We looked miles better once he was off the pitch.
Said all season, a top striker would transform this side. Bamford is just an average second tier player.
Roberts is a better lone striker IMO, but never been fit enough to make his mark, his movement is far superior and brings the midfield into the game better. Would be great if he could go the next 7 games without an injury.
Surely players are picked on what skills and attributes they bring to the team and how the blend works within the team...and that includes the player who has the most skill, technique and intelligence to find the net, the player who has the all round game, including the player who works hard for the team....the best players who can score goals and capacity to work hard are usually the best paid, the ones who best command high transfer value.
You can't just dismiss scoring goals as a secondary consideration...you're not gonna win many games with tactics that ignore the end product in football, scoring.
Numbers on players shirts mean nothing now so why be categorical about no. 9 or 10 for that matter.
That should have proved how valuable what Bamford does for this team is though. Because when he wasn't producing it we looked awful.
I'm not yet decided on Roberts' best position. I don't think he has the instinct to sniff the ball out in the box. Bamford is actually incredibly good at being in the right place, hence the amount of chances he gets. But I would trust Roberts to take more chances definitely. I think Roberts is our best talent. His technique is second to none in the side, but he needs to be more intelligent as a player, whether that's as a 9 or a 10.
comment by NJS - Prem4Harj (U8272)
posted 4 minutes ago
Surely players are picked on what skills and attributes they bring to the team and how the blend works within the team...and that includes the player who has the most skill, technique and intelligence to find the net, the player who has the all round game, including the player who works hard for the team....the best players who can score goals and capacity to work hard are usually the best paid, the ones who best command high transfer value.
You can't just dismiss scoring goals as a secondary consideration...you're not gonna win many games with tactics that ignore the end product in football, scoring.
Numbers on players shirts mean nothing now so why be categorical about no. 9 or 10 for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When referring to a 9 or 10 it describes the position/role in the side, not shirt number.
Phillips is a 4. Klich/Forshaw 8, Pablo 10 etc.
You say you cannot dismiss scoring as secondary, but Bielsa did at half time didn't he. He did with Eddie throughout the season. And he will continue to do so.
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by NJS - Prem4Harj (U8272)
posted 4 minutes ago
Surely players are picked on what skills and attributes they bring to the team and how the blend works within the team...and that includes the player who has the most skill, technique and intelligence to find the net, the player who has the all round game, including the player who works hard for the team....the best players who can score goals and capacity to work hard are usually the best paid, the ones who best command high transfer value.
You can't just dismiss scoring goals as a secondary consideration...you're not gonna win many games with tactics that ignore the end product in football, scoring.
Numbers on players shirts mean nothing now so why be categorical about no. 9 or 10 for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When referring to a 9 or 10 it describes the position/role in the side, not shirt number.
Phillips is a 4. Klich/Forshaw 8, Pablo 10 etc.
You say you cannot dismiss scoring as secondary, but Bielsa did at half time didn't he. He did with Eddie throughout the season. And he will continue to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't ever see Bielsa dismissing scoring as secondary - his philosophy is always to keep the ball and attack until the 95th minute.
Bamford looked knackered and had ice on his knee for the second half. That alone would justify the changes. It didn't change our approach to the game though - attack attack attack!
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 minutes ago
That should have proved how valuable what Bamford does for this team is though. Because when he wasn't producing it we looked awful.
I'm not yet decided on Roberts' best position. I don't think he has the instinct to sniff the ball out in the box. Bamford is actually incredibly good at being in the right place, hence the amount of chances he gets. But I would trust Roberts to take more chances definitely. I think Roberts is our best talent. His technique is second to none in the side, but he needs to be more intelligent as a player, whether that's as a 9 or a 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bamford is incredibly good at being in the right place, hence the amount of chances he gets"
I take it you are being serious? I guess you must be!
Bamford is best at self preservation, looking after himself....you obviously don't see the amount of times the ball goes over his head from centres, this is not bad luck! He doesn't position himself to attack the ball from a centre, he's too timid to attack a ball and consistently flounders under the ball coming in, he can only head when he's not in opposition with a defender, and usually always loses the fight to head the ball from a high kick out from our goalie.
I'm not even going to comment on his shooting skills.
His positioning in the penalty area is not good, he doesn't have the 'nose' or bravery to accept a chance of a goal.
In my opinion Leeds should have a better striker, he's not good enough for this club and I've posted any number of times for 2 seasons now.
He's not exactly in the ilk of a Mark Viduka or Alan Smith and going back further Mick Jones or Joe Jordan, he's not as skilful or aggressive enough for a striker playing for Leeds in the Championship and certainly not Premier.
I think it's to your credit you 'havefaithinLeeds'
But 1 star from me for this article and I rarely do give 1 would rather give 5 stars.
This debate has been done to death, with the pros and cons of Bamford. In the position he occupies he should be scoring more than he does whether we regard him as an out and out no 9, striker or whatever we label him.
Bamford gets criticised for his movement and for missing chances. Doesn't really add up, it's one or the other.
HaveFaith is spot on, his movement is great, which is why he gets so many chances to miss. His finishing is what lets him down, everything else is very good which is why Bielsa rates him so much.
Roofe last season got nowhere near the amount of chances per game as Bamford did, he was just clinical.
Roberts is much more mobile, so when we switch to a counter attack, he's better upfront. I actually thought he had a poor game again on Saturday though.
5* from me. Agree with the reasoning fully.
We have the best defence in the league and that’s because we defend from the front.
We have enough players in our side who can contribute enough goals to win the games we need.
Bamford has had a decent season - and that’s coming from one of the very few in here who didn’t want him. He came with a 1in3 ratio - what more were we expecting?
Hypothetically, if Pablo had been fully, who on here wouldn't have started him? I think most of us would have started him but who would have been dropped? My suspicion is that nearly all on here would drop Roberts and not Bamford.
Roberts did well up front because Fulham were attacking, which left spaces at the back that he could exploit better than Bamford because he has better pace and movement. Most teams we play don't play like that. Against someone like Luton, who are likely to defend deep and stick men behind the ball, Bamford is the better option.
Bamford runs and covers ground when the opposition have the ball, trying to close down space, good nothing wrong with that tactic....but in essence he's a 'labourer'.
Any player in that position has to bring something more significant if he's a top class player in a top team, than just running around closing space.
You could say they're umpteen players in the leagues who can fulfill that role, assuming they have the fitness,
you need something more to be a top class striker.
I think I've made my stance on Bamford clear.
That aside, the idea that scoring goals is a
secondary requirement of a striker is laughable.
Top class strikers normally cost more than £7m
And that's not a dig at you HaveFaith.
comment by Batty - Prem4harj (U4664)
posted 23 minutes ago
I think I've made my stance on Bamford clear.
That aside, the idea that scoring goals is a
secondary requirement of a striker is laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
NJS, you seem to have got movement mixed up with aerial ability. You also go on to say he isn't in ilk of Smith, Viduka, Jones or Jordan....who all played for us while we were competing in the European cup, not the 2nd division. Not sure if you have had a beer or not but you have really struggled to get whatever the point you were trying to make across.
Strange you don't equate aerial ability with movement, even if I was drunk I would make more sense than you,
time you thought more objectively about the whole picture of a football match, than limiting yourself to being just a Leeds fan!
comment by Batty - Prem4harj (U4664)
posted 24 minutes ago
I think I've made my stance on Bamford clear.
That aside, the idea that scoring goals is a
secondary requirement of a striker is laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact that how he is finishing chances is clearly less important to Bielsa than his all round game. And Bielsa is not the only manager that takes this view. Far from it. The game has changed.
Of course being able to finish is still very important. But you will see plenty of strikers now playing week in week out that are not great finishers but have a good all round game. You won't see many strikers who can only finish. Players like Defoe and Owen won't get much game time anymore.
And you can have a dig don't worry! It's only an opinion. Won't be checking into A&E with the 'offended injury'
comment by NJS - Prem4Harj (U8272)
posted 13 seconds ago
Strange you don't equate aerial ability with movement, even if I was drunk I would make more sense than you,
time you thought more objectively about the whole picture of a football match, than limiting yourself to being just a Leeds fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerial ability and movement are different attributes. Very different attributes.
And I thought they were mutually exclusive!
You should only use words you know the meaning of.
Tackling and finishing are not mutually exclusive of each other. You can be both a good finisher and a good tackler. But that doesn't mean I can criticise someones finishing because they can't tackle.
You have just explained why Bamford's movement isn't good by saying he can't win headers. It doesn't make any sense
Faith, for me, I want my striker to do this
in this order of importance:
Priority: Score goals
2nd: Create goals for others
3rd: Link up play/Movement
4th: Ability to track back and defend
I reckon Messiah wishes Bamford scored
many more goals (we'd already be up if
he had). But, forgives that because he
does deliver on 2 (somewhat), definitely
on 3, and 4.
Sign in if you want to comment
Taking Bamford off at half time proved
Page 1 of 3
posted on 29/6/20
We looked miles better once he was off the pitch.
Said all season, a top striker would transform this side. Bamford is just an average second tier player.
posted on 29/6/20
Roberts is a better lone striker IMO, but never been fit enough to make his mark, his movement is far superior and brings the midfield into the game better. Would be great if he could go the next 7 games without an injury.
posted on 29/6/20
Surely players are picked on what skills and attributes they bring to the team and how the blend works within the team...and that includes the player who has the most skill, technique and intelligence to find the net, the player who has the all round game, including the player who works hard for the team....the best players who can score goals and capacity to work hard are usually the best paid, the ones who best command high transfer value.
You can't just dismiss scoring goals as a secondary consideration...you're not gonna win many games with tactics that ignore the end product in football, scoring.
Numbers on players shirts mean nothing now so why be categorical about no. 9 or 10 for that matter.
posted on 29/6/20
That should have proved how valuable what Bamford does for this team is though. Because when he wasn't producing it we looked awful.
I'm not yet decided on Roberts' best position. I don't think he has the instinct to sniff the ball out in the box. Bamford is actually incredibly good at being in the right place, hence the amount of chances he gets. But I would trust Roberts to take more chances definitely. I think Roberts is our best talent. His technique is second to none in the side, but he needs to be more intelligent as a player, whether that's as a 9 or a 10.
posted on 29/6/20
comment by NJS - Prem4Harj (U8272)
posted 4 minutes ago
Surely players are picked on what skills and attributes they bring to the team and how the blend works within the team...and that includes the player who has the most skill, technique and intelligence to find the net, the player who has the all round game, including the player who works hard for the team....the best players who can score goals and capacity to work hard are usually the best paid, the ones who best command high transfer value.
You can't just dismiss scoring goals as a secondary consideration...you're not gonna win many games with tactics that ignore the end product in football, scoring.
Numbers on players shirts mean nothing now so why be categorical about no. 9 or 10 for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When referring to a 9 or 10 it describes the position/role in the side, not shirt number.
Phillips is a 4. Klich/Forshaw 8, Pablo 10 etc.
You say you cannot dismiss scoring as secondary, but Bielsa did at half time didn't he. He did with Eddie throughout the season. And he will continue to do so.
posted on 29/6/20
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by NJS - Prem4Harj (U8272)
posted 4 minutes ago
Surely players are picked on what skills and attributes they bring to the team and how the blend works within the team...and that includes the player who has the most skill, technique and intelligence to find the net, the player who has the all round game, including the player who works hard for the team....the best players who can score goals and capacity to work hard are usually the best paid, the ones who best command high transfer value.
You can't just dismiss scoring goals as a secondary consideration...you're not gonna win many games with tactics that ignore the end product in football, scoring.
Numbers on players shirts mean nothing now so why be categorical about no. 9 or 10 for that matter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When referring to a 9 or 10 it describes the position/role in the side, not shirt number.
Phillips is a 4. Klich/Forshaw 8, Pablo 10 etc.
You say you cannot dismiss scoring as secondary, but Bielsa did at half time didn't he. He did with Eddie throughout the season. And he will continue to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't ever see Bielsa dismissing scoring as secondary - his philosophy is always to keep the ball and attack until the 95th minute.
Bamford looked knackered and had ice on his knee for the second half. That alone would justify the changes. It didn't change our approach to the game though - attack attack attack!
posted on 29/6/20
comment by HaveFaithInLeeds (U8688)
posted 2 minutes ago
That should have proved how valuable what Bamford does for this team is though. Because when he wasn't producing it we looked awful.
I'm not yet decided on Roberts' best position. I don't think he has the instinct to sniff the ball out in the box. Bamford is actually incredibly good at being in the right place, hence the amount of chances he gets. But I would trust Roberts to take more chances definitely. I think Roberts is our best talent. His technique is second to none in the side, but he needs to be more intelligent as a player, whether that's as a 9 or a 10.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bamford is incredibly good at being in the right place, hence the amount of chances he gets"
I take it you are being serious? I guess you must be!
Bamford is best at self preservation, looking after himself....you obviously don't see the amount of times the ball goes over his head from centres, this is not bad luck! He doesn't position himself to attack the ball from a centre, he's too timid to attack a ball and consistently flounders under the ball coming in, he can only head when he's not in opposition with a defender, and usually always loses the fight to head the ball from a high kick out from our goalie.
I'm not even going to comment on his shooting skills.
His positioning in the penalty area is not good, he doesn't have the 'nose' or bravery to accept a chance of a goal.
In my opinion Leeds should have a better striker, he's not good enough for this club and I've posted any number of times for 2 seasons now.
He's not exactly in the ilk of a Mark Viduka or Alan Smith and going back further Mick Jones or Joe Jordan, he's not as skilful or aggressive enough for a striker playing for Leeds in the Championship and certainly not Premier.
posted on 29/6/20
I think it's to your credit you 'havefaithinLeeds'
But 1 star from me for this article and I rarely do give 1 would rather give 5 stars.
posted on 29/6/20
This debate has been done to death, with the pros and cons of Bamford. In the position he occupies he should be scoring more than he does whether we regard him as an out and out no 9, striker or whatever we label him.
posted on 29/6/20
Bamford gets criticised for his movement and for missing chances. Doesn't really add up, it's one or the other.
HaveFaith is spot on, his movement is great, which is why he gets so many chances to miss. His finishing is what lets him down, everything else is very good which is why Bielsa rates him so much.
Roofe last season got nowhere near the amount of chances per game as Bamford did, he was just clinical.
Roberts is much more mobile, so when we switch to a counter attack, he's better upfront. I actually thought he had a poor game again on Saturday though.
posted on 29/6/20
5* from me. Agree with the reasoning fully.
We have the best defence in the league and that’s because we defend from the front.
We have enough players in our side who can contribute enough goals to win the games we need.
Bamford has had a decent season - and that’s coming from one of the very few in here who didn’t want him. He came with a 1in3 ratio - what more were we expecting?
posted on 29/6/20
Hypothetically, if Pablo had been fully, who on here wouldn't have started him? I think most of us would have started him but who would have been dropped? My suspicion is that nearly all on here would drop Roberts and not Bamford.
posted on 29/6/20
Roberts did well up front because Fulham were attacking, which left spaces at the back that he could exploit better than Bamford because he has better pace and movement. Most teams we play don't play like that. Against someone like Luton, who are likely to defend deep and stick men behind the ball, Bamford is the better option.
posted on 29/6/20
Bamford runs and covers ground when the opposition have the ball, trying to close down space, good nothing wrong with that tactic....but in essence he's a 'labourer'.
Any player in that position has to bring something more significant if he's a top class player in a top team, than just running around closing space.
You could say they're umpteen players in the leagues who can fulfill that role, assuming they have the fitness,
you need something more to be a top class striker.
posted on 29/6/20
I think I've made my stance on Bamford clear.
That aside, the idea that scoring goals is a
secondary requirement of a striker is laughable.
posted on 29/6/20
Top class strikers normally cost more than £7m
posted on 29/6/20
And that's not a dig at you HaveFaith.
posted on 29/6/20
comment by Batty - Prem4harj (U4664)
posted 23 minutes ago
I think I've made my stance on Bamford clear.
That aside, the idea that scoring goals is a
secondary requirement of a striker is laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spot on
posted on 29/6/20
NJS, you seem to have got movement mixed up with aerial ability. You also go on to say he isn't in ilk of Smith, Viduka, Jones or Jordan....who all played for us while we were competing in the European cup, not the 2nd division. Not sure if you have had a beer or not but you have really struggled to get whatever the point you were trying to make across.
posted on 29/6/20
Strange you don't equate aerial ability with movement, even if I was drunk I would make more sense than you,
time you thought more objectively about the whole picture of a football match, than limiting yourself to being just a Leeds fan!
posted on 29/6/20
comment by Batty - Prem4harj (U4664)
posted 24 minutes ago
I think I've made my stance on Bamford clear.
That aside, the idea that scoring goals is a
secondary requirement of a striker is laughable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fact that how he is finishing chances is clearly less important to Bielsa than his all round game. And Bielsa is not the only manager that takes this view. Far from it. The game has changed.
Of course being able to finish is still very important. But you will see plenty of strikers now playing week in week out that are not great finishers but have a good all round game. You won't see many strikers who can only finish. Players like Defoe and Owen won't get much game time anymore.
And you can have a dig don't worry! It's only an opinion. Won't be checking into A&E with the 'offended injury'
posted on 29/6/20
comment by NJS - Prem4Harj (U8272)
posted 13 seconds ago
Strange you don't equate aerial ability with movement, even if I was drunk I would make more sense than you,
time you thought more objectively about the whole picture of a football match, than limiting yourself to being just a Leeds fan!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerial ability and movement are different attributes. Very different attributes.
posted on 29/6/20
And I thought they were mutually exclusive!
posted on 29/6/20
You should only use words you know the meaning of.
Tackling and finishing are not mutually exclusive of each other. You can be both a good finisher and a good tackler. But that doesn't mean I can criticise someones finishing because they can't tackle.
You have just explained why Bamford's movement isn't good by saying he can't win headers. It doesn't make any sense
posted on 29/6/20
Faith, for me, I want my striker to do this
in this order of importance:
Priority: Score goals
2nd: Create goals for others
3rd: Link up play/Movement
4th: Ability to track back and defend
I reckon Messiah wishes Bamford scored
many more goals (we'd already be up if
he had). But, forgives that because he
does deliver on 2 (somewhat), definitely
on 3, and 4.
Page 1 of 3