressive at worst.
The only option the target man gives you is the cowardly, aimless 50/50 (at best) punt and rush to the vague area of the edge of your opponent’s area. It’s so outmoded, so completely nullified and so utterly redundant it’s untrue, yet here we are still being told it’s a necessity.
Bigguns get on the end of crosses is another oft-repeated fallacy. Height doesn’t win crosses and if it did how do these dinosaurs explain the fact that the equally tall centre backs don’t nullify that threat in their antediluvian scenario? Movement and guile wins more crosses than being tall ever will. Height in and of itself isn’t an asset and it’s often a liability. Give a lower league player the get out of the speculative punt and, under pressure, he’ll take it. It’s the death of a huge portion of what would have been higher quality, more economical and more effective football.
I swear, if the other ninety one pro clubs in England gave up on it and we were the final holdout rooted to the foot of League Two crashing balls up to a lump and failing, our problems would be said to be due to the execution of the tactic rather than the tactic itself. It’s the tactical equivalent of Communism - its failings aren’t a result of its faults but the result of its implementation. It’s a security blanket for people who simply don’t understand that quality, above all else, is king and it’s shit.
Target man football and hoofball as a tactic is dead and long may it stay that way. It’s shit to watch, it stifles quality and most importantly it long since stopped working. I want to watch football, not kick and rush.
Death to the target man and death to the hoof.
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ade on Jan 5, 2019 9:43:32 GMT
Why the fuck is a large section of our fans so desperately wedded to this archaic notion that having a target man is an effective target? In the face of some of the best attacking football I’ve seen us play since ‘99, dishing out regular bummings and seeing some high quality, free-flowing, passing football we’ve still got a sizeable chunk saying that a priority in this window is a big lad up front to (apparently) ‘give us options’. It’s utter bollocks at best, and it’s regressive at worst. The only option the target man gives you is the cowardly, aimless 50/50 (at best) punt and rush to the vague area of the edge of your opponent’s area. It’s so outmoded, so completely nullified and so utterly redundant it’s untrue, yet here we are still being told it’s a necessity. Bigguns get on the end of crosses is another oft-repeated fallacy. Height doesn’t win crosses and if it did how do these dinosaurs explain the fact that the equally tall centre backs don’t nullify that threat in their antediluvian scenario? Movement and guile wins more crosses than being tall ever will. Height in and of itself isn’t an asset and it’s often a liability. Give a lower league player the get out of the speculative punt and, under pressure, he’ll take it. It’s the death of a huge portion of what would have been higher quality, more economical and more effective football. I swear, if the other ninety one pro clubs in England gave up on it and we were the final holdout rooted to the foot of League Two crashing balls up to a lump and failing, our problems would be said to be due to the execution of the tactic rather than the tactic itself. It’s the tactical equivalent of Communism - its failings aren’t a result of its faults but the result of its implementation. It’s a security blanket for people who simply don’t understand that quality, above all else, is king and it’s shit. Target man football and hoofball as a tactic is dead and long may it stay that way. It’s shit to watch, it stifles quality and most importantly it long since stopped working. I want to watch football, not kick and rush. Death to the target man and death to the hoof. Am I surprised that there is a desperate yearning for a heading stick when you consider this is a fan base that backed Bargefeet for nine years? No, no I am not.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Jan 5, 2019 9:48:30 GMT
Why the fuck is a large section of our fans so desperately wedded to this archaic notion that having a target man is an effective target? In the face of some of the best attacking football I’ve seen us play since ‘99, dishing out regular bummings and seeing some high quality, free-flowing, passing football we’ve still got a sizeable chunk saying that a priority in this window is a big lad up front to (apparently) ‘give us options’. It’s utter bollocks at best, and it’s regressive at worst. The only option the target man gives you is the cowardly, aimless 50/50 (at best) punt and rush to the vague area of the edge of your opponent’s area. It’s so outmoded, so completely nullified and so utterly redundant it’s untrue, yet here we are still being told it’s a necessity. Bigguns get on the end of crosses is another oft-repeated fallacy. Height doesn’t win crosses and if it did how do these dinosaurs explain the fact that the equally tall centre backs don’t nullify that threat in their antediluvian scenario? Movement and guile wins more crosses than being tall ever will. Height in and of itself isn’t an asset and it’s often a liability. Give a lower league player the get out of the speculative punt and, under pressure, he’ll take it. It’s the death of a huge portion of what would have been higher quality, more economical and more effective football. I swear, if the other ninety one pro clubs in England gave up on it and we were the final holdout rooted to the foot of League Two crashing balls up to a lump and failing, our problems would be said to be due to the execution of the tactic rather than the tactic itself. It’s the tactical equivalent of Communism - its failings aren’t a result of its faults but the result of its implementation. It’s a security blanket for people who simply don’t understand that quality, above all else, is king and it’s shit. Target man football and hoofball as a tactic is dead and long may it stay that way. It’s shit to watch, it stifles quality and most importantly it long since stopped working. I want to watch football, not kick and rush. Death to the target man and death to the hoof. Presence m8.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jan 5, 2019 9:53:02 GMT
‘Presence’ just about sums up the case for. When you’re relying on intangible nonsense that’s, in effect, purely subjective and completely unquantifiable in any genuine way then you’re reaching.
By any measureable metric it’s wank.
|
|
|
Post by You can't beat a double dip on Jan 5, 2019 10:01:38 GMT
The one we’re being linked with in the T&A this morning appears to have the attributes needed to play how Hopkin wants. According to Eddie Howe he runs the channels presses and also scores goals.. I agree that if they just start lumping it to his head all the time it becomes horrible to watch, however surely that’s up to Hopkin to stop them doing that! If he can play the way we’re currently playing then does it really matter how tall he is
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jan 5, 2019 10:02:47 GMT
I should add that this isn’t an anti-biggun rant but anti the idea that height is a virtue. Keifer Moore looked a player but he had so much more to his game than trying to win headers by being tall - he was all flicks, lay-offs and through balls.
It’s the limited players with little or no quality and the idea that their height makes them an asset despite this that I can’t stand. The constant pushing of the idea that we’re somehow deficient because none of our strikers are over six foot is retarded.
Given the choice between a player who’s sub-six foot but quality and a limited lump who’s 6’3” a lot of our fans would let their choice be governed by whether or not we had a tall one among our other strikers. Cunts one and all.
|
|
|
Post by Dick on Jan 5, 2019 10:22:15 GMT
Look what happened when we lumped Luke Oliver there for half a dozen games. 6ft 8in and it counted for nothing.
We have too many backwards thinking dinosaurs. 'Oh we need a big man and little man because it worked in 1984 and 1999'. The same nonces at other clubs who talk about playing the English way, or the Man United way. West Ham way etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Jan 5, 2019 10:28:21 GMT
You've got it all wrong lads. HopkinS is playing lovely football because we don't have a useless lump to punt at. He's forced into wiping the floor with teams through attacking football by being hamstrung without a big lad up top.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Jan 5, 2019 11:38:40 GMT
Yeah it’s a bit of a fallacy.
There are certain target men - like Tom Eaves - who aren’t just lumps. They can play, they can score goals. That sort of player I wouldn’t mind. Sam as Surridge - a big lad, but very mobile, works the channels well, got technical ability. But I’d rather we just add a couple more in the mould of what we’ve got.
David Ball has played in midfield as much as he has ‘at number 10’. Another midfielder brings him more into the selection group for the forward line. Having Payne and Ball working in the space behind Doyle or Miller, or Both: teams can’t handle it.
Brining in a left winger makes sense, of sorts. But an even better idea would be to bring in a shit hot left back who can get forward - get the width that way and let Payne continue to do his damage in that free role.
I think Hopkin knows what he’s doing though. I’m happy to let him crack on. But if we deviate from this style to a long ball, 4,4,fucking 2 and become toothless, he’ll rightly come in for stick.
|
|
|
Post by Nice boy on Jan 5, 2019 12:03:32 GMT
I should add that this isn’t an anti-biggun rant but anti the idea that height is a virtue. Keifer Moore looked a player but he had so much more to his game than trying to win headers by being tall - he was all flicks, lay-offs and through balls. It’s the limited players with little or no quality and the idea that their height makes them an asset despite this that I can’t stand. The constant pushing of the idea that we’re somehow deficient because none of our strikers are over six foot is retarded. Given the choice between a player who’s sub-six foot but quality and a limited lump who’s 6’3” a lot of our fans would let their choice be governed by whether or not we had a tall one among our other strikers. Cunts one and all. Good point regarding Keifer Moore. If he was in our team you can almost guarantee the Gompers would attribute any success to his 6ft 5 frame as opposed to him being a genuinely good footballer. Skilful target men are fine, the thing with our fans is that they'll praise any old bumbling cunt. I remember in the summer arguing against a handful of posters on Bronco Talk who were adamant Bruenker would be make a useful squad member. I can't remember exactly what was said although terms like "battering ram" and "hassling defenders" were definitely used.
|
|
|
Post by Attentive Onlooker on Jan 5, 2019 12:20:48 GMT
You've got it all wrong lads. HopkinS is playing lovely football because we don't have a useless lump to punt at. He's forced into wiping the floor with teams through attacking football by being hamstrung without a big lad up top. That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read.
|
|
|
Post by Hoochy on Jan 5, 2019 12:55:23 GMT
You've got it all wrong lads. HopkinS is playing lovely football because we don't have a useless lump to punt at. He's forced into wiping the floor with teams through attacking football by being hamstrung without a big lad up top. That's one of the most idiotic statements I've ever read. JUST SO HAPPENS IT'S WORKING WELL.
|
|
|
Post by citygentile on Jan 5, 2019 13:52:40 GMT
Before the upturn in form, I wouldn't have been averse to signing somebody with a bit more physicality to play alongside Doyle. It's not necessary now that they've become the free flowing, pass and move side we've been watching recently. It may even be a backward step as they might stop knocking it about and look for the easy lump forward to this prospective unit.
I expect a lot depends on what happens with Payne, if he goes then they'll struggle to replace him with someone with the same qualities and DH's plan b might be to go more direct again. I'm not convinced that this relegation fight is going to be plain sailing, especially if JP goes. I get the feeling this is temporary form rather than permanent class. But then I'm a miserable 'glass half full', 'we're all doomed' arsehole at the best of times.
|
|
|
Post by moshimoshi on Jan 5, 2019 14:29:57 GMT
99% of our fans haven’t got a clue. They don’t know the difference between a target man and a complete forward. The latter would be ideal for us, but there aren’t many, if any at this level.
If Payne goes things will change but I don’t think we’d revert to hoof, I think it’d be more likely Ball would play behind two strikers. Ball can do a job there for us, he’s a good dribbler and a skilful player.
It’s easy to recruit a target man though they are ten a penny, a proper forward who just happens to be reasonably decent in the air are much more difficult to find, or pay for.
The most obvious difference between us and teams that went up seasons past is the balance of brawn and quality. We either have too much of one or the other. Look at your Sunderland’s, Milwall, Barnsley etc - physically strong big players but they can also play. Part of the reason why someone like Payne hasn’t really been a hit in the CH.
Thing is to build that type of team takes some cash. I’m not convinced we’re out of the woods yet - for evidence of how clueless our fans are just look at how many are still talking play offs and placing stupid bets. Fact is should Scunny win today, we’re back in the relegation zone - then if we lose at Barnsley too... even more in the shit.
|
|
|
Post by jose on Jan 5, 2019 15:05:54 GMT
Hanson was a target man, as was Wyke. Yet as footballers, poles apart.
|
|
|
Post by Lethal Jizzle on Jan 5, 2019 16:40:01 GMT
Hanson was a target man, as was Wyke. Yet as footballers, poles apart. See i don't think Wyke is a target man I think he's a good old fashioned number 9. Strong physical but knew where the net was, poor man's Shearer
|
|
|
Post by smartmart on Jan 5, 2019 17:31:19 GMT
Enables us to subtly switch to plan Z when plans A-Y haven’t worked
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Jan 11, 2019 10:18:56 GMT
“I don’t think it’s a necessity.
“Yeah I’d like it but there aren’t many targetmen about.
“If one becomes available and I can get him in, then I will do. But it’s not our main priority.
“If I can get a striker in with good movement who can score goals, then that’s the type I will go for.”
HopkinS knows.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Jan 11, 2019 10:43:52 GMT
“I don’t think it’s a necessity. “Yeah I’d like it but there aren’t many targetmen about. “If one becomes available and I can get him in, then I will do. But it’s not our main priority. “If I can get a striker in with good movement who can score goals, then that’s the type I will go for.” HopkinS knows. He’s growing on me. Just the Chicksen black mark to scrub and he’s gold.
|
|