Team shape, tactics and personnel

[TRO]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

I watched it. It was a big strong experienced Luton side against a team of what seemed like youths (due to Sunderland’s injury list). The reason Luton won was in essence down to physical size and strength. Both teams put in 100% effort, worked their socks off, chased, tackled, closed down and all that. The standard of play was poor, neither side strung more than a few passes together and both were miles off prem standard. It was a typical lower league game and not really reflective of the league that Villa are in at all. I’m not sure there’s much read across at all to this discussion of our tactics and selections 

Pete.....I know we see this thing differently, but I am not arguing against the importance of tactics or even Strategy...they are important, but by stating your case, at times you do seem to poo poo the rudiments elements/factors, I am defending as important too.

.....but watch Man City tonight, and you tell me, physicality is old hat, or of secondary importance.

[lexicon]

20 minutes ago, TRO said:

somebody did make a point in another thread, implying tactics are The difference and other factors like work rate , intensity, fight, desire, etc, etc was old hat, implying it was yesterday's factor and I disagree.......and I made my point in this thread, so you can keep your disparaging comments, to yourself.

I quoted, prominent managers down playing tactics, so at least get it right.....There is even a comment from Pep, (before you cling to yesteryears managers) saying formations are nothing more than phone numbers, the implication being that his players move from their positions so much their stated formations they start in does not in fact matter....something, I also agree with.

 

Formations are a minor part of tactics, did you really think that world renowned tactically intricate to the point of insane micro managing Pep Guardiola was downplaying the importance of tactics when he said that?

[blandy]

5 minutes ago, TRO said:

Pete.....I know we see this thing differently, but I am not arguing against the importance of tactics or even Strategy...they are important, but by stating your case, at times you do seem to poo poo the rudiments elements/factors, I am defending as important too.

.....but watch Man City tonight, and you tell me, physicality is old hat, or of secondary importance.

No. What I’m saying is all the teams we play (and ourselves) have the things you talk about as the foundations. Without them, then yes we’d (anyone) will fail. But my very strong feeling is that as we all have those foundations, one of the factors that sets teams apart from each other is tactics. Obviously better skilled or able players is another factor. With a given set of players who all collectively work hard and want to win, over a season it’s the managerial and coaching skills that differentiate most of the time over a season. Injuries, form, ropy refs and individual errors and all that are the kind of “no one can do that much about” kind of variables that keep the outcomes interesting. But even with some of those we see how managers affect them, whether it be trying to get officials to be lenient (Klopp, Ferguson), inventing Broccoli (Wenger), introducing sports science and wotnot to reduce injury, all the heart rate and blood oxygen level monitoring to detect when players hit the red zone and need a rest…

Even the fundamental requirement of effort and application, which all sides at the top level have, the tactical and mental approach of managers has an impact, whether that be Emery telling Ollie Watkins to shift his efforts from closing down fullbacks to instead stay more central, or whether it’s the examples like being furious that Emi went up for a corner late on when we were losing. Because Emi “wanted it” and was desperate to try and help…but Unai’s approach was “no, don’t do that - experience shows statistically it’s better not to do that and to keep playing with the normal 10 outfield players, not 11”

[TRO]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Agreed. But to make a point I also put in another thread, in the 70s and 80s everyone played 4-4-2. The only real tactical battles were fairly minor. Man mark this player, or hit it over the top because their centre backs are slow kind of stuff. The things that made a big difference back then were giving 110%, physicality, desire, stamina, battling on and so on.

Once the 90s came along we started seeing more foreign players and managers, more 3-5-2/ 5-3-2 & 4-3-3 and how different formations meant changing the way a team would set to attack an opponent playing 3 at the back, compared to 4 at the back. And the Arsenal Wenger invented broccoli and not getting lashed all the time and then all the others copied that and all the players were stronger and fitter and faster and the differences between sides (apart from how good their respective players were) changed from “they just wanted it more on the day, Brian” to tactical innovation and the introduction of even more footballing philosophies and approaches from all over the world and also money. Lots of money.

If I remember correctly in the halcyon days on winning the title and the Euro cup we played 4-3-3.....but I accept formations morph during a game.

 

Formations: Football Tactics Explained

Quote: Manchester City manager Pep Guardiola insists that formations “are nothing more than phone numbers”. The implication is that his players move from their positions so much that the stated formation they start in does not in fact matter. The players are so rarely in that shape that there is barely any need to name the formation.

just a brief clip from a long drawn out explanation of all the various formations.....Its actually a very simple game Pete, made complicated by some.

 

 

 

[blandy]

26 minutes ago, TRO said:

...but watch Man City tonight, and you tell me, physicality is old hat, or of secondary importance.

I’m looking forward to it, Paul. I tell you now, both sides will work hard, both will “want it”, both will fight and desire and passion…. The difference will not be in those things, it’ll be in how tactically each side deals with the others threats, and/or an uncontrollable aspect like a bad decision or a mistake or a bit of genius play. It won’t be lack of effort or fight or commitment.

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, TRO said:

The implication is that his players move from their positions so much that the stated formation they start in does not in fact matter. The players are so rarely in that shape that there is barely any need to name the formation.

Exactly. The name of the formation in todays game means less and particularly so with Guardiola. He tells his players exactly where he wants them to be when they have the ball, when they don’t, in transition from one phase of play to the next. Emery does similarly. It’s why players nearly always take a season at Man City to adjust to these demands. it’s minute attention to detail throughout games that makes them formidable opponents. That on top of having ridiculously good players in every position on top of them all putting in the basic essentials of effort and commitment.

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

No. What I’m saying is all the teams we play (and ourselves) have the things you talk about as the foundations. Without them, then yes we’d (anyone) will fail. But my very strong feeling is that as we all have those foundations, one of the factors that sets teams apart from each other is tactics. Obviously better skilled or able players is another factor. With a given set of players who all collectively work hard and want to win, over a season it’s the managerial and coaching skills that differentiate most of the time over a season. Injuries, form, ropy refs and individual errors and all that are the kind of “no one can do that much about” kind of variables that keep the outcomes interesting. But even with some of those we see how managers affect them, whether it be trying to get officials to be lenient (Klopp, Ferguson), inventing Broccoli (Wenger), introducing sports science and wotnot to reduce injury, all the heart rate and blood oxygen level monitoring to detect when players hit the red zone and need a rest…

Even the fundamental requirement of effort and application, which all sides at the top level have, the tactical and mental approach of managers has an impact, whether that be Emery telling Ollie Watkins to shift his efforts from closing down fullbacks to instead stay more central, or whether it’s the examples like being furious that Emi went up for a corner late on when we were losing. Because Emi “wanted it” and was desperate to try and help…but Unai’s approach was “no, don’t do that - experience shows statistically it’s better not to do that and to keep playing with the normal 10 outfield players, not 11”

I know what you are saying, and I really do respect your integrity....but I can't accept it as a "given" it has to be created, and Unai has, Tactics do set us aside, but along with other factors too.....There are too many examples over the years.....our relegation, the collapse at Wembley V arsenal.....where we had nothing, no fight, no belief....if as you say its a given, we would have at least had that.

Why do you think Unai Emery is so passionate about the Fans involvement, that can't affect the tactics.......He wants the stadium rocking to instill the passion, the fight and the willingness in to the players intrinsically, to be first to every ball.

I am not saying you are wrong, lets get that abundantly clear.....but I don't think the other factors are simply a given.

 

 

[TRO]

27 minutes ago, blandy said:

I’m looking forward to it, Paul. I tell you now, both sides will work hard, both will “want it”, both will fight and desire and passion…. The difference will not be in those things, it’ll be in how tactically each side deals with the others threats, and/or an uncontrollable aspect like a bad decision or a mistake or a bit of genius play. It won’t be lack of effort or fight or commitment.

Haha......Pete its hard to make my point, because is then sounds like I disagree with your passion on tactics.....and I don't.

Tactics will play a huge part tonight, but both managers are well versed in it.....so that part could cancel itself out, then it comes down to who wants it more........

I think we both agree, but maybe we are both promoting, what the other isn't.

Edited May 17, 2023 by TRO

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, TRO said:

I remember correctly in the halcyon days on winning the title and the Euro cup we played 4-3-3

Shaw and Withe up top, Tony M on the left joining in. Des on the right and Kenny providing the width there more than Des in attack…, and everyone else did much the same. Liverpool with Rush and Dalglish. Like you say the starting positions morphed a bit during games, but most started as 442 and most played a kind of standard variation of tactics. It’s very different now.

[TRO]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

Exactly. The name of the formation in todays game means less and particularly so with Guardiola. He tells his players exactly where he wants them to be when they have the ball, when they don’t, in transition from one phase of play to the next. Emery does similarly. It’s why players nearly always take a season at Man City to adjust to these demands. it’s minute attention to detail throughout games that makes them formidable opponents. That on top of having ridiculously good players in every position on top of them all putting in the basic essentials of effort and commitment.

Pete football fans will look back on all this, 50 years from now, and be arguing the perceived irrelevances or relevances......just like we look back 50 years and see how the game has changed.

[TRO]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

Shaw and Withe up top, Tony M on the left joining in. Des on the right and Kenny providing the width there more than Des in attack…, and everyone else did much the same. Liverpool with Rush and Dalglish. Like you say the starting positions morphed a bit during games, but most started as 442 and most played a kind of standard variation of tactics. It’s very different now.

Morely was so far forward, he could be perceived as a forward/winger......but we have already debated that one, with Peps opinion.

when we are out of posession, we sometimes resort to 4-4-2......every formation has strengths and weaknesses.

[blandy]

12 minutes ago, TRO said:

know what you are saying, and I really do respect your integrity....but I can't accept it as a "given" it has to be created

Likewise my friend. I just think generally every prem team manager and player understands that work rate and desire and will to win and commitment are necessary and without them, their prospects as an individual or team are bleak. That 4-0 Arsenal final. We wanted it as much as Arsenal did. We wanted it as much as in the semi we won. We were outplayed by a team with superior players, superior tactics, full of confidence, compared to us who’d been doing badly most of the season. Wenger was a leap above tactics Tim as a manager.

[TRO]

33 minutes ago, lexicon said:

Formations are a minor part of tactics, did you really think that world renowned tactically intricate to the point of insane micro managing Pep Guardiola was downplaying the importance of tactics when he said that?

oh, ok.

I didn't think anything.....I just took his opinion as one that I share.....hence my reference to it.

as you are a keen member of his fan club, you might want to take it on board too.

[TRO]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

Likewise my friend. I just think generally every prem team manager and player understands that work rate and desire and will to win and commitment are necessary and without them, their prospects as an individual or team are bleak. That 4-0 Arsenal final. We wanted it as much as Arsenal did. We wanted it as much as in the semi we won. We were outplayed by a team with superior players, superior tactics, full of confidence, compared to us who’d been doing badly most of the season. Wenger was a leap above tactics Tim as a manager.

you have it your way, Pete....but thanks for the debate.

Edited May 17, 2023 by TRO

[KentVillan]

Think of it like Formula One. The best drivers usually get the best cars and the best support teams. So it becomes hard to tell whether it’s the driver or the car or the tactics that have won the championship.

Man City are better than us in *every* department except ethics. If you want to highlight their pace and physicality, you can. If you want to highlight tactics, you can. If you want to highlight individual talent... etc.

All of these things matter. End of the day we just need to keep improving in every aspect. @TROis right that City are a tall, strong, tough side. @blandyand co are right that they are also one of the most tactically sophisticated sides ever, regardless of Guardiola’s little joke.

[TRO]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

Think of it like Formula One. The best drivers usually get the best cars and the best support teams. So it becomes hard to tell whether it’s the driver or the car or the tactics that have won the championship.

Man City are better than us in *every* department except ethics. If you want to highlight their pace and physicality, you can. If you want to highlight tactics, you can. If you want to highlight individual talent... etc.

All of these things matter. End of the day we just need to keep improving in every aspect. @TROis right that City are a tall, strong, tough side. @blandyand co are right that they are also one of the most tactically sophisticated sides ever, regardless of Guardiola’s little joke.

I agree.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

All of these things matter. End of the day we just need to keep improving in every aspect. @TROis right that City are a tall, strong, tough side. @blandyand co are right that they are also one of the most tactically sophisticated sides ever

Interestingly City were full of midgets a couple of seasons ago and won with 100 points. They’ve changed their tactics and had to, Liverpool have belatedly changed theirs too. The fundamentals are still there, but they’ve evolved tactically, with an inverted full back, or with the threat of Haaland and more longer passing at times. Last season a false 9, the season before with Aguero or whoever as a shorter box player. Liverpool it would be fair to say did tail off a little on a couple of positions workrate due to different player make up - not that they weren’t trying, the new players, but that Mane and Firminho were just more terrier like than the new guys in style.  As players careers at a club end there’s never a like for like replacement, so adaptation is essential. The manager has to get the best from the squad and that means adjusting the set up ( and much more).

[KentVillan]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Interestingly City were full of midgets a couple of seasons ago and won with 100 points. They’ve changed their tactics and had to, Liverpool have belatedly changed theirs too. The fundamentals are still there, but they’ve evolved tactically, with an inverted full back, or with the threat of Haaland and more longer passing at times. Last season a false 9, the season before with Aguero or whoever as a shorter box player. Liverpool it would be fair to say did tail off a little on a couple of positions workrate due to different player make up - not that they weren’t trying, the new players, but that Mane and Firminho were just more terrier like than the new guys in style.  As players careers at a club end there’s never a like for like replacement, so adaptation is essential. The manager has to get the best from the squad and that means adjusting the set up ( and much more).

I’d say recent changes to referee guidance on hard tackles, physical contact and yellow/red card policy have made it more useful to have bigger, more athletic players again.

There was a period through the 2010s when football became almost a non-contact sport, and you really did just want very quick, technical players with maybe a couple of ball winners for headers.

I think that’s changed a bit. Although I still lean more towards those saying that tactics, positional play and coaching are a lot more important than being a big hardworking word removed.

[blandy]

31 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

I’d say recent changes to referee guidance on hard tackles, physical contact and yellow/red card policy have made it more useful to have bigger, more athletic players again

That’s not something I’ve noticed, or even knew had happened, but it’s interesting.  I’ll have to look out for what transpires. Thanks.

[KentVillan]

3 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s not something I’ve noticed, or even knew had happened, but it’s interesting.  I’ll have to look out for what transpires. Thanks.

https://theathletic.com/2831973/2021/09/18/premier-league-referees-are-showing-a-lighter-touch-is-it-working/?amp=1
 

Quote

The funny thing you’ll find with coaches like me is, we referee training a lot of the time, and in training it’s a bit like prison rules — you don’t ‘get’ a lot, which is a good thing,” the Premier League coach says, laughing.

“But we’re finding now that we can let training flow even more so, because we can say, ‘Guys, you’re not going to get that (foul) this year. So, come on, play on!’”  

The coach is talking to The Athletic about the “lighter touch” directive referees are applying in Premier League matches this season, meaning fewer penalties and fouls will be awarded where there is minimal contact, leading to a more free-flowing game.

“I’m in the same boat as the overwhelming majority of people, I think — and that’s that something had to change,” he says. “It was really tedious watching games of football for the last couple of years, especially last season, with those weak-contact fouls.”

For a coach, the knock-on effects from this new approach are interesting to explore, and not just when it comes to refereeing small-sided games in training. “Now, you get a chance to press,” the coach adds. “Before, you could press someone, they fall over and the press is broken. Now, you can get up to people and make contact.”

I think it’s no coincidence that Pep’s City team is suddenly the tallest and most physical he’s ever coached.