The long ball ..... is it so bad ??

[sheded 0]

I think Martin Tyler [ Sky sports ] made some valid points  ......  The old Wimbledon  used the long ball  to an expectant  , and massed strike force very effectively ......  and  kept themselves in the prem  for quite a while !!   ....  when you look at this logically , the long ball  makes sense !   ..... instead of struggling and tip tapping through  the opponents defence  you just heave the ball over their heads , and have enough bodies waiting  to get it into the net    ......   my thought is that this system  might , just might , be the way to go for us  ? ......  forget continental  style , were British , lets play it the British way  .... its exciting  and entertaining  ......

[Alan 0]

The long ball worked for Wayne Rooney on Saturday. Long punt from the goalie, nodded on to Rooney who vollied in first touch. You cant get much more direct than that.

[Francesco Volpe<P><BR><EM><FONT size=3><STRONG>A<STRONG><FONT>wesome<STRONG><FONT size=3>S<FONT><STRONG>ublime<STRONG><FONT size=3>H<FONT><STRONG>onest pro<EM><EM><FONT size=3><STRONG>T<STRONG><FONT>alented<STRONG><FONT size 0]

How can watching a ball being hoofed backwards and forwards be entertaining???

I don''t care how we play as long as we stay up, thats the important thing.

[Worthy Nigelton<br><br><br><br><br>Evening News Sports Page Headline 8th August 2007:<br><br>Henderson joins Dereham Town. 0]

Okay so it worked for Wimbledon. The question is: Do we have similar players to what Wimbledon had? The answer is no. Wimbledon had a lot of big, strong and quite dirty players and the only way they knew was to play long ball. Is this going to to suit us? I don''t think so.

Also, for every Wimbledon there is a Charlton who play a really attractive passing game. My personal opinion is that there are very few successful long ball sides but numerous successfull passing sides, and long term, the passing game is what will bring us our aim of establishing ourselves in the Premiership.

I think that sometimes we are to direct at the moment and we should play it out more.

[blacko 0]

Worked last night for Palace at West Brom, only because of a bit of muppet defending. Let them stick to it I do not want it here. I do, however, want us to have the confidence to attack. We often do when we are behind. But not always when we are level or in front. Hate to mention it again, but the dredded play off final, when we got in front we let them come on to us in waves. There was only ever going to be one team scoring then, and it wasn''t us.

We don''t need to be gung ho! but attack is a very good form of defence.

[First Wizard 0]

[quote]I think Martin Tyler [ Sky sports ] made some valid points ...... The old Wimbledon used the long ball to an expectant , and massed strike force very effectively ...... and kept themselves in t...[/quote]

I have great respect for Martin Tyler and your good self Sheded. But I detest with a passion, the long ball.

Its not the city way, never has been, and I would be very sad if we ever went down that road.

In the end it did Wimbledon no favours, as teams got used to it and how to defend against it, sorry mate.

[Saint Canary 0]

I don''t think the long ball system is worth using all the time but I think it is worth having as an option.  Versatility is a key factor in most successful clubs and the ability to be able to adapt your style if it''s not working is important.

Most clubs will put bodies up front and play direct balls occasionally when it''s needed.

[beelsie 0]

Many good points are made here, some I can agree with some are IMHO not relevent.

To make a few points.

I believe that football is like chess and it requires different strategies depending on the opposition.

In some instances the long ball delivered with accuracy to the feet of a forward player is a good thing to turn defence into attack.

Think how many times we have been caught out thus. 

Players like Ian Crook was a player who many times was able to split a defence with a long accurate pass. Players like Martin Peters was always ghosting in to take advantage of the long ball.  Also it provides interesting variables into the attacking system, being unpredictable is a big part of the game.  Playing booring ping-pong square, and back passes all the time are meat and two veg to good sides, it allows time for opposing defences to get into impregnable positions. It is our running off the ball that more than worries me, it is badly done and leads to too much square play. Phil Mulryne and players like him thrive on square innefective play, cos they wo''nt stretch themselves and make the effort to get the ball and move forward in diagonal patterns, thereby upsetting the opposition.  We are guilty, as many have said before of having a missing mid-field when it comes to winning the ball and being creative in a positive manner, and I for one believe that the long ball judiciously used would give us a little respite at the back, and add guile and creativity to a side, that often gives great effort without the craft. OTBC!!!!

[Northern Canary 0]

yeah, why not just lob it up to Hux

[Freddy H 0]

Playing the long ball game is very much like making love to a beautiful woman, you need to stop messing around at the back and pump it into the box quickly.

This will never get past the mods!!