Parma's Tactics Masterclass 14

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

...to tie that all in with the earlier tactical analysis, Chelsea then leave a fluid attacking front 3, though 2 of those players tend to be inverted 3/4 space wingers, thus filling deeper areas and offering some defensive structure on turnover (even if only by naturally being stationed in a particular area of the pitch).

In effect, with all the money, talent and attacking resources in the world, Chelsea are at least 1 man less attacking than Norwich.

Conte''s calculation is that this produces the best net tactical result odds.

Parma

[Van wink 2,994]

Ideally we need to play three at the back, but to do this we need three ball playing centre halves, you can then cut the reliance on midfield.

RM and probably Klose can do that job, we need one more in the window.

[The Bristol Nest 513]

Excellant thread. Parma, have you swallowed a dictionary? I particularly enjoyed your use of tessellate less so schizophrenic.

Really good discussion which actually gets to the root of our problems whilst (unusually) offering solutions.

Would Hodgson as director of football be a wise move?

Is Thompson the eager to please answer to our defensive issues?

The squad is big enough imo. Do you think that AN does not know or understand the ideas discussed in this thread?

[Bagster 101]

Have to admit I had to look tessellate up :)

With parma''s tactics our squad looks more balanced but with the way Alex sets us up I would look for a few tweaks.

Parma''s threads are great, making me think a little more which can only help with the dementia:)

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

VW,

All should note that 3,4 or 5 at the back can mean 3 at the back (or indeed any of the others).

To explain: 3 at the back as typically understood involves 3 centre back type players, typically the 2 wider defenders able to move naturally into 3/4 full back positions. The extra, typically non-marking, defender would cover the space behind the markers (or even in front of sometimes (David Luiz).

It must be noted that a classically understood ''flat back 4'' can also be a 3....

The flat back 4 is often operated as ''a rocking 4'', which basically rolls positions over 1 place as one of the full backs attacks (ie: the left-sided centre back ''becomes'' the left back, the right-sided centre back becomes the left-sided centre back and the right back becomes the right-sided centre back..

..This system has tactical awareness built in, as it makes calculated decision to leave the space that the right back has vacated. The tactical calculation is that - as we are attacking down the left channel (why our left back has moved from his on-paper station) - the opposition will have to win the ball and hit a fast, flat 40 yard minimum crossfield pass into the right back space before we can recover.

nb: This planned-for scenario is typically nothing like our current defensive tactics ( it de-facto has 1 extra defender for a start), whereby this space always exists on counter and indeed exists in both sides of the centre backs ( why you have seen relatively simple ''straight'' balls pierce our defence and players run on and score).

5 at the back is still 3 typically at the back as above, though usually it would see the wide full back players operate in deep, defensive positions as well. It can be seen in a classic 3-5-2 Italian formation on defence, though it would be more defined by an overly defensive 5-4-1, which - on our whiteboard - clearly shuts all the spaces between the defensive and midfield lines and would typically be played deep in your own half, defending from your own box, to allow no space at all in the final third.

It is important for all to its that any nominal paper formation may not - and may not be designed to - be played that way. A good fluid side should be able to convert any formation into almost another according to game situation.

My experience is that English players are over-affected by the opening formation and less flexible and fluid when it comes to ''moving between the lines'' or coming away from their stated position (particularly true of visually ''body'' formations like 4-4-2), though there is no reason why even this formation cannot be fluid and effective.

It is the way that formations are operated by managers that is key, what instructions they give, what roles they define as most important , what repeating patterns of on-field play they like to try to regularly re-create, what over-arching themes they transmit to players over time.

In very basic terms, I would argue that the way our formation is played it de-facto results in us far too often playing 2 at the back.

Personnel, Transfer, money, board and tactics elsewhere on the pitch are then irrelevant.

We haven''t got enough players in defending positions too often in games.

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

..Furthermore to your points Bristol, the hugely important Sporting Director and / umbrella club philosophy role outlined earlier in the thread - with 93v making some excellent points - might well be ideal for Roy Hodgson.

He would bring heavyweight experience and credibility. The good relationship between board, Sporting Director and coupled with access to drawing room, training pitch and the cross-pollination and education this would bring to all looks elegant.

Those who hanker after absolute power in modern football should not only be refused, but their motives should also be questioned.

Parma

ps1: Louis Thompson yes

Ps2: '' boxy'' formations (iPhone)

[ZLF 271]

Agree on re two at the back; why both full backs continue to push on at the same time given our defensive problems amazes me.

It also places an onus on the two sitting midfielders to actually do that; We dont have that discipline when Howson Dorrans start.

We have the pieces for a successful side; we just need to pick the right pieces and make sure the do their task as a team rather than as thoughtless individuals

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Indeed Zip. It amazes others in ''football circles'' too.

Naturally some of them are (involved with) our opposition. Football is exclusive to outsiders, but often quite open on the inside. Our weaknesses outlined here are well known. They will be exploited until we change.

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

To reiterate or illustrate much of the above, please note separate extracts from articles published today from Graeme Souness and Darren Fletcher. The points are relevant, connected and instructive:

''I was taught a harsh lesson in my early days....then all was played in to where I should have been....Fagan tore a strip off me...Moran would come out the dugout and draw a circle with his index finger, meaning the centre circle, then point right in the middle of it and that meant "stand there and don''t move"......common-sense stuff..intelligent footballers adjusting to each other and the circumstances of a match...''

''.....there are always going to be periods when the opposition, no matter how poor they are, have a spell where they push you back...against the better teams, especially, you have to recognise that as a player on the pitch or as a coach......

.....you tell your full backs not to wander...you tell your central midfielders to do exactly the same thing and never go in front of the ball.....play a bit narrower, closer to each other in midfield, so that anything that comes through is not going between us....''

''.....it shouldn''t be a difficult fix. They need to work out that you can''t always be on the front foot..''

A multiple European Cup winning team..

Parma

[Indy 3,286]

This constant requirement by our fans for our wingers to defend bugs the shite out of me! If we use our wingbacks then let''s not play with wingers, go three at the back and add another striker! Play a 3-4-1-2 system, thus the additional CB can cover the attacking wing back.

If you play with wingers then make sure we stay 4 at the back. This system used by AN is just not great as all our wingers don''t do a great job covering marauding wing backs.

Just my opinion.

[ZLF 271]

So is it indiscipline (from either full backs and/or deep midfielders) from the players or are they simply following orders?

Simply following orders hasnt been a valid argument for decades.

[Sussexyellow 55]

[quote user="Parma Ham''s gone mouldy"]Indeed Zip. It amazes others in ''football circles'' too.

Naturally some of them are (involved with) our opposition. Football is exclusive to outsiders, but often quite open on the inside. Our weaknesses outlined here are well known. They will be exploited until we change.

Parma

This ^^^

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Post script:

A remarkable and welcome change of approach in the excellent victory of Aston Villa verged on a perfect Italian demonstration of controlled superiority.

The formal, disciplined structure which underpinned the win was achieved via a number of significant and notable tactical changes:

Line up contained 2 overtly attacking players instead of the hitherto typical 4

Full backs played notably deeper

The central midfield 3 played closer together shutting midfield spaces

The nominal CDM roamed less than usual, maintaining station better (though not as autistically as I would like to see), whilst other central midfielders showed a conscious awareness of their defensive position without the ball

Brady tucked in and covered more

The formation was more along the lines of 41311 with Jacob a little freer and even Oliveira dropping deeper reasonably often.

This defensive-minded shape and personnel suffocated all the spaces for Villa to exploit easily, forcing them to come out of their shape to created something high quality in order to score against us; they didn''t do either.

Via a more controlled, disciplined, defensively-conscious performance - and despite 9 non-attacking players on the pitch - we looked thoroughly capable and occasionally fluid and dangerous in offensive areas, whilst allowing Villa little.

As we have repeatedly stressed: more attacking does not necessarily equal more goals and certainly doesn''t necessarily equal more victories. Attack is not the best form of defence and defending well does not necessarily equate to less attacking.

We have good players and we do not need extreme tactics. A sensible balance will ensure the odds move in our favour when we are superior.

This kind of disciplined balance will lead to regular, satisfying, controlled victories..

Parma

[westcoastcanary 173]

I am by nature a sceptic. Can there truly have been a Pauline conversion on the road back from Barnsley?  

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

I loathe all this over-reliance on tactics in the modern game which just makes football boring to watch.

Unsurprisingly, most tactics have been developed in Italian football which has always been the most boring, sleep-inducing football in the world.

Tactics have become overwhelmingly important to the point where they smother the natural beauty of football because footballers today are super-athletes who need to be taught how to play football whereas back in the day they were footballers first who had to be made into athletes.

Football used to be fun when players like Ted Mcdougall would stand with hisw hands on his hips for eighty minutes per game and wait for Phil Boyer do all the hard work. When the ball got to Ted, a little shimmy and whack, the ball was in the net.

Players like Mcdougall and Hucks never tackled back. They didn''t tackle sideways or forwards either. They weren''t pawns in some giant, green chessboard, they were footballers and their skills lit up our lives and made football fun to watch.

Do you know that during the very early days of radio broadcasting of football matches, their was a second background commentator who called out numbers which correlated to an imaginary square on the pitch where the ball was currently in play. The idea was to inform the listener where on the pitch the action was taking place. I reckon they should actually paint squares on the grass as you tactician-nerds would absolutely love to have that extra level of detail to further your need to analyze everything to death.

Give me skill over tactics any day of the week.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Rock The Boat"]I loathe all this over-reliance on tactics in the modern game which just makes football boring to watch.

Unsurprisingly, most tactics have been developed in Italian football which has always been the most boring, sleep-inducing football in the world.

Tactics have become overwhelmingly important to the point where they smother the natural beauty of football because footballers today are super-athletes who need to be taught how to play football whereas back in the day they were footballers first who had to be made into athletes.

Football used to be fun when players like Ted Mcdougall would stand with hisw hands on his hips for eighty minutes per game and wait for Phil Boyer do all the hard work. When the ball got to Ted, a little shimmy and whack, the ball was in the net.

Players like Mcdougall and Hucks never tackled back. They didn''t tackle sideways or forwards either. They weren''t pawns in some giant, green chessboard, they were footballers and their skills lit up our lives and made football fun to watch.

Do you know that during the very early days of radio broadcasting of football matches, their was a second background commentator who called out numbers which correlated to an imaginary square on the pitch where the ball was currently in play. The idea was to inform the listener where on the pitch the action was taking place. I reckon they should actually paint squares on the grass as you tactician-nerds would absolutely love to have that extra level of detail to further your need to analyze everything to death.

Give me skill over tactics any day of the week.[/quote]I did know that. I think the Radio Times would print a diagram, so listeners could follow the play, square by square. I also believe it was the origin of the phrase "Back to square one". As to the rest of the misty-eyed nostalgia-riddled post, I am only surprised we didn''t get a mention for midwives bicycling home for tea, with the music from the Hovis ad playing in the background. Life wasn''t that simple back then, and neither was football.

[westcoastcanary 173]

Funny that the skill levels are far far higher in those boring continental leagues, the explanation being that, when sheer ineptitude of the kind so frequently evident in the tactically naive British game (the serial failure of our national teams being the most obvious illustration), skill is at an even greater premium. 

[Rock The Boat 1,326]

[quote user="PurpleCanary"][quote user="Rock The Boat"]I loathe all this over-reliance on tactics in the modern game which just makes football boring to watch.

Unsurprisingly, most tactics have been developed in Italian football which has always been the most boring, sleep-inducing football in the world.

Tactics have become overwhelmingly important to the point where they smother the natural beauty of football because footballers today are super-athletes who need to be taught how to play football whereas back in the day they were footballers first who had to be made into athletes.

Football used to be fun when players like Ted Mcdougall would stand with hisw hands on his hips for eighty minutes per game and wait for Phil Boyer do all the hard work. When the ball got to Ted, a little shimmy and whack, the ball was in the net.

Players like Mcdougall and Hucks never tackled back. They didn''t tackle sideways or forwards either. They weren''t pawns in some giant, green chessboard, they were footballers and their skills lit up our lives and made football fun to watch.

Do you know that during the very early days of radio broadcasting of football matches, their was a second background commentator who called out numbers which correlated to an imaginary square on the pitch where the ball was currently in play. The idea was to inform the listener where on the pitch the action was taking place. I reckon they should actually paint squares on the grass as you tactician-nerds would absolutely love to have that extra level of detail to further your need to analyze everything to death.

Give me skill over tactics any day of the week.[/quote]I did know that. I think the Radio Times would print a diagram, so listeners could follow the play, square by square. I also believe it was the origin of the phrase "Back to square one". As to the rest of the misty-eyed nostalgia-riddled post, I am only surprised we didn''t get a mention for midwives bicycling home for tea, with the music from the Hovis ad playing in the background. Life wasn''t that simple back then, and neither was football.[/quote]

Now Purple, what is it with you and Hovis? I ask because this is not the first time I see you mention that particular brand of carbohydrate in responding to a football posting. Maybe you were not getting your fair share of the brown stuff during your formative years. But we''re a helpful bunch n this forum and if there is something you want to share, I''m sure we can help you through it. Oh, and midwives on bicycles are a recurring thing in your posts (did you realise?) but I really don''t want to go there with you.

Now while you are ruminating on that, I will offer up a test on why I am right, that this over-reliance on tactics is taking the fun element out of football.

Think about your favourite footie players of yesteryear. Consider your football heroes for a moment. I would almost guarantee that you''ve never had a conversation with your mates that went along the lines of ''Remember old X and the way he used to cover the 3/4 defensive midfield positions when the full back went upfield?''

Or howabout ''Old X was really sublime the way he used to shuffle across the defensive line on the turnover''.

If you''re italian then I might be wrong because that''s about as exciting as Italian football gets, but I''m pretty sure you actually described your footie favourites in terms of the blockbuster goals they scored, the runs down the wings to the byline, the dribbler who could turn on a sixpence, the 40 yard cross field passer, the blood and guts tackling of a defender, the gravity-defying skills of a goalie.

Those are things that make us return to the football stadium, not the the tedious gotta keep our shape, boring, repetitive, predictable football that gets served up nowadays.

If you want to see a great tactical display then go and watch a game of chess.

And WestCoast, if you want to be a pundit, then at least learn the difference between tactics and skill.

Here''s somebody who knew what he was talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqAZsoF-ghw

[Horse Renoir 1]

We had a sod tactics, let the players play approach under Adams. Not many were happy then, yeah we scored a lot and very occasionally thrashed poor teams, but it was so unsatisfying and frustrating being so inconsistent and easy to play against.

You still get those great memories on certain games even if we are tactically aware, it just means we stand more of a chance when individuals are not on it, when they are playing well and to an effective approach it''s just as satisfying.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Rock the boat

If you want to try an effective put down I suggest you first read and make sure you understand the target post [:D]

[Van wink 2,994]

The tactics set the framework for the game, they are not there to stifle talent and individual talent skill and expression.

[Chesney Hawkes 0]

I would have thought successful tactics for a team must take into account the skill and creativity of individuals. E.g for two or three seasons our tactics essentially boiled down to "give it to Huckerby and get into the box".

Less so in our relegation season when the tactics appeared to be "give it to Lee Croft and cross your fingers."

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Post script 2:

An excellent display of bright, inventive fluid-yet-disciplined tactical nous.

Sadly of course it came from Huddersfield.

Westie was disappointing proved correct in his cynicism; there is no Damascean conversion.

The distances between our midfielders reverted to gaping seas as we offered up wide open spaces through the midfield to a Huddersfield side well drilled in the art of space overload, purposeful interconnected movements off the ball insuloort of teammates and an ability - that refuse to adopt - of dropping into a compact midfield shape upon possession turnover.

It verges on football suicide.

It can be observed that when you have inferior playing resources say at Hamilton - that an unexpected, attack-at-all-costs, open-the-game, gamble-on-scoring-more approach may be a cost-free option.

A la 1979 it is possibly effective when there is lots of space and time, a limited amount of tactical nous and a lack of top level stamina and conditioning allowing for 90 minutes of high intensity pressing, coupled with technical ability. This may still be true of much of Scottish football.

It is not true of the Championship.

Whilst a tired Mumumbu ran around leggily first half, this alone does not come close to explaining the 80% effective possession stats that Huddersfield (embarrassingly) had against us.

Once again we reverted to an over-attacking shape with Howson playing and staying far too far forward of his two central partners. Brady once again flattered to deceive without truly undertaking his defensive covering duties upon turnover. Dorrans is not a central midfielder and was often found drifting into wider left areas.

Aaron Mooy was the best player seen at Carrow Road this season and offered his own Masterclass. He would be a magnificent acquisition for the CDM role outlined and actually offered far more, it only regularly dropping between two split centre backs to make a three, but showing a superb tactical understanding of when to sit and when to penetrate forward spaces. His tactical discipline and judment was exemplary, allied with technical ability and a tenaciousness and clear will to win.

Huddersfield demonstrated clearly what tactics can achieve. They do not have 11 superior players to us, yet they utterly dominated us throughout the game until a late helter-skelter crowd-pacifying 10 minutes of English action.

David Wagner offered a fine example of much of what is highlighted throughout the Masterclasses. Via structural organisation, clear methodology and tactical intelligence he has made far more of far less resources.

A fine endorsement of the power of tactics, but a deeply embarrassing indictment of our current management.

Parma

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Post script 2:

An excellent display of bright, inventive fluid-yet-disciplined tactical nous.

Sadly of course it came from Huddersfield.

Westie was disappointing proved correct in his cynicism; there is no Damascean conversion.

The distances between our midfielders reverted to gaping seas as we offered up wide open spaces through the midfield to a Huddersfield side well drilled in the art of space overload, purposeful interconnected movements off the ball in support of teammates and an ability - that we refuse to adopt - of dropping into a compact midfield shape upon possession turnover.

It verges on football suicide.

It can be observed that when you have inferior playing resources say at Hamilton - that an unexpected, attack-at-all-costs, open-the-game, gamble-on-scoring-more approach may be a cost-free option.

A la 1979 it is possibly effective when there is lots of space and time, a limited amount of tactical nous and a lack of top level stamina and conditioning that allows for 90 minutes of high intensity pressing, coupled with technical ability. This may still be true of much of Scottish football.

It is not true of the Championship.

Whilst a tired Mumumbu ran around leggily first half, this alone does not come close to explaining the 80% effective possession stats that Huddersfield (embarrassingly) had against us.

Once again we reverted to an over-attacking shape with Howson playing and staying far too far forward of his two central partners. Brady once again flattered to deceive without truly undertaking his defensive covering duties upon turnover. Dorrans is not a defensive central midfielder and was often found drifting into wider left areas.

Aaron Mooy was the best player seen at Carrow Road this season and offered his own Masterclass. He would be a magnificent acquisition for the CDM role outlined and actually offered far more, not only regularly dropping between two split centre backs to make a three, but showing a superb tactical understanding of when to sit and when to penetrate forward spaces. His tactical discipline and judment was exemplary, allied with technical ability and a tenaciousness and clear will to win.

Huddersfield demonstrated clearly what tactics can achieve. They do not have 11 superior players to us, yet they utterly dominated us throughout the game until a late helter-skelter crowd-pacifying 10 minutes of English action.

David Wagner offered a fine example of much of what is highlighted throughout the Masterclasses. Via structural organisation, clear methodology and tactical intelligence he has made far more of far less resources.

A fine endorsement of the power of tactics, but a deeply embarrassing indictment of our current management.

Parma

*iphone