Let's (try to) have a discussion about football!

[JohnDoe]

1. If i build my football team around one player then IMO it has to be a central player, CB or CM. This would also be the position i would have the team captain. Gerrard is the perfect example, or was when he played as CM. The reason for this is they can have a larger influence on the game and see more of the ball, the best players have the biggest impact and lead by example.

Of course CB's are important, but I think you can have a great defence without needing that spectacular individual amongst them.

I would definitely agree with CM. If my "best" player is a CM, he'd influence the entire team with his presence both in defending and attacking. It's much harder to carry a team when you're only involved in one aspect of the game, so CB and ST is a no-no for me.

4. As i have mentioned in another thread i would like to have a right footed player on the left and left footer on the right. This is because it invited full-backs to join in the attack which gives the options of hitting the touchline or cutting inside for a shot or through ball.

Permanently? I don't like the idea, especially in 4-4-2.

The goal of the opposition is to deny space from the attackers to create chances. Wingers cutting inside means crowding the middle and if it's being done too often, it makes the defence's job easier. The goal, for me, is to open up space first and foremost. You can't rely on full backs to go forward all the time and in every attack, because sometimes you attack in smaller numbers.

Once you've done some damage from crossing, you can switch flanks try something else. Obviously it depends on what works on any given game, but I think opening up space is generally more important so I like my lefties on the left and righties on the right when the game starts.

6. I have to pick the player with better movement, he's more likely to get more chances and still score a fair few. The player can also make room for other players and bring team mates into play.

I agree with that. A player who works harder will be a bigger benefit to his team mates. Someone with poor movement will get very few chances and might stifle the attack.

[dww]

1. If you had a football team and had to pick the position where your best player plays (the guy you build the team round), what position would it be and why?

Ideally I wouldn't create a team around one player but instead would look to build up a team in three units:
1/ back four and keeper
2/ two central midfielders
3/ attack

If I was to choose which of these three areas would have my best player I would say the attack. At the end of the day the game is about scoring goals and this is the most important (and in many ways difficult) part of the game. Within that context though I wouldn't want the player to be a van Nistelrooj style finisher only as I think they struggle to make their quality count when the chips are down and a good performance from them is less likely to communicate to others.

2. What's more important in a football team, pace or control? Pace: the ability to quickly attack the opposition and create threats as soon as possible (Playing a direct game). Control: the ability to dictate and determine the character of the game (Playing a possession game).

Hmmm. Difficult this one. I'm going to side with Mourinho and say that the the most important part of the game is the transition of possession from one side to another. In that context I would say pace in terms of the ability to transfer the ball from anywhere you win the ball to an attacking position is more important. The Euros have shown that counter attacking is in general the most effective way of scoring (as have for me Arsenal, United and Chelsea when winning the PL in my opinion) and that is predominantly a function of pace.

To me though this view is a gross simplification as the position in which transitions occur is largely dependent upon the level of control you have over a game and this too is important. However I would say this is a secondary (or at least less important) factor compared to those outlined above.

[Darth Marty]

Firstly let me say - Great post and well thought out, makes a change in silly season

My answers in red -



1. If you had a football team and had to pick the position where your best player plays (the guy you build the team round), what position would it be and why? Centre Midfield because like Stevie, Fabregas, Roy Keane, Souness and many others a great centre mid can effectively run the game and influence players both behind and in front of him. I am certain no other position can be as influential.

2. What's more important in a football team, pace or control? Pace: the ability to quickly attack the opposition and create threats as soon as possible (Playing a direct game). Control: the ability to dictate and determine the character of the game (Playing a possession game). Tough one as the way I see it no team without both attributes will be amongst the footballing elite. Years ago I would have said control but certainly not in todays game. That said A.C Milan are a great example of a controlling team in this era. Even if they do have Kakas bursts of pace in midfield.

3. Which position do you think has the biggest influence on the amount of chances created, and the amount of goals scored by the team (This could have two answers). In other words, which position is the most crucial in order to have a good attacking game? In my opinion its the wide positions that still make a good team a great team or a average team. We are a great example of an average team which could (and should) be the best if we sorted the wide positions out. It doesnt necessarily need to be wingers as good attacking full backs or wing backs would suffice.

4. Do you like having a right footer on the left or a left footer on the right? Do you think wingers switching flanks is a good strategy to unsettle the opposition? When is it good, when is it not? Im not a huge fan of this as I like widemen to cross early and cutting in nearly always results in giving defenders more time to get back. Two great widemen switching sides can have great results but personally I would rather have my left footed winger on the left and right footed winger on the right.

5. Is it easier to teach an attacking player to track back and defend, or a defensive player to go forward and attack? Imagine the two are top professionals with relatively equal ability in what they do. I am not entirely sure you should teach this as it ultimately takes away from the original skills and qualities of said player. For example Masch is one of the best defensive midfielders in world football today, teach (or try to teach) him to get forward a la Stevie would almost certainly ruin his natural game and take away, not add, to his quality. Leave attackers attack and defenders defend I say.

6. If you had the choice between a lethal finisher with poor movement off the ball, or a poor finisher with fantastic off the ball movement, what would you choose? Your easiest question by far - Lethal finisher every single time.

7. What type of strikers make your ideal partnership up front? Do you like to have two all around strikers who do everything? Do you like a playmaker/poacher combo? A target man and a fox in the box? Pretend all possibilities are equal in ability. Again in my opinion I like a poacher and a playmaker. Kenny/Rushie were the perfect pairing and imagine if we had a Rushie type of player with Torres. Would be a dream. I do however like a big man/little man pairing but secondary to the poacher/playmaker pairing. (I still think Torres and Crouch would work well given a good run).

8. Where does your playmaker sit if you believe you need one? Central midfield? Wide? Off the striker? On the bench? Hmm, I am torn here as I think a great playmaker can take 1 of 2 positions, centre mid or attacking mid just off the strikers. So either of those.

9. You're 1-0 up with 20 minutes to go in the CL final. Do you tell your players to contain the pressure, or do you tell them to push forward and try to get the second? Would the answer change if there was more time/less on the clock? And no, you can't wobble your hands like Avram Grant. I am a firm believer of "attack is the best form of defence" however every team and situation is different so I dont think this question can be answered as simply as you require.

10. Do you believe every top team these days needs a purely defensive midfielder, a "Makelele", to be a successful one? Can it consistently work throughout an entire season, to have two CM's who are similar in character and take turns in going forward? I dont think its a necessity but if you have someone as good as Makelele or Mascherano then you simply have to accomodate them. But to answer I have to say no, its not a necessity.

11. Through balls or crosses? What's more dangerous to a defence with no obvious weaknesses? Crosses. Simply because the defenders are usually going the wrong way at the time of a good cross, through balls are easier to cut out I would say.

12. What's more important in a full back playing in your ideal team? An excellent defender or an excellent attacker? He can't excel in both things.
Defence of course, if he was excellent going forward he should be a winger.

13. Sign a good player now, or sign a better player near the end of the window? Remember that he won't spend pre-season with the team. Ignore costs. Better player later. They are better for a reason and will adapt.

14. When are physical attributes more important than mental ones? And when does it change? I dont think they are, obviously there has to be a good balance but I think mental strength is vitally important.

15. How big an effect does a manager have on the result of one game? Well thats a loaded question as for a one off game, for example if Rafa were to take over say Wales for 1 game, the effect would be negligible, however if you mean 1 Liverpool game, then as he has had the chance to work with the players and staff all season I would say that effect could be huge.

16. In general, you would prefer treating a young attacking player by:
Giving him a clear role to help him establish his game.
Giving him a free role to help him develop his game. A clear role. If he doesnt settle to it then he can always change but I always worry about the jack of all trade style players as they normally dont hit the heights they perhaps should. Would Carra have become the legendary player he now is if he hadnt been played at C.B for long spells? He was great as a versatile defender but for me he has become a legendary c.b.

17. And last, a psychological one.
I'm more likely to tell my players before the game:
"Go out there and beat them senseless"
"Go out there and show your worth"

I would say neither, instead I would say "A lot of football success is in the mind. You must believe you are the best and then make sure that you are. Remember who you are playing for now get out there and perform like you are bloody well paid for" Or something similar

[dww]

Permanently? I don't like the idea, especially in 4-4-2.

The goal of the opposition is to deny space from the attackers to create chances. Wingers cutting inside means crowding the middle and if it's being done too often, it makes the defence's job easier. The goal, for me, is to open up space first and foremost. You can't rely on full backs to go forward all the time and in every attack, because sometimes you attack in smaller numbers.

Once you've done some damage from crossing, you can switch flanks try something else. Obviously it depends on what works on any given game, but I think opening up space is generally more important so I like my lefties on the left and righties on the right when the game starts.

I think that irrelevant of whether a player is right or left footed they have to have good movement and the ability to cross from the flank upon which the operate. Prime example was Pires at Arsenal all right foot but played on the left.

In general I think a combination of midfield player and the defender behind him should be considered. For me in the modern game there are no real wingers and the key is flexibility and the ability to take that ball wherever you find it in forward positions with players having less fixed positions than in the past. I guess this would feed into my answer to the flank switching thing.

For me a team should look to have four forward minded players and while I favour one focal forward other than that I would prefer the players in this department to be flexible and capable of playing anywhere in the attack. To some degree this is close to the model put forward by United this season. I don't think this is that radical a departure from previous Arsenal, Chelsea, Barcelona or even Rafa managed Valencia sides even if they have all tended to have slightly more defined wide players than I have indicated I would want here. They have all used the sort of players at least comfortable in central positions in the nominally wide positions of midfield.

[Robbie-9-Fowler]

I don't think it would work with 442 either

4-2-3-1 yes because you can say the "wingers" have less defensive responsibilities than they would in 442, they shouldn't actually be labeled as wingers tbh.

In this formation there are usually two DM's, I remember Madrid playing both Diarra and Gago in this formation and we used Alonso and Mascher. It's these type of players that allow the wide men to stay further up the park and chase down defenders and supporting the front man.

I suppose its completely about opinion, some people like old styled wingers where they get to the byline and cross the ball. I myself just can't get the idea of Babel and Silva cutting in from either side

[El Jefecito]

1. If you had a football team and had to pick the position where your best player plays (the guy you build the team round), what position would it be and why?

This is a difficult one to answer as I think it initially depends on the maturity. All of the great managers that I can think of when building a team from scratch have said that the most important thing is to build from the back and then steadily develop the spine. So the most important player is dependent on the stage of the evolution of the team.

Assuming that we have a stable team, then the question becomes a little easier, obviously goals win games so in this state the player who enables most goals would be most important. Given that most goals come from a central position, it would tend to imply that either your central striker or advanced midfielder is going to be able to make the most difference. Which is more important? Given the flexibility of these roles today (i.e. both Rooney and Toni are considered strikers) it's difficult to say. It is most likely going to depend on the attributes of the individual concerned. Case in point? Torres or SG? Difficult to decide, BUT the saving grace is that Rafa has been able to synthesize an approach that maximizes both.

Ouch that fence is digging into my ass.

2. What's more important in a football team, pace or control? Pace: the ability to quickly attack the opposition and create threats as soon as possible (Playing a direct game). Control: the ability to dictate and determine the character of the game (Playing a possession game).

As you point out there are several cases where each is important. Particular positions benefit from it, e.g. Wingers and strikers leading the line. I'd rather have a team which excels at control but which contains pacy players in a key position too.

3. Which position do you think has the biggest influence on the amount of chances created, and the amount of goals scored by the team (This could have two answers). In other words, which position is the most crucial in order to have a good attacking game?

Depends on the formation played. If 451 then your central striker, else the player playing centrally and in between the lines.

4. Do you like having a right footer on the left or a left footer on the right? Do you think wingers switching flanks is a good strategy to unsettle the opposition? When is it good, when is it not?

This question talks to how best to use width to stretch and unsettle defences. As long as one of your outside players (i.e. Winger + FB) can cut-in and one can go around the outside then you have both options covered. Should they switch etc, that's going to depend on the opposition, if their FB is obviously weak when you go on the outside then definitely switch wingers as necessary to make the most of the mis-match

5. Is it easier to teach an attacking player to track back and defend, or a defensive player to go forward and attack? Imagine the two are top professionals with relatively equal ability in what they do.

If we are talking about tracking back in the way that our team does, I would say that is easier. It's not a very sophisticated process nor does it require significant defensive skills (e.g. positioning, anticipation). It's essentially about closing down and maintaining a zone. Lot's of rote practice should usually be enough for a decent player to become effective.

However as the defensive role becomes more specialized e.g. El Jefecito's role, there is next to no chance of being able to teach that. For me the same goes for teaching defensive players to attack. The best attacking players depend on flair and creativity which can seldom be taught, a range of technical skills which just aren't used enough by defenders to allow them to develop and the mind sets of the two roles are so different. Defenders are very structured in the way they see the game, safety first, high percentage options etc. That is the anithesis to an effective attacking mindset.

6. If you had the choice between a lethal finisher with poor movement off the ball, or a poor finisher with fantastic off the ball movement, what would you choose?

Man this fence is killing me. To me it would depend on the players around him. I'd take whoever formed a complementary partnership.

7. What type of strikers make your ideal partnership up front? Do you like to have two all around strikers

who do everything? Do you like a playmaker/poacher combo? A target man and a fox in the box? Pretend all possibilities are equal in ability.

I'd much prefer someone who can lead the line and someone playing between the lines. Midfields are too compressed today for 2 central strikers to be effective and a such a playmaker will also find it easier to bring the wider players into the game.

8. Where does your playmaker sit if you believe you need one? Central midfield? Wide? Off the striker? On the bench?

Good question. In the past the playmaker has always been your #10 but as midfields and defences have become more and more packed you've seen players like Pirlo and Xabi come through. Who perform the same role from much deeper. The playmaker needs to be central just so that is easier to bring all parts of the team into play. A free role can work but tends to compress play.

I think the best approach is to do as we and Milan do. Use both, e.g. Pirlo AND Kaka, Xabi AND SG.


9. You're 1-0 up with 20 minutes to go in the CL final. Do you tell your players to contain the pressure, or do you tell them to push forward and try to get the second? Would the answer change if there was more time/less on the clock? And no, you can't wobble your hands like Avram Grant.

Counter-attack. Get on the pacy players.


10. Do you believe every top team these days needs a purely defensive midfielder, a "Makelele", to be a successful one? Can it consistently work throughout an entire season, to have two CM's who are similar in character and take turns in going forward?

I prefer the "piston" approach. It is more balanced and if your CMs have different strengths then it is just going to bring something different in the final 3rd that may just exploit a particular weakness in thte opposition defense.

11. Through balls or crosses? What's more dangerous to a defence with no obvious weaknesses?

I'd say crosses only because the implication is that you have pulled at least one defender out wide.

12. What's more important in a full back playing in your ideal team? An excellent defender or an excellent attacker? He can't excel in both things.

Attacking. The CHs, DMs and wingers can hold up the opposition should the FB get caught out.

13. Sign a good player now, or sign a better player near the end of the window? Remember that he won't spend pre-season with the team. Ignore costs.

Get the better player. It may take him longer to make an impact but in the years to come he will out perform the other. It's about short-term vs. long-term gain.

15. How big an effect does a manager have on the result of one game?

Massive. Tactics, Motivation, Substitutions, identifying mis-matches, etc. Can't win the game on their own however.

[dww]

10. Do you believe every top team these days needs a purely defensive midfielder, a "Makelele", to be a successful one? Can it consistently work throughout an entire season, to have two CM's who are similar in character and take turns in going forward?

I don't think you absolutely have to have a pure defensive midfielder although at the least a DM in the style of Flamini for Arsenal last year is a pre-requisite for success in my book.

The key for all CM partnerships for me is to give a route from the defense to the attack. Arsenal struggled when they had Gilberto and Fabregas the season before last as there was too big a gap between the two and Gilberto is neither dynamic enough nor has the passing range to make that work. Flamini improved on both these areas and as such the team prospered much more. Lampard has always given Makelele options in midfield and is expert and shuttling the ball from the Chelsea defensive to attacking third. I think you can combine two similar types of player in this role but they would probably have to be Alonso style holding midfielders whose movement is intelligent enough to make it work. Players who focus on athleticism/impact (like Lampard and Gerrard) will in general struggle as a partnership in my book although given a third party to balance them I think they could be made to work in certain team set ups.