CF and Striker..... is there a difference?

MrStuffins

Ok, so this debate has started in another thread and dragged it ridiculously off topic so I think it deserves it's own one.

I don't think you need to be a CF AND a Striker. I think a player can be bought to be either one.

I am of the opinion that there is a difference between a CF and a Striker. A CF is a kind of Target Man. He plays in that top position and he is the guy who you can get the ball to and he can hold up play (Like a Kevin Davis or Emile Heskey), bring others into play, has some skill and pace (Like a Torres or Henry) and can play all across that top 3rd of the field.

Now, I think a striker is different. A striker is selfish. he's the guy in the team who has that incredible ability to see space and get free among defenders and when he does, he finishes off a move. He's always in the box and is always on the last shoulder of the defender. I'm talking about yours Van Nistelrooy's, Darren Bent's, Gary Lineker's etc. these guys who might not have been collecting the ball from the halfway line, beating 10 players and sticking it into the top corner, but the ones who are on the end of crosses and finishing moves from 3 yards.

What think ye? It's obvious that you can have a combination of both. But do you think it's reasonable to buy a player to be a striker rather than a Striker/CF, like Darren Bent at the momnet?

Eirebear

I would suggest striker is just a generic term for someone who plays up front and scores some goals, rather than a defined position.

MrStuffins

Eirebear wrote: »

I would suggest striker is just a generic term for someone who plays up front and scores some goals, rather than a defined position.

Indeed, the point i'm making is, if someone who plays up front is scoring 5 goals a season but assisting 20, he'd be called "An old fashioned Centre Forward".

If he was assisting none, getting 3 touches in a game and scoring 1 or 2 of them, he'd be a striker.

Eirebear

MrStuffins wrote: »

Indeed, the point i'm making is, if someone who plays up front is scoring 5 goals a season but assisting 20, he'd be called "An old fashioned Centre Forward".

If he was assisting none, getting 3 touches in a game and scoring 1 or 2 of them, he'd be a striker.

I think that's a fair enough point.

I think the "Old Fashioned" is a good point actually, its very easy to think of the Centre Forward as the big guy who knocks them on, and the Striker as the little guy who knocks them in.

Frisbee

Imo

Centre Forward = van Persie

Striker = Darrent Bent, Eduardo.

pickarooney

I think 'poacher' is more what you're describing. Alan Shearer was very much a centre forward and a striker, IMO.

Maybe not poacher, as it's more of an Inzaghi role, but the Trezeguet kind of player who only shows up for 5 minutes in the game, takes one shot and scores - not sure what to call them.

BOHtox

I think a CF plays off the striker. Kind of like Suarez playing off carroll or Keegan playing off Toshack

MrStuffins

This point was raised because, the point was made that Darren Bent was a bad CF because he doesnt do most of the stuff a CF will do.

However, I argued that he was not bought to be a good CF but a good striker, one who scores goals but does not much else, which he has been doing.

I think it's very fair to say that you don't have to be holding up play and assisting if you're getting 20 goals a season doing what you do best.

Jax Teller

Isn't a CF the person who plays in behind the striker ? This could be called a Attacking midfielder though couldn't it ? .

MRPRO03

Centre Forward is a player that plays up front on their own. A striker is a term used for a player that scores goals in the box.

tdv123

keysersoze_88 wrote: »

Isn't a CF the person who plays in behind the striker ? This could be called a Attacking midfielder though couldn't it ? .

Nope the support striker or second striker is the person who plays just behind center forward (or "target man "what ever you want to call it).

MrStuffins

We should write a letter to someone.... although not to FIFA, Blatter wouldn't have a bog!

Pauleta

Both the same really but my interpretation of a Centre forward is a player who constantly occupies the centre backs and dictates the line of the defence and would play the vast majority of the game with his back to goal. A striker would be anyone that plays up front although i wouldnt consider Ronaldo or Messi strikers, i would consider them Wing Forwards.

losthorizon

Whats an inside forward then?

K-9

BOHtox wrote: »

I think a CF plays off the striker. Kind of like Suarez playing off carroll or Keegan playing off Toshack

Carroll would be a traditional CF, big lad up front, will win long balls or hold it up, Shearer and Hughes other good examples.

Suarez wouldn't be a striker to me, Bent would. Not as many about as the 80's, Rush, Lineker, Aldridge though Aldridge often played as a CF for Ireland.

It's a hard one to define and I know a striker by him being a good poacher, that's what he is good at. A CF can be that but also a good winner of ball and laying it off.

If teams are playing 1 up front I'd consider him a striker!

mike65

losthorizon wrote: »

Whats an inside forward then?

Steven Gerrard has been mainly an inside foward in the last few seasons.

eagle eye

A striker for me is a term that covers all the different type of forwards.

For me an old-fashioned centre forward is somebody who regularly scores goals with his head and with his feet and is physically strong enough to hold the ball up when required. The term was expanded though to include more players as the game changed and a centre-forward to me now includes the likes of Berbatov, Van Persie and Torres. For old-fashioned centre forwars Drogba comes to mind as does Shearer and Mark Hughes as three of the best in that mould over the last 25 years.

Then you have the poacher who is usually quick and just has that knack of getting on the end of the ball close in to goal. Andy Cole, Robbie Fowler and Gary Lineker would have been three of the most successful in the last decade and a half in that category.

You have the wide forward who is tricky and works hard. Not very prevalent in the English game, the likes of Messi, Kaka and C.Ronaldo would be in this category for me. C.Ronaldo and Malouda would be classed as midfielders in the English game instead of wide forwards.

You have the second or withdrawn striker who plays a kind of attacking midfield role. Dennis Bergkamp and Eric Cantona are the two best I've seen in this role, Van der Vaart is doing it at Spurs at the moment.

There are others like Henry, Rooney and Tevez for instance who don't exactly fit into any category but are just fantastic strikers.

K-9

Cole, Fowler and Van Nistleroy were poachers, outstanding at it. Could score from the edge of the box but the vast majority were from 6 yards.

Rush ahead of Lineker before that, Butragueno, Voeller and a perfect example, Rossi in 82, on the international stage.Different style of football.

Striker are a rare breed now as it's more about not just scoring goals. Torres is an ould fashioned striker, expected to score at Liverpool, though everybody knows he is capable of more. Goes to Chelsea and people wonder why isn't he setting up goals? He's a striker!

Seaneh

Striker= Shevchenko, Weah, Huntelaar, Pazzini, Owen, Inzaghi, Saviola, Villa, Pato, Hernandez, Torress, Benzema, Higuain, Defoe, Bent, Anelka, Long.

CF = Shearer, Sutton, Kluivert, Kilnsman, Ruud, Bierhoff, Carroll, Giladrino, Ibrahimovic, Berbatov, Drogba, Crouch, Llorente, Adebayor, Pavlychenko, Palermo, Doyle.

Forward/second strikers = Del Piero, Totti, Cassano, Raul, Rooney, Aguero, Rossi, Messi, Robinho, Quagliarella, Suerez, Keane.

Seaneh

losthorizon wrote: »

Whats an inside forward then?

A winger who cuts inside.
Like Duff when he plays on the right for Fulham or Rooney when he plays on the left for united.

They are expect to take the ball from a wide position, and turn infield on theor stronger foot.

_blank_

Seaneh wrote: »

A winger who cuts inside.
Like Duff when he plays on the right for Fulham or Rooney when he plays on the left for united.

They are expect to take the ball from a wide position, and turn infield on theor stronger foot.

Known more recently as "inverted wingers"

And, actually, I think Rooney is more of a Trequartista than a second striker, like Del Piero, Baggio.

Seaneh

Des wrote: »

And, actually, I think Rooney is more of a Trequartista than a second striker, like Del Piero, Baggio.

In Italy the two terms are fairly inter-changeable, I could have broken the groups up even more but I got lazy. Cassano and Totti would be more Trequartista's than second strikers too.
I mean, people would call Káká a Trequartista a lot back when he played for Milan, but they'd never call him a second striker... it's a fairly ambiguous term.

_blank_

Seaneh wrote: »

In Italy the two terms are fairly inter-changeable, I could have broken the groups up even more but I got lazy. Cassano and Totti would be more Trequartista's than second strikers too.
I mean, people would call Káká a Trequartista a lot back when he played for Milan, but they'd never call him a second striker... it's a fairly ambiguous term.

Seaneh, I must apologise to you, I quickly wrote that post this morning with my cup of tea and cereal before I left for work.

And, also, yeah, when you speak about Rooney playing on the left for Man Utd, inverted winger suits the bill there too.

bonerm

I consider CF to be the actual physical position on the pitch whereas "striker" is the role of the player.

parker kent

Too many people worry about labelling a position. Some players in some teams end up playing unique positions that aren't replicated elsewhere. There is too much BS brought into football debates as people try to break everything down in Championship Manager style positions.

These days formations can be so fluid, that there literally is no name for some positions players take up. This is not English football in 1950 when everybody had fixed positions.

On a related note, I find people talking about modern football positions like DMs, AMs and other such wankology as if they are recent inventions a bit annoying. There's been teams with defensive or attacking midfielders for far longer than is often made out.

pickarooney

When was the last time anyone saw a sweeper?

fkiely

pickarooney wrote: »

When was the last time anyone saw a sweeper?

This morning on my way into work... *gets coat*

parker kent

pickarooney wrote: »

When was the last time anyone saw a sweeper?

Formations change and morph which is related to my point. The libero/sweeper positions could be seen as similar to what people call a DM now. Some positional change due to modern football rules, but the 1970/80s sweeper could just have moved 10 yards up the pitch.

That being said, teams still use 3 centre backs every now and then. Was Pepe playing in midfield that different to teams in the 70s and 80s playing a sweeper? He essentially did the same job.

tdv123

K-9 wrote: »

Cole, Fowler and Van Nistleroy were poachers, outstanding at it. Could score from the edge of the box but the vast majority were from 6 yards.

Rush ahead of Lineker before that, Butragueno, Voeller and a perfect example, Rossi in 82, on the international stage.Different style of football.

Striker are a rare breed now as it's more about not just scoring goals. Torres is an ould fashioned striker, expected to score at Liverpool, though everybody knows he is capable of more. Goes to Chelsea and people wonder why isn't he setting up goals? He's a striker!

I was with ya till around here.

Pro. F

bonerm wrote: »

I consider CF to be the actual physical position on the pitch whereas "striker" is the role of the player.

I agree with this.

Centre forward is the furthest player forward in the centre. It's just that in English football the centre forward is associated with the target man role. But in different parts of the world it has been associated with different roles.

parker kent wrote: »

Formations change and morph which is related to my point. The libero/sweeper positions could be seen as similar to what people call a DM now. Some positional change due to modern football rules, but the 1970/80s sweeper could just have moved 10 yards up the pitch.

That being said, teams still use 3 centre backs every now and then. Was Pepe playing in midfield that different to teams in the 70s and 80s playing a sweeper? He essentially did the same job.

I didn't see this Clasico (I watched the London Clasico instead) so I can't comment on that particular game. But on the position in general - the sweeper only exists in a man marking system (as the free defender) so it is all but extinct now, as the CBs don't man mark these days. I know Mourinho has brought man marking back a lot for his midfielders, but I don't think he assigns strict man marking roles for his centre backs.

parker kent

Pro. F wrote: »

I didn't see this Clasico (I watched the London Clasico instead) so I can't comment on that particular game. But on the position in general - the sweeper only exists in a man marking system (as the free defender) so it is all but extinct now, as the CBs don't man mark these days. I know Mourinho has brought man marking back a lot for his midfielders, but I don't think he assigns strict man marking roles for his centre backs.

I said earlier that various roles have changed due to laws changes. CBs don't man mark due to changes in the offside law amongst many other things.

Nonetheless, Pepe essentially played the same role a sweeper would have played, but with necessary changes given he plays in the modern game. Whether the other players around him played in the same way players played in the 70s doesn't really change that. Pepe was essentially charged with being the free defender to close down Barca. I'm just saying that his role is not that different to what has happened before. Which is often ignored when people talk about positions that current teams use.

Pro. F

parker kent wrote: »

I said earlier that various roles have changed due to laws changes. CBs don't man mark due to changes in the offside law amongst many other things.

Nonetheless, Pepe essentially played the same role a sweeper would have played, but with necessary changes given he plays in the modern game. Whether the other players around him played in the same way players played in the 70s doesn't really change that. Pepe was essentially charged with being the free defender to close down Barca. I'm just saying that his role is not that different to what has happened before. Which is often ignored when people talk about positions that current teams use.

It is hugely different. The sweeper wasn't used to close down the opposition he was used to stand off and act as a last line of defence for anybody who got away from their marker. You can't have a sweeper unless all the other defenders are man marking. It is the definition of the role. The other defenders man mark and can get dragged around a bit, the sweeper holds position deep and deals with anybody who breaks through. Some sweepers used to act like midfielders when in possession, but when defending a sweeper is nothing like a player who is sitting in front of the back four.

_blank_

the sweeper played behind the defence, like this

---

GK

---

---

Sweeper

---

LB

---

CB

---

CB

---

RB

You lose a man from the attack with this system, which is one of the main reasons it has faded into obscurity.

What you have nowadays is what's called a defensive or holding midfielder "The Makelele Role", which allows the full backs more of an attacking mandate, as the D/HM steps back, or doesn't go forward, to take the place of one of the CBs who is covering the full back who is overlapping the winger, depending on which side you are attacking.

Makelele defined the role, Busquets/Mascherano does it for Barca, and if Rio Ferdinand was five years younger he'd be a perfect player for the role, so would Ricardo Carvalho.

A sweeper would be more defensively minded, a Libero was different, and while mostly a defender, had licence to move forward, into the DM position and start attacks from there. The difference between a sweeper and a libero is mostly the players ability on the ball.

pickarooney

I don't know, Des. As far as I'm concerned a libero and a sweeper is the same thing. Lothar Matthaus was probably the last great sweeper the world game has seen and he was a supremely talented ball-playing defender who also played a lot in midfield during his career. I'd imagine the Italians referred to him as a libero when he was with Inter but he was always called a sweeper by the English-speaking media. Then again, it's been a while and my memory might not be that clear.

Ronald Koeman was often employed a sweeper too and he was one of the best passers around at the time.

And of course Franco Baresi was no slouch at passing.

Pro. F

pickarooney wrote: »

I don't know, Des. As far as I'm concerned a libero and a sweeper is the same thing. Lothar Matthaus was probably the last great sweeper the world game has seen and he was a supremely talented ball-playing defender who also played a lot in midfield during his career. I'd imagine the Italians referred to him as a libero when he was with Inter but he was always called a sweeper by the English-speaking media. Then again, it's been a while and my memory might not be that clear.

Ronald Koeman was often employed a sweeper too and he was one of the best passers around at the time.

And of course Franco Baresi was no slouch at passing.

Libero was originally an Italian term from the fifties for the extra defender who could get a free hit to clear the ball.* Even if that defender was just a hatchet man. But I think it did later become synonymous with the more gifted ball playing sweepers around the world. Since it's an English word maybe the Italians have never actually used the word 'sweeper' anyway?

I think Des is right to describe the libero being a more attack minded sweeper. It's the best use of the words as it gives each of the two distinct player types a name.

*I just looked it up in Inverting the Pyramid.

the untitled user

It depends upon the context, most people will use the terms interchangeably. But in my opinion, a centre forward is a position and a striker is a role.

_blank_

Pro. F wrote: »

*I just looked it up in Inverting the Pyramid.

I was drawing from my memory of that book too

pickarooney

Pro. F wrote: »

Libero was originally an Italian term from the fifties for the extra defender who could get a free hit to clear the ball.* Even if that defender was just a hatchet man. But I think it did later become synonymous with the more gifted ball playing sweepers around the world. Since it's an English word maybe the Italians have never actually used the word 'sweeper' anyway?

I think Des is right to describe the libero being a more attack minded sweeper. It's the best use of the words as it gives each of the two distinct player types a name.

*I just looked it up in Inverting the Pyramid.

What players would you put in each category then, specifically what sweepers would you not consider liberos? Maybe I need to look further back or beyond international football but none spring to mind.

_blank_

pickarooney wrote: »

What players would you put in each category then, specifically what sweepers would you not consider liberos? Maybe I need to look further back or beyond international football but none spring to mind.

Excellent question. None spring to my mind anyway

edit, just found this Jonathon Wilson piece (author of Inverting The Pyramid, the seminal piece on tactics, have you read it pickarooney? if you have an interest in the area, you should read it!)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2009/sep/22/football-tactics-trends

Terry Butcher.

the untitled user

The Libero has made an unheralded return to the modern game. As teams drop an extra man into the midfield it keeps the DM occupied but leaves one extra defender free. Defenders are much better on the ball all round and as a result are less pigeon holed these days so you might often see the roles chopping and changing depending on where the ball is on the pitch, but Ferdinand for United is a prime example. Not only is his sweeping ability badly missed when he's out, but he has quite a great range of passing too which helps United keep the ball. Luiz looks like one of the players too, he starts moves as much as he stops them.

In general though, with only one forward to defend against, one CB will always look to be in space to receive the ball and move it forward, bit like the Libero of old.

pickarooney

Would you classify the likes of Agger and Pique as sort of neo-liberos?

the untitled user

pickarooney wrote: »

Would you classify the likes of Agger and Pique as sort of neo-liberos?

Yeah I would. Libero might be a bad term for it because they don't have total freedom in the sense the word implies, but they aren't traditional CBs in that they will often pivot around the midfield and can be found to move across the entire back line at times. For example you frequently see them pushing into any space left behind by the fullbacks to make themselves available to the midfield.

dyl10

losthorizon wrote: »

Whats an inside forward then?

A position that practically disappeared decades ago.

A striker is your goal scorer, a centre forward is a generic name for someone who plays up front.

the untitled user

dyl10 wrote: »

A position that practically disappeared decades ago.

A striker is your goal scorer, a centre forward is a generic name for someone who plays up front.

I wouldn't say it's disappeared. I would argue it's returned in modern 4-3-3/4-2-3-1 systems, because the advanced wide men are frequently expected to get in the box, the natural width tends to come from full backs in many of those systems. C.Ronaldo is a pretty good example of what I mean, he starts wide and deep, but his primary contribution is in the form of getting in the box late and scoring.

parker kent

Pro. F wrote: »

It is hugely different. The sweeper wasn't used to close down the opposition he was used to stand off and act as a last line of defence for anybody who got away from their marker. You can't have a sweeper unless all the other defenders are man marking. It is the definition of the role. The other defenders man mark and can get dragged around a bit, the sweeper holds position deep and deals with anybody who breaks through. Some sweepers used to act like midfielders when in possession, but when defending a sweeper is nothing like a player who is sitting in front of the back four.

I know all of that. My point is simple. There are 3 people defending in a relatively similar patch of grass now, just as there were 3 people doing likewise in the 1970s.

Expand your mind and grasp what I'm saying. The word sweeper was used in connection with the third man. I'm saying is it THAT crazy to think of current DMs as being MODERN VERSIONS of sweepers. In other words, I have clearly said throughout they are not replicating the exact role of sweepers. There is no need for continual history lessons given I actually know what sweepers did.

Des wrote: »

the sweeper played behind the defence, like this

---

GK

---

---

Sweeper

---

LB

---

CB

---

CB

---

RB

You lose a man from the attack with this system, which is one of the main reasons it has faded into obscurity.

What you have nowadays is what's called a defensive or holding midfielder "The Makelele Role", which allows the full backs more of an attacking mandate, as the D/HM steps back, or doesn't go forward, to take the place of one of the CBs who is covering the full back who is overlapping the winger, depending on which side you are attacking.

Makelele defined the role, Busquets/Mascherano does it for Barca, and if Rio Ferdinand was five years younger he'd be a perfect player for the role, so would Ricardo Carvalho.

A sweeper would be more defensively minded, a Libero was different, and while mostly a defender, had licence to move forward, into the DM position and start attacks from there. The difference between a sweeper and a libero is mostly the players ability on the ball.

Again read the above for clarification. My first post on this said:

Formations change and morph which is related to my point. The libero/sweeper positions could be seen as similar to what people call a DM now. Some positional change due to modern football rules, but the 1970/80s sweeper could just have moved 10 yards up the pitch.

Which acknowledges the move from behind the defenders to in front of the defenders, which has happened for a variety of reasons. There is no need for drawn out descriptions of what they did, I know what they did. I am just saying that it is similar. Each generation uses players in different ways, but often the numbers of people in the areas do not change. 2 CBs and a sweeper is not that different to 2 CBs and a DM. Individual roles will morph over time, nonetheless I feel that they are similar enough.

Edit: Basically don't get so caught up on specific definitions of positions. Any team may have a unique interpretation of the position. A DM at one team may do a completely different job to one at a different team. Ditto a forward or any other position. Semantics cause all these problems. Say libero to one person and it means one thing, say it to another it means a different thing. It just means the third player and it is beyond belief to consider the DM as the modern version of the third player. Perhaps the that is changing again due to the emergence of Pique type CBs. Libero and sweeper are used interchangeably, although different countries have different interpretations of that role.