Post by Keano on Oct 29, 2008 12:14:33 GMT
Talk about Hollands total football, Arsenal's easy on the eye football, United's wing play, Bolton's hit the tall guy with the ball and Liverpool's ... whatever they do these days. All those variations just to put the ball in the back of the net. What works best ? Whats necessary and whats a bonus ?
From Direct football, to possession football. Counter attacking is one that comes to mind as well. All tactics that are used to win football matches. Some won major championships, and some got teams relegated. Is it the tactics being used, or how they were used ? Its a simple game really. Out score your opponent, isnt it ? But to do that you need 6 days working on positioning and different tactics depending on the way a match is heading. Football is more complicated than ever, more tactical than ever. Is it more beautiful than ever too ? I think it is, and tactical training has alot to do with it.
Although Im a 'pass and move' fan, I do enjoy all kind of tactics whenever theyre used right. Milan's tactics for the 1-0 win against us at the San Siro a few years back were spot on, although very defensive. I dont recall us having a proper shot on target that night. As are most of the tactics Jose Mourinho used with Chelsea. I couldnt see them lose whenever they played. Thats a great skill, picking the right tactic with the right players.
Some sections, most of them actually, are critical of teams like Bolton and Stoke who are organised with men behind the ball and use a direct approach. The name of the game is to win matches, and seeing Stoke play this season Id have to say theyve given everyone they faced a game. So if its working for them, not points wise yet, why shouldnt they use it ?
Im against the saying 'Im using what I have' though. Thats a poor excuse to hide someones inability to use different tactics. Reading came up and outplayed many premiership teams with a simple 'pass and move'. Coppell used that tactic to maximum effect, finishing 8th. Big Sam used a highly effective direct brand of football that got Bolton into Europe. But both teams failed miserably after using the same tactic for a long time, so does that mean that the tactics were no longer useful enough for them or does it simply mean that they over used it and never had a plan B ?
Tactics go into further detail. You've got defensive tactics. Do you man mark ? Or do use zonal defence ? Attacking tactics. Interchnage if widemen. Using a forward playing in the 'hole'. A play maker. Lots and lots of detail for the basis of football basically. Lots of people are arguing on wether a team A should use a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 but the truth is theres much more to tactics than picking one of those. So lets say you've got a very talented, highly technical and versatile players at your disposal. In what formation would you use them ? How would you your side play when you've got the ball and when you dont ? What technical area be it passing , dribbling or crossing would you focus on ? It would be interesting to know how everyone views how football should be played.
From Direct football, to possession football. Counter attacking is one that comes to mind as well. All tactics that are used to win football matches. Some won major championships, and some got teams relegated. Is it the tactics being used, or how they were used ? Its a simple game really. Out score your opponent, isnt it ? But to do that you need 6 days working on positioning and different tactics depending on the way a match is heading. Football is more complicated than ever, more tactical than ever. Is it more beautiful than ever too ? I think it is, and tactical training has alot to do with it.
Although Im a 'pass and move' fan, I do enjoy all kind of tactics whenever theyre used right. Milan's tactics for the 1-0 win against us at the San Siro a few years back were spot on, although very defensive. I dont recall us having a proper shot on target that night. As are most of the tactics Jose Mourinho used with Chelsea. I couldnt see them lose whenever they played. Thats a great skill, picking the right tactic with the right players.
Some sections, most of them actually, are critical of teams like Bolton and Stoke who are organised with men behind the ball and use a direct approach. The name of the game is to win matches, and seeing Stoke play this season Id have to say theyve given everyone they faced a game. So if its working for them, not points wise yet, why shouldnt they use it ?
Im against the saying 'Im using what I have' though. Thats a poor excuse to hide someones inability to use different tactics. Reading came up and outplayed many premiership teams with a simple 'pass and move'. Coppell used that tactic to maximum effect, finishing 8th. Big Sam used a highly effective direct brand of football that got Bolton into Europe. But both teams failed miserably after using the same tactic for a long time, so does that mean that the tactics were no longer useful enough for them or does it simply mean that they over used it and never had a plan B ?
Tactics go into further detail. You've got defensive tactics. Do you man mark ? Or do use zonal defence ? Attacking tactics. Interchnage if widemen. Using a forward playing in the 'hole'. A play maker. Lots and lots of detail for the basis of football basically. Lots of people are arguing on wether a team A should use a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 but the truth is theres much more to tactics than picking one of those. So lets say you've got a very talented, highly technical and versatile players at your disposal. In what formation would you use them ? How would you your side play when you've got the ball and when you dont ? What technical area be it passing , dribbling or crossing would you focus on ? It would be interesting to know how everyone views how football should be played.