This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- What team do you support and why?
- Premier League Predictions 2023-24
- Premier League Run In
- elsie wellbeing update at the end of 2023 :)
- Im bored as hell
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- Devonshire - Coach House
- Southampton offers?
- TSR emojis are so silly
- 999 call handler interview
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- Cambridge MASt (Part III) applicants 2023
- Best football match you saw as a child?
- Accomodation on manor park campus
- Fitzwilliam College Cambridge Offer Holders 2023
- Essex Oral Health Science
The Arsenal Thread XX
Scroll to see replies
Giroud cannot be expected to be a flair striker freak of nature like an Henry because that is just not going to happen. But to suggest that he cannot be some great finisher, a conventional striker, is silly. He should be given the simple task of just holding the ball up with a physical presence for the quicker players , and scoring tap ins. That is what he's good for. He is a one-dimensional old school striker, but he is good at what he does. We just should not be expecting him to be a master of all trades striker because there are very few of those around.
Original post by sevchenko
I agree Giru finishing is quite good it always has been. He isn't clicnal that's the problem
One of my favs
[video="youtube;hWZAWbBz0Ug"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZAWbBz0Ug[/video]
One of my favs
[video="youtube;hWZAWbBz0Ug"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZAWbBz0Ug[/video]
Wtf.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
Original post by jam278
Wtf.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
I think he's referring to Girouds potential. That, at times he shows brilliance when it comes to finishing. He's not consistent though, and if he was he would get a lot more goals indeed
Original post by jam278
Wtf.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
I think your post is little harsh
Being clinical is all about how often you put the ball into the back of the net. Essentially how often a player converts his chances. It doesn't matter what a player's ability level is he can have a good chance conversion rate, it has almost nothing to do with natural technical skill rather intelligent positioning, good luck and most importantly confidence. A player may know how to finish well but certain factors prevent him from being consistency clinical best example of this is Giroud. He wouldn't be at Arsenal if he wasn't blessed with technique
Finishing is all about the technique used to put the ball into the back of the net. Any fool can toe punt the ball into the goal but finishing is about skill. The way you balance your body before shooting or the angle of your foot when striking the ball. That sort of stuff either comes naturally or is practised extensively.
You tend to find clinical player in the lower leagues they often lack the technique for the top levels of football. I think Jonathan Walters is a good example of what I'm trying to say here, He knows how to score goals but but may not finish goal well. I don't deny that the two attributes are very closely related.
That's just the way I see it in fairness. Every see football in different ways.
Original post by sevchenko
I agree Giru finishing is quite good it always has been. He isn't clicnal that's the problem
One of my favs
[video="youtube;hWZAWbBz0Ug"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZAWbBz0Ug[/video]
One of my favs
[video="youtube;hWZAWbBz0Ug"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZAWbBz0Ug[/video]
That doesn't make any sense.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jam278
Wtf.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
So how can a guys finishing be good and he not be clinical? You actually serious here? The whole point of being a good finisher is being clinical, Inzaghi and Van Nistelrooy didn't shoot outside the box but they were good finishers because they were clinical. This makes no sense whatsoever.
There is a difference, Bergkamp was an unbelievably good finisher, not clinical really though. RvN was the inverse.
been telling idiotic arsenal fans bout giroud from daaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy man, they never listen ffs. watch when wenger uses him as our starting striker.
25+ goals this season. called it. gonna prove all you sidemen wrong.
25+ goals this season. called it. gonna prove all you sidemen wrong.
Original post by sevchenko
I think your post is little harsh
Being clinical is all about how often you put the ball into the back of the net. Essentially how often a player converts his chances. It doesn't matter what a player's ability level is he can have a good chance conversion rate, it has almost nothing to do with natural technical skill rather intelligent positioning, good luck and most importantly confidence. A player may know how to finish well but certain factors prevent him from being consistency clinical best example of this is Giroud. He wouldn't be at Arsenal if he wasn't blessed with technique
Finishing is all about the technique used to put the ball into the back of the net. Any fool can toe punt the ball into the goal but finishing is about skill. The way you balance your body before shooting or the angle of your foot when striking the ball. That sort of stuff either comes naturally or is practised extensively.
You tend to find clinical player in the lower leagues they often lack the technique for the top levels of football. I think Jonathan Walters is a good example of what I'm trying to say here, He knows how to score goals but but may not finish goal well. I don't deny that the two attributes are very closely related.
That's just the way I see it in fairness. Every see football in different ways.
Being clinical is all about how often you put the ball into the back of the net. Essentially how often a player converts his chances. It doesn't matter what a player's ability level is he can have a good chance conversion rate, it has almost nothing to do with natural technical skill rather intelligent positioning, good luck and most importantly confidence. A player may know how to finish well but certain factors prevent him from being consistency clinical best example of this is Giroud. He wouldn't be at Arsenal if he wasn't blessed with technique
Finishing is all about the technique used to put the ball into the back of the net. Any fool can toe punt the ball into the goal but finishing is about skill. The way you balance your body before shooting or the angle of your foot when striking the ball. That sort of stuff either comes naturally or is practised extensively.
You tend to find clinical player in the lower leagues they often lack the technique for the top levels of football. I think Jonathan Walters is a good example of what I'm trying to say here, He knows how to score goals but but may not finish goal well. I don't deny that the two attributes are very closely related.
That's just the way I see it in fairness. Every see football in different ways.
Being a good finisher is essentially being clinical. If you nutmeg the keeper, if the keeper fumbles every shot you take despite getting a hand to it so it goes in the goal you are still a good finisher. Just because somebody has the odd 30 yarder curler in the top corner doesn't make him a good finisher.
Top finishers have to be clinical, so the likes of RVP, Hernandez, Muller and Messi are good finishers. Ronaldo too but he takes a lot of shots outside range, inside range he's generally good as a finisher.
Original post by Pete_91
There is a difference, Bergkamp was an unbelievably good finisher, not clinical really though. RvN was the inverse.
A good finisher should be a good converter of chances. Now people will show ronaldo's relatively lower conversion rate but he shoots a lot outside of the box, inside of the box he's as good as anybody(bar Messi probz).
Bergkamp therefore wasn't a good finisher, I'm not going to act like i've watched him enough but you're essentially saying he's a player capable of good finishes. Consistency is key and if Bergkamp wasn't consistent enough with his quality finishing then he wasn't a good finisher. RVP is a good finisher.
It's like people saying ronaldo is a great free kick taker, when in reality he's just a taker of great free kicks.
Original post by Basiji
been telling idiotic arsenal fans bout giroud from daaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy man, they never listen ffs. watch when wenger uses him as our starting striker.
25+ goals this season. called it. gonna prove all you sidemen wrong.
25+ goals this season. called it. gonna prove all you sidemen wrong.
Because of that goal?
Well, I don't know about the others on here but I've always been really clear about my views on Giroud.
He's a really good squad player to have but we can't win the league with him leading our line. I would love to have him in our team, and he'd be real good to change a system throughout the game - but he doesn't put fear in the oppositions hearts.
If AW plays Sanchez through the middle when giroud isn't working in a game then I have no problem in not buying another striker (given that Sanchez will be effective as a false 9 in the BPL)
Original post by Basiji
been telling idiotic arsenal fans bout giroud from daaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy man, they never listen ffs. watch when wenger uses him as our starting striker.
25+ goals this season. called it. gonna prove all you sidemen wrong.
25+ goals this season. called it. gonna prove all you sidemen wrong.
I hope this is a joke.
Giroud is a good player in terms of positioning and creativity but he's a woeful striker. It seems as though you've forgotten the colossal count of chances(some may consider to be easy) he's missed. Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he had one of the worst conversion rates in the league.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Wow. Only 24 hours since his move and Vermaelen is already injured 
.
.Original post by Kruz
Wow. Only 24 hours since his move and Vermaelen is already injured .
.He picked up a knock during the world cup so I'm sure its the same muscle injury that's keeping him out.
Original post by Kruz
Wow. Only 24 hours since his move and Vermaelen is already injured .
.I think he was carrying a niggle throughout pre season
Either way.. Wenger be like:-
Original post by little_tom
He picked up a knock during the world cup so I'm sure its the same muscle injury that's keeping him out.
Oh right that explains it.
Anyone remember this performance by Bergkamp? He was ****ing 36, and he single-handedly ripped Everton apart. Unbelievable player.
Trying to start a Bergkamp circle-jerk here.
Original post by jam278
Being a good finisher is essentially being clinical. If you nutmeg the keeper, if the keeper fumbles every shot you take despite getting a hand to it so it goes in the goal you are still a good finisher. Just because somebody has the odd 30 yarder curler in the top corner doesn't make him a good finisher.
Top finishers have to be clinical, so the likes of RVP, Hernandez, Muller and Messi are good finishers. Ronaldo too but he takes a lot of shots outside range, inside range he's generally good as a finisher.
A good finisher should be a good converter of chances. Now people will show ronaldo's relatively lower conversion rate but he shoots a lot outside of the box, inside of the box he's as good as anybody(bar Messi probz).
Bergkamp therefore wasn't a good finisher, I'm not going to act like i've watched him enough but you're essentially saying he's a player capable of good finishes. Consistency is key and if Bergkamp wasn't consistent enough with his quality finishing then he wasn't a good finisher. RVP is a good finisher.
It's like people saying ronaldo is a great free kick taker, when in reality he's just a taker of great free kicks.
Top finishers have to be clinical, so the likes of RVP, Hernandez, Muller and Messi are good finishers. Ronaldo too but he takes a lot of shots outside range, inside range he's generally good as a finisher.
A good finisher should be a good converter of chances. Now people will show ronaldo's relatively lower conversion rate but he shoots a lot outside of the box, inside of the box he's as good as anybody(bar Messi probz).
Bergkamp therefore wasn't a good finisher, I'm not going to act like i've watched him enough but you're essentially saying he's a player capable of good finishes. Consistency is key and if Bergkamp wasn't consistent enough with his quality finishing then he wasn't a good finisher. RVP is a good finisher.
It's like people saying ronaldo is a great free kick taker, when in reality he's just a taker of great free kicks.
One is about statistics, the other refers to technique, style, pure ability. That's what I interpreted the meanings of the two phrases. Admittedly I probably would call one 'clinical finisher' and the other 'quality striker of the ball' or something similar. That's what I meant.
Original post by little_tom
Anyone remember this performance by Bergkamp? He was ****ing 36, and he single-handedly ripped Everton apart. Unbelievable player.
Most complete arsenal performance I've ever seen (watching since 96/7).
The 2-0 at OT in 2005 actually winds me up a million times more than the 8-2. Should have posted that.
Related discussions
- The Arsenal Thread XXVI
- The Arsenal Thread XXV
- What team do you support and why?
- Premier League Predictions 2023-24
- Premier League Run In
- elsie wellbeing update at the end of 2023 :)
- Im bored as hell
- The Liverpool FC Thread XVII
- Tottenham Hotspur Society II
- Is Bukayo Saka the face of the Premier League?
- Devonshire - Coach House
- Southampton offers?
- TSR emojis are so silly
- 999 call handler interview
- Does carbohydrates cause acne?
- Cambridge MASt (Part III) applicants 2023
- Best football match you saw as a child?
- Accomodation on manor park campus
- Fitzwilliam College Cambridge Offer Holders 2023
- Essex Oral Health Science
