Parma's Tactics Masterclass 16

[Len 74]

I suspect when trying to adhere to a new philosophy that a player would be prone to making an error by avoiding the easier but less ''correct'' option. For example, it''s perhaps harder for a defender to run onto the ball and make a weighted pass to set up a counterattacking move than taking the easy way out by hitting it into row Z.

It might take a long time and a few poor results before things really click. But the alternative is making no real lasting improvement. Perfection, or something close enough to it, has a cost.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Rock the Boat

"It didn''t work for Huddersfield in their first season of Wagner."

Exactly, the implication being what Webber and Farke have been saying all along, that it is going to take time and instant results are neither promised nor to be expected. 

But that''s very different from outright dismissal of the strategy as unworkable because of the irremediable limitations of the kind of players available to us. Yes, players have to be able to adapt, and some will prove unable and others will have to be brought in (as at Huddersfield in Wagner''s second season). And it is silly to think that the transformation can be successfully wrought in a few matches, or even a season. Huddersfield have shown that it can be done.

"And when Huddersfield played us last season I remember they were moving the ball around much faster than we have done this season." 

If you''d said "than we did on Sunday" I would agree, but in other games we have seen spells in which we maintained a far better tempo when it was needed. You seem to be suggesting that our players are capable of nothing but laboured possession, but they have already shown otherwise.  Furthermore, Farke is on record that he favours quick transition and directness when appropriate. As usual, far too much is being read into one result and performance. 

[Indy 3,297]

One thing to remember, Farke isn''t Wagner and we''re jumping to the conclusion that Farke is as good a first team coach as Wagner! Dangerous!

Having seen what Huddersfield did to Palace was pleasing to see.

I''m still at a loss to why Webber jumped ship when he did, surely the sensible thing to have done was to wait till the end of the season before committing to us.

One thing we can conclude, Webber departing Huddersfield hasn''t had much of a negative impact on them.

It''s early days and I''m liking the new set up, but still reserve my judgment on just how good they are till next summer.

We might be expecting more than these guys can deliver, time will tell.

[Platonic 1]

Great post as ever Parma, thank you.

Also fair points made by Rocky.

I guess the difficulty is that you have to move forward to stay still in football. I think Farke''s job preseason essentially came down to a binary choice - either focus on defence, then once that''s sorted try to implement a possession based approach, or the other way around. People have identified that our players are not technical geniuses, which I would broadly agree with, so the message coming from the coach needs to be clear- "this is how Norwich will win the game."

Personally, I think focussing on the long-term plan of possession based football was the correct decision, otherwise you have to try to change focus midseason. Plus, Farke has clearly got his message across well - 75% possession at half time did not win us the game, but if we manage that in most home games we will go in at half time leaders many more times than losers.

We are a work in progress -we will probably spank some teams 5-0 this year, but I would also expect us to have some dodgier results whilst the players, backroom staff and fans come together.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

Westie highlights the point of this Masterclass and Indy continues it from a slightly different perspective.

Rather than 20/20 hindsight analysis we are watching transformation evolve.

The coach - and by implication Sporting Director (and Board) has his (their) vision, the intention of which will likely become apparent before it is regularly translated onto grass.

At this stage we are trying to understand what is aimed at. Whether it is achieved or not yet is a very unfair, premature criticism (which is not to say such criticism may not be proved right in time).

We will secondarily be able to make judgments - once we fully understand intentions - as to whether players are suited to the intentions and their likelihood of success in the short to medium term.

We can then make a judgment as to whether the philosophy itself or playing resources are the cause of any short to medium term negative results and repeated failure patterns that emerge.

Following on from that we can make a broader macro judgment as to whether the implantation of the club-wide philosophy from youth roots to first team is worth persevering with to achieve a deeper, more established culture into the future.

Beyond these factors the prism of finance will also need to frame our analysis. Is the philosophy and longer term vision a necessity given the financial restrictions in place? Will the model give us an edge in due course - within the limits of a self-funding model - that other models and approaches would likely fail to offer?

Parma

[lake district canary 4,531]

I like the a philosophy and I don''t care about team coming to park the bus and try and catch us out. I love the fact that we are going to have the ball for most of the match and will win a lot of games if we can achieve that.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Westie highlights the point of this Masterclass and Indy continues it from a slightly different perspective.

Rather than 20/20 hindsight analysis we are watching transformation evolve.

The coach - and by implication Sporting Director (and Board) has his (their) vision, the intention of which will likely become apparent before it is regularly translated onto grass.

At this stage we are trying to understand what is aimed at. Whether it is achieved or not yet is a very unfair, premature criticism (which is not to say such criticism may not be proved right in time).

We will secondarily be able to make judgments - once we fully understand intentions - as to whether players are suited to the intentions and their likelihood of success in the short to medium term.

We can then make a judgment as to whether the philosophy itself or playing resources are the cause of any short to medium term negative results and repeated failure patterns that emerge.

Following on from that we can make a broader macro judgment as to whether the implantation of the club-wide philosophy from youth roots to first team is worth persevering with to achieve a deeper, more established culture into the future.

Beyond these factors the prism of finance will also need to frame our analysis. Is the philosophy and longer term vision a necessity given the financial restrictions in place? Will the model give us an edge in due course - within the limits of a self-funding model - that other models and approaches would likely fail to offer?

Parma[/quote]

Parma, this may be an over-complication (too much times on my hands!) but I see this philosophy thing splitting three ways. Philosophy as pure philosophy, philosophy as strategy and philosophy as tactics.The first, in crude terms, is a strong (rather un-English) emphasis throughout the club on teaching/practising/playing technical, tactically-smart possession-based football. With the composition of the entire footballing staff reflecting that.The second is having that as the default position for approaching not just the season as a whole but individual games.The third, given that no battle-plan survives contact with the enemy, accepts that pure philosophy and strategic philosophy may have to be temporarily tempered in the face of brutal reality, for and within specific games.As to the question of finance, from the outside only, I have assumed all along that was a major factor in this revolution, precisely because of the constraints self-funding model.*So that having a sporting director laying down the philosophy would reduce the costly staff upheavals upon the sacking of head coach A and replacing them with head coach B.On the grounds that while the head coaches would change, the philosophy, and so in main the players, would stay the same. And as such would at the least give us an edge in a negative way, that we would not be having massive turnovers of players, while our rivals were.*A suspicion is that the accounts for the 2016-17 Championship season will show an increase in clubs (but not NCFC) breaking or getting close to breaking FFP rules, and that the same will apply this season, or more so.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Indy"]

"One thing to remember, Farke isn''t Wagner and we''re jumping to the conclusion that Farke is as good a first team coach as Wagner! Dangerous!"

But who is jumping to that conclusion? As far as I can see the judgement to date is only that he has made a good, positive impression on virtually all but the incessantly negative ill-wishers.

"I''m still at a loss to why Webber jumped ship when he did, surely the sensible thing to have done was to wait till the end of the season before committing to us."

I think you maybe have a rather restricted concept of what is sensible, and a rather limited idea of why people make the choices they do. Webber had quite a bit to say about why he made the move, soon after he was appointed. It''s just a matter of looking back at his interviews and EDP coverage.

"One thing we can conclude, Webber departing Huddersfield hasn''t had much of a negative impact on them."

But then you wouldn''t expect it to, since his job was to put the structure and main building blocks in place so that there is continuity through change (e.g of personnel). Evidence to date is indeed that he did a great job!

"It''s early days and I''m liking the new set up, but still reserve my judgment on just how good they are till next summer.

We might be expecting more than these guys can deliver, time will tell."

"We" might be expecting ..... ? My own view is that this is no time for "expectations", more a time for faith, or if you can''t embrace a degree of faith, then hope. Judging from what you read on here, expectation serves little purpose but to make people miserable and incapable of enjoying what promises to be a fascinating season on and off the field.[/quote]

[Indy 3,297]

I accept your points but the underlying thought on this board is that we are now looking at Huddersfield as to our future, it''s across this board over the past theee months.

My point is as I''ve asked on other threads, what is a measure of success? Surely finishing like Huddersfield did the first season under Wagner in 19th would cause a few ripples of unrest during this season. What''s the clubs expectations for the next three seasons, mid table championship, promotion or staying in the black?

I''m not putting Farke under any timeline, time will tell if he can deliver what the board see fit as their expectations.

I made the point about Farke and Wagner as there''s a lot of folk on here as highlighted in the Where do you think we''ll finish thread, top 6 and above, not so many think we''ll be mid table this year, those who have are branded as being negative, more realistic.

All fans have expectations on each season that''s part of football. I''m pretty sure you''re not expecting us to be relegated?

[Fromage Frais 10]

I was at the match and it was all very interesting.

but it was also very worrying as despite all the nice passing and the obvious effort in training to facilitate this we mostly did bugger all.

Sunderland literally did not have to do anything 4 - 4 - 2 keep their shape and wait for the chances.

After all the hype if all a side has to do to beat us is play a static 442 we will struggle. My Father bless him being from a uglier football era gave Farke 15 games and predicted he would be sacked.

The passing has to be a means to an end the end being the fashioning of chances or incidents that have a probability of creating chances.

We spread out back three wide and instantly you could see this is great for moving the ball as a team up the pitch.....but a out/hoof ball to a decently mobile striker is going to get goals against us. I dont care if we score a few more than them but 2 shots on goal?

Also I think the midfield with the ball is great without it its physically weak and slow S Naismith is too slow and weak physically and reed although a lovely player is not fast enough when play breaks. I dont know if Stiepermann is this guy but I think the balance would be greatly improved by a dynamic physically stronger player who can catch other midfielders when we loose the ball.....and/or is no so slow he can shot shots from outside the box. If this player can also drive into the box happy days at this level I miss Bradley Johnson do they have a german version?

madders is a lovely player really like him but I would never have him and sn in same midfield if he is not playing as a 10.

To quote the late Graham Taylor who''s football was all about effectiveness.

“People talk about a direct approach, what I say is there are only two ways you can pass a ball – for someone in to space, or to someone in to their body. If you pass it in to space all of the time you will lose possession of the ball, if you pass it to someone all of the time you will not turn the opposition, so you’ve got to get the balance right if you are going to have a direct approach."

Read more at https://www.fourfourtwo.com/performance/tactics/graham-taylor-playing-long-ball#VT11IDWbTHWB07s0.99

I am not saying we play long ball but we went to far the other way to the extent where we hardly crossed or turned the opposition.

James Husband and YW got into some lovely positions to swing a ball in but rather do so the cut back and passed it back. Giving the defenders time to get in line set and facing play.

This situation improved with the subs so my humble opinion is

swap SN for another midfielder with more athletic ability.

play murphy and or tell watkins to run in the channels and cross that ball

Husband and Pinto/YW to cross the ball once our lovely passing gets them in a position to do so.

[Fromage Frais 10]

[quote user="Indy"]One thing to remember, Farke isn''t Wagner and we''re jumping to the conclusion that Farke is as good a first team coach as Wagner! Dangerous!

Having seen what Huddersfield did to Palace was pleasing to see.

I''m still at a loss to why Webber jumped ship when he did, surely the sensible thing to have done was to wait till the end of the season before committing to us.

One thing we can conclude, Webber departing Huddersfield hasn''t had much of a negative impact on them.

It''s early days and I''m liking the new set up, but still reserve my judgment on just how good they are till next summer.

We might be expecting more than these guys can deliver, time will tell.[/quote]

In his defence Directors have a short term impact when things are bad and need sorting.

When things are all running lovely your not missed for a while its not like a team manager or a player the rot or standards fall over time.

[westcoastcanary 173]

@Indy

[Y]

Huddersfield is an appropriate enough exemplar of what the path we have embarked on can lead to, but people need to get the facts straight about them and how Wagner''s tenure developed, rather than present it as though Wagner waved a magic wand and they instantly started playing like they did at Carrow Road last season. And while Farke is not Wagner, who''s to say he might not turn out to be better [:D]

 

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

Parma. appreciate that your Masterclass''s objective is to explain the whys and wherefores of what is happenng on the field of play, in order to help us understand better what we are seeing, and not only do I appreciate the time you take to explain on this forum but i also enjoy to see the debate and thoughts of others that are a direct result of your postings. So thank you for that. Now while I have a better understanding about what I am seing, I think it is increasing my concern as to whether it will work or not. Perhaps not quite the same as your explaining ''what is'' but it is perhaps natural that the next question should be ''does it work?''

My thoughts are that it can work when the system is second nature to players (the system is taught, played and understood at all levels) or that it is being played by the highest level of technically gifted footballers, that is those in the top half-dozen Premiership teams (leaving aside non-EPL leagues for simplification of discussion).

If I understand your masterclasses correctly, to condense your descriptions into a single word, that word would be ''structure''. Your masterclasses describe how fomations, patterns and shape change according to offense or defence and turn-over situations, and in order to be successful a teamneeds to be able to attack the weak points in the opponents structure.

Now given that the objective is always to score at least one goal more than the opposition, there seems to me to be four scenarios that offer scoring opportunities

1. A moment of brilliance from a player who can by themselves open up a defence by dribbling (including one-twos) or by a shot in open play

2. A mistake by the opposition that opens up a scoring opportunity

3. Winning a set piece opportunity (including corners) in dangerous positions

4. Creating and attacking spaces in the opposing defence

There is, as Russell Martin and Grabbn recently discovered, a chance that luck will play a part, such as own goals or inoff the goalkeeper, but the four main scenarios are all controllable.

The question I ask myself, prompted by the masterclasses, is how effective is structural play against the scoring scenarios? And secondly, is there a better method?

Scenario 1, is described in the masterclass as the ''weapon'' if I''ve got it right. But to me, the ''weapon'' seems to be the antithesis to the structure. The guy that does the unusual or unexpected as well as the brilliant. Of course, the weapon works well in other systems of play, too.

Scenario 2, is perhaps the most compelling arguement for structural play because so long as you maintain posession you can keep pobing your opponents until thet make a mistake. It''s a fairly compelling arguement because the opposition can never score if you have the ball and they need to chase you don (and tire) if they want to get the ball from you. However, what if you are 1-0 or 2-0 down with twenty minutes to go? Against Fulham it worked, against Sunderland it didn''t. The risk increases as the clock ticks down. It''s also risky in that by playing lots of passes it increases the chance of a pass going astray and even more risky if we are pressing high because there is now space behind us for the opposition to exploit.

Scenario 3, also works well in a structured approach if the opposition panics and makes a risky challenge. Well disciplined opponents wont make those challenges and theyll bring bodies back to provide cover.

scenario 4, does not work well in a structured approach because the game is slowed down which allows the opposition defence to re-shape and the space between midfield and defence or defence and goalie is compressed. In those situtions you are relying on patience and a weapon to prise the door ajar.

I prefer the use of speed as a priority over structure in order to score goals. This doesn''t mean hoof and hope, but moving the ball as quickly as possible to the strikers.

Scenario 1, is no longer dependant upon you having a weapon. If you are like us you may not be able to afford one. However, you do need very apcy forwards.

Scenario 2, is more likely to occur in a speed over structure situation because you are not giving te opposition time to react intelligently or to re-shape to counter your moves

Scenario 3, is also more likely to occur as when opposition has less time to react, they are more likely to challenge clumsily, leading to free kicks and penalties.

Scenario 4, is the most compelling argument for moving the ball quickly. When an opposition attack breaks down, his defence is likely to be more open and stretched and a quick turnover can exploit the spaces left behind in the defence.

So is speed of ball movement more important than maintaining a compact structure? Given our technical abilities and the type of opponent we face, I think it is. Just as I was writing this, Harrison Reed''s comments after the Sunderland game were posted up on the Pinkun:

“Sunderland did sit off, drop deep in a compact shape and I think the way we can get round that is to move the ball a lot quicker than we did. We moved it a bit slowly at times, and were too long on the ball. We will speak about it and I think if we move the ball around quick, we’ve got technical players that can play through the lines."

[Indy 3,297]

I agree, with Wes & Maddison higher, we do and did move the ball forwards quicker. That first half typified the problems of having ineffective possession, if we can''t draw a team sitting deep to us, then all we can do is move the ball sidwards, backwards and sidewards.

This is when you need a impact player who can produce that one ball and a striker who can take that chance, Wes / Oliviera at Fulham.

I love the master class Parma, even if some parts I might not fully appreciate or understand.

[Parma Ham's gone mouldy 2,219]

That''s another fabulous post RTB, even better than the previous one.

Your key points demand answers that will not be easily visible to passionate fans, who instinctively see what their team should do to achieve the singular aim of scoring a goal.

A Manager or Coach does not - and cannot - focus on this in matches. They will all say to the media that they ''focus on what we''re going to do''. They may even communicate this way to players (those who know players and think they have ITK knowledge of Managerial aims via what what individual players are told are only seeing one side of a two-way mirror).

Football tactics are a business equation: what I can sell (achieve) minus what it costs me to conduct the sale.

In simple football terms this means that doing what is necessary to be more attacking costs you something defensively.

Your four points around how goals are scored (number 5 ''luck'' is actually a scarily high percentage according to respected statistical research) are fine, but they are one side of the coin.

Some of the criticism - which Pep Guardiola would dismiss out of hand - is that possession football, the formative ''carousel'' we saw on Sunday - does not directly produce enough forward action and goalscoring opportunities. This would appear to (understandably) be at the heart of yours and others'' early concerns.

Before proceeding to explain the Guardiola (vid Farke) rationale, let me state that I felt we lacked not only penetrative striking movements, but also did not create shapes and patterns that led to opportunities for a passa-gol (the final assist or chance creation ball), nor did we look ready to regularly make the Carrick-lite (agreed!) ball from deeper midfield Carousel to chance creator (a bright, early vertical pass between the opposition lines of midfield and defence). In defence of the coaching staff these balls and in-play scenarios are harder to control, generate and groove naturally. The players understandably focused on making a success of the initial Carousel. Such playing pattern developments and additions are always likely to be subsequent coaching add-ons over time.

The Guardiola contention would be that the Carousel is just as much defensive as offensive. Indeed his philosophy is defensive.

The fact that it creates beautiful, controlled possession, pulls oppositions out of shape and sometimes catalyses elegantly-countructed goals is intended though to some degree secondary.

The great Paul Lambert said: ''if you can''t win at least don''t lose''.

Guardiola would smile wryly and say: ''how will I lose (concede a goal / come under defensive pressure / expose my defensive flaws) if my team has the ball?''

Whilst to some of you we may not have looked dangerous at times, I would contend that we also looked under zero danger of conceding a goal. Sunderland could not get (perhaps did not try if you wish to take a negative view) near to us for much of the first half. It is easy to say that they say back and let us have the ball. Let us be clear, conceding endless good possession to the opposition is rarely the exact strategy, it tires players, frustrates players and is a thoroughly passive, second-rate way for most players to play the game. Sunderland were not streetwise, they were outplayed and looked disjointed in the first half.

Re-writing history should thus be avoided. Norwich had 75% possession in the first half, Sunderland scored a bizarre goal, from nothing, which should never happen. We could easily then have abandoned or drifted from our possession strategy, shocked. That we continued to play and dominate I think was excellent mindset and very encouraging. McGeady then put a ball in the top corner from 25 yards. The system ''allows'' this risk, it will rarely happen. Shake his hand and say well done. At 2-0 game over and Sunderland can sit deep, wait and exploit our over-commitment (Josh high and wide initially, Wes, Oliveira et al pushing forwards).

This last tactical point - as we chased the game at 0-2 - highlights clearly why your focus on your 4 goalscoring points is not the full equation RTB.

(A) We did indeed push higher, get the ball wider earlier, look for penetrative, earlier, faster passes and put the ball in the box more.

Many of you are saying ''great'' that''s what I want to see. Fine. Let''s reveal the two-way mirror that the manager sees through:

(A) also equals (B):

(B) pushing higher exposes more space between our defenders and midfielders ensuring that a greater 3/4 space exists. Midfielders are playing higher with further to track back. Opposition can hit ''easier'' link balls into the now open 3/4 spaces, we will then make ''defensive mistakes'' (not really, the shape is wrong and defenders now exposed, forces to make imperfect decisions of which danger - of more than one - to confront. The error is a product of the flawed tactics). Defenders will either push high to maintain the oppressive Carousel, leaving vast space for opposition forward to run into and allowing for an easy back-to-front ball over the top that does not even have to be very precise.

Pushing higher compresses the opposition, allowing them to fill all space by being much closer to each other: no ''Wes'' room. Defensive lines are pushed back: no ''Josh'' room running in behind. Deeper defenders allow goalkeepers to protect their line and take minimal risks, reducing requirements to come for crosses. There is no ''Nelson'' penalty box space. Your (possibly) increased crosses from Wide immediately have a far lower percentage chance of success with more players defending the box. You are increasingly reliant on an (uncontrolled) lucky break. You are massively more exposed to an overload counter-attack because you have over-committed. The maths are are not really in your favour.

England have played this way forever. What looks and feels exciting to the average England fan is no such thing. You repeatedly look ''nearly'' like scoring, though in actual fact it is low odds, only to concede to a ''sucker-punch'' which is actually no such thing. It was far more likely to happen.

I have taken girls, boys, men and women of apparently limited ability, limited experience, limited coaching and taught them to play in a way not dissimilar to what we may well be about to see. It can be done. It works. It''s hard to play against.

In my experience once players are exposed to it, they embrace it and cherish their new found ability and education. There develops a pride in the way it is operated. This becomes an identity and enshrines the overall club direction-of-travel philosophy.

It will have to generate good results to generate the same pride - and pride in the methodology - from the fans, though I suspect had we not (and yes it is reaching) seen a bizarre concession first half and a wonderful, unlikely goal and gone home nil-nil or even one-nil winners with 72% possession state and more than occasional glimpses of elegant, far-moving, close-interchange football that left the opposition at arm''s length throughout, then many would already be purring rather than pitch-forking.

Such an outcome wasn''t so far from being the reality on Sunday.

Parma

[westcoastcanary 173]

[D] Hats off and thanks to you both (RTB and Parma). And yes, a quite different result could indeed have been the outcome on Sunday and Herr Farke''s post-match positivity was amply justified. 

[paddycanary 539]

An intelligent, instructive and thought-provoking thread. An enjoyable rarity on this forum. Great stuff!

[ron obvious 1,502]

A couple of thoughts. Bizarre ones.

Signal to noise ratio. I''ve mentioned this before.

You can liken a football match to the interaction of two information streams. One team may have a much higher signal level (better team, better tactics, better strategy) but the noise level can be so high as to obliterate the difference in signal levels. Consequently if you feed the resultant into a gate the output signal is a completely random 1 or 0, a win or a loss.

The noise (penalties given/not, offsides/not, hitting woodwork/ resultant deflection/into goal or not, fouls given/not etc. etc. ) in football can easily overwhelm any team''s superiority over another.

Sometimes. Sometimes the noise disappears (or cancels) & the result goes with the signal. But you can never predict when this will or will not happen.

Now of course over time noise always cancels. The trouble is it is a function of event rate - toss a coin a thousand times & you could draw a bell curve with a very sharp peak at 50% heads/tails. Toss it half a dozen times though ...

The found hope is that 45 games contains enough individual events to cancel out the noise. Unfortunately there is no way of knowing, but experience suggests it''s a reasonable yardstick to enable the best teams (strongest signal) to prevail.

And of course the problem is amplified by feedback. A few games where the noise predominates bolsters the ''lucky''

teams confidence & disheartens the ''unlucky'' ones. That goes for supporters too, & thus the booing begins, & the situation deteriorates further.

So, to guarantee success you need

a) squad, tactics, strategy sufficient to overcome as much noise as humanly possible

b) strength of character to persevere even when the noise

defeats your best efforts.

No football fan believes any of this of course. It''s all down to playing or not playing their favourite players or favourite system, or the insidious pernicious evil resident in the club''s owners, or the uselessness of manager, or referees ... & who knows? They may be right. Football is such a simple game but with so many variables, so many combinations of factors from moment to moment (a player moving into a fractionally different position off the ball at one instant can change the course of a match) that it is beyond any sort of proper analysis.

Which makes it endlessly, endlessly fascinating.

My other thought is about the way the club is being restructured.

I think the aim is to provide the same advantages as democracy does over tyranny; you may have a benevolent dictator who runs things efficiently & for the greater good - for a while. But there is no guarantee this will continue.

Democracies rely on well run institutions with consistent values & practices. The personnel may change over time but they continue to function in the same way & - being a democracy - for the overall benefit of the population.

At any rate that''s the ideal, which is inevitably never realised in practice - but at least there are standards by which the public can hold those institutions to account.

What''s happening at NCFC is obviously on a tiny scale, with much less real import on the recipients (supporters) but nevertheless it is an attempt to provide a long term future for the health & stability of the club independent of the vagaries of regimes. Which I think is a good thing.

Now let''s go & stuff QPR!

[westcoastcanary 173]

[B] Ron. Another excellent post. There are many analogies one might use to make the same points but, as well as being instructive, your invocation of "noise" seems particularly appropriate in the context of this forum! [:D]

[westcoastcanary 173]

The several recent references to luck on this thread sent me back to The Numbers Game, the opening chapter of which is titled "Riding Your Luck". I really don''t think the role that luck, fortune, coincidence play in football is sufficiently appreciated by the majority of fans. At the level of individual games "half of all goals can be attributed to luck and the better team wins only half the time ....... football is a coin-toss game". The concluding paragraph of the chapter ringingly endorses Parma''s theme that coaching is about "increasing the index of probability when it comes to winning matches" (and conversely decreasing the index of probability when it comes to losing them). "As a coach, all you can do is deny fortune as much of its role as you possibly can". Yes, quality does matter, but as was amply demonstrated week after week over our last two seasons, structural integrity is most important of all.

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]The several recent references to luck on this thread sent me back to The Numbers Game, the opening chapter of which is titled "Riding Your Luck". I really don''t think the role that luck, fortune, coincidence play in football is sufficiently appreciated by the majority of fans. At the level of individual games "half of all goals can be attributed to luck and the better team wins only half the time ....... football is a coin-toss game". The concluding paragraph of the chapter ringingly endorses Parma''s theme that coaching is about "increasing the index of probability when it comes to winning matches" (and conversely decreasing the index of probability when it comes to losing them). "As a coach, all you can do is deny fortune as much of its role as you possibly can". Yes, quality does matter, but as was amply demonstrated week after week over our last two seasons, structural integrity is most important of all.[/quote]That book has something sensible to say on some aspects of football but parts are deeply flawed or misleading. The authors produce research that purports to show luck plays a part in 44 per cent of goals.But the research''s definition of luck includes any event that wasn''t planned by the scoring side, or is a result of poor play by the opposition, which are not the same thing at all. And for example includes the opposition giving the ball away in the first place. That is not luck - that is an inferior team doing what inferior teams do. It also includes defenders then making a mistake. Again, that is what inferior defenders will do.So the 50 per cent luck claim falls down. Where the book is correct is the assertion that good coaching is vital to increase a team''s chances of winning.

[Indy 3,297]

But there also other factors to consider!

Parma has a very good grasp and I would like to ask at what point if it''s not working should the manager go to plan B?

There also comes a point when losing say tonight and to Villa where players start to question if this is the right system and tactics, they might not come out and say it, but might well start to question things.

Then last point, never mind luck, what about lack of confidence, a large part of this group new players aside, have achieved relegation and under achieving last season, I wonder how fragile they could be and how much fight do they have if needed.

[Van wink 2,994]

Great thread guys.

My mind goes back to Swansalona whose newly implemented passing style resulted in a great focus on " Pequeños triángulos" with effort and concentration being absorbed in ensuring successful execution.

As they developed new skill sets the style of play continued but with much greater capacity for more focused movement of the ball swift recognition of space and greater awareness of opportunity.

We are fortunate to be witnessing the embryo of a conception enjoyed during the summer. Pregnancy and birth may be painful and dangerous but will surely reward us with a healthy and successful delivery.

[lake district canary 4,531]

[quote user="Van wink"]Great thread guys.

My mind goes back to Swansalona whose newly implemented passing style resulted in a great focus on " Pequeños triángulos" with effort and concentration being absorbed in ensuring successful execution.

As they developed new skill sets the style of play continued but with much greater capacity for more focused movement of the ball swift recognition of space and greater awareness of opportunity.

We are fortunate to be witnessing the embryo of a conception enjoyed during the summer. Pregnancy and birth may be painful and dangerous but will surely reward us with a healthy and successful delivery.[/quote]

Yes. The Swansea example is good.   I keep harping back to the late 80''s under Stringer where patience was asked for and received with a period of football unparralelled in our history - the same idea - possession football and a consistent approach that developed as time went on to football that looked at times boderline magical - instinctiveness and spontaneity looked easy and natural.......but the groundwork had to be there in the first place. We are at the level of doing the groundwork, which is why I enjoyed the first half on Sunday so much - there were very few mistakes and an ease of keeping the ball that will stand us in good stead as the season progresses. 

[westcoastcanary 173]

Refining the explanatory concepts employed plays a crucial part in developing analytic techniques in sport (as in any form of scientific analysis). You say that events not planned by the scoring side, or that result from poor play by the opposition, are not instances of luck playing a part in a goal being scored. But it may be explanatorily productive to extend the definition of luck to include them and, in the context of discussing the role of coaching, it surely makes perfectly good sense to begin with the concept of what is or isn''t controllable? 

[PurpleCanary 5,557]

[quote user="westcoastcanary"]Refining the explanatory concepts employed plays a crucial part in developing analytic techniques in sport (as in any form of scientific analysis). You say that events not planned by the scoring side, or that result from poor play by the opposition, are not instances of luck playing a part in a goal being scored. But it may be explanatorily productive to extend the definition of luck to include them and, in the context of discussing the role of coaching, it surely makes perfectly good sense to begin with the concept of what is or isn''t controllable? [/quote]Westcoast, what got me started was that the authors take what in the first place is a deeply flawed definition of luck (so that, for example, Sunderland''s first goal would be erroneously included), say it is a factor in 44 per cent of goals, and then later on inflate that to the wild claim that half the goals in football are attributable (ie, entirely) to luck and every game is a coin toss.I agree that in terms of coaching it is valid to highlight the examples of supposedly fortuitous goals that are actually the result of poor defending (such as Sunderland''s first). But my guess would be that at no point in doing so would Farke et al talk about luck!

[Ray 111]

Hi Westcoast,

Luck, in my opinion, normally occurs when opportunity and preparedness meet. The opportunity comes around every Saturday at 3.00pm (or Sunday at 1.30pm, or Tuesday or Wednesday at 7.45pm), so the missing part to the equation is preparedness and the more you are prepared the luckier you get.

A quote attributed to Arnold Palmer/Gary Player, when he chipped in from off the green and a someone said he was lucky, is, "The more I practice the luckier I get" although it is in doubt that he/they did actually say this at the time but the essence of the quote remains.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

This will all sound simplistic after what has gone before but I do agree that things could have turned out very differently on Sunday had we got the first goal. I could then see our new style would make it very hard for teams to build up sustained pressure on us and also how we could exploit gaps they might leave when pushing for an equaliser.

Unfortunately we didn''t not quite have the cutting edge to make our dominance count (will be different I think if wes and nelson start) and the ref missed an absolutely blatant penalty we should have been given as well.

[westcoastcanary 173]

[quote user="Ray"]Hi Westcoast,

Luck, in my opinion, normally occurs when opportunity and preparedness meet. The opportunity comes around every Saturday at 3.00pm (or Sunday at 1.30pm, or Tuesday or Wednesday at 7.45pm), so the missing part to the equation is preparedness and the more you are prepared the luckier you get.

A quote attributed to Arnold Palmer/Gary Player, when he chipped in from off the green and a someone said he was lucky, is, "The more I practice the luckier I get" although it is in doubt that he/they did actually say this at the time but the essence of the quote remains.[/quote]Hello Ray -- long time no cross swords [:D]

What AP should have said is "The more I practice the less unlucky I get"!  Practice may not make perfect, but it sure does help you in "denying fortune as much of its role as you possibly can".

[Rock The Boat 1,329]

I was going to ask whether you guys thought that luck could be influenced or controlled to a teams advantage, but you already seem to be saying that the definition of lucky events include situations that can be prepared for. I''m not sure what I think about it.