Ross Barkley

[StevO]

I agree that it's his brain. But I mean something different: lack of pitch awareness and intuitive understanding of what to do, when and to whom to pass, etc.

 

I've played sports all my life, as I'm sure most/all of you have done. I guess most players, no matter their physical talents, have an average intuitive understanding. Some are outstanding in this regard, making up in "smarts" what they lack in physical prowess. Barry is such an example; but now his pace has so much deteriorated that his great pitch sense only partially justifies his minutes.

 

Barkley doesn't appear to be able quickly -- instantaneous intuition -- to assess his and teammates' position, movement, expectations. This is so fundamental to an attacking mid that in some important sense, Barkley doesn't understand the game. Or at least the game he needs to play to be consistently effective, as opposed to intermittently brilliant.

 

If he doesn't believe in himself, perhaps it's because he correctly intuits that his football intuition is poor. And cannot be easily "learned."

 

I couldnt disagree anymore if i tried.

 

He may not always get when and who to pass to perfect every time, but if you go to the match and watch him when the ball comes to him i dont see how you can say he doesnt have instantaneous intuition.

The amount of times ive seen his first controlling touch either take him away from a player, or his first touch pulled between his legs in a change of directtion, as he knows where his oponent is, and moves himself into space to look up and move the game forward. This happens so often that we barely even notice it anymore, most players dont have that ability with their first touch, they need to take that touch then look up, Ross doesnt need that as his intuition is exceptional.

Even to say he doesnt understand the game? We've all seen him play passes, only to find his team mate hasnt seen the run. As well as we've seen him run with the ball too long rather than take the shot or make the pass.

His decision making is the poor side of his game, and as Haf has put it in the past, the lack of aggression. His decision making will improve with playing, the aggression may or may not come, but his understanding of the game and his intuition on the pitch, i find it baffling to question that.

[Trigger]

In the first half of the England match against Switzerland he did look a little "lost". In his defence though, he did come on with very little warning to replace a teammate that I would say plays a very different midfield role. I don't think he was helped by Shelvey who looked even more out of his depth (which is a shame as I was expecting him to play well).

 

I'm still of the opinion that Milner is an England bench player at best and should never ever ever be playing in a pivitol role as he was against Switzerland. We have much better players that can play the advanced midfielder role 10 times better than him. Ross being one of them, even though I think Ross does play better in a deeper midfield role.

 

Ross instead of Shelvey would have worked well, or instead of Milner would also have worked. I think he can play both those midfield roles very well.

 

The box to box role that Delph and McCarthy play...? which is what it looked like he was asked to play in the first half. No, not for me.

[Cornish Steve]

In the first half of the England match against Switzerland he did look a little "lost". In his defence though, he did come on with very little warning to replace a teammate that I would say plays a very different midfield role. I don't think he was helped by Shelvey who looked even more out of his depth (which is a shame as I was expecting him to play well).

 

I'm still of the opinion that Milner is an England bench player at best and should never ever ever be playing in a pivitol role as he was against Switzerland. We have much better players that can play the advanced midfielder role 10 times better than him. Ross being one of them, even though I think Ross does play better in a deeper midfield role.

 

Ross instead of Shelvey would have worked well, or instead of Milner would also have worked. I think he can play both those midfield roles very well.

 

The box to box role that Delph and McCarthy play...? which is what it looked like he was asked to play in the first half. No, not for me.

 

I'm guessing he looked lost because he was following Roy Hodgson's directives. He seemed very constrained in his movements.

[Elston Gunnn]

I couldnt disagree anymore if i tried.

 

He may not always get when and who to pass to perfect every time, but if you go to the match and watch him when the ball comes to him i dont see how you can say he doesnt have instantaneous intuition.... Even to say he doesnt understand the game?.... His decision making is the poor side of his game, and as Haf has put it in the past, the lack of aggression. His decision making will improve with playing, the aggression may or may not come, but his understanding of the game and his intuition on the pitch, i find it baffling to question that.

Well, you've done more than try; you've succeeded.

 

Not in convincing me, yet, though one offhand remark just might be a key to our very different perspectives. It is possible, even likely, that you and others who "go to the match" see things -- player strengths and weaknesses -- that those of us who only see the games on TV miss. We know that some on TT are more frustrated with Barkley than are others, and that frustration is frequently expressed in terms of his missing "football brain." So, are Barkley's "football brain" critics mostly those who never see him in person, whereas those who see him at the matches literally see a different Barkley, a more consistent Barkley, etc.?

 

As for my criticism of what I see -- which, as above, may be in important ways fundamentally different from what you see -- as his "instantaneous intuition" failures, that phrase is only my attempt to specify what I mean as his "football brain" deficiency. Similarly, when I wonder whether he "understands the game," I am going by my own experience of playing different sports and regularly noticing physically gifted players who consistently made poor decisions because they had a weak intuitive understanding, a poor "feel," for the flow of the action, the rhythms of teammates' and opponents' movements, that sort of thing.

 

To be clear, however, I absolutely do agree that Barkley should play and usually start, preferably in the middle of the pitch, clearly in front of the DCM(s) but not fully forward, a sort of "withdrawn ACM." I look forward to his improved decision-making, which, as you say, should improve with playing time experience. Even if I'm right that his intuitive feel is so far poorly developed, I concede it can improve.

 

But to return to my curiosity about what TV viewers might miss, that, too, could be a matter of "feel" for the rhythms of the match. So I'd like to hear some opinions about how much of any match one just cannot fully see, and therefore understand, if you're not on site.

Edited September 10, 2015 by Elston Gunnn

[MC11]

Well, you've done more than try; you've succeeded.

Not in convincing me, yet, though one offhand remark just might be a key to our very different perspectives. It is possible, even likely, that you and others who "go to the match" see things -- player strengths and weaknesses -- that those of us who only see the games on TV miss. We know that some on TT are more frustrated with Barkley than are others, and that frustration is frequently expressed in terms of his missing "football brain." So, are Barkley's "football brain" critics mostly those who never see him in person, whereas those who see him at the matches literally see a different Barkley, a more consistent Barkley, etc.?

As for my criticism of what I see -- which, as above, may be in important ways fundamentally different from what you see -- as his "instantaneous intuition" failures, that phrase is only my attempt to specify what I mean as his "football brain" deficiency. Similarly, when I wonder whether he "understands the game," I am going by my own experience of playing different sports and regularly noticing physically gifted players who consistently made poor decisions because they had a weak intuitive understanding, a poor "feel," for,the flow of the action, the rhythms of teammates' and opponents' movements, that sort of thing.

To be clear, however, I absolutely do agree that Barkley should play and usually start, preferably in the middle of the pitch, clearly in front of the DCM(s) but not fully forward, a sort of "withdrawn ACM." I look forward to his improved decision-making, which, as you say, should improve with playing time experience. Even if I'm right that his intuitive feel is so far poorly developed, I concede it can improve.

But to return to my curiosity about what TV viewers might miss, that, too, could be a matter of "feel" for the rhythms of the match. So I'd like to hear some opinions about how much of any match one just cannot fully see, and therefore understand, if you're not on site.

Not even close to being true. I go all home games have the perfect view from the top balcony (of the whole pitch). The lad is a very very good player but he hasn't kicked on. I think I thought far too much of him that's why I'm starting to become critical. As I say he'll go on to be a solid PL player but right now I can't see him ever becoming world class.

[johnh]

Well, you've done more than try; you've succeeded.

 

Not in convincing me, yet, though one offhand remark just might be a key to our very different perspectives. It is possible, even likely, that you and others who "go to the match" see things -- player strengths and weaknesses -- that those of us who only see the games on TV miss. We know that some on TT are more frustrated with Barkley than are others, and that frustration is frequently expressed in terms of his missing "football brain." So, are Barkley's "football brain" critics mostly those who never see him in person, whereas those who see him at the matches literally see a different Barkley, a more consistent Barkley, etc.?

 

As for my criticism of what I see -- which, as above, may be in important ways fundamentally different from what you see -- as his "instantaneous intuition" failures, that phrase is only my attempt to specify what I mean as his "football brain" deficiency. Similarly, when I wonder whether he "understands the game," I am going by my own experience of playing different sports and regularly noticing physically gifted players who consistently made poor decisions because they had a weak intuitive understanding, a poor "feel," for the flow of the action, the rhythms of teammates' and opponents' movements, that sort of thing.

 

To be clear, however, I absolutely do agree that Barkley should play and usually start, preferably in the middle of the pitch, clearly in front of the DCM(s) but not fully forward, a sort of "withdrawn ACM." I look forward to his improved decision-making, which, as you say, should improve with playing time experience. Even if I'm right that his intuitive feel is so far poorly developed, I concede it can improve.

 

But to return to my curiosity about what TV viewers might miss, that, too, could be a matter of "feel" for the rhythms of the match. So I'd like to hear some opinions about how much of any match one just cannot fully see, and therefore understand, if you're not on site.

 

 

They do say that the average time a player is 'in possession', during a game, is less than 5 minutes. There is also a saying that its what a player does 'off the ball' that is important. Positioning, tracking runs, anticipating etc., The problem with watching a game on TV is the camera usually follows the ball, so you really only see the players who are 'in play'. It is very difficult to judge players from TV when they are doing some excellent work 'out of shot'.

[StevO]

Now we have a debate.

I go to every home game, and normally a handful of away games when possible, work and finances are the two that usually cause the biggest problem, the new wife might be a third!

I always come away from the match a lot more judgemental of our players than I do when I watch on TV. I'm only really noticing this now I'm thinking about it, I don't think I vote for MOTM as often when I watch on TV either.

 

I don't think it's a coincidence that managers prefer to go to the game to check out other teams rather than just watch the footage, but then they are looking for further details than we are.

 

I like to look at the smaller details in the game,maybe that makes me more judgmental of players. But the differences we see with how midfileds are set up, and the labels on how we want Ross to be an ACM, DCM or number ten really frustrates me. A fully adaptive game plan shouldn't need the labels, but I guess that's between the players and the manager. If you line up with Ross, McCarthy and Barry as your midfield three, one has license to attack with minimal defending, one has to cover the left full back, one has to cover the right full back. There are so many small responsibilities that the labels probably aren't that accurate anyway.

I am full on rambling now, time for bed.

 

Edit; loved your reply Elston, even though we disagreed, pushes some good conversation there.

Edited September 10, 2015 by StevO

[markjazzbassist]

It's funny since he's our own everyone is hypercritical to try and show they are objective. But he had a good match. You go and read write ups in the paper not from Liverpool and i confirm what I saw yesterday.

 

They've said "even 3 men at times couldn't stop Ross Barkley from slaloming through the midfield and sending passes at will like an English David silva"

 

"Matic ivanoic it didn't matter who was in there, barkleys speed tore them in half and he bossed the middle of the park"

 

"A combination of Barkley and Gareth Barry were too much for the Chelsea midfield and defense who couldn't stop 2 players from picking passes and attacking the final third at will. Ivanovic in particular was awful on the night"

 

Ah yes we may not want to get overly excited so we temper Ross performance with pointing out his mistakes but fact is the neutral sees what a talent he is and if that wasn't his best match, he's got some real burners ahead.

[MikeO]

It's funny since he's our own everyone is hypercritical to try and show they are objective. But he had a good match. You go and read write ups in the paper not from Liverpool and i confirm what I saw yesterday.

 

They've said "even 3 men at times couldn't stop Ross Barkley from slaloming through the midfield and sending passes at will like an English David silva"

 

"Matic ivanoic it didn't matter who was in there, barkleys speed tore them in half and he bossed the middle of the park"

 

"A combination of Barkley and Gareth Barry were too much for the Chelsea midfield and defense who couldn't stop 2 players from picking passes and attacking the final third at will. Ivanovic in particular was awful on the night"

 

Ah yes we may not want to get overly excited so we temper Ross performance with pointing out his mistakes but fact is the neutral sees what a talent he is and if that wasn't his best match, he's got some real burners ahead.

 

Not remotely being hypercritical, I'm the guy who was being pilloried by some for recently suggesting he'd get 100 England caps (even though his total at twenty-one (15) is only one less than Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham combined at that age and he still has four more opportunities to add to that before his birthday); just calling it as I saw it. It's easy to cherry pick from match reports/player ratings. I'll see yours and raise you...

 

"Yet to rediscover his sparking best..."

"Didn’t get near Matic for his goal..."

"Gave the ball away at times and frustrated the home fans with his decision making..."

"Still needs to work on his distribution i.e. when to release it, when to dribble..."

[Elston Gunnn]

I'm one of the louts who's been critical of Barkley's insufficiently developed football brain. I thought he had a strong game yesterday, not perfect, but strong nevertheless. Not just in the sense of his usual, impressive physical abilities, but also in many of his decisions in the flow of the match.

 

I'm all for his starting virtually every match. If he plays the way he played yesterday, I will have to concede the obvious: either I was simply wrong, or he's learning fast to see and feel the game intuitively.

[Hafnia]

Played with a swagger yesterday, long may it continue. Too often you hear the groans when he takes a second or two to pick his next move.

 

A couple of passages of play were genius and gazza esque yesterday.

[Shukes]

 

 

Not remotely being hypercritical, I'm the guy who was being pilloried by some for recently suggesting he'd get 100 England caps (even though his total at twenty-one (15) is only one less than Lampard, Gerrard and Beckham combined at that age and he still has four more opportunities to add to that before his birthday); just calling it as I saw it. It's easy to cherry pick from match reports/player ratings. I'll see yours and raise you...

 

"Yet to rediscover his sparking best..."

"Didnt get near Matic for his goal..."

"Gave the ball away at times and frustrated the home fans with his decision making..."

"Still needs to work on his distribution i.e. when to release it, when to dribble..."

This is reminiscent of the Lukaku thread for me.

People cherry picking moments of both sides.

I cam reel of several where Rom lost the ball cheaply, but it will be countered with times he actually managed to control it basically.

 

But back to Ross.

I thought Ross had a good game. He is never going to control a game as he doesn't have that drive in him. But he did the simple things well...made space, give and go, retained the ball and grabbed a few assists. If we could have finished a few more chances he would have had more assists.

Quietly improving? May not be progressing at lightning pace, but maybe he is slowly getting more into his own game.

[MikeO]

This is reminiscent of the Lukaku thread for me.

People cherry picking moments of both sides.

I cam reel of several where Rom lost the ball cheaply, but it will be countered with times he actually managed to control it basically.

 

Nah because as I pointed out in the first para I'm one of his biggest fans. I'm not running a campaign against him, I just said that for me he didn't have his best game and gave examples of how cherry picking can be deceptive.

 

I want him to start every game, no question, I just didn't think he was at his best yesterday.

[Hafnia]

Simply put, Ross is showing the ability to transition defence into attack like no other player.

 

It's ironic isn't it, you can hear people groan when he controls a pass and moves it to another player. Yet another vplayer gets praised for actually doing doing that.

 

I said at the start of the season that this will be his breakout. All the signs are there.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Hafnia

[markjazzbassist]

Simply put, Ross is showing the ability to transition defence into attack like no other player.

 

It's ironic isn't it, you can hear people groan when he controls a pass and moves it to another player. Yet another vplayer gets praised for actually doing doing that.

Spot on. Damned if he does damned if he doesn't. His passing has improved immensely and he has that selfishness about him again where he wants the ball and makes those driving runs. He is back to taking the ball and running with it instead of those little pass offs every time.

 

This is a big year for him and it's starting out well. I'm made up for him.

[johnh]

It's funny since he's our own everyone is hypercritical to try and show they are objective. But he had a good match. You go and read write ups in the paper not from Liverpool and i confirm what I saw yesterday.

 

They've said "even 3 men at times couldn't stop Ross Barkley from slaloming through the midfield and sending passes at will like an English David silva"

 

"Matic ivanoic it didn't matter who was in there, barkleys speed tore them in half and he bossed the middle of the park"

 

"A combination of Barkley and Gareth Barry were too much for the Chelsea midfield and defense who couldn't stop 2 players from picking passes and attacking the final third at will. Ivanovic in particular was awful on the night"

 

Ah yes we may not want to get overly excited so we temper Ross performance with pointing out his mistakes but fact is the neutral sees what a talent he is and if that wasn't his best match, he's got some real burners ahead.

Ivanovic couldn't have been awful 'on the night' as it was a lunch-time kick-off. Mind you, he has been awful for most Chelsea games this season.

[Shukes]

 

Nah because as I pointed out in the first para I'm one of his biggest fans. I'm not running a campaign against him, I just said that for me he didn't have his best game and gave examples of how cherry picking can be deceptive.

 

I want him to start every game, no question, I just didn't think he was at his best yesterday.

Sorry MikeO I didn't mean your post but just that people do cherry pick certain moments from a game to support thier argument rather than the overall picture.

 

Wasn't referencing you in any way.

[MikeO]

Sorry MikeO I didn't mean your post but just that people do cherry pick certain moments from a game to support thier argument rather than the overall picture.

 

Wasn't referencing you in any way.

 

No prob.

[StevO]

I think he was brilliant on Saturday personally. I enjoyed watching him look better than the Chelsea super stars. Had a hand in two goals, if he stays in this consistent form it will be a great season for him.

[Romey 1878]

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/sep/18/ross-barkley-everton-impressive-form-roberto-martinez?

[Sibdane]

I think Ross is going to have a good year. He had 6 goals in his first full season compared to 2 goals and 2 assists already this season.

 

Keep it up!

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

Master calss from him today, apart from the last minute dribble on the edge of our area!

[Hafnia]

All those who said sell him for £15m were talking shite.

 

The lad has talent that far surpasses anything we have seen in a central midfielder in my time watching Everton.

 

With experience his decision making and confidence will improve. His physical and technical attributes are awesome.

 

All this shite about sterling being better etc, he is one dimensional, pace and that is it. Ross has two feet, power, ability to run the ball at pace, can pick a pass, great shot. Sky is the limit.

 

Keep him away from that twat Hodgson.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

All those who said sell him for £15m were talking shite.

 

The lad has talent that far surpasses anything we have seen in a central midfielder in my time watching Everton.

 

With experience his decision making and confidence will improve. His physical and technical attributes are awesome.

 

All this shite about sterling being better etc, he is one dimensional, pace and that is it. Ross has two feet, power, ability to run the ball at pace, can pick a pass, great shot. Sky is the limit.

 

Keep him away from that twat Hodgson.

 

I sincerely hope that all the knobheads that were giving him grief at Goodison have learnt a valuable lesson...... although I somehow doubt that is the case

[markjazzbassist]

he's looking better every match this year, let's hope he stays healthy and continues to get good match time to learn and grow. he's become my favorite player.

[Keith B]

His play so far this season has been outstanding. There's real reason for optimism with Barkley, Stones and Galloway all playing pretty well today.

[Hafnia]

The sad thing is the lad seems to attract bullies, he comes across a bit "young and daft" and sometimes you can see the vulnerability in him.

 

He needs a minder, an alpha male in midfield that tells him "fuck them off, you do what you are good at, I'll look after you" like Keane did with Scholes.

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

The sad thing is the lad seems to attract bullies, he comes across a bit "young and daft" and sometimes you can see the vulnerability in him.

 

He needs a minder, an alpha male in midfield that tells him "fuck them off, you do what you are good at, I'll look after you" like Keane did with Scholes.

 

Yeah I agree , if he had a Peter Reid in there with him it would do him the world of good. I was hoping James McCarthy would be that player but he hasn't turned up yet this season, although today was hopefully a little glimpse of him getting his act together

[Matt]

He summed himself up yesterday; can be brilliant but on occasion took too many touches and stopped play.

 

Still, a very strong performance and proof that he can (and seems to be) getting to that player most of us know he can be.

[Hafnia]

He summed himself up brilliantly by being the one player who can make something happen from the middle. Simple as that.

 

His attitude is spot on, fitness is good, he's technically the best football player we have and he occupies 2-3 players, one marking, one off the player marking and another scanning his next move.

 

He struggled with this last year and now it's normal for him.

 

He's not going to be a tough tackling midfielder, he looks the part in his build but that break will have messed his head up.

 

Genuinely the first time since we had Rooney that we have a player you would pay to watch.