Team shape, tactics and personnel

[duke313]

14 hours ago, MaVilla said:

 

it will completely wreck offside.

tbh, i wonder if it will have the same effect as the golden goal, in the sense that you can be offside by so much, and still be onside, that there is zero incentive for a team to push up the pitch, and many teams, even the bigger ones, will then rely on sitting deep and not letting any players in behind, due to the huge margins allowed to still be onside.

it will make the game less watchable i reckon, more teams sitting deep and not over committing forward.

less goals conceded, less scored, and less risks taken.

This is what will happen, low blocks will be the norm.  It will basically make defending a freekick almost impossible.

[sharkyvilla]

10 hours ago, duke313 said:

This is what will happen, low blocks will be the norm.  It will basically make defending a freekick almost impossible.

Wasn't this what the offside law was before VAR anyway?  You need daylight to be offside.  I'm sure Unai is already preparing a strategy for any rule change that might happen.

[CVByrne]

The leagues have to approve if they want to change to the new offside rule or not. They won't

I do think the rule needs to change so only a players feet and knees can count as offside. This nonsense with shoulders and arse's as if any player actually tries to score goals with those body parts. Also when a through ball is played behind a defence a player isn't going to head it. 

It's called football, it should be where the players feet and knees are. Then automated offsides. Nobody has issue with offside rule just how it's applied using 2 mins if VAR. 

[HKP90]

19 hours ago, duke313 said:

This is what will happen, low blocks will be the norm.  It will basically make defending a freekick almost impossible.

I reckon you are spot on, there.

I wish they'd stop messing around with stuff.

[holtend4life]

On 23/05/2024 at 22:22, sharkyvilla said:

Wasn't this what the offside law was before VAR anyway?  You need daylight to be offside.  I'm sure Unai is already preparing a strategy for any rule change that might happen.

No, it was to be level with them. It was daylight pre 1990 though. 

[Monkeypuzzle]

People on here and in the media keep saying that we need more squad depth than we have currently, but is that actually true? In reality, what we need is to not have 11 first team players unavailable all at the same time. Of course we can upgrade some players and strengthen the squad but in terms of numbers, we have two good players for every position. Do we really need a bigger squad than that?

                                                     Martinez/Olsen

Cash/Chambers       Konsa/Carlos            Torres/Mings         Digne/Moreno

Bailey/McGinn   Kamara/Dendoncker       Luiz/Tielemans     Ramsey/Buendia

                                    Diaby/Rogers             Watkins/Duran

This isn't even all our first team squad if you include Hause and some of the younger lads. Of course we can improve on some of these but we have the numbers, surely?

[TRO]

I am always fascinated by the terminology of the "Deep lying playmaker"

Whilst, I understand the implication, I also feel its a euphemism, for a player, that is reluctant to engage in defending the back line.

Now it's interesting how the internet, lncludes some  "Deep lying playmakers with "Ball winners" in their best versions, list.

Which prompts my point.....should they do both, in my view......yes.

Graeme Souness all those years ago did, So did Sid Cowans and Alex Cropley, as did Gareth Barry.

I think to suggest "Deep Lying playmakers who don't, limits their ability to be effective.

[CVByrne]

50 minutes ago, Monkeypuzzle said:

People on here and in the media keep saying that we need more squad depth than we have currently, but is that actually true? In reality, what we need is to not have 11 first team players unavailable all at the same time. Of course we can upgrade some players and strengthen the squad but in terms of numbers, we have two good players for every position. Do we really need a bigger squad than that?

                                                     Martinez/Olsen

Cash/Chambers       Konsa/Carlos            Torres/Mings         Digne/Moreno

Bailey/McGinn   Kamara/Dendoncker       Luiz/Tielemans     Ramsey/Buendia

                                    Diaby/Rogers             Watkins/Duran

This isn't even all our first team squad if you include Hause and some of the younger lads. Of course we can improve on some of these but we have the numbers, surely?

People mean by squad depth is players the manager wants and relies upon. For example Tielemans is a quality footballer and Emery trusts him as he would Luiz, McGinn or Kamara. 

Chambers he wouldn't trust and he's shown that by how few minutes he's given him. Similarly Dendonker has been used sparingly under Emery and was loaned out on Jan rather than provide squad depth. 

[DaoDeMings]

51 minutes ago, TRO said:

I am always fascinated by the terminology of the "Deep lying playmaker"

Whilst, I understand the implication, I also feel its a euphemism, for a player, that is reluctant to engage in defending the back line.

Now it's interesting how the internet, lncludes some  "Deep lying playmakers with "Ball winners" in their best versions, list.

Which prompts my point.....should they do both, in my view......yes.

Graeme Souness all those years ago did, So did Sid Cowans and Alex Cropley, as did Gareth Barry.

I think to suggest "Deep Lying playmakers who don't, limits their ability to be effective.

I think what people mean by a 'deep lying playmaker' is a player with primarily attacking or positive responsibilities but who sits deeper on the pitch. Pirlo, for example, was positioned deep in midfield, often sitting between centre backs, but still wasn't expected to contribute defensively. Similarly, Luka Modric holds his position fairly deep but doesn't do any defending. As long as you've got a system which allows for that midfield player to have fewer defensive responsibilities it's fine. Don't think anyone would call Modric or Pirlo 'ineffective' because they don't defend.

That said, with the way the game is played now, every player is expected to have more defensive responsibility, so the role is being phased out and replaced by more all-round midfielders. This is also the reason you see fewer 'traditional' playmakers now - Ozil for example wouldn't work in a City or Liverpool system because they require that each and every player press with pace and intensity and fulfils a very structured role, whereas a player like Ozil operates better with positional freedom.

[TRO]

5 hours ago, DaoDeMings said:

I think what people mean by a 'deep lying playmaker' is a player with primarily attacking or positive responsibilities but who sits deeper on the pitch. Pirlo, for example, was positioned deep in midfield, often sitting between centre backs, but still wasn't expected to contribute defensively. Similarly, Luka Modric holds his position fairly deep but doesn't do any defending. As long as you've got a system which allows for that midfield player to have fewer defensive responsibilities it's fine. Don't think anyone would call Modric or Pirlo 'ineffective' because they don't defend.

That said, with the way the game is played now, every player is expected to have more defensive responsibility, so the role is being phased out and replaced by more all-round midfielders. This is also the reason you see fewer 'traditional' playmakers now - Ozil for example wouldn't work in a City or Liverpool system because they require that each and every player press with pace and intensity and fulfils a very structured role, whereas a player like Ozil operates better with positional freedom.

Whatever the systems or terminologies.....some players have to have a responsibility to defend, and some have to have a responsibility to attack.....Now, if that means they all have to do both, that is the responsibility of the coach.

My point always has been someone has to do the jobs.....if as you say, the mentioned players are not held responsible for defending, some players amongst the 11 must.....its that balance, that is key.

If a player as you suggest, has fewer defensive responsibilities, someone else has pick up the baton of that responsibility.........it's not a question of who does the job, it's more of a statement that someone has to.

it's a coaches job, to formulate balance, and it's his job to ensure, the squad has adequate personnel to qualify both roles.

As you suggest, trends change, and what was an accepted maxim, becomes yesterday's philosophy.....when 11 players are featured, only so many permutations can be deployed, and trends are regurgitated from the past.

As they say "There are many ways to skin cat"......but goals for and against don't lie.....so when we get those balances looking good, the points largely, take care of themselves.

 

 

[Hank Scorpio]

8 hours ago, Monkeypuzzle said:

People on here and in the media keep saying that we need more squad depth than we have currently, but is that actually true? In reality, what we need is to not have 11 first team players unavailable all at the same time. Of course we can upgrade some players and strengthen the squad but in terms of numbers, we have two good players for every position. Do we really need a bigger squad than that?

                                                     Martinez/Olsen

Cash/Chambers       Konsa/Carlos            Torres/Mings         Digne/Moreno

Bailey/McGinn   Kamara/Dendoncker       Luiz/Tielemans     Ramsey/Buendia

                                    Diaby/Rogers             Watkins/Duran

This isn't even all our first team squad if you include Hause and some of the younger lads. Of course we can improve on some of these but we have the numbers, surely?

You want Donk to be the backup to Luiz of he goes/gets injured? 

Cash and Chambers as right backs? Both good enough?

Other than that its fine. 

 

[Tom13]

7 hours ago, DaoDeMings said:

I think what people mean by a 'deep lying playmaker' is a player with primarily attacking or positive responsibilities but who sits deeper on the pitch. Pirlo, for example, was positioned deep in midfield, often sitting between centre backs, but still wasn't expected to contribute defensively. Similarly, Luka Modric holds his position fairly deep but doesn't do any defending. As long as you've got a system which allows for that midfield player to have fewer defensive responsibilities it's fine. Don't think anyone would call Modric or Pirlo 'ineffective' because they don't defend.

That said, with the way the game is played now, every player is expected to have more defensive responsibility, so the role is being phased out and replaced by more all-round midfielders. This is also the reason you see fewer 'traditional' playmakers now - Ozil for example wouldn't work in a City or Liverpool system because they require that each and every player press with pace and intensity and fulfils a very structured role, whereas a player like Ozil operates better with positional freedom.

Modric doesn't do any defending? He certainly contributes.

[DaoDeMings]

29 minutes ago, Tom13 said:

Modric doesn't do any defending? He certainly contributes.

Ofc because he’s a midfielder but he barely makes a tackle or an interception. Certainly isn’t expected to defend, others pick up that job for him

[DaoDeMings]

2 hours ago, TRO said:

Whatever the systems or terminologies.....some players have to have a responsibility to defend, and some have to have a responsibility to attack.....Now, if that means they all have to do both, that is the responsibility of the coach.

My point always has been someone has to do the jobs.....if as you say, the mentioned players are not held responsible for defending, some players amongst the 11 must.....its that balance, that is key.

If a player as you suggest, has fewer defensive responsibilities, someone else has pick up the baton of that responsibility.........it's not a question of who does the job, it's more of a statement that someone has to.

it's a coaches job, to formulate balance, and it's his job to ensure, the squad has adequate personnel to qualify both roles.

As you suggest, trends change, and what was an accepted maxim, becomes yesterday's philosophy.....when 11 players are featured, only so many permutations can be deployed, and trends are regurgitated from the past.

As they say "There are many ways to skin cat"......but goals for and against don't lie.....so when we get those balances looking good, the points largely, take care of themselves.

 

 

Agree with all of that. But I don’t think midfield players that can’t attack and contribute defensively are necessarily worse or less valuable than those that do both e.g. Barry. Players like Barry will always be useful and have a role because of their versatility but sometimes in the right system a ‘deep lying playmaker’ who isn’t an effective defender but is an elite passer can be excellent.

[Anything11]

7 hours ago, TRO said:

Whatever the systems or terminologies.....some players have to have a responsibility to defend, and some have to have a responsibility to attack.....Now, if that means they all have to do both, that is the responsibility of the coach.

My point always has been someone has to do the jobs.....if as you say, the mentioned players are not held responsible for defending, some players amongst the 11 must.....its that balance, that is key.

If a player as you suggest, has fewer defensive responsibilities, someone else has pick up the baton of that responsibility.........it's not a question of who does the job, it's more of a statement that someone has to.

it's a coaches job, to formulate balance, and it's his job to ensure, the squad has adequate personnel to qualify both roles.

As you suggest, trends change, and what was an accepted maxim, becomes yesterday's philosophy.....when 11 players are featured, only so many permutations can be deployed, and trends are regurgitated from the past.

As they say "There are many ways to skin cat"......but goals for and against don't lie.....so when we get those balances looking good, the points largely, take care of themselves.

 

 

 

I think a lot of people are struggling to understand the structural aspect of the game. There are ways that teams are set up that mean there is in fact very little typical defending to do (tackling) because the structure prevents the other team from even progressing up the pitch or finding their players to pass to.

We do it with the offside trap. It means we put someone like Pau in less 1on1 defending situations and also it prevents the other team from having the ball in attacking areas to stress our defence and force these duels.

I don't think it is as straightforward as "someone has to do it" - the ultimate aim of structures is that they should have to do it as little as possible.

A good example is how teams easily mitigated Gerrards terrible tactics such that he was relying on "moments of magic". It didn't matter how terrible the defenders were on the opposing team - they could nullify whatever the f*ck Gerrard was aiming to do quite easily.

[thunderball]

4 hours ago, Anything11 said:

 

I think a lot of people are struggling to understand the structural aspect of the game. There are ways that teams are set up that mean there is in fact very little typical defending to do (tackling) because the structure prevents the other team from even progressing up the pitch or finding their players to pass to.

We do it with the offside trap. It means we put someone like Pau in less 1on1 defending situations and also it prevents the other team from having the ball in attacking areas to stress our defence and force these duels.

I don't think it is as straightforward as "someone has to do it" - the ultimate aim of structures is that they should have to do it as little as possible.

A good example is how teams easily mitigated Gerrards terrible tactics such that he was relying on "moments of magic". It didn't matter how terrible the defenders were on the opposing team - they could nullify whatever the f*ck Gerrard was aiming to do quite easily.

Exactly this: we defend and attack (win and lose) as a team. When we suggest e.g. Pau, Cash or Digne “has lost his man” it’s generally about the system not coping with a transition in play, it’s a team failure before this point, our possession based ‘control’ system shouldn’t be depending on last man defending. This isn’t to excuse the occasional error, but it’s percentages over a season.

Last season we were hard to beat, we had a good record when going a goal ahead suggesting when the tactics and shape worked as a team unit, we were water tight. Conversely, when we got beat it was usually heavily: several goals to nil, suggesting the system went very wrong for that occasion leaving us open, rather than lots of individual errors. Its about tactics and formation.

We conceded too many last season, if we improve how we control games and our team approach to our defensive structure and strength, we will be better again even if our goal creation remains unchanged. That’s why Pau and Kamara improve us so much, they enable the whole team to play at a new level.

I am certain it will further develop, last season saw us concede more but score far more, we just need to finesse it we will improve again. Newcastle have suffered similarly this season too, scoring more but conceding more; Arsenal improved by improving control and defensive structure, while also improving upfront with better movement and unlocking Odergaards creativity. Its evolution.

Edited May 29 by thunderball

[Anything11]

2 hours ago, thunderball said:

Exactly this: we defend and attack (win and lose) as a team. When we suggest e.g. Pau, Cash or Digne “has lost his man” it’s generally about the system not coping with a transition in play, it’s a team failure before this point, our possession based ‘control’ system shouldn’t be depending on last man defending. This isn’t to excuse the occasional error, but it’s percentages over a season.

Last season we were hard to beat, we had a good record when going a goal ahead suggesting when the tactics and shape worked as a team unit, we were water tight. Conversely, when we got beat it was usually heavily: several goals to nil, suggesting the system went very wrong for that occasion leaving us open, rather than lots of individual errors. Its about tactics and formation.

We conceded too many last season, if we improve how we control games and our team approach to our defensive structure and strength, we will be better again even if our goal creation remains unchanged. That’s why Pau and Kamara improve us so much, they enable the whole team to play at a new level.

I am certain it will further develop, last season saw us concede more but score far more, we just need to finesse it we will improve again. Newcastle have suffered similarly this season too, scoring more but conceding more; Arsenal improved by improving control and defensive structure, while also improving upfront with better movement and unlocking Odergaards creativity. Its evolution.

Just to add to these points. They are covered with more nuance and expertise on the latest claret and blue pod by one of the atheltic/tifo guys whose name has escaped me in this moment (Mckenzie?).

He discusses how City/Arsenal force opponents into a low block by slow patient build up - hence Jack has this odd backwards pass slow-down-the-play role in that city team. This actually makes it harder for them to score as it relies on breaking down a low block BUT the point being is that it is easier to defend against a team trying to come out of a low block. 

Edited May 29 by Anything11
more nuance my dudes

[TRO]

18 hours ago, DaoDeMings said:

Agree with all of that. But I don’t think midfield players that can’t attack and contribute defensively are necessarily worse or less valuable than those that do both e.g. Barry. Players like Barry will always be useful and have a role because of their versatility but sometimes in the right system a ‘deep lying playmaker’ who isn’t an effective defender but is an elite passer can be excellent.

I agree....but its like the analogy of " The poor mans blanket ".......pull it up to keep warm and your feet get cold.

Playing attacking football and deploying more than you should to do so, is short termism.....We have to have adequate resource to defend competently, without negating our attacking prowess.

It's a good watch, and food for thought, from John McKenzie

Edited May 29 by TRO

[TRO]

13 hours ago, Anything11 said:

 

I think a lot of people are struggling to understand the structural aspect of the game. There are ways that teams are set up that mean there is in fact very little typical defending to do (tackling) because the structure prevents the other team from even progressing up the pitch or finding their players to pass to.

We do it with the offside trap. It means we put someone like Pau in less 1on1 defending situations and also it prevents the other team from having the ball in attacking areas to stress our defence and force these duels.

I don't think it is as straightforward as "someone has to do it" - the ultimate aim of structures is that they should have to do it as little as possible.

A good example is how teams easily mitigated Gerrards terrible tactics such that he was relying on "moments of magic". It didn't matter how terrible the defenders were on the opposing team - they could nullify whatever the f*ck Gerrard was aiming to do quite easily.

We conceded 16 goals from set pieces, so I don't believe old methods have died....maybe not used as much, but teams still resort to tried and trusted methods to defend....particularly at set pieces.

If you lack personnel to dominate high balls, from physique or technique...it's highly likely those methods will be avoided e.g I don't see SJM or YT rushing back to put their head on the ball, to help the defence at corners....If we are not good at something it will most likely mean we will avoid it, that doesn't mean, that's right or OK.....It just means that's what it is, and a weakness is identified, and an opportunity to improve.

I know what you mean, but I have reservations of pursuing what is tantamount to passive play.....I think last season Unai, played a style, that was determined by the personnel at his disposal, don't be surprised to see that tweaked next season, when he has the players to tweak it.....what he did, with what he had, was beyond any reasonable expectation....He defied logic, to some degree.

Whether its old fashioned tackling or aggressive pressing the out come is much the same.....its negating the team from progressing in to transition and thus restricting their opportunity to score.

if you take Chelsea as an example, they pressed us high, and stopped any notion of our good transition work....in short they stifled us out of our free flowing football....they shut us down.

Tackling still exists, but it is used more with some teams than others.....I guess, if you have very few players in your squad, with the Nous for it, other methods are more likely to be sought.

Aggressive, pressing has its ups and downsides, but applied properly, is as good as tackling......it diminishes the opportunity for teams to progress the ball. I see it in our games against us, regularly, particularly in the second half of the season, where injuries, inhibited our quality.

We can use any terminology we want....but stopping the opposition,( any way we choose) is a crucial part of the game.

Edited May 29 by TRO

[Anything11]

12 hours ago, TRO said:

I agree....but its like the analogy of " The poor mans blanket ".......pull it up to keep warm and your feet get cold.

Playing attacking football and deploying more than you should to do so, is short termism.....We have to have adequate resource to defend competently, without negating our attacking prowess.

It's a good watch, and food for thought, from John McKenzie

 

The blanket analogy still applies here though no?