Liverpool FC Forum

by **65-1149024436** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:46 pm

Ian Rush never had pace, neither did Graeme Sharp and both were prolific. Same with Fowler and Van Nistlerooy.

Its good to have someone who has pace upfront when there's a target man playing, like Crouch. The pacey striker can look at getting in on one of the flick on's and planting it in the back of the net. Something that Cisse isn't intelligent enough to do.

Also Crouch would be a great striker if he was more dominating in the air...People on here might not like it, but he could do with a few lessons from Duncan Ferguson...he'd show him how to handle himself.

by **stmichael** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:46 pm

pace is definitely a bonus but it's not essential. you need some pace in your side (preferably in wide areas) but pace means nothing if you haven't got the footballing ability to back it up. hell shearer never really had any pace but he didn't do too bad did he? fowler never needed pace because his footballing intelligence and movement was top class.

by **Effes** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:49 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:Ian Rush never had pace, neither did Graeme Sharp and both were prolific. Same with Fowler and Van Nistlerooy.

Its good to have someone who has pace upfront when there's a target man playing, like Crouch. The pacey striker can look at getting in on one of the flick on's and planting it in the back of the net. Something that Cisse isn't intelligent enough to do.

Also Crouch would be a great striker if he was more dominating in the air...People on here might not like it, but he could do with a few lessons from Duncan Ferguson...he'd show him how to handle himself.

Are you a closet red?

by **65-1149024436** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:50 pm

Effes wrote:
Andrew Johnson wrote:Ian Rush never had pace, neither did Graeme Sharp and both were prolific. Same with Fowler and Van Nistlerooy.

Its good to have someone who has pace upfront when there's a target man playing, like Crouch. The pacey striker can look at getting in on one of the flick on's and planting it in the back of the net. Something that Cisse isn't intelligent enough to do.

Also Crouch would be a great striker if he was more dominating in the air...People on here might not like it, but he could do with a few lessons from Duncan Ferguson...he'd show him how to handle himself.

Are you a closet red?

No why?

I just try and see things in perspective and not have blue tinted glasses on.

Also I love football, and love a good debate about it!

by **Cool Hand Luke** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:51 pm

I don’t believe in the argument of talking about 50, 30, 20 or even 10 years ago. The game of football evolves an awful lot and is a lot different now then it was 10 years ago, so I wont be using past players a justification for not needing pace. People have become obsessed with pace and it’s a bit sad really, you must have pace in your team but those players must also have intelligence and FOOTBALLING ability.

But whether we like it or not, power and pace has become more and more important in recent times.

But in terms of your strikers, I believe that for them to be truly dynamic they must have the threat of beating a man with their pace, even players like RVN have it, you don’t have to be lighting quick, but there must be something there if you want to play at the top end of the Premiership.

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:51 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:Ian Rush never had pace, neither did Graeme Sharp and both were prolific. Same with Fowler and Van Nistlerooy.

Its good to have someone who has pace upfront when there's a target man playing, like Crouch. The pacey striker can look at getting in on one of the flick on's and planting it in the back of the net. Something that Cisse isn't intelligent enough to do.

Also Crouch would be a great striker if he was more dominating in the air...People on here might not like it, but he could do with a few lessons from Duncan Ferguson...he'd show him how to handle himself.

You can just see it now ,after crouch has had a word with drunken duncan. 1st min against Paraguay and Crouch is sent off for Decking there centre half .

by **65-1149024436** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:54 pm

I didn't mean it that way Igor

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:59 pm

(Andrew Johnson @ June 01 2006,19:46)
Ian Rush never had pace, neither did Graeme Sharp and both were prolific. Same with Fowler and Van Nistlerooy.
]

Ian Rush was fast till he went to Juventus and had a knee injury. I admit when he came back he had lost a bit of pace but he wasn't slow (like Sharp) by any means.

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:59 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:I didn't mean it that way Igor

I know ace. Crouch has improved abit in the air as the season went on ,but he does need to make the most of his height , he also needs to improve his stregnth. Thats where he could learn a lesson from the likes off shearer and sharp and who ever else.

by **65-1149024436** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:01 pm

Yes Sharp was slow.....but he done the business.

Crouch has improved and he is showing that now with England. He took his goal well the other night, but as you said he does need to be better in the air

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:08 pm

bigmick wrote:In the case of Bent he operated for the majority of the season on his own up top for Charlton, who played most of their football on the counter-attack. He looks to be ideal for this role, running the channels with pace and power aswell as being an instinctive snap-shooter from outside the area and a physically powerful attacker of a ball in the air.
His close control and link up play though is of a limited standard in my opinion so he would be less suited to playing in a team which commands the majority of posession of the football during the game.

Besides the feeling that he's a bit "flavour of the month" (1 good season does not a great striker make), that's a source of concern for me as well Mick. Our style of play is very much moving in the direction of dominating possession and patient build-up. We need to buy a finisher who can make intelligent runs inside the box, with defenders all around, and who can squeeze off quick, well-placed shots in traffic while being fairly well marked. Basically, we need someone like a young Fowler to emulate and complement the living legend himself. Bent has talent, to be sure, but would he suit our system? I have my doubts.

I would actually pose the question that if Cisse played for Charlton, with his absolutely searing pace and shoot on sight mentality would people think he would get close to Bent's goal tally this season? My own opinion is that he certainly would if played in a counter-attacking team up top on his own, but that doesn't mean that he is suitable for a Liverpool team which dominates most games and needs to open teams up.

Good point. I commented after the West Brom game that we had just seen Cisse at his best: using his pace to run at lead-footed defenders, latching onto searching balls over the top and getting in on goal with just the keeper to beat. Now, we know how often he blasts the ball right at the keeper but, given enough time and space, he'll put some of those chances away (like he did against Portsmouth). Basically, several times this season we've played a long ball over the top of a back four playing a reasonably high line which has allowed Cisse to run onto the ball, burn off a defender with his pace and get in on goal. For a hoof-and-hope, counter-attacking side like Charlton, he would come good because he'll get in scoring positions and finish at least some of his chances. No one here wants to see Liverpool go back to those tactics, however, so Cisse simply doesn't fit our system and I doubt Bent would either.

by **davo_LFC** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:37 pm

Thats a good point about cisse bad bob, i think thats why GH spent the kind of cash he did to bring cisse into the club, with the way we used to play under houllier then cisse would have been ideal, despite his lack of footballing ability, his athletism would have ensured he would have got his fair share of goals in that liverpool team even though he is by no means a finisher. Cisse needs to be the focal point of attack so that every attack go's through him with a ball over the top or in behind on the counter attack. He simply doesnt suit our style of play and more importantly he is no where near good enough for a club of our standard. If GH can folk out 7mil odd for him i would be fairly pleased TBH.

by **yckatbjywtbiastkamb** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:00 pm

Andrew Johnson wrote:Ian Rush never had pace, neither did Graeme Sharp and both were prolific. Same with Fowler and Van Nistlerooy.

Its good to have someone who has pace upfront when there's a target man playing, like Crouch. The pacey striker can look at getting in on one of the flick on's and planting it in the back of the net. Something that Cisse isn't intelligent enough to do.

Also Crouch would be a great striker if he was more dominating in the air...People on here might not like it, but he could do with a few lessons from Duncan Ferguson...he'd show him how to handle himself.

ian rush was lightening quick

by **Bad Bob** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:05 pm

welsh wizzard wrote:Marseilles want cisse and are willing to pay 8m according to sky and the bbc.

Excellent news.

But, here's the question: do we sell Cisse now, since we apparently have a buyer on the hook (Marseille) or do we hold out until after the WC and hope Cisse has a blinder?

I know a lot of people will want rid of him straight away, even if 8 million is taking a hit. But, I think we should hold our nerve until after the World Cup. A decent run of form for France might see Cisse get a few more sniffs. Hell, it might even get Lyon to put their money where their mouth is and beat Marseilles' anticipated offer.

Now, time will be tight post-WC to bring in new players and Rafa could use the money in hand now, I'm sure. But, I think if we bide our time a little we might push the transfer fee up to or beyond 10 million, which would be a sound return on a player that's never going to have a future with us after taking the hump with Rafa.

by **Igor Zidane** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:14 pm

I know what your saying Bob, but imo were better off taking what we can now.

The reason for this is the odds of Cisse having a blinding world cup are not good. He's 4th in line behind Henry , Trezeguet and Saha on the striking front . They all have to play :censored:

for Cisse to get a chance ,so that leaves him as a sub or so called impact player.

France would have to have a seriously good world cup , for Cisse to have any impact and i personaly don't think they have the team to do it any more.

Therefore i would not take any chances and take what we can now and if by some blind fortune Cisse did well ,we'd have to take it on the chin.

Liverpool FC Forum

Will cisse go to? - Cisse

Who is online