Parma's Tactics Masterclass 12

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,461]

''False Nines and the tactics graveyard of the Championship''

Sometimes re-learning a forgotten truth is a salutary lesson and may put you ahead of the competition who are yet to face their self-image demons.

Alex Neil is not the first, nor will he be the last, relegated Premier Manager who realises that paper tactics and grass realities are very different realities in the Championship than they are in the Premier.

Italians have a marvellous saying ''sometimes when you win you actually lose; and sometimes when you lose you actually win''.

This can be applied to a tactics paradox that exists between the paradigm shifts of top tier and second tier English - and it is particularly English - football.

At a higher level, particularly as the underdog, there is nothing wrong in principle with deploying fluid, nimble, fleet-footed-though-diminutive forward fours in an open formation with a false nine.

Against superior opposition, with nominally wider players tucked in and likely inverted, it can be a good way to flood the middle and three-quarter areas, retain possession better when you have it and orchestrate pack-hunting ''constructive bunching'' when you don''t and plan to retrieve it quickly.

Premier teams value the central battle ground beyond all others and games are won and lost in a relatively narrow middle trench of dominance of the field. You simply don''t play against Daryl Murphy-a-likes, nor do you even come across a single Stoke-as-Stoke anymore l, conceding and bypassing midfielders and playing for set pieces.

It is ugly, low-rent and (now, thankfully) low-return at the top level as the odds are too low to make the occasional success (and let us be clear, against lesser, Ill-disciplined or the very effete, it can work...though much less than even 5 years ago the misty-eyed 2D simple-fare ''it''s a simple game, just want it more'' amongst you should note) - however we are back at a level where all things are not equal.

At Premier level, as at International level England note, simply being ''up for it'' or ''wanting it more'' are not going to cut it more than very occasionally I''m afraid (staying up equals maybe 9 or 10'' wins in a season). You are inferior, you are not ''better'' than the majority of your weekly opposition, you cannot simply ''play your own game'', you need to do something different, have a particular playing weapon, some clever unexpected tactical ploys, a set-piece specialist, some luck to score first...you''ll mostly lose anyway because man-for-man you are not as good, nor can you afford anyone special enough to make the percentage difference up..

In the Championship, having just been relegated, it can be observed that many teams have a raft of players too good for the Championship, though conversely thoroughly unsuited to it. There is in effect a different kind of player required to do well in the Premier, certainly to stay there consistently, and there is also required a fundamentally different mindset towards tactics.

Lining up wth a lightweight, small, fluid-yet-inexperienced front four with a false nine screams ''we''ve drawn pretty patterns in the sand because we are pretty sure we can win doing whatever we want''. Any tactical justification that might be found (and even correct) in the Premier, is obliterated by the masculine threat/insult implied to mediocre-yet-robust Championship dogfighters. I am afraid it was football-speak for ''we are taking you lightly''.

There are of course mitigating circumstances - Jerome''s injury, Lafferty (whom clearly cannot be allowed to be rewarded for poor off-field behaviour that could influence expensive young recruits), other 1st Xi injuries, manager nudging the board to buy a more expensive striker, plus some truly dreadful individual errors - though the tactics of psychology should not be under-estimated.

There is also something of a message to one''s own squad that ''we can win this game however we want, doing whatever we please''. This smacks of Premier League entitlement, which is the graveyard of ambition in the Championship.

We have a squad of players that have been proven to be too-good-for-the-Championship-not-good-enough- for-the-Premier. They need to re-learn the dirty application realities of what makes that statement true for the club to be successful this year, whilst the manager needs to ensure that he doesn''t give them tactical messages to the contrary....lest the statement become true of him too.

Parma

[sonyc 6,144]

An Interesting think piece Parma. There will be a few teams that will outmuscle us and the little triangles and thoughtful build up play we have been trying to achieve. Blackburn being the apotheosis where we made our incisive play count. All to count for little in our last two matches ( plus even Sheff Wed). It seems possession counts for little too. Yesterday we dominated that comfortably but it was powder puff too with no threat up top.

[Katie Borkins 1]

Essentially:

We are like Rocky Balboa in Rocky 3 and need to ditch the fancy stuff and get to Apollo Creed''s school of hard knocks.

The question is, who can be our Apollo Creed?

[Van wink 2,994]

How can a manager like AN (who has spent virtually his whole management and playing career at this and a lower level) forget what it takes to win a Champinship game, after only one failed season in the Prem.

Not a great endorsement!

[Sussexyellow 55]

Well said Parma.

We will not be the first and we won''t be the last relegated side that needs this reality check. Hopefully yesterday will be the wake up call.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,461]

With a false nine and high roving full backs, there are conceivably occasions whereby seven players are occupying the central tranche of the field.

The deep midfield defensive pivot will drop between the centre backs, who spot a little to narrowly cover inside left and right channels. Other than that all players may well overload the so we between three quarter attacking positions and space in front of the deep pivot. Against better opponents 7v6 or 7v5 is a necessary overload in the key area, challenging them to open, switch or change the play quickly enough to overcome the overload.

An Ipswich or Birmingham do the unthinkable at Premier level and simply concede or ignore the space and the overload. They routinely bang perfectly good possession into 2D channel running and stretch their own shape, isolating one or two players in low-odds-but-low-risk forays that launch balls beyond defensive shape and lines, routinely ''turning the opposition'' to face their own goal.

Good defenders and defences ( and foot-skilled goalkeepers) have - or should have - no problem with this whatsoever. Simply play crisply and early to the goalkeeper, who has the technical skills and positional awareness to open his body and play out to the other side using as few a touches as possible and relaunching our play.

However we must note that this low-risk low-smiled tactic has a corollary. It typically comes as a package with a low-lying eight-block defence that sits in, joining metaphorical hands and shuts space to play.

Playig high and wide and slinging in crosses may occasionally work, it certainly chimes nostalgic notes for many, though it evens the tactical odds by exchanging possession-based controllable play with higher risk, more open football that ultimately results in a box-based heading contest at this level. This is playing your opponents game, unless you have a really powerful old-school nine (exactly the kind that doesn''t work at the higher level unless you have an extreme Andy Caroll version).

The false nine is good on paper, creating overloads and link options, though it is a little wasted against the 2D Championship dogfight defenders who hold an 18 yard box line and repel boarders. The three quarter position space that the false drops into must be well used.

In our case we have Wes operating in that area, though he is a threader, not a shooter. Naismith does not show a particular penchant for distance shooting, Canos drifts wide and runs, Murphy can, though instinctively it is two very new and inexperienced players that the tactical benefits of the plan then rest on.

As we have discussed previously, in these circumstances it would be more logical to play your fastest and most direct runner in the false nine position (previously Redmond, yesterday only Murphy would fit the identikit). This would ensure that the 2D defensive line could squeeze higher and narrow the three quarter space you are trying to create, by ensuring a pace threat could run in behind the central two defenders (it is not enough to have it wide or even from wide as the central space is the key creative pivot that we want to free up).

As we have identified many times, as a Manager or Coach we are not simply rear-view-mirror colouring the performance in light of the result. This is the typical fans prism: the result infects all that went before it.

In these Masterclasses we look to assess what the objective was, why it did or didn''t work and what factors contributed. Why the Manager made his decisions and what his philosophy was in the approach.

Guardiola has repeatedly stated that he has no love of tiki-taka football. Possession-based football is certainly an entirely valid approach for superior sides looking to dominate games. Norwich do and should aspire to it.

The point of possession-based football is to create overloads in certain areas of the pitch that''s can then be exploited to score a goal and / or (as a synergetic partner benefit and consequence) to ensure that defensive soundness is achieved by controlling the ball to such an extent that the opposition threat is negated.

Mass overloads in the midfield area may be hugely important in the Premier and conversely a liability at times in the Championship, particularly if 2D channel- hitting teams are patient enough to wait for counter-punching moments and have awkward players capable of buying free kicks. High full backs can be prone to clumsy errors if tired and chasing back regularly to a striker already goal side of them.

Managers are often hugely influenced by the position they inhabited as players. Unlike the Premier we may well win many midfield battles, though we must be aware that unsophistated Championship teams have long ago abandoned any serious ideas about winning such refined midfield battles and have conceded territory and focused their limited resources elsewhere.

The switch from inferior defender to superior aggressor is a rubicon that Norwich must cross, both tactically and psychologically. Roy Keane would repeatedly use the phrase ''earning the right to play''. Which meant overcoming the psychological, technical, physical and emotional battle and crucially establishing your superiority across all aspects in minds of the opposition.

He knew you had to prove your credentials everyday anew. Not on paper, but on grass.

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

[FenwayFrank 2,712]

Is that a single or double pivot ? We need to know ..

[? 0]

For all this talk of tactics Parma we have failed consistently to stick to the basics and get them right! Our passing has been appalling since Blackburn, we consistently fail to win 50/50 and decisive tackles, we are by and large ponderous when going forward and our final delivery has been for the last two seasons woeful.

Perhaps if we concentrated on getting the basics right all the talk of ''false nines'' and ''double pivots'' would be again consigned to the coaching manuals and thus not over complicate what is essentially a simple game!

[Van wink 2,994]

👍

[wooster 134]

Parma,

Thanks for your thoughts etc.  Using BBC website stats, it''s interesting that in the 5 league games so far the one where we had the most possession (66%) was the only defeat.

For completeness:

Blackburn 58%, Bristol 56% - both wins.  

Ipswich 59% and Wednesday 46% - both draws.

Obviously possession alone is not enough - presumably we are not creating "the overloads that can be exploited to create goals".  Why is that?  and what can we do to correct this?

[Mason 47 1,921]

Last year a tactic that AN actually saw some results with was allowing technically superior teams to dominate possession in unthreatening areas and played the counter- Man U game at Old Trafford a prime example.

And that, essentially, is what teams are now doing to us. Blackburn got caught cold and played us at our game, but teams have increasingly been allowing us to play our game in our own territory but put up a 10-man wall once we get to the final third.

We''re creating overloads at the top of the pitch and are baiting teams to break rank and try to win it back, then nip through the gaps. Say what you will about Ipswich but McCarthy has them well-drilled and they just let us walk it up to the 18-yard line, hit a wall, then kick long for Murphy to scrap for.

Unfortunately Jerome isn''t technically-sound enough to really help open up teams, nor is he suited to a hold-up game- he''s a sprinter that wants to get into a race with defenders. Our absolutely key player will be a forward that can give us an effective, different option when the wall goes up.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,461]

Good points Mason, identifying the different approaches and tactics required when you are inferior looking to disrupt the game and the tactics of the opposition, and the position of being superior, looking to win by being better and having to ''make'' the game.

Let us be clear before we all wrong our hands too desperately. We are in the second camp this year, we do have better players, better resources and the nous and belief to approach the game trying to impose our superiority on others. Simply being better is not easy however and requires you to ''openly open'' your tactical shape.

If defence is remaining in organised shape, then good attack can be characterised as somewhat coming out of shape and creating a little tactical chaos. This can be an issue for the defending side, though it must inevitably compromise your own defensive shape and leave you more exposed to counter.

Wooster, the possession stats are interesting though Alex Neil, despite liking possession-based midfield dominance does not insist on a ''permanent'' high press. There are times when territory and possession is conceded to the opposition to perhaps allow for recovery and a return to shape.

This means that much of the opposition possession can be unthreatening as he sees it, though I have some issue with this in the context of what is discussed above.

I am no Guardiola acolyte, though there are fundamental principles to what he did at Barcelona and elsewhere that should be studied by good coaches looking to dominate possession and which are highly relevant to teams looking to ''be superior'', make the game and break down defensive-minded sides without getting caught by counters and allowing dangerous turnovers to occur too frequently.

Ron and others earlier referred to the need to ''do the basics before worrying about tactics''. I am afraid this is flawed.

The basics come from the tactics and vice versa.

In the case of Barcelona their offensive-defensive possession (they always had the best defensive record) was achieved via very simple passes. That is to say that short, angled, minimum-touch passing across very short distances. These short passes are the basics.

The skill is not in the pass execution, it is in the thought processes, considerable effort and tactical positioning of those without the ball, The support cast are the main players, though it is even more than that, the support cast must act as an ensemble, they must all understand the script and lines of all of the actors. In short when one moves, they all move. Then they do it again when the angle or tactical situation changes.

There are the basics, performed by highly intelligent, mentally inter-connected collective units, designed to ignore the individual and function as a part of a wider machine. All understand the tactical language of the machine and that each part is essential. Indeed the machine cannot - and will not - function without all parts being synchronised. Yet they are ''only'' doing the basics.

If we have aspirations to dominate teams via possession-based superiority, allied to tactical and positional fluidity, it is important that we assess not just the technical, but the intelligence of the players selected. Committing to such a philosophy is not the work of a week or even a pre-season. It must be endemic and clear to all from Academy level upwards, it must permeate every training session and coaching drill.

One caveat: Of all the European test beds the English Championship might well be the hardest proving ground for such an approach. The irony is that the rough-and-tumble disrupt-and-conquer brute-force-and-intimidation of the Championship is the antithesis - and thus arguably most difficult test - for such an approach.

Parma

[Ray 111]

Parma,

I always read your Masterclasses with interest and in this thread you have mentioned three phrases that IMO underpin any performance, namely ‘mindset’, ‘thought process’ and the ‘tactics of psychology’ because all actions (including thought processes and tactics of psychology) are a merciless reflection of mindset.

As individuals we are all personally responsible for our mindset (our style of thinking), hence the saying, what you think about is nowhere near as important as the way you think about what you think about, that said we are also ‘influenced’ by what we see, hear, etc (external inputs) and if these inputs are handled effectively by both the inputor and the inputee then we start to see a team mindset form, which links to the point you made in your post this morning.

So, ultimately, if performance is a merciless reflection of mindset then superb performance probably reflects a superb mindset and vice versa of course.

Accepting the previous statement, the question is at what level is our mindset, team and individual? Furthermore, what can be done to (further) improve it?

Perhaps it goes without saying (but I am anyway) that as far as players are concerned a massive inputor is the management team and I wonder how much experience our management team has in the tactics of psychology, let alone our players.

I am not suggesting our management team are at fault or are to blame, if they have not been ‘coached’ in the nuances and power of psychology then that is perhaps not their fault (unless of course they deliberately spurn this aspect of their job/learning) although there are many examples of managers who, shall we say, possess/possessed the ''right'' mindset, which is probably why they rose to the position of manager in the first place, however they then assume the players have or should have the same mindset when they do not and then do not understand why not. Having read Roy Keane’s autobiography, it was plain he fell into this category and look what happened there. A manager who embraces everything and anything and accepts he may need to bring in experts in certain fields is Big Sam and he’s doing OK (at the moment).

As I have said elsewhere, AN is in the infancy of management, so assuming he is prepared to listen and accept help perhaps it is the responsibility of the club to provide this help? The issue I have is who if anybody is responsible for identifying the need, one can only assume it is the Football Board or our new CEO/Chairman.

Improve the mindset and through improved thought process and tactics of psychology improved performances will follow as night follows day. Is this the only thing that could be done to improve performance, probably not but mindset is at the root of all that follows.

[westcoastcanary 0]

Isn''t the Championship far less uniform than it used to be in terms of style of play and degree of technical and tactical sophistication? One third of Championship teams currently have non-British managers, for example, few if any of whom are likely to have suddenly metamorphosed into clones of Mick M. As far as Saturday is concerned, Parma''s list of mitigating circumstances ("Jerome''s injury, Lafferty (whom clearly cannot be allowed to be rewarded

for poor off-field behaviour that could influence expensive young

recruits), other 1st XI injuries ............... plus some truly dreadful individual errors....") go most of the way towards accounting for the performance IMO, not to mention our Arsenal-like propensity to be the side every team on a record miserable run hopes to find themselves playing.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,461]

Oh dear Ray....where angels fear to tread........

....you raise such a good point that it must be addressed. It will inevitably open something of a can of worms however, though you may well know that anyway..

The mindset, approach, understanding of tactics, psychology of performance and psychological management of players are indeed crucial elements to the modern European game.

They have however been undervalued, pilloried, mocked as over-complication and often ignored in England for far too long. They are not really new concepts however and that is - Or should be - the scary thing for English footballers, coaches and Managers who have not embraced them.

I had coaches from Ajax over 20 years ago. Accepted as the most advanced Academy and Development system in Europe at the time. They had a clear philosophy in selecting and identifying potential and current players. It was called TIPS. It was not new then.

Technique, Intelligence, Personality, Speed.

That''s all.

The more intelligent amongst you will have noticed something. 50% of that equation has nothing really intrinsically to do with football skills (arguably 75%).

Intelligence and personality account for 50% of what Ajax looked for.

English football, its players, coaches and managers have typically been drawn from the existing gene pool of previous players. They then teach others the received wisdom handed down to them and so the cycle continues.

English footballers have not typically been selected for their intelligence.

We are not talking the mythical ''football-intelligence'' here, we are talking about being bright, sharp-minded, educated or able to be educated.

In Holland, Italy, Germany and Spain (fundamental to Guardiola''s system above note) the players are intelligent. They speak multiple languages, they understand philosophies of play, as Countries they have developed methodologies suited to national characteristics and mindsets (and where these were lacking imported such ideas and modified them).

The English class system may have something to answer for here. I am afraid that all the Rugby players, Cricketers and Rowers in Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain play football. At International it''s not that they can run and kick better, it''s that they can think better.

Recent data shows that England has around 3,000 Coaches of which J am one. Germany has 30,000.

As we wait a decade for a Rooney or a Gascoigne to be born, Germany has made a hundred Thomas Mullers.

There are less and less English players in the Premier League because others are better. They are better because they''ve had better coaching, from better coaches, from younger ages. They are also better because they haven''t had to compromise their education to fight through a testosterone minefield of ''big lads battling it out'', leaving them facing death-or-glory choices of sport vs education because we haven''t developed suitable frameworks in this country to combine the two.

Parma

[Ray 111]

Parma,

I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, including that, as I have trodden, I am certainly no angel!

Jokes aside though (if indeed that was one), I fear English football with all the money it has at its disposal is one of, if not the last, sports to take the part the mind plays in performance seriously.

In fact I go as far to say, it is the amount of money involved that may be the cause of the tardiness.

Why, because many of those within the game want to keep the money within the game and therefore look after their own, rather than let ''outsiders'' in, hence, as you say, the cycle continues, yet Didier Drogba once said "90% of my game is in my head". I guess he got it.

I hope we get it at NCFC, although from my observations, I believe there is room for improvement, as there always should be.

[The Bristol Nest 597]

Are you suggesting that lafferty might be a bit thick?