I have to admit to something that will be unpopular. I think the stigma against the Long Ball game is a barrier to finding a system that could bring many smaller clubs great success. I think it should be revisited. Dyche is on that sort of track at Burnley. It is folly surely to allow teams like Leeds that are better resourced to just outplay you with better technical players.
Yeah, I'm not against the long-ball game from an ideological point of view. It worked effectively for Wimbledon, and for Cambridge under John Beck. But of course it relies on the right men on the end of those long balls. Johnny Pearson nodding down for Paul Williams in our days at Sellout-Park was good to watch. But long hoofs in the vague direction of Bonne and especially Davison are never going to get you anywhere!
I agree. You need height and pace. It was a general point. The tactics on Wednesday should have been to kick the sh*te out of them and test if they were up for it.
''Johnny Pearson nodding down for Paul Williams in our days at Sellout-Park was good to watch''. Don't think they ever played together! Did you mean Carl Leaburn, easy mistake to make!
''Johnny Pearson nodding down for Paul Williams in our days at Sellout-Park was good to watch''. Don't think they ever played together! Did you mean Carl Leaburn, easy mistake to make!
Yep. It was Pearson & Melrose........then Leaburn & Williams.
I agree with Muttley. I often add it up when I watch football on TV. The lesser teams lose the ball more often in more dangerous positions from passing the ball out from the back than they would banging it upfield for a 50/50 ball. It drives me nuts. Teams play into the better teams hands by trying to be like them. I'd love to see the old Wimbledon up against Arsenal or Man City.
I'd love to play a long ball game with a player like Sarr. Somebody who can genuinely bypass the midfield with a rare quality. I'd like Doughty in it too. The spine of the team has to have the right players as a priority. But you do need good players in the midfield, it is just they need to be players who win the battles and can play decent quick ball. It doesn't have to be a game played in the way Cambridge played it under Beck IMO.
When people talk of long ball games or "direct style" it's not just looking for flick on's like Aneke to Bonne v Wigan. It's about challenging properly for each header, having enough players in and around to pick up the bits, either to keep an attack going or to have a crack. Or you are looking to release players into the channels, to turn the opposition and get the play moved up. But again, the whole team has to compress the opposition and box them in. Either way, you've got to get up in support.
Teams don't seem to like to clear their lines now and consequently their own forwards seem to be caught napping when they do and seem slow to fight for the clearances....hence those clearances always seem to come straight back.
Good examples of pacey, entertaining teams who played that way were Watford and Sheffield Wednesday in the 80's. Wimbledon were very good at it but also had a very hard edge, as did Cambridge (who were probably the most extreme example).
Even Leeds when they won the last ever 1st Division in 91/92, played a pretty direct style. Big and small forwards Chapman and Wallace, good attack minded wide midfielders, Strachan and Hodge, dynamic midfielders, Speed and McAllister and strong pacey attacking full-backs, Dorigo and Sterland. There was very little emphasis on their centre-backs, Whyte and Fairclough, to do anything apart from defend.
A team like the Leeds team would be great to watch, with their perfect mixture of skill and muscle, whereas the Wimbledon and Cambridge versions were much harsher on the eye.
Yes, I agree you still need players of the right qualities in the right areas. Some have to be quite talented, but also hard, very fit and direct. I think there has to be a priority of getting the spine right. But ultimately, I think you could win things for less bucks still with this approach.
Comments
Don't think they ever played together! Did you mean Carl Leaburn, easy mistake to make!
Edit: oh sorry, he edited it. Anyway, you shouldn't all be talking about me behind my back.
I'd love to see the old Wimbledon up against Arsenal or Man City.
Teams don't seem to like to clear their lines now and consequently their own forwards seem to be caught napping when they do and seem slow to fight for the clearances....hence those clearances always seem to come straight back.
Good examples of pacey, entertaining teams who played that way were Watford and Sheffield Wednesday in the 80's. Wimbledon were very good at it but also had a very hard edge, as did Cambridge (who were probably the most extreme example).
Even Leeds when they won the last ever 1st Division in 91/92, played a pretty direct style. Big and small forwards Chapman and Wallace, good attack minded wide midfielders, Strachan and Hodge, dynamic midfielders, Speed and McAllister and strong pacey attacking full-backs, Dorigo and Sterland. There was very little emphasis on their centre-backs, Whyte and Fairclough, to do anything apart from defend.
A team like the Leeds team would be great to watch, with their perfect mixture of skill and muscle, whereas the Wimbledon and Cambridge versions were much harsher on the eye.