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.
|
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.
|