Odd that when you've proved wrong and ignorant you are amused, but then you're clearly an odd fellow.
Well I said I didn't think Scotland was renowned for technically good players meaning Whittaker probably isn't, as everyone seems to disagree then one would assume they think Scottish players must be at least OK technically, This is despite the ridicule Scottish football gets from English fans (rich, I know), although we will just forget that this time round. I think you (if not somebody else) was saying that because someone was tall they could run quickly against an argument that height is not really a good thing for a right back because I equate height with a lack of speed. This person (maybe you) then brought in Usain Bolt because he is quick, which is not really relevant (as I have pointed out) because he just runs in straight lines and just has to worry about himself. Therefore as this person (maybe you) kept returning to the Usain Bolt argument, I infered they thought his physical traits are ideal to be a right back. "Spain had beaten England the last time they tried this" Don't really get what your saying there. Do you mean England beat Spain in a friendly? If so well done England, it's something the players can look back on in their International trophy cabinet. I dunno perhaps they can use a programme signed by Xavi as a memoir. The thing about hitting areas has already been established sometime ago, hitting an area is easier than hitting a person into feet 100% of the time. Hitting a cross with more time and less of a need for accuracy I don't think can compare. Picking out an individual is like passing, an area is not the same, nothing will shake me from this thought. "whittaker"- I don't think you detected the sarcasm, anyway these are not my points, they are the points others have made. You feel free to be married to the England set up, I don't want to ruin the experience anymore for you. Perhaps this marriage should be on the next episode of Jeremy Kyle. Great. Thanks for your time and I wish I could say understanding.
I have understood every point you have made. Now be honest and don't try and change what you were arguing. You said that you were wary because he was Scottish. Whether Scotland are renowned for producing technical players or not is irrelevant to your original point- you were implying that simply because he came from Scotland, it was of concern! All countries with smaller populations will tend to produce fewer decent players, but that doesn't mean there are none, so your point is ridiculous. Assess each player on his own merits, not his nationality . There are plenty of crap Spanish players you know. I did not bring up Usain Bolt, but you claimed that he could not change direction and his acceleration wasn't good. This is plainly wrong and demonstrates your absolute ignorance of competitive sprinting. You might as well just admit that and move on. With the Spain thing, you were saying it is a much better tactic, because it will wear out the opposition. However, the point was that if it is dealt with properly, such as when England beat them, then Spain can quite easily be contained with the way they play. You are so utterly ignorant of crossing technique, it is obvious that there is no point continuing this point. Yes, you are right, smashing a ball in a general direction is easy. However, hitting the ball low and fast and with the correct trajectory, into a very confined area, is an extremely difficult skill. I can play tiki-taka with my mates down the park and consistently pass short to their feet even with pressure from another player, I can't consistently hit great crosses. Your problem is that you are trying to conveniently make "an area" a large space (and this highlights your ignorance of crossing)- it is not- it is a narrow channel of not more than a metre or so wide, in front of the goal, sufficiently in front of the keeper that he can't come out and collect and sufficiently behind the defenders that they hesitate in deciding how to clear. It also needs to be at a level where other players can attack it. This is incredibly difficult, and the fact that quality "crossers" of the ball are valued highly should be enough to demonstrate my point, but it is clear that you are too bone-headed, so let's leave it there. You have completely misunderstood the marriage point! Well, fairweather fan, I suggest you take your "support" elsewhere.
@Canary Rob: " ...... hitting the ball low and fast and with the correct trajectory, into a very confined area, is an extremely difficult skill ..... [the target area is not] a large space ..... it is a narrow channel of not more than a metre or so wide, in front of the goal, sufficiently in front of the keeper that he can't come out and collect and sufficiently behind the defenders that they hesitate in deciding how to clear. It also needs to be at a level where other players can attack it. This is incredibly difficult, and the fact that quality "crossers" of the ball are valued highly [demonstrates how difficult it is]". Some interesting questions raised here. IMO applying the notion of skill to crosses is problematic. Consider corners struck into the box, a form of static crossing. How often in percentage terms would you expect the corner taker to deliver the ball accurately into the danger area as you define it? So what counts as skill in taking a corner? Getting the ball somewhere near the danger area more often than not? Isn't this close to saying that any successful corner owes vastly more to luck than to skill? And what goes for corners goes equally for crosses from open play or from free kicks (e.g. Carroll's Euro 2012 goal from Gerrard's cross). Who would say that Stephen Hughes' fantastic cross to the near post for Chris Martin's headed winner against Leeds at Carrow Road was the product of great skill? Nobody. For it to have been skill, Hughes would have to be able to reproduce it time and again. Even the Gerrards and Beckhams of this world can't do that.
Sorry mate, I 100% disagree. To be simply able to produce the chance of that sort of cross is an incredible skill in itself. Have you seen how many players over hit and the ball goes flying over the bar? How many corners don't have enough power and are easily collected by the keeper? How many crosses, freekicks and corners don't even clear the first man? How many end up behind the players attacking the ball and end up with the striker getting no power on the header? These are all the aspects that make a fantastic cross so difficult to achieve. Yes, I agree Stephen Hughes would be unlikely to cross that again, but the skill was in the fact that he is capable of doing it. I don't think I'm even capable of doing that- I suppose if I got very lucky I might be able to do the same. The fact is though, that I have hit the odd thirty-yard screamer to the top corner in my life. Doesn't mean it's easy, it just means I get lucky. By contrast, when a prem player does it, I'm inclined to believe it is more down to skill. Gerrard's delivery throughout the tournament was extraordinary (in the last match he wasn't quite so consistent). The fact that he could, time and again, clear the first man on corners and make it dangerous was testament to that. I have absolutely no doubt that he could do that same cross to Carroll again- he might not always, but he'd have a better chance than the vast majority of pro's. This is part of what makes (made) him one of the best midfielders of a generation. Beckham was the same. He could hit long passes and crosses with incredible precision. Any pro footballer you speak to will tell you the same thing- hitting a long ball/cross and finding the man, with enough power to not allow an opponent to intercept, but not so hard that it is impossible to control, but at the right trajectory so the player can do something with it, is a very, very difficult skill. One that most pro's don't have. That's why it is valued when they do. So in answer to how often I would expect a corner taker to do so- well Becks and Gerrard could manage it close to 90%. I'd say Fox is in around the 66% mark. Most pro's will be around the 40-50% mark I imagine. So no, getting it in the danger area is not down more to luck- because the danger area is a very specific place. If the danger area moved around all the time, then I would agree with you, but it rarely does. Certainly not in the time between a player striking the ball and the time it reaching the next player, which is the part where the crosser decides where to hit it. Fox's crossing is incredible- 42% success rate this season if I remember correctly. That is pure skill.
Well, I would say that teams who cannot pass, hit deep crosses with far more regularity. Spain, Italy and the other major footballing Nations can do both, England can't, hence it is an easier skill. A one footed skill (another reason for its prominence in England) which requires no bravery to take on. They hit big deep long crosses because it takes no imagination, takes less technical ability and much, much easier to create an opportunity through chance. It typifies the abundant "get it in the box" mentality of this country.
Ah I see where we're barking up the wrong tree. I'm not denying that hitting the ball from deep is a resort for lower skilled teams. I'm saying that to hit a dangerous cross, consistently, is a very difficult skill. Two entirely different matters. Look at it like this: - Short passing is easy - Short passing to create a goal scoring opportunity is very difficult - Smashing a long ball into the box is easy - Hitting the ball consistently into the danger area is very difficult I.e. both are ostensibly easy, but doing either skill well is very difficult. The difference is that short passing not very well gives zero chance of scoring, whereas hitting long balls speculatively at least gives you a slight chance.
Besides, crossers are only of high value in this country because of the style of play. See, the way I see it, the Spanish are good at crossing as a natural by product of there amazing technical ability, not because they spend endless hours sticking a ball into a box.
I'm yet to see any fantastic Spanish crossers of the Gerrard/Beckham standard. And has been said numerous times before, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's not skillful. That's just your personal opinion.
I am not for a moment questioning the difficulty of delivering the ball accurately over long distances. What I am interested in is whether, given the inherent difficulty, it is really meaningful to attribute "skill" to any player in this respect given the actual success rates. Are your suggested percentages any more than guesswork? Yes, some players are better at it than others but I very much doubt whether even Gerrard or Beckham would have a 90% success rate in delivering corners into the danger area as you define it. And does "better" equate simply to "more skilfull"? I'm genuinely interested in knowing how much control players actually have over a football delivered over various distances to a specific target area.
Well yes, I think there is a clear skill in improving your accuracy over long distances. Golf players rarely hit the ball precisely where they want to, but there is an obvious skill in getting it to land roughly where they want it to, from the right angle etc. In terms of pure technique, there are many similarities between hitting a dead football and hitting a dead golf ball- the body position especially and the follow through as well. These are highly developed techniques that footballers and golfers take a lot of time honing. Yes, my percentages are obviously guesses, but they are educated guesses- you only have to watch the players play to see they are a level above. Beckham in his prime rarely hit a long ball/cross poorly. He was incredibly consistent in that regard. Perhaps not 90, perhaps more, perhaps less, I don't have the stats to hand, but to deny he was consistent would be ludicrous. Similarly, Gerrard this Euros consistently hit corners into danger areas. He completed three assists from long balls/crosses! That is a definite skill, not a fluke. You don't fluke thrice. I'm not sure what you mean about the difference between better and more skillful. Evidently the two go hand in hand, but "better" can also include effectiveness I suppose- work rate off the ball etc.
You can tell they can do it, because they can regularly spray cross field balls directly into feet. Why do they do this, because it is not a %age ball because the player is free and they know they will make it. This is my point, because it is an easier ball to play, that's why English players rely on it. You don't need two feet, you don't need to be intelligent, you don't need excellent control and you don't need to be pin point with accuracy for it to be successful. It is an easy ball to play.
This is a completely different way of playing the ball- very skillful, but entirely different method. Now I realise this is what you think, with all due respect, it becomes immediately obvious that, as you simply haven't a clue, I should given up a long time ago. I see you haven't read my posts at all. The entire point is that you do need pin point accuracy. That is precisely what you need. Far more pin point than tiki taka from 5 yards. More pin point accuracy than just about any other method of playing the ball, due to the speed and trajectory that is required to make it dangerous. I give up. Try actually speaking to a professional footballer and you'll see how wrong you are, but I imagine even then you'll be adamant that you're right. And once again and for the last time. Just because you prefer watching tiki-taka, doesn't mean it is more skillful. It just means you prefer it. Stop conflating your own opinions with something that should be objective assessed.
Listen, tika-taka football is way, way more skillful than these vaunted Steven Gerrard crosses. Your confusing one single 5 yard pass with a cross. Putting the ball in the box covers a very limited range of skills, (I know its limited because I could do it). Short passing encompasses, two feet, good control, technique, balance, intelligence, vision, reading the game, concentration, patience. There is just no comparison between the two. I just do not get why anyone would want to argue the fact, when you have Spain winning everything and England who win nothing and are atrocious to watch.
Listen, no it isn't, they are both very difficult skills, and you are fool if you think you can possibly compare and contrast the two. I am not confusing a five yard single pass- I have said numerous times that my mates can get a ball down the park and play tiki taka with a opponents pressurising and it is easy. It is a very limited skill doing this. The short passing, with two feet and a bit of control is not difficult to learn. The extraordinary skill of those players is taking it not only to another level of control- such that it is very difficult to take the ball off them- but also that they are able to create goal-scoring opportunities out of it. This is the difference that these players make. Likewise, you are conflating a village park toe punt into the box- which is what you can do, and sometimes it will work- with a carefully guided, powerful cross with a precise trajectory and placing. The latter takes an extraordinary skill. So you are right, there is just no comparison between the two- just not in the way you mean it. There is no comparison between the two because they are two completely different skills that are both very hard to perfect. In fact, crossing accurately is so hard to perfect that only a few professionals can truly do it- most just resort to the hit and hope. Fortunately, the latter works on occasion too. "I just do not get why anyone would want to argue the fact, when you have Spain winning everything and England who win nothing and are atrocious to watch." This betrays your ignorance I'm afraid. A team can play ugly football and still be technically very proficient, you do realise? There is no logical connection between ugliness of football and skill level. That is sheer idiocy. You do also realise that just because Spain play tiki taka and win, while England play hoofball and don't win tournaments (yet beat Spain...) =/= that tiki taka is more skillful than hoofball? You do realise that what it actually means is that Spain have better players than England? You do realise that what you have actually said is you prefer watching Spain? You do realise that I have plainly painted exactly why a cross is so difficult and you are still yet to break down that explanation? (i.e. the trajectory, the narrow window, the power, the vision etc...) I suggest you just accept that all that you have proved is you prefer Spanish football. I don't begrudge you that. I think the way they play is impressive (and highly skilled). But personally I can't bear more than about 40 mins of it. We'll see how it goes tonight... The fact is, however, that people who understand football far better than you value players that can cross with extreme precision (Gerrard, Beckham) very highly. The reason you don't value them is your personal tastes, but don't let that get in the way of the fact that they are still highly skilled players.
HAHAHAAH! Would love to hold Carrabuh to this assertion that he could easily whip in a cross like David Fox!
