Danny Murphy’s disparaging comments about Everton last night

MickaelDebevePhenomenal said:
There's a distinct difference between what you describe i.e a winger getting wide and playing crosses in the box for a aerially dominant striker to attack, and centre halves playing 60/70 yard punts and playing percentage, turgid football that has been the benchmark of Pulis, Warncok, Dyche et al.
Click to expand...
Good point. I think that old style of football has died partly because of the modern trend of playing 'inverted' wingers who cut inside. It kills me how modern players are just so damn poor at crossing a ball; it's a lost art. Plus, centre forwards usually play up on their own these days so their key job is to hold it up, lay it off, relieve pressure, often a long way from the box.
You can't blame Everton for playing the percentages against a better team, mind you, especially in a derby; Dyche has pretty much built his reputation- as Allardyce did - on the grinding out of results by his less talented, battling teams. It's not like Liverpool didn't know what was coming, just that this time, a bit unlucky, a bit out of form, their underlying superiority wasn't reflected in the result.
Klopp's Liverpool used lots of long balls in their heyday, often pinged over by TAA for Mane or Salah to run in behind. There are different types of long ball football, as you say
 
atypical_boro said:
I used to have this debate a lot in 2015/2016.

Lots of posters hated the fact that we were winning matches without obliterating teams with free-flowing, majestic attacking football.

I’m sure most of us would be quite happy to take it now.
Click to expand...
I used to argue with loads of people back then too.

The squad was exceptionally strong defensively so it 100% made sense to play that way, to get the most out of the squad, which we did.

Both that season (2nd) and the one before (4th) we conceded less than every team has already conceded this year, and also scored more than we have this year, so must have been doing something right.

Sure, in the second year we could have played Stuani up top, and might have scored a lot more, but we clearly just didn't figure this out. Espanyol who had him 3 years earlier didn't figure it out either mind. He was an important player for us on the right, and it's key that players in that position can still get goals, which he did.
 
The_Big_Woodowski said:
Would have been madness for Everton to try and play Liverpool at there own game, the variety in style made it entertaining. Seen to many games cancel themselves out by trying to play the same way. City v Arsenal for instance. Exploits the oppositions weakness

The game can be played many ways from Pullis ball to Peps game and many varieties in between.

As touched on above, I always thought of the Liverpool CB been big strong beast but they got battered last night and did not like it at all.
Click to expand...

Very true - it’s not often you see a losing team replace a CB for another CB when chasing a game.

Recognition from Klopp that it could quite easily have gotten worse! Konate wasn’t getting near the ball, legally.
 
I'm glad that's Liverpool out of it now, and they probably won't get another manager as good as Klopp, so hopefully that's the end of them for a while.

I just find them so boring, and having to listen to Liverpool pundits and fans repeatedly when they're in the title race makes me feel like I'm going to sick up in my mouth.

Man City and Arsenal are far better sides, who have a far higher peak level and can be more entertaining to watch, but to be honest I think Klopp is better at getting more out of his side than Guardiola is, and Arteta better than them both.

Used to hate Arsenal when Wenger made them practically unbeatable through pure physicality and fitness, with a touch of class up front, must have been a nightmare to play against them as a player. I like how they play now though and want them to win it. Seems more interesting to watch and more about actual football. If they had a decent striker, or even on who was half decent, they would be walking the league.
 
viv_andersons_nana said:
I’m just watching Match of the Day from last night and Murphy is analysing the Merseyside derby. He’s doing a bit on how good Dominic Calvert-Lewin was - and he was absolutely majestic - and he said he was “brilliant at winning headers and holding the ball up… it allows Everton to get up the pitch… it’s not always great to watch, but…”

This just struck me as quite a snobbish outlook, the kind that infests the game and the discourse around it at the moment. I know Murphy will be bitter Liverpool lost and whatever you think of him as a pundit is up to you, but… is there any better sight than your No9 leaping like salmon to power home a header at the back stick? In a derby? Under the lights?

It got me thinking of Ian Baird and Wilko, how good they were in the air, how their aerial ability meant the Boro teams they were in could play it on the deck - they were both good footballers - or knock one long and watch them win their header or know that they’ll chest it down and bring a teammate into it. It means you can send Hendrie or Ripley down the line and let them sling one in safe in the knowledge that our No9 is ruffling a few feathers and is sniffing about for a goal or a flick on.

It was a throwaway comment from Murphy really but there’s so many teams all doing the same thing at the moment, playing out from the goal-line, recycling possession, refusing to play a long pass or shoot from outside the box, the search for absolute control that suffocates the life out of so many games these days. It’s refreshing to see a proper striker bullying two big centre backs and then scoring a Wilkinson-esque header from a corner.

I think you need that variety in your team. You need someone who can bully a defender, hold it up, head one in out of the blue. I would argue that watching Stuart Ripley tearing down the wing and sticking one on a plate for Wilko to head home is exactly what you want to see.

We’re not all slaves to football played as snooker or chess.
Click to expand...
Thank you viv...
 
Not a fan at all of Murphy hes really condescending to lower premier league teams and his pro bias towards Liverpool is extremely visible
 
I think the reason most people don't like the Dyche/Pulis brand of football is because invariably it is players which are bigger and stronger, not more athletic or technically superior, which are employed by those teams. It's a perfectly valid way of playing but it's not the way you would expect the best players to play because they don't have to.

Mourinho had all of his success with the same style of football but with better quality players. That meant that among the lumpballs there was some excellent technique as well. Drogba was the perfect target man striker but he was also technically very good. Wingers like Robben and Duff weren't just kick and rush merchants etc. The thing is that coaches, and the analysis side of things, have got better and they know that in the long term it is statistically better to not lose the ball than attempt a cross with a 5% success rate.

When everyone is playing one way though then something that counters it like direct and physical play can be effective but those players are not going to be great at doing the things needed to do to stp the better players exploiting your weaknesses.
 
West Ham fans are chasing Moyes out this summer after getting into Europe 3 years in a row and winning a European trophy. Oh and they’re currently 8th, above loads of media darlings and on course for Europe again.

I can’t wait for them to enjoy their expansive, attacking football finishing 15th for a few seasons.
 
Nano said:
I think the reason most people don't like the Dyche/Pulis brand of football is because invariably it is players which are bigger and stronger, not more athletic or technically superior, which are employed by those teams. It's a perfectly valid way of playing but it's not the way you would expect the best players to play because they don't have to.
Click to expand...

I'd argue strength is just as much an athletic quality as pace or stamina. They're all physical, athletic traits. Height, maybe less an athletic trait, but jumping certainly is.

One reason I liked it when Bolton or Stoke stuck it to the big clubs is that it negated the technical advantage of the big clubs: it found a way to stop money talking quite so loudly. The technically superior players will always play for the richest clubs: play them their way, and they'll win. Ask Burnley how their purest football has seen them get on when they're trying to play richer clubs at their own game.

So, you can doff your cap and roll over to them, or you can find a way of winning in a unfair world. That, to me, is why longball still has a place, even if I'm glad my team doesn't play that way.
 
Frozen Horse said:
I'd argue strength is just as much an athletic quality as pace or stamina. They're all physical, athletic traits. Height, maybe less an athletic trait, but jumping certainly is.

One reason I liked it when Bolton or Stoke stuck it to the big clubs is that it negated the technical advantage of the big clubs: it found a way to stop money talking quite so loudly. The technically superior players will always play for the richest clubs: play them their way, and they'll win. Ask Burnley how their purest football has seen them get on when they're trying to play richer clubs at their own game.

So, you can doff your cap and roll over to them, or you can find a way of winning in a unfair world. That, to me, is why longball still has a place, even if I'm glad my team doesn't play that way.
Click to expand...
You don't need to look at Burnley. Look what happened when Boro played Chelsea.
Pragmatism has a place in football.
 
The difference with the Pulis style was he did it whilst having 4 centre backs and 4 central midfielders in his team. I’d imagine if we didn’t have Traore he’d have made that 4 and 5!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top