Seasons Watched: 1997–98 to 2001–02 (age 17–21 according to FBref)
Every few years, there seems to be a young English attacking talent who bursts onto the scene and displays the kind of potential which could see him eventually rival some of the best in Europe during his prime. As it currently stands, that individual is Jadon Sancho, who’s been great in the Bundesliga since age 18 yet somehow still feels a bit underrated by the English media. Before him was Raheem Sterling when he became a regular starter at age 17 for Liverpool in the early 2010s. No one will forget the hype that surrounded Wayne Rooney as he ascended into stardom during the mid 2000’s
And before all of them was Michael Owen, a phenom who came into prominence at the same time as English football was starting to modernize. He checked off all the things needed to be the next big thing: becoming a regular starter for a storied Premier League club, elite production at a young age, an iconic moment at a major international tournament. There were also individual accolades that came his way, the biggest of which was winning the 2001 Ballon d’Or. Of course Owen’s story is well known, as he’s among a group of footballers who you wish they had the luxuries of modern medicine to utilize.
Everyone can agree that Owen was already very good in his early years, although ballparking his attacking value makes for an interesting discussion. It is fair to point out that his game was slanted more towards goal scoring and attacking space in behind, while there were some questions concerning other skills such as passing and link play. As he declined from being a nuclear athlete, this gradually became more of an issue. How much did his secondary skills lag behind? Was he as explosive an athlete as history has suggested, and how much did his heightened strengths as a goal scorer positively contribute to Liverpool’s attack?
Scouting Report
Pace is a word that gets bandied about often when discussing the early years of Owen’s career, and it’s easy to see why. Even when viewing through the lens of today’s standards, his quickness was frightening, and this applied both on and off the ball. On the ball, his change of pace dribble was something you rarely saw in a generation, and he was capable of utilizing this from a variety of areas. He could attack the byline and get into the wide area of the box for intra-box passing, or charge at a defender within the halfspaces. If his immediate opponent didn’t have great lateral movement, they could be spun around because of his first step. In a way, Owen and Thierry Henry were similar because neither individual had an expansive list of moves in their repertoire, but rather they succeeded through sheer explosiveness (Owen was more explosive than Henry). Though Owen was still quite proficient in this department post-1999, his ability to manufacture chaos on-ball in the final third wasn’t quite the same as his acceleration declined along with frequency in attempting to create separation off the dribble.
Defending Owen off the ball was akin in some ways to having to game plan against the roadrunner, as he was constant in keeping the opposition honest with vertical runs in behind from a variety of angles. His speed gave teammates a greater margin for error with their passes into the box, and even on inaccurate deliveries, he would be relentless in immediately pressuring the defender to regain possession. One particular movement he utilized was getting on the defender’s blindside before executing a short diagonal cut to receive reverse passes into the box. All of this was possible because his footwork ahead of time was quite good so there usually was little wasted motion, and he had remarkable balance even when pressured from behind. In the box, he was much more subtle with sidestepping into pockets of space and along with his leaping ability, it’s partly why he ended up scoring a surprising amount of headers for a man his size.
In the latter years of this period when he only had one functional hamstring, he wasn’t able to rev up the explosiveness as consistently, although that merely made him an excellent athlete rather than an outlier. The addition of Emile Heskey gave Owen a more suitable partner who he could play off of, getting to second balls around the box. This was part of him tweaking his positioning even more towards attacking the defender’s blindside.
Despite his smaller stature, Owen wasn’t at a total disadvantage when receiving between the lines. He was able to leverage his lower center of gravity to crowd over the ball to maintain possession, even drawing contact to fall forward for a foul. He was largely solid at not being within an opponent’s cover shadow to receive between the lines. His turning was not the smoothest, but that wasn’t necessarily a noteworthy issue because of his early work finding pockets of space.
As mentioned earlier, Owen’s footwork was solid although he did have the occasional heavy touch which eliminated potential premium scoring chances. Because of his proclivity for attacking space, his game naturally bypassed settling for long-range shots because he could usually just get into the box for better opportunities. He would be the type of striker who would’ve rated well if event data existed during the late 1990’s to track shot quality. Compared to Henry, Owen was much more comfortable in terms of utilizing a variety of shooting techniques, a reflection of how natural a goal scorer he was.
As a result of the heightened focus on Owen’s physical attributes, less has been made about his capacity as a playmaker despite registering strong assist tallies during those first two seasons in the Premier League. I think that overstated his actual abilities as a passer, as he was closer to the middling numbers he produced from 2000–02. This isn’t to say that he was bad per se, but rather more comfortable creating chances against an already unsettled defense rather than constantly making incisive passes. He had decent touch with his crossing from shorter distances just outside the box when drifting from the middle, and as mentioned earlier, he could manufacture potential cut-back opportunities because of his gravity off the dribble. Within the central areas, he was less of a threat as he was more inclined to recycle possession than attempt passes in behind.
Analysis
In many ways, the legend of Michael Owen still holds up well upon inspection. At his physical peak, he bended the defensive structure of the opposition in multiple ways. On the ball, he could create ample space off the dribble either from wide or within the interior. This allowed him the capacity to self-generate both playmaking and shooting opportunities, leaning more towards the latter than the former. When given the green light, he also provided an extra bit of value on the margins as a ball carrier. His speed and timing translated very well without the ball where he came at the opposition in waves, and that package made Owen such a nightmare to match up against.
Once he started to decline physically following the infamous injury versus Leeds in April 1999, Owen still possessed great explosiveness but he wasn’t quite the same awe-inspiring force so he had to be more clever with picking his spots to not risk further injury complications. This led to him slanting his game more towards his abilities off the ball, utilizing classic striker movement. Perhaps the biggest demerit for Owen was that his passing never made any noticeable jumps to help further compensate for his early physical decline. I think his passing was around average, and even those who are rosier about his playmaking would be hard pressed to think much more highly of him in this department.
From the start, Owen’s attacking output was only rivaled by the elite in England and Europe. 1999–2000 was the only PL season where he didn’t finish in the top 10 among qualified players in non-penalty goals and assists per 90 minutes, and in the other four seasons, his lowest ranking was 8th in 2001–02 at 0.86 NPGA per 90. This would be prodigious production at any age, let alone from 17–21. When compared to other forwards in the big five leagues from 2000–02, Owen still ranks very favorably which is impressive given he was a slightly diminished athlete at this point.
When Owen exploded onto the scene in the late 1990’s, Liverpool were still in the midst of their soul searching as the glory days of the 70s and 80s became even more of a distant memory. Save for a brief dalliance with title contention in late March of 1997, the 90s was quite a painful decade. This can be reflected when looking at end of season Elo ratings, an imperfect but still useful historical proxy for judging team quality. By the end of 1998–99, Liverpool were ranked 45th. Under the late Gerard Houllier, the club saw a considerable uptick in performance and returned them to being a prominent European club once again.
I do think that those Elo ratings in 2001 and 2002 slightly overstate how good Liverpool were, as publicly available shot data pegged them as solid, yet still a couple of rungs below Manchester United and Arsenal. Even with that small caveat, it doesn’t take away from the impressive job that Houllier did, as he turned them into one of the better clubs in Europe through a robust defense. This isn’t to say that the attack lagged far behind either, as 1999–2000 was the only season where Liverpool finished outside the top four in the PL in goals scored. With shot data available from those two seasons, this is how Liverpool fared:
- 2000–01: second in goals for, fifth in shots for, third in shots on target for, second in scoring percentage (goals/shots on target)
- 2001–02: fourth in goals for, eighth in shots for, sixth in shots on target for, third in scoring percentage
As the rankings suggest, Owen and Heskey as a tandem helped drive good results for Liverpool, and this was when the former was slightly diminished athletically. My hunch is that if this same data also covered his first two seasons when he was at a greater athletic level, Liverpool would’ve likely produced similar numbers to 2001. A fair critique that can be levied against Owen is that for as gifted a forward as he was, he wasn’t necessarily the easiest player to build around. He was best playing off a creative hub who was able to soak up a fair amount of possessions, and his limited ability to link play made it where he had to be partnered with a striker who was solid in this area. I’m not sure he ever had the chance to play with the absolute ideal set of teammates during these years, which makes his individual production stand out even more. Perhaps a carefully crafted Owen-centric attack would’ve produced at a higher level to help close the gap even more between Liverpool and Manchester United/Arsenal.
An argument can be made that Michael Owen still remains the most dynamic young English attacking talent to have come through in the past 25 years. He was an athletic marvel who constantly put pressure on the opposition both on and off the ball. Even after his athleticism started to wane, he was able to retool his game just enough by lowering his on-ball usage and becoming more calculated without the ball. That helped him maintain elite production from 1998–2002, and he was a part of good (albeit not great) Liverpool offenses. His playmaking and lack of link play does hurt his portability a bit, although that is at least somewhat counteracted with how good his movement was. As well, I am slightly bullish that Liverpool could’ve built a very good attack around Owen’s strengths during his absolute peak if they had their house in order at the time. When taking all of that into account, there’s more than enough evidence to suggest that Michael Owen was a great attacking prospect.
If you enjoyed this piece and want to help contribute financially so that I could continue to produce content, that would be greatly appreciated. Given the unprecedented times we’re living in, it is totally understandable if this isn’t an option and won’t impact this project.
Previous Profiles
#1: Patrick Kluivert #2: Thierry Henry
