Liverpool FC Forum

by **Sabre** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:34 pm

One last point. I've noticed one or two posters commenting on Crouch's two headed goals in the last two games and alluding to the theory that he has been doing stregthening exercises. I don't buy into this opinion at all. For me the oproblem with Crouch as a header has always been that he fills the spaces too early. He tends to get into the heading zone a fraction of a second early which means he has to head either from a standing jump, or worse from a slightly backwrds jump. It's probably a legacy of his lower league career whereby the simple fact that he was tall meant he could be successfull, despite poor technique.

Sorry to cut this piece of a good post Bigmick, but if I quoted all of it the pages would have a few posts only.

Not that I think that point about the timing is wrong, but I think the body factor is also involved, good headers like John Aldridge's required a very specific body movement that quite simply you cannot get with the height of Crouch.

Zigic a player that is about an inch taller than crouch has the same problem. Even if you strenghten your muscles to jump more it's required a lot of coordination, there are computer programs for proffessionals that I've seen, that study all the movements that a player do and coordination is very important.

This piece of software have been used by RS, Barcelona and other teams to spot mistakes in the runs of players before kicking the ball and thus being able to correct them.

I just wanted to add this point about the body, IMHO timing counts but body aswell, and good headers require a lot of things to be well done.

by **Feeney** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:43 pm

bigmick wrote:As for Kuyt, I'm a little surprised that some knowledgeable posters are sharpening the knives so early. I haven't seen a lot of football over the last couple of months but I saw enough at the start of the season to convince me that he is a good player. I posted then that he had it within him to become a legend at Liverpool and I literally, have not seen anything to change my mind. He will be a top player.

I'd have to agree there Mick. I've also been surprised at some of the comments made recently, especially when you consider the performances (or lack of) from other players in the side.

Kuyt hs been a victim of his own initial success to a degree - he started off brilliantly, settled into the team and way of life very well and said and did pretty much all the right things. As the season has gone on, he has shown glimpes of frustration (giving the ball away cheaply, not getting into goalscoring positions enough) but to me he is mearly going through the 'new club' time at the minute. I believe next season, we'll see Kuyt really tear into defences. His hunger and desire will bring him goals and the admiration once again from the early nitpickers.

On another note having heard a few mentions, I think we'd be fu€king mad to even contemplate selling Alonso. What a player this guy is and we've got mentions of 'if we got £20mil, i'd sell'. Absolute madness. I'm well aware of the strength in midfield we have but to then contemplate selling one of your best players is pure folly. :no

by **bigmick** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:45 pm

For me it's probably more the case that tall players can get away with bad technique until they get to the very highest level. Because they've never HAD TO learn how to head the ball properly, they can't and it's harder to learn it when you're older.
Similarly, in a sport such as basketball (where a fella who is Crouch's hieght would be only average) the smaller fellas almost always have a better spring and technique. My theory is that this is out of necessity rather than some motor-muscular theory of tall versus small.
BTW you are spot on about Aldridge (Jesus forget Villa/Eto, what we'd give for an Aldo in his absolute prime right now) being a very good exponent of the art. Once again though, he attacked it. "Attack" doesn't mean as many people think that he takes a fifteen yard run up, scattering bodies in his midst. It means his body movement is towards the ball in it's flight, maybe only a pace or two but it gives the header the 'snap' which in turn gives it power.

by **Sabre** » Thu Apr 05, 2007 9:59 pm

LOL @ "Attack" doesn't mean as many people think that he takes a fifteen yard run up, scattering bodies in his midst

Very well put!

by **dawson99** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:51 am

Maybe i wrote it wrong, blaming age o fowler, i'll admit to that fo-par. but folwer does have to go, and for what its worth, i think we are a better footballing outfit this season than last. Im enjoying the football we play a lot more on the most part and you can really see the team developing. If that means that the formation doesnt suit fowler, then that has to be the way. Its a shame, we all know what folwer can do, but not for how we play now.

by **Stu.Murph** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:02 pm

dawson99 wrote:
Stu.Murph wrote:
dawson99 wrote:Fowler is past it for us, rafa knows it, we all know it. and hes 32 in 4 days.

Id give Gonzales a chance but football nowadays is fast moving.
Youd keep fowler? I bet you still want rush up front, lets get mcateer back... yawn!
time moves on. If fowler was producing in training hed be on the pitch come match time.
Id snap up woodgate if given the chance as well!

Yes Dawson I still want McAteer and Rush to be playing in Liverpool's first team...

Fowler's a class act and a damn site better than Kuyt who seems undroppable no matter how he plays.

You don't lose what Fowler has. He's lost a yard, he's not as mobile as he was and he's not as fit. He's not in the same league as when he came through but alot of his strengths are still there and alot of his quality is still there.

Only the clueless idiots can't see he improved our team when he signed and only the clueless idiots can't see how pathetic we've looked at times upfront without him playing this season.

Rafa doesn't play Robbie due him not offering a big physical pressence or great deal or pace or work rate.

He's not playing one of his best footballers due to picking the wrong system. Simple as that. You should always have you're best players on the pitch. Robbie is one of our best players.

so im a clueless idiot? more insults dude?

all im saying is that no matter how good fowler is (and yes, i do love the guy) why is it that crouch bellamy and kuyt play ahead of him?

Kuyt you continuallly slag off but he has improved our team so much.

You seem to live in a world where fowler can do no wrong but you have to realise that rafa sees him train more than you (yes, he does, he might even know more than you!!!!) and only a complete loser would suggest to know more than rafa.

qote: Rafa doesn't play Robbie due him not offering a big physical pressence or great deal or pace or work rate.

so he has no presence, no work rate, no pace... that kinda means quite a bit in 21st century football. you;ve argued my point brilliantly.

cheers

Did I actually say you specifically was a clueless idiot?

As other people have mentioned Fowler doesn't play because Rafa wrongly seems to believe forwards aren't there to score goals. This is not a european league where midfielders are coming up against poor goalkeepers. In the premier league even the lesser goalkeepers are still very good in comparrison to the other leagues.

You need your best finishers on the pitch to take the chances created and that is a massive part of why Liverpool under Houllier were so good against the good sides and Liverpool under Benitez are woeful against the good sides. When the chances come they are falling to the wrong players.

Against United it was players like Owen and Fowler scoring goals consistently to help us beat these teams... Ok Danny Murphy got a few aswell but again he was a good finisher. I'd say the best finisher in the team now is Gerrard... Under Houllier we had Owen, Fowler, Heskey, Murphy and Hamann who could all finish like Gerrard if not better.

Now i'd say only Kuyt, Crouch and Bellamy are as good as Gerrard. Which basically says to me the ability of the team to take chances is far less than it was under Houllier.

by **Stu.Murph** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:18 pm

dawson99 wrote:Maybe i wrote it wrong, blaming age o fowler, i'll admit to that fo-par. but folwer does have to go, and for what its worth, i think we are a better footballing outfit this season than last. Im enjoying the football we play a lot more on the most part and you can really see the team developing. If that means that the formation doesnt suit fowler, then that has to be the way. Its a shame, we all know what folwer can do, but not for how we play now.

We're a better side this season than last?

Are you for real or what? Last season some of the football was breath taking and extremely efficient. Defensively we were as solid as I've EVER seen a team last season and the attack had the ability (when Fowler played) to open up any defence. I remember a goal against Blackburn specificly which shouldn't have stood due to Sissy, but the build up and move was sheer class.

This season we've often looked toothless upfront, unbalanced in midfield and away from home nervous and disorganised at the back.

Last seasons team had a balance, verve and quality about it that made me very optimistic about this season. I thought if we improved slightly we'd be unstoppable. Last season for me at times, I thought we were the best side the country bar none. This season I haven't once seen this.

Everytime I've seen us beat sides this season we've seemed to beat sides playing awfully. Wigan, Watford and Charlton against us were three of the worst, most tactically inept, out of form and passionless sides at the time I've seen in the premier league since its intro duction. The amount of times Charlton players in that game failed to control a simple pass was shocking, so much so I was sitting there laughing at them with my mate.

I really struggle to remember worse performances by any team ever. I'd seen sides come to anfield lose 5-1 and 7-1 and play better than those sides did.

Arsenal the other week even, I've never seen Gallas and Toure play that badly in there Careers and make so many poor errors they usually wouldn't make at all. That isn't me being harsh either, thats me saying what I saw. Liverpool the other day didn't even have to get out of third gear Arsenal were that bad. The only game I can remember for a superb performance this season and I came out of the ground thinking, quality was Bolton at home.

Last season it was nearly every match.

We've took two giant steps back this season... things MUST improve this summer. No excuses and no "give him time", "give him a season", "remember Pires and Henry" arguements. Excuses have to stop and a reality check is needed.

by **Feeney** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:23 pm

Stu.Murph wrote:I'd say the best finisher in the team now is Gerrard... Under Houllier we had Owen, Fowler, Heskey, Murphy and Hamann who could all finish like Gerrard if not better.

Now i'd say only Kuyt, Crouch and Bellamy are as good as Gerrard. Which basically says to me the ability of the team to take chances is far less than it was under Houllier.

Don't make me laugh. :no

by **Stu.Murph** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:29 pm

Feeney wrote:
Stu.Murph wrote:I'd say the best finisher in the team now is Gerrard... Under Houllier we had Owen, Fowler, Heskey, Murphy and Hamann who could all finish like Gerrard if not better.

Now i'd say only Kuyt, Crouch and Bellamy are as good as Gerrard. Which basically says to me the ability of the team to take chances is far less than it was under Houllier.

Don't make me laugh.

It was quite obvious someone was going to pick up on that and come out with a clueless statement YET AGAIN! :no

Heskey could finish. Heskey's problem was confidence and getting into the positions after his first season. In his first season he shown he could finish with power and by placing a ball. Simple as.

by **RedBlood** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:33 pm

out: dudek zenden hyypia fowler bellamy

in: alves lahm richards quarasma villa tevez

i'd shoot my load if this happened

by **Feeney** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:44 pm

Stu.Murph wrote:
Feeney wrote:
Stu.Murph wrote:I'd say the best finisher in the team now is Gerrard... Under Houllier we had Owen, Fowler, Heskey, Murphy and Hamann who could all finish like Gerrard if not better.

Now i'd say only Kuyt, Crouch and Bellamy are as good as Gerrard. Which basically says to me the ability of the team to take chances is far less than it was under Houllier.

Don't make me laugh.

It was quite obvious someone was going to pick up on that and come out with a clueless statement YET AGAIN!

Heskey could finish. Heskey's problem was confidence and getting into the positions after his first season. In his first season he shown he could finish with power and by placing a ball. Simple as.

Sorry Stu, but Heskey couldn't and can't finish. The heady heights of Birmingham and Wigan has been the proof in the pudding on that one.

When he did score, it was mearly that he blasted the ball as hard as could. That was what Cisse got run out of town for and was also branded as someone who couldn't finish.

Heskey scored 39 goals in 150 apperances for Liverpool in 4 years. Certainly shows that he was a 'predator' on the box. :glare:

Despite your feelings on my comment, I will reiterate my statement; "Don't make me laugh." :no

by **Stu.Murph** » Fri Apr 06, 2007 8:15 pm

You've completely and utterly missed the point of what I'm saying so there is absoloutely no point in putting across an arguement which you are either:

1. Can't understand.
2. Can't read.
3. Are completely blinded by your hate of the player.

Not once did I ever say Heskey was a preditor, not once did I ever say he was prolific.

Steven Gerrard's one of the best tacklers in the world, Xabi Alonso has made two times as many tackles as him in the last season...

by **bigmick** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:07 am

Before we go any further into this, there are a couple of observations I would like to make. Firstly, this is one of the main reasons why I was an advocate of Stu being allowed back on the board despite his obnoxious style of debate. He does actually say something and gets it stirred up a bit.

Can I just ask two things at this point? Firstly that Stu keeps it civil, and secondly that everyone else isn't in the least bit surprised or offended when Stu says you "haven't got a clue" or "you've completely missed the point" should you choose to disagree with his ramblings.

This is where I prove both that "I haven't got a clue" and that I've "missed the point". Heskey was absolute garbage and made Cisse look good to be frank. He couldn't finish at all, in no way shape or form. He was, is, and shall remain, clueless. I have two vivid memories of Heskey. One was of the ball hitting him up the erse and staying out when all he had to do was get out of the way in an important match. The other was against the Mancs (I think) when in the dying seconds and with Liverpool 2-1 he missed a clear opportunity by falling on his erse. I actually think the latter sealed his fate at anfield as when the camera panned onto Houlliers face, the Frenchman looked as if he had finally seen the light. He is simply a poor player and is best left out of striker comparisons as he distorts the argument.

by **aCe'** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:25 am

bigmick wrote:Before we go any further into this, there are a couple of observations I would like to make. Firstly, this is one of the main reasons why I was an advocate of Stu being allowed back on the board despite his obnoxious style of debate. He does actually say something and gets it stirred up a bit.

Can I just ask two things at this point? Firstly that Stu keeps it civil, and secondly that everyone else isn't in the least bit surprised or offended when Stu says you "haven't got a clue" or "you've completely missed the point" should you choose to disagree with his ramblings.

This is where I prove both that "I haven't got a clue" and that I've "missed the point". Heskey was absolute garbage and made Cisse look good to be frank. He couldn't finish at all, in no way shape or form. He was, is, and shall remain, clueless. I have two vivid memories of Heskey. One was of the ball hitting him up the erse and staying out when all he had to do was get out of the way in an important match. The other was against the Mancs (I think) when in the dying seconds and with Liverpool 2-1 he missed a clear opportunity by falling on his erse. I actually think the latter sealed his fate at anfield as when the camera panned onto Houlliers face, the Frenchman looked as if he had finally seen the light. He is simply a poor player and is best left out of striker comparisons as he distorts the argument.

hahahaha....

cisse isnt as bad as most ppl in this forum make him out to be imo...

by **babu** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:33 am

aCe' wrote:cisse isnt as bad as most ppl in this forum make him out to be imo...

yup he was/is far worse. :nod

Liverpool FC Forum

Who needs to go? - Who isn't good enough....

Who is online