Ok so this may seem a ridiculous question but in this day and age players are referred to as wingers. When they don’t seem to be. To me a winger is a player harking back to the days when everyone played 4-4-2 and the winger hugged the touch line and beat the fullback delivering in crosses. These players seem obsolete with 4-3-3 and wing backs, no ‘winger ‘ seems to stay wide and stretch play. Discuss.
Traditional wingers are few and far between now. Used to be a winger bombing past the full back on the outside trying to whip crosses in as you say. Now it is far more common to play "wrong" footed players on either wing so they cut inside. This means they are moving the ball on to their stronger foot and running at a full back on his weaker foot. Not sure how much football you have played but tackling with your weak foot is one of the hardest things to do in my view, so can see why this has become more popular. Makes the defender always try to show the winger down the line but can be hard to do with fullbacks overlapping and creating space for the attacker to cut in. Plus you get the added bonus of cutting inside on your strong foot enables you to get a better shot/pass away. Much prefer the current system tbh, find just whipping crosses in for a target man boring as **** to watch. My dad, probably being from a different generation, loves a big powerful headerer of the ball and always moans about not getting crosses in when I watch football with him.
Terry Paine and John Sydenham. Simple answer to a simple question. There is a serious point here. These two did only one thing. They ran like **** to the goal line and delivered crosses at pace. Delivering a cross is a skill. Paine crossed the ball harder than most people could shoot, and all Ron had to do was beat off the buggers trying to kill him and touch it. The pace on the ball did the rest. It seems to be assumed that any player can do it. They can't.
Guly was a winger, always hugging the touchline. More often looking to come inside with the ball though, rather than getting to the byline and crossing from wide out. Redmond (yeah I know, he's the appointed scapegoat and cause of all our problems due to not being Thierry Henry) likes to come inside from wide positions, often overlapping and linking up well with Bertrand at FB.
I thought redmond likes to bomb on from midfield, approach the defender, carefully consider all options, then pass the ball square or back to defence.
It's learned behaviour. If he finds a Saints player with his safe pass there are those who even murmer approval. If he tries to go past the defender and loses the ball there is a howl of derision. I noticed last season that Redmond generally plays better away from home ... now why might that be, I wonder?
He rarely tries to take a player on. Tadic and Lemina seem more up for it. Bags of pace and potential and none of it used. FWIW I think Redmond and Bertrand do not play well together, tadic on the left. If Redmond is going to develop he needs a sympatico with his fullback.
Inaki Williams encompasses both the traditional and modern aspects in that he can get to the byeline and cross, do as Redmond does and finds a team-mate, cut inside to shoot or set up a colleague, and also slip into goalscoring positions himself. In other words he is a poor man's CR7, minus the preening and moaning. But not that poor, as he is a talented and good player but needs to up his consistency levels.
