Heskey

[Macky]

I appreciate we all have different memories, but mine of Heskey was that he was the worst left winger of that era. He was generally completely ineffective for me.

Eh?

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

Much of the time when he played for us in the golden days, and Guppy wasn't in the team, he played down the left to great effect.

I appreciate we all have different memories, but mine of Heskey was that he was the worst left winger of that era. He was generally completely ineffective for me.

Particularly the first few months of our 96-97 season .... Walshy, Spencer and Julian Watts could hoof the ball in Emile's general direction and know that it wouldn't come back near our goal for five minutes. Effectively kept us out of the relegation mire IMO.

 

[Ian Marshall]

Maybe I'm naive or maybe I have have watched too much foreign football, but am I the only one who shudders at this archiac idea of the "target man" and needing a striker who can "hold the ball up" and "flick it on"? When we took Bednar off vs. Donaster and played without a target man and with Vassell up top we tore Doncaster apart by playing through them.

A lot of English fans seem to canonise target men and "old fashioned number nines" into some kind of deity, but to me its so old fashioned, none of the top teams play with target men and this old "yes, but it works in a scrappy league like the Championship" retort just seems like people stuck in their ways. Most of the teams who have gone up in the past 2 or 3 seasons have been short-passing teams rather than teams who rely on playing it high to the target men and I think that possession football dominates in the modern game that in a division where teams are so stuck in tactical ways the rest of the world left behind 30 years ago possession football will dominate a league like this (see Blackpool or Burnley who went up with teams who really shouldn't have gone up on paper, doing this).

Yes, Heskey may well be an improvement on Howard, but is that, in 2010, really the type of player that is needed in the modern game? It's not like we aren't creating chances, because we most certainly are, infact we've had the most shots this season in the entire division(!) . Yet people still hang on to this idea that we need someone for "flick ons," rather than getting someone in who can score goals. Creating chances is not the problem, finishing them is. Heskey would be no improvement on our current set up imo in regards to what we need. To me if he ever came I get the feeling of it being a negative signing and promoting an outdated style of play.

This is a top post, but I do think we need a couple of options of how to play. Against Doncaster in the second half, we did play really well, and to an extent they facilitated that by standing off our midfielders and playing the worst offside trap I've ever seen.

I think we need to trust in Sven, see Heskey as someone with a bit more potency and usefulness than Bednar and bring him in. He's a bit more than just a bog standard target man. Bednar and Howard are steady and can hold a ball up, but Heskey has always had an ability to draw defenders to him, creating space for others, easily his best attribute.

I'd take him like a shot - remember Sven will not ditch his vision of how the game is played just for Heskey, but he's a stronger option when we do need to look long or the tappy tappy high tempo stuff just isn't working.

Just my two-penneth - and it is based on only seeing us a handful of times this season and not seeing Heskey in meaningful (non-international) action for some time.

 

[Lboro fox]

Particularly the first few months of our 96-97 season .... Walshy, Spencer and Julian Watts could hoof the ball in Emile's general direction and know that it wouldn't come back near our goal for five minutes. Effectively kept us out of the relegation mire IMO.

As a striker he was fantastic for us, as a left-winger i always wondered if he had showed up. It didn't help that at the time we were playing wing-backs which meant he was also supposed to defend a bit.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Maybe I'm naive or maybe I have have watched too much foreign football, but am I the only one who shudders at this archiac idea of the "target man" and needing a striker who can "hold the ball up" and "flick it on"? When we took Bednar off vs. Donaster and played without a target man and with Vassell up top we tore Doncaster apart by playing through them.

A lot of English fans seem to canonise target men and "old fashioned number nines" into some kind of deity, but to me its so old fashioned, none of the top teams play with target men and this old "yes, but it works in a scrappy league like the Championship" retort just seems like people stuck in their ways. Most of the teams who have gone up in the past 2 or 3 seasons have been short-passing teams rather than teams who rely on playing it high to the target men and I think that possession football dominates in the modern game that in a division where teams are so stuck in tactical ways the rest of the world left behind 30 years ago possession football will dominate a league like this (see Blackpool or Burnley who went up with teams who really shouldn't have gone up on paper, doing this).

Yes, Heskey may well be an improvement on Howard, but is that, in 2010, really the type of player that is needed in the modern game? It's not like we aren't creating chances, because we most certainly are, infact we've had the most shots this season in the entire division(!) . Yet people still hang on to this idea that we need someone for "flick ons," rather than getting someone in who can score goals. Creating chances is not the problem, finishing them is. Heskey would be no improvement on our current set up imo in regards to what we need. To me if he ever came I get the feeling of it being a negative signing and promoting an outdated style of play.

I agree that the target man is not a necessity, but I take issue with the idea that physical attributes are not important. Obviously being good at football is more important than fitness (see Akinbiyi, Ade) but physical superiority is important too (see Sousa, form under). There is still a place for this type of player.

It's not restricted to English football. The likes of AC Milan, Wolfsburg, Anderlecht for example all have an outlet whose tall and built like a shit brickhouse and enjoyed/ing recent success with it.

Also true.

 

[Micky]

As I remember it, Heskey was most effective as an outlet for us. I thought he played the channels very well, allowing us to gain territory and enabling our more talented ball players to get on the ball in the final third. The words battering ram may be most appropriate, though I'm probably doing Emile a diservice.

 

[okie fox]

Maybe I'm naive or maybe I have have watched too much foreign football, but am I the only one who shudders at this archiac idea of the "target man" and needing a striker who can "hold the ball up" and "flick it on"? When we took Bednar off vs. Donaster and played without a target man and with Vassell up top we tore Doncaster apart by playing through them.

A lot of English fans seem to canonise target men and "old fashioned number nines" into some kind of deity, but to me its so old fashioned, none of the top teams play with target men and this old "yes, but it works in a scrappy league like the Championship" retort just seems like people stuck in their ways. Most of the teams who have gone up in the past 2 or 3 seasons have been short-passing teams rather than teams who rely on playing it high to the target men and I think that possession football dominates in the modern game that in a division where teams are so stuck in tactical ways the rest of the world left behind 30 years ago possession football will dominate a league like this (see Blackpool or Burnley who went up with teams who really shouldn't have gone up on paper, doing this).

Yes, Heskey may well be an improvement on Howard, but is that, in 2010, really the type of player that is needed in the modern game? It's not like we aren't creating chances, because we most certainly are, infact we've had the most shots this season in the entire division(!) . Yet people still hang on to this idea that we need someone for "flick ons," rather than getting someone in who can score goals. Creating chances is not the problem, finishing them is. Heskey would be no improvement on our current set up imo in regards to what we need. To me if he ever came I get the feeling of it being a negative signing and promoting an outdated style of play.

Bednar is a bad example of a target man in my opinion. Yes, Vassall may have torn Doncaster apart when they were chasing the game, but how effective was he against Ipswich? It's a different game when the other team is level or ahead.

There is nothing wrong about having a big man up front. Chelsea has Drogba, Newcastle has Andy Carroll, England has won a lot of games with Heskey or Crouch. Arsenal are often more effective when they have Bendtner rather than when they try to pass the ball into the net. Arsenal with their small side play the most attractive football, but they fail to win the league because they can't win the physical battles away from home. Man U would be lot better if they had a target man instead of Rooney spearheading their 4-5-1. Rooney gives away possession most of the time.

It would be great if we were a skilful passing team that didn't need a target man. However, most of the time, especially away from home, we give the ball away far too easily. We don't have enough skill or strength in the side to retain possession when pressured. The problem with playing someone small or slow as the lone striker is that he is completely dominated by the centre backs. Clearances simply come straight back. Heskey would hold the ball up and lay it off so we could establish passing movements. He would also be good at defending corners.

We may have had the most shots in the division, but most of them have been from way out and poor attempts. Gallagher and others shoot from far out when they don't see any other option.

An old fashioned #9 like Carroll, or Heskey on occasion, have given the elite teams like Chelsea or Arsenal all kinds of problems. Teams like Blackburn & Stoke, without the money to buy a critical mass of world-class players, survive by being big and strong. The football may not be pretty, but it is effective enough to keep them up. If you can't out-pass the other team, out-battle them. Leicester at the moment lack enough skilled players to pass their way around most teams, and are not strong enough to out-battle their opponents. Perhaps the first priority should be getting a few bigger, stronger players in the backbone of the side (the middle players).

 

[Micky]

Bednar is a bad example of a target man in my opinion. Yes, Vassall may have torn Doncaster apart when they were chasing the game, but how effective was he against Ipswich? It's a different game when the other team is level or ahead.

There is nothing wrong about having a big man up front. Chelsea has Drogba, Newcastle has Andy Carroll, England has won a lot of games with Heskey or Crouch. Arsenal are often more effective when they have Bendtner rather than when they try to pass the ball into the net. Arsenal with their small side play the most attractive football, but they fail to win the league because they can't win the physical battles away from home. Man U would be lot better if they had a target man instead of Rooney spearheading their 4-5-1. Rooney gives away possession most of the time.

It would be great if we were a skilful passing team that didn't need a target man. However, most of the time, especially away from home, we give the ball away far too easily. We don't have enough skill or strength in the side to retain possession when pressured. The problem with playing someone small or slow as the lone striker is that he is completely dominated by the centre backs. Clearances simply come straight back. Heskey would hold the ball up and lay it off so we could establish passing movements. He would also be good at defending corners.

We may have had the most shots in the division, but most of them have been from way out and poor attempts. Gallagher and others shoot from far out when they don't see any other option.

An old fashioned #9 like Carroll, or Heskey on occasion, have given the elite teams like Chelsea or Arsenal all kinds of problems. Teams like Blackburn & Stoke, without the money to buy a critical mass of world-class players, survive by being big and strong. The football may not be pretty, but it is effective enough to keep them up. If you can't out-pass the other team, out-battle them. Leicester at the moment lack enough skilled players to pass their way around most teams, and are not strong enough to out-battle their opponents. Perhaps the first priority should be getting a few bigger, stronger players in the backbone of the side (the middle players).

Some good points but I'd argue with your point on Rooney!

 

[okie fox]

Some good points but I'd argue with your point on Rooney!

I am not the only one who thinks that he gives the ball away too much --

http://www.redcafe.net/f6/so-how-good-wayne-rooney-311692/index4.html

 

[Redditch Fox]

As a striker he was fantastic for us, as a left-winger i always wondered if he had showed up. It didn't help that at the time we were playing wing-backs which meant he was also supposed to defend a bit.

As I recall, he was but a kid when MON played him on the wing (both left and right) and whilst he wasn't a natural winger, to me he always looked a bit special in terms of pace and power.

Later he established himself as a sort of international class central striker.

I'm not a great Heskey fan but if - and its a big if - he stayed fit he would be better than anything we have.

However, given the Villa's poor position, i don't think that they would want to let him go at this stage....in a year or two as his career goes into a sharper decline, it would probably be a good move for them and Heskey.

 

[Macky]

I am not the only one who thinks that he gives the ball away too much --

http://www.redcafe.net/f6/so-how-good-wayne-rooney-311692/index4.html

Do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy?

 

[pork pie fox]

Too many long posts in here for me to read all of them fully, can someone sum up all thoughts in cate's 2 line limit please

 

[Macky]

Too many long posts in here for me to read all of them fully, can someone sum up all thoughts in cate's 2 line limit please

Yeah, no bodderz:

"What a load of old bollocks, Bruno isn't coming back and even if he was, nobody ****ing wants him because we don't want a target man up front, that style of play went out with wooden rattles and wooly hatted supporters in the black 'n' white days. Or summat."

 

[Macky]

Shit, sorry, two line fail

 

[pork pie fox]

Shit, sorry, two line fail

No problem macky, I've been having a pint or two this afternoon and your post was a lot shorter than most in here. I'm sure they were all very good, just too long for me to be bothered to read that's all.

 

[okie fox]

Do you understand the concept of a logical fallacy?

Of course! But I don't have a two-line proof that Rooney gives the ball away too much.

 

[Jeff]

Heskey has been playing well since Houlier took over at Villa so I doubt they'd let him go anyway.

 

[FantasyFox]

If we offered them £50 Million British pounds? What then?

Never say never.

 

[Kingy_85]

Have I gone back a few weeks and logged on ?

 

[FantasyFox]

Quite possibly. What are the news headlines? If snow is imminent then, yes.