that's been spouted on here and now appears to be favoured by Danny.......may I be so bold as to say I completely disagree. After a seAson and a half of watching Kennedy et al launch the ball up to O'Grady, I can stand no more and that's the style of play that a big man up front tends to dictate. Wingers whipping balls in to good finishers and guys breaking from midfield is the way forward for me so I'm surprised Danny has appeared to have a change of heart. If I'm a big strong defender, what I need to remain in my comfort zone is a lump up front. What I don't need is some pacy little **** that'll leave me standing. You don't see any of your top teams signing target men these days (unless Big Sam is in charge). Mindsthi, I thought Paul Wilkinson was rubbish so what the **** do I know...
Paul wilkinson was rubbish and I pretty much agree. Don't recall us trying to hoof our way out of this league the last twice we managed it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
The majority of Marc Richards goals either were from whipped crosses across the 6 yard box for him to tap In, or 1 on 1s with the keeper, or penalties. The sort of goals I think Winnall and Lita will be scoring, we just need to play to their strengths.
I agree with this. Why on earth have we built a squad which actually looks capable of playing football, only to lump the ball up to 2 strikers who aren't particularly tall. I think it will come together eventually, Hourihane, Bailey and even Brown all look capable of playing that killer final ball.
Depends how you see a target man. O'Grady and Andy Gray were wasted for vast periods of their time here because we did lump it at their heads. They were both brilliant at holding the ball up if it was played in to their chest or feet. That's key to playing good football as it lets midfielders get beyond the front man and retain the ball in the areas where you can damage teams. Using Andy Gray correctly was key to the quality football we played in the first half of Hill's first season. I'm hoping that is what Danny means by a target man.
Well said. The way we are trying to play now - if you can call it a way - still involves a forward who can keep the ball. We need to stop hoofing it up for players who aren't going to win it. We need to give them passes that they can control. And we need a striker or two who can protect it, hold it, do something constructive with it whilst he's got the attention of a somewhat eager large bruiser at his back. He need not be 6 foot 6. Look at how Hendrie with a large arse held it up.
The whole premise of where this thread starts is misplaced in my view - the issue is not to do with lumping the ball up in the air, it's about having a strong man who is able to hold the ball up, primarily on the floor, taking some pressure of the defence, allowing the midfield to get up to the forwards and then being able to play the ball on the ground in advanced areas, which is what the rest of the team is built for. Yes, it's also about having the option of the cavalry charge in the last ten minutes when we are 1-0 down but people are wrong to conflate Danny's desire for someone to hold it up with a switch to hoofball from the off. Moreover, most of our better footballing teams, including all of the promotion ones I've seen have had someone able to hold the ball up in Aylott, Wilkinson, Ward, Shipperley, Richards etc. Oh and Wilkinson was exceptional in the promotion season, very rarely lost a ball, instrumental in taking pressure of the defence all the time and just talk to super John if you want a view about how valuable Wilko's contribution was to his goals.
Last year's Prem top 4 would all seem at odds with that:- Man City - Edin Dzeko Liverpool - Ricky Lambert Chelsea - Didier Drogba Arsenal - Olivier Giroud and Yaya Sanogo
I don't think it is favoured by Danny mate. He's talking about having an option, not choosing to play from here on in with a big lump up front who we can hoof it up to. When Wilson first became manager back in '94 he had just two experienced strikers in Rammell and Payton and two kids in Liddell and Jackson. Liddell had played a bit before, often coming off the bench or being used in midfield, while Jackson was completely raw. Rammell and Payton started the season as the first choice striker pairing, but it wasn't really happening for either of them. In early November we lost 6-1 away to Tranmere. Don't know if you went, but it was a bizarre game. This might sound stupid, but we dominated. We must have had about 30 good chances. Tranmere got in to our half of the pitch 6 times and scored 6 goals. A few days later we played Stoke at home and it was our reserve strikers who were picked up front, Liddell and Jackson. We won the game 2-0, and won the next two games too. Chris Jackson was taking his time to settle, he never got the chance due to the tragic accident, but Liddell, given a run of games as a striker, looked the business. From that point forward, and for the next season and a half, we played with two little uns up front. Liddell was partnered with Payton and the pair of 'em started banging them in. Later in the season it was three little uns up front as Redfearn was injured and Bullock took his place. We were a team of midgets by this point with Wilson himself and Sheridan in the team. They didn't do bad though, 6th place, a play-off spot in any other year, achieved on a transfer budget of exactly zero. Not a single player had been signed either permanently or on loan to add to a squad that had almost been relegated the season before. When Liddell claimed his place in the side, Rammell was relegated to the subs bench and remained there until requesting a transfer a year later and was sold to Southend. That's where the famous phrase comes from, "Get Rammell on!" Wilson didn't want or need a target man in his starting 11, but he wanted one on the bench to give him a different option. When we sold Rammell we got money and Dave Regis so we could keep that option of having a big bloke on the bench. I don't think Wilson's recent interview is anything to do with him changing his philosophy. I just think he wants summat different should Plan A not be working. Or the chance to use Plan B when he thinks the game requires it. He might not be talking about it at all if Hemmings was fit, available and playing well. He's not, he's injured and as he's untried at this level, and the management team are unable to assess him in a competitive league 1 game, it makes sense to bring in another bigger striker before the close of the transfer window, so, should Hemmings prove to be not quite as good as is hoped, we have an alternative.
I think having the option to mix things up against different opposition should always be there, I hark back fondly to the days of a very skilful team that had one mister Aylott leading the attack and nobody accused us of playing hoofball then.
A target man isn't a big lump who stands upfront and wins headers. If we wanted to do that we could just play M'voto all season. Or even have signed that terrible trialist Marcus Haber. A target man, whether the balls played in the air or on the deck, gets control of the ball and brings your midfielders into play. Jon Macken wasn't a big lump and he was a fantastic target man for us. Not the best goalscorer but if you gave the ball to him you knew he wouldn't lose it.
