Tim Sherwood

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

We may as well dedicate a thread to him at this stage.

7 points from 9 so far in the league. CL qualification is by no means off the menu just yet but we'll have some battle to get it. So far we've been playing good football and Liverpool and Everton will certainly be looking anxiously over their shoulders.

Very important to consolidate this victory with a win against Palace. Exactly the type of game we're so used the losing. An early goal would be very nice. Also the small matter of the NLD coming up.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

Hatch99

Fair play to him, good start apart from the West Ham sham. Still not convinced he'll get us to where we all want to be, but good luck to him.

mushykeogh

Positives: we have two up top, we are scoring goals, the players look like they enjoy the new freedom. Ade look s like a new signing, I think soldado has been immense linking up the play, reminds me of suarez a few years ago where he did everything bar score, will come good.

Negatives: defensively we looked a shambles, especially the first 20 minutes today, we will always get outnumbered in midfield, still not sure he has a plan B, but feic it, results breed confidence.

2nd Row Donkey

Its still very much a honeymoon period after the appointment and long may it continue but the real test will be to see how we bounce back after some poor results down the road..

... Cant believe we are getting away with his MF selection, it was nearly dumb luck that he had to pick Capoue today with Paulinho out.

Anything less then Top 4 and DL will weild the axe though.

Dublin Spur

so far so good, keeping an open mind

like what I'm seeing

Long may it last

bradolf pittler

Be interesting when we have everyone back as in Paulinho and Sandro who he will pick in central mid.Add Erikseen,Dembele,Capoue and even Bentelab to the mix and it will test his squad rotation and man management skills.It will also be interesting to see if he can sign someone to improve the squad in jan.
Like someone else said,He's still in the honeymoon period and he's given the team a boost by playing 2 up front but he does seem like a 1 trick pony tactically,We haven't seen a plan b yet.But he's doing ok by me

yiddo59

THFC wrote: »

We may as well dedicate a thread to him at this stage.

7 points from 9 so far in the league. CL qualification is by no means off the menu just yet but we'll have some battle to get it. So far we've been playing good football and Liverpool and Everton will certainly be looking anxiously over their shoulders.

Very important to consolidate this victory with a win against Palace. Exactly the type of game we're so used the losing. An early goal would be very nice. Also the small matter of the NLD coming up.

Anyway, onwards and upwards.

10 from 12

Ormus

Great start by him and maybe it will all snowball from here.

We are playing very open football, which is great to watch but easy to score against.

Everybody goes on about plan B but it's mainly a myth, not many teams have one and if they do, it's used in desperation.

Football is really not all that tactical a sport. Management is mainly about motivating players and having good instincts.

positivenote

Apart from luckily beating the worst utd in recent memory since timmy has taken over we have been knocked out of two cups, drawn against a ****e WBA at home and beaten stoke and southampton. Overall im really hoping that we have a qualified manger lined up for next season as im predicting that we struggle to get 6th.

mushykeogh

Ormus wrote: »

Football is really not all that tactical a sport. Management is mainly about motivating players and having good instincts.

I couldn't disagree more! Motivation and man management will only get you so far.

Ormus

mushykeogh wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more! Motivation and man management will only get you so far.

Fair enough, it's just an opinion.

Football isn't a complex game though. If the forwards aren't firing, you stick on a different striker. If he scores, you're hailed as a tactical genius.

GS11

mushykeogh wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more! Motivation and man management will only get you so far.

Its a combo of them all, very few managers have everything, u need a balance. He will have to learn tactically along the way, 2 upfront away from home isn't going to work against the top teams.

slegs

It's not really 2 out and out upfront. Ade plays as a roaming 10 in the pocket slash striker

Leinstersqspur

You could argue that motivating players is the largest part of it, sure Di Matteo won the Champions League by galvanising a disheartened squad. On the other hand he didn't go to the Nou Camp v Barca and play a balls out 442. Naive from Sherwood.

Tim strikes me as a guy who likes to sit at home of an evening and play russian roulette. You win some, you lose some.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

Fair enough, it's just an opinion.

Football isn't a complex game though. If the forwards aren't firing, you stick on a different striker. If he scores, you're hailed as a tactical genius.

That is a shockingly simplistic view of the game that is just plain wrong. I, genuinely, do not know if this is a piss-take.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

That is a shockingly simplistic view of the game that is just plain wrong. I, genuinely, do not know if this is a piss-take.

I'm serious.

There are some tactics, don't get me wrong now, but most tactics in football are common sense and don't take much learning. Rugby and american football are hugely complex tactical games. Football is not. That's why every man would love a shot at being a football manager.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

I'm serious.

There are some tactics, don't get me wrong now, but most tactics in football are common sense and don't take much learning. Rugby and american football are hugely complex tactical games. Football is not. That's why every man would love a shot at being a football manager.

Some tactics? Wow.. Why isn't Moyes a raging success then? Why is the best club Harry ever managed Spurs? Why is there so many foreign managers in the PL? Arguably the best British manager (Rodgers) is clearly a tactically astute manager.

It's absolutely inarguable that tactics have a huge bearing on what clubs hire what manager, and how successful that manager is. To argue otherwise (and I'm not trying to insult you here) is beyond foolish. Klopp, Mourinho, Capello, Conte, Mourinho, Ancellotti, Mancini, Guardiola, Martino and Wenger all hold the biggest jobs is world football, and they're certainly better than just lucky with their selections.

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

I'm serious.

There are some tactics, don't get me wrong now, but most tactics in football are common sense and don't take much learning. Rugby and american football are hugely complex tactical games. Football is not. That's why every man would love a shot at being a football manager.

With that attitude son, you're halfway there, triffic! Now, go register for your UEFA Pro License and have a quick read of this book, Daniel will interview you after the Palace game :rolleyes::D

DubPerryman

Ormus wrote: »

Rugby and american football are hugely complex tactical games. Football is not.

The above is a direct quote from someone who has not played football.

I'd agree that American Football is the most tactical of the three. Though rugby falls far short of football when it comes to tactics.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

Some tactics? Wow.. Why isn't Moyes a raging success then? Why is the best club Harry ever managed Spurs? Why is there so many foreign managers in the PL? Arguably the best British manager (Rodgers) is clearly a tactically astute manager.

It's absolutely inarguable that tactics have a huge bearing on what clubs hire what manager, and how successful that manager is. To argue otherwise (and I'm not trying to insult you here) is beyond foolish. Klopp, Mourinho, Capello, Conte, Mourinho, Ancellotti, Mancini, Guardiola, Martino and Wenger all hold the biggest jobs is world football, and they're certainly better than just lucky with their selections.

The best club Harry has ever managed is Spurs, but they're a top 6 Premiership club. So a man who knows nothing about tactics got one of the top jobs in England.

I'll grant you that some of the names you mention are tactically astute and it does make a difference, particularly given a number of years to implement a footballing philosophy, a la Wenger.

But the likes of Mourinho, Capello, Ancelotti are men who rely on preparation, motivation and good instincts.

Ormus

DubPerryman wrote: »

The above is a direct quote from someone who has not played football.

I'd agree that American Football is the most tactical of the three. Though rugby falls far short of football when it comes to tactics.

I've played quite a lot of football and I've never seen a tactical detail that my mother wouldn't grasp first time it was explained to her.

Big contrast with Rugby in my opinion.

DubPerryman

Ormus wrote: »

I've played quite a lot of football

Do you mind if I ask, at what level?

The reason I ask is.... at underage level, seven-a-side teams will play a 2-3-1 system. When players move to 11-a-side football they are taught the basics of the 11-a-side game i.e. 4-4-2. It's only the players playing in DDSL Premier and Major (apologies, a Dublin schoolboy league reference point is all I have - but it's the highest level) will be taught anything beyond 4-4-2, from about U-13s onwards. There's no point in teaching players at a lower standard any more than that because they're still learning at a basic level.

Tactics isn't just about formations though, it's about how a team, or a certain group of players in a team, approach an opponent in position of the ball. It's so ingrained in the best players at a young age, that it's natural and unspoken of, by the time they're plying their trade in the Premier League (if they are in the 0.01% to make it to that level.)

Ormus

DubPerryman wrote: »

Do you mind if I ask, at what level?

The reason I ask is.... at underage level, seven-a-side teams will play a 2-3-1 system. When players move to 11-a-side football they are taught the basics of the 11-a-side game i.e. 4-4-2. It's only the players playing in DDSL Premier and Major (apologies, a Dublin schoolboy league reference point is all I have - but it's the highest level) will be taught anything beyond 4-4-2, from about U-13s onwards. There's no point in teaching players at a lower standard any more than that because they're still learning at a basic level.

Tactics isn't just about formations though, it's about how a team, or a certain group of players in a team, approach an opponent in position of the ball. It's so ingrained in the best players at a young age, that it's natural and unspoken of, by the time they're plying their trade in the Premier League (if they are in the 0.01% to make it to that level.)

I don't wanna talk about myself, I played a good bit beyond U13 level though.

But as you say, tactics isn't just about formations. Formations are simple. An under 8 could grasp a 4-2-3-1 formation if he was shown it and then played in it.

You ask why David Moyes is not a success? He got the Man United job. One of the biggest managing jobs in the world.

DubPerryman

Ormus wrote: »

I don't wanna talk about myself, I played a good bit beyond U13 level though.

Fair enough. Though, as point made out, I doubt you played at the highest standard beyond U-13s. This isn't a personal attack at all, I don't know you from Adam, I just think that in order for one to understand the intricate tactics of football they have to have been taught them.

Getting firmly back on topic re: PL managers/tactics.

After everything I said, I firmly believe that football is 85% psychological. If you have two Premier League teams playing (i.e. they're all tactically sound players) it will be the more confident and more motivated team which will win every time.

Saying that though, if you have two Champions League teams playing (i.e. fully confident/motivated and tactically sound) it will be the team which strategically uses it's players to their optimum which will win every time.

Harry Redknapp motivated a decent squad of players. He got them to the highest possible he ever could, 4th, though once he came up against more strategically/tactically prepared teams he never stood a chance. If Harry managed us for 100 years we'd maybe finish higher than 4th once or twice.

It's the same in the Champions League. We could beat weaker teams, but once we came up against equally motivated/confident teams, we got beaten.


I personally thought AVB was the answer. I was proven wrong, because the players lost the confidence they had under Harry. Even now under Sherwood, we're playing with a confidence, even a swagger. Though once we face the big tests, we'll end up finishing 4th at best.

Ormus

DubPerryman wrote: »

Fair enough. Though, as point made out, I doubt you played at the highest standard beyond U-13s. This isn't a personal attack at all, I don't know you from Adam, I just think that in order for one to understand the intricate tactics of football they have to have been taught them.

Getting firmly back on topic re: PL managers/tactics.

After everything I said, I firmly believe that football is 85% psychological. If you have two Premier League teams playing (i.e. they're all tactically sound players) it will be the more confident and more motivated team which will win every time.

Saying that though, if you have two Champions League teams playing (i.e. fully confident/motivated and tactically sound) it will be the team which strategically uses it's players to their optimum which will win every time.

Harry Redknapp motivated a decent squad of players. He got them to the highest possible he ever could, 4th, though once he came up against more strategically/tactically prepared teams he never stood a chance. If Harry managed us for 100 years we'd maybe finish higher than 4th once or twice.

It's the same in the Champions League. We could beat weaker teams, but once we came up against equally motivated/confident teams, we got beaten.


I personally thought AVB was the answer. I was proven wrong, because the players lost the confidence they had under Harry. Even now under Sherwood, we're playing with a confidence, even a swagger. Though once we face the big tests, we'll end up finishing 4th at best.

It's fine, I don't take it as a personal attack, but I've worked with some good coaches and never came across a tactic which needed to be explained twice. Likewise on TV, I've never heard a footballing expert raise a tactical point which even a child would have trouble understanding. Football is very very basic stuff.

I certainly agree that the Champions League is more tactical than the Premiership. But Harry Redknapp got Spurs to the quarter final of the Champions League. At the first attempt! It was a great achievement. I would have thought Inter and AC Milan were equally motivated and as confident as Spurs.

I don't wanna sound like I'm singing the praises of Redknapp, but he is a prime example of a manager who knows nothing about tactics and yet gets paid millions to manage football clubs.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

I don't wanna talk about myself, I played a good bit beyond U13 level though.

But as you say, tactics isn't just about formations. Formations are simple. An under 8 could grasp a 4-2-3-1 formation if he was shown it and then played in it.

You ask why David Moyes is not a success? He got the Man United job. One of the biggest managing jobs in the world.

Nonsense, there are numerous footballing books written about the various formation and their effectiveness against other formations. Jose Mourinho has his own personal 'bible' going from reports. You clearly don't have a grasp on these 'simple' tactics yourself if that is your thinking, and I suggest buying one such book and reading it. As for the 4-2-3-1 formation, there are many different variations of it, even with the same personnel. There are also big differences between a 5-4-1 and a 3-1-3-3 even if the same players are used, as clearly evidenced by Bielsa's Chile in the WC 2010, in which he used both formations in the same game. And that's just one example. Tactics play a huge role and not to think so shows a deep misunderstanding of the game. Just because Ireland and Britain are so tactically deprived doesn't mean tactics play any less of a role than motivation.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

It's fine, I don't take it as a personal attack, but I've worked with some good coaches and never came across a tactic which needed to be explained twice. Likewise on TV, I've never heard a footballing expert raise a tactical point which even a child would have trouble understanding. Football is very very basic stuff.

I certainly agree that the Champions League is more tactical than the Premiership. But Harry Redknapp got Spurs to the quarter final of the Champions League. At the first attempt! It was a great achievement. I would have thought Inter and AC Milan were equally motivated and as confident as Spurs.

I don't wanna sound like I'm singing the praises of Redknapp, but he is a prime example of a manager who knows nothing about tactics and yet gets paid millions to manage football clubs.

Just have a read through Zonal Marking, I'm debating this further. I'd just be repeating myself.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

Nonsense, there are numerous footballing books written about the various formation and their effectiveness against other formations. Jose Mourinho has his own personal 'bible' going from reports. You clearly don't have a grasp on these 'simple' tactics yourself if that is your thinking, and I suggest buying one such book and reading it. As for the 4-2-3-1 formation, there are many different variations of it, even with the same personnel. There are also big differences between a 5-4-1 and a 3-1-3-3 even if the same players are used, as clearly evidenced by Bielsa's Chile in the WC 2010, in which he used both formations in the same game. And that's just one example. Tactics play a huge role and not to think so shows a deep misunderstanding of the game. Just because Ireland and Britain are so tactically deprived doesn't mean tactics play any less of a role than motivation.

I don't doubt that there are tonnes of weighty tomes on the subject but that doesn't make it rocket science.

Not sure what's notable about Bielsa playing two different formations in one match, I've seen that happen countless times.

Anyway, it's not that I'm saying formations are not important, just that they're not complex.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

Just have a read through Zonal Marking, I'm debating this further. I'd just be repeating myself.

Will it explain to me why Harry Redknapp gets paid so much?

Leinstersqspur

THFC wrote: »

Just because Ireland and Britain are so tactically deprived doesn't mean tactics play any less of a role than motivation.

Good point, I still see young teenagers being shouted at to "get rid of it!" from the touchlines by their parents (and some coaches)... A very different method of coaching to that on the continent.

I think anyone can be a good coach but a manager has to have tactical nous which also relies heavily (during a game) on instinct. I will always remember Redknapp after we got beaten 5-2 at the Emirates saying after the game that he knew at half time, when we were 2-0 up, that we'd get beat.

Then you look at Mourinho, 0-0 with half an hour to go v Southampton, makes a double sub, between them they score two goals and an assist, 3-0. Although it's a nice luxury to half Willian and Oscar on the bench;)

Against a stronger motivated opposition all you have is the possibility of a better formation and tactics. That's why Arsenal cruised past us with relative ease on Saturday. Perhaps arguably a stronger team but regardless Wenger had the tactics spot on.

There's a lot in a formation that even the most experienced football pundits don't understand. See below, pundits in awe of the master that was Cruyff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZ0byEyeOA

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

Good point, I still see young teenagers being shouted at to "get rid of it!" from the touchlines by their parents (and some coaches)... A very different method of coaching to that on the continent.

I think anyone can be a good coach but a manager has to have tactical nous which also relies heavily (during a game) on instinct. I will always remember Redknapp after we got beaten 5-2 at the Emirates saying after the game that he knew at half time, when we were 2-0 up, that we'd get beat.

Then you look at Mourinho, 0-0 with half an hour to go v Southampton, makes a double sub, between them they score two goals and an assist, 3-0. Although it's a nice luxury to half Willian and Oscar on the bench;)

Against a stronger motivated opposition all you have is the possibility of a better formation and tactics. That's why Arsenal cruised past us with relative ease on Saturday. Perhaps arguably a stronger team but regardless Wenger had the tactics spot on.

There's a lot in a formation that even the most experienced football pundits don't understand. See below, pundits in awe of the master that was Cruyff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NZ0byEyeOA

Good instincts, absolutely, I think Fergie got where he was mainly for just going with his gut.

Redknapp did in his hole know Spurs were gonna get beat from 2-0 down. He may have seen signs that a comeback was very possible. Big difference between that and knowing.

Mourinho's substitution worked a treat, but it was common sense. Mata and Schurrle not getting into the game. I'll throw on 2 very talented subs and see if that gives the team some fresh impetus. Plenty of armchair viewers who have never played football in their lives could've had the same idea.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

Will it explain to me why Harry Redknapp gets paid so much?

Because he is an excellent man manager, tactics alone won't make you successful, neither will man management, and neither will motivation. Add to that that the English league are among the least tactically advanced leagues of the major countries and it's easy to see how he has risen so much.

It speaks absolutely volumes though that the only relatively big club to give him a shot was Spurs, the clubs he has managed before, and indeed since, are relatively small clubs.

And "I'll throw on 2 very talented subs and see if that gives the team some fresh impetus" tells me everything I need to know about your thinking, you clearly don't have any understanding of tactics, and that's fair enough, most British and Irish people don't, it's not part of our footballing culture. However your views are just plain ignorant. I agree with you on a lot of things in other threads, but your stance on this is beyond comprehensible.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

Because he is an excellent man manager, tactics alone won't make you successful, neither will man management, and neither will motivation. Add to that that the English league are among the least tactically advanced leagues of the major countries and it's easy to see how he has risen so much.

It speaks absolutely volumes though that the only relatively big club to give him a shot was Spurs, the clubs he has managed before, and indeed since, are relatively small clubs.

And "I'll throw on 2 very talented subs and see if that gives the team some fresh impetus" tells me everything I need to know about your thinking, you clearly don't have any understanding of tactics, and that's fair enough, most British and Irish people don't, it's not part of our footballing culture. However your views are just plain ignorant. I agree with you on a lot of things in other threads, but your stance on this is beyond comprehensible.

Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough. Neither were coaches. Neither would profess to know much about tactics.

Doesn't it speak volumes that they achieved such success without knowing the rules of zonal marking?

Or is it just because the English game is so old fashioned? What's that? They won 2 European Cups? Each?

Like it or not, the fact is that Mourinho just threw on two subs and hoped for the best. You can pretend there was more to it but there wasn't. You could probably come up with a plausible 5 page briefing on the reasons he brought them on, but it wouldn't change the real reason.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

Alex Ferguson and Brian Clough. Neither were coaches. Neither would profess to know much about tactics.

Doesn't it speak volumes that they achieved such success without knowing the rules of zonal marking?

Clough coached in a different era.
Fergie was much more tactically astute than was led to believe, especially since the arrival of Wenger and more significantly Mourinho.

And I was referring to the website zonalmarking.net

Ormus wrote: »

Or is it just because the English game is so old fashioned? What's that? They won 2 European Cups? Each?

Fergie's biggest criticism was that he only won 2 CL titles despite being in charge of the biggest and richest club in the world for 20 odd years. Mourinho and Guardiola have won twice recently, both in a much shorter time frame than Fergie managed.

Ormus wrote: »

Like it or not, the fact is that Mourinho just threw on two subs and hoped for the best. You can pretend there was more to it but there wasn't. You could probably come up with a plausible 5 page briefing on the reasons he brought them on, but it wouldn't change the real reason.

That is absolute nonsense, total rubbish. Pretty much sums your views up tbh.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

Clough coached in a different era.
Fergie was much more tactically astute than was led to believe, especially since the arrival of Wenger and more significantly Mourinho.

And I was referring to the website zonalmarking.net


Fergie's biggest criticism was that he only won 2 CL titles despite being in charge of the biggest and richest club in the world for 20 odd years. Mourinho and Guardiola have won twice recently, both in a much shorter time frame than Fergie managed.


That is absolute nonsense, total rubbish. Pretty much sums your views up tbh.

I think you ran out of facts and just settled for saying it's total rubbish.

Winning 2 European Cups / Champions Leagues despite tactics not being your forte says all you need to know about the importance of tactics in football. I'm not for a second saying that they don't matter. I'm just saying it's not that complex and it's not the be all and end all. If it was, Redknapp would never have gotten a job and Clough and Fergie would never have gotten a sniff of a European trophy.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Ormus wrote: »

I think you ran out of facts and just settled for saying it's total rubbish.

Sorry what? I'm the one running out of facts? You're the one that seems to think that a 2 time CL winning manager just throws on 2 subs and sees what happens. If you think I've ran out of facts you're completely deluded.

Ormus wrote: »

Winning 2 European Cups / Champions Leagues despite tactics not being your forte says all you need to know about the importance of tactics in football. I'm not for a second saying that they don't matter. I'm just saying it's not that complex and it's not the be all and end all. If it was, Redknapp would never have gotten a job and Clough and Fergie would never have gotten a sniff of a European trophy.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

You're not bursting my bubble, believe me, your flawed argument is apparent to everyone here. Have a look at winning CL managers since the dawn of the CL:
Heynckes
Di Matteo
Guardiola
Mourinho
Guardiola
Ferguson
Ancelotti
Rjikaard
Benitez
Mourinho
Ancelotti
Del Bosque
Ottmar Hitzfeld
Del Bosque


Fergie, despite being in charge of the biggest club in the world only managed two CLs in 20 odd years, hardly a commendable feat.

Look at all the managers in every big position in the world, with the exception of United, and report back to me. World Cup winning managers too.

It's so hard to debate with you because you only look at the arguments that suit you.

Ormus

THFC wrote: »

Sorry what? I'm the one running out of facts? You're the one that seems to think that a 2 time CL winning manager just throws on 2 subs and sees what happens. If you think I've ran out of facts you're completely deluded.


You're not bursting my bubble, believe me, your flawed argument is apparent to everyone here. Have a look at winning CL managers since the dawn of the CL:
Heynckes
Di Matteo
Guardiola
Mourinho
Guardiola
Ferguson
Ancelotti
Rjikaard
Benitez
Mourinho
Ancelotti
Del Bosque
Ottmar Hitzfeld
Del Bosque


Fergie, despite being in charge of the biggest club in the world only managed two CLs in 20 odd years, hardly a commendable feat.

Look at all the managers in every big position in the world, with the exception of United, and report back to me. World Cup winning managers too.

It's so hard to debate with you because you only look at the arguments that suit you.

But there were no facts in your previous message. That's not deluded. It's a fact. Get a grip man.

Not sure what you're getting at with that list of managers? There's only one Brit? There's also only one Dutchman and only 2 Germans. Zero French..

United might be the biggest club in the world in terms of turnover or something, but they've never been dominant as a football club. Football wise, the biggest clubs are Real, Barcelona and Bayern. Surely you know that?

I think Fergie did quite well to win 2 Champions Leagues.

If I look at every manager in the big positions in world football, I'll see mainly foreign managers. What does that tell me? It tells me firstly that there are more foreign managers than British managers. Not too strange, given that there are 70 million British people in the world, compared to 7 billion in the rest of the world.

It also tells me that chairmen favour foreign managers over British managers. Is that what I'm supposed to report back?

I've addressed every point you raised and tried to look at it from your point of view.

mushykeogh

Ormus wrote: »

Anyway, it's not that I'm saying formations are not important, just that they're not complex.

Formations on paper, simple, formations in practice, massively complex. In the last 12 months I have been involved in our underage squads at different levels and the depth of awareness they are trying to develop is fascinating. The players positions are varying depending on who has the ball, whether he goes left, right, forward, everything changes from one second to the next, players need to know where to go and where to react with each play, an awful lot of it is rehearsed, a midfield player will have numerous different positions to move into depend on the position of the full back with the ball, that in turn impacts the next midfielder etc etc, when done properly its amazing to see.
Have been to one premiership club and one Italian club in a work capacity and the tactical development from youth to first team is incredible.
I have only been involved in football at this capacity for the last year at it is a real eye opener. To be honest you only need to look at how many pro licence coaches the UK has compared to any football nation in Europe to see how behind the premiership is.

Ormus

mushykeogh wrote: »

Formations on paper, simple, formations in practice, massively complex. In the last 12 months I have been involved in our underage squads at different levels and the depth of awareness they are trying to develop is fascinating. The players positions are varying depending on who has the ball, whether he goes left, right, forward, everything changes from one second to the next, players need to know where to go and where to react with each play, an awful lot of it is rehearsed, a midfield player will have numerous different positions to move into depend on the position of the full back with the ball, that in turn impacts the next midfielder etc etc, when done properly its amazing to see.
Have been to one premiership club and one Italian club in a work capacity and the tactical development from youth to first team is incredible.
I have only been involved in football at this capacity for the last year at it is a real eye opener. To be honest you only need to look at how many pro licence coaches the UK has compared to any football nation in Europe to see how behind the premiership is.

Sounds like a cool experience, musta been interesting.

Just to reiterate, I do believe that tactics have a place in football. I just don't think they are complex and I don't think they are half as important as man management, motivation and good instincts. There are plenty of foreign managers in the Premiership and in continantal Europe whose teams still sometimes end up with 6 players ball watching at the near post while the ball is crossed to the man coming in at the back.

There are very few teams which move around in such disciplined formations as you describe. Maybe it's more of a thing they teach to youth teams who aren't yet comfortable enough to move around naturally.

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

There are very few teams which move around in such disciplined formations as you describe. Maybe it's more of a thing they teach to youth teams who aren't yet comfortable enough to move around naturally.

Have you not been watching Spurs for the last 18 months? Or Ireland under the Trappatoni? Both extremely disciplined formations / systems.

A good example of a good players having a poor understanding of formations, tactics & discipline is Nabil Bentaleb v the Arsenal. Without the ball he was lost, he couldn't figure out what space to occupy, who to track and who to tackle. Wenger knew this and targeted him. Tactics.

Same way when United beat Arsenal 8-2. It wasn't ferguson saw a weak team and said "lads, go and have a go at them". He used tactics to attack their weaknesses.

Big Pussy Bonpensiero

Right, well, I'm not sure there's much point discussing this further..

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

Have you not been watching Spurs for the last 18 months? Or Ireland under the Trappatoni? Both extremely disciplined formations / systems.

A good example of a good players having a poor understanding of formations, tactics & discipline is Nabil Bentaleb v the Arsenal. Without the ball he was lost, he couldn't figure out what space to occupy, who to track and who to tackle. Wenger knew this and targeted him. Tactics.

Same way when United beat Arsenal 8-2. It wasn't ferguson saw a weak team and said "lads, go and have a go at them". He used tactics to attack their weaknesses.

True, but those systems were possibly overdisciplined and suffered as a result.

I agree Bentaleb looked lost the other night. He doesn't seem to be a player with a natural football brain, able to use his instincts to guide him in his positioning. Still, he is young yet.

It's possible Wenger targeted him. I guess you could call that a tactic. Again, my point is that it's not very complex. Player X is inexperienced: Target Player X.

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

It's possible Wenger targeted him. I guess you could call that a tactic. Again, my point is that it's not very complex. Player X is inexperienced: Target Player X.

As opposed to rugby?

DubPerryman

Ormus wrote: »

Player X is inexperienced: Target Player X.

It's not just about "targeting" Player X, it's about how you target Player X.

Do you target him by putting a man on him and dragging him around the pitch? Do you target him by playing the ball in triangles in his area, thus dragging him around that area? Do you target him by putting crunching tackles in on him and winding him up? Do you target him by etc. etc. etc.


The above is done 22 times around the pitch.

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

As opposed to rugby?

Same thing as rugby in that respect I would say.

Ormus

DubPerryman wrote: »

It's not just about "targeting" Player X, it's about how you target Player X.

Do you target him by putting a man on him and dragging him around the pitch? Do you target him by playing the ball in triangles in his area, thus dragging him around that area? Do you target him by putting crunching tackles in on him and winding him up? Do you target him by etc. etc. etc.


The above is done 22 times around the pitch.

You don't drag a man around the pitch by putting a man on him.

You can play triangles around any player. 3 players will always have the beating of one.

Crunching tackles. Again, yes these are definitely tactics, but a child could come up with them. Actually children do come up with tactics like that in the playground.

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

Rugby and american football are hugely complex tactical games. Football is not.

Ormus wrote: »

I've played quite a lot of football and I've never seen a tactical detail that my mother wouldn't grasp first time it was explained to her. Big contrast with Rugby in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormus
It's possible Wenger targeted him. I guess you could call that a tactic. Again, my point is that it's not very complex. Player X is inexperienced: Target Player X.
As opposed to rugby?

Ormus wrote: »

Same thing as rugby in that respect I would say.

You're making it up as you go along mate;)

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ormus
It's possible Wenger targeted him. I guess you could call that a tactic. Again, my point is that it's not very complex. Player X is inexperienced: Target Player X.
As opposed to rugby?



You're making it up as you go along mate;)

You need to read what I wrote again.

I'll summarise where you went wrong. I said that rugby is more complex than football. Later you talked about the targeting of players. I said that the two sports are similar in that regard. You thought I meant that they're similar in every regard.

Hope that clears it up. If not, have another read.

Leinstersqspur

Ormus wrote: »

Just to reiterate, I do believe that tactics have a place in football. I just don't think they are complex and I don't think they are half as important as man management, motivation and good instincts. There are plenty of foreign managers in the Premiership and in continantal Europe whose teams still sometimes end up with 6 players ball watching at the near post while the ball is crossed to the man coming in at the back.

There are very few teams which move around in such disciplined formations as you describe. Maybe it's more of a thing they teach to youth teams who aren't yet comfortable enough to move around naturally.

And then there's this guy (think he won a few medals) who is clearly just telling the players to "run about a bit";);)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6YDl1dFI5g

Ormus

Leinstersqspur wrote: »

And then there's this guy (think he won a few medals) who is clearly just telling the players to "run about a bit";);)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6YDl1dFI5g

I can't access that link at the moment, not sure what it shows.

There are many coaches who will give players detailed instructions on what to do. I'm well aware of that. I'd imagine it's mainly just British managers who have achieved success while blatantly not bothering with detailed tactics.

My point is that the fact they have achieved success at all goes to show that tactics in football aren't that important and don't need to be complex.

jobeenfitz

Tim is doing better than I expected. thirteen points from a possible 15.