|
Barca4Life
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
Stats are useful in the modern game like xG but often than not they are just indicators and it doesn't necessarily mean that team will get the result they want.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
It might be a good idea to draw a distinction between the KNVB's ethos/system and Australia's interpretation of, and attempt at, the KNVB's ethos and system.
Others (even in this forum) are more well-versed on Australia's implementation of the Dutch philosophy than I am. As such, I haven't got the authority to say the following...
But I don't think we should take it for granted that Australia has actually implemented the Dutch system well or successfully. I think footballers such as Daniel Arzani are outstanding and demonstrate what the Dutch would hope for. But is Arzani a good example or is he an outlier?
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
At the risk of complicating this further, I'm going to use an analogy from another sport for 100% Tiki-taka.
I think 100% Tiki-taka is a bit similar to compulsive serving-and-volleying in tennis. I think it's one of the most elegant ways in which to play the sport (Tiki-taka for football and serving-and-volley for tennis). There are two problems, however:
(1) It requires specific attributes or it can go horribly wrong.
In tennis, you need somebody with the talent of Rod Laver, John McEnroe, Pete Sampras, Stefan Edberg to succeed with a serve-and-volley game. They need to have outstanding judgement, and to be fast and able to cover a lot of the net with amazing hands and footwork. If they don't have those attributes, they find themselves caught horribly out of position so that their opponent can hit a fairly easy passing shot.
In football, you need wingbacks who are exceedingly fast, able to pass/cross beautifully and able to defend effectively against counter-attacks (potentially in 1 vs 2). You need central midfielders who don't turn over possession, who win the ball a lot and who can set things up very well. You also need attackers who don't easily cough up possession but still make successful angled forward passes a lot. Barcelona with Leo Messi and co, and Spain with (much the same minus Messi) were able to play in this way, very well. But, if your team doesn't have these attributes, you end up dispossessed and with wingbacks caught horribly out of position (such that the opponent has a good counter-attacking 2 vs 1 against a central defender). If your central midfield and attackers don't have the right skills, while you'll have lots of possession, you'll also have endless sideways passing which is easy to defend against.
(2) Full-blown Tiki-taka doesn't play the percentages, same with compulsive serving and volleying.
In depth analysis of tennis and football, respectively, has come a long way. 100% Tiki-taka and constant serve-and-volley tennis are among the most elegant ways to play the sport. But they bring with them huge risks.
In both sports, defenders have become far smarter. In tennis, the likes of Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray and Rafa Nadal have basically transformed the game by making barely any mistakes and pushing their opponents (from the relative safety of behind the baseline) until their opponent makes mistakes. It's a high percentage game. They know that they can return (defend) just about anything. They know that they can athletically cover the entire back of the court and they know that they can hit with just enough power. They know that their opponent will make mistakes. To serve-and-volley against that takes guts and, probably, more skill than ever before. That said, I really hope that tennis players start winning a lot more by serving-and-volleying more.
In football, if you can defend exceedingly well, you have patience and you have great speed and skill in attack, you can just wait for most (but not all) opponents to screw up. This was basically how France played. It's boring. I hope the balance shifts back a bit. But it's tactically smart.
So the answer (for most teams) is a hybrid of styles. Not entirely proactive nor entirely reactive. The Germans have done this very well. The top English Premier League sides have also adapted in this way. You need to have some flexibility and not be too ideologically attached to doing things a particular way. I don't enjoy super reactive football. I think it's best when you have an extremely well set-up defence (not the end of the world if they can't attack that well), your midfield are well-rounded, your wingers and striker have licence to attack, as well as the skill and the speed.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x
I agree that before Guus, Australian football was tactically lacking. I'll deal with that in a moment. In 2005 and 2006, we were tactically very solid. A friend of mine who has played semi-professional football in Sweden and even been part of an Allsvenskan squad (highest level) was watching a bit of the Uruguay match recently. He told that he was extremely impressed by the tactical awareness and movement.
I'd argue that when our guys had the ball, they actually moved the ball forwards quickly and exploited angles. This is a world apart from the slow sideways passing that was the hallmark of the NT in 2016 and 2017, never mind >70% ball possession.
I have a question for you. Might the overall tactical improvement in the Socceroos have something to do with the overall tactical improvement that has occurred throughout the footballing world?
It would be an interesting exercise for your Allsvenskan mate to look at more recent Socceroo games to draw comparisons. They've often played against stacked, compact defences, with little distance between and within the lines in half pressing game plans . He watched us vs France. He was very impressed with our defence.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x
I agree that before Guus, Australian football was tactically lacking. I'll deal with that in a moment. In 2005 and 2006, we were tactically very solid. A friend of mine who has played semi-professional football in Sweden and even been part of an Allsvenskan squad (highest level) was watching a bit of the Uruguay match recently. He told that he was extremely impressed by the tactical awareness and movement.
I'd argue that when our guys had the ball, they actually moved the ball forwards quickly and exploited angles. This is a world apart from the slow sideways passing that was the hallmark of the NT in 2016 and 2017, never mind >70% ball possession.
I have a question for you. Might the overall tactical improvement in the Socceroos have something to do with the overall tactical improvement that has occurred throughout the footballing world?
It would be an interesting exercise for your Allsvenskan mate to look at more recent Socceroo games to draw comparisons. They've often played against stacked, compact defences, with little distance between and within the lines in half pressing game plans . He watched us vs France. He was very impressed with our defence. Wonder he would have thought of the defense when we played under Postecoglou against, well pretty much anyone. All our Dutch NT coaches showed they were far superior to any local coach at organizing the players on the pitch. That, player selection and making in game adjustments and subs is what the NT manager is paid to do. Actually kicking the ball is the players job, and that's we we continually fall down.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was:  You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory).  Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xDoes anyone really believe that the Socceroos should play a possession game vs say a France or a Spain?
Which is why the end of Ange's tenure shit me so much. Look I'm going to to say something in Ange's defence here which is why this is complex. Ange's 'thing' - the thing that makes him special is that he is able to instal self belief into his teams. So if we strip back the idea that only teams with good players should play possession - what Ange is saying to his team is that 'you are as good as anyone'. So maybe what Ange is saying is that the ability to keep possession is as much about self confidence as it is about 'perceived' ability. I like coaches who say 'fark em' - we are just as good, ozzies are underrated......take the game on... I like coaches who get us in the WC before pretty much anyone else than ones who make us play two match play offs against Honduras.
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xDoes anyone really believe that the Socceroos should play a possession game vs say a France or a Spain?
Which is why the end of Ange's tenure shit me so much. Look I'm going to to say something in Ange's defence here which is why this is complex. Ange's 'thing' - the thing that makes him special is that he is able to instal self belief into his teams. So if we strip back the idea that only teams with good players should play possession - what Ange is saying to his team is that 'you are as good as anyone'. So maybe what Ange is saying is that the ability to keep possession is as much about self confidence as it is about 'perceived' ability. I like coaches who say 'fark em' - we are just as good, ozzies are underrated......take the game on... I like coaches who get us in the WC before pretty much anyone else than ones who make us play two match play offs against Honduras. any blame on the players?
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xDoes anyone really believe that the Socceroos should play a possession game vs say a France or a Spain?
Which is why the end of Ange's tenure shit me so much. Look I'm going to to say something in Ange's defence here which is why this is complex. Ange's 'thing' - the thing that makes him special is that he is able to instal self belief into his teams. So if we strip back the idea that only teams with good players should play possession - what Ange is saying to his team is that 'you are as good as anyone'. So maybe what Ange is saying is that the ability to keep possession is as much about self confidence as it is about 'perceived' ability. I like coaches who say 'fark em' - we are just as good, ozzies are underrated......take the game on... I like coaches who get us in the WC before pretty much anyone else than ones who make us play two match play offs against Honduras. any blame on the players? when I look at BvM was able to do in a few months with the same players that Postecoglou could not in 5 years, the answer is NO. When I look at what Verbeek was able to do at the WC - 4 points- playing half the WC with 10 men, red cards to Cahil and Kewell, the answer is still NO.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. I agree. However it's not just possession on its own. It's having more possession and with much of it being meaningful possession.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. I agree. However it's not just possession on its own. It's having more possession and with much of it being meaningful possession. Effective possession is what I believe Senor Pep at City calls it. He should know as he was the man behind tika taka Yes what Australia does is rack up possession in the back third. France let us do it and just sat back. And tried to get our players sent off by simulating. Really pathetic tbh-would not want any team I support adopting deschamps ball. Worst football from a WC winner that I've seen.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. I agree. However it's not just possession on its own. It's having more possession and with much of it being meaningful possession. Effective possession is what I believe Senor Pep at City calls it. He should know as he was the man behind tika taka And he's right. The problem is when people confuse merely having the ball (A.K.A. ineffective possession) with effective possession. I think too many in Australian football got a bit excited about us simply having the ball and started to confuse ineffective possession with effective possession. There's possession and there's effective possession. Just as there are watches and there are Rolex watches. Agreed with your point on the Dutch coaches who've been in charge of the NT. +x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. I agree. However it's not just possession on its own. It's having more possession and with much of it being meaningful possession. Yes what Australia does is rack up possession in the back third. France let us do it and just sat back. And tried to get our players sent off by simulating. Really pathetic tbh-would not want any team I support adopting deschamps ball. Worst football from a WC winner that I've seen. Precisely (on all counts). I also don't like the way the French played in the World Cup. It was very dull.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. Maybe reading isn’t your strong suite but in case you didn’t realise the team with the least possession took the trophy home. Goals win matches, other stats don’t mean anything Based on your luck theory, Messi and Renaldo are the luckiest guys in the world, nothing to do with skill
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. Maybe reading isn’t your strong suite but in case you didn’t realise the team with the least possession took the trophy home. Goals win matches, other stats don’t mean anything Based on your luck theory, Messi and Renaldo are the luckiest guys in the world, nothing to do with skill Right so the majority who won with more possession should just pack their bags and give up playing that way because on the day of the final the lower possession team won the trophy? The luck factor is across all games. Messi and Ronaldo, they are two players at the fringe or margin of the talent distribution curve which skews game outcomes in their teams favour. Its the results of all the other games that they're *not* involved in where luck can play a bigger role because the players in those games fall closer to they middle of the talent distribution curve
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
"But as a means for predicting the winner of a football game, possession is deeply unreliable. A far better metric in this regard is shots on goal, or “shot supremacy”: the ratio of shots on goal to shots conceded, which has been proven to have a strong correlation with points.More often, possession is the by-product of a good team, rather than the other way round. The higher the standard of the competition, the more likely you are to find players with the skill levels required
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. You are completely out of step with current UEFA evidenced based research, AJF. An exhaustive study conducted by UEFA showed that the teams who had more possession in the attacking third won 72% of the time. I learnt this from one of the FFA National Regional Conferences. You seem to think there is some sort of alternative evidence based research that shows teams with less possession win games. Source or is it more KNVB sauce (or should I say mayo) Using your contemporary KNVB coaching analysis skills, tell us what the final score was for this fairly significant match from Europe was: You are using a one game example to try and substantiate a spurious and indefensible position. The team with 61% Possession in this one game had 8 shots on target, compared to 3 for the team with 39% opposition. Most of the time, with a ratio of 3:1, the team with more shots on target will win. I'm using an exhaustive, evidence based UEFA research to substantiate a proposition. other than blowing your own over inflated opinion out your arse and pretending its research, you cannot provide one shred of evidence to back up your point can you? So supercoach, let me explain, that was the Champions league final from last year (Spurs vs Liverpool in case you forgot) and spurs dominated all the stats but lost and I used it deliberately as it is from an actual UEFA technical report (not the fairy-tale type you refer to) covering the Champions league which clearly states that possession doesn't determine results (ref below which is self explanatory). Similar story for the last WC, read the technical report for that and see what it says. Not sure what the trends were in 2008 when you did your KNVB community certificate but football has moved on and rather than preaching your robotic view, perhaps you should actually educate yourself about whats happening in contemporary football tactics. Your black box doesn't support your angry rant. Teams with more possession are still more likely to win. Add in the high probability that dumb arse luck plays in match outcomes some say as high as 40%-andI i'd still rather be coaching the team that wins the possession count than the one that doesn't. Maybe reading isn’t your strong suite but in case you didn’t realise the team with the least possession took the trophy home. Goals win matches, other stats don’t mean anything Based on your luck theory, Messi and Renaldo are the luckiest guys in the world, nothing to do with skill Right so the majority who won with more possession should just pack their bags and give up playing that way because on the day of the final the lower possession team won the trophy? The luck factor is across all games. Messi and Ronaldo, they are two players at the fringe or margin of the talent distribution curve which skews game outcomes in their teams favour. Its the results of all the other games that they're *not* involved in where luck can play a bigger role because the players in those games fall closer to they middle of the talent distribution curve Like I said, reading & comprehension mustn't be one of your strengths. During the knockouts Liverpool won 4 out of 5 (80%) of their matches with less possession and the 1 they lost to Barcelona they had more possession. So on the way to the trophy they won 5 out of 7 matches with less possession. Throughout the entire tournament (including group stage) Liverpool had an average of 50% possession so it shows again that possession alone doesn't win matches. To suggest that 40% of matches is determined by luck is pure fantasy and is just an excuse for teams and supporters to feel better when they loose. Why is hitting a crossbar unlucky whilst shanking it into the crowd isnt? In reality they are both bad shots and determined by the skill and/or decision making of the player. It's unlucky the ref gave a soft penalty - BS, bad skill from ref and poor defending from team which led to that situation, no luck at all. Same applies to pretty much any situation in a game and other than the coin toss, I cant think of any other scenarios were luck is involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
^^^ You don't have seem to have a grasp of statistics and probabilities. Focusing on outliers like Liverpool and Mess and Ronaldo doesn't prove the general rule over time. Its like getting 4 heads in a row with a weighted coin, and then taking fair coin and concluding every time I toss it it will come up heads as well.
Over time the team that has more of the ball is likely to win more games, and of course they have to shoot, farken'
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
And as for luck, I shoot, farken, the ball deflects off a defenders angle, just, and goes......................>in .......................> or out.
Luckily.
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+x^^^ You don't have seem to have a grasp of statistics and probabilities. Focusing on outliers like Liverpool and Mess and Ronaldo doesn't prove the general rule over time. Its like getting 4 heads in a row with a weighted coin, and then taking fair coin and concluding every time I toss it it will come up heads as well. Over time the team that has more of the ball is likely to win more games, and of course they have to shoot, farken' Enzo - do you accept that sometimes the teams that have the ball most of the time - do so not because of a plan - its just because they have better players?
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
Geez. Who’d have thought? From non, having read this forum, we’ll see coaches monitoring the stats during a game and if their teams possession is too high they’ll be instructing their team to give the ball back to the opposition... because you’ll never win anything if you have too much possession.
|
|
|
|
|
AJF
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.7K,
Visits: 2
|
+xGeez. Who’d have thought? From non, having read this forum, we’ll see coaches monitoring the stats during a game and if their teams possession is too high they’ll be instructing their team to give the ball back to the opposition... because you’ll never win anything if you have too much possession. That’s funny, what do you think happens when teams park the bus to protect a lead.
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+xGeez. Who’d have thought? From non, having read this forum, we’ll see coaches monitoring the stats during a game and if their teams possession is too high they’ll be instructing their team to give the ball back to the opposition... because you’ll never win anything if you have too much possession. What if you are controlling possession and losing 2-0... might be time to take some risks, look for riskier passes that split between lines, maybe it’s even time for the goalkeeper to kick the farken ball instead of rolling it sideways...
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x^^^ You don't have seem to have a grasp of statistics and probabilities. Focusing on outliers like Liverpool and Mess and Ronaldo doesn't prove the general rule over time. Its like getting 4 heads in a row with a weighted coin, and then taking fair coin and concluding every time I toss it it will come up heads as well. Over time the team that has more of the ball is likely to win more games, and of course they have to shoot, farken' Enzo - do you accept that sometimes the teams that have the ball most of the time - do so not because of a plan - its just because they have better players? Of course! That's why I specifically said a "weighted coin", not a fair one. The weighting comes from the better players. Possession alone is not going overcome a big difference in talent between teams. For a start, the better talented players will end up with more of the ball anyway and do more with it when they do. whoch is why the richest clubs buy the best players and the best coaches. If Messi and Ronaldo and the Champions League winner is used in the argument against playing a system, then you have introduced bias so far in favour of talent that it makes the comparison almost meaningless. Almost, as coaching and luck can and does play a role even in then. The game is complex, but I'd rather coach the team that has more of the ball than less of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGeez. Who’d have thought? From non, having read this forum, we’ll see coaches monitoring the stats during a game and if their teams possession is too high they’ll be instructing their team to give the ball back to the opposition... because you’ll never win anything if you have too much possession. That’s funny, what do you think happens when teams park the bus to protect a lead. They lose. Unless they're Italian.
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xGeez. Who’d have thought? From non, having read this forum, we’ll see coaches monitoring the stats during a game and if their teams possession is too high they’ll be instructing their team to give the ball back to the opposition... because you’ll never win anything if you have too much possession. That’s funny, what do you think happens when teams park the bus to protect a lead. They lose. Unless they're Italian. Or Chelsea (under José Mourinho) in 2014 😡
|
|
|
|
|
Zoltan
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 444,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x^^^ You don't have seem to have a grasp of statistics and probabilities. Focusing on outliers like Liverpool and Mess and Ronaldo doesn't prove the general rule over time. Its like getting 4 heads in a row with a weighted coin, and then taking fair coin and concluding every time I toss it it will come up heads as well. Over time the team that has more of the ball is likely to win more games, and of course they have to shoot, farken' Enzo - do you accept that sometimes the teams that have the ball most of the time - do so not because of a plan - its just because they have better players? Of course! That's why I specifically said a "weighted coin", not a fair one. The weighting comes from the better players. Possession alone is not going overcome a big difference in talent between teams. For a start, the better talented players will end up with more of the ball anyway and do more with it when they do. whoch is why the richest clubs buy the best players and the best coaches. If Messi and Ronaldo and the Champions League winner is used in the argument against playing a system, then you have introduced bias so far in favour of talent that it makes the comparison almost meaningless. Almost, as coaching and luck can and does play a role even in then. The game is complex, but I'd rather coach the team that has more of the ball than less of it. I get where you are coming from - I mean what kind of idiot would not relate to the idea that if you get more of the ball you are going to win... But you like to use phrases like 'big difference in talent' and then you throw in Messi and Ronaldo to prove a point. I would say that possession stats are obvious even with relatively small differences in team talent. So its not just first versus last. If you look at any ladder in the world and extrapolate the team possession I bet you that 5 verses say 8th there will be a difference in possession. It may only be 5-10 percent....so maybe its everywhere? Now you might argue that the reason a team is 5th and not 8th is because they play a masterful possession game compared to 8th who kick the long ball. I call bullshit. The teams that are higher in general have better players and as a consequence (not because off) they have more possession of the ball. Rather hear telling my 8th placed team to start playing more possession football as coach I might say stop making stupid decisions when you get the ball. Now if you mean that a team will deliberately play possession - then what you are talking about is going backwards and sideways a lot or playing triangles just to annoy the other team. If that is not the case then I would also argue that every team wants to keep the ball - I mean why give it away stupidly.. I just think as a stat its at best overrated (false premise) and at worse a dangerous tactic depending on the circumstances...
|
|
|
|
|
Bender Parma
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 428,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x[quote]Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men.
So you believe Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie value possession more than making it out of the group stage? No. Not at all. The aforementioned coaches wouldn’t like losing possession to the opposition from too many needless turnovers. Hence, missing the opportunity to control a game. Guus wouldn’t have been happy either. you really need to move past the possession obsession as it doesnt win games, goals do and in the process of trying to score goals you need to take risks which means you will inevitably loose possession. There is nothing wrong with the triangles, SSGs adn other methodology, but you need to remember the basics. The best coaches and players will learn from every situation. There is no one correct answer and what works in some games doesnt in others. This is why you need players who are aware of these basics, but who play the game as they see it on the field. Some times a great player will do something great just because they do. Even robots need to have the freedom to turn the game on the head when they need to, from time to time. MAIN MOMENTS
| BPO>BP (When you get the ball of opponent)
| BP(When you have the ball and are Attacking)
| BP>BPO(When you lose the ball)
| BPO
(When the opposition has the ball) | KEY PRINCIPLES
| Immediate transition into BP positions
(Get Into Forward positions quickly and attack) | Effective Possession
1. Structured Build- Up
(keep your shape and be patient with the ball) | Immediate transition into BPO positions
(Get your shape immediately) | Win the ball back as soon as possible
(No translation needed) |
| Quick forward passing
| Effective Possession
2. Controlled Possession In The Middle Third
(Make sure your central midfielders control the game) | Press the ball carrier immediately
(Shut down the ball straight away) | Deny opponents time and space to build up
(Shut down opponents) |
| Quick forward movement
| Combination Play
1. Organised Opponent
(if your opponent is organised, you must pass the ball around and combine with good running off the ball) | Limit opponent’s passing options
(mark up off the ball) | Limit opponents’ ability to create scoring chances
(Try not to let the other team score) |
| Make the field as big as possible
(Make sure the wingers give you plenty of width and try to play around the defence.) | Combination Play
2. Disorganised Opponent
(See above. Not sure why there is no stated different tactic here but i presume the distincition is made later in the curriculum. Maybe coaches need to practice against both defences?) | Make the field as small as possible
(not really sure what they are saying here. Presumably they are telling the defenders to resist dropping, ie play a high line. but i would need explanation of what is being said before commenting or translating) |
|
|
| Individual Skill
1. To create scoring chances
(practice individual and basic skills) |
|
|
|
| Individual Skill
2. To convert scoring chances
(practice Shooting) |
|
|
I have translated the above. Truth be told there is nothing much wrong with what is said above, but it means absolutely nothing, as i find it hard to believe that any professional player or long playing amateur player for that matter hasnt worked out the above. This above table is really just beaurocratic nonsense designed to make sure you dont forget to cover the above topics when teaching the courses. How you do that is well, how you coach so obviously that is the real part of the curriculum which needs to be evaluated. On what is above, i dont see any real problems at all, Though marking up and covering should really be a clear topic under BP. I also question whether or not the curriculum actually omits this on purpose as it seems to favour rushing in a little too much, on one interpretation. Still, i dont think anyone can say that it isnt on the right track. Maybe it is the delivery which is a problem, maybe, maybe it is with those taking the course treating it as gospel, rather than just a way of increasing existing knowledge and something which by its nature will change and produce different results according to different situations. Coaches themselves need to be flexible and adapt to things as they happen. It isnt exactly in teh above, but i presume the course will discuss other important topics later such as: How to prepare nutrition wise (when to drink water or energy drinks), How to follow coaches instructions, Training drills, When to cover, how to mark up properly, importance of shape, when to squeeze, Not to rush in, Importance of width, switching of play, Crossovers and 1-2s, Actual Drills, how to lift and inspire your own players, How to compete against a team with higher skill levels, Appropriate Drills to do, First touch, Importance of running at space, Drawing opponents, Keeping players onside, Players on the post at corners, Tricks that come with experience (eg always slightly shove marker left when running off the ball right), Making your own space, the list is endless. I presume by reading the curriculum all these types of thingsand plenty more will be covered. Are they?
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Good to see a lot of posters from the past, one could term 'students of the game' constructively participating in the same thread again, like Enzo Bearzot, Quickflick, Bender Parma, Dirk Vanadidas, Barca, Zoltan, etc.
AJF, you could be added to the aforementioned if you stopped opening most of your posts by playing the man not the ball if you disagree with an opinion proffered by others. You've definitely provided some useful content though.
|
|
|
|
|
Decentric 2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x
I agree that before Guus, Australian football was tactically lacking. I'll deal with that in a moment. In 2005 and 2006, we were tactically very solid. A friend of mine who has played semi-professional football in Sweden and even been part of an Allsvenskan squad (highest level) was watching a bit of the Uruguay match recently. He told that he was extremely impressed by the tactical awareness and movement.
I'd argue that when our guys had the ball, they actually moved the ball forwards quickly and exploited angles. This is a world apart from the slow sideways passing that was the hallmark of the NT in 2016 and 2017, never mind >70% ball possession.
I have a question for you. Might the overall tactical improvement in the Socceroos have something to do with the overall tactical improvement that has occurred throughout the footballing world?
Paragraphs 1 and 2, the Socceroos pushed the ball forward quite quickly, but turned the ball over all the time. It was pretty mediocre. The third paragraph is a good point though. When Australia was playing Croatia, when I've looked at old footage in WC 2006, they were also equally as bad as us. The number of turnovers from Croatia was shocking too. Both teams made heaps of mistakes. There is no doubt that the overall football standard of world football has improved. Moreover, many football nations are forever improving so that we see more even games at international level with improved structural organisation and ameliorated tactics. It would be an interesting exercise for your Allsvenskan mate to look at more recent Socceroo games to draw comparisons. They've often played against stacked, compact defences, with little distance between and within the lines in half pressing game plans . Passing triangles & possession dont win games and the Socceroos performance at last 2 WC's clearly shows current crop is no where near as good as GG, table below shows performance at last 4 WC's. | Year | Pos | Pld | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Qualification | | 2018 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | −3 | 1 | | | 2014 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9 | −6 | 0 | | | 2010 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | −3 | 4 |
| | 2006 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 4 | Rnd 16 loss to Italy | One has to look at the quality of the opposition too. The 2014 WC featured a relatively inexperienced Socceroo side against the group of death in the tournament - Spain, Holland, Chile. Australia could have conceivably won the first two games against Chile and Holland, but without sufficient rotation were outclassed in the final game by Spain, the other non-qualifier from the group. As I reiterate, points accrued are not always an accurate measure in a few games. 40% of games are attributable to chance. The English FA were impressed by the Socceroos two performances against Chile and Holland in 2014. In the last two World Cups, particularly 2018, we struggled to convert chances created in front of goal from the number of chances created. Bert pulled his hair out because of the lack of clinical finishing and mediocre attacking interplay in the penalty box, that negated the good work in the other two thirds of the pitch, and even in the attacking third with the number of balls played into the pen box. The weakness in the Socceroos was the Attacking Third in Ball Possession in 2014 and 2018. The GG team of 2006, were more clinical in front of goal, than the WCs of 2014 and 2018. Also, Holman and Cahill weren't too bad in 2010 in finishing. However, if one evaluates the other facets of play in the other two thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession and the three thirds of the pitch in Ball Possession Opposition, I doubt the 2006 Socceroos were significantly superior. Moreover, the 2006 Socceroos claimed they were lucky opposition teams weren't able to do their home work on the Socceroos, like the campaigns of 2010, 2014 and 2018 WCQs. The latter three featured a more clearly delineated football style for opposition teams to plan against. Regarding your facetious comment about triangles and possession, Guus's 2006 team still tried to play these patterns with diamonds and triangles. This was emphasised in some early FFA C Licence courses around 2007. Succeeding coaches Pim, Holger, Ange, Bert and Arnie, would have been very unhappy with the high number of turnovers against Japan, Brazil and Croatia in 2006. Against Italy, playing their classic perfectly formed cohesive half press in Ball Possession Opposition flat midfield 4-4-2 formation, featuring perfect 10 metre distancing between players, between and within, the lines, the Socceroos struggled to penetrate even against 10 men. The difference was the GG players had not played the triangles and diamonds on a consistent basis in their embryonic years in Australian development. There was no holistic national Aussie system trying to develop a national playing style based on world powerhouses. The football education of Aussie GG players varied depending on which clubs in which countries Australians plied their trade in. It also varied between coaches coaching in Australia, youth and senior, who coached in very different ways. There was a massive differential in quality. No disrespect Decentric I appreciate your opinions on football especially the analytical side but we can talk about the stats or systems of play all you like but, if you dont have the quality of players that can make an difference at the top level or not have enough of them you will struggle especially at the top end of world cup level. I see the same thing in the UEFA Champions League which is why so much money is spent on players and coaches. To develop great teams you need great players, you can do so much with cohesion and well coached players but it doesnt substitute for quality you need on the park. And that's sadly being missing for Socceroos for almost a decade maybe since 2006. Sorry it has taken a while to respond, Barca, but great players are important. I've been making the point that when one evaluates 5 football performance criteria out of 6 at the last World Cup 2018, we held our own. The one criterion out of 6 where we struggled, scoring goals, was a basket case and we definitely need to improve immeasurably. However, it doesn't detract from the success of the other 5 criteria.
|
|
|
|
|
clockwork orange
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xGeez. Who’d have thought? From non, having read this forum, we’ll see coaches monitoring the stats during a game and if their teams possession is too high they’ll be instructing their team to give the ball back to the opposition... because you’ll never win anything if you have too much possession. What if you are controlling possession and losing 2-0... might be time to take some risks, look for riskier passes that split between lines, maybe it’s even time for the goalkeeper to kick the farken ball instead of rolling it sideways... Lol, because you are way more likely to score if you don’t have the ball?
|
|
|
|