|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
After reading Arthur's comments in NT thread, just thought I'd bump this as it makes some interesting reading. 5years down the track, would love to hear from the "NC will fix it" fanatics on why we have actually gone backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" Decentric makes valid points. He also champions (the more literal) interpretations of the Dutch style. Frankly, if it were a choice between his understanding of the Dutch system and hoofball (or a host of other things), it would be a good thing to go with what Decentric says. You can listen to far worse. The problem, imo, is this that is not an adequate representation of the reality of the situation. And it, imo, it is also rather a selective interpretation of Dutch methods. I argue it's a false dichotomy. The reality (or best option) is to be found in nuances between the two. This is not at all dissimilar to the debate proactive vs reactive football. The fact of the matter is very rarely do top sides play entirely proactive or entirely reactive football. It's usually a hybrid with a leaning more in the direction of proactive or reactive football. Imo, it's incredibly restrictive and not in the NT's best interest if they're forced to play entirely one way or another. Australia needs to be flexible (at NT level, perhaps they can be more rigid at youth levels). +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football. . Eight nations have been defined as world powerhouses by the FFA Technical Department. It is based on three criteria. Portugal must be now meeting those criteria too. Croatia must be very close. Portugal play reactive football and just won the euros in doing so. And 8 seems a lot considering only 5 nations who have ever participated in 3 or more world cup finals. Point is very few countries have ever produced continued success and a couple of those countries produce their players by them gaining such technical brilliance by playing out on the street. I'm not going to revisit QF comments. Sometimes what appears to make sense to lay people doesn't in a specific discipline. This is the case with football. Often what QF posits makes very logical sense, but in football methodology it doesn't. I can only say this from having done the coach education courses. Otherwise, I'd hold the same views as QF. This is what I mean. Decentric (and not just Decentric) believe I don't understand the theory of certain formations. I, respectfully, disagree. I accept the theory of the 'football methodology' that Decentric and others speak of. And I accept that it probably is the best way of playing football when the right personnel are available. After all, that's how Barcelona and others tend to go about things. Where I disagree is how theory translates into practice. Imo, I'm reasonably strong at identifying discrepancies between theory and practice (in football and elsewhere). And I identified that, without the right personnel, this theory leads to massive weaknesses in practice. And that's, imo, where Ange went wrong. In a nutshell, trying to overwhelm the opposition with slow and/or technically weak footballers (which is overwhelmingly the case for the NT) and minimal defensive cover, results in not being able to break down the opposition and being horribly exposed on the counter. Maybe I'm trying to be excessively logical. Maybe the value of that to which Decentric refers cannot be understood through writing. But I think what they say makes perfect sense, but for it depends on having the cattle (to get results). Otherwise it needs to be modified. I reckon how the NT have fared of late demonstrates this.
|
|
|
|
|
localstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye. I've been around state league clubs and I've never heard any coach talk the way decentric does... they generally use much more down to earth language. D. lives in a fantasy world... Which state league clubs? Which coaches? How recently? As you've said to me before, put up or shut up. I'd surmise you are making this up. If you hear Ange, Phil Moss, Mark Rudan, Craig Foster or John Aloisi on TV, they all use the same specific football language. In coach education FFA staff coaches ( like the KNVB did) have been encouraging us to the same language to players so they get used to it. This football specific vernacular is used widely in this state. Even youth rep players now know about BP, BPO, Transitions (D &T), full, half, and partial pressing, plus squeezing, etc. Hurrah for your "active social life'! Of course those coaches you mention make an effort to talk in an articulate way when they are on TV. Have you ever heard NPL coaches during an actual match- their language will be a bit more basic. I've stood behind coaches' dugouts at matches and heard them. As for players, having a discussion about the latest "analytical milieu", when they are hanging out together, you have to be joking, or living in a fantasy world. I actually rarely read your posts all the way through, because they simply do not reflect football in the kind of way I want to relate to the game, and I think 90% of posters on here may be in the same boat. Have you ever thought of going on a more specific forum for wannabe coaches and tactical and stats nerds. This forum seems to be for people who want to chat about football in a more general and subjective sort of way. Most football fans know how to assess a player without producing 20 pages of stats and performance parameters.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xnick carle when he came back from the championship was one of the most industrious players in the league attempting more tackles than pretty much anyone else in the league and completing quite a few too (missed almost as many) he seemed to lose all his flair. I barely saw a trick from him when he came back I think the ecl destroyed him as a player. Its a shame he didn't go to a league that suited him Correct. Completely destroyed him. He went over as a star and came back as a bum. When he came back he was far more two footed and was better defensively. I agree it was a shocking place for him to play though given his attributes. He was one of my favourite players. Pim urged him and David Carney to leave the Championship. Pim said it was a high ball, second ball league and that he knew 30 players who were good enough for any other league would not get a game there.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football. . Eight nations have been defined as world powerhouses by the FFA Technical Department. It is based on three criteria. Portugal must be now meeting those criteria too. Croatia must be very close. Portugal play reactive football and just won the euros in doing so. And 8 seems a lot considering only 5 nations who have ever participated in 3 or more world cup finals. Point is very few countries have ever produced continued success and a couple of those countries produce their players by them gaining such technical brilliance by playing out on the street. I've seen quite a bit of the Portuguese league and they generally play Proactive football. Within reason given the style of football on show in these countries, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Germany, they find it easier to have success by dictating terms when they can. I have never ever had any luminary discuss Portuguese football in conferences or coach education , but their national team usually tries to dictate terms. One state TD suggested Portugal were a world powerhouse at a state conference, but Han Berger told him he was wrong! They didn't meet the three criteria a few years ago. I'm not going to revisit QF comments. Sometimes what appears to make sense to lay people doesn't in a specific discipline. This is the case with football. Often what QF posits makes very logical sense, but in football methodology it doesn't. I can only say this from having done the coach education courses. Otherwise, I'd hold the same views as QF. I don't really watch any Portuguese teams outside of european competitions so this may not be accurate but in Liga Nos only 7 teams average more than a goal a game and a couple of those are just above 1 goal a match. That doesn't sound very proactive, this accompanied with the top Portuguese managers like Mourinho, Silva, AVB aren't the most proactive managers out there either. However Jardim is playing some beatiful football with Monaco. When I was there Iast year I saw Benfica, Sporting, Braga and Porto, as well as a couple of teams lower down the league who played the better teams. They all appeared be Proactive most of the time, as have Sporting been in European comps, although they play more cautiously away. Another 442 poster, Football Lover, has Portuguese origins and is a FFA Advanced Coach and knows their football pretty well, so maybe he can enlighten us. I'm no expert on Portugal.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+xHe's blocked me now. I'd return the favour, but I find his parroting too amusing... I mean really who cares but the fact is he reads everything here. He said exactly that to localstar who was blocked by making the excuse that he read some good stuff localstar wrote while he wasn't logged in. He's not fooling anyone. If you want a real hoot head over to the feedback thread and read his epic whinge at the mods because his safe space wasn't being respected. Bonus points if you can spot where he tries to solicit a mod position.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football. . Eight nations have been defined as world powerhouses by the FFA Technical Department. It is based on three criteria. Portugal must be now meeting those criteria too. Croatia must be very close. Portugal play reactive football and just won the euros in doing so. And 8 seems a lot considering only 5 nations who have ever participated in 3 or more world cup finals. Point is very few countries have ever produced continued success and a couple of those countries produce their players by them gaining such technical brilliance by playing out on the street. I've seen quite a bit of the Portuguese league and they generally play Proactive football. Within reason given the style of football on show in these countries, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Germany, they find it easier to have success by dictating terms when they can. I have never ever had any luminary discuss Portuguese football in conferences or coach education , but their national team usually tries to dictate terms. One state TD suggested Portugal were a world powerhouse at a state conference, but Han Berger told him he was wrong! They didn't meet the three criteria a few years ago. I'm not going to revisit QF comments. Sometimes what appears to make sense to lay people doesn't in a specific discipline. This is the case with football. Often what QF posits makes very logical sense, but in football methodology it doesn't. I can only say this from having done the coach education courses. Otherwise, I'd hold the same views as QF. I don't really watch any Portuguese teams outside of european competitions so this may not be accurate but in Liga Nos only 7 teams average more than a goal a game and a couple of those are just above 1 goal a match. That doesn't sound very proactive, this accompanied with the top Portuguese managers like Mourinho, Silva, AVB aren't the most proactive managers out there either. However Jardim is playing some beatiful football with Monaco.
|
|
|
|
|
eldorado
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
He's blocked me now.
I'd return the favour, but I find his parroting too amusing...
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye. And, by the same token, decentric has refused to learn anything from what other people have posted, but continues on in his usual arrogant, discourteous style. He just cannot see how socially dysfunctional he comes across, and reaches for the mute button at the slightest hint of criticism to his "contemporaneous dialectical milieu" waffle. Mate, you need to get a life off forum. Why are you so morbidly interested in responding to so much of what I post? Do have some sort of man crush on me, Localstar? I'm concerned Eldorado does, and Judy Free and Manrubenmuz did, if the latter two still post here. My goodness... You sad little unit. :POur 'antithetical stance' has really rustled your millieu jimmies, hasn't it? It sure has. There's about 10 blokes posting in this thread. Besides Barca and one or 2 others the others in this thread have had a gutful of the resident football 'genius' as the last 10 pages has shown. Everyone else just steers well clear of any thread with Decentric in it due to the inane amount of waffle posted in it. Then he has the hide to whinge about the paucity of diverse opinions without a hint of introspection. Here's something that will blow your mind eldorado. This is a bloke that used to be (could still be) a school teacher. Can you believe it? Woe betide any poor child in his class copping an antithetical dialectical breakdown of the latest milieu. And he has a go at you and your teaching 'methodology'. Brilliant. Oh and despite 'not reading' any of my posts (hint: he does) he can't resist the petty potshots at me such is the small minded vindictive nature of the inner working of his KNVB addled brain..
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
The Fans
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xnick carle when he came back from the championship was one of the most industrious players in the league attempting more tackles than pretty much anyone else in the league and completing quite a few too (missed almost as many) he seemed to lose all his flair. I barely saw a trick from him when he came back I think the ecl destroyed him as a player. Its a shame he didn't go to a league that suited him Correct. Completely destroyed him. He went over as a star and came back as a bum.
|
|
|
|
|
The Fans
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+xWe lack any development from u15 downwards.. I believe there is an international u13 cup that many big clubs use to scout players can't remember the name but I remember seeing China, Morroco and some tiny African teams sending squads but nothing about Australia at all...it's crazy we don't have development in the most key time for a footballer hahahaaha. Having a national youth team for a particular age group is not development. Youth national teams are a joke. I would say most of them are a disgrace. We need to keep the pool as large as possible, not worry about which 15 players from some age are the best based on one (usually biased as fuck and not qualified) persons opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football. . Eight nations have been defined as world powerhouses by the FFA Technical Department. It is based on three criteria. Portugal must be now meeting those criteria too. Croatia must be very close. Portugal play reactive football and just won the euros in doing so. And 8 seems a lot considering only 5 nations who have ever participated in 3 or more world cup finals. Point is very few countries have ever produced continued success and a couple of those countries produce their players by them gaining such technical brilliance by playing out on the street. I've seen quite a bit of the Portuguese league and they generally play Proactive football. Within reason given the style of football on show in these countries, France, Spain, Holland, Belgium and Germany, they find it easier to have success by dictating terms when they can. I have never ever had any luminary discuss Portuguese football in conferences or coach education , but their national team usually tries to dictate terms. One state TD suggested Portugal were a world powerhouse at a state conference, but Han Berger told him he was wrong! They didn't meet the three criteria a few years ago. I'm not going to revisit QF comments. Sometimes what appears to make sense to lay people doesn't in a specific discipline. This is the case with football. Often what QF posits makes very logical sense, but in football methodology it doesn't. I can only say this from having done the coach education courses. Otherwise, I'd hold the same views as QF.
|
|
|
|
|
eldorado
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye. And, by the same token, decentric has refused to learn anything from what other people have posted, but continues on in his usual arrogant, discourteous style. He just cannot see how socially dysfunctional he comes across, and reaches for the mute button at the slightest hint of criticism to his "contemporaneous dialectical milieu" waffle. Mate, you need to get a life off forum. Why are you so morbidly interested in responding to so much of what I post? Do have some sort of man crush on me, Localstar? I'm concerned Eldorado does, and Judy Free and Manrubenmuz did, if the latter two still post here. My goodness... You sad little unit. :POur 'antithetical stance' has really rustled your millieu jimmies, hasn't it?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye. And, by the same token, decentric has refused to learn anything from what other people have posted, but continues on in his usual arrogant, discourteous style. He just cannot see how socially dysfunctional he comes across, and reaches for the mute button at the slightest hint of criticism to his "contemporaneous dialectical milieu" waffle. Mate, you need to get a life off forum. Why are you so morbidly interested in responding to so much of what I post? Do have some sort of man crush on me, Localstar? I'm concerned Eldorado does, and Judy Free and Manrubenmuz did, if the latter two still post here. The only reason I post here is for football, as I have a very active social life meeting people face to face most days/night of the week. Unfortunately, few are interested in football. Generally normal people don't like to be around cynics and negative people. If one sees recidivist, cynical posters on 442 doing what they do week in and week out, month in and month out, or year in and year out, with no interesting insights or views on football, or who generate no genuine football discussion, I'm either going to skip past their posts, or mute them. You are not currently in the muted trio, because I see you make positive comments from time to time. These three guys don't. I'd also surmise their cynicism equates to a lonely social off forum, devoid of much face to face social contact outside work.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football. . Eight nations have been defined as world powerhouses by the FFA Technical Department. It is based on three criteria. Portugal must be now meeting those criteria too. Croatia must be very close. Portugal play reactive football and just won the euros in doing so. And 8 seems a lot considering only 5 nations who have ever participated in 3 or more world cup finals. Point is very few countries have ever produced continued success and a couple of those countries produce their players by them gaining such technical brilliance by playing out on the street.
|
|
|
|
|
eldorado
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. Not that it's relevant to this thread, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I love dealing with open young minds, and have always been given feedback that the feeling of the students is mutual. Open, young minds, that is. There's the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye. I've been around state league clubs and I've never heard any coach talk the way decentric does... they generally use much more down to earth language. D. lives in a fantasy world... Which state league clubs? Which coaches? How recently? As you've said to me before, put up or shut up. I'd surmise you are making this up. If you hear Ange, Phil Moss, Mark Rudan, Craig Foster or John Aloisi on TV, they all use the same specific football language. In coach education FFA staff coaches ( like the KNVB did) have been encouraging us to the same language to players so they get used to it. This football specific vernacular is used widely in this state. Even youth rep players now know about BP, BPO, Transitions (D &T), full, half, and partial pressing, plus squeezing, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
localstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye. And, by the same token, decentric has refused to learn anything from what other people have posted, but continues on in his usual arrogant, discourteous style. He just cannot see how socially dysfunctional he comes across, and reaches for the mute button at the slightest hint of criticism to his "contemporaneous dialectical milieu" waffle. I've been around state league clubs and I've never heard any coach talk the way decentric does... they generally use much more down to earth language. D. lives in a fantasy world...
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football. . Eight nations have been defined as world powerhouses by the FFA Technical Department. It is based on three criteria. Portugal must be now meeting those criteria too. Croatia must be very close.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries. Which is when i mentioned that there are very few teams who actually have had continued success and they all play different styles of football.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xDecentrics views are the way of today as I'm sure most of us know. Tech as we know is a wonderful thing and not, has provided many avenues that once not known or thought of and more which has its good points that is most helpful analysing areas of improvement but imo this is taken OTT and sways coachs too much over a x factor player. One player may have most of the requirements that the stats are in favour BUT another player with less can out play that player by his own natural ability. This player most likely can change a game far better than the perfect "robot" so to speak as per todays line. This is what irritates me what Coaching is driving today. Coachs are either ignoring or muffling x factor players. Comparing players of the past ala Duke etc (especially as mentioned he was a lone holding striker countless NT games) is not fair and even more so pre GG - it was so different back then for sure the "stats" wouldn't be impressive BUT certain players back in that day to GG played in top/better leagues no matter what stats say , todays current crop are not in top leagues full stop ! Mooy and Rogic are the only 2 playing in leagues just below top - them the facts/stats........ Look at your Liverpool side of the late 90s & 00s, there were a lot more British players in the starting lineups and were starring in the team compared to today. Today the top 5 leagues has players from Africa, Asia, Sth America, Eastern Europe, much more then in the days of the GG. Hence the competition is far greater today for positions in the top leagues. One of the GG said players aren't hungry enough, well the current generation is fighting for spots with Africans, who are so hungry because their success can feel a whole village back in Africa, let alone himself or his family. I often wonder outside of Dukes & H, how many more of the GG would play in the top leagues if they were around today, maybe Bresc. Agree it's probably hard to break through these days as the scouting processes are far more advanced than it once was, aIso i think the players we are producing now werent as good individually as the GG though so its a combination of both. Football, thanks to Barcelona has changed from the GG days, so the bigger teams are looking for different types of players, look at the attacking defenders these days, would they still look at players like Moore & Neill? Both Spain & Barcelona realised that their players were better players skill wise then they English/Anglo counterparts, they maybe were not as fit, strong or work ethic was not there, once they got those things added, they starting winning more games. Yaya Toure was used as the defensive midfielder, the donkey the workhorse at Barcelona, look at most of these top holding midfielders now, all fit & highly skilled. Would Emerton, Cahill, Chipperfield, Lazaridis, Culina or Slater have enough skills these days to have played in a top league, they were top professionals, no doubt about that, but the world of football no longer looking those solid professionals anymore. If you had a side today & needed a CAM, would you want Rogic or Mooy ahead of Cahill at their peak, would Cahill despite his natural attributes cut it? Would any of the Aussies (GG) outside of Dukes, H & Bresc have the skills to compete in today's market, which are after the type of players Australia have rarely produced. Did you ever see Laziridis perform as wing back ? what a pearla of a left peg cross that lad had, killed it down that left flank way back before it became the norm of today. His opponents said Stan was deceptively fast with a very long stride.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xDecentrics views are the way of today as I'm sure most of us know. Tech as we know is a wonderful thing and not, has provided many avenues that once not known or thought of and more which has its good points that is most helpful analysing areas of improvement but imo this is taken OTT and sways coachs too much over a x factor player. One player may have most of the requirements that the stats are in favour BUT another player with less can out play that player by his own natural ability. This player most likely can change a game far better than the perfect "robot" so to speak as per todays line. This is what irritates me what Coaching is driving today. Coachs are either ignoring or muffling x factor players. Comparing players of the past ala Duke etc (especially as mentioned he was a lone holding striker countless NT games) is not fair and even more so pre GG - it was so different back then for sure the "stats" wouldn't be impressive BUT certain players back in that day to GG played in top/better leagues no matter what stats say , todays current crop are not in top leagues full stop ! Mooy and Rogic are the only 2 playing in leagues just below top - them the facts/stats........ Look at your Liverpool side of the late 90s & 00s, there were a lot more British players in the starting lineups and were starring in the team compared to today. Today the top 5 leagues has players from Africa, Asia, Sth America, Eastern Europe, much more then in the days of the GG. Hence the competition is far greater today for positions in the top leagues. One of the GG said players aren't hungry enough, well the current generation is fighting for spots with Africans, who are so hungry because their success can feel a whole village back in Africa, let alone himself or his family. I often wonder outside of Dukes & H, how many more of the GG would play in the top leagues if they were around today, maybe Bresc. Agree it's probably hard to break through these days as the scouting processes are far more advanced than it once was, aIso i think the players we are producing now werent as good individually as the GG though so its a combination of both. Football, thanks to Barcelona has changed from the GG days, so the bigger teams are looking for different types of players, look at the attacking defenders these days, would they still look at players like Moore & Neill? Both Spain & Barcelona realised that their players were better players skill wise then they English/Anglo counterparts, they maybe were not as fit, strong or work ethic was not there, once they got those things added, they starting winning more games. Yaya Toure was used as the defensive midfielder, the donkey the workhorse at Barcelona, look at most of these top holding midfielders now, all fit & highly skilled. Would Emerton, Cahill, Chipperfield, Lazaridis, Culina or Slater have enough skills these days to have played in a top league, they were top professionals, no doubt about that, but the world of football no longer looking those solid professionals anymore. If you had a side today & needed a CAM, would you want Rogic or Mooy ahead of Cahill at their peak, would Cahill despite his natural attributes cut it? Would any of the Aussies (GG) outside of Dukes, H & Bresc have the skills to compete in today's market, which are after the type of players Australia have rarely produced. You have got to be kidding that Cahill is a good CAM ? imo he's been in limbo for yonks, he'll play anywhere a gaffa asks him for he puts in, auxiliary player. His specialty has been his timing to leap hence the countless toffee goals at set pieces etc.....not a dribbler thats for sure. A provider ? well yes and no, Culina would rip him with that. I think attrition/retirements worked his way for our Roos for who was gonna score. He's been there at the right time and good luck to him. Did you ever see Laziridis perform as wing back ? what a pearla of a left peg cross that lad had, killed it down that left flank way back before it became the norm of today. I was talking about Cahill v Mooy or Rogic at their best!!!! As for Laziridis, yes I did, very quick, very limited skills (like most Aussies outside of 4-5 around that time), hence why Hiddink didn't use him in Germany. Along with Dukes (possibly over Cahill) and Kewell, Lazaridis is the only other Socceroo from observing the Iran /Socceroo 1997 WC decider in Melbourne who I'd play on merit in the current Socceroos. Seriously, our defence is damn comical as is our front 3 which can't score any goals to save their lives. The only spot where the current gen can match our GG is the midfield.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads. Wrong. I've waxed lyrical about how good Italy are at playing Reactive counter attacking football. No other international team has achieved world powerhouse status by doing this apart from them. I've also spent a lot of time in football conferences and coach education discussing this, led by football luminaries.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xDecentrics views are the way of today as I'm sure most of us know. Tech as we know is a wonderful thing and not, has provided many avenues that once not known or thought of and more which has its good points that is most helpful analysing areas of improvement but imo this is taken OTT and sways coachs too much over a x factor player. One player may have most of the requirements that the stats are in favour BUT another player with less can out play that player by his own natural ability. This player most likely can change a game far better than the perfect "robot" so to speak as per todays line. This is what irritates me what Coaching is driving today. Coachs are either ignoring or muffling x factor players. Comparing players of the past ala Duke etc (especially as mentioned he was a lone holding striker countless NT games) is not fair and even more so pre GG - it was so different back then for sure the "stats" wouldn't be impressive BUT certain players back in that day to GG played in top/better leagues no matter what stats say , todays current crop are not in top leagues full stop ! Mooy and Rogic are the only 2 playing in leagues just below top - them the facts/stats........ Look at your Liverpool side of the late 90s & 00s, there were a lot more British players in the starting lineups and were starring in the team compared to today. Today the top 5 leagues has players from Africa, Asia, Sth America, Eastern Europe, much more then in the days of the GG. Hence the competition is far greater today for positions in the top leagues. One of the GG said players aren't hungry enough, well the current generation is fighting for spots with Africans, who are so hungry because their success can feel a whole village back in Africa, let alone himself or his family. I often wonder outside of Dukes & H, how many more of the GG would play in the top leagues if they were around today, maybe Bresc. Agree it's probably hard to break through these days as the scouting processes are far more advanced than it once was, aIso i think the players we are producing now werent as good individually as the GG though so its a combination of both. Football, thanks to Barcelona has changed from the GG days, so the bigger teams are looking for different types of players, look at the attacking defenders these days, would they still look at players like Moore & Neill? Both Spain & Barcelona realised that their players were better players skill wise then they English/Anglo counterparts, they maybe were not as fit, strong or work ethic was not there, once they got those things added, they starting winning more games. Yaya Toure was used as the defensive midfielder, the donkey the workhorse at Barcelona, look at most of these top holding midfielders now, all fit & highly skilled. Would Emerton, Cahill, Chipperfield, Lazaridis, Culina or Slater have enough skills these days to have played in a top league, they were top professionals, no doubt about that, but the world of football no longer looking those solid professionals anymore. If you had a side today & needed a CAM, would you want Rogic or Mooy ahead of Cahill at their peak, would Cahill despite his natural attributes cut it? Would any of the Aussies (GG) outside of Dukes, H & Bresc have the skills to compete in today's market, which are after the type of players Australia have rarely produced. You have got to be kidding that Cahill is a good CAM ? imo he's been in limbo for yonks, he'll play anywhere a gaffa asks him for he puts in, auxiliary player. His specialty has been his timing to leap hence the countless toffee goals at set pieces etc.....not a dribbler thats for sure. A provider ? well yes and no, Culina would rip him with that. I think attrition/retirements worked his way for our Roos for who was gonna score. He's been there at the right time and good luck to him. Did you ever see Laziridis perform as wing back ? what a pearla of a left peg cross that lad had, killed it down that left flank way back before it became the norm of today. I was talking about Cahill v Mooy or Rogic at their best!!!! As for Laziridis, yes I did, very quick, very limited skills (like most Aussies outside of 4-5 around that time), hence why Hiddink didn't use him in Germany. Along with Dukes (possibly over Cahill) and Kewell, Lazaridis is the only other Socceroo from observing the Iran /Socceroo 1997 WC decider in Melbourne who I'd play on merit in the current Socceroos.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric
|
|
Group: Awaiting Activation
Posts: 22K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" It is modern football terminology whether in Australia, Holland, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Germany or France. The football vernacular is the same. You've really absorbed nothing from what I've posted. The methodology is not limited, but derived by many of the top global football thinkers - Cruyff, Lobanovski, Maslov, Micels and Platini, etc. On another state based football website/blog, where they are a lot of stakeholders involved in playing and coaching NPL football and other levels, this football terminology is common. The same language is prevalent if you bother to observe coaching at your local NPL clubs. rGiven you always post such negative, cynical comments, feel fee to start your own threads about any football topic. People like you always sit back and criticise others. Ditto Localstar. Over 10 years seeing you guys post, you've never ever started a thread about anything, but you prefer to sit back taking pot shots at those who do. As a teacher you must be the most unpopular teacher in the schools you work in, given your chronic, cynical negativity. What nick name do the kids have for you? I'd also surmise parents want their kids removed from your classes on a regular basis. I think I'm going to mute you to join two others, as you never have anything positive to say about anything. Bye.
|
|
|
|
|
localstar
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!" Exactly.. it's nothing to do with "dumbing the game down". It's about coming onto a football discussion forum and having the courtesy to converse with people in a socially acceptable manner- and not talk down to people and lecture them.
|
|
|
|
|
City Sam
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. It isn't his breaking down of the game which is an issue, it is the fact he thinks there is only one way to do anything successfully and then reads the national curriculum like the gospel. Quickflick mentioned it well when Decentric was banging on about being proactive, that there are many phases to the game and teams fluctuate how they play depending on the different scenarios, Decentric however has such rose tinted glasses on that he doesn't see the other aspects. So much so that he thinks the 2014 world cup was better than our 06 team because the system is perfect lads.
|
|
|
|
|
robbos
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.6K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xDecentrics views are the way of today as I'm sure most of us know. Tech as we know is a wonderful thing and not, has provided many avenues that once not known or thought of and more which has its good points that is most helpful analysing areas of improvement but imo this is taken OTT and sways coachs too much over a x factor player. One player may have most of the requirements that the stats are in favour BUT another player with less can out play that player by his own natural ability. This player most likely can change a game far better than the perfect "robot" so to speak as per todays line. This is what irritates me what Coaching is driving today. Coachs are either ignoring or muffling x factor players. Comparing players of the past ala Duke etc (especially as mentioned he was a lone holding striker countless NT games) is not fair and even more so pre GG - it was so different back then for sure the "stats" wouldn't be impressive BUT certain players back in that day to GG played in top/better leagues no matter what stats say , todays current crop are not in top leagues full stop ! Mooy and Rogic are the only 2 playing in leagues just below top - them the facts/stats........ Look at your Liverpool side of the late 90s & 00s, there were a lot more British players in the starting lineups and were starring in the team compared to today. Today the top 5 leagues has players from Africa, Asia, Sth America, Eastern Europe, much more then in the days of the GG. Hence the competition is far greater today for positions in the top leagues. One of the GG said players aren't hungry enough, well the current generation is fighting for spots with Africans, who are so hungry because their success can feel a whole village back in Africa, let alone himself or his family. I often wonder outside of Dukes & H, how many more of the GG would play in the top leagues if they were around today, maybe Bresc. Agree it's probably hard to break through these days as the scouting processes are far more advanced than it once was, aIso i think the players we are producing now werent as good individually as the GG though so its a combination of both. Football, thanks to Barcelona has changed from the GG days, so the bigger teams are looking for different types of players, look at the attacking defenders these days, would they still look at players like Moore & Neill? Both Spain & Barcelona realised that their players were better players skill wise then they English/Anglo counterparts, they maybe were not as fit, strong or work ethic was not there, once they got those things added, they starting winning more games. Yaya Toure was used as the defensive midfielder, the donkey the workhorse at Barcelona, look at most of these top holding midfielders now, all fit & highly skilled. Would Emerton, Cahill, Chipperfield, Lazaridis, Culina or Slater have enough skills these days to have played in a top league, they were top professionals, no doubt about that, but the world of football no longer looking those solid professionals anymore. If you had a side today & needed a CAM, would you want Rogic or Mooy ahead of Cahill at their peak, would Cahill despite his natural attributes cut it? Would any of the Aussies (GG) outside of Dukes, H & Bresc have the skills to compete in today's market, which are after the type of players Australia have rarely produced. You have got to be kidding that Cahill is a good CAM ? imo he's been in limbo for yonks, he'll play anywhere a gaffa asks him for he puts in, auxiliary player. His specialty has been his timing to leap hence the countless toffee goals at set pieces etc.....not a dribbler thats for sure. A provider ? well yes and no, Culina would rip him with that. I think attrition/retirements worked his way for our Roos for who was gonna score. He's been there at the right time and good luck to him. Did you ever see Laziridis perform as wing back ? what a pearla of a left peg cross that lad had, killed it down that left flank way back before it became the norm of today. I was talking about Cahill v Mooy or Rogic at their best!!!! As for Laziridis, yes I did, very quick, very limited skills (like most Aussies outside of 4-5 around that time), hence why Hiddink didn't use him in Germany.
|
|
|
|
|
eldorado
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xThis notion of proactive vs reactive football is so bloody misleading. The old ontological truism applies here (as with almost all things in life); there aren't absolutes. Most successful systems are neither wholly proactive nor wholly reactive. Italian sides do not play wholly reactive football and the German NT don't play wholly proactive football. It's far more nuanced than that. They play in a hybrid system that will tend to may be more proactive or more reactive. They're way too smarter than to risk all out attack or all out defence and the predictability that brings. The terrific thing about football is the subtle things. Sadly, it's lost to many. It isn't. Once national teams play, there are clear patterns of play from the national teams of Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina, Holland, Belgium, Germany, France, Portugal and Spain. Essentially, all aim to be Proactive. None set up to play the Reactive football that Italy did at the last Euros. If you knew the methodologies of the aforementioned football powerhouses, you wouldn't be suggesting that they play hybrid systems, because none of them do. Their success has been predicated on fundamental premises that determine their national style of football they espouse in Coverciano, Clairefontaine, the KNVB, etc. None of these countries' football federation technical departments espouse an amalgam of Reactive and Proactive playing styles. In the Italian league (Serie A) this year, Napoli and Inter Milan have played much more proactive football under foreign coaches. The lower ranked teams they play have adopted the classic counter attacking style when they play Naploi and Inter. They are quite comfortable being starved of the ball and can still maintain team shape. Most teams in the Proactive countries lose shape if starved of the ball for sustained periods. For Italy in the Euros, who were coached by Conti, they played the archetypal Italian counter attacking football. The previous Italian coach tried to pay a more proactive system and they struggled. They haven't had the football education in this style all the other powerhouses have. In Coverciano they do all more work on defensive structures, in their weighting of Ball Possession versus Ball Possession Opposition. They work much harder on tracking runners, all players learning to defend (including attackers and midfielders), and work harder on defensive communication between and within the lines. They work very hard on team shape without the ball. All Italian players are very well schooled in defence and are comfortable defending when the other team has the ball for sustained periods .They are so good at this they force mistakes that nobody else can do as effectively. They are very comfortable in games applying partial and half presses. The Proactive teams attempt to play full and three quarter presses and as much as they can deploy intensive squeezing. When they build up they are happy to build up slowly through the midfield. Although teams like Portugal, and when Atletico and Real play Barca, rely on more accelerated attacks with quick killer passes through midfield after Attacking Transitions. The lower quality teams in France and Spain tend to modify their tactics, but still rely on build ups through midfield even if at a more accelerated rate when they get the ball. The lower ranked teams don't opt to sit deep in partial presses and build up really fast on counter attacks as a preferred option. Any chance they get, they try to play Poractive football. This occurs in Portugal too from what I've seen of their league. Did you even watch the euros? Portugal are the worst side to have won them since Greece in 2004. They only got through their group thanks to the new format. They finished third without a win. Let me repeat that for you - 3rd... without a win. Only some individual brilliance from Ronaldo dragged them through. In the round of 16 they played "reactive" football, as you like to call it. Their first shot on target came in the 117th minute and happened to be the winner. Again, their first shot on target came in the 117th minute. They were poor against Poland in the quarters as well and needed penalties to get through. They did not win a game in 90 minutes until the semi finals. Then needed ET again against France. There was very little 'proactivity' in their play and, even if there was any, they werent very good at it. You bring up Inter Milan and mention that they played more proactive football under a foreign coach. They had a foreign coach (KNVB master De Boer) and sacked him after a couple of months in charge due to poor results. The rest of the season they had Italian coaches and ended up finishing 7th and not qualifying for Europe. Napoli do not have a foreign coach either. I dont think you know what you're talking about. Yes I did and happened to see number of Portugal's games. They were not at their best and were lucky to to win the title. However, they played Proactive football at every opportunity they had. Even if they weren't very good at it by their own standards. Since you want to use the term Proactive football, what is your understanding of the term? In terms of citing various coaches as being unsuccessful for being sacked, 99% of pro football coaches are sacked from jobs at some stage in their careers. This includes Mourinho. My point about De Boer wasn't that he got sacked. It was simply that Inter did not have a foreigner in charge. Neither did Napoli. You tried to claim that both Inter and Napoli do not play like traditional Italian sides because they have foreign managers. Ignored Ignored because he cant copy & paste his usual crap. Every person who taken an antithetical stance to mine, has completely ignored every single aspect of contemporary football performance criteria that evaluate a player's strengths and weaknesses. You've been told some GG players are good, or have felt players are better than they were, but ignored the fact they have salient weaknesses. There is absolutely no cutting and pasting. I evaluate players I've coached, or opposition players, in exactly the same way. Decentric, for the umpteenth time- the vast majority of people are not interested in "contemporary football performance criteria"- why don't you talk to us on a level most people can relate to- ie like a normal person- and not like an aloof automation. Your antithetical naysaying of contemporary football orthodoxy is sadly all too prevalent within the current philosophical zeitgeist of the Australian football millieu... This is exactly what is wrong with Australian football, he a guy who is breaking down the game differently and you guys are having a go at him, hes entitled to his opinion like it or not thats it... If you guys want to dumb the game down to everyone then go ahead, because Australian football is behind big time from the rest of the world espeically in Europe. Nothing to do with dumbing the game down...just strongly disputing his stats driven analysis of football. What I'm really having a go at is his bullshit language, like a cross between a KPMG consultant and a post-modernist literature critic, and his fanatical devotion to a limited methodology that, frankly, has not succeeded in any way if one looks at results or quality of football. "Copy the Dutch!" has been a mindless mantra for a whole lot of Daleks...although, to be fair, it's now "Copy the Germans!"
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xDecentrics views are the way of today as I'm sure most of us know. Tech as we know is a wonderful thing and not, has provided many avenues that once not known or thought of and more which has its good points that is most helpful analysing areas of improvement but imo this is taken OTT and sways coachs too much over a x factor player. One player may have most of the requirements that the stats are in favour BUT another player with less can out play that player by his own natural ability. This player most likely can change a game far better than the perfect "robot" so to speak as per todays line. This is what irritates me what Coaching is driving today. Coachs are either ignoring or muffling x factor players. Comparing players of the past ala Duke etc (especially as mentioned he was a lone holding striker countless NT games) is not fair and even more so pre GG - it was so different back then for sure the "stats" wouldn't be impressive BUT certain players back in that day to GG played in top/better leagues no matter what stats say , todays current crop are not in top leagues full stop ! Mooy and Rogic are the only 2 playing in leagues just below top - them the facts/stats........ Look at your Liverpool side of the late 90s & 00s, there were a lot more British players in the starting lineups and were starring in the team compared to today. Today the top 5 leagues has players from Africa, Asia, Sth America, Eastern Europe, much more then in the days of the GG. Hence the competition is far greater today for positions in the top leagues. One of the GG said players aren't hungry enough, well the current generation is fighting for spots with Africans, who are so hungry because their success can feel a whole village back in Africa, let alone himself or his family. I often wonder outside of Dukes & H, how many more of the GG would play in the top leagues if they were around today, maybe Bresc. Agree it's probably hard to break through these days as the scouting processes are far more advanced than it once was, aIso i think the players we are producing now werent as good individually as the GG though so its a combination of both. Football, thanks to Barcelona has changed from the GG days, so the bigger teams are looking for different types of players, look at the attacking defenders these days, would they still look at players like Moore & Neill? Both Spain & Barcelona realised that their players were better players skill wise then they English/Anglo counterparts, they maybe were not as fit, strong or work ethic was not there, once they got those things added, they starting winning more games. Yaya Toure was used as the defensive midfielder, the donkey the workhorse at Barcelona, look at most of these top holding midfielders now, all fit & highly skilled. Would Emerton, Cahill, Chipperfield, Lazaridis, Culina or Slater have enough skills these days to have played in a top league, they were top professionals, no doubt about that, but the world of football no longer looking those solid professionals anymore. If you had a side today & needed a CAM, would you want Rogic or Mooy ahead of Cahill at their peak, would Cahill despite his natural attributes cut it? Would any of the Aussies (GG) outside of Dukes, H & Bresc have the skills to compete in today's market, which are after the type of players Australia have rarely produced. You have got to be kidding that Cahill is a good CAM ? imo he's been in limbo for yonks, he'll play anywhere a gaffa asks him for he puts in, auxiliary player. His specialty has been his timing to leap hence the countless toffee goals at set pieces etc.....not a dribbler thats for sure. A provider ? well yes and no, Culina would rip him with that. I think attrition/retirements worked his way for our Roos for who was gonna score. He's been there at the right time and good luck to him. Did you ever see Laziridis perform as wing back ? what a pearla of a left peg cross that lad had, killed it down that left flank way back before it became the norm of today.
Love Football
|
|
|
|