Karl what you think about the following quote?

[Assasin]

"Every striker needs a goal. When you don't score for the last two or three matches, you need a goal,"

[Karl]

"Every striker needs a goal. When you don't score for the last two or three matches, you need a goal,"

Good quote!
Now what do I think should be teaching of the game of football concept?

[Assasin]

yeah, in relationship to this quote.

[Karl]

No need for that 'breaking' if you are a part of a TEAM. Every last TEAM member realises you need that goal! ...and thus every last TEAM member stands ready to, as the opportunity presents itself, 'gift' you that striker a goal.

TEAM! TEAM! Glorious TEAM! Joyous TEAM! One for all! All for one! Together as one unit, FORWARD!

[Assasin]

The quote above was from Van Gaal about Van Persie. He went on to say he had Falcao al ready to replace him. Talk about TEAM. The fact is goals are expected from strikers. If that means been selfish sometimes so be it. In many cases goals don't present themselves, you have to create it.

This is from Van Gaal.

[Karl]

The quote above was from Van Gaal about Van Persie. He went on to say he had Falcao al ready to replace him. Talk about TEAM. The fact is goals are expected from strikers. If that means been selfish sometimes so be it. In many cases goals don't present themselves, you have to create it.

This is from Van Gaal.

Most times the TEAM works to create the goal-scoring opportunity.
Sass: There must be someone at the end applying the final pass on or into goal!

Yes, at times there is only one player involved on the ball having been transferred from the opposition. That is the rare case...extremely rare case! In all other cases the ball is transferred to the instant striker...matters not what assigned position was on start or re-start of game...from a TEAM-mate. That pass from a TEAM-mate most often occurs after at least one pass from another TEAM-mate or interchange of passes with a TEAM-mate and the instant striker. That occurs in over 90% of opportunities at goal-scoring.

What logic is there in playing always to the rare instance...citing the rare instant as norm or planned act when the 'law of averages' tells otherwise?

Isn't it the teacher's job to plan on putting greatest emphasis on what is most likely to occur...particularly as it is likely to occur 99.99999+% of the time in games? ...or result in highest of success rate?

Tell me something Sass? We all know that it is possible that a ball will be kicked 10 feet high. That happens from time to time in a game. Would you train your TEAM to build 'human towers' so as to corral that 10 ft high ball or would you teach or emphasize how to win balls that reasonable men know happens often in games?

Following on the preceding - Questions on hypothetical situation: What would be the point of going on about Sanchez's ability to beat an opponent if often it ends with the ball going to the opposition...or his doing so more often ends in a 'turn over' than the ball remaining with his TEAM? ...or even if his success rate on attempting to beat a player is less than 70%? ...and that compared with an easier option of passing to a better placed TEAM-mate ending in greater than 85% passing success rate, higher possession percentage and greater number of TEAM goal-scoring opportunities and TEAM goals?


It is great that Sanchez has that ability to beat any opponent...but it cannot be rational to be a 'bruking fool' - (=or as you put it 'create') - as often as he does in GUNNERS matches. The rate at which he consistently 'bruked' in his earliest of matches, in my opinion, was poor use of his considerable talents. ...and I point to my GUNNERS number of losses and draws when he was in the TEAM!!!! I think he would have been more helpful setting up TEAM-mates/passing to better placed TEAM-mates on many of his brukin forays and indulging in aimless...low percentage shots!

The low percentage shots, as do the vast majority of low percentage shots, naturally result in high percentage 'gift' of the football to the opponent. That is, not good!

The brukin forays done with the frequency he previously indulged in, too often 'gifted the ball' to his opponents or took away from his TEAM good attacking options. Not good!

He is to, for TEAM's sake, personally perform at high rate of success...something that his seen abilities suggest he is capable of doing! His job is to gain TEAM successes. His personal successes must reflect TEAM successes. His having great goal scored count with TEAM loses does not help his TEAM...does not help his company! The truth is, it would be better for TEAM if he indulged in less 'gifting of the ball' and there resulted greater TEAM successes! Yes, there are other variables that impact winning of football matches by my GUNNERS...but I hope you understand the point I am making?

It is a myth that 'the Messis, Ronaldos, etc. win games by themselves!!!! Sure we derive great pleasure when the individual ability at beating a player is displayed...but like it or not most often the attempts to go it alone most often end in failure.

The marketing folk have sold 'a bill of goods' and the base is something that is physically impossible! One player winning a match.

[Rockman]

I m known to side with Henry over Fabregas,and probably with good reasons.
Firstly,it is Henry recird that Fabregas is intent on breaking,isn't it strange Fabrevas only claim to glory will be unseating Henry(why no glory for Henry)?
Secondly,not only did Henry distinguished himself by way of assists,he made a name fir himself scoring too.
There was a time when Henry could easily walk(into any league but his team was Arsenal,Fabregas jumped ship...
I remember Fabregas saying things will be better with Henry's departure,there is no evidence of that.
Without the hinderance,wouldn't team now shine?
This has nithing to do with the discussion between you and Assasin though,really!

[Gamma]

Let me get this straight, they cannot wi games by themselves but they can lose games by themselves?!!

[Karl]

Let me get this straight, they cannot wi games by themselves but they can lose games by themselves?!!

Yes!
...shocked?

...a player can deliberately and maliciously let down his TEAM. He is a cog on preventing goals=assisting on defense...assisting on %age possession...scoring TEAM goals.... ....but he can single-handed sabotage his own TEAM-mates and thus scuttle TEAM aims.

Recognition and embracing such a concept is difficult for many players below TOP OF THE WORLD and must be grasped by any with TOP OF THE WORLD aspirations. It is embraced by all TOP OF THE WORLD players.

[Gamma]

Are you suggesting that Henry falls into the category of willfully sabotaging his team? If so, I suggest that you are certifiably full of shaving cream!!!

[Karl]

Are you suggesting that Henry falls into the category of willfully sabotaging his team? If so, I suggest that you are certifiably full of shaving cream!!!

..and since I suggested no such thing?

btw - You bring up an interesting viewpoint on TEAM. I shall not spell it out directly. ...but consider your viewpoint adaptable to use as teaching tool.

TEAM?
A Marriage is TEAM (work).
...a marriage to efficiently exist is dependent on TEAM (work). ...and although it takes two to make it work, it only takes one to destroy it. If one person in that marriage...on that TEAM...gives less than full effort at making it work, would we consider that person to be willfully engaged in sabotaging the marriage?

Interesting...stimulating of the thought-process, sir!

[Gamma]

And there is the non sequitur.

One man can and has carried a team. Michael Jordan did it Messi has done it....but they get no credit only blame?!! Again if Messi scored 3 and the team gives up 4 the problem is not Messi unless he plays in the defensive back line

[Karl]

And there is the non sequitur.

One man can and has carried a team. Michael Jordan did it Messi has done it....but they get no credit only blame?!! Again if Messi scored 3 and the team gives up 4 the problem is not Messi unless he plays in the defensive back line

...naive or it could be unthinking statement=either not properly thought out or omission of some part of the thought process?

--- So Messi scores 3 and the TEAM gives up 4 goals inclusive of 1 or more defender's goal by Messi?

...or Messi plays badly and frequently gives away the ball leading to 1 or more of the goals given up?

...or he 'hogs' the ball and prevents TEAM settling down into good possession play and thereon the reason for the loss?

...or his attitude is poor and he causes disruption and lowering of quality performance of TEAMmates and thereon followed the loss?

...'a million ways' a player can achieve personal stats enhancement but contributes to TEAM's lack of success!

Additionally - What of possibility of the fault lying elsewhere? Degree of ceding of midfield to opponent?

...and...

What of thinking on possibility of fault-line being TEAM Defense...failure in TEAM Defense?

Yes...the back 4 could be at fault. ...but that cannot be in considering this hypothetical the alpha and omega of thinking on such!

Gamma? ...it sure is hell hard to get you to understand the game ~ sigh!

Aside: I must be a very poor teacher of concept TEAM ..back to the drawing board for me! Wonder what else I need to try...how should I tweak 'the method'?

[Gamma]

well my coaching with youth teams has been very successful. how was yours?

[Gamma]

if my striker scoring goals and my defence leaking goals ..... the problem is NOT with my striker 99.9% of the time.

takining of a striker who is scoring for me BECAUSE the opposition is coring more, is a recipe for disaster. i need to be looking at the goalie/defence and defensive midfield. you gwa'an majoring in D minor.