Ian Rush

[fred milne]

The official website is running an Ian Rush week.

 

I can't see this referred to anywhere else and thought a thread dedicated to a player who was the best striker of his generation and the best striker this club has ever seen is called for.

[fred milne]

One of Tomkins' better articles:

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

PAUL TOMKINS ON IAN RUSH

Paul Tomkins 06 November 2007

 

Apparently it takes one to know one. If it is true, then I, a far lowlier former representative of the Strikers' Union, should know a bit about what made the supreme master of the art special.

 

I've not seen many better finishers than the legendary no.9. I'd place Robbie Fowler just ahead of him due to a greater variety and panache to his goals, but in terms of all-round centre-forward play, and the sheer quantity of goals when at his pomp, I can't think of anyone better than the man from Flint.

 

In 1984 he scored 47 goals in all competitions. And this without being the club's penalty taker. It's beyond remarkable. This was when he was at his very best, in the years before he moved to Juventus in 1987; upon his return a year later there were fewer goals, but in compensation we also saw an improved footballer who, it just so happened, helped Fowler become the player he was.

 

I recall being at one largely unremarkable game against Crystal Palace at Selhurst Park in 1993. It finished 1-1, and Rush scored. While he just managed one goal, that night under the floodlights he was phenomenal in every aspect of his play: workrate, linking, movement, and attempts at goal. Graeme Souness, manager at the time and, of course, team-mate of Rush's during the striker's first stint with the Reds, described it as the best centre-forward display he'd ever seen.

 

And yet it's now largely a lost memory, a forgotten performance. Even now I can't remember exact examples of what it was that Rush did so well, just the feeling of awe as I left the ground. Having started going to games in 1990, I'd seen him play in the flesh a number of times, but never as well as that.

 

Just over a decade before that Palace master-class, as a boy yet to reach to his teens, I was always over the park with my friends and a football. The obligatory jumpers down as goalposts and 'rush' goalie (no connection), we chased around night after night; playing until it was so dark we could no longer see the ball. And I was always Ian Rush. I even drank milk because the advert said he did. I didn't want to end up playing for Accrington Stanley.

 

Fast forward 14 or 15 years to April 1996, and I was stood at a urinal at the Moat House hotel in Liverpool as my boyhood idol strode up to the porcelain bowl beside me. Only hours earlier I'd seen him exchange those now-legendary passes with John Barnes –– not so much a one-two from the great old-timers, as a one-two-one-two-one-two– (polite pause while defenders unravel themselves) -one-two –– before Stan Collymore blasted the winner in the first 4-3 against Newcastle.

 

At the urinal to the other side of Rush was an acquaintance of his, asking if he'd decided on his destination after Liverpool, who were releasing him. Rushie (whose aim thankfully remained true, even at 1am), said it would be Leeds, and I felt I had a scoop on the rest of the world. It was a surreal moment, but, I sensed, not really the appropriate time to ask for an autograph. (Or, in case nerves stopped me from getting the final word out, asking if he'd let me have the honour of shaking his hand.)

 

We learn by copying others. And imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. So in many ways, the greatest compliment I can personally pay the legendary no.9 is that throughout my life I modelled my game on his. (Well, that was the aim.)

 

I could talk milestone figures relating to his goals –– like 346 and 229 –– or describe a number of finishes that we've all seen a thousand times, but for me, from a personal perspective, my most sincere compliment is that I wanted to be the next Ian Rush.

 

(Of course, I was lucky in that I grew up watching how it should be done, in a way a Manchester City or Newcastle fan my age no doubt grew up learning how to knock someone in Row Z unconscious.)

 

I could talk all day about Rush's myriad abilities in front of goal, but one aspect of the strikers' art stands out for me. He could finish in all kinds of situations, but it was in one-on-ones, usually fed by Kenny Dalglish, where he stood out. It's one thing having pace, but it's another to use it intelligently. And no-one made better runs than Ian Rush.

 

I may be wrong, but I imagine that a lot of people who've never played the game think one-on-ones with a keeper are the easiest chances. After all, it's just the striker versus the keeper. Simple, right?

 

But one-on-ones are like penalty shootouts to a centre-forward. Beating a keeper from the penalty spot is not the most difficult thing in the world, but of course it's the pressure that makes penalties so tough. The pressure makes technique go awry.

 

And with one-one-ones, just as with penalties, it's the thinking time that's the problem.

 

So much of a strikers' art is about instinctive, split-second reactions in a crowded situation, where there's no time to sense the pressure. So when you have time to think about what you're going to do –– or more importantly, time to change your mind over and over again –– it can lead to disaster.

 

They test composure, much of which is innate, but also confidence, which is transitory. If a player is low on confidence, and has missed his previous five spot-kicks, you wouldn't ask him to take another penalty. It would be insane. But a quick centre-forward cannot hide when he is played in on goal.

 

Of course, the good ones will still want those chances, as they know their luck will change. They have the right mentality. But even a struggling one can't pass the buck unless he wants to look like a total idiot. Once played in, you have to go for it –– not start heading for the corner flag, or passing back towards your own goal.

 

I remember playing in an FA Cup qualifying round, and missing three on-one-ones. It's hard to explain what goes through your head in those moments, but the word 'clutter' springs to mind. There's a jumble of ideas and instructions, and you can feel your heartbeat increasing. When you're on song, you feel in control and more relaxed, but it's still never easy.

 

A ball falls in the box, and bam, you hit it. But when you pick it up just over the halfway line, you have to take several touches as, behind you, chasing defenders (who aren't slowed by trying to control the ball) scurry back.

 

You also have no idea what the keeper is going to do, so you need to size up his intentions while also keeping an eye on the ball. Usually, when Rushie was concerned, the keeper's role was actually deceptively simple. He'd set himself, stare down the approaching moustachioed maestro, then go and pick the ball out of the net.

 

Breaking the offside trap is always vital, and is where so many quick strikers fail, or where so many linesmen thwart them even when they get it right. But Rushie pioneered a type of run where he darted widthways in front of the defenders, so that he was already moving when the pass came. All he had to do was turn 90º and he caught his markers flatfooted.

 

And that was crucial. I think that so many quick strikers, who can afford to hold their runs a bit more to avoid the flag, want to leave the defenders completely in their wake. It frustrates fans, but I totally understand the impulse.

 

I know when I played I felt this way, because the moment you start approaching the keeper you naturally slow down to weigh up the situation. So you need a few yards on the last defender, who, if he gets close enough, will be slyly tugging your shirt and nibbling at your ankles. But Rush had perfected a way of getting in on goal with time to spare. No-one was going to catch him, even when he broke his stride. So many times he sized up the keeper, took it past him, and slotted home.

 

Years of watching Rushie when growing up clearly influenced how I later dealt with such one-on-ones myself: the willingness to be equally happy (and not conclusively deciding until the last minute) to take the ball to the left or the right of the keeper; if you telegraph your intentions, or have a clear preference as to which side you favour, a keeper will have the upper hand. And Rushie, naturally two-footed, was happy to take the ball either side.

 

Then there's getting the weight of touch just right so that the ball moves quickly and firmly past the keeper (so he can't get a hand to it), but not so far that it runs towards the byline; things I'd never been formally taught but which, looking back, must have filtered into my thinking from watching the master.

 

(Of course, for the record I must point out that, alas, most of my game did not resemble Rush's in any way, shape or form –– it no doubt appeared to those watching that I'd modelled my style on Mickey Quinn when it came to workrate, Marco Boogers when it came to commitment, Carlton Palmer in terms of grace, and Martin Keown when it came to shooting straight.)

 

Of course, Rush could also slot an early side-footed shot past the keeper –– something Michael Owen always favoured. The keeper narrows the angle, but if you're good enough you can sneak the ball through the narrow available corridor.

 

Rushie's other popular method was to lift or dink the ball over the keeper as he sprawled at his feet. This type of finish is dying out, because keepers stay upright for longer; Pepe Reina is particularly good at this, following on from Peter Schmeichel's lead. But in the days when keepers always went down early, there were none better at Rush than exploiting it.

 

Basically, Rush could finish a one-on-one in every possible way, and therefore was never predictable. So while there may have been more stylish finishers, like Henry and Fowler, or slightly more prolific ones, like Shearer (who also took loads and loads of penalties), there weren't many better in terms of all-round play, and certainly none who could hold a candle to Rush in a one-on-one.

 

For a number of reasons I only made it as a semi-pro, but were it not for Ian Rush and the lessons he indirectly taught me, I might have instead been the useless kid picked last at games at school. Without Rush, I could now find myself writing about needlecraft or, heaven forbid, something really stupid –– like rugby.

 

So I really do owe him quite a lot.

 

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...071106-0948.htm

[johngibo YPC]

Good article by Kenny yesterday

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N...071105-1503.htm

 

Shame i never saw him in his 'prime'

But he was still pretty good by the time i started going the match

[RP]

Didn't someone on here say last week that Rushie was a bit slow?? :lol:

[plonky]

Looks like Kenny can't remember the 86 cup final as if it was yesterday either - Bobby Mimms was in goal!

[johngibo YPC]

  RP said:

Didn't someone on here say last week that Rushie was a bit slow?? :lol:

 

i remember that

not sure who it was

[Gerry]

  johngibo YPC said:

i remember that

not sure who it was

 

Oh, I think we can find that out...

 

Ian Rush was slow with a poor touch

[fred milne]

There are stats and then there are stats:

 

1981-1982 Played 32 Scored 17 goals (Division 1)

1982-1983 Played 34 Scored 24 goals (Division 1)

1983-1984 Played 41 Scored 32 goals (Division 1)

1984-1985 Played 28 Scored 14 goals (Division 1)

1985-1986 Played 40 Scored 23 goals (Division 1)

1986-1987 Played 42 Scored 30 goals (Division 1)

[cymrococh]

Why does Tomkins have to spoil his articles with constant references to his own life?

[johngibo YPC]

  Gerry said:

Oh, I think we can find that out...

 

Ian Rush was slow with a poor touch

 

These scandanavians hey!

[Stevie H]

i disagree with tomkins that fowler was a better finisher than rush. more flamboyant and spectacular perhaps, but rush was a cold-blooded assassin.

[sutty]

  Steve H said:

i disagree with tomkins that fowler was a better finisher than rush. more flamboyant and spectacular perhaps, but rush was a cold-blooded assassin.

 

Fowler scored a bigger variety. That overhead lob goal he scored last day of the treble season against charlton was just a genius piece of football in every way.

 

I don't think any other footballer could have scored that goal.

[Cobs]

  Steve H said:

i disagree with tomkins that fowler was a better finisher than rush. more flamboyant and spectacular perhaps, but rush was a cold-blooded assassin.

I'd give the slight edge to Fowler

 

Fowler scored every type of goal imaginable and Rush played for the stand out best team in Europe (granted he was part of the reason why it was) as well as having Kenny to tee him up

 

they were more or less identical in the number of games it took to get them to 100 goals and most other landmarks, weren't they?

[sutty]

  Cobs said:

I'd give the slight edge to Fowler

 

Fowler scored every type of goal imaginable and Rush played for the stand out best team in Europe (granted he was part of the reason why it was) as well as having Kenny to tee him up

 

they were more or less identical in the number of games it took to get them to 100 goals and most other landmarks, weren't they?

 

Rush was arguably better at putting the ball in the net though. Even if he did use a narrower variety of methods.

[Cobs]

  sutty said:

Rush was arguably better at putting the ball in the net though.

let me hear that argument......

[sutty]

  Cobs said:

let me hear that argument......

 

Rush scored loads more goals than Fowler.

[Cobs]

  sutty said:

Rush scored loads more goals than Fowler.

and he played loads more games than Fowler, in a much better team than Fowler, with a much better strike partner than Fowler

[sutty]

So?

[sutty]

Fowler took penalties, scored the majority of his goals in a very attacking side etc etc

[Cobs]

  sutty said:

So?

so had Fowler had the same opportunity i believe he'd have scored even more and given the variety to his game was better at putting the ball in the net

 

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

I also reckon that Fowler would have demolished all records if he'd played in those teams of the 80s

[sutty]

  Cobs said:

so had Fowler had the same opportunity i believe he'd have scored even more and given the variety to his game was better at putting the ball in the net

 

 

I think Fowler missed more chances.

[Cobs]

  sutty said:

Fowler took penalties,

 

= better at putting the ball in the net

 

 

Rushie took the odd one or two n all

 

  sutty said:

scored the majority of his goals in a very attacking side etc etc

i think we were pretty attacking when Rush was in the team, i'm sure someone can be arsed to look up how many goals we scored back then compared to Fowler's time - the 42 game League season would have helped

[Cobs]

  Kvarme Ate My Food said:

I also reckon that Fowler would have demolished all records if he'd played in those teams of the 80s

 

as well as having a myriad of T-shirts to display after each goal showing his support for the miner's strike

[Kvarme Ate My Food]

  Cobs said:

 

as well as having a myriad of T-shirts to display after each goal showing his support for the miner's strike

 

"Robbie Says Relax"

 

"Don't Pay The Poll Tax"

 

"f*** Off Tebbit"

 

it would have been great