I personally think he is talking shit... The game is far more technical, and Heskey would struggle in the modern game
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8ZFhJ01eJqE
View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8ZFhJ01eJqE
Strikers then and now?
- Thread starter bluebell
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
I don't agree with either of you. Heskey brought plenty of skillz to the table and IMO could have adapted well to the game of today, but the idea that Virgil "wouldn't be able to handle" the players he named is weapons-grade bullsh!t.
I think that it's this simple... The best around then would still be the best around now, regardless of position. So, the best from his day would likely give VVD a good run for it, but that's 'coz he was the best around, not 'coz it's gotten any easier to defend.
Heskey was a very decent player, but he's not anybody that would have given Virgil fits. He was no Rooney, Henry or Drogba.
Heskey was a very decent player, but he's not anybody that would have given Virgil fits. He was no Rooney, Henry or Drogba.
The way i see it is that strikers developed quicker to the modern game than defenders did. So the average striker was probably better than the average defender (hence everyone mentioning mid table strikers and going "they're better than what we have now"). But in the late 00s defenders caught up and started being fitness demons as well, and concentration and anticipation was pushed a lot more for defenders.
Anyone who was any good at footy when they were five years old became a striker. Some of those strikers realised they weren't going to be the best at around age 13 but did know they were still good enough to play for a good side so changed their game and became a defender. Strikers are better than defenders because everyone wants to be a striker and defenders are what happens when you're not quite good enough. When the game changes it's because the front line have figured out new ways to score goals. The defence is always playing catch up.
Heskey developed his game around Owen. He gave up so much of his striker instinct because he knew he was in the company of a supreme talent, so he made the space for owen to thrive in. He got shit for not scoring many goals when he was very intelligently making space for someone who was a better finisher. I'm not saying he was great, but I am saying I know why several Liverpool and England managers started him every week.
Heskey was a good argument for picking your best team over your best players. When you've got 3 strikers like Heskey, Owen and Fowler, on actual ability, Heskey's never getting picked. Yet, the team worked better with him in it. He must have been difficult to play against but, that said, I'd fancy VVD to be ok with that.
I remember a Heskey who had trouble staying up on his two feet in the opposition's box. There is no way Heskey would be picked by title competing team in this era. Lovely lad but Eric Dier would have him in his pocket let alone VVD.
IMHO, if you took Fergies top 11 and pitted it against Klopp's best 11, Fergies men would be beat 8 out of 10 times (the other 2 times, its a draw).
IMHO, if you took Fergies top 11 and pitted it against Klopp's best 11, Fergies men would be beat 8 out of 10 times (the other 2 times, its a draw).
Agree with the first sentence, but definitely not the second. Have another look at Woland's post above. Much of the time Heskey wasn't playing his natural game in those situations but "taking one for the team" in the interests of setting Owen free. There was one season during which Owen had a long-term injury and Heskey was liberated to play the game he had been playing for Leicester when we bought him, running at opponents and being the main spearhead in attack, and he absolutely terrorised opposition defences. I don't see that version of Heskey getting the better of Virgil either, but it would be a respectable contest IMO.
For about 12 months at his best he was unplayable, he was knocking everyone out of the way and creating havoc, then he just became this shadow of himself, if he had a shit touch in the first 10 minutes you knew he'd be fucking useless for the rest of the match.
Heskey has a point, but it’s clumsily made. Centre-backs have had it slightly easier over the last ten-fifteen years for a variety of reasons. The possession-based game has dominated for long periods, meaning teams have generally been able to get back into shape more quickly and with greater discipline. We also can’t ignore the fact that there’s been a shortage of top-quality strikers for some time. It’s nothing like the late nineties or the noughties. That said, top-level centre-backs now also have to adapt to playing alongside the likes of Trent, often covering wider areas while still dealing with some very good wingers. There is also increased expectation on starting the attacking move, be it via technical interplay or accurate long passes. CB's of previous eras would have struggled to handle some of that. Footballers across all eras often think their time was the best and they had it toughest. The more sensible ones can appreciate that players evolve in line with game and are often a by-product of tactical evolutions. All that said, the very best centre-backs today, such as Van Dijk and a few others, could still handle anything thrown at them because class is always class. VVD has received boat-loads of praise from CB's of previous eras for good reason.
Funny enough, there is a growing trend back towards a goal-scoring number nine, so I wouldn't be amazed to see an increase in talent coming through in 3-5 years, and maybe one or two of the current crop of 21-24 year old strikers may really kick on. They are getting better opportunities than they would have done a few years ago.
Funny enough, there is a growing trend back towards a goal-scoring number nine, so I wouldn't be amazed to see an increase in talent coming through in 3-5 years, and maybe one or two of the current crop of 21-24 year old strikers may really kick on. They are getting better opportunities than they would have done a few years ago.
I think a significant reason CBs had it easier in the past is that they could cheat more. Think about Carvahlo and Terry, and after you swallow the sick that you made in your mouth, remember how much those cunts got away with, especially the former.
Strikers were much better in heskeys era though, there's no doubt. Heskey at his very best would be going for a hundred million today. That's heskey I'm talking about. Heskey.
Strikers were much better in heskeys era though, there's no doubt. Heskey at his very best would be going for a hundred million today. That's heskey I'm talking about. Heskey.
I do remember him scoring some absolute bangers too. I mean goals that no-one else would have scored. That one against Bayern Munich in the super cup final where he made the best defence in Europe look like a milk float when instead of going around them he just went straight through. Only other player doing that was the original Ronaldo. The problem as has been pointed out above is he was a confidence player. When he doubted himself he might as well not be on the pitch, but when he was flowing he was ace.
Heskey's era was a lot more physical both in the air and for ground tackles/duals etc. I think some of the current players would be a bit different playing under those conditions. Virgil can handle himself, but he doesn't like being roughed up and sulks a bit when he is.
Why are some talking about footballers from 20 years ago like they're Stanley Matthews or something? It's only 20 years ago, you don't think players were fit and fast then? Certainly from a striker perspective, there were dozens of better players then than there are now.
Similar threads
