referring to emperormeng's post,
u can be all rounders but cannot be perfect at all position
like rooney he can be CF,SS,LW,RW,CM, AM but his best position is always ss
gerrard can play well as SS, LW, RW, CM, DM, AM but at AM in 3 men midfield he can always use his full potential

Exactly. The Alan Shearers, the Van Nistelrooys, the Luca Tonis. All of these players are essential in a team becoz they're usually the best at putting them away and playing their role as the furthest man forward.

What exactly are your definitions of a reference? A player to hold the ball to wait for the the arrival of his teammates? Why does the modern game need a striker when all round fitness levels are increased? More pace and more movement mean grounds are covered in less time. Holding compounds the movement, not help. I can't see this working for an offensive team, only a defensive team with a lone striker upfront.

I wouldn't call them the biggest threats because strikers are marked tight, which is why defenders run up to help score during corners.

This is akin to saying, players should be players but the fact is players these days help newer teammates settle in and provide pointers/guide youngsters.

A niche area is fine and dandy, but if you get too rigid, its bad.


1st goal was from sloppy defending by Malouda.
3rd goal was from a combination of Sneijder and Robben from the kick off.
4th goal was from an individual effort from Sneijder.

What RVN performance do you guys speak of? He played almost no role in the goals scored by Holland, cept for the 2nd goal by Van Persie where he shielded a ball at the byline, not upfront. Even a winger/fullback does that.

Moving up the field quickly is not a problem because we have marauding fullbacks and attacking midfielders aplenty in the modern game. I don't think strikers are a necessity, but just a luxury to have as the only thing nice to have from a striker would be his instincts. Holding the ball is a moot point, I would say.

OT: Sorry Duke Red, some stuffs cropped up and the manager thread is now full with flamers. I'll be glad to share opinions with you the next time a clean discussion comes around.

A reference is someone upfront to hold the ball up or to play the ball to. It's an important element of the modern game. Even if u cover more ground with today's fitness levels, u still can't beat the pace of a ball that is played directly to the frontline. And of course it's a big help when it comes to ball retention which is fundamental for an offensive team to succeed.

Nobody is talking about rigid strikers just waiting for the ball to be played to their feet.
And if you do not realise how important RVN was for Holland's performance last night then I'm sorry but u have a poorer understanding of the game than I initially assumed.

Holding up the ball is just as important as having fullbacks and midfielders make off the ball runs. And I'm not talking about just holding up the ball with your back facing the goal. Different strikers do it differently. If it was Torres he wants the ball played beyond the backline where he can exploit his pace, but he's still acting as a reference. If it was Henry he would wait at the left flank for the ball. Raul and Totti would drop slightly deeper to get the ball. They are all achieving the same objectives through different means. If you just want to rely on players coming from deep when you're on the attack you're just going to make it extremely easy for an organised defence to shut you down. No team in the modern game don't play with some sort of reference up front. Even Roma with their supposedly strikerless formation actually plays Totti in an advanced position.

This post has been edited by verx: Jun 14 2008, 03:56 PM

If you noticed, I didn't dismiss the position upfront. Instead I discarded the striker role i.e you can replace a striker with anyone offensive minded upfront.



He talked about role specialization and the way he worded it, I'd assume he was placing more emphasis than necessary on the finishing part. Also, I watched the match twice; one live, and the other one more in the morning when I got up. I'd be glad to hear from your perspective about RVN because I couldn't see how he was the most important man for Holland on the field, he did what any decent strikers would do; positional intelligent running.

Nope, again I didn't dismiss the position, only the need for strikers.

By saying they are a luxury aren't you are dismissing the position?
When you say put anyone offensive minded upfront aren't they strikers as well?
A striker doesn't have to be an old fashioned centre forward only u know.
And I didn't say RVN was the most important man; I said he was an important element of the team. And he didn't just do what any decent striker would do. The French defenders could hardly get the ball off him. Compare that with Luca Toni's performance for Italy who did OK but was a step below what RVN showed for Holland.

OT:
As a United fan, i'd appreciate if you could realize the proper way to spell The Legend's name is 'Solskjær'.

I have to agree with what Verx said; Ruud played an effective game against the French.

IMO, he held the forward line well; anticipated passes from de Jong, Engelaar and VDV, and shielded the ball superbly against (both!!) DMs, Toulalan and Makelele. You can see that he was lying deep for most of the time, and he provided the main focal point for the Dutch midfield to pass to.

Gotten hold of the ball, he then distributed the balls well back to Kuyt or Sneijder to run against French fullbacks. However, Kuyt is not exactly the phantom winger, so van Basten did well by putting on (two wingers!!) Robben and van Persie. By then, Oranje's offense was in free flow. Rest was history

Even Ruud himself was quoted as 'very satisfied with his non-scoring performance' in an article from Soccernet.

Strikers are a luxury because of their instincts, only that I said because equally good movements can be provided by offensive minded players. CRonaldo was placed upfront by Scolari in recent matches, would you call him a striker or an offensive minded player in general? You probably misunderstood because I agree on the need for a player upfront.

On RVN better than Toni, put RVN in the ineffectual Italian national team and he would be as effective as Toni. We can't pull blanket statements on individuals like that because football involves 11. Sorry misread the "important" part. Anyway, let's refer back to the Champions League match between Barcelona and Manchester United, where we both agreed on the toothless display produced by Barcelona. Had Holland not score even 1 against France, would you call RVN an important element for the Dutchies in the event of a draw or a loss? I place no major significance/importance in RVN's possessional play as the Dutch team yielded no goals but only possession from passing around, because if the team didn't score, RVN would look average instead of good. The Dutch team only yielded goals by exploiting the aging and lethargic French legs in counter-attacking displays.

If the answer is yes, I guess I can't debate much; I'd prefer to believe in my apparent poorer understanding of the game and stick to my opinions on the Barcelona/Manchester match as the entire attacking quartet of Barcelona instead of only Eto'o deserved the criticism. One man doesn't define the team, the team defines that one man in ideal football matches. But yes RVN looked good in an effective Dutch team and the entire squad including RVN deserves credit.

Added : RVN wasn't important in the goals aspect as highlighted by my given examples on goals scored a couple of replies ago, but he was important as the player upfront, that is all.

EDIT : Reworded for more clarity.

Refer to the paragraph on RVN in my response to verx.

This post has been edited by FollowN: Jun 15 2008, 04:46 PM

actually positioning or formation was develop to save energy or stamina a player. Because the game have become more demanding, players stamina and physical appearance have increased dramatically. And I feel players are more all round now so.. less reliance on formation. So more players are going forward regardless the position they are in..

So there is forward. holding and defending

Pono wins.

This is the essence of 4-6-0. Not that there isn't any strikers, but there isn't one lazy bum up front who is a deadweight when the oppositon have posession. In attack, someone will still have to take up an advanced position to open up the play elsewhere & keep the defenders honest but in this case rather than a stationary target man, it will be whoever can reach the position in time, either it is a midfielder or the left back. Takes Dirk Kuyt like fitness to do this though.

Kuyt does alot what other player didn't, or can't do. He does backtrack alot even he was placed as a winger, support the backbone of defense, push forward, and assist the strikers.

yeah, hard to believe that he was a goal poacher in his feyenoord days.. won a golden boots once too

now he really break everyone eyes did he?

well i think it sounds funny..coz u wont a player to target to up front..

Talk dont mean much right now.

Its best if you guys could conjure up a tactical plan, a formation, and show how the team WITHOUT strikers or WITH strikers should play.

Strikers as in the targetman.

kuyt very hardworking and all .. but he not so effective in liverpool oh .. ...

anyways i think strikers are needed ... 1 or 2 .. only thing nowadays those forwards like to drop deep .. like pono said .. i think it makes more sense le ... last time those boot .. ball .. shirts all so heavy .. we cant expect the striker running here and there all the time

For your information, there was a team who uses 4-6-0 and won quite a lot of trophies...
4-6-0 is actually a "looks cool" formation...
Players like Ronaldo, plays as a winger, but score goals in a striker`s position..

I think that essentially a formation with an out-and-out forward would generally mean a higher possibility in quick counter attacking football, whereby the top man would be in a target-man's position and thus be able to release ghost runners on both flanks

This, in comparison to , say , 4-6-0. The build up of play would generally require a lot of beautiful passing football.


I personally agree with the reinvented centre forward, a hybrid, as you guys say, one whose work rate enables him to drop deep into midfield to win possession and even be the fulcrum point of attacks