It seems we are being linked to some very pacey players, is Brendan trying to create a team in the mould of the old Arsenal?
More pace for next season?
- Thread starter redhorizon2
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
Brendan has said he wants to create a team that finds a visit to Anfield the worst 90 mins of their life and has spoken about death by football. He likes a team that passes and presses and rests with the ball. Arsenal has been a counter attacking side for the most part so I wouldn't think Arsenal is the model. I think its more old School Liverpool.
Surely not as Ryan has pointed out nunerous times you don't need pace to win the league, just intelligent players with good movement.
Pace at the back allows you to compress the game when your opponents have the ball making it easier to close them down and press effectively. Pace up front allows you to stretch the opposition allowing your creative players more time and space. It would appear to be key to getting the team playing the way Rodgers wants but pace in and of itself is not particularly useful, its about using it to your advantage.
if we can start to play a higher defensive line and press our opponents in their own half of the pitch I think we could take a massive stride forward next season. Too often this season when we have won the ball back we have been slow to transition to attack and let the opposition defence reorganised.
if we can start to play a higher defensive line and press our opponents in their own half of the pitch I think we could take a massive stride forward next season. Too often this season when we have won the ball back we have been slow to transition to attack and let the opposition defence reorganised.
Not quite what I said, but not a million miles off.
I claimed pace wasn't that crucial, as by and large most players are of equivalent pace/speed these days anyway. It's certainly not the most pivotal factor in a footballer. Of course you don't want uberslow cunts, but they rarely exist these days anyway. Pace is nice if you're a winger and can carry the ball 60 yards and stretch defences, but top-drawer technique wins every time over pace.
Evidence of this would be Man City's team that won the league the year before last. Fuck all pace. Or United's last year - Valencia is all they had and he's hardly first name on the teamsheet.
Feel free to argue against me though.
For a team overall, you're probably right. For individual players though? I don't see how pace could disadvantage anyone.
Messi and Ronaldo would be half the players they are without their speed. Obviously the likes of Zidane, Maldini, and many others exist that didn't have the speed, but you'd imagine they'd have been even better with speed in their arsenal.
Messi and Ronaldo would be half the players they are without their speed. Obviously the likes of Zidane, Maldini, and many others exist that didn't have the speed, but you'd imagine they'd have been even better with speed in their arsenal.
I've argued for more pace on this site for years now and nothing I've seen in recent years has changed my mind.
There is no doubt that technique and intelligence are perhaps the two most key attributes for a player to have but when you look at the team as a whole pace is not a "nice to have" - it's essential.
Barcelona and Spain are perhaps the epitome of prioritizing technique and movement above all else and yet even they often require a player who has that short burst of acceleration to get past his marker and create something or players like Alba / Alves / Guily who have the raw pace to capitalize on great movement.
At Man Utd pace has been a central component of their philosophy for years, Arsenal's most successful sides have always had it, Bayern Munich have it in spades and so forth and so forth.
There is no doubt that technique and intelligence are perhaps the two most key attributes for a player to have but when you look at the team as a whole pace is not a "nice to have" - it's essential.
Barcelona and Spain are perhaps the epitome of prioritizing technique and movement above all else and yet even they often require a player who has that short burst of acceleration to get past his marker and create something or players like Alba / Alves / Guily who have the raw pace to capitalize on great movement.
At Man Utd pace has been a central component of their philosophy for years, Arsenal's most successful sides have always had it, Bayern Munich have it in spades and so forth and so forth.
Really well drilled sides can defend against intelligent movement if it is done in front of them or in the gaps without pace.
It's when its done with lightening pace that sides find it hard to cope.
Look at Bayern over the last 3 years.
Look at how ordinary Barca were without the pace of a fully fit Messi to stretch Bayern.
It's when its done with lightening pace that sides find it hard to cope.
Look at Bayern over the last 3 years.
Look at how ordinary Barca were without the pace of a fully fit Messi to stretch Bayern.
It's a truism but the important thing is to get the best players you can - how much pace they have is secondary. The fan view of pace is strange anyway - if you listened to most fans you'd think that apart from one or two exceptions all players are barely able to break into a jog. Of course it would be nice to have a few exceptionally fast players in the side but moving the ball quickly has always been the Liverpool way. Think quickly and outwit opponents without the need for physical pace.
Personally I think pace in attack is pretty important. I'm no expert on football but it seems to me that the key to creating goal scoring opportunities is to take one or more defenders out of the game by going past them, or having defences turn back towards their own goal, which tends to disrupt their positioning. I think *the* easiest way of doing that is via the pace of a particular attacker.
Often in the last few years I've watched Bara come up against very well organised defences and seen their passing basically nullified, and think all they *really* need is a fast winger to go past a full back to open things up. Of course, Barca is a bad example, because they're spectacularly successful 95% of the time, but even so. I particularly remember a game against Madrid a couple of years ago that fell exactly into that pattern, and they only finally opened up Madrid when the sub Affelay went past their LB and crossed for the opening goal. Granted he was helped by the defender slipping, but the point still stands that space was created by the method described.
Often in the last few years I've watched Bara come up against very well organised defences and seen their passing basically nullified, and think all they *really* need is a fast winger to go past a full back to open things up. Of course, Barca is a bad example, because they're spectacularly successful 95% of the time, but even so. I particularly remember a game against Madrid a couple of years ago that fell exactly into that pattern, and they only finally opened up Madrid when the sub Affelay went past their LB and crossed for the opening goal. Granted he was helped by the defender slipping, but the point still stands that space was created by the method described.
It's a great shame that there are very, very few players with both exceptional passing ability, trickery & great pace.
The attributes rarely go hand in hand. Perhaps due to the physicality required for the pace.
As almost all the time you are choosing between the two attributes it's little wonder that pace gets the short straw, as pace, even with a great shot, is nowhere near as much use as being a bloody good footballer.
The attributes rarely go hand in hand. Perhaps due to the physicality required for the pace.
As almost all the time you are choosing between the two attributes it's little wonder that pace gets the short straw, as pace, even with a great shot, is nowhere near as much use as being a bloody good footballer.
T
the_khl
Guest
The ball will always move at greater pace than any player ever will.
I always think the reason for that is simply that players who have success at an early age are usually those with top level physical gifts.
When they have them they progress through the youths and reserves pretty easily and dominate those in their age group - and if you're already dominating where's the incentive to improve?
It's the truly great players that despite being exceptional athletes still continue to work on other facets of their game.
I think perfect examples of it are Owen and Babel. Owen is a very limited technical footballer so when he lost his pace and his run behind the defence and dink it past the goalkeeper routine didnt work, he had nothing else. He wasn't an instinctive player who could sniff out goals, he wasn't particularly good on the ball, didnt strike the ball particularly well etc etc.
Babel was the flat track bully at underage level, the minute he got to the top level and everyone else was a good athlete, he had fuck all to his game.
Then there's others:
Fowler - had it all early on in his career. But second time around he was still effective because his technique on the ball, his cleverness, his shooting ability all stood to him.
Shearer - at Southampton and Newcastle he was two totally different players because as his pace went, he strengthened up and became more of a target man and in the box finisher.
Another thing I'd say, and contrary to my earlier post, is something I've asked here before without garnering much response, namely that if pace is just another attribute - another item making up the value of a player - which one would naturally assume, and given that it is impermanent and still more that its longevity is unpredictable, surely it makes logical sense to invest in players whose attributes are permanent or even improve with experience?
Let's say you could isolate a players attributes in terms of value. There are 2 options for an attacking midfielder. They're both 20 years old. One's main attacking threat is his pace: that adds £10m to his price. The other's is his incisive passing and first touch - that also adds £10m. Both of those key attributes contribute the same level of threat to the team's attacking play. Surely it makes sense to invest in the permanenet attribute?
Let's say you could isolate a players attributes in terms of value. There are 2 options for an attacking midfielder. They're both 20 years old. One's main attacking threat is his pace: that adds £10m to his price. The other's is his incisive passing and first touch - that also adds £10m. Both of those key attributes contribute the same level of threat to the team's attacking play. Surely it makes sense to invest in the permanenet attribute?
It's not just about one player, but the overall make up of the team.
If all you've got in the side is a bunch of passers - you have to give the guy with pace genuine consideration because he's got something you don't and you need.
Under Rafa we were very good at "controlling the game", retaining the ball and knocking it around, but we lacked incisiveness. Now having players with great technique and movement is great and will help change that but pace is a necessary additional dimension.
Just look at the difference Torres made. It wasn't just about how good he was - he completely changed the dynamic of the team because suddenly there was a viable outlet up front. We could play through balls, we could force the opposition defence back because if they held a high line (see: Utd), they'd get punished time and again.
And when you push the opposition defence back you come back to the technical, creative players who can unlock teams that come to defend but even then you're still in need of players that have a burst of acceleration to get away from defenders and you still need that added threat of pace so that the opposition can't simply defend in one way.
This whole idea that there is a choice between technique and pace is flawed.
If all you've got in the side is a bunch of passers - you have to give the guy with pace genuine consideration because he's got something you don't and you need.
Under Rafa we were very good at "controlling the game", retaining the ball and knocking it around, but we lacked incisiveness. Now having players with great technique and movement is great and will help change that but pace is a necessary additional dimension.
Just look at the difference Torres made. It wasn't just about how good he was - he completely changed the dynamic of the team because suddenly there was a viable outlet up front. We could play through balls, we could force the opposition defence back because if they held a high line (see: Utd), they'd get punished time and again.
And when you push the opposition defence back you come back to the technical, creative players who can unlock teams that come to defend but even then you're still in need of players that have a burst of acceleration to get away from defenders and you still need that added threat of pace so that the opposition can't simply defend in one way.
This whole idea that there is a choice between technique and pace is flawed.
There are many managers who seem to view a quick individual player as an affront to their authority, as what such players do appears to transcend tactics and thus withhold credit from the manager himself. Rafa seemed to be hell bent on removing Cisse's pace from his game so that he fitted within his own sphere of tactical influence. Houllier went the other way by placing such an emphasis on Owen's pace he regained his sense of achievement when Owen used it.
Heh - there was definitely that vibe about Rafa and not just about quick players. Everything needed to be reigned in, which was a shame because when he did let go a little bit we looked much better for it.
But isn't everyone trying this pressing game nowadays? What happens when two teams both try to press?
If you can run faster than the other guy then he won't catch you, unless you fall or something.
- Status
Similar threads
