http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/heskey-the-england-striker-who-doesnt-score/ I love this kind of player. But I see the argument on the other side, and I wonder whether a guy who doesn't score much is a bigger liability in soccer or basketball.
Been a fan of 'Esky since the Leicester days but the guy is also one of the most frustrating strikers in the world. I do see his good qualities and believe he has been under-appreciated for much of his career especially when Sven took over but it seems post Sven we've been able to utilize him properly especially when paired with Rooneh.
Soccer fans get used to nil-nil game hence a striker who didn't score much doesn't frustrated fans as much as basketball players do. Heskey's best partner was Owen IMO. He is the kind of player who could win a header and set up the ball for Owen to outrun the defender then score an easy goal. Pretty much the winning formula of their days in Liverpool.
A defender doesn't score as much, a goalie rarely scores in his career.. that doesn't mean they're a liability? If you're a striker, you have to score.. that's your job. Look at E'to, Del Piero, Fernando Torres, Rooney, Zlatan Ibra, Raul etc. Most their bonuses in their salaries is per goals..
Heskey doesn't play a cerebral game, which Shane prides himself on. Heskey is the Joey Dorsey of England National team. His goal production in the premier league is not too shabby though. No comparison to Shane.
At the top international level I think he's a liability. Depending on the situation (the makeup of his team and the opposing team), he can be much more useful than a 1 dimensional, pure goal poacher who contributes little else. But ideally you'd want someone who scores in addition to contributing in other areas. Someone like Eto'o is very hard working, closes down opposing defenders, chases loose balls etc. but also scores tons of goals. Ibra doesn't have a high work rate, but arguably makes an ever better target man than Heskey because of his height and ball control, and is of course a much better scorer.
Just because he doesn't score as much as he should doesn't mean that Battier is a good comparison. In soccer, Battier would be a defensive midfielder or even a defender. His job would not be to score anyway. If you want a British player as a reference point, someone like Paul Scholes would be a more appropriate comparison. In German football history, a guy like Guido Buchwald who shadowed Maradona in the 1990 world cup final (and rendered him useless) would be a decent comparison.
He's not the Shane Battier. In basketball, any position can be a scorer. THe only differentiation lies with passing, rebounding, shotblocking, etc.. But you can have a scorer at any and every position. With football, a striker has to score. The way in which he scores is the variation. If you don't score, you better be assisting on every single goal. Heskey does not do any of these things. The Shane Battier of football is undoubtedly the retired Roy Keane. Defensive presence, scores from his sweetspot, provides leadership and team defense, makes the team play defense, makes the tough play, fights for every ball. Heskey is more like the Jason Collins of the Nets a few years ago. Not much of a scorer, not much of a passer, not much of a rebounder, but does everything else quite well. He uses his size to create opportunities for his teammates on offense. Uses his size for physical play. Decent fundamentals, etc. Emile Heskey is not, and personally I don't believe he ever was, a World Cup quality striker. He would be neutralised in every sense and make it extremely difficult for Rooney to find any space. When they come up against a team defending with (past example) Alessandro Nesta and Fabio Cannavaro, Heskey becomes a gigantic liability. IMO it makes far more sense to have an attacking midfielder or a goal-minded wing than to have Heskey stand around there.
You must be German lol. Argentina had failed to win 9 out of the last 10 games before the World Cup, Maradona had an ingrown toe nail and Argentina BARELY made it to the final past USSR and Yugoslavia. Even Cameroon beat them in game 1. Also, Guido was physically attacking Maradonna on every posession while MATTHAUS was shadowing the physical abuse on every play. Everyone deserves their World Cup win, but I think in terms of good fortune, Germany in 1990 and Italy in 2008 are probably the two which required the most luck in World Cup history. Before you start attacking Argentina, I'm a Brazil fan through and through. I just happen to have had far too many Guido Buchwald discussions throughout my life!
When thinking of a soccer comparison for Battier I was actually thinking of an in his prime Cannavaro - doesn't look physically impressive like a Nesta, but has extreme marking skills. But Cannavaro's defensive style of denying possession is probably more like Artest than Battier. I watched the 1990 world cup as a little kid, but don't remember Guido Buchwald
