I heard that someone asked Pilks about which foot he is prefers to shoot with and he said that he equal in both. Crazy! In a good way, can't imagine being like that.
I have never quite understood why players dont use both feet more often. I can recall plenty of times watching MOTD where a player would have a good chance of scoring swining their wrong foot at the ball. What usually happens is they try using their preferred foot and miss by miles or get tackled. Pilks is one of the few players that geuninely is good with both. I remember watching him when he first joined and not knowing which foot he prefered. I really think that players being paid the vast sums they are in the premier league that they would be able to use both feet or at least try too when needed.
rvw has not shone so far. i think he has the ability,and as has already been said his movment is good. admitidly the service to him has not always been the best so far and that must improve,but my worry is that he seems unequal(at the moment)to the physical battle.he is class i feel so hopefuly he will come good,we must give him time i guess
I think you are only looking at part of the equation. You and the others who "don't like" inverted wingers are forgetting that it is designed to create space for the full backs to run into and onto a ball played through to them. You seem to me to be calling for a traditional winger, who will take on the full back and get to the by-line before crossing. The threat from that sort of wing play can be too easily snuffed out by properly schooled defence (in particular by a good full back helped out by his wide midfield player tracking back). How many of this type of "winger" are there in the Premier League? If you watch teams with the ball out wide in advanced positions, nearly all of them are playing short passes between two or three of them, trying to release one of them into the penalty area or draw the defence across and then play a ball laterally across the 18 yard line to an advancing midfielder. The problem with Snoddy is not that he comes inside; it's that he isn't engaging in the right sort of inter-play with his fellow attackers when he does so.
You make a good point and at times, against Southampton or Villa I think, Snoddy was play Russ in very well on the overlap, the crosses from there were poor so that is on Russ. However, it's when our wide players don't have that over lapping option that the issues occur. Rather than playing it round more or trying to get closer to the by line to cut the ball across, they are just pinging high in-swinging balls into the box and it's just not working. I think Snodgrass might actually be better suited to the CAM position because he is tricky, he has a good pass on him and I feel he'd thrive having options either side of him. Just an idea.
The more general point I am trying to make is that our wide midfielders are not being employed as othodox wingers, so they shouldn't be criticised for being ineffective wingers. The trouble at the moment is that they are not being very effective at what they are meant to do, which is engage with the central attackers. Part of the problem has been that the central midfield hasn't settled yet, though Sunday saw hopeful signs that that is beginning to come together. Snoddy pinging high in-swinging balls into the box is an indication of lack of available alternative passes, not sheer bloody-mindedness on his part. That's how I interpret it anyway. What we need is one or both of Fer and Howson to be available centrally to take the ball, rather than have Snoddy trying to pick out RvW in a crowded penalty box with a single pass. There hasn't been enough interplay among our attackers, because in the first few games the central midfielders haven't been up there making interplay possible (the Hull game was the exception, because with Hull sitting deep and simply defending, we were able to get people forward and move the ball laterally much more; unfortunately we didn't manage to produce the movement and penetrative pass to unlock the massed defence). I think we are moving towards less dependence on crosses from out wide, and more attacks originating from advanced central midfield.
Hallelujah to that. I don't really understand your desire to be at odds with what I say Robbie when its near enough the point I've been banging on about for quite possibly a full year, particularly the last 3-4 weeks. The substantial difference is the last part, I think Hughton is winger obsessed and will carry on with the lack of advanced central positions.
Well, you've answered your own question carrabuh. If you look back at our disagreements, they have never been about the type of football we both want to see. The issue has always been your beliefs about Chris Hughton and the style of football he aims to have his teams play. I believe he is slowly reshaping the squad to play in much the way you and I both want us to play. I think you are mistaking Chris Hughton's assessment of what was necessary last season in order to achieve the target set for him (and given the players then available to him) with "Hughton-style football" as such; I on the other hand think it was just a matter of doing what had to be done last season with the resources he had, while starting the process of reshaping the squad for a long stay in the top flight (e.g. learning how to defend properly as a team and laying the foundations for increasing success by making us harder to beat). In the summer he didn't sign the type of forward players you would have expected if he was aiming to play in the way you suggest. On the contrary he has signed players who shift the attacking balance away from the touch line and into centre field. Had we managed to sign Alderweireld, we would have acquired a CB who would have contributed even more to that shift of direction. The fact that we are struggling at the moment to implement this transition more effectively is simply a reflection of (a) not being able to add all the players he would like in one transfer window, plus (b) a slow rate of adjustment on the part of some of our players (not helped by injuries and loss of form in some cases). But the direction in which Chris Hughton is slowly but surely taking us seems to me clear enough; whereas you apparently can't see any evidence at all. Indeed, so sure are you about how he intends his team to play, that instead of taking a lead from the kind of signings that he's made, you appear to believe he has actually purchased square pegs to fit in what you think are his round holes!
Was our last goal in the premier league, that lead to us winning away in the barclays premier league, not scored by a midfielder playing in an advanced, attacking role in a tactic specifically set out by our manager? Just Sayin'. Can someone answer me this, were Stoke "on the beach" or was it a player revolt against Hughton.
Keep quiet Beefy! Here are carrabuh and me almost managing to talk to one another and along you come blowing on the smouldering embers
Robbie - can you explain how playing orthodox wingers prevents full-backs from making overlapping runs and putting crosses over? Surely if you have wingers playing on their "natural" side then they can cross or pass the ball to an overlapping full-back whereas using inverted wingers leaves us reliant upon the full-backs to make runs and put the balls in? To say orthodox wingers are easily defended against by the oppo employing fullbacks and wide midfielders is implying that inverted wingers cannot be defended against in the same manner which doesn't seem logical to me. I have no crusade for us playing orthodox wingers but if plan A of inverted wingers is not giving our forward and chances then surely an attempt at plan B, playing orthodox to see if we can get any crosses in would not be a bad thing. For me the main advantage of inverted wingers is allowing your wide midfielders to cut in and shoot with their preferred foot and that is at the expense of them being able to cross with their preferred foot from a more advantageous angle and improve the chances of your forward (or heaven forbid forwards) scoring from close range. I accept that inverted wingers can be effective but I would question the logic of us spending £8.5m on a very talented forward and then playing a system which does not seem to suit his strengths or even give him a fair crack of the whip. Personally I'd rather see RvW having chances in the box than see a midfielder shoot from 25 yards as I think that we are more likely to get a better rate of return that way. I know Howson/Snod/Pilks are all capable of scoring from range but I'd expect a better return from RvW in the box than any of them out of it.
Here here! It seemed for a long time we had no midfielders that wanted to shoot from outside the box and now that's all they do! We've scored some nice goals from it but it's not giving RvW any chance, unless the keeper spills it. He's only had about 4 or 5 "Clear chances" so far and he took the one against Everton, missed the one against Spurs and I already can't think of any others. What would be really nice is if all our wingers we're as good on either foot as Pilks is. Then they could all do both. Snoddy is very one footed.
it doesn't, per se, but having inverted wingers (or both footed wingers in another case) does give you extra options out wide as it means you have options both inside and outside opponents full backs. i'm not fussed either way - i personally prefer inverted wingers as many managers do these days but it is down to personal preference - there is no better way, they both have their benefits
@Norfolkbhoy Reply on the way in due course. Perfectly valid questions/points, deserving of proper answer
I don't dispute for a moment: (1) if your task is to deliver a right-wing cross it helps to be right-footed (or two-footed); this for two reasons (a) because it is more natural for you, and (b) the trajectory of the resulting cross will tend to be more attacker-friendly i.e. curling somewhat away from the keeper and towards rather than away from the advancing attackers. (2) attackers in the box, or advancing from outside the box, love balls delivered from the by-line, not just because such balls are more easily controllable but because defending such balls means turning your back on the advancing attackers (NB, the effectiveness of such balls increases the closer the crosser is to the goal, i.e. a ball pulled back from the by-line at the edge of the penalty area is far more effective than a cross from the corner flag). (3) playing "correct-footed" wingers is perfectly compatible with combination play utilising an overlapping full-back. However, my post was really trying to make a point about the direction in which we are developing as a team (or more precisely, the direction in which Chris Hughton is trying to develop us as a team). By "orthodox" I didn't just mean "correct-footed". What I meant was "orthodox wing play", by which I mean playing up and down the touchline with the (pretty much sole) purpose of getting to the by-line and crossing from out wide. My interpretation (rightly or wrongly) of calls for "correct-footed" wingers is that they are calls for more of that style of wing play, with crosses from wide positions but close to the by-line. There have been quite a few posts, for example, moaning at Snodgrass and Redmond for not attacking and going past the full-back and then putting in a cross (rather than checking back and inside etc. etc.) What I am trying to say is that such calls are retrogressive. They run counter to what every football statistician will tell you, which can be summarised succinctly as "successful teams make most use of central areas of the pitch, unsuccessful ones the wings". (Just in case nobody notices, I am aligning myself firmly with carrabuh here; our disagreements are all to do with whether Chris Hughton aims to make us a successful team -- my belief -- or to keep us an unsuccessful one -- carrabuh's belief.) Having (I hope) clarified what the post that prompted your questions was meant to be about. I'll address your more specific points shortly.
