Bridgeman
Alfie Biggs
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 3,549
|
Post by Bridgeman on Jan 12, 2016 20:02:43 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. Great tactics, simples ! Whisper it in Darrell's ear on Sunday
|
|
|
Post by lostinspace on Jan 12, 2016 20:48:41 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. this was Brian Cloughs' philosophy
|
|
kingswood Polak
Without music life would be a mistake
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by kingswood Polak on Jan 12, 2016 20:59:53 GMT
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! Without outing friends, I have a couple of them that believe themselves to be pundit level ninja pseudo managers and they use these terms a fair bit
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Jan 13, 2016 15:57:28 GMT
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! Agree to an extent, but for me these terms are just codes, which go in and out of fashion. The use of trequartista probably comes from Inverting the Pyramid, and other books that have looked at south American football. People have taken the words out of there and bandy them about, but yes they are often just different words for terms that already exist. False 9 has a meaning though surely, it means a single central striker who comes a bit deeper than is traditional for a main striker, and is often used by possession based teams. You can see how Messi plays in different positions to Pelle at Southampton?
|
|