|
Post by mrbluesky on Jan 10, 2016 23:29:58 GMT
It makes perfect sense not to start Lawrence on 2 counts. Firstly, he is an attacking midfielder with an awful lot of miles on the clock. In general those type players tend to retire at earlier ages and suffer more injuries. We are not getting Liam Lawrence in his prime - we are getting an ageing player who is short of match fitness. The last thing you want to do is sign a player then have them yank a hamstring and be out for a month because you tried to get 65+ minutes out of a player who was not currently conditioned to go more than 25-30. I imagine that Lawrence will probably be used quite a lot from the bench as well as starting. It is about managing the players at your disposal. Not to mention the fact that sometimes 25 minutes of Liam Lawrence in the last quarter may be more impactful than 65 minutes of him from the start.
The other reason it makes sense is that it sends a message to the squad - everyone has to fight for their place in the team. I think this is a consistent trait of Clarke's - that no player can be thoroughly confident that they will start every week. I simply don't think it's right to have a new signing go straight into a side that's a on a good winning run unless they are filling a clear gaping hole which Lawrence. To me it makes sense - the fact that we lost does not change that. spot on,dc understands team morale and it would be against his style to play lawrence after last weeks performance by ollie clarke,mansell and sinclair,,,,some people including the op just dont get that!!
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jan 11, 2016 8:34:32 GMT
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jan 11, 2016 8:58:52 GMT
It makes perfect sense not to start Lawrence on 2 counts. Firstly, he is an attacking midfielder with an awful lot of miles on the clock. In general those type players tend to retire at earlier ages and suffer more injuries. We are not getting Liam Lawrence in his prime - we are getting an ageing player who is short of match fitness. The last thing you want to do is sign a player then have them yank a hamstring and be out for a month because you tried to get 65+ minutes out of a player who was not currently conditioned to go more than 25-30. I imagine that Lawrence will probably be used quite a lot from the bench as well as starting. It is about managing the players at your disposal. Not to mention the fact that sometimes 25 minutes of Liam Lawrence in the last quarter may be more impactful than 65 minutes of him from the start.
The other reason it makes sense is that it sends a message to the squad - everyone has to fight for their place in the team. I think this is a consistent trait of Clarke's - that no player can be thoroughly confident that they will start every week. I simply don't think it's right to have a new signing go straight into a side that's a on a good winning run unless they are filling a clear gaping hole which Lawrence. To me it makes sense - the fact that we lost does not change that. spot on,dc understands team morale and it would be against his style to play lawrence after last weeks performance by ollie clarke,mansell and sinclair,,,,some people including the op just dont get that!! As the original op, perhaps the point I was trying to make was made badly, and also tainted by personal prejudices. I agree it would not have been wise to start Lawrence. I was expecting a DC signing to be stronger than others available and I feel Lines has played poorly and Clarke has been inconsistent (that lovely word used by pundits) recently. I actually do not understand signings made on a Thursday or Friday going straight in to teams as it makes a mockery of tactics/training/style of play etc (not true of Lawrence, but done by teams including us). Clarke was not doing well as stevek wrote and I felt Lawrence should have gone in if DC felt that wise. I am happy to go along with DC mostly. As an ex-player, manager, qualified ref and watcher of many many games, I do get a lot of things.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 9:14:59 GMT
His last start in the league was October 31st. I only looked it up because Micky the Melon's assertion that "he wasn't playing regularly" seemed at odds with his stats. I suppose it comes down to how you interpret the data.
|
|
Smithy Gas
Craig Hinton
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 271
|
Post by Smithy Gas on Jan 11, 2016 11:10:49 GMT
I think he'd say that he aims to keep it tight for 60+ minutes, then look to capitalise When we've lost away this season, we've conceded very early so his inability to adapt that plan when we need to might be an area he can improve in. There was a stat I read the other day, not sure where, but it was that Rovers were the only side in the whole country to not have "lost" the second half of a game away from home this season. So the assertion that once we go behind, that's where the problems start, may be a valid one.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 11, 2016 13:32:43 GMT
spot on,dc understands team morale and it would be against his style to play lawrence after last weeks performance by ollie clarke,mansell and sinclair,,,,some people including the op just dont get that!! As the original op, perhaps the point I was trying to make was made badly, and also tainted by personal prejudices. I agree it would not have been wise to start Lawrence. I was expecting a DC signing to be stronger than others available and I feel Lines has played poorly and Clarke has been inconsistent (that lovely word used by pundits) recently. I actually do not understand signings made on a Thursday or Friday going straight in to teams as it makes a mockery of tactics/training/style of play etc (not true of Lawrence, but done by teams including us). Clarke was not doing well as stevek wrote and I felt Lawrence should have gone in if DC felt that wise. I am happy to go along with DC mostly. As an ex-player, manager, qualified ref and watcher of many many games, I do get a lot of things. OK - I'm confused here. SteveK appears to be the OP so I don't think that post was directed at you. Without speaking for MrBluesky, I don't think it's about people 'getting it' or not 'getting it' - it's just about having an opinion. I can see why people might want Lawrence to go straight into the team - it's hardly a ridiculous view (we sign good player - we put good player into team is not an argument that lacks logic!). But, I do think that there is sometimes an ssumption that fitness is a binary thing - ie. a player is either available or not. Whereas in reality fitness is a continuum and a player may be fit to go 20 minutes only or may have to play within themselves or may only be fit to play certain positions and roles and not others etc. Plus there's the whole player management issue - so maybe you take a risk on a players potential fitness with 5 games left and promotion on the line that you wouldn't be prepared to take in January with a substantial portion of the season left. This is doubly the case for attacking players. It's the kind of information that we are not party to but plays a huge part in selection and tactics.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 13:40:22 GMT
I'd have a better look at his stats, Mr Igitur. He hasn't started a league game for months. 5-3-2 is used to keep things tight and then grow into the game, in the last two away games it's been used the game has changed immeasurably within the first ten minutes (Wimbledon red card, Barnet goal). On both occasions that gave the home team something to defend, one or three points to look after. Both teams played with two solid banks of four and Rovers couldn't get around the back. The other point to take notice of is both games lacked Gaffney (bar the last third of the Wimbledon game). The strikers currently at the club are all very similar and we do need (Gaffney or not) another option.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 11, 2016 14:15:24 GMT
I'd have a better look at his stats, Mr Igitur. He hasn't started a league game for months. 5-3-2 is used to keep things tight and then grow into the game, in the last two away games it's been used the game has changed immeasurably within the first ten minutes (Wimbledon red card, Barnet goal). On both occasions that gave the home team something to defend, one or three points to look after. Both teams played with two solid banks of four and Rovers couldn't get around the back. The other point to take notice of is both games lacked Gaffney (bar the last third of the Wimbledon game). The strikers currently at the club are all very similar and we do need (Gaffney or not) another option. Is it though or do you just mean it's how we use it? As I get older I become increasingly skeptical about the deep discussions around formations. I'm not sure formation is anywhere near as important as it is often claimed to be. You can set up a 5-3-2 to look very similar to a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. Any of those formations can be attacking or they can be defensive. One of the great fallacies in football is that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation - actaully it's more often than not a defensive one because it narrows the play and width is far more important to attacking potential than the number of players standing up front. While you might prioritise one formation or the other at certain points in the game or against certain opposition I'm not convinced formation itself is as important as things like pressing, width, the gap between defence/midfield/attack and the way in which specific sub-units of the team operate. For example, Centre back pairings, Midfield pairings, full-backs and wide midfielders. For me those are the things that really matter - formations are often just an expression of that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 15:10:19 GMT
5-3-2 is used to keep things tight and then grow into the game, in the last two away games it's been used the game has changed immeasurably within the first ten minutes (Wimbledon red card, Barnet goal). On both occasions that gave the home team something to defend, one or three points to look after. Both teams played with two solid banks of four and Rovers couldn't get around the back. The other point to take notice of is both games lacked Gaffney (bar the last third of the Wimbledon game). The strikers currently at the club are all very similar and we do need (Gaffney or not) another option. Is it though or do you just mean it's how we use it? As I get older I become increasingly skeptical about the deep discussions around formations. I'm not sure formation is anywhere near as important as it is often claimed to be. You can set up a 5-3-2 to look very similar to a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. Any of those formations can be attacking or they can be defensive. One of the great fallacies in football is that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation - actaully it's more often than not a defensive one because it narrows the play and width is far more important to attacking potential than the number of players standing up front. While you might prioritise one formation or the other at certain points in the game or against certain opposition I'm not convinced formation itself is as important as things like pressing, width, the gap between defence/midfield/attack and the way in which specific sub-units of the team operate. For example, Centre back pairings, Midfield pairings, full-backs and wide midfielders. For me those are the things that really matter - formations are often just an expression of that. I agree it's more to do with the way we play the formation, when we play 5-3-2 only one goes for the back so it's basically a defensive 4-4-2. What it does take away however is attacking players on the flanks. On Saturday we were begging for some class out wide, players who could beat a man and deliver a ball as we were getting no luck centrally.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2016 16:30:18 GMT
Thanks for the report Steve. I didn't go but listening on Radio Bristol the first 10 minutes or so sounded like last seasons game. Rovers seemed to be pumping high balls into the area which against Barnets big centre backs seemed a bit pointless ? surely better to fire low balls across the area from the wings ?. I thought that when the substitutions started that Bodin or Montano would come on for Leadbetter. Lines,Lawrence and Easter coming on didn't help with width. Like you I wasn't impressed when the team line up was given out,I don't think that Ollie Clark or Harrison are really up to this division. I would have settled for top 10 this season,but now it would be a bit disappointing not to make the play offs. Even if they don't get promoted DC can make a few changes in the summer,get rid of a few that aren't good enough,hopefully keep the better players and bring some fresh faces in. One thing that I have noticed at away games this season is how teams really pressure Rovers early on,is this because Rovers are slow at settling ? or because other teams fear the Rovers teams fitness later in the game ?.
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 11, 2016 17:03:53 GMT
5-3-2 is used to keep things tight and then grow into the game, in the last two away games it's been used the game has changed immeasurably within the first ten minutes (Wimbledon red card, Barnet goal). On both occasions that gave the home team something to defend, one or three points to look after. Both teams played with two solid banks of four and Rovers couldn't get around the back. The other point to take notice of is both games lacked Gaffney (bar the last third of the Wimbledon game). The strikers currently at the club are all very similar and we do need (Gaffney or not) another option. Is it though or do you just mean it's how we use it? As I get older I become increasingly skeptical about the deep discussions around formations. I'm not sure formation is anywhere near as important as it is often claimed to be. You can set up a 5-3-2 to look very similar to a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. Any of those formations can be attacking or they can be defensive. One of the great fallacies in football is that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation - actaully it's more often than not a defensive one because it narrows the play and width is far more important to attacking potential than the number of players standing up front. While you might prioritise one formation or the other at certain points in the game or against certain opposition I'm not convinced formation itself is as important as things like pressing, width, the gap between defence/midfield/attack and the way in which specific sub-units of the team operate. For example, Centre back pairings, Midfield pairings, full-backs and wide midfielders. For me those are the things that really matter - formations are often just an expression of that. Great post fella, you our have probably noticed that I never post in the formation threads and what you have written makes total sense to me. Obviously I don't pretend to be any kind of footballing tactician but I do know when you get certain pairing, get to gel and understand each other the. Things can go very well indeed. I do sometimes read through these formation threads but, to be frank, I kind of switch off. For me it's much simpler than how they are set out and I also think that the players don't necessarily stick to how a manager tells them to play. So many other things influence the game, atmosphere, weather, pitch conditions etc. Anyway, before I show myself up completely I just wanted to say that I agree and enjoyed reading that
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 11, 2016 21:42:11 GMT
Is it though or do you just mean it's how we use it? As I get older I become increasingly skeptical about the deep discussions around formations. I'm not sure formation is anywhere near as important as it is often claimed to be. You can set up a 5-3-2 to look very similar to a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. Any of those formations can be attacking or they can be defensive. One of the great fallacies in football is that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation - actaully it's more often than not a defensive one because it narrows the play and width is far more important to attacking potential than the number of players standing up front. While you might prioritise one formation or the other at certain points in the game or against certain opposition I'm not convinced formation itself is as important as things like pressing, width, the gap between defence/midfield/attack and the way in which specific sub-units of the team operate. For example, Centre back pairings, Midfield pairings, full-backs and wide midfielders. For me those are the things that really matter - formations are often just an expression of that. I agree it's more to do with the way we play the formation, when we play 5-3-2 only one goes for the back so it's basically a defensive 4-4-2. What it does take away however is attacking players on the flanks. On Saturday we were begging for some class out wide, players who could beat a man and deliver a ball as we were getting no luck centrally. Yeah - sorry I didn't mean it to read as a criticism of your point just a general meander on the topic really.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 11, 2016 21:51:00 GMT
Is it though or do you just mean it's how we use it? As I get older I become increasingly skeptical about the deep discussions around formations. I'm not sure formation is anywhere near as important as it is often claimed to be. You can set up a 5-3-2 to look very similar to a 4-4-2 to a 4-5-1. Any of those formations can be attacking or they can be defensive. One of the great fallacies in football is that 4-3-3 is an attacking formation - actaully it's more often than not a defensive one because it narrows the play and width is far more important to attacking potential than the number of players standing up front. While you might prioritise one formation or the other at certain points in the game or against certain opposition I'm not convinced formation itself is as important as things like pressing, width, the gap between defence/midfield/attack and the way in which specific sub-units of the team operate. For example, Centre back pairings, Midfield pairings, full-backs and wide midfielders. For me those are the things that really matter - formations are often just an expression of that. Great post fella, you our have probably noticed that I never post in the formation threads and what you have written makes total sense to me. Obviously I don't pretend to be any kind of footballing tactician but I do know when you get certain pairing, get to gel and understand each other the. Things can go very well indeed. I do sometimes read through these formation threads but, to be frank, I kind of switch off. For me it's much simpler than how they are set out and I also think that the players don't necessarily stick to how a manager tells them to play. So many other things influence the game, atmosphere, weather, pitch conditions etc. Anyway, before I show myself up completely I just wanted to say that I agree and enjoyed reading that I don't really know- it could be total garbage to be honest. But there is a little bit of me that thinks formations are something of the emperor's new clothes of football tactics (not suggesting Chewie is saying that - just a point in general). There's no Herbert Chapman or Alf Ramsey waiting to revolutionise formations and drive the game forward. Most developments in modern football strike me as small % improvements building up to a big differences (fitness, technique, the mixing of different styles of play from all over the world etc). All the talk of 'false 9's' and 'trequartista's' (I literally don't know what that means!), 'christmas trees' and 'diamonds' strike me as an attempt by media types to justify their existence by over-intellectualising analysis of the game. It just strikes me that football seems to be almost always analysed in terms of 'the team' or 'the individual' rather than to me what has always mattered in football is how pairs of players (sometimes more than that) interact effectively within the game. I've always seen football as a contest between those sub-groups but no one ever really tends to talk about it like that so maybe I'm just completely wrong.
|
|
dido
Predictions League
Peter Aitken
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,883
|
Post by dido on Jan 11, 2016 22:10:16 GMT
If we've got the ball....keep it, pass it to a teammate, or shoot. If they've got the ball.... tackle the one that's got it if you're nearest, or at least make him attempt to pass it.
|
|
|
Post by mrbluesky on Jan 12, 2016 4:30:59 GMT
Great post fella, you our have probably noticed that I never post in the formation threads and what you have written makes total sense to me. Obviously I don't pretend to be any kind of footballing tactician but I do know when you get certain pairing, get to gel and understand each other the. Things can go very well indeed. I do sometimes read through these formation threads but, to be frank, I kind of switch off. For me it's much simpler than how they are set out and I also think that the players don't necessarily stick to how a manager tells them to play. So many other things influence the game, atmosphere, weather, pitch conditions etc. Anyway, before I show myself up completely I just wanted to say that I agree and enjoyed reading that I don't really know- it could be total garbage to be honest. But there is a little bit of me that thinks formations are something of the emperor's new clothes of football tactics (not suggesting Chewie is saying that - just a point in general). There's no Herbert Chapman or Alf Ramsey waiting to revolutionise formations and drive the game forward. Most developments in modern football strike me as small % improvements building up to a big differences (fitness, technique, the mixing of different styles of play from all over the world etc). All the talk of 'false 9's' and 'trequartista's' (I literally don't know what that means!), 'christmas trees' and 'diamonds' strike me as an attempt by media types to justify their existence by over-intellectualising analysis of the game. It just strikes me that football seems to be almost always analysed in terms of 'the team' or 'the individual' rather than to me what has always mattered in football is how pairs of players (sometimes more than that) interact effectively within the game. I've always seen football as a contest between those sub-groups but no one ever really tends to talk about it like that so maybe I'm just completely wrong. a false nine is a centre forward that plays deep and can make it difficult for a centre back to know if he should go out of position and mark or stay and mark nobody,,,,i think our 3-5-2 set up is very clear as to me leadbitter and brown take up very wide positions and much further up the pitch than a full back would,,against luton it worked very well as i believe luton tired against a team that constantly stretched the play but obviously it hasnt always worked that well
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 12, 2016 8:59:41 GMT
Great post fella, you our have probably noticed that I never post in the formation threads and what you have written makes total sense to me. Obviously I don't pretend to be any kind of footballing tactician but I do know when you get certain pairing, get to gel and understand each other the. Things can go very well indeed. I do sometimes read through these formation threads but, to be frank, I kind of switch off. For me it's much simpler than how they are set out and I also think that the players don't necessarily stick to how a manager tells them to play. So many other things influence the game, atmosphere, weather, pitch conditions etc. Anyway, before I show myself up completely I just wanted to say that I agree and enjoyed reading that I don't really know- it could be total garbage to be honest. But there is a little bit of me that thinks formations are something of the emperor's new clothes of football tactics (not suggesting Chewie is saying that - just a point in general). There's no Herbert Chapman or Alf Ramsey waiting to revolutionise formations and drive the game forward. Most developments in modern football strike me as small % improvements building up to a big differences (fitness, technique, the mixing of different styles of play from all over the world etc). All the talk of 'false 9's' and 'trequartista's' (I literally don't know what that means!), 'christmas trees' and 'diamonds' strike me as an attempt by media types to justify their existence by over-intellectualising analysis of the game. It just strikes me that football seems to be almost always analysed in terms of 'the team' or 'the individual' rather than to me what has always mattered in football is how pairs of players (sometimes more than that) interact effectively within the game. I've always seen football as a contest between those sub-groups but no one ever really tends to talk about it like that so maybe I'm just completely wrong. You could possibly be thinking of a formation as more than it actually is. A formation is really just a shortcut to quickly explain a team's positional tactics. Agreed it doesn't tell you everything, but it gives you a quick clue.
If someone says a team set up as a diamond, you know they probably played quite narrow, with a central midfielder that looks to get forward and another that stays back a bit. Trequartista really just means an attacker playing back a bit from the lone striker, and has been a term used in football for more than 50 years (just not much in England!). Peter Beardsley was one, as was Kenny Dalgleish, they just didn't know it.
Agreed though that one of the major changes in the modern game, say in the last 10-15 years, has been a blurring of formations. This really started with the Dutch, but is now everywhere, mainly due to the prevalence of high tempo pressing - you need flexibility both to play that style, and to counter it. However, when you see Rovers playing 3 at the back, there's a clear difference to playing 4 at the back, don't you agree?
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
|
Post by Igitur on Jan 12, 2016 10:51:40 GMT
Barnet had two players in the Football League's team of the week:
Stephens:
'Barnet overcame Bristol Rovers 1-0 in Sky Bet League 2, with Stephens proving an obstacle impossible to overcome for the in-form Pirates. The 22-year-old stopper made several saves in the triumph for the Bees, who held out despite going down to 10 men following Andy Yiadom's dismissal.'
Hoyte:
'Hoyte scored the game's decisive goal in just the fourth minute, lashing home after Sam Togwell's throw-in.'
I ask you!
PS Allen will not be appealing Yiadom's sending off, so it must have been a really bad tackle.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 13:54:56 GMT
Barnet had two players in the Football League's team of the week: Stephens: 'Barnet overcame Bristol Rovers 1-0 in Sky Bet League 2, with Stephens proving an obstacle impossible to overcome for the in-form Pirates. The 22-year-old stopper made several saves in the triumph for the Bees, who held out despite going down to 10 men following Andy Yiadom's dismissal.' Hoyte: 'Hoyte scored the game's decisive goal in just the fourth minute, lashing home after Sam Togwell's throw-in.'I ask you! PS Allen will not be appealing Yiadom's sending off, so it must have been a really bad tackle. Picked from a desk without seeing the game, as always.
|
|
irishrover
Global Moderator
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,372
|
Post by irishrover on Jan 12, 2016 18:31:43 GMT
I don't really know- it could be total garbage to be honest. But there is a little bit of me that thinks formations are something of the emperor's new clothes of football tactics (not suggesting Chewie is saying that - just a point in general). There's no Herbert Chapman or Alf Ramsey waiting to revolutionise formations and drive the game forward. Most developments in modern football strike me as small % improvements building up to a big differences (fitness, technique, the mixing of different styles of play from all over the world etc). All the talk of 'false 9's' and 'trequartista's' (I literally don't know what that means!), 'christmas trees' and 'diamonds' strike me as an attempt by media types to justify their existence by over-intellectualising analysis of the game. It just strikes me that football seems to be almost always analysed in terms of 'the team' or 'the individual' rather than to me what has always mattered in football is how pairs of players (sometimes more than that) interact effectively within the game. I've always seen football as a contest between those sub-groups but no one ever really tends to talk about it like that so maybe I'm just completely wrong. You could possibly be thinking of a formation as more than it actually is. A formation is really just a shortcut to quickly explain a team's positional tactics. Agreed it doesn't tell you everything, but it gives you a quick clue.
If someone says a team set up as a diamond, you know they probably played quite narrow, with a central midfielder that looks to get forward and another that stays back a bit. Trequartista really just means an attacker playing back a bit from the lone striker, and has been a term used in football for more than 50 years (just not much in England!). Peter Beardsley was one, as was Kenny Dalgleish, they just didn't know it.
Agreed though that one of the major changes in the modern game, say in the last 10-15 years, has been a blurring of formations. This really started with the Dutch, but is now everywhere, mainly due to the prevalence of high tempo pressing - you need flexibility both to play that style, and to counter it. However, when you see Rovers playing 3 at the back, there's a clear difference to playing 4 at the back, don't you agree?
You are right of course - but I don't think it's me that's doing that, I think it's other people who think that formation can explain nearly everything. I agree that formation doesn't explain very much. 3 at the back is different from 4 at the back but I've also seen teams play (including Rovers) play a narrow 4-4-2 with 2 Centre Backs in the full back position essentially playing 4 centre backs. Another way I've seen this done is for one of the centre midfielders to ultimately play as a Centre Back. I'm not sure the formation tells you very much about how a team will really line up or attempt to play yet people often making formations the centre of tactical discussions. So if someone says we're playing 5-3-2 or 4-4-2 or a diamond etc, it doesn't mean a great deal to me. What is wrong with the phrase 'in the hole' or 'luxury player'? I just find it very peculiar that these terms have suddenly become very popular as if certain commentators on the game have cracked some amazing code. As far as I can see, a 'false 9' is just a striker who runs around a lot! My view is that with more highbrow journalists coming under increasing pressure from a demanding readership who won't accept the bog standard match report anymore they have started to try to build more complexity into their analysis. The problem is that it's finding a complexity that isn't really there - football isn't rugby or cricket, it's way more simple than that. But so much of it is the Emperor's New Clothes. I think there are a ton of very educated football fans who do not like to admit that the real reason they like football is that it is simple and tribal - they therefore feel the need to try and talk about football as if it is some kind of artform so they can pretend to appreciate it on some kind of higher aesthetic level. I've had conversations about football with people where I struggled to identify the game they were describing!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2016 19:31:37 GMT
Surely a "false 9" is a tacit admission your forwards are no good and you've had to push a midfielder up there?
|
|