The Sheep

[craig 5,199]

Have Hibs not got PL signed up for January?

 

That's Jonaton Johansson ya tube :devil:

[Jon 0]

That's Jonaton Johansson ya tube :devil:

 

 

Oh aye, thats right

[calscot 0]

If i had Gazza's skill and Lovenkrands pace i would be a world star.

If If If!!!!

 

Don't get your point here, unless your just stating the obvious.

 

The fact is speed normally detracts from skill and insight. anyone running at 22mph can't possibly be as skilful as somebody moving at walking pace. A pace explosion over a few yards is the best thing to have. alla Cruiff

 

You can be skillful AND pacey, of course it's harder to have as much control over the ball at full pelt but then usually you don't need it. I would say you need 30 yards of pace, which means if you beat a defender you can steam clear of him and outpace the defenders who are not marking you.

 

Therefore every time you get the ball, you can use your skill then pace with some skill to break through to a one on one with the keeper, and as long as you know how to finish, you will score a lot of goals.

 

If you are skillful and don't have pace you can end up having to beat the same player 3 or 4 times while giving time to the other defenders to help and crowd you out.

 

However I think intelligent, skillful players who don't have pace have more longevity at their highest level as they never RELY on pace. People like Wier last longer as pace is not part of their game, so when they lose some with age, it doesn't affect them so much.

 

Players with loads of pace can get lazy with other parts of their game and use their pace all the time to beat players. Once they slow down a bit with age, they haven't developed other ways of playing that compensate.

 

I think Lovenkrands is one of the latter players. I think that's also why he was rubbish on the wing. He had pace but not the skill to beat a player and he couldn't cross to save himself. He was better in the middle where he could play kick and rush and run onto long balls on the break - the latter made him better in Europe where we used counter attacks more often.

[pete 2,499]

Don't get your point here, unless your just stating the obvious.

 

 

You can be skillful AND pacey, of course it's harder to have as much control over the ball at full pelt but then usually you don't need it. I would say you need 30 yards of pace, which means if you beat a defender you can steam clear of him and outpace the defenders who are not marking you.

 

Therefore every time you get the ball, you can use your skill then pace with some skill to break through to a one on one with the keeper, and as long as you know how to finish, you will score a lot of goals.

 

If you are skillful and don't have pace you can end up having to beat the same player 3 or 4 times while giving time to the other defenders to help and crowd you out.

 

However I think intelligent, skillful players who don't have pace have more longevity at their highest level as they never RELY on pace. People like Wier last longer as pace is not part of their game, so when they lose some with age, it doesn't affect them so much.

 

Players with loads of pace can get lazy with other parts of their game and use their pace all the time to beat players. Once they slow down a bit with age, they haven't developed other ways of playing that compensate.

 

I think Lovenkrands is one of the latter players. I think that's also why he was rubbish on the wing. He had pace but not the skill to beat a player and he couldn't cross to save himself. He was better in the middle where he could play kick and rush and run onto long balls on the break - the latter made him better in Europe where we used counter attacks more often.

 

Yes just stating the obvious if every player or person has all the attributes then they will be a world star. If i could sing i would possibly be a singer. Very few players have all the attributes and i will stick to my point that someone travelling at a sprinters speed loses insight, composure and often control of the ball. The really skilful players don't run 30 yards but have a 5- 10 yard speed explosion to pass players. Maradonna, Cruiff, Pele couldn't outrun defenders over 30 yards but that short explosion of speed saw them leave players in their wake.

[calscot 0]

Ok, you've obviously missed every point I was trying to make but hey, you must be right...

[pete 2,499]

Ok, you've obviously missed every point I was trying to make but hey, you must be right...

 

Sarcasm saying i am right. but meaning you are right disappoints me cal. Maybe you just didn't post what you actually mean. The fact that i possibly missed every point you made may be, if i dare to say it, your fault and not mine.

Hey Cal in your mind you are always right no matter what anyone says.

[calscot 0]

Hey, I was just trying to define what attributes make a great player, but you turned it into "hypothetical stuff means my aunt has big cohones".

 

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying you didn't give my point a chance.

[pete 2,499]

Hey, I was just trying to define what attributes make a great player, but y

ou turned it into "hypothetical stuff

means my aunt has big cohones".

 

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm saying you didn't give my point a chance.

 

Cal that is your strong point and not mine. If you want to prove me wrong then debate. Don't fly into an attacking mode.

[calscot 0]

OK, 5 yard 30, to me it's splitting hairs - 5 yards gives you a head start but 30 keeps it. If you can run 5 yards quickly then I'm sure you're pretty quick at 30, by a 100 then you may have petered out. I think great players tend to have pace and/or skill and it seems to me that the best have both and some great players could have elevated themselves with a bit of what they didn't have.

 

The point was that I thought Durrant was a skillful player but seemed destined to be world class with his pace which he lost after injury. He was still a very good player, but most of us don't think he was the same.

 

My second point was that Gazza was a better player than Ian even though he didn't have blistering pace, the counterpoint being that he actually had more skill to start with.

 

My hypothetical postulate then became that if Gazza also had the lightning pace he lacked, he may have been best in the world. But he didn't so he wasn't.

 

It's not all theory, I've seen the best player at my work who I would consider being the most skillful, become pretty odinary when he recovered from injury and was unfit and lost his pace. He just couldn't beat players like he used to and now can again.

 

When fit, he moves with the ball velcroed to his feet at great speed and is very hard to stop. When unfit he does the same thing but slowly enough to get a foot in.

 

I think my theory works ok, and the hypothetical nature is valid but any, "if, if, if" argument is missing the real point that I'm making.

 

I think a combination of speed and skill is the tops but a player with skill and less speed has more longevity than a player with speed and less skill as you lose speed before you lose skill - while both can be great in their prime.

 

You've dissed my argument at least twice with the "if" counter, so while a bit drunk, I think my sarcastic reply is reasonably understandable if a bit rude.

 

Why not use a more relevant and better argument if you want a real debate? You should know me enough by now that I'm well up for it.

Edited November 29, 2008 by calscot

[pete 2,499]

OK, 5 yard 30, to me it's splitting hairs - 5 yards gives you a head start but 30 keeps it. If you can run 5 yards quickly then I'm sure you're pretty quick at 30, by a 100 then you may have petered out. I think great players tend to have pace and/or skill and it seems to me that the best have both and some great players could have elevated themselves with a bit of what they didn't have.

 

The point was that I thought Durrant was a skillful player but seemed destined to be world class with his pace which he lost after injury. He was still a very good player, but most of us don't think he was the same.

 

My second point was that Gazza was a better player than Ian even though he didn't have blistering pace, the counterpoint being that he actually had more skill to start with.

 

My hypothetical postulate then became that if Gazza also had the lightning pace he lacked, he may have been best in the world. But he didn't so he wasn't.

 

It's not all theory, I've seen the best player at my work who I would consider being the most skillful, become pretty odinary when he recovered from injury and was unfit and lost his pace. He just couldn't beat players like he used to and now can again.

 

When fit, he moves with the ball velcroed to his feet at great speed and is very hard to stop. When unfit he does the same thing but slowly enough to get a foot in.

 

I think my theory works ok, and the hypothetical nature is valid but any, "if, if, if" argument is missing the real point that I'm making.

 

I think a combination of speed and skill is the tops but a player with skill and less speed has more longevity than a player with speed and less skill as you lose speed before you lose skill - while both can be great in their prime.

 

You've dissed my argument at least twice with the "if" counter, so while a bit drunk, I think my sarcastic reply is reasonably understandable if a bit rude.

 

Why not use a more relevant and better argument if you want a real debate? You should know me enough by now that I'm well up for it.

 

Again you turn things round that i am wrong. If you would have put this argument up in the first place i would have agreed with you. My point is that Gazza, Maradonna(sp) Cruijf could beat nobody over thirty yards. Well maybe me you and Craig. But they could give a body swerve and accelerate over ten yards to leave opponents flat on there heels. They had a vision that no person travelling at speed could possibly have. Very few mid -mids are the fastest in the team.