The wingers question...

[Johnny]

What a ridiculous post.

What next? We dont need our strikers putting the chances away?

Your reply on the other hand,was not ridiculous.


If Beckham,one of the best right wingers in the PL for yrs didnt need to beat defenders,why then is it a problem that Pennant does the same as Beckham?

[Craig_H]

Your reply on the other hand,was not ridiculous.


If Beckham,one of the best right wingers in the PL for yrs didnt need to beat defenders,why then is it a problem that Pennant does the same as Beckham?

Kinell mate, is it not obvious that HAVING the ability to beat the man gives you a greater chance of being good enough, than not having that ability does?

Beckham was a one-off really, how many other players play out wide, dont beat their man, and yet are considered one of the best 'wingers' in the league?

The not beating the man is the ONLY thing Beckham and JP have in common. Beckham was INFINITELY better than Pennant, his crosses and deadballs were superb. Pennant is nowhere near as good.

It was a daft comment on your part. I dont mean to have a go, but seriously, it was silly.

[Johnny]

Why cant they beat a man?

Gonzalez especially, looks like it's against his religion to try. Always cutting inside and playing a ball square, or backwards. And with his fecking pace, too...

Pennant seems to have developed a kind of Beckham-esque abiility to put a cross in without beating the man, which i dont mind.

But neither of them wants to/tries to/can beat a man.

Can anyone possibly explain this to me?

Your arguing with your self now DJ!

[Craig_H]

Your arguing with your self now DJ!

Kinell, it's like trying to explain something to Helen Keller...

Pennant crosses early, without beating the man. So did Beckham.

Kuyt holds up the ball well and chases down defenders. So did Rush.

So, in your view, that means Kuyt doesnt NEED to be a good finisher, because he did SOMETHING a bit like Rush used to do.

Christ, i really cant be arsed...

[Neil Young]

Sorry Syd, I don't quite follow. Could you run that by me again please?

[Red Chilli]

When Beckham was at his best on the wing he did used to beat his man, didn't he?

[Neil Young]

When Beckham was at his best on the wing he did used to beat his man, didn't he?

Yes Syd, have you got an answer for that?

[keniget]

Pennant has quick feet and a *bit* of pace, but he's not the type of player to beat defenders with a bit of skill, a drop of the shoulder etc. He's a tidy player that is concious of retaining possession and is quite like Beckham in that he will work himself a bit of room to cross the ball.

Gonzalez on the hand, I feel has a bit more potential to build on this part of his game. I've seen him do it before, but at the moment he looks petrified of doing anything aside from passing to the nearest team mate. I realize that he's been in and out of the side, injured and what not, but I expected more. He probably needs an arm around the shoulder and good long run in the side - I'm hoping he'll turn things around next season, but at this moment in time, I don't think it'd be too harsh to say that perhaps the Premiership isn't for him.

As for why we need this quality?

Because our attack is often predictable, ponderous and one dimensional. Players who have the ability to beat defenders with pace and / or skill scare the opposition, introduce an element of unpredictability and a better chance of creating better / easier opportunities e.g. cutbacks for tap ins and all that ****.

[Johnny]

Kinell, it's like trying to explain something to Helen Keller...

Pennant crosses early, without beating the man. So did Beckham.

Kuyt holds up the ball well and chases down defenders. So did Rush.

So, in your view, that means Kuyt doesnt NEED to be a good finisher, because he did SOMETHING a bit like Rush used to do.

Christ, i really cant be arsed...

What`s Kuyt or Rush got to do with Pennant,you keep finding completly different comparisons about strikers to back up a winger arguement.So why does Pennant need to beat his man again,try to mention Pennant in your arguement

[Craig_H]

Sorry Syd, I don't quite follow. Could you run that by me again please?

Just because Pennant has ONE similar characteristic in his play to Beckham, doesnt make him anywhere NEAR as good as beckham. Beckham didnt beat the man, but his crosses were right on the money, so he didnt need to get in behind the fullback to deliver a killer cross, because he did it anyway.

Pennant's crosses ARENT as good as Beckham's, not by a long shot. Getting behind the man to the byline puts you in a position to put a very dangerous ball into the box.

If Pennant's crosses were as good as Beckham's, then fine, dont beat the man. But they're not. Getting beyond the fullback puts you in a position where it's easier to put in a killer ball. So if his crosses from deep arent good enough, then he needs to get himself into positions where he CAN put in better crosses - eg, beyond the defender.

I cant believe you needed that explained, in truth.

Either you're on a windup, or you lacked that basic understanding.

[Neil Young]

As for why we need this quality?

Because our attack is often predictable, ponderous and one dimensional. Players who have the ability to beat defenders with pace and / or skill scare the opposition, introduce an element of unpredictability and a better chance of creating better / easier opportunities e.g. cutbacks for tap ins and all that ****.

Cheers keniget. It's a shame Syd wasn't so clear.

[Craig_H]

When Beckham was at his best on the wing he did used to beat his man, didn't he?

Beckham could consistently put in killer balls into the box, without beating the man. Pennant hasnt demonstrated the ability to do this.

It's easier to put a dangerous cross in, from beyond the fullback, than it is from deep.

Simple simple stuff really.

[Johnny]

Just because Pennant has ONE similar characteristic in his play to Beckham, doesnt make him anywhere NEAR as good as beckham. Beckham didnt beat the man, but his crosses were right on the money, so he didnt need to get in behind the fullback to deliver a killer cross, because he did it anyway.

Pennant's crosses ARENT as good as Beckham's, not by a long shot. Getting behind the man to the byline puts you in a position to put a very dangerous ball into the box.

If Pennant's crosses were as good as Beckham's, then fine, dont beat the man. But they're not. Getting beyond the fullback puts you in a position where it's easier to put in a killer ball. So if his crosses from deep arent good enough, then he needs to get himself into positions where he CAN put in better crosses - eg, beyond the defender.

I cant believe you needed that explained, in truth.

Either you're on a windup, or you lacked that basic understanding.

That`s the answer i was asking for.

[Craig_H]

Cheers keniget. It's a shame Syd wasn't so clear.

More of a shame that you needed it explained...

"Most knowledgable fans" indeed...

[Neil Young]

Just because Pennant has ONE similar characteristic in his play to Beckham, doesnt make him anywhere NEAR as good as beckham. Beckham didnt beat the man, but his crosses were right on the money, so he didnt need to get in behind the fullback to deliver a killer cross, because he did it anyway.

Pennant's crosses ARENT as good as Beckham's, not by a long shot. Getting behind the man to the byline puts you in a position to put a very dangerous ball into the box.

If Pennant's crosses were as good as Beckham's, then fine, dont beat the man. But they're not. Getting beyond the fullback puts you in a position where it's easier to put in a killer ball. So if his crosses from deep arent good enough, then he needs to get himself into positions where he CAN put in better crosses - eg, beyond the defender.

I cant believe you needed that explained, in truth.

Either you're on a windup, or you lacked that basic understanding.

Hmm, I wonder.

I was enjoying the circularity of the argument.

I promise* not to try to wind you up again. Ever.



* Promises are made to be broken.