[Archived] Morten Gamst Pedersen

[den]

The way some people talk on here you'd think that if you just gave a kid with potential a ball and let him play he'd magically become a great player. Coaches are the key, they set the practices and scenarios that allow them to develop in a structured and planned environment, all the talent in the world will go to waste if this doesn't happen. Burnley must have been doing something to help players develop good crossing, because to get so many coming through one after another does not imply chance.

Maj,

Burnley had the best youth system in the country. They had the most scouts and covered most of the country. These weren't local lads who they found on the nearby park, they were some of the brightest lads in the country. Their youth system went to pop, not because the scouts stopped doing their job properly, but because Burnley stopped investing money into it. Bob Lord decided the money would be better spent elsewhere.

I know coaching has a part to play in bringing the best out of any player - not just the kids, but the biggest part is down to the lads individual talent. The quality has to be there to begin with.

[bellamy11]

The point I was trying to make was based on the success rate of set-pieces taken by Ped's, given that in the main (99% of the time) We try and hit Samba and this will be under instruction by Sam and the Coaching staff (they devise all the set-pieces). Samba gets double marked these days and he's very unlikely to win the ball, so part of the blame is not just at ped's feet for his inconsistent dead ball. Corners on their own is fine, but set-pieces covers everything.

The way some people talk on here you'd think that if you just gave a kid with potential a ball and let him play he'd magically become a great player. Coaches are the key, they set the practices and scenarios that allow them to develop in a structured and planned environment, all the talent in the world will go to waste if this doesn't happen. Burnley must have been doing something to help players develop good crossing, because to get so many coming through one after another does not imply chance.

Ince was a poor coach, so why didn't we still do well, given that coaching quality and type doesn't apparently matter? The players were still all naturally gifted and yet performed poorly both collectively and individually.

You won't find me arguing against the value of coaching. In fact I believe Den and I have disagreed about that on more than one occasion.

However, you've said that "Peds"(?) cannot be blamed for his set-pieces because Sam tells him to hit Samba. I personally think he can be blamed for poor set pieces which hit the first man - which happens several times per game and have happened several times per game for years. If they aren't even reaching Samba he's getting them wrong, regardless of whether Samba actually wins the ball or not because he's being double-marked. He knows how to cross (some of his set pieces are still pretty good) yet he gets it wrong on several occasions. This has to be his fault.

I also think that given Sam's success from set pieces throughout his career, it's somewhat of a disservice to him to suggest that he's entirely predictable from corners. "Hit the big man" is the most predictable Plan A for any manager, so he must have been doing something right to have had teams that are more successful than many others in this area of the game.

[speeeeeeedie]

The way some people talk on here you'd think that if you just gave a kid with potential a ball and let him play he'd magically become a great player. Coaches are the key, they set the practices and scenarios that allow them to develop in a structured and planned environment, all the talent in the world will go to waste if this doesn't happen. Burnley must have been doing something to help players develop good crossing, because to get so many coming through one after another does not imply chance.

Maj,

Burnley had the best youth system in the country. They had the most scouts and covered most of the country. These weren't local lads who they found on the nearby park, they were some of the brightest lads in the country. Their youth system went to pop, not because the scouts stopped doing their job properly, but because Burnley stopped investing money into it. Bob Lord decided the money would be better spent elsewhere.

I know coaching has a part to play in bringing the best out of any player - not just the kids, but the biggest part is down to the lads individual talent. The quality has to be there to begin with.

2 opposite and interesting points of view.

I agree with both of you. I can tell you from my experience that a lad with great natural talent will only make it if he is steered in the right direction, both on and off the pitch.

Good talent needs good coaching.

As far as MGP goes, sign him up. The manager likes him, he knows the club, a bit of stability goes a long way.

[jodrell]

Maj,

Burnley had the best youth system in the country. They had the most scouts and covered most of the country. These weren't local lads who they found on the nearby park, they were some of the brightest lads in the country. Their youth system went to pop, not because the scouts stopped doing their job properly, but because Burnley stopped investing money into it. Bob Lord decided the money would be better spent elsewhere.

I know coaching has a part to play in bringing the best out of any player - not just the kids, but the biggest part is down to the lads individual talent. The quality has to be there to begin with.

I still remember Tommy Doc saying he would not send his son to one of the big clubs as he would not get the chance too progress. He went to Burnley, as he thought they had one of the best set ups at the time, and the chance to progress.

[Majiball]

Has anyone seen where we rank in the set-pieces charts???

What I'm saying is if you purely take the success rate of gamsts set-pieces as a whole and use them to state he's poor, then there are other factors influencing the success rate other than him hitting an accurate ball. Did the players make the correct runs? Where they timed right? was it the right choice from our set-piece catalogue? and so on.

You just can't say that talent is the be all and end all, as all the talent in the world will most likely go to waste without guidance. The two have a symbiotic relationship and only together will the full potential be realised. United have a great system, but nothings come through for a while? And they mainly get the best kids available, talent on its own isn't enough, neithers coaching. You need it all they are all as important as the other, IMO.

Burnley obviously had the lot back then, but if you took away one of those aspects it wouldn't have produced as much or of the same quality.

But consider it this way:

Highly talented players - coached wrong will not fufill their potential.

Low talent players - coached well and scientificly will at least realise their potential.

[Exiled in Toronto]

What I'm saying is if you purely take the success rate of gamsts set-pieces as a whole and use them to state he's poor, then there are other factors influencing the success rate other than him hitting an accurate ball. Did the players make the correct runs? Where they timed right? was it the right choice from our set-piece catalogue? and so on.

If that's the case, then people should stop quoting MGP's assists rating as a reason to keep him. Assists either has some relevance or they don't. Would we have scored fewer goals if someone else took the freekicks, throw-ins and right-wing corners? I'm not convinced myself.

Also, one stat not mentioned in this debate is that last season he had the worst shots on target to shots attempted ratio of any player at the club (or was it even the entire league?), and by a long way. Also, according to the Telegraph stats, he usually has the worst passing % in a game, so I am not convinced he is up to snuff as a midfielder. He certainly wasn't as a winger.

[DE.]

His corners and free kicks often don't make it past the first man, so it wouldn't matter what runs other players were making.

[broadsword]

It's all part of a tactical masterplan, ping it at speed at the first man, it'll bounce straight back to you, then you can loft it past him so much easier.

[bellamy11]

Also, one stat not mentioned in this debate is that last season he had the worst shots on target to shots attempted ratio of any player at the club (or was it even the entire league?), and by a long way.

You don't know whether Allardyce was instructing him to miss though.

EDIT: I think the stat was chance conversation rather than shots on target, but could be wrong.

[JAL]

Get Guti in and let MGP go and I swear half of these lot wont even notice.

Are you having a laugh, when was the last time you saw coffin dodger Guti for real.

[Majiball]

If that's the case, then people should stop quoting MGP's assists rating as a reason to keep him. Assists either has some relevance or they don't. Would we have scored fewer goals if someone else took the freekicks, throw-ins and right-wing corners? I'm not convinced myself.

Also, one stat not mentioned in this debate is that last season he had the worst shots on target to shots attempted ratio of any player at the club (or was it even the entire league?), and by a long way. Also, according to the Telegraph stats, he usually has the worst passing % in a game, so I am not convinced he is up to snuff as a midfielder. He certainly wasn't as a winger.

These stats you read in the papers are never the same in each so I doubt they are that accurate. I refuse to believe that the telegraph don't have Keith at rock bottom for passing % in most games. I merely wanted to stop set-piece successes being used to berate the lad and claim him to be crap. He can put in a good ball and at the end of the day he must be the best we have since he takes them. I would argue that Gamst was never a winger, really more of a wide midfielder ala Beckham.

His corners and free kicks often don't make it past the first man, so it wouldn't matter what runs other players were making.

LOL, funniest thing of all is he's the best we have at it, what does that say for our other players. Sam will state who's taking set-pieces etc, so he must rate Gamst as the best we have and people want rid. All that does is mean we need to add set-piece specialist to the list of required attributes we need to have in one of our new signings. Please bear in mind Sam wants a goal-scorer again, the most expensive of all.

I don't disagree that he's not playing as he was, but we have a manager who's good at getting players back to there best. If Gamst was at another club I'd wager we would be interested and those of us on here would be debating if we could get him back to what he was once (sounds familiar).

I just don't see the logic in having to sign more players than we need to. It will just drop the overall quality of our signings further. We've had a good year and Gamst like it or not has played a big part, yes he's been hot and cold, but so have others I could mention.

[den]

You just can't say that talent is the be all and end all, as all the talent in the world will most likely go to waste without guidance. The two have a symbiotic relationship and only together will the full potential be realised.

I haven't ever said talent is the be all and end all Maj. I also have said that coaching does improve players - I don't have any problem with that.

In the past, I've argued two things. 1] you can't coach, or teach certain aspects of the game. Some people seem to think that virtually any weakness in a player can be ironed out with the right coaching. I don't believe that. 2] Strikers in particular, don't, or hardly ever improve past the age of 22/23ish, if they're not playing regular football at that age, then the likelihood is that they wont make it at that level - and I stand by that. 3] midfielders and defenders can indeed benefit more than strikers because there is much more that can be learned positional wise - just for starters. These players do tend to improve over time.

I'm not trying to belittle the football coaches Maj. They aren't miracle workers though.

[Majiball]

I don't think your belittling football coaches, and I would never claim to be a miracle worker (my ego would though).

I would agree that after a certain age we don't see major improvements in the majority of players 23/24 and its small steps from then on, really. Was it vision we debated on before? now I would claim vision to be a combination of decision making ability, visual ability (searching and seeing all the options) and off course ability to play (can he do what he decides to do). Now I know that decision making and visual attributes can be improved (the age factor is an influence over the level of the improvement). Although a new field we have one or two people here @ LJMU, who focus on this and this alone and they've shown it can be done with certain methods. So all thats left is footballing ability IE technique and generally from my personal experience it will come if you can get them A) young enough ,B ) (stupid Emoticon) improve their visual and decision making skills & C) coach in a certain way that suits them collectively and individually.

The limiting factors then are how much potential they have to fulfil as not everyone can be a world beater.

[Exiled in Toronto]

I was thinking about this coaching point yesterday, while watching Vernon Wells hit another homer for the Blue Jays. The commentators did a piece on how the batting coach had slightly tweaked his swing in the off season and showed some video to back it up. Why, I wondered, is it that coaching can make a real difference in this sport but can't, it seems, get Pedersen to strike a corner consistently when the ball is 50 times larger and not coming towards him at 95mph? Surely they can film his run up in slow mo and point out that his standing foot is 10 degrees off the correct angle or whatever.

[T4E]

Interesting point of view. You hear about similar things in golf and tennis, but not really in cricket. I would guess it's partly because it's easier to alter technique in a bat and ball sport, and partly due to attitudes towards coaching on opposite sides of the pond.

[Amo]

Pedersen made a reputation of scoring spectacular goals, that's why all the outsiders thought he was our best player. I don't think his standard of performance has changed that much, but the goals have dried up and left an average player.

[T4E]

That arguement is used a lot Topman, but the more I think about it the less I'm inclined to agree. Not all of his goals were spectacular volleys ala Fulham. There were a couple (I think one was Norwich, the other maybe United in the cup) where we played a diagonal ball up to him, he made up the ground, out jumped the defender, brought it down, powered past him and drilled it past the keeper. Can you imagine him doing that now? He used to show the hunger and desire to get in these positions, he's now a shadow of his former self.

[Amo]

That arguement is used a lot Topman, but the more I think about it the less I'm inclined to agree. Not all of his goals were spectacular volleys ala Fulham. There were a couple (I think one was Norwich, the other maybe United in the cup) where we played a diagonal ball up to him, he made up the ground, out jumped the defender, brought it down, powered past him and drilled it past the keeper. Can you imagine him doing that now? He used to show the hunger and desire to get in these positions, he's now a shadow of his former self.

Goals in general, then. I do remember when he used to make those late darting runs into the box but, for whatever reason, he's no longer a threat. It could be he's become complacent here, which is why I think it's best for all involved that he moves on.

[Torgeir]

I believe his drop in form coincides with Bentley heading to Spurs. I think Bentley demanded so much attention from the opposition defense, as well as managed to hold the ball up long enough before putting the cross in, that Morten got in a lot more goal scoring positions than what has been the case 'post Bentley'.

He has never been one to skin a player and loses his concentration easily in the short passing game, often giving silly balls away to the other team. What I don't understand is how he varies so much in his set pieces. He should figure out how much power he can put on the ball to enable himself to keep a high level of accuracy. Seems to me he tries whipping the balls in like Beckham, and there are few, if any, players around able to combine power and accuracy the way he does.

I've been critical of him since day 1, but I still think he's a valuable member of the squad and should be tied up on a new deal.

[S15]

I think his loss of 'form' dates back to when we sold Bellamy.

[bellamy11]

Interesting point of view. You hear about similar things in golf and tennis, but not really in cricket. I would guess it's partly because it's easier to alter technique in a bat and ball sport, and partly due to attitudes towards coaching on opposite sides of the pond.

I'd argue there's always a lot of discussion about changing techniques in cricket. Especially bowling actions (Jimmy re-modeled his a few years ago). But recently there has been talk of Pietersen changing his technique when facing slow left armers.

Maj - I always thought that vision is one of the things that you can't coach (same as speed of thought). You're saying that there are methods which can improve how much a player sees and how to make a decision that doesn't always go with instinct?

[47er]

That arguement is used a lot Topman, but the more I think about it the less I'm inclined to agree. Not all of his goals were spectacular volleys ala Fulham. There were a couple (I think one was Norwich, the other maybe United in the cup) where we played a diagonal ball up to him, he made up the ground, out jumped the defender, brought it down, powered past him and drilled it past the keeper. Can you imagine him doing that now? He used to show the hunger and desire to get in these positions, he's now a shadow of his former self.

He scored 2 at Old Trafford in the league when we won 2-0. The second was spectacular.

[Presty On Tour]

He scored 2 at Old Trafford in the league when we won 2-0. The second was spectacular.

2-1 on my birthday 24/9/2005. The greatest away game i've ever been too!

I think Pedersen has never recovered since missing that header in the fa cup semi final against Chelsea.

[thenodrog]

I think Pedersen has never recovered since missing that header in the fa cup semi final against Chelsea.

Neither have I.

[alexanders]

I think Morten's chances for signing are very slim. In an article in one of the national papers in Norway from Yesterday, Morten says that he holds all the cards against Rovers. He says that he would like to try a different league Italy, Spain or Turkey and that at the moment Fenerbache has offered him the biggest contract at £2,5 mill a year.

He comes across in this article as very arrogant and disloyal to Rovers, but he has been here since 2004 and probably needs new challenges.