Danny Murphy’s disparaging comments about Everton last night

[viv_andersons_nana]

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.

 

[atypical_boro]

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.

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.

 

[exeterboro]

or knock one long and watch them win their header

I wonder who did that last for us, I know manu wasn't jostling with anyone for it but it was almost a classic example of knock it long and then the striker heads it in.

 

[B_G]

I don't see the problem with this. As you have said, he has given DCL plenty of praise in his comments. He's right, it's not always the best to watch.
Boro fans are a prime example of this. Everyone hated our time under Pulis but his 18/19 team finished with more points than this Carrick side will....

 

[On The Bob]

They were well and truly Dyched!

 

[Jonny Ingbar]

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.

I have to say I agree with him, Everton won playing an abrasive, defensive game, it's not pretty to watch but it's the only way they could have won the game really.

 

[TheYorkshireTerrier]

It's just an easy cliché to use as a pundit.

 

[MichaelDebeve]

I actually quite enjoyed watching Everton last night, aggressive, direct, dangerous periods of play (at both ends!) as a result.

It was a bit of a throw back

What was more interesting was Van Dijk and Konate looked shell shocked and struggled with the game plan! Amazing

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

The point being it can indeed be good watch. The problem is when that’s all your team does, such as Boro under Pulis. Just lumping it, knocking it down the channels, watching your isolated target man trying to get on the end of own flick-ons or, in the case of Jordan Hugill, actually attempting in one home game to get on the end of his own cross. That’s where the problems lie.

My point is about variety. I love the way Boro try to play under Carrick and much prefer it to anything Pulis or Warnock served up, but it does make a difference to have someone you can knock it a bit longer to. If only because that variety means the opposition can’t be so certain what you’re going to and will inevitably leave space for you as a result. Just doing the same thing again and again and again is what I don’t like. Even the best teams play a longer pass now and again. It can be brilliant to watch it it’s done properly and isn’t just aimless punts or big lumps just getting it launched.

 

[Corcaigh_the_Cat]

Variety, adapting to the situation required. We did it against Chelsea at home, and we've done it on the road in the league too.

It worked for Everton last night but it hasn't been successful all season.

 

[Frozen Horse]

I think there is a degree of snobbery about what I think of a classic centre forward play, as if having a centre forward over six foot tall makes you a long ball team. There's also an assumption that big centre forwards must be donkeys (go and tell Mark Viduka, or at second tier level, Paul Wilkinson that).

To me classic, buccaneering wing play with a big centre forward attacking crosses is the most attractive way of playing. I don't see possession-based football as inherently attractive: too often it means centre halves repeatedly exchanging passes and, for occasional variation, going back to the goalkeeper.

I'd also argue heading is a skill, just as much as dribbling is, and one that is probably more useful in football. ELL's header on Monday is a great example, but I remember a great header by a Hull player against us at the Riverside last season, and a fantastic header by an Aussie in the World Cup that demonstrate the point. Maccarone was on the pitch on Monday too; he might have scored one or two memorable headed goals. As a skill, I think it gets a bad rep compared to, say,a physical attribute such as pace (it's not a skill if it doesn't require the ball to demonstrate it), due to it's use in the longball game.

I agree absolutely that we need a variety of style in the game. I loath the idea that there is "a right way" to play, and that everyone should do the same. We are capable of appreciating nuance, and not adhering slavishly to possession-based prettyball does not make you a longball team.

 

[35to39]

It's great when its working well. Saying that, Pulis's Boro team with 4 CMs knocking it long to Jordan Hugill is the worst football I've ever seen and never ever want that to return.

 

[indeedido]

I think there is a degree of snobbery about what I think of a classic centre forward play, as if having a centre forward over six foot tall makes you a long ball team. There's also an assumption that big centre forwards must be donkeys (go and tell Mark Viduka, or at second tier level, Paul Wilkinson that).

To me classic, buccaneering wing play with a big centre forward attacking crosses is the most attractive way of playing. I don't see possession-based football as inherently attractive: too often it means centre halves repeatedly exchanging passes and, for occasional variation, going back to the goalkeeper.

I'd also argue heading is a skill, just as much as dribbling is, and one that is probably more useful in football. ELL's header on Monday is a great example, but I remember a great header by a Hull player against us at the Riverside last season, and a fantastic header by an Aussie in the World Cup that demonstrate the point. Maccarone was on the pitch on Monday too; he might have scored one or two memorable headed goals. As a skill, I think it gets a bad rep compared to, say,a physical attribute such as pace (it's not a skill if it doesn't require the ball to demonstrate it), due to it's use in the longball game.

I agree absolutely that we need a variety of style in the game. I loath the idea that there is "a right way" to play, and that everyone should do the same. We are capable of appreciating nuance, and not adhering slavishly to possession-based prettyball does not make you a longball team.

Excellent post.

 

[MichaelDebeve]

It's great when its working well. Saying that, Pulis's Boro team with 4 CMs knocking it long to Jordan Hugill is the worst football I've ever seen and never ever want that to return.

And that’s the difference.

When fit, DCL is a hell of a player for Everton, big yes, but quick and technically decent, so his team mates have options.

As well as that they have decent wing options in Harrison and ONeil … and I thought Doucoure was brilliant last night breaking the lines, mix it all together and it was a fantastic agggressive forward line.

Not a hit and hope tactic which as you say we relied too much on under TP

 

[Frozen Horse]

Saying that, Pulis's Boro team with 4 CMs knocking it long to Jordan Hugill is the worst football I've ever seen and never ever want that to return.

No one enjoyed that. However, I do believe the PL has been enhanced in the past by having one team, Bolton or Stoke, prepared to play that well.

Wenger's Arsenal seemed to struggle particularly against this style (I think we all enjoyed his interviews afterwards which, if I remember rightly, the gist was "We have spent more money than them; they should play how we want them too"). It was an important test in sorting the league winners from the runners up.

Having that in the game strikes me as a good thing, even if I'm glad I don't have to watch it every week.

 

[MickaelDebevePhenomenal]

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.

 

[The_Big_Woodowski]

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.

 

[Frozen Horse]

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.

Absolutely agree (apart from the use of the word "turgid", which is one of my pet hates in football). That's my point really: variation in style is vast; not playing tippa tappa out from the keeper does not make you a long ball team. Likewise, Pepball is not inherently attractive: it can be when elite players play that way, but I'd probably rathr watch genuine long ball football than Swansea's brand of possession. At least longball is attacking (no one defends using longball, do they?)

 

[MickaelDebevePhenomenal]

Absolutely agree (apart from the use of the word "turgid", which is one of my pet hates in football). That's my point really: variation in style is vast; not playing tippa tappa out from the keeper does not make you a long ball team. Likewise, Pepball is not inherently attractive: it can be when elite players play that way, but I'd probably rathr watch genuine long ball football than Swansea's brand of possession. At least longball is attacking (no one defends using longball, do they?)

My issue is the teams that tend to play "longball" generally have very technically deficient players.
So these long balls often become 60 yard hoofed clearances that drift aimlessly through to the keeper.

Any tactic or style played ineffectively is boring and bland to watch.

 

[h_m_boro]

It's great when its working well. Saying that, Pulis's Boro team with 4 CMs knocking it long to Jordan Hugill is the worst football I've ever seen and never ever want that to return.

You forgot the 4 CBs in defence.......