Liverpool FC Forum

[tadhger09]

A good example of mind over matter in football terms is Paolo Maldini. Great player all around but his dad complained that he wasn't given enough credit and pointed to a CL game vs United. Maldini played left back and no crosses came in from whoever Uniteds winger was all night long. The amazing part was that Paolo hadn't made a challenge, ariel or otherwise, all night long. Had loads of interceptions though. The point of course is that if one quality is really good, you might not need the others at all.

The man had a football brain and could read the game exceptionally well. If a player has that its more than half the battle.

[aCe']

You over-complicate things by trying to dissect it as much. I think generally,  you have standard attributes you'd want all your players regardless of position to have. Things like strength, work rate, stamina, concentration, awareness, and at the very least a decent first touch. Past that, for me its down to the position that a player holds.

For CBs for example, the main things besides the obvious physical traits needed are high concentration, good reading of the game/movement of opposition, aerial ability, and a sufficient amount of bravery. What makes a top CB past the presence of such attributes from there on depends on their level of acumen in these attributes. Generally speaking, being brilliant at only one of the attributes but standard at the rest would make you a good CB but not a top one. Agger for example is a very god reader of the game but isnt brilliant at any of the other attributes. Decent, even above the average threshold or marker I'd set, but not top bracket. Players like Hyypia, Vidic, Ferdinand, and Carvalho on the other hand combine that excellent reading of the game with at leastanother attribute that they're top bracket at (Vidic: aerial, Carvalho: Concentration, Ferdinand: top or close to top bracket at all the attributes you'd need and then some etc.).   

Same could be done for different positions. Thing is, sometimes you'd have a player who is absolutely brilliant at one aspects but perhaps average at the rest of attributes and they'd still be a top talent or a very valuable player in the side. Kuyt was a top player for us but you'd find it hard to get him to tick any of the boxes you'd want for a wide player. You could say something similar about Ramirez, Walcott, Lavezzi..etc.

What it comes down to is the utilization of the talent you have. And to bring the conversation back to Liverpool and the side we have now, I think we have a few outstanding players (which we've had for a number of years now despite perhaps some of the names changing) in the squad and the problem we have atm is that we're yet to get the right players around them/utilize the specialties of such players like we did under Rafa with the likes of Kuyt, Mascherano and Arbeloa. Granted, I think theres still a gulf in quality between Kuyt and Henderson, Mascherano and Lucas but the concept is the point I'm trying to make. Henderson has a good engine but nowhere near as effective or invaluable as Kuyt was in his heyday. Same with Lucas despite his importance to the side increasing by the day.

[Stu the Red]

Did you watch him V Man Utd ? He Coutinho could not get past the first man. He ran out of ideas, and was useless in that game. not much better V Villa and Stoke. Watch the games mate, you need to.

3 games where he hasn't been at his best for Christ's sake.

He was immense up til then. He beat players for fun and was involved in nearly everything positive in our play. Come on Hustler 2 the kid is a class act.

I nearly posted something similar, but the reality is Hustler just doesn't get it.

Think he's a bit simple to be honest, best to just place him on ignore.

[Stu the Red]

A good example of mind over matter in football terms is Paolo Maldini. Great player all around but his dad complained that he wasn't given enough credit and pointed to a CL game vs United. Maldini played left back and no crosses came in from whoever Uniteds winger was all night long. The amazing part was that Paolo hadn't made a challenge, ariel or otherwise, all night long. Had loads of interceptions though. The point of course is that if one quality is really good, you might not need the others at all.

You're nearly right...

But not quite...

Maldini obviously had all the other attributes as well and had them in abundance. (As you clearly stated).

But so do alot of the top players. They have five or six ways of doing things and getting the same results. If one thing isn't working for them they'll do something else.

Great players will find ways to exploit other players and teams weaknesses. Ronaldo has made a career out of attacking the space left by lesser players, and teams, Bale is starting to do the same thing.

Also the chances are, over the other 38 games in a season, they will need the other attributes.

[Stu the Red]

You over-complicate things by trying to dissect it as much. I think generally,  you have standard attributes you'd want all your players regardless of position to have. Things like strength, work rate, stamina, concentration, awareness, and at the very least a decent first touch. Past that, for me its down to the position that a player holds.

For CBs for example, the main things besides the obvious physical traits needed are high concentration, good reading of the game/movement of opposition, aerial ability, and a sufficient amount of bravery. What makes a top CB past the presence of such attributes from there on depends on their level of acumen in these attributes. Generally speaking, being brilliant at only one of the attributes but standard at the rest would make you a good CB but not a top one. Agger for example is a very god reader of the game but isnt brilliant at any of the other attributes. Decent, even above the average threshold or marker I'd set, but not top bracket. Players like Hyypia, Vidic, Ferdinand, and Carvalho on the other hand combine that excellent reading of the game with at leastanother attribute that they're top bracket at (Vidic: aerial, Carvalho: Concentration, Ferdinand: top or close to top bracket at all the attributes you'd need and then some etc.).   

Same could be done for different positions. Thing is, sometimes you'd have a player who is absolutely brilliant at one aspects but perhaps average at the rest of attributes and they'd still be a top talent or a very valuable player in the side. Kuyt was a top player for us but you'd find it hard to get him to tick any of the boxes you'd want for a wide player. You could say something similar about Ramirez, Walcott, Lavezzi..etc.

What it comes down to is the utilization of the talent you have. And to bring the conversation back to Liverpool and the side we have now, I think we have a few outstanding players (which we've had for a number of years now despite perhaps some of the names changing) in the squad and the problem we have atm is that we're yet to get the right players around them/utilize the specialties of such players like we did under Rafa with the likes of Kuyt, Mascherano and Arbeloa. Granted, I think theres still a gulf in quality between Kuyt and Henderson, Mascherano and Lucas but the concept is the point I'm trying to make. Henderson has a good engine but nowhere near as effective or invaluable as Kuyt was in his heyday. Same with Lucas despite his importance to the side increasing by the day.

Ace, Kuyt wasn't a top player mate, decent at best. And of all the centre backs you mentioned they could all play the game first and foremost. They can all pass, receive a ball and don't waste possession. They can all play out from the back.

[Benny The Noon]

Kuyt was a top player - he produced the goods when mattered. He wasnt the most skilful player or had the best touch or the quickest but he produced at the highest level for both club and his country.

[RedAnt]

Well an obvious question then: what makes a great player?

Achievements? Status? The team he plays for? Another blend of everything is of course the answer. But is there a difference between a great player and a legend?

[Benny The Noon]

Yes there is a big difference between a great player and a legend.

Kuyt for us was a great player where as Robbie is a legend.

What makes a great player is what they produced on the pitch personally and also for their club/country

[Stu the Red]

Yes there is a big difference between a great player and a legend.

Kuyt for us was a great player where as Robbie is a legend.

What makes a great player is what they produced on the pitch personally and also for their club/country

"Dirky boy" was a great player?

Sort your life out lad.

Comparing him to Fowler in anyway shape or form is pure genius!!

[aCe']

You over-complicate things by trying to dissect it as much. I think generally,  you have standard attributes you'd want all your players regardless of position to have. Things like strength, work rate, stamina, concentration, awareness, and at the very least a decent first touch. Past that, for me its down to the position that a player holds.

For CBs for example, the main things besides the obvious physical traits needed are high concentration, good reading of the game/movement of opposition, aerial ability, and a sufficient amount of bravery. What makes a top CB past the presence of such attributes from there on depends on their level of acumen in these attributes. Generally speaking, being brilliant at only one of the attributes but standard at the rest would make you a good CB but not a top one. Agger for example is a very god reader of the game but isnt brilliant at any of the other attributes. Decent, even above the average threshold or marker I'd set, but not top bracket. Players like Hyypia, Vidic, Ferdinand, and Carvalho on the other hand combine that excellent reading of the game with at leastanother attribute that they're top bracket at (Vidic: aerial, Carvalho: Concentration, Ferdinand: top or close to top bracket at all the attributes you'd need and then some etc.).   

Same could be done for different positions. Thing is, sometimes you'd have a player who is absolutely brilliant at one aspects but perhaps average at the rest of attributes and they'd still be a top talent or a very valuable player in the side. Kuyt was a top player for us but you'd find it hard to get him to tick any of the boxes you'd want for a wide player. You could say something similar about Ramirez, Walcott, Lavezzi..etc.

What it comes down to is the utilization of the talent you have. And to bring the conversation back to Liverpool and the side we have now, I think we have a few outstanding players (which we've had for a number of years now despite perhaps some of the names changing) in the squad and the problem we have atm is that we're yet to get the right players around them/utilize the specialties of such players like we did under Rafa with the likes of Kuyt, Mascherano and Arbeloa. Granted, I think theres still a gulf in quality between Kuyt and Henderson, Mascherano and Lucas but the concept is the point I'm trying to make. Henderson has a good engine but nowhere near as effective or invaluable as Kuyt was in his heyday. Same with Lucas despite his importance to the side increasing by the day.

Ace, Kuyt wasn't a top player mate, decent at best. And of all the centre backs you mentioned they could all play the game first and foremost. They can all pass, receive a ball and don't waste possession. They can all play out from the back.

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make with regards to Kuyt. He wasnt blessed with the talent needed to be a top player, but given the system we had and his responsibilities at the club, he produced and grew into an important part of the team. You can get away with having one or two of those in the side and in the case of Kuyt he played the role and wasnt a burden to the side despite the criticism he got from the fans for being a limited player (I'll hold my hands up for that one).

With regards to defenders, my take on the matter is slightly different from yours. For me, a defender should -first and foremost- be able to defend. Yes, the likes of Ferdinand, Thiago Silva and so are all good enough on the ball to perhaps even play further up the pitch, but the main reason behind their success in the position is the fact that they do their jobs at the back to a high level on a consistent basis. Cannavaro and Walter Samuel werent the best at passingor recieving the ball for that matter but defensively you couldn't get much past either one of them. I do to a large extent agree with the assertion though that most top top players regardless of the position have the skill and understanding to control the ball and make use of it without being wasteful.

[Benny The Noon]

Yes there is a big difference between a great player and a legend.

Kuyt for us was a great player where as Robbie is a legend.

What makes a great player is what they produced on the pitch personally and also for their club/country

"Dirky boy" was a great player?

Sort your life out lad.

Comparing him to Fowler in anyway shape or form is pure genius!!

Think you need to read the post a bit more clearly

Fowler was called a legend in the post and Kuyt a great player - that's not really comparing the two players is it.

And yes Kuyt was a great player - he produced on the pitch when it mattered regardless of his ability. He scored the goals , he made the goals. A player doesn't play nearly 100 times for Holland and score over 25 goals for them if they are just "decent"

[Stu the Red]

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make with regards to Kuyt. He wasnt blessed with the talent needed to be a top player, but given the system we had and his responsibilities at the club, he produced and grew into an important part of the team. You can get away with having one or two of those in the side and in the case of Kuyt he played the role and wasnt a burden to the side despite the criticism he got from the fans for being a limited player (I'll hold my hands up for that one).

With regards to defenders, my take on the matter is slightly different from yours. For me, a defender should -first and foremost- be able to defend. Yes, the likes of Ferdinand, Thiago Silva and so are all good enough on the ball to perhaps even play further up the pitch, but the main reason behind their success in the position is the fact that they do their jobs at the back to a high level on a consistent basis. Cannavaro and Walter Samuel werent the best at passingor recieving the ball for that matter but defensively you couldn't get much past either one of them. I do to a large extent agree with the assertion though that most top top players regardless of the position have the skill and understanding to control the ball and make use of it without being wasteful.

Ace you're one of the few decent posters on here mate and often talk sense but Cannavaro could play mate. I've seen him turn players with the ball at his feet and pick passes into midfield when under pressure. He was certainly no hoof it merchant and neither was Samuel for that matter.

Granted there strengths were defending, thats obvious, most good defenders defend well    but if you look at the likes of Sami, they could all play aswell.
They defend higher up the pitch and see things before it happens. Effectively "putting out fires before they start".

Fact is, great players can often make the game look easy, I remember watching Zambrotta for Juve at Anfield when we won 2-1, the lad was like a ball magnet. He was f*cking immense. Basically, you'll never see a good player mate who can't do the things I mentioned to a good standard.

What annoys me is when people talk ***** about great players thinking they're only good "because they're fast" or "because they're strong" or something else just as daft.

[Stu the Red]

Yes there is a big difference between a great player and a legend.

Kuyt for us was a great player where as Robbie is a legend.

What makes a great player is what they produced on the pitch personally and also for their club/country

"Dirky boy" was a great player?

Sort your life out lad.

Comparing him to Fowler in anyway shape or form is pure genius!!

Think you need to read the post a bit more clearly

Fowler was called a legend in the post and Kuyt a great player - that's not really comparing the two players is it.

And yes Kuyt was a great player - he produced on the pitch when it mattered regardless of his ability. He scored the goals , he made the goals. A player doesn't play nearly 100 times for Holland and score over 25 goals for them if they are just "decent"

Shut up

[Benny The Noon]

Excellent reply - you argued all the points there

[aCe']

Which is precisely the point I was trying to make with regards to Kuyt. He wasnt blessed with the talent needed to be a top player, but given the system we had and his responsibilities at the club, he produced and grew into an important part of the team. You can get away with having one or two of those in the side and in the case of Kuyt he played the role and wasnt a burden to the side despite the criticism he got from the fans for being a limited player (I'll hold my hands up for that one).

With regards to defenders, my take on the matter is slightly different from yours. For me, a defender should -first and foremost- be able to defend. Yes, the likes of Ferdinand, Thiago Silva and so are all good enough on the ball to perhaps even play further up the pitch, but the main reason behind their success in the position is the fact that they do their jobs at the back to a high level on a consistent basis. Cannavaro and Walter Samuel werent the best at passingor recieving the ball for that matter but defensively you couldn't get much past either one of them. I do to a large extent agree with the assertion though that most top top players regardless of the position have the skill and understanding to control the ball and make use of it without being wasteful.

Ace you're one of the few decent posters on here mate and often talk sense but Cannavaro could play mate. I've seen him turn players with the ball at his feet and pick passes into midfield when under pressure. He was certainly no hoof it merchant and neither was Samuel for that matter.

Granted there strengths were defending, thats obvious, most good defenders defend well    but if you look at the likes of Sami, they could all play aswell.
They defend higher up the pitch and see things before it happens. Effectively "putting out fires before they start".

Fact is, great players can often make the game look easy, I remember watching Zambrotta for Juve at Anfield when we won 2-1, the lad was like a ball magnet. He was f*cking immense. Basically, you'll never see a good player mate who can't do the things I mentioned to a good standard.

What annoys me is when people talk ***** about great players thinking they're only good "because they're fast" or "because they're strong" or something else just as daft.

I get your point and I won't pretend it isnt the case more often than not but in the case of Samuel to begin with, I think even Skrtel has better skills (ball control, passing, vision..etc) and Skrtel is one of the CBs who are lacking in that department, league wide. In the case of Cannavaro, he's obviously a step above Skrtel and Samuel but nowhere near the level of many other great CBs like Hyypia, Ayala, Nesta..etc in terms of ball control and passing. His level in these departments is what I'd classify as the standard you'd expect of any outfield player. If you look at the decent CBs in the league; your Koscieny, Vertonghen, Agger, Nastasic, Jagielka, Cahill..etc they're all either similar or better than Cannavaro in that department.

For me, reading the game and the understanding of the game along with concentration are the main differentiating factors between decent CBs and top CBs. Thats where the likes of Skrtel and Agger in our side lag behind a little and its the main reason I think Sakho could be a top player for us. His reading of the game and consistency are better than anything we have and he has the physical attributes to dominate against any sort of opponent. Heres for hoping he can produce the goods and play to his potential for us.