How the 2000s changed tactics #6: The death of the ‘poacher’
If you could travel back to the mid 90s and ask 100 football fans who the best finisher in the Premiership was, you’d find a majority telling you the answer was Robbie Fowler. He wasn’t tall, he wasn’t fast, he wasn’t strong and he wasn’t mobile, but if you gave him the ball, he would put it into the net with alarming regularity.
Looking across the Premiership today, it’s hard to identify any similar top-level players. There are some great goalscorers, but none as lacking in pace or skill as Fowler. The only strikers you would describe as a ‘great finishers’ are also blessed with speed, such as Fernando Torres, Jermain Defoe or Darren Bent. Other ‘out-and-out strikers’ like Bobby Zamora or Emile Heskey are in the side as much for their hold-up play as their goalscoring ability. It’s simply not enough to be a goalscorer any more, you have to contribute to the team’s overall game.
It’s incredible to think that Fowler is only 34 years of age – the same age as David Beckham. Beckham maintains his place in the England squad, while Fowler finds himself on the bench for North Queensland Fury in the Australian A-League. Fowler’s lack of fitness has played a part in his decline, but the truth is that he is simply a player left behind by the pace, movement and intelligence needed in the modern footballing game. His career as a top-level player was probably over at the age of just 27 when he signed for Kevin Keegan’s Manchester City in 2003. Is Michael Owen, post-injury and with little pace, a similar story? Perhaps, although Owen has at least adapted his game to become more of an all-rounder.
Despite how popular he was, you very rarely hear young players being described as ‘the new Robbie Fowler’ these days. That label was given briefly to Eduardo when he signed for Arsenal as an unknown left-footed striker with a tremendous goalscoring record, but Eduardo is a much more complete player than that, and has often played on the left of a forward three, something Fowler would never have been able to do.
Indeed, if you were to select one current Premiership player who is purely a finisher, it might well be Tim Cahill of Everton, and yet he plays as a midfielder, making late runs into the box.
Even Ruud van Nistelrooy, perhaps the classic goalpoacher and the third most-prolific Premiership striker ever in terms of goals per game, was happily dumped by Manchester United because he didn’t have the all-round game to feature in a top-level modern side. His goalscoring record was astonishing – 150 goals in 219 games, but the important statistics involve the peformance of the team. Manchester United won the league three times in a row in the three seasons before his arrival, and won the league three times in a row in the three seasons after he left. Whilst he was there? United won just one title in five years.
The striker as we knew him is now dead.
How the 2000s changed tactics #6: The death of the ‘poacher’
I love this site. I love the articles, but some statements made above are just not true. Ruud was not dumped by Manchester United due to his lack of “an all around game”. Indeed, he served as a great hold-up striker for Holland at Euro 2008. Furthermore, it is widely acknowledged that he began his career as an attacking midfielder, and a rather technically accomplished one at that.
The reasons he left are somewhat mysterious, and probably have something to do with something related to the point made by this article. Certainly, when he was in the United squad they were completely reliant on him for goals, and the management at Old Trafford might have felt that in order for the Ronaldo and Rooney era to blossom they needed a less dominating player/personality to lead the line. But let’s be careful not to deride RVN’s ability, especially when there is ample evidence that he can be the “platform” type striker.
It is not meant as a criticism of Van Nistelrooy, indeed it is acknowledging the fact that he did his job brilliantly. But one must comment that it is remarkable that Manchester United happily let go their main striker of the past five seasons – with no direct replacement (the only player they signed that summer was Michael Carrick) and went onto be a far better side.
Of course, Ronaldo and Rooney stepped up to become better players, but in a way that’s the point, that the forward positions and now filled at top clubs primarily by player who are not ‘poachers’ in the RVN model. He may have been more than simply a finisher, but the way United often played in Europe – 4-5-1 with even the forward (Rooney/Ronaldo) drifting to the wing wouldn’t have worked with Van Nistelrooy.
He was not performing his job poorly, rather, he simply found himself redundant at United.
That’s said much better than he lacked an “all around game”.
Indeed, thanks for the comment Javier, it was probably under-explained on my part, so nice to have a chance to clarify what I meant.
I don’t know. Ruud had an excellent all-round game but maybe for Ferguson, he was willing to let him go on the footballing side because he was a) injury prone and b) not mobile enough in his play. But in that last argument, that is not outwardly true as he has not some fantastic goals by taking on defenders (Basle, Arsenal, Fulham). So if you were to analyse it on the pitch, then maybe Ferguson’s master plan on making a fluid and aggressive team as 07/08 showed, Ruud didn’t fit in.
I cant agree with the Ruud comment. While United didnt win, Ruud won in Spain for Madrid.
Interesting piece and I agree with most of the points made. However, to say Fowler lacked the ‘pace, movement and intelligence’ is abit harsh, while he lost a few yards over the years he undoubtedly has always had the latter attributes.
I don’t think it’s particularly harsh. Fowler was fine when he played alongside a partner in a 4-4-2, but no-one plays a standard 4-4-2 any more. Where would Fowler have fitted into the 4-3-3 that dominates today’s game? He wouldn’t have fared particularly well as a lone striker because his movement wasn’t particularly good, so he’d struggle to get the better of two centre-backs, and there’s no chance he had the skill on the ball to play wide, either. He was purely a finisher, and in his day that was good enough to get by, but not these days.
Again, I think the most telling argument is that there isn’t a single player in the top half of the Premiership who is in the mould of Fowler, and I don’t think that’s a coincidence.
Perhaps the only ‘harsh’ thing is singling out Fowler – but the fact his career went downhill so sharply makes him the obvious candidate to demonstrate how the game has changed. Indeed, for a player whose game wasn’t based upon physical attributes, fitness problems alone don’t explain why his eye for goal was no longer wanted at the top level.
I can’t believe you think Robbie Fowler didn’t have great movement!
We’ll have to agree to disagree!
Hi, I’m new to the site and appreciate the quality of the analysis. I tend to agree with the initial post, and I give another example: the most prolific goal scorer in Europe in the late 90’s/early 2000, a Brazilian called Mario Jardel (between 1996 and 2003 played for Porto, Galatasaray and Sporting Lisbon, 198 matches 205 goals!) was not signed by any of the big guns in Europe, not made it into the Brazilian squad. The reason is simple: he camped in the box, waited for the service from the wings and scored (an incredible ratio goals/attempt, never seen quite like that). He needed a team and a system to work for him, an even more extreme case than Fowler’s. And big teams don’t like that.
Man, this is a brilliant site with intelligent footballing analysis….no shite about the lives of footballers etc…cant believe I stumbled upon this site only today…
Not sure that Fowler really was a ‘poacher’ in the classic sense.
While he tended to finish moves (frequently from outside the six yard box), he regularly dropped deeper between the lines and into midfield in order to link play. He had to as well given how Liverpool played at the time (ye olde 3-5-2 with lots of lateral passing and little incision unless he dropped deep or we punted it long for Collymore to run onto). Just because he scored with ease doesn’t mean that he didn’t also create – he did, regularly in those first few seasons.
What hampered Fowler substantially were the consecutive ankle injuries and, possibly, a less than modern view of maintaining his fitness and conditioning. It’s hard to have decent movement or pace when you’re hobbling (and/or waddling) after all.
Would agree with the underlying thrust of your piece, but the player you’re describing is the crippled mid-20s player struggling to find fitness and not the sublimely gifted player with the strength to muscle fullbacks off the ball and then chip the keeper.
I’d have to agree with the author regarding Van Nistlerooy. In fact I feel the counter-arguments are a little over-aggressive and are almost coming across in a fan boyish nature.
While Ruud did score outside the box, it must’ve just been a handful. 99% of his game was box play, yes he had a good turn of acceleration, good movement and was physical, this was not the way he played his football for the majority of the time. While he wasn’t to the extreme of Jardel (good example) or Romario, in English Premiership terms he was too luxurious in my opinion. Perhaps injuries and his temperament also played a part, but he didn’t fit in the the CL winning team at all.
Just stumbled upon this site today, and I must say that you’ve done some great analysis on the game. I didn’t watch a lot of EPL during fowler’s days so I wouldn’t want to debate on that, but I think I get the main idea.
I was introduced to this site very recently and have to say what a fantastic job you’ve done. It is hugely refreshing to read such well informed and carefully constructed articles.
The death of the striker was something I first noticed when Michael Owen was shipped back to Newcastle from Madrid despite having a superb goal scoring record in his short time there, considering as well the short amount of game time he was given comparatively to the other main strikers. It became clear that his goal scoring ability wasn’t value in the same way as it would have been if he still had the raw pace he had when he was 18. Madrid appeared to have bought Owen from the 1998 world cup and failed to understand that his game and football had changed over the years. Inevitably people will point to the stats that show he played 30 games or so and returned just over 10 goals, but for someone who wasn’t first choice and came off the bench I felt he did very well.
I would also say that they realised a season on after severe change at the club that some steel and resolve was needed. Ruud came in as the proven goal scorer, in a back to basics style which served them much better than the previous year and gave them a stable platform from which to build on.
Players like Ruud, Fowler and even Jardel all were excellent players but what they did better than anything else was score goals, any goal, a poacher’s goal. Even Owen would make an excellent poacher since losing his raw pace but the top clubs don’t want this any more and want more. Whilst each of these players can do more than just score goals, there are better players out there, which is why they were redundant. I agree wholeheartedly with you (for lack of a better name) ZM that each was let go or died out because of the death of the goal poacher. There is no doubting that any of them are talented footballers, but being a poacher is no longer enough for the top sides. Those saying that each had other attributes to their game are correct but I feel missing the point. Imo.
Thanks very much for your compliments.
Yes, Owen seems to have been a player left behind by the modern game. The combination of the way the game has evolved to favour forwards with a more ‘complete’ game, and his injury problems leaving him with less pace, have meant he didn’t go on to achieve what was expected.
Owen has tried to develop his all-round game – as detailed here – http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/01/23/the-woes-of-michael-owen-detailed/ but it’s still not quite up to the standard required.
It was ironic he left Real because he wasn’t seeing much playing time, because his style of play and injury problems meant that being used as a supersub, or a rotation player, would have been his best bet if he wanted to be an important player at a big club.
Pippi inzaghi, say no more, a great squad player but not starting eleven. Similar to situation with miller playing instead of Boyd for scotland
I have to disagree that Fowler had little skill, he was a very creative player I think the “natural finisher” label was always put on him too easily by the media – he missed plenty of chances too. If you watched his career closely you would see he created a lot of goals and it was his awareness and movement that I would say make him as unique a striker as I have ever seen, whenever a cross came into the box he would always be on the end of it, the ball didnt just magically arrive at his feet for him to just do his finishing.
Everyone knows that when Houllier appeared and went for the supposed power of Heskey with the pace of Owen (which i think made Liverpool a little predictable). He saw Fowler as a part of the “spice boys” regime which he needed to remove. Fowler never recovered from leaving Liverpool although his goalscoring record at Leeds was more than decent. The 4-5-1 formation has effectively ruined the chances of another Fowler re-emerging.
Great website. Agree with the central point of this article, but I have to take humbrage with your choice of Fowler to illustrate it. He was indeed a poacher, but his movement was at times superb and as he developed his link up play became a plus, notably during the rare occasions he and Litmanen were on the field together. I think a fit 90’s era Fowler could have adapted to today’s game. Admittedly he would be no Wayne Rooney, but I think he’s remembered solely as a poacher simply because of the quality of his finishing. Now, Mickey Quinn, there’s a atriker who might struggle to adapt to the modern game.
I agree with most of the article but for Fowler to have the goalscoring record that he did and to have poor movement is almost contradictory. In order to score that many goals you must have good movement and having been season ticket holder at Liverpool since the age of 4 I can say that one thing Fowler had was superior movement. His ability to anticipate crosses and get across the front of his man has not been replicated since and I would say his decline came more about from major injuries rather than anything else. His runs were almost perfecttion at times and he had the skill to create just enough space to fire his shots off.
What do the three players mentioned in the article have in common, Ruud, Fowler and Owen have all suffered almost career ending injuries. I think this slowed them down a bit and for Fowler at least that is why he declined so rapidly.
Correct me if im wrong but i think ZM means by movement, running off the ball and creating space for other players and being able to be versatile and roam the pitch more, and not what a lot of us have come to think of as a strikers ‘movement’, ie: ability to create space in the box or lose a defender or find the end of a cross. If ZM means the former then i would agree with him that fowler didnt have great movement but if the latter then i must totally disagree as he was second to none in that department.
Also, whilst this is a truly great site and makes such a change to all the usual tabloid shite and non-insightful punditry on tv, i must take issue with a prevailing theme running through this site: namely that football is ‘evolving’ towards some kind of idea of perfect football and that today is more advanced/better than yesterday etc, rather than just different. Does this site truly believe that things such as tactics or certain types of players (fowler) etc wont come full circle and start being used again in years to come? Throughout the history of sport things change to such a degree that the original things they replaced start becoming effecitve again due to the suprise/novelty factor. And can this site really say that fashion doesnt play a major part in things such as the death of the poacher rather than just ‘more intelligent’ managers/players dissmising what came before and evolving the game into a ’superior product’?
I must take issue with a prevailing theme running through this site: namely that football is ‘evolving’ towards some kind of idea of perfect football and that today is more advanced/better than yesterday”
Certainly it is evolving, yes. Why have you inferred that it’s anything to do with ‘perfect football’? And where have you got the impression that the site thinks things won’t come full circle?
Modern football clearly is more advanced than 20 years ago, because of the very concept of time, surely.
I don’t necessarily see a connection between Ruud’s presence at United and the lack of Prem titles. In his first season he scored an incredible amount of goals and if I’m not mistaken set a record for goals scored in most consecutive matches. He indeed was the ‘fox in the box’ and needed great wide play from Beckham and Giggs.
In the 2002-2003 season he was as instrumental in United winning the title as anybody else but the formation used that year by Ferguson was a 4-4-1-1 with Scholes as the midfielder in the ‘hole’ and Beckham and Giggs wide. In this season, Ferguson was also experimenting with the forward playing wide as you described in an earlier post (Solksjaer in place of Beckham, vs Arsenal at Highbury). With the loss of Beckham (inexplicable from a footballing point of view) and the new crop of players in 2003-2004 most of whom were not upto the mark, Ruud struggled. Case in point, Bellion. Had pace (like you mentioned in your earlier post) but not the skill or end product. Another case in point, Fletcher playing wide (he had horrible crosses at the time).
It’s just the selection of players and a system that suits the players currently at the club and with Ruud still at the peak of his career it is hard to see why Ferguson changed the system. Rooney was still playing in that Scholes position and scoring for fun but the arrival of Ronaldo stifled a lot of players. Ruud’s exit was just a result of this.
Berbatov is of the same mould as the traditional striker and I’m not surprised to see him struggling too. Having already changed the system, I don’t understand why Ferguson bought him in the first place. If Beckham were still at the club, I’m sure Berbatov would have fared better in his two seasons at United.
When you’re looking at wider trends over longer periods of time you have to look at generalizations more than individual cases. Most trends will have exceptions to the rule and this is no different. Toni’s recent success in Germany and Zamora’s fine form this season are examples that that “type” of striker can still be effective in the modern game.
That said, and this is what ZM was pointing out, is that the general trend is one that is moving away from having that type of player as the spearhead of a team’s attack. When you consider clubs involvement and aspirations in multiple competitions and the quality of teams playing in European tournaments it is more useful to have a versatile, mobile striker on the team. This becomes even more evident when considering the diverse tactics used by teams across the continent. Specialized players can in that case become less functional and therefore of less use to the team.