No it doesn't show a tendency, one example can't show a tendency. It's not hard to find players that are successful because they are exceedingly quick or strong. If Neymar didn't haven't those things, his technical ability wouldn't be nearly as pronounced.
Physicality or technique?
- Thread starter Rossa
- Start date
Technicality
You name them.
All of them?
Bale, Aubameyang, Salah, Shaw, Mane, Alba, Costa, Belotti, Mandy, Romagnoli, Koulibaly etc.
You really neeeded someone to list these for you?
Shevchenko, Batistuta, RVN, Rooney, Torres, Henry, Vieri, Adriano, Lampard, Gerrard, Makelele, Kante, Gattuso, Gullit, NedvedAll of them?
Bale, Aubameyang, Salah, Shaw, Mane, Alba, Costa, Belotti, Mandy, Romagnoli, Koulibaly etc.
You really neeeded someone to list these for you?
But of we're going that way, i'm putting Zlatan and Ronaldo under the technical players, along with Pelé, Messi, Diego, Platini, Cruyff, Di Stefano, Romario, Rivaldo, Dinho, Zidane, Van Basten, Best, Falcao, Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, Baggio, Higuain, Lewandowski, RVP, Riquelme, Figo, Scholes, Laudrup, Cristiano, Puskas, Garrincha and I just mentioned like 13 of the 15 best players of all time here...
Eusebio and Beckenbauer i'm not sure where i'd place them
Players at the highest level tend to have a great deal of both. But, technique is usually what really separates the best from the rest.
Technique has a vastly higher potential but it is probably more difficult to implement. A more physical team is easier to set up and will enjoy some success if the technical competition is not reaching its potential the way Arsenal have been under Wenger. The problem for us now is there are at least 3 teams who are reaching a very high level technically which is probably unprecedented in English football. It changes what is needed in terms of requirements compared to teams from the past.
Several of those players could be placed in either category.
All of them?
Bale, Aubameyang, Salah, Shaw, Mane, Alba, Costa, Belotti, Mandy, Romagnoli, Koulibaly etc.
You really neeeded someone to list these for you?
Walker would be a complete dud without his physical attributes, and is currently one of the best RBs in the PL. Evra waned immensely when he lost a yard of pace. Looking at Giggs, you could tell he was more reliant on his speed than his dribbling and agility as he struggled to play on the wing when he lost a yard. His technique and particularly crossing arguably improved with age. The best example would probably be Eto'o? Shevchenko as well. He fell off a cliff physically, and then started working with sprint trainers to regain some of his speed, but he never got back to where he was - I think he was a 100m runner in his youth? Walcott?
Nearly all of them could be placed in either category. It's football. I split them based on players who would not have been greats with lesser physical gifts, and players who would have greats anyways even with lesser physical gifts
You think if Messi didn't have that imacculate balance and turn of pace he'd still be a great? I think it would severely hamper his game.
Yes. He would not be as great as he is of course, but he'd still be great. Of course, i'm talking still good balance and turn of pace. If he couldn't take two steps without falling on his arse he couldn't have been a footballer
Well it’s not quite accurate for example what extraordinary physical gifts did Lampard have?
Stamina, but it's not really about having extraordinary physical gifts, it's about how good they'd have been if they were less physically gifted
First you need to establish what "physical" means... Speed, balance, impulse, agility, stamina, are all aspects of an athlete's physique.
For example, the OP names Messi as an example of a technical player rather than physical but that's just not true.
Messi is strong as a bull and has extraordinary balance and they are fundamental for him to exploit his magnificent technical skills.
All in all, football is pretty democratic in the sense that you can play in almost any position despite your height, weight, body shape etc. As professional athletes, they must strive to reach top physical condition regardless of their technical prowess.
In the end, the response varies greatly. There's no right answer, and most teams are a mix of players with different qualities and physical structures. There is no formula or statistics that can determine that reliably.
For example, the OP names Messi as an example of a technical player rather than physical but that's just not true.
Messi is strong as a bull and has extraordinary balance and they are fundamental for him to exploit his magnificent technical skills.
All in all, football is pretty democratic in the sense that you can play in almost any position despite your height, weight, body shape etc. As professional athletes, they must strive to reach top physical condition regardless of their technical prowess.
In the end, the response varies greatly. There's no right answer, and most teams are a mix of players with different qualities and physical structures. There is no formula or statistics that can determine that reliably.
It depends what your goal is.
Generally, physique is more important than technique. Simply because you can't play professional football without being exceptionally fit. Stop training or enjoy an unhealthy or unprofessional lifestyle and even if your technique is absolutely amazing you won't be able to compete at professional level. See for instance Ronaldinho. Another example is Götze although in his case it isn't due to his lifestyle but health condition. He's still the best technician in the Bundesliga but due to his slower movements he struggles to even get into Dortmunds starting line up. And he was a world beater when his fitness was intact.
But all this is more of a basic requirement. If you want to create the best team, technique beats physique every day. Someone who is fit and absolutely excells in terms of technique will be a better player than the one who is an exceptional athlete but only an average technician. The truly great players tend to have both, however.
I can't really understand how someone can think that physicality is more important at the top level to be honest. The last 10 years have been completely dominated by technically superior teams and the overwhelming amount of big international titles was won by them (Real, Barca, Spain, Germany, Bayern).
Generally, physique is more important than technique. Simply because you can't play professional football without being exceptionally fit. Stop training or enjoy an unhealthy or unprofessional lifestyle and even if your technique is absolutely amazing you won't be able to compete at professional level. See for instance Ronaldinho. Another example is Götze although in his case it isn't due to his lifestyle but health condition. He's still the best technician in the Bundesliga but due to his slower movements he struggles to even get into Dortmunds starting line up. And he was a world beater when his fitness was intact.
But all this is more of a basic requirement. If you want to create the best team, technique beats physique every day. Someone who is fit and absolutely excells in terms of technique will be a better player than the one who is an exceptional athlete but only an average technician. The truly great players tend to have both, however.
I can't really understand how someone can think that physicality is more important at the top level to be honest. The last 10 years have been completely dominated by technically superior teams and the overwhelming amount of big international titles was won by them (Real, Barca, Spain, Germany, Bayern).
Giggs was still going past guys with ease even in his final seasons. Was incredibly effective in carrying the ball through the middle of the pitch when playing CM. One v One against modern full backs who all tend to be top athletes is very difficult, especially when you have to chase them back all game.
Giggs is a bit of freak in that aspect though, even diminished Giggs with maybe 70% of his former top speed was still a wonderfully agile and balanced runner and going against CM's he could easily feint and drift away from them. Down to his dribbling style in many ways, he was not a kick and run merchant like some speedsters, had the ability to keep the ball incredibly close at top speeds, a level of elite technical mastery there that few wingers can match.
All of them?
Bale, Aubameyang, Salah, Shaw, Mane, Alba, Costa, Belotti, Mandy, Romagnoli, Koulibaly etc.
You really neeeded someone to list these for you?
You said those players are good because they are quick or strong, and the fact they are quick or strong does add a lot to their game, but in the case of the best ones Bale, Salah, Alba etc, they are very technical players as well.
The idea was confronting very technical players with poor physicality to very physical players with poor technique. The only great example I've seen so far of the second group is Drogba, and even in his case I'm not entirely sure it can be said he wasn't a technical player, as his technique playing with his back to the goal was second to none.
For instance, did Raul have an outstanding physicality? No, he was about technique, or ability to understand the game and find good solutions in an effective way most and foremost. And even if Raul was an unique player, it's more plausible to see someone like him triumphing in football than a Emile Heskey kind of player.
Nice job bringing Raul as an example. It actually highlights the importance of a key ingredient to a football player, and that is intelligence.
The intelligent player can make the most of his qualities and reduce the impact of his shortcomings, and that's why some players thrive despite having average physiques and other despite their average technique.
Still, one has to wonder... If Raul had a Ronaldo like physique, wouldn't he be an even greater player?
Team mata would one touch pass it around them big trees all day
Diego Costa was the one of the rare one's who had both. He could play one touch as well as bulldozer role.
Drogba?!?!?! Drogba was a very technical player
So we can conclude not even Drogba fits the bill.
Technical skill is much more important for me
First of all what defines a technical player?
I remember this place going mad over Shinji Kagawa because he was such a neat and easy on the eye...but he was also pointless. Fellaini as a 10 has done so much more and Valencia as a winger too. Kagawa made slick short passes and a nice first touch but beyond that he was a very basic player.
And that's my second point. A lot of "technical" play is just doing the basics to a high level of frequency. It's not all about dribbling. In academy football you get a lot of young boys people describe as being technically good (Ben Pearson, Sean Goss) but where are they now? The reality is in academy football at a slower pace and less intensity it's far more easier to look ok than senior football where you need physicality. There's nothing wrong with being physical. There's nothing wrong in being aggressive. These players regress to a mean where their level of technique is not good enough, whereas a more physical player can make it by brushing up on his touch and working on a role.
Thirdly, any player in the top flight to a degree is technically good. This is elite football. We all know of players like Fellaini as a war wagon, Walcott as an "athlete not footballer". Guys at Cardiff and Huddersfield are technical in their own right. The reality is put these guys in a lower level and they'll be breaking records. You can't make it to top level football by not having any technique. Everyone knows that guy at school who was like Maradona but he's probably a plumber now. These guys actually made it.
I remember this place going mad over Shinji Kagawa because he was such a neat and easy on the eye...but he was also pointless. Fellaini as a 10 has done so much more and Valencia as a winger too. Kagawa made slick short passes and a nice first touch but beyond that he was a very basic player.
And that's my second point. A lot of "technical" play is just doing the basics to a high level of frequency. It's not all about dribbling. In academy football you get a lot of young boys people describe as being technically good (Ben Pearson, Sean Goss) but where are they now? The reality is in academy football at a slower pace and less intensity it's far more easier to look ok than senior football where you need physicality. There's nothing wrong with being physical. There's nothing wrong in being aggressive. These players regress to a mean where their level of technique is not good enough, whereas a more physical player can make it by brushing up on his touch and working on a role.
Thirdly, any player in the top flight to a degree is technically good. This is elite football. We all know of players like Fellaini as a war wagon, Walcott as an "athlete not footballer". Guys at Cardiff and Huddersfield are technical in their own right. The reality is put these guys in a lower level and they'll be breaking records. You can't make it to top level football by not having any technique. Everyone knows that guy at school who was like Maradona but he's probably a plumber now. These guys actually made it.
I always believed that you need technical and physical ability to be a top player. Don't let the size fool you, Messi and Hazard are physically strong as well as being technical. So too was Xavi and Iniesta as well as a whole lot of other small players.
You need a mixture of tall and average players in you team, for different positions, but most of all you need them to be good Technically and Physically.
You need a mixture of tall and average players in you team, for different positions, but most of all you need them to be good Technically and Physically.
Griezman vs Lukaku