Is football really so complicated these days?

[Neil G]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty I think your point about movement is a very good one, although I'd not go as far as to say it hasn't improved under Rafa, just that is hasn't improved as much as we expected or as we could have asked for. At times it can really click though (there were bits of the Arsenal games when it was quick, sharp and classy) but maybe it doesn't often enough.

I said it hadn't improved much, rather than it hadn't improved full stop. I agree with what you've said there, as I said in my reply to Cotter. Of all the expectations I had of Rafa when he arrived, the highest was of a return to good pass and move football which had completely disappeared under Houllier. Maybe my disappointment on that score is leading me to downplay the progress that has been made.

[Hatred]

Originally Posted by Section_31 I It's also important to remember that the premiership is comprised of between 70-90% pure shite. Mediocre players who can't play tactically and managers who are mostly mouth and hard luck stories. Against sides like that it CAN be as simple as saying "look, you're fucking miles better than them, get out there, pull them wide and then get into the box." Seriously, if a Giggs or a Ronaldo are going hell for leather down the flanks and Scholes is running on, what're West Ham supposed to do about it? Put six men across the middle and deploy a sweeper system?

Newcastle have better attacking players than 16/15 of the sides in this league and a manager who uses the approach you're advocating and I guarantee they'll not be in the top 5 or 6 next season.

Infact a better example would be Barcelona. They're 3rd in their league and were put out of the CL by a United side who are inferrior and the same thing happened last year to them against us. Why are a team that have all their attacking prowess struggling? The middle and bottom of the Spanish league is even worse than this country.

As Stu summed up , gameplans are very important at this level.

[Rashid]

Originally Posted by Hatred Newcastle have better attacking players than 16/15 of the sides in this league and a manager who uses the approach you're advocating and I guarantee they'll not be in the top 5 or 6 next season. Infact a better example would be Barcelona. They're 3rd in their league and were put out of the CL by a United side who are inferrior and the same thing happened last year to them against us. Why are a team that have all their attacking prowess struggling? The middle and bottom of the Spanish league is even worse than this country. As Stu summed up , gameplans are very important at this level.

Football can be won with many different styles. Man United have won the last 2 league titles with good attacking play.... the current CL winners are the most attacking team in Italy. United might win the CL this season... and Barcelona won the CL in 2006 along with 2 La Liga titles... so I'd say the last 4 years have been just as much about attacking teams (if not more so) then defensive ones.

People say caution can help poorer teams to match the bigger ones through organisation and worth ethic, but Arsenal who have far a inferior player for player team (versus the big 3) seem to be able to compete playing a game that encourages tehm to keep the ball and have won an FA Cup and got to a CL final spending significantly less money than us.

So to say attacking teams are all struggling is a bit of a nonsense isn't it?

[PaulMcC]

The Mancs have been defensive in this years Champions League loads of times.

[Section_31]

Lets got one thing straight, at no point did I say tactical play was absent or an afterthought for the Mancs, but that they win the premiership based on a simple style of football, a simple style of football which has seen them come unstuck in the past when playing in Europe.

Fergusson and Maureen don't even have a reputation in their own profession as being tactical masteminds or of even being particularly arsed about coaching (Fergusson has always employed a number-2 for this and let them establish their own methods) and yet both have built sides which have won the premiership, what does that tell you?

When was the last time you watched the Mancs or Maureen's chavs and thought "That's fucking clever, I see what he's done there."?

Maureen's tactical subsitutions amounted to throwing a defender up front for the last twenty minutes, while Fergusson's usually involves taking two strikers off and putting two more on.

I remember when we got stuffed 3-1 by the mancs about 12-13 years ago and we got fucking BATTERED by them. Pallister scored two headed goals during a time when James was just starting to have his 'wobbly' spell.

Their second headed goal involved four manc players standing on the edge of the box ready to sprint and then all running into the box when the ball was swung in, James started shitting one and flapped at the ball, and then - goal.
That summed up the way Fergusson thinks to me, so simple it's fucking brilliant.

[cotter]

Originally Posted by Neil G When an Arsenal or Man United player has the ball in the opponents' half, he is far more likely than one of our players to have at least one team-mate within 20 yards of him at the most, running into space and ready to receive the ball. That's not down to the quality of players they have in their team, it's down to the way the team is set up to play. And if you think only teams with top players are capable of doing that, then I can point you in the direction of Everton, Wigan under Jewell, and Reading last season (haven't seen much of them this season). With all of these sides, you are / were more likely to see men moving around more purposefully off the ball, creating angles and pulling the opposition out of shape than you do when watching us. They don't have the quality to hurt teams as much when they get the ball in dangerous areas, but they give more options to the player in possession. If we played more like that then our quality could really hurt teams. This side of our game has improved in the latter half of the season with the new system which can be a bit more fluid in the attacking third than 4-4-2, as TK421 says, and it should get better still when we have Agger back. I think there is still a lot of room for improvement though.

we're certainly more direct than united and arsenal, but i think we're also very capable of playing it on the floor too. i don't see it as a problem at this stage and think it's very much part of the way many of the great liverpool sides played. it was only really kenny's side of the mid-80s that played consistently sumptuous football.

i think the attacking side of it is something that will continue to devlelop with quality of players and greater defensive confidence anyway. for all ferguson's attacking intent it wasn't until he added carrick, vidic, van der saar and evra that the current side that they really started to dominate games consistently. the same could be said about pallister, bruce and schmeicel in previous generations.

the team rafa had at valencia with aimar, vicente, barraja et al was all about short, quick passes.

i really don't believe any of the other sides you mention pass and move better than this liverpool side, although they may be more intense in their approach. the ability to slow a game down - which is something i think we're probably better than anyone else in the league at bar chelsea - has served us really well in europe and isn't something i'd want to see us abandon in the league. we just need to keep adding the right players.

[Stu Monty]

"...the current CL winners are the most attacking team in Italy".

Surely this has to be the feintest praise that anyone or anything has ever been damned with. Quite simply the funniest, and most rubbish, angle to help an argument ever!

[Stu Monty]

Originally Posted by Section_31 Lets got one thing straight, at no point did I say tactical play was absent or an afterthought for the Mancs, but that they win the premiership based on a simple style of football, a simple style of football which has seen them come unstuck in the past when playing in Europe. Fergusson and Maureen don't even have a reputation in their own profession as being tactical masteminds or of even being particularly arsed about coaching (Fergusson has always employed a number-2 for this and let them establish their own methods) and yet both have built sides which have won the premiership, what does that tell you? When was the last time you watched the Mancs or Maureen's chavs and thought "That's fucking clever, I see what he's done there."? Maureen's tactical subsitutions amounted to throwing a defender up front for the last twenty minutes, while Fergusson's usually involves taking two strikers off and putting two more on. I remember when we got stuffed 3-1 by the mancs about 12-13 years ago and we got fucking BATTERED by them. Pallister scored two headed goals during a time when James was just starting to have his 'wobbly' spell. Their second headed goal involved four manc players standing on the edge of the box ready to sprint and then all running into the box when the ball was swung in, James started shitting one and flapped at the ball, and then - goal. That summed up the way Fergusson thinks to me, so simple it's fucking brilliant.

I don't think it's simple at all mate. He had a goalscoring machine up front getting on the end of everything, in Van Nistelrooy, and completely overhauled the way they wanted to play to give them more fluidity and movement because he thought tactically it was to easy todefend against; hence moving to the situation where there is no real centre forward just lots of attacking players floating about all over the place. I looked at that and thought "That's fucking clever".

He come to anfield and sits playing a cagey game now, a very cagey game. It's horses for courses and it's not always if you score one we'll score two.

And Benitez used Mourinho's own concept of himself as a tactical manager by challenging him to do something special in our matches; Geremi playing at right back and that bizarre diamond midfield in the FA Cup was a direct result of Mourinho being a manager who liked to make tactical moves that impressed.

[Rashid]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty "...the current CL winners are the most attacking team in Italy". Surely this has to be the feintest praise that anyone or anything has ever been damned with. Quite simply the funniest, and most rubbish, angle to help an argument ever!

Milan have always been known not to play the "Italian Way".... in case you didn't notice... but then Milan, Barcelona and Man United - great successes in recent times, some domestically, some in Europe and some both don't further the pragmatic argument by much do they?

It would be stupid to think that Mourinho and Fergie don't "do tactics" of course they do and it would be madness not to at the highest level. But different managers have different tactics... e.g. Luis Van Gaal is the most gung-ho manager in world football but he is a world class tactician who has won lots of trophies often without spending much e.g. Ajax.

Tactics don't mean you are attacking or defensive, it means you have a "plan". That plan could be offensive or defensive... the difference is that some managers are cautious and some aren't, some choose to pass and move, some choose to get the ball forward as quickly as possible.

I'd say the braver you are, the more chance you have of winning the league with 3 points for a win.. where as in Europe, you can draw every game after the group stages and still win the European Cup - it lends itself to cagey football.

[Brownie]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty I don't think it's simple at all mate. He had a goalscoring machine up front getting on the end of everything, in Van Nistelrooy, and completely overhauled the way they wanted to play to give them more fluidity and movement because he thought tactically it was to easy todefend against; hence moving to the situation where there is no real centre forward just lots of attacking players floating about all over the place. I looked at that and thought "That's fucking clever". He come to anfield and sits playing a cagey game now, a very cagey game. It's horses for courses and it's not always if you score one we'll score two. And Benitez used Mourinho's own concept of himself as a tactical manager by challenging him to do something special in our matches; Geremi playing at right back and that bizarre diamond midfield in the FA Cup was a direct result of Mourinho being a manager who liked to make tactical moves that impressed.

There's nothing especially clever about how they play at Anfield though, really. They just sit back and soak up the pressure and then hit us on the break or score a set piece. I really don't see the tactically mastery of that at all because if I was a manager, i'd do exactly the same at Anfield.

Their back line just starts about twenty yards deeper than usual and they let us beat ourselves.

I agree with Section totally - the key in the Premiership is twatting the average sides by just going out with the belief that you're miles better than them. I'm not saying it's as simple as just turning up and winning, of course it isn't but I think a lot of it is down to motivation and confidence.

If my manager was telling me to watch the late runs that some average player makes in an upcoming game with relegation fodder it would affect me a bit, because why should I have to worry about him when i'm miles better than him?

[TK421]

There is always more than one way to do things, we have seen it with Mourinho's Chelsea and the Mancs who are generally more attacking. Rafa's Valencia were not an all out attacking machine but they overcame the likes of Real and Barca twice, teams who had spent more on players and who are known for blitzing inferior Spanish teams off the park. You could argue all day about which method is more effective.

It's easy to say "do what the Mancs do" because they've won so many titles.

[Stu Monty]

Originally Posted by Brownie There's nothing especially clever about how they play at Anfield though, really. They just sit back and soak up the pressure and then hit us on the break or score a set piece. I really don't see the tactically mastery of that at all because if I was a manager, i'd do exactly the same at Anfield. Their back line just starts about twenty yards deeper than usual and they let us beat ourselves. I agree with Section totally - the key in the Premiership is twatting the average sides by just going out with the belief that you're miles better than them. I'm not saying it's as simple as just turning up and winning, of course it isn't but I think a lot of it is down to motivation and confidence. If my manager was telling me to watch the late runs that some average player makes in an upcoming game with relegation fodder it would affect me a bit, because why should I have to worry about him when i'm miles better than him?

I'd agree with what you are saying about giving the players confidence and I agree that a lot of it is motivation too. What I'm also saying though, Brownie, is that the facts don't bear out what you're saying about beating the fodder. Utd have lost and drawn to a lot of the fodder but they've picked up significantly more points than us in the big games; without doing the figures I'd say that the amount of points more than us they got from the games featuring the big four is probably around the same as the gap between us. Beating the fodder sounds simple but nobody is really doing it much better than us.

All managers address tactical issues on the micro and macro level, from Ferguson changing the approach of his whole attack or sending his team out to defend in tough games down to Grant getting Drogba to man-mark Alonso whenever he could in our Champions league semi-final there's always work going on.

Like I said earlier, Ferguson mentioned on a few occasions that the average team coming up had dangers he would be taking into account and I think too much is made of Benitez's supposed tactical overloading. If you're playing Kevin Davies then selecting Sami Hyppia makes sense, the same applies to other areas of the team.

I'm not getting into an argument about AC Milan being relevant in this discussion; they aren't. They very often play cagey Italian football and will happily sit on a 1-0 as much as the next cattenacio merchants.

[Rashid]

Originally Posted by Stu Monty I'd agree with what you are saying about giving the players confidence and I agree that a lot of it is motivation too. What I'm also saying though, Brownie, is that the facts don't bear out what you're saying about beating the fodder. Utd have lost and drawn to a lot of the fodder but they've picked up significantly more points than us in the big games; without doing the figures I'd say that the amount of points more than us they got from the games featuring the big four is probably around the same as the gap between us. Beating the fodder sounds simple but nobody is really doing it much better than us. All managers address tactical issues on the micro and macro level, from Ferguson changing the approach of his whole attack or sending his team out to defend in tough games down to Grant getting Drogba to man-mark Alonso whenever he could in our Champions league semi-final there's always work going on. Like I said earlier, Ferguson mentioned on a few occasions that the average team coming up had dangers he would be taking into account and I think too much is made of Benitez's supposed tactical overloading. If you're playing Kevin Davies then selecting Sami Hyppia makes sense, the same applies to other areas of the team. I'm not getting into an argument about AC Milan being relevant in this discussion; they aren't. They very often play cagey Italian football and will happily sit on a 1-0 as much as the next cattenacio merchants.

But Stu, they were shit agaist the big teams last season and they won the league. Arsenal did the double over them, so did Chelsea I think. So that argument doesn't always hold.