Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Parma Ham's gone mouldy

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 6

Recommended Posts

We have had time to digest and assess Alex Neil''s preferred method of playing, the repeated patterns of play, shape and go to options. So what have we learnt and how and why does it differ from what he inherited?

Firstly, Alex Neil has immediately demonstrated that he likes to dominate the centre of the field and overload the space there through much of the game.

The deep-lying midfield anchor position - long-cried out for - is thankfully a favourite and Tettey had filled the role well. He is a water carrier and interceptor, more than a passing register, but this is fine. The adoption of the role and the deployment often as a de-facto centre back is tactically key. This allows both full backs to play higher and engage wide players with confidence.

It also better suits the kind of midfielder we have and where our strength in numbers lie, namely tidy, compact, passing midfielders, suited to central areas and capable of a bit of everything (Howson, O''Neil, Dorrans, Johnson, VOo).

In ensuring that we always have a deep pivot and at least two further, strong central-minded midfielders, we allow Hoolahan to play in his correct, rather specific role. This is notionally as a number 10 on paper, but more accurately is a free-roaming front midfielder with licence to drift and a favourable defensive brief that allows and trusts him to make up a hunting three to press the ball, joining up with whichever pair is nearest.

His role is key - as his style of play demands

- as it both overloads the opposition and allies us to play in tighter areas. This reduces the likelihood of central counters against us and increases our chances of winning the ball higher up the field for turnovers.

Nevertheless this role must have an auxiliary role to counterweight it. It requires a rangy, mobile, non-stop striker who is both capable of attacking three quarter spaces and driving runs behind defences, clearly creating the pocket for Hoolahan to work in, whilst also endeavouring to occupy upwards of three opposition defenders. It is a role that only Grabban truly performs to the brief.

If both are in tandem a further issue is raised, namely that goals must augment this framework from midfield. That Johnson has scored plenty of goals is notably due to the tactical shape created and the tendency of Hoolahan to come short, drift into pockets in front of and between centre back and full back and behind the opposition midfield line. He does not tend to shoot from there (or anywhere often), so overlapping and third man runs are clear options for at least two of Johnson, Howson and Dorrans. That Johnson has scored more is in part attributable to the rather 2D penchant of Alex Neil to encourage diagonal balls to his head, where he typically overmans his marker. On good days, this sees Johnson ever higher up the field and tuned in to a secondary run and return pass after he has won the ball, or created a good second ball situation.

On weaker days (yesterday), players (vis Whittaker yesterday) tend to over use this pass, play it from too far away, play it when it''s telegraphed to the opposition, or use it as a rather thoughtless go-

to ball, when other options are available but require a fraction more thought.

The solidification and definition of Martin at Centre Back is both welcome and beneficial. Martin''s style of play is highly complimentary to Bassong and he brings an authority, calmness, passing ability and fluidity to the role. In earlier pieces we discussed his ability to go into three quarter defensive positions, both towards midfield and into the full back areas, and this - coupled with the key deep-lying midfield pivot - allows the full backs licence, space and structure to play high from. Bassong typically claiming high balls and Martin typically dropping a fraction to cover is textbook.

The Grabban, Hoolahan, Tettey and Martin roles, all identified and suggested in earlier Masterclasses also fulfil the dual function of creating a defensive spine and framework that mitigates against the kind of turnover goals we conceded so frequently when on top in the earlier part of the season.

The sporadic and judiciously selected appearances of Redmond - whilst a good player - show clearly that Alex Neil fully understands that success is a product of both what you can achieve plus what you can stop others achieving. If this equation stacks up even a fraction in your favour, you will win more than you lose. If you add to the maths that you have better players, then success is in your grasp.

Where Alex Neil has ingredients he would no doubt like to add to the already successful mix, it is - as ever - in slightly better players in the key positions, with slightly added weapons to tilt the odds further in our favour.

We can see that he has identified these areas in his comments to Wes to shoot more, praising Howson for his runs into the box, encouraging Dorrans'' shooting skills, more aggression from Jerome, more accurate passing from Tettey, more concentration from Bassong, better crossing from Olsson and Whittaker.

Alex Neil clearly has a firm and solid grip of tactics, plus a psychologists eye for praising players when they address their weaknesses. It would be interesting to see his tactical approach in the Premier League.

When under pressure, he has a faint tendency to rush and become a little 2D, with unnecessarily direct football at times. This is certainly due to the league we are in, though against better defensive sides (vis Boro) it''s not likely to be enough.

In short, a hugely positive tactical shift in Norwich''s pattern of play, with cute motivational and psychological skills on show too. Can he stay now cool - and keep the players cool - when the heat is really on?

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Having followed your previous masterclasses and recognising the shortcomings we showed under Adams,  I was pleased to see that AN was going to be in favour of that defensive midfield pivot and that Tettey was the man for the job.  A simple premise in a way, but simple is good as it makes the other roles in the team more easily definable. Not relying purely on wide play has seen an improvement too, with everyone seemingly more comfortable as a result.    The midfield in front of Tettey looks strong with Dorrans, Johnson and Howson (except yesterday) and with Wes on form, we always look a threat.

So what went wromng yesterday Parma? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm LDC, I''m sort of tempted to say nothing. It''s what I would call a good, understandable defeat in a tactical sense.

Truthfully, Alex Neil got a little out-manoeuvred in places, but by a very shrewd manager for whom the cards fell perfectly, somewhat by design and somewhat by circumstance.

Boro''s Blitzkreig opening was as effective as it was surprising. We had no set up to do the same and Bamford''s shaped running and movement was very good. Adomah also plays high and the decision - pre-match - for Tettey to pick up Vossen, looked far better on paper than it did on grass.

Remarkably as a consequence we managed to find ourselves over-manned in midfield and defence.

The early goal was fully deserved and it gave Boro the platform for shrewd, professional approach based on minimum risk and laced with gamesmanship. Throw a weak referee into the bargain and a centre back with something to prove and the stars aligned for Boro.

So what could Alex Neil have done?

Well initially nothing. Aiming for calm heads and a few minutes to calm the nerves and find the rhythms of the game was a perfectly reasonable thought. I didn''t expect the Boro onslaught either. Credit the opposition.

Going a goal down in big games, premiership games is mostly a killer. There were elements to the game that we could have affected better though, and decisions Alex Neil could have made to improve our chances.

While he didn''t have his best game, in the period from 15 mins before half time to 15 mins after, nobody wanted to tackle Wes Hoolahan near the box. Yes the Boro defence was massed, but my view was that we were trying too hard to score from crosses, which the Boro defence was particularly well drilled tactically to deal with. They looked much less comfortable when confronted with dribblers. Hoolahan particularly and even Olsson had repeated joy with this.

So firstly large instruction could have been sent out to play for free kicks. Scoring goals does not have to come from great play, nor does it have to come from all out attacking play.

I don''t like our midfield or defensive shape when Redmond plays wide, but so do like him running from deeper central positions. I don''t expect him to score, or even necessarily create great chances from here, but - ideally with a defensive screen tracking behind him - him running centrally at the pockets of space between the Boro midfield and defence would have yielded free kicks and second balls.

Secondly, there was a persistence with pre-game instructions that had been Sussed out or weren''t effective enough. The repeated diagonals from Whittaker to Johnson became increasingly ragged, predictable and ineffective. Repeated long balls to Jerome were also low percentage, as - despite being a good player - he is not a target man or even especially good in the air (in the Championship mould).

Simply throwing on three strikers may please the stands and give the impression of attacking, though we neither went long ball direct, nor dropped into pockets, nor ran the channels (which Boro didn''t expose anyway). Hoolahan needed to stay in the field, in much the same way as Karanka gambled (correctly) on an obviously-injured Bamford. The gamble was to leave him on on one leg, for the single chance he wanted/calculated would fall to him. That he pulled him off straight after missing it rather emphasised the point.

Hoolahan needed to stay in for the same reason. The one moment of dribbling skill around the box.

Boro massed the two banks of four and dealt well with the aerial bombardment, corners and channel runs. The space was therefore elsewhere. Norwich needed mass from deeper, and cover for dribblers to gamble to go past players in tighter areas. An argument could have been made for Hooper to have hovered around the dribblers looking for second balls and scraps. A Christmas Tree 4321 with Wes and Redmond as free runners, plus Hooper sniffing looked worthwhile, particularly as the deep defensive four from Boro would have either had no one to mark or would have had to have stepped higher. It would be nice to have one of the midfield three as a good distance striker of the ball, though we don''t have one that makes that kind of space.

Alex Neil is a passionate, driven man who goes all out to win. I like this very much as a fan and at this level it can be very successful. Fiery tempers and fast triggers can be wonderful, dynamic assets, though I do detect desperation on occasions in the heat of battle, where tactical clarity would perhaps be a better tool. Certainly last night the kitchen sink was of the chunky clumsy, 1980''s Armitage Shanks variety, rather than the precision-cut Italian marble version that is my preference.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would agree that we did little wrong against boro other than go behind and struggle to break them down.

My only nagging doubt was with the subs. It was clear that boro were going to increasingly retreat and space in the last third would be restricted. As such a pace load player like grabban was unlikely to have much impact, while a quick ball player/ mover would be needed.

The withdrawl of Dorrans and Wes hampered that creative element and I would have brought hooper on to link up with wes, as he effectively does and then Redmond.

As it was only the fast feet trickery of redmond that had a creative impact as the game petered out into into long ball desperation.

Not a criticism of an astute manager, just the wrong first change in the circs from my uneducated eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="lake district canary"]Having followed your previous masterclasses and recognising the shortcomings we showed under Adams,  I was pleased to see that AN was going to be in favour of that defensive midfield pivot and that Tettey was the man for the job.  A simple premise in a way, but simple is good as it makes the other roles in the team more easily definable. Not relying purely on wide play has seen an improvement too, with everyone seemingly more comfortable as a result.    The midfield in front of Tettey looks strong with Dorrans, Johnson and Howson (except yesterday) and with Wes on form, we always look a threat.

So what went wromng yesterday Parma? 

[/quote]Personally I felt our "problem" came from our right side of our defence not being comfortable when put under pressure. If I was scouting Norwich for an opponent I would tell them to start any game closing down our back four quickly in the first 20 minutes as Whittaker and Martin (as a right back) can prove to be hesitant and prone to error when put under pressure (as opposed to Bassong who has the issue of enjoying the challenge of outskilling two opposition forwards even when he''s the last man, again offering the opponent potential chances). We have a tendency to try and play the ball out from the back. It works well when the opposition respects us and drops off but we''ll often try and play that style when they are pressurising our final third giving the opponent a chance to catch us out.Going forward I notice teams will often leave Whittaker in space on the right when looking to heavily mark Hoolahan out of the game. He doesn''t really have the natural skill or speed on the ball to get beyond the oppositions full back like Olsson can. Often resulting in the aforementioned Whittaker to Johnson cross field punt.Unfortunately Redmond''s introduction to exploit that space often seems to coincide with Wes''s exit and the door being slammed shut.

(Sorry I know you weren''t asking my view, I''m just overly opinionated)Interesting read though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whittaker is a more skillful player than Olsson but he''s not as quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you''ve touched on something fundamental there Holty.

As we''ve discussed previously, we should as fans try to see the weakness in our strengths and vice versa. This is not easy as human psychology - strongly reinforced by sound and emotion at the ground - is to overvalue memories that burn deepest. These may not be representative of the whole (or pattern of play) and very often result in favourite players and scapegoats.

That this phenomenon tends to favour attacking players - or romantic, satisfying roles such as flying tricky wingers - can be observed.

In your case you have rightly identified the weakness of Whittaker at right back as opposition managers have. This is not to deride him personally (though truthfully it is a position I would look at), but rather the potential to exploit our set up as detailed above.

The deep-lying midfield pivot is a key role and certainly to be preserved and revered (more). The Alex Neil methodology - and Whittaker''s natural tendency - is to advance and try to overlap or become an auxiliary midfielder offering regular passing options in offensive areas. This sounds great - and it is when you are on top.

Early in the Boro game however, Bamford''s bending runs drove into his vacated space repeatedly and caused the discomfort which ultimately lead to the opening goal. That Olsson was occupied by Adomah and the misguided (but deliberate) detailing of Vossen by Tettey, left Bassong exposed centrally and Martin forced into wider areas to track. It was a good, brave opening gambit by Boro, but Whittaker did not adjust mentally or tactically to what was happening.

It can be noted that the combination of Whittaker and Redmond leaves an entire right side and all three quarter positions in between exposed, an area where - if you review footage of many of our counter goals conceded when in top in games previously - were conceded from.

You must be aware of your weaknesses as well as your strengths. Even good players - better than their match up opponents on paper - can be horribly exposed if their opposite number picks apart and focuses on their weakness and/or has the specific skills required naturally in their armoury. It can be observers that this is something of a microcosm of the Boro game.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still can''t work out what was going on for the first 20 minutes on Friday. We just didn''t seem to have any composure, winning all the headers but always giving the ball away. It was as if we were desperate to score from the kick off without any assessment of how the opposition were set up or how they were going to threaten us. It''s all very well playing your own game & ignoring the opposition, but ''boro are extremely shrewd operators, as we soon discovered.

I have to say I was expecting us to play possession football & slowly crank the pressure up, scoring late on - hopefully twice. It was all a bit desperate & tactically naive when some patience was required.

We need someone to take the burden off Wes. Opponents routinely put 2 (or 3) players on him, which should provide room for another creative player to work in. It isn''t happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, think it''s time you got your spotter''s badge pinned to your sleeve for identifying Tettey as the best choice for the deep-lying pivot role.

I seem to remember feeling that Johnson was the natural choice, though his goal scoring exploits and Tettey''s improved possession discipline has shown you to be right.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Praise indeed! Ai thank yoo.

Have to say I thought Alex wasn''t at his best on Friday, o g was more bad luck than anything, but he looked a bit knackered, & his is a high energy game.

Do you think we need someone else in midfield - Dorrans perhaps - to take more creative responsibility? It could really unleash Wes I feel, as a lot of teams know that marking him out of the game reduces our attacking options dramatically.

I would also say that I outed Johnno as an attacking MF a while ago. When I thought about it I realised that his strength & fondness for a tackle disguised his main attributes - getting into good attacking positions, attempting goal assist type passes, powerful & determined shooting & heading when the chance arose - an eye for goal, in other words. I''m now wondering if we could turn him into a decent CF!

Excellent OP as ever Parma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]Praise indeed! Ai thank yoo.

Have to say I thought Alex wasn''t at his best on Friday, o g was more bad luck than anything, but he looked a bit knackered, & his is a high energy game.

Do you think we need someone else in midfield - Dorrans perhaps - to take more creative responsibility? It could really unleash Wes I feel, as a lot of teams know that marking him out of the game reduces our attacking options dramatically.

I would also say that I outed Johnno as an attacking MF a while ago. When I thought about it I realised that his strength & fondness for a tackle disguised his main attributes - getting into good attacking positions, attempting goal assist type passes, powerful & determined shooting & heading when the chance arose - an eye for goal, in other words. I''m now wondering if we could turn him into a decent CF!

Excellent OP as ever Parma.[/quote]Johnson''s overall style of play comes across as quite similar to that of Snodgrass''s at times, the wide left attacking centre mid (or whatever you might call it) position suits his skill set the best. Snoddy liked a tackle as well as being good at getting forward, good in the air and able to put a cross in like Johnno. Imagine how good we could have been last season if we''d had a more competent attacking manager who''d played this system with Johnson and Snodgrass in the left and right centre mid roles and had spent that £8.6m on a target man instead of a poacher. Personally I thought Tettey had a good game overall on Friday (header withstanding clearly). Number of times I found myself applauding excellent defensive work in cutting out the Boro attacks. Strange as you''re not the first person to comment on him looking knackered and having a poor game. Must have not been paying enough attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tettey not at his best is still a damn good player. But I thought he didn''t hit the heights I saw him attain last season; some games he looked like the only thing stopping us getting slaughtered, making the right DM area a complete no-go for the opposition. That''s when I first really questioned BJ''s suitability as a DM, we looked far more susceptible on his side - his attempts at passing were often too ambitious & he was prone to losing the ball by trying to be too clever. He suffers from over-confidence, whereas Alex is much more worried about making errors. Bradley''s attitude is far better suited to an attacking role.

Hopefully AN will be learning all the time, both about his players & what it takes to best tactically astute opposition managers. I think he''s a pretty shrewd cookie himself, so have every confidence!

OTBC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting stuff, but I think the reason we lost to M''Boro was as much due to Olsson, Dorrans and Whittaker having poorish games, at least for me.

The standard of the balls into the box was generally poor, particularly from the flanks and our corners created little danger.

The subs seemed strange. With M''Boro seemingly content to defend I''d have pushed Martin out wide right. Whits to the left, and gone to a back 3. Swap out Dorrans for Hooper and Olsson for Redmond, get some movement down the flanks and try to get behind a nit more, the space was there but neither Olson nor Whittaker were using it very well. Hoolahan should have definitely stayed on, very odd decision that one.

Shows we need a big central Grant Holt type player though for these sorts of games, someone who can dominate a CB and a team parking their bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good thread and an interesting read, FWIW (which isn''t much) I thought we surrendered the game when we took Wes off, I actually thought we looked more balanced and threatening with the addition of grab an, but the introduction of Redmond added nothing to our game at that stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I love reading these posts! They often reflect my own views in a more fleshed out and detailed way. I understand free time is hard to come by but it would be cool if you posted these more often!

Anyway, I''ve noticed for a while now we''ve been extremely vulnerable to simple straight balls over the top, I know defenders don''t like to be turned and have to run towards their own goal but it''s a tactic that never seems to work for us but we always seem to be caught out by it. I remember Hughton''s first game against Fulham where we were completely done every time by a simple looping pass over our defence for someone to run onto and ever since then we''ve struggled to deal with a very basic way of attacking, why do you think that is?

Martin and Bassong aren''t slow and have proven themselves at the top level before, as have many of our other defenders but no matter who we play we always seem susceptible to being caught this way. Is it some tactical flaw or just us being so focused on not getting played through we get caught when the opposition dows something basic like a lobbed ball over the top?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lots of interesting thoughts in the OP and the posts. Fully agree with the OP that crosses and long balls were not particularly efficient against that Boro defence, and dribbling into the box would have been a more useful weapon. The lack of them and Hoolahan''s bringing off perhaps had something to do with his picking up a yellow for diving relatively early on. As dribbling inside the box usually has an element of seeking for a penalty, that yellow could have made Wes and other players (over)cautious of trying that - and perhaps prompting AN to bring Wes off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason that we can be exposed by 2D direct balls is linked to the reason that we find it hard to break down massed defences, plus the prevalence of counter goals we have suffered when on top earlier in the season.

When you are superior you have a tendency, obligation, emotional penchance to oppress and attack the opposition. You need a very cold, Italian head to be better and yet apply it in a careful, selective way. This is high level football, thinking and strategy.

By attacking the opposition and trying to score, you tend to force them backwards, they play 10 yards behind where they might start, they begin to shut down spaces, play nearer to each other, allow spaces ''the long way round'', but mass ranks in the key central areas of the pitch, play close to their own penalty box and not allow any space in behind for through balls, crosses and physical movement.

We have discussed previously how Hughton was regimented, precise and repetitive in his methodology, which was excellent for defensive structure or destructive play, but did not allow for the constructive chaos, the coming out of shape typically needed to score goals. Many a control-minded coach finds this part of the game hard.

The coming out of shape to score goals means that your defensive balance and positioning is compromised. Good counter-punching defensive sides have learned to wait for these moments to launch their attacks from. It is distinct from counterattacking, which is typically more you-attack-we-attack, rather it is we-want-you-to-attack-and-are-set-up-to-encourage-it.

As the inferior/defending side sits deeper and masses their ranks, the tendency is for the attacking side to shut the space and oppress. Defenders will play a high line, offering out ball circulation options to keep momentum and endeavour to assist in switching the play. This is good for attacking possession, though it is of course the opposite of what our counter-punching opponent is doing. We know we are leaving that space. It is our calculation that our game benefits more than it risks.

I ought to add the caveat that in Italy, regardless how superior you are, not conceded is the default setting. Our territorial, up-and-at-em attacking brings thrills and spills, entertainment and far too many errors, spaces and defensive risks for a typical Italian manager.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well thanks be that we don''t have an Italian manager then!

Flippancy aside Parma, thank you for your wonderful analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, one of the best threads on here for a long time.

For the tactically illiterate (me) it is a helpful insight into what I miss when watching football. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First and foremost, a fantastically interesting read from Parma – many thanks for the insight.I''m particularly preoccupied with the ''weakness as strengths, and strengths as weaknesses'' aspect of the thread; I noticed very early with Neil how, pivotal the anchor role was in his tactical setup – allowing more mobile centre backs to cover wide and allow the full-backs further forward.Now this strategy has become an integral part of our overall gameplan, it leads me to wonder whether it is ''a tactic for all seasons'', or whether Neil will consider other alternatives when circumstances demand. It wasn''t rocket science for Karanka to work out there would be space in the channels when Whittaker and Olsson pushed forward, and also that (as Parma correctly pointed out) we are vulnerable to turnovers in the defensive third through ''overplaying''.Overlapping full-backs and tricky wingers are more effective when there are ball-winning centre forwards (ideally more than one, for example in a traditional attacking 4-4-2 formation). However, with a deep defence and midfield to break down, this seemed like an increasingly impractical solution as the game wore on (allied with the aforementioned Whittaker-to-Johnson diagonal). Personally, I feel that the best formation to break them down (not at the start of the match, I''m not a clairvoyant!) would have been a 4-2-3-1, with Tettey and Dorrans sitting in the two (Tettey to do what he does, and Dorrans to initiate more accurate balls-to-feet into the final third). Then I would have utilised Hoolahan, Hooper and Redmond – the three most versatile and agile attackers, all with great one-touch ability to link play – to support Jerome, and given them freedom to drift around, not placing too much emphasis on width (except to mix things up and add to the unpredictability of marking them). The attacking setup was too linear and increased in desperation rather than ingenuity as the game progress, which played directly into Boro''s hands. Running directly at them down the centre was underutilised – we kept playing backwards and around, and the full-backs never looked like delivering a telling ball.As the game progresses, of course you can utilise the additional impact of the full-backs, but encouraging them to aim for the byline and pull balls back along the ground rather than trying to whip in the ''perfect ball'' onto the head of the perennially shackled Jerome. And, if all else fails, you get Grabban on and go 4-4-2 direct, with Redmond and Johnson providing the ammunition alongside overlapping full-backs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="woostercanary"]Yes, one of the best threads on here for a long time.

For the tactically illiterate (me) it is a helpful insight into what I miss when watching football. Thank you.[/quote]And thank you from me too Parma  [B] . One question: what happened to Masterclass 5? Searching only brings up 1--4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent as always Parma and some really intersting contributions from others too.

 

As for Hughton''s more rigid defensive style, it would have been ineteresting to see if that changed if he managed one of the best squads in the division. I suspect not.

 

And the other point is Tettey''s safety net of "taking one for the team". This style of play makes yellow cards an inevitability. Many people don''t like this and view it as cheating. But for footballers in the Alex Tettey and Gareth Barry role it''s part of the game plan. It can be dangerous though. Especially in the Premier where better players can take advantage of opposition on a yellow card.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]

Excellent as always Parma and some really intersting contributions from others too.

 

As for Hughton''s more rigid defensive style, it would have been ineteresting to see if that changed if he managed one of the best squads in the division. I suspect not.

 

And the other point is Tettey''s safety net of "taking one for the team". This style of play makes yellow cards an inevitability. Many people don''t like this and view it as cheating. But for footballers in the Alex Tettey and Gareth Barry role it''s part of the game plan. It can be dangerous though. Especially in the Premier where better players can take advantage of opposition on a yellow card.

 

 

[/quote]Absolutely. Fascinating stuff all round. And a far cry from the innocent days of my youth when an old chap who stood near me in the South Stand had only one (seemingly very sound) piece of tactical advice, which was:"Keep going forward, Norwich. Keep gong forward."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="nutty nigel"]As for Hughton''s more rigid defensive style, it would have been ineteresting to see if that changed if he managed one of the best squads in the division. I suspect not.  [/quote]Judging from Parma''s comments, the Hughton approach might be appreciated in Italy, but falls short in the type of football we like in this country.  However, your point about Hughton not changing his style is right imo - he wouldn''t change it - but if he had the best players in the division, he wouldn''t have to, because they would be good enough to do the job intended.   It is almost exactly the same approach of Mourinho too.  Chelsea put up with it because they are successful - the problems come when you aren''t successful............ 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re Hughton, Brighton have largely the same squad that has kept them closer to the top of the table than the bottom for the past few years and have only been struggling since Hyypia took over, they still have a capable squad of players in this league and this is how Hughton is managing them:

http://www.northstandchat.com/showthread.php?321431-This-run-is-worse-than-any-under-Hyypia

Hughton has one approach and I don''t think even he fully understands how to deploy it. It wouldn''t have worked this year because we don''t have the raw pace and running ability to counter effectively and no one in the team has a good consistent final ball in their arsenal so most of our counters from deep would result in nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One element that I think gets lost in translation / the emotion / what is focused on is the coaching phrase "focusing on the performance"

It is a divider, an inevitable barrier between coaches and fans.

Some games, periods and approaches lend themselves better to Tactical analysis because the patterns are clearer, the cause and effect more readily identifiable, and thus easier to transmit to a passionate, partisan audience.

What hopefully comes across is the imperfection of any tactic, coupled with a desire not to pick a perfect solution post hoc. Retrospective wisdom is easy, picking patterns, trends and hopefully improvements proctor hoc is much cleverer, more honest and more valuable.

What we are endeavouring to identify and achieve is to overload the scales tactically in our favour. If we can achieve 60% odds in our favour we will be wrong a massive 4 times out of 10. Repeat the event enough times however and you are a winner, a billionaire at the casino and on the field, a Mourinho.

The trick, the skill, the vision, the perspective comes when you correctly pick select the 1-5 options on the die, only to roll an unlucky 6. The stands will be full of hindsight ire and post hoc tactical solutions, but your methodology and approach was right, the luck simply went against you. Via these discussions we can try to narrow the emotional/rational disparity gap between performance / direction / philosophy and result.

Vediamo...

Parma

5 ended up elsewhere....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re. "the emotional/rationality disparity gap", better understanding doesn''t mean less emotion. Any chess aficionado will tell you that! The  dichotomy is not so much between emotion and understanding as between ill- and well-informed emotion. Better understanding is emotionally enriching.The supporters of certain clubs e.g. Liverpool and Newcastle, have the reputation of  "knowing their football". These are also clubs where it is not uncommon for the away team or an opposition player to be applauded off the field. That doesn''t come simply from generosity of spirit; it comes from appreciating the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...