Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tactical acumen

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Tactical acumen

    Is a requisite that any manager must have in this day and age, in my opinion.

    Even in the Premier League, when the focus was predominantly about a 'gung-ho' and 'in your face' approach, it seems with the influx or foreign managers and the fitness levels of modern day players, it is an absolute necessity to plan and counteract any team's physical advantage (or any kind of advantage for that matter) with careful planning and ability to shape a team towards that aim.

    Case in point the game against Man. City on Monday. I haven't seen us been out-thought and out-fought in a game against a top team like this for a long time. It is known that we don't have the necessary armament, on the attacking front, to throw caution to the wind and play attacking football the way the best teams do, therefore requiring more control on the way we approach games.

    If you look at Barcelona for example, you will see that their game is based on a simple approach. Keep the ball as much as possible, even if it requires going sideways and back, then when they lose it, make sure it is done in areas further up the pitch, which minimises the risks of conceding possession in dangerous areas. Their phenomenal ability of winning back the ball is aided by the fact that most of the times they lose it, it is in areas where their shape allow them to apply the required pressing game which helps them strangle the life out of teams. I think at our best, we were very good at pressurising teams as well but I think we're going back to a trend of conceding possession which reduces our ability to do so (stats in our last two games show that). It must be a terrible thought knowing that Mascherano may move to Barcelona, and it seems it's more likely than not he will.

    Then again, Barcelona is an exceptional team, which makes it easy for someone like Guardiola, who didn't have much experience managing a football team before he took charge of Barca (I could be wrong, anyone correct me if I am), to have so much success. I think that we were more able to tackle any team with the approach of our former manager - especially away from home, irrespective of the fact that the football might have been dour at times, but we were very efficient (apart from last season which was a disaster) in stifling the life out of teams, then pouncing in with a winner out of the sheer ability of one or two players.

    For example, Benitez seemed to be obsessed with analysing the fitness levels of each and every player, waiting for as long as hours before a match before selecting his teams. Whilst there is no evidence of Roy not applying the same methods, I've seen a pattern where teams tactics and personnel seemed to have been devised well before a match, which to me indicate there is not the same careful planning - for example the team tactics and personnel seemed to have been devised well before games.

    It's still very early days though, and the new manager hasn't got enough time to imprint his new methods into the player's minds, so I guess it might be a tad unfair to compare him with Rafa, but this is just the way I'm seeing things at the moment. That game against City did throw up some glaring inadequacies, which I hope won't be repeated again.
    Are we winning?

    #2

    Comment


      #3
      Fantastic post

      Comment


        #4
        “Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.”

        Bill Shankly

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Rudo View Post
          “Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.”

          Bill Shankly

          Shanks was right at the time (I imagine, I wasn't born )...but football has changed/evolved an awful lot since then. So although it essentially remains a simple game, it is a hell of a lot more nuanced than it once was.
          Thanks very much for being ‘This Mornings’ Farmer’

          Comment


            #6
            totally agree, Rafa was very 21st centuary. unfortunately Hodgson isnt..

            Comment


              #7
              what's the point of that post actually ?

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by NigelLG View Post
                Is a requisite that any manager must have in this day and age, in my opinion.
                (snip)
                .
                .
                Lots more stuff about tactics.
                .
                .
                (/snip)
                I wouldn't get too obsessed about the City game - Roy is a very tactically astute manager, and has run UEFA seminars for the top coaches in the game. It seems that Poulsen wasn't up to 90 minutes, and with Mascher pulling out at the last minute he felt that he had to abandon the 4-2-3-1 that we'd been practicing in training, and go with a 4-4-2. He may have been encouraged to do that by the hammering that Spurs gave City last week (despite only getting a draw due to bad luck, poor finishing and Hart's heroics), but reports suggest that he felt it was the only way of organising the players he had left at his disposal.

                As such, I'm not worried at all about Roy in terms of tactics and preparation based on City, though I am slightly concerned after that game about how quick he is to react and change things when 'plan a' isn't working. Rafa made a very similar tactical mistake in Istanbul - going with a bold attacking formation only to get battered - but was able to change it during the game. Perhaps Roy thought that he didn't have the personnel to do so without Cole, Poulsen and Mascherano, but it was worrying to watch us being overrun and just sitting there and taking it. I can understand starting with that formation, but once we were in big trouble, would it have been so bad to e.g. bring Babel, Maxi, or Pacheco on in midfield instead of N'Gog and re-organise to a 4-5-1? And why have Poulsen on the bench if he couldn't come on at half time at least?

                The biggest problem we've got though is that we haven't had a takeover, appear to be skint, yet are desperate for a left-back and a striker before the window closes. You're lambs to the slaughter going in against a £1bn team with a new manager trying to get across new ideas, an un-matchfit Torres, no Joe Cole, no Poulsen, a left winger new to the premiership, arguably your best centre-half playing left back, and your best defensive midfielder pulling out on the day and knackering your carefully planned formation. Hicks, Gillett and Mascherano should take the blame for the Man City defeat, and hopefully all three of the feckers will be gone before too long.
                Last edited by calvoboy; 25-08-10, 01:43 PM.

                Comment


                  #9
                  it doesnt take a tactical genius to work out we havent currently got the players for a 4-4-4-2.

                  It also doesnt take a tactical genius to work out we were going to be over run in the middle on Monday either.

                  Thats worrying.
                  _____________________________________

                  Weak willed, Wank or do they have a masterplan?

                  Think we have the answer..Slot!!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by red g View Post
                    it doesnt take a tactical genius to work out we havent currently got the players for a 4-4-4-2.

                    It also doesnt take a tactical genius to work out we were going to be over run in the middle on Monday either.

                    Thats worrying.
                    Nobody is allowed to field 15 players

                    Agreed with the rest very worrying that a man of Roy's experience failed badly on Monday

                    Lets hope he gets his arse into gear soon
                    Bob Paisley - "This club has been my life. I'd go out and sweep the street and be proud to do it for Liverpool if they asked me to."

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Rudo View Post
                      Picture of Rudo scratching his head
                      Mate, just because all those words are difficult for you to read, doesn't mean others don't want to, ok?

                      Originally posted by Rudo View Post
                      “Football is a simple game based on the giving and taking of passes, of controlling the ball and of making yourself available to receive a pass. It is terribly simple.”

                      Bill Shankly, nearly 40 years ago

                      Originally posted by lickedlollipop View Post
                      what's the point of that post actually ?
                      Discussion? Was a good read IMO
                      I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought "what did you expect?"
                      There's no water round here stupid, should have stayed where it was wet

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by calvoboy View Post
                        I wouldn't get too obsessed about the City game - Roy is a very tactically astute manager, and has run UEFA seminars for the top coaches in the game. It seems that Poulsen wasn't up to 90 minutes, and with Mascher pulling out at the last minute he felt that he had to abandon the 4-2-3-1 that we'd been practicing in training, and go with a 4-4-2. He may have been encouraged to do that by the hammering that Spurs gave City last week (despite only getting a draw due to bad luck, poor finishing and Hart's heroics), but reports suggest that he felt it was the only way of organising the players he had left at his disposal.

                        As such, I'm not worried at all about Roy in terms of tactics and preparation based on City, though I am slightly concerned after that game about how quick he is to react and change things when 'plan a' isn't working. Rafa made a very similar tactical mistake in Istanbul - going with a bold attacking formation only to get battered - but was able to change it during the game. Perhaps Roy thought that he didn't have the personnel to do so without Cole, Poulsen and Mascherano, but it was worrying to watch us being overrun and just sitting there and taking it. I can understand starting with that formation, but once we were in big trouble, would it have been so bad to e.g. bring Babel, Maxi, or Pacheco on in midfield instead of N'Gog and re-organise to a 4-5-1? And why have Poulsen on the bench if he couldn't come on at half time at least?

                        The biggest problem we've got though is that we haven't had a takeover, appear to be skint, yet are desperate for a left-back and a striker before the window closes. You're lambs to the slaughter going in against a £1bn team with a new manager trying to get across new ideas, an un-matchfit Torres, no Joe Cole, no Poulsen, a left winger new to the premiership, arguably your best centre-half playing left back, and your best defensive midfielder pulling out on the day and knackering your carefully planned formation. Hicks, Gillett and Mascherano should take the blame for the Man City defeat, and hopefully all three of the feckers will be gone before too long.
                        Clearly the ownership/budget situation is the biggest problem at the club (not sure about the positions you want to fill but that's detail). However the thesis of the original post is that Benitez's tactical astuteness was able to mitigate some of the damage of that. I agree it's far too soon to make anything but the most speculative of calls about Hodgson's ability to do the same (or not) but there is a nagging doubt there.

                        And if the number one problem is resolved, there is then a doubt that Hodgson will be best placed to capitalise on the brave new world that awaits the club.

                        From persuading Torres and Gerrard to stay to his handling of the Mascherano situation, Hodgson has so far been impressive off the pitch. However, it's not been a great start on it and I think his decisions on Monday are a genuine cause for concern.
                        .
                        Suppose you have a physicist and a sociologist standing at the side of a field, observing a set of events unfolding on the field. The physicist does [describes] it using the terminology of mass and velocity and frequency of radiation and the rest. And the sociologist does it by describing it as a rugby match.



                        May the Lord bless this post.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Fierce View Post
                          Mate, just because all those words are difficult for you to read, doesn't mean others don't want to, ok?





                          Discussion? Was a good read IMO
                          But what is the actual post of his point? like what is he trying to get at?

                          I've read it three times now and i still can't make any sense of it.

                          As for that Bill Shankly quote, some 40 years ago, not alot has changed in football...still 11 v 11, two goals and one ball.

                          The only thing nowadays is the advancements in technololy, every minute, every move, every pass, every tackle, every goal is analysed to the max but at the end of the day it's still two teams kicking a ball about. The same rules apply to 40 years ago, do they not? People make it alot more complicated than it is, via pro-zone, opta stats etc etc.
                          Last edited by Rudo; 25-08-10, 03:15 PM.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by Rudo View Post
                            But what is the actual post of his point? like what is he trying to get at?

                            I've read it three times now and i still can't make any sense of it.

                            As for that Bill Shankly quote, some 40 years ago, not alot has changed in football...still 11 v 11, two goals and one ball.

                            The only thing nowadays is the advancements in technololy, every minute, every move, every pass, every tackle, every goal is analysed to the max but at the end of the day it's still two teams kicking a ball about. The same rules apply to 40 years ago, do they not? People make it alot more complicated than it is, via pro-zone, opta stats.
                            Do you genuinely believe this? That because the rules are almost identical the game hasn't changed?

                            I wholeheartedly disagree, but it would be far too lengthy a conversation to go into!

                            Lets agree to disagree
                            I saw a dead fish on the pavement and thought "what did you expect?"
                            There's no water round here stupid, should have stayed where it was wet

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Neil Young View Post
                              Clearly the ownership/budget situation is the biggest problem at the club (not sure about the positions you want to fill but that's detail). However the thesis of the original post is that Benitez's tactical astuteness was able to mitigate some of the damage of that. I agree it's far too soon to make anything but the most speculative of calls about Hodgson's ability to do the same (or not) but there is a nagging doubt there.

                              And if the number one problem is resolved, there is then a doubt that Hodgson will be best placed to capitalise on the brave new world that awaits the club.

                              From persuading Torres and Gerrard to stay to his handling of the Mascherano situation, Hodgson has so far been impressive off the pitch. However, it's not been a great start on it and I think his decisions on Monday are a genuine cause for concern.
                              I see your point, but I think the selection on Monday was largely out of his control with Mascherano's late pull-out and the fact that Cole and apparently Poulsen were unable to play (though it makes you wonder why the latter was on the bench). The alternative would have been to play Pacheco or Kuyt behind Torres and play Maxi or Babel wide. Probably not the end of the world, but I can understand why he chose not to start like that. I can't understand why he persevered with it though when it was clear that it wasn't working.

                              Rafa wasn't always spot on tactically, and we had some very poor games away from home that I can remember, but I don't remember him ever sitting back and watching that sort of thing unfold without making tactical changes first, and then player changes around 60 mins.

                              Still too early to slate Roy though. Let's see how he has us play at home against West Brom - they're the sort of games I hope he brings a new tactical approach to (though I know we've beaten West Brom every time we've played them recently...)

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X