I'd say that article was more about the likes of Samedo rather than Racon. As Kinsella's career progressed at CAFC he grew more into that sort of role than his earlier incarnation when he got forward more. A bit further afield, a big factor in Inter's success in recent years has been a bloke called Cambiasso who does this job to perfection, and was also picked up on a free from Real Madrid a la Makelele. A bit careless on their part I'd say.
I don't think anyone really has a problem with Racon when he's playing well, as he is at the moment. Too often he's just played ok and not pushed himself.
Other day Parky was saying how they keep talking to Racon about winning the second balls. He's also capable of running with the ball and shooting from long range. Watching the Barnet highlights he did that a couple of times and then against Southend it paid off with the winning goal.
Keeping possession is important, he will always do that. When he does that bit more defensively, runs with the ball when the space opens up and takes the odd shot, that's when he's playing really well.
Nothing like Racon whatsoever. The two main examples are Makelele and Carrick. Carrick wants to sit central, and push into space mainly through quick passing. Just look at where he passes from in the Liverpool match, they're nearly all push passes from the center to channel areas. Racon believes in open play that it is not the pass, but himself/his body that makes the run in the hope of that pass. This is the key weakness in his game, something I do not see him improving out of. Can't wait to see him again now he's playing well, as he's great to watch. But when he start's his errant running in tight matches, that is when we lose impetus.
Kinsella was a great player because he could do it all. He was able to sit centrally and when breakdown happened in front of our defence, he picked the ball up and pushed into central gaps and was able to get these push passes off to our wingers. Semedo and Racon, are not good at consistently negotiating these areas. My personal belief when we play the Peterborough's, Southampton's, Huddersfield's and Brighton's of this league Racon should not be in the first 11... only if we play 4-5-1.
The problem with the Carrick analysis, is the lack of understanding on what he requires to link play. More than Xabi Alonso needs, Carrick requires a destructive midfielder next to him. It has been proved time and time again, that Carrick when he plays the best pressing teams in Europe that he becomes swamped and eventually a weak point who gives the ball away. For England we need two defensive midfield players, especially if you play Cole and Johnson who'll be in an attacking position in the breakdown. All too often Carrick will play for England instead of a defensive midfielder, and say with Gerrard or Lampard. Immediately the gap too often between Carrick and Gerrard becomes too big. Because of the way we play is pretty crucial the defensive midfielders can negotiate gaps/weaknesses when they occur. Too few of ours can. Jack Rodwell looks like he's able to do this, hoepfully he becomes a fixture when he's fit again.
This obsession with Makelele is put forward too often as year dot for the modern way. What is forgotten, and not even understood by the limited offensive analysis of Hansen et al is that it only worked because Drogba got through a superhuman ammount of work. Hansen at this time constantly criticised Drogba for not scoring enough goals, but Drogba was point man who linked virtually every play by running lines that meant he took himself out of goalscoring positions. Duff, Robben, Cole and Lampard all hugely benefited from Drogba's work rate. That is another reason why Man U do not beat the best in Europe with Carrick, because if you play this you need a physically robust center forward who the ball sticks to and runs lines which the cd's can't compete with. People bang on about Makelele and Figo and Zidane but who was up top? Raul and Morientes two beasts of the Spanish game who loved to compete. Playing without a destructive cm and a destructive cf is tough if not impossible to win knife edge knockout matches: That's why I was massively surprised Spain won without Senna.
Anyways Cambiasso, is a good point as he is able to score which immediately takes the pressure off say compared to Mascherano who is only in reality a destructive player. Makelele was a supreme destructive player and much more efficent at using the ball than Mascherano. Ambrossino is another good example, better in quality than Mascherano. Personally the most supreme player I've ever seen is Redondo, who had it all but like a lot of Argentinians was defensively responsible. Couple that with Redondo's superb composure and passing, he was a far superior player to that of Makelele, Alonso, Xavi, or any other supposed modern central midfielder. Maybe he didn't score, but he could combine simplicity with flair at a level Scholes could only dream of; Scholes has almost as much ingenuity but can't match up against positionally superior opponents without a destructive player, whilst Redondo could do it all on his own.
[cite]Posted By: ColinTat[/cite]Drogba got through a superhuman ammount of work. Hansen at this time constantly criticised Drogba for not scoring enough goals, but Drogba was point man who linked virtually every play by running lines that meant he took himself out of goalscoring positions.
Blimey Colin Tat; and I thought football was supposed to be a simple game ;-)
I'm not sure I'm buying into your opinions; I mean, Raul and Morientes "beasts"; Redondo (hmm), but you make a strong and eloquent case and who am I to argue?
(Please tell me you work in the game and are not some sunday league dad who reads too many coaching manuals).
As for Racon; well I didn't try to make an argument that he fitted the "descripion" in the article; I took the easy option and just put his name forward with a question mark.
People have often said on here that they don't know what he actually does, i.e, not a tackler like Semedo, not creative etc, but, in simplistic terms, does his contribution go unnoticed?
I thought the article was thought provoking, not least in that maybe simple folk like me and the Real Madrid president (ha, ha) are missing something
Cool I really enjoyed it. That zonal marking guy is about the best guy on English footy tactically, and obviously very well read. Can't say I always agree with his opinions but there's no one out there in the British main stream press who's tactical analysis is anywhere near him; please don't say he writes in the sun under a pseudonym! He's fascinating to read, my mate put me on to him this year I think and I like dipping in and out of his website every now and again. Cheers for the link as I've not checked on him for a while.
Perhaps beasts is incorrect for Raul and Morientes, as they're not anywhere near as physical as Drogba. Having said that Raul's work rate was prodigious, and his competitivness pulled cd's out of position often. Morientes, was a wonderful pivot player and was able to get inbetween defences and create angled play. Morientes was quite unusual in Spainish football for me, as he provided physicality along with his good touch which meant Madrid could play flighted angled balls and he'd pick it up.
Indeed Oggy as Shaun did for us. Someone we certainly got rid of too quickly.
Who am I to say anyway, as it looks like Racon is having another excellent match again. Which I can only say is bloody superb!
Comments
Other day Parky was saying how they keep talking to Racon about winning the second balls. He's also capable of running with the ball and shooting from long range. Watching the Barnet highlights he did that a couple of times and then against Southend it paid off with the winning goal.
Keeping possession is important, he will always do that. When he does that bit more defensively, runs with the ball when the space opens up and takes the odd shot, that's when he's playing really well.
Kinsella was a great player because he could do it all. He was able to sit centrally and when breakdown happened in front of our defence, he picked the ball up and pushed into central gaps and was able to get these push passes off to our wingers. Semedo and Racon, are not good at consistently negotiating these areas. My personal belief when we play the Peterborough's, Southampton's, Huddersfield's and Brighton's of this league Racon should not be in the first 11... only if we play 4-5-1.
The problem with the Carrick analysis, is the lack of understanding on what he requires to link play. More than Xabi Alonso needs, Carrick requires a destructive midfielder next to him. It has been proved time and time again, that Carrick when he plays the best pressing teams in Europe that he becomes swamped and eventually a weak point who gives the ball away. For England we need two defensive midfield players, especially if you play Cole and Johnson who'll be in an attacking position in the breakdown. All too often Carrick will play for England instead of a defensive midfielder, and say with Gerrard or Lampard. Immediately the gap too often between Carrick and Gerrard becomes too big. Because of the way we play is pretty crucial the defensive midfielders can negotiate gaps/weaknesses when they occur. Too few of ours can. Jack Rodwell looks like he's able to do this, hoepfully he becomes a fixture when he's fit again.
This obsession with Makelele is put forward too often as year dot for the modern way. What is forgotten, and not even understood by the limited offensive analysis of Hansen et al is that it only worked because Drogba got through a superhuman ammount of work. Hansen at this time constantly criticised Drogba for not scoring enough goals, but Drogba was point man who linked virtually every play by running lines that meant he took himself out of goalscoring positions. Duff, Robben, Cole and Lampard all hugely benefited from Drogba's work rate. That is another reason why Man U do not beat the best in Europe with Carrick, because if you play this you need a physically robust center forward who the ball sticks to and runs lines which the cd's can't compete with. People bang on about Makelele and Figo and Zidane but who was up top? Raul and Morientes two beasts of the Spanish game who loved to compete. Playing without a destructive cm and a destructive cf is tough if not impossible to win knife edge knockout matches: That's why I was massively surprised Spain won without Senna.
Anyways Cambiasso, is a good point as he is able to score which immediately takes the pressure off say compared to Mascherano who is only in reality a destructive player. Makelele was a supreme destructive player and much more efficent at using the ball than Mascherano. Ambrossino is another good example, better in quality than Mascherano. Personally the most supreme player I've ever seen is Redondo, who had it all but like a lot of Argentinians was defensively responsible. Couple that with Redondo's superb composure and passing, he was a far superior player to that of Makelele, Alonso, Xavi, or any other supposed modern central midfielder. Maybe he didn't score, but he could combine simplicity with flair at a level Scholes could only dream of; Scholes has almost as much ingenuity but can't match up against positionally superior opponents without a destructive player, whilst Redondo could do it all on his own.
Just like Shaun Bartlett, a few seasons ago.
I'm not sure I'm buying into your opinions; I mean, Raul and Morientes "beasts"; Redondo (hmm), but you make a strong and eloquent case and who am I to argue?
(Please tell me you work in the game and are not some sunday league dad who reads too many coaching manuals).
As for Racon; well I didn't try to make an argument that he fitted the "descripion" in the article; I took the easy option and just put his name forward with a question mark.
People have often said on here that they don't know what he actually does, i.e, not a tackler like Semedo, not creative etc, but, in simplistic terms, does his contribution go unnoticed?
I thought the article was thought provoking, not least in that maybe simple folk like me and the Real Madrid president (ha, ha) are missing something
Perhaps beasts is incorrect for Raul and Morientes, as they're not anywhere near as physical as Drogba. Having said that Raul's work rate was prodigious, and his competitivness pulled cd's out of position often. Morientes, was a wonderful pivot player and was able to get inbetween defences and create angled play. Morientes was quite unusual in Spainish football for me, as he provided physicality along with his good touch which meant Madrid could play flighted angled balls and he'd pick it up.
Indeed Oggy as Shaun did for us. Someone we certainly got rid of too quickly.
Who am I to say anyway, as it looks like Racon is having another excellent match again. Which I can only say is bloody superb!