Jump to content

Attacking coach?


Pilchards
 Share

Recommended Posts

Let's take away the Sunderland result, this leaves us as the 13th best goal scorers in the premiership.

Koeman is a genius when it comes down to being a defensive coach, what harm in employing an attacking one?

It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal. I can't see what harm it would be to employ the likes of Le Tiss or Shearer to take at least a couple of sessions a week?

 

When was the last time we scored a free kick or even a pile driver from 25 yards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take away the Sunderland result, this leaves us as the 13th best goal scorers in the premiership.

Koeman is a genius when it comes down to being a defensive coach, what harm in employing an attacking one?

It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal. I can't see what harm it would be to employ the likes of Le Tiss or Shearer to take at least a couple of sessions a week?

 

When was the last time we scored a free kick or even a pile driver from 25 yards?

 

Just because MLT used to score some great goals doesn't mean he's a capable attacking 'coach' to the same level as Koeman and co.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take away the Sunderland result, this leaves us as the 13th best goal scorers in the premiership.

Koeman is a genius when it comes down to being a defensive coach, what harm in employing an attacking one?

It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal. I can't see what harm it would be to employ the likes of Le Tiss or Shearer to take at least a couple of sessions a week?

 

When was the last time we scored a free kick or even a pile driver from 25 yards?

 

Isn't Beattie floating round the club in some capacity at the moment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because MLT used to score some great goals doesn't mean he's a capable attacking 'coach' to the same level as Koeman and co.

 

But he knew how to strike a ball?

In the last three games Mane and Pelle have put their foot through the ball and it's ended in rowZ every time.

You telling me nobody can coach them to body position or at least keep it down?

even Lovren keeps it lower than our strike force :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't look at the attack in isolation. We have the best defence in the league which means a) that will come at some sacrifice to our attacking, and b) you don't need to score as many goals to win games. It doesn't mean we need an attacking coach, but it does place more pressure on our strikers to convert chances. If you don't, runs like our last month happen.

 

It is also why it is a little risky to only have a few strikers in your squad as you can't carry a striker out of form if he isn't taking chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say about any team "if they hadn't done this, they'd be here". The fact is we DID score 8 goals against Sunderland, I don't see the point in hypothetically discounting it. It's not like all our other wins have been 1-0 (okay a fair few of them have). We've had a 4-0, a few 3-1's, a 2-0 etc. Why discount the 8-0 just because it drags down the point you're trying to make. It happened and as dire as Sunderland were that day, you don't score 8 goals in the PL without your attack being pretty good on the day. I don't think our attack problems are anywhere near as bad as people are making out, it's just a poor run of form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he knew how to strike a ball?

In the last three games Mane and Pelle have put their foot through the ball and it's ended in rowZ every time.

You telling me nobody can coach them to body position or at least keep it down?

even Lovren keeps it lower than our strike force :)

Ronald scored 193 first class goals in his career, about 30 more than Matt. Generally regarded as one of the best strikers of a ball ever, even MLT has acknowledged that. Really think you would be hard pushed to find an attacking coach who could provide better guidance than Ron himself. Even then Erwin was a fine attacking midfielder who scored a lot of goals, even Sammy lee weighed in with a few in his time (not sure about Jan Kleitenburg whose footballing career was cut short by injury, don't know where he used to play). Really don't think an attacking coach is a real need, considering Ronald as a defensive coach is really a bit of an insult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't Beattie floating round the club in some capacity at the moment?

 

Yes he is but he told me a couple of months ago that it was very much to learn rather than taking any active role. Having said that, I have no idea what coaching resources the club has in place already or whether he would necessarily add to what we have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ronald scored 193 first class goals in his career, about 30 more than Matt. Generally regarded as one of the best strikers of a ball ever, even MLT has acknowledged that. Really think you would be hard pushed to find an attacking coach who could provide better guidance than Ron himself. Even then Erwin was a fine attacking midfielder who scored a lot of goals, even Sammy lee weighed in with a few in his time (not sure about Jan Kleitenburg whose footballing career was cut short by injury, don't know where he used to play). Really don't think an attacking coach is a real need, considering Ronald as a defensive coach is really a bit of an insult.

 

That's bull, just because he was a CB who scored a lot of goals does not mean he is a good attacking coach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's bull, just because he was a CB who scored a lot of goals does not mean he is a good attacking coach.

If you could read the OP he was asking for someone "It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal." Sorry but if Ron doesn't know how to coach someone to strike a ball and have an eye for goal then really there aren't many other candidates that could. So its not bull. the only thing that is bull around here is your posts, as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could read the OP he was asking for someone "It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal." Sorry but if Ron doesn't know how to coach someone to strike a ball and have an eye for goal then really there aren't many other candidates that could. So its not bull. the only thing that is bull around here is your posts, as always.

 

I'm only responding to what you posted:

 

"Even then Erwin was a fine attacking midfielder who scored a lot of goals, even Sammy lee weighed in with a few in his time (not sure about Jan Kleitenburg whose footballing career was cut short by injury, don't know where he used to play). Really don't think an attacking coach is a real need, considering Ronald as a defensive coach is really a bit of an insult."

 

So by that you are saying we don't need an attacking coach, because we have Ronald, and some players who scored some goals in their career? I reckon that it is bull**** to say that just because someone had an eye for goal and could hit the ball well that it means he'd be a good attacking coach, especially when that player spent most of his time at CB. It's like having George Boyd as a defensive coach because he averages top 10 in tackles this season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have only got look at a couple of the goals scored against us in recent games because they had a go from outside the box, this something we don't look as though we want to do. So what some will go high and wide one or two might just hit the back of the net me thinks they are to scared to have a go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have only got look at a couple of the goals scored against us in recent games because they had a go from outside the box, this something we don't look as though we want to do. So what some will go high and wide one or two might just hit the back of the net me thinks they are to scared to have a go.

 

Don't think it's at all a case of being "scared", seems more like an instruction from the manager.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have only got look at a couple of the goals scored against us in recent games because they had a go from outside the box, this something we don't look as though we want to do. So what some will go high and wide one or two might just hit the back of the net me thinks they are to scared to have a go.

 

Exactly. Don't shoot, don't score, it's as easy as that. Even if the striker scores one out of five shots, it follows that the higher the number of shots attempted, the higher the number of goals will be. We seem to have stopped the shots from further out, the type that is going into our net from Berahinho, Coutinho, etc. We have scored some great goals from outside the box earlier in the season from the likes of Clyne, Schneiderlin and Wanyama, but I don't remember us having a go recently, preferring to attempt to walk the ball into the net.

 

Shoot and there is always the chance of a handball, a deflected goal, a rebound into the path of one of our players, a corner, indeed several opportunities to gain some sort of advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would Koeman tell the team to avoid taking shots from outside the area? I'm a bit nonplussed by even the suggestion of that.

 

Assuming you remember the last Dutch incumbents, Wotte and Pootevliet.... it was just the same under them. We would pass the opposition to death but no-one wanted to shoot at goal. Seems to be a Dutch thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could say about any team "if they hadn't done this, they'd be here". The fact is we DID score 8 goals against Sunderland, I don't see the point in hypothetically discounting it. It's not like all our other wins have been 1-0 (okay a fair few of them have). We've had a 4-0, a few 3-1's, a 2-0 etc. Why discount the 8-0 just because it drags down the point you're trying to make. It happened and as dire as Sunderland were that day, you don't score 8 goals in the PL without your attack being pretty good on the day. I don't think our attack problems are anywhere near as bad as people are making out, it's just a poor run of form.

 

Tend to agree, I was at the Sunderland game and awful as the opposition, our finishing was deadly and Mannone had to make a couple of good late saves to stop us reaching double figures. We also hit four against Newcastle and quite a few threes. The issue is psychological - Pelle is a real confidence player and Tadic going backwards so rapidly hasn't helped his supply. Mane looks the most confident forward when shooting. Long I'm not sure about - has scored a small number of good goals but doesn't get anywhere near enough testing the keeper.

 

Midfield aren't helping Pelle much as a unit and I feel this the biggest difference. Cork, Morgan and even Victor were getting forward earlier in the season and the movement was much better. JWP isn't getting in advanced positions much and Davis never really has for the excellent other qualities he brings. Surely if Victor or Davis sit v Palace the others ought to bust a gut to get in the box and create some movement around Pelle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The not shooting thing is a load of rubbish. We are just not getting in enough good positions, which leads to the fans screaming for shots when it's not really on.

 

We shot whenever it was reasonably possible on Saturday, still didn't score though.

 

So we apparently had 12 shots at goal of which only 2 were on target, 1 from Morgan and 1 from Pelle. All of the others

were wayward, 3 from Mané, 2 from Elia, 2 from Morgan and 3 from others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you could read the OP he was asking for someone "It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal." Sorry but if Ron doesn't know how to coach someone to strike a ball and have an eye for goal then really there aren't many other candidates that could. So its not bull. the only thing that is bull around here is your posts, as always.

This. RK really does know what he is doing.End of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Don't shoot, don't score, it's as easy as that. Even if the striker scores one out of five shots, it follows that the higher the number of shots attempted, the higher the number of goals will be. We seem to have stopped the shots from further out, the type that is going into our net from Berahinho, Coutinho, etc. We have scored some great goals from outside the box earlier in the season from the likes of Clyne, Schneiderlin and Wanyama, but I don't remember us having a go recently, preferring to attempt to walk the ball into the net.

 

Shoot and there is always the chance of a handball, a deflected goal, a rebound into the path of one of our players, a corner, indeed several opportunities to gain some sort of advantage.

 

No, Les. It's not simply a case of more shots, more goals as the chances of scoring depend where the shot is taken. If you believe the data, imperfect as it is, it takes on average between 15 and 27 fewer shots to score from inside the box than outside it.

 

In other words, fewer shots can mean more goals. Perhaps players believe that taking an extra touch to work a better position is justified by the odds. IIRC, we did try to shoot on sight in the first half against WBA but were hopeless. If anything, we were more effective in the second half when we were a little bit less speculative in our shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The not shooting thing is a load of rubbish. We are just not getting in enough good positions, which leads to the fans screaming for shots when it's not really on.

 

We shot whenever it was reasonably possible on Saturday, still didn't score though.

 

Was Countinho in a good position to shoot against us? Was Berahino? When fans scream for a shot, it is usually because they can see a gap in the defence and an opportunity to exploit it. They don't urge the shot just because it amuses them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take away the Sunderland result, this leaves us as the 13th best goal scorers in the premiership.

Koeman is a genius when it comes down to being a defensive coach, what harm in employing an attacking one?

It's an art to strike and ball or to have an eye for goal. I can't see what harm it would be to employ the likes of Le Tiss or Shearer to take at least a couple of sessions a week?

 

When was the last time we scored a free kick or even a pile driver from 25 yards?

 

I can't be sure, but for a free-kick, I offer Rickie Lambert against Stoke on 8 February last year; I will be only too pleased to be corrected, but I can't recall a more recent score. For 25 yard pile drivers, Clyne at Arsenal, Pelle at Stoke in the COC and Victor at Hull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Countinho in a good position to shoot against us? Was Berahino? When fans scream for a shot, it is usually because they can see a gap in the defence and an opportunity to exploit it. They don't urge the shot just because it amuses them.

 

Yes and yes. Coutinho was in lots of space as was Berahino. We just haven't been getting that sort of time and space, and even when we have, the shots have been poor with a lack of composure.

 

We had plenty of shots on Saturday, even Yoshida had a go. Schneiderlin's free kick, Elia smashed one into the side netting. We were not reluctant to shoot, we just kept missing because they were largely (with the exception of Pelle's) just half chances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Les. It's not simply a case of more shots, more goals as the chances of scoring depend where the shot is taken. If you believe the data, imperfect as it is, it takes on average between 15 and 27 fewer shots to score from inside the box than outside it.

 

In other words, fewer shots can mean more goals. Perhaps players believe that taking an extra touch to work a better position is justified by the odds. IIRC, we did try to shoot on sight in the first half against WBA but were hopeless. If anything, we were more effective in the second half when we were a little bit less speculative in our shooting.

I disagree,Shylock. Only you could argue that the fewer shots a team makes, the more goals they might score. As you say, the statistical data must be imperfect when it quotes an average figure with a maximum range that is nearly double the minimum. When they are talking averages, what they must mean is actually 21 shots.

 

What would be more interesting would be statistics that give an average number of goals resulting from shots which end up as being scored by deflections, penalties arising from shots, (handballs/shirt pulling,etc), goals arising from rebounds off defenders, etc. Any goals picked up in that way would be preferable to pussy-footing around the box trying to pass the ball into the net only to have it hoofed upfield by a defender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming you remember the last Dutch incumbents, Wotte and Pootevliet.... it was just the same under them. We would pass the opposition to death but no-one wanted to shoot at goal. Seems to be a Dutch thing.

 

That's right when you haven't got anything constructive and useful to add lets resort to xenophobic stereotypes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree,Shylock. Only you could argue that the fewer shots a team makes, the more goals they might score. As you say, the statistical data must be imperfect when it quotes an average figure with a maximum range that is nearly double the minimum. When they are talking averages, what they must mean is actually 21 shots.

 

What would be more interesting would be statistics that give an average number of goals resulting from shots which end up as being scored by deflections, penalties arising from shots, (handballs/shirt pulling,etc), goals arising from rebounds off defenders, etc. Any goals picked up in that way would be preferable to pussy-footing around the box trying to pass the ball into the net only to have it hoofed upfield by a defender.

 

No Les. The numbers don't mean 21 shots. They are two separate numbers, looking at how many shots it takes to score from (i) central positions inside the area (6) and (ii) from wide positions inside the area (18 ), compared to outside the area (33). So yes in this sense, shooting less can mean more goals if the majority of shots are taken inside the box.

 

Moreover, having run a very simple regression for all prem teams this season, there doesn't appear to be any statistically significant relationship between the number of shots from outside the box and the number of goals scored. Again, more shots doesn't mean more goals in any meaningful sense.

 

Of course, some teams, blessed with a yaya toure or a christian eriksen, maybe consistently better at shooting from outside the box; but we don't appear to fall into this category (ranked 16th in terms of shots required per goal).

 

Nor does your point about deflections, pens, rebounds generated by shots outside the box make much sense. If anything, they're an argument for teams to shoot more inside the box since fouls result in pens, not freekicks.

 

Ultimately, my bugbear is not that we don't shoot more. Rather its simply about decision-making; whether we're shooting at the most effective time, whether that extra touch really creates or reduces space, whether it unbalances the opposition or allows it to get back into shape. At times, it can do more harm than good. The same goes for our passing.

 

Needless to say, Les, this doesn't fit neatly with your agricultural demand to shooooooooot.

Edited by shurlock
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could probably do with an attacking coach by the look at things (or maybe just some confidence), but I wouldn't just employ someone like MLT etc because previously they made good contact with the ball.

 

MLT confesses himself he isn't the greatest of coaches.

 

Not opposed to the idea in theory, but would rather get someone good at the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he knew how to strike a ball?

In the last three games Mane and Pelle have put their foot through the ball and it's ended in rowZ every time.

You telling me nobody can coach them to body position or at least keep it down?

even Lovren keeps it lower than our strike force :)

 

If you dont know how to strike a ball or keep composure by this point in their career they are in trouble

 

Besides, Id imagine its confidence based

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H

Ronald scored 193 first class goals in his career, about 30 more than Matt. Generally regarded as one of the best strikers of a ball ever, even MLT has acknowledged that. Really think you would be hard pushed to find an attacking coach who could provide better guidance than Ron himself. Even then Erwin was a fine attacking midfielder who scored a lot of goals, even Sammy lee weighed in with a few in his time (not sure about Jan Kleitenburg whose footballing career was cut short by injury, don't know where he used to play). Really don't think an attacking coach is a real need, considering Ronald as a defensive coach is really a bit of an insult.

We need to coach players, in particular Pelle and for entirely different reasons Forster....

We are not coaching Pelle at all ! If we are our coaches are truly shocking.....

Pelle needs to make runs, come deeper to help make an extra midfielder. Lambert was superb at this, Lambert also pulled defenders out wide slowing midfielders space to run into.... Pelle basically stands still, he is crying out to be coached....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

H

We need to coach players, in particular Pelle and for entirely different reasons Forster....

We are not coaching Pelle at all ! If we are our coaches are truly shocking.....

Pelle needs to make runs, come deeper to help make an extra midfielder. Lambert was superb at this, Lambert also pulled defenders out wide slowing midfielders space to run into.... Pelle basically stands still, he is crying out to be coached....

 

I totally agree, can't believe how Forster is rooted to his goal line these days.

He has no friggin idea when to come, it's bloody scary that someone has not helped him get over his goal rushing jips.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's right when you haven't got anything constructive and useful to add lets resort to xenophobic stereotypes.

 

No, nothing xenophobic about it, Village Idiot. Merely a connection that the Dutch put a lot of emphasis on possession football. Sometimes that is over-playing it. Maybe you're not old enough to remember them, so don't comment unless you can put together a structured rebuttal beyond name-calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No Les. The numbers don't mean 21 shots. They are two separate numbers, looking at how many shots it takes to score from (i) central positions inside the area (6) and (ii) from wide positions inside the area (18 ), compared to outside the area (33). So yes in this sense, shooting less can mean more goals if the majority of shots are taken inside the box.

 

Moreover, having run a very simple regression for all prem teams this season, there doesn't appear to be any statistically significant relationship between the number of shots from outside the box and the number of goals scored. Again, more shots doesn't mean more goals in any meaningful sense.

 

Of course, some teams, blessed with a yaya toure or a christian eriksen, maybe consistently better at shooting from outside the box; but we don't appear to fall into this category (ranked 16th in terms of shots required per goal).

 

Nor does your point about deflections, pens, rebounds generated by shots outside the box make much sense. If anything, they're an argument for teams to shoot more inside the box since fouls result in pens, not freekicks.

 

Ultimately, my bugbear is not that we don't shoot more. Rather its simply about decision-making; whether we're shooting at the most effective time, whether that extra touch really creates or reduces space, whether it unbalances the opposition or allows it to get back into shape. At times, it can do more harm than good. The same goes for our passing.

 

Needless to say, Les, this doesn't fit neatly with your agricultural demand to shooooooooot.

 

Shylock, thanks for putting some context to the figures, as otherwise one could only guess as to what they referred to. As you say, the data is imperfect for numerous reasons and you don't appear to have any statistics for what number of goals might arise as a result of deflected shots, or free kicks and assists resulting from shots outside the box. And even though shots are made from outside the box, penalties can arise from them if they strike a hand, or if a player is pulled down attempting to shoot, but you don't seem to believe that there is any sense in that argument.

 

Your bugbear is about decision-making, the effective time to shoot and the movement of the striker in the box before shooting.

 

My bugbear is that we try to walk the ball into the net when an earlier snap shot might be more productive. Also I agree with Captainchris that Pelle ought to move around the box much more to pull defenders about and make space for others to exploit, and we need to get the ball into the box much earlier instead of the slow build-up that allows the other team to pack the box.

 

An amusing tactic, to infer that anybody who desires the attacking players to shoot more has an agricultural mindset. If I'm to be considered a bit more cerebral like you, then I obviously ought to be espousing the sort of nuances that you believe will improve our goal-scoring figures and that it is possible that we could actually score more goals from shooting less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't think it's at all a case of being "scared", seems more like an instruction from the manager.

 

Early in the season it appeared as if our players were taking more shots from distance than they did under the prior manager. Were they ignoring instructions then? Or are they ignoring them now? Or have the instructions changed? Or is this not actually the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because MLT used to score some great goals doesn't mean he's a capable attacking 'coach' to the same level as Koeman and Co.

 

AGREED, but whatever they are doing at the moment doesn't seem to be working so well - does it ?

 

Not suggesting MLT has a full-time job, but he's dealing with professional players who (ought to) know the game. He surely has some knowledge he can pass on.

 

I've worked for 50 years...and learned a great deal about many things, but in retrospect I found that the best piece of advise I every had was:

 

"...if you meet an expert....just shut-up and listen to them."

 

Knowledge can be learned easily - it's much harder to apply it effectively. I never became an "expert" in anything, but it did make life a lot easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AGREED, but whatever they are doing at the moment doesn't seem to be working so well - does it ?

 

Not suggesting MLT has a full-time job, but he's dealing with professional players who (ought to) know the game. He surely has some knowledge he can pass on.

 

I've worked for 50 years...and learned a great deal about many things, but in retrospect I found that the best piece of advise I every had was:

 

"...if you meet an expert....just shut-up and listen to them."

 

Knowledge can be learned easily - it's much harder to apply it effectively. I never became an "expert" in anything, but it did make life a lot easier.

 

Sounds like you became an expert in listening to the advice of experts - shame there aren't many more who do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...