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

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 3

Recommended Posts

Wooster produced a nice quote from Guardiola in 2 in which he dismissed the received view of "Tiki Taka" and stressed that the only point of passing the ball was to overload one area of the pitch, unbalance the opponent, and score in the other.

Tactics are the method in which we create this outcome. The repeated patterns in the play that we are trying to develop that favour us. We will review the weapons we have in the context of the current Norwich side in due course.

If we have weapons that hurt the opposition on a one-on-one basis such as a Ronaldo. then we have obvious potential for overload via the gifts of a single player, though generally players have strengths and weaknesses, making the issue less absolute.

There is a caveat here however, and a principle to understand, that managers know well and fans are often blind to.

Let us define the principle in terms of a high profile player who was hugely respected and appreciated in Italy and a little churlishly treated in England: David Beckham.

Beckham represents the dream Italian managerial equation. A player who consistently performs to a high level, never neglects his defensive duties, restricts the opposition through hard work and stamina, can make a great pass, score a goal, score a set piece and may even do something special.

In short Beckham will always provide you with more than have to compromise by playing him. In his case there was no compromise, no risk, just a "cost-free" strategic advantage from the outset. Italians love this. It is incredibly rare.

Let us learn to think as managers and begin to analyse players, tactics and approaches as having both a plus and minus column. Let us learn to see the overall equation, not merely selecting the Information that supports our pre-disposed opinion.

Let us translate this principle to Norwich. Fans have an invested interest in what they are watching, they have a database of positively-reinforced images, memories and experiences that have burnt certainties and pathways into their minds that colour how they see games and players. Some players are favoured and their positive contributions are recalled, other players are out of favour and their weaknesses are focused on. Plus and minus columns are rarely calibrated empirically by fans and this is to be expected. Human psychology is programmed to make firm imprints of powerful emotions. Coaches, scouts and managers are looking for other things.

The sight of wingers scorching past an opposition full back, whipping in a fabulous cross to find a flying striker meeting the ball with a scoring header is a wonderful image - and it does happen. Though with our newly developed coaches mindset, we must now weigh it against the number of times that our winger - let''s call him Redmond - receives the ball in space, pauses (unnecessarily?) for a half second, runs outside the defender, with a half second delay which allows the centre back to readjust his position slightly, so our striker has to check his run, Redmond drifts wider, now trying to find a one-on-one only to see the space closing and turns to look for a supporting pass behind him and sees that he is stretched from his own central midfielder, our Hoolahan has drifted centrally and the opposition has filled the central space and any turnover of possession now actually causes us a tactical problem, with a breakaway goal - against the run of play naturally - possibly coming (out of "nothing").

Tactics are thus the process by which - barring the joyous happenstance that you luck upon a Beckham - we maximise how much we can hurt the opposition (the plus), whilst minimising how much it weakens us in a structural and/or defensive sense (the minus). The problem for fans, message boards, media and casual observers is that the former (the plus) is much more memorable, identifiable and interesting than the latter (the minus). Thus any amateur tactical analysis focuses on what could have been done, not what it might have cost.

Even if you are much better, simply "going after" teams should not be the starting point, or even necessarily the objective. The danger of such an approach is both practical and psychological. Superiority can bring both a sense of the impermeable , that the outcome is "only a matter of time", that you can''t be hurt and also a tendency only to focus on the "plusses" that fans love to see.

The practical weakness of this approach is that -unless you have previously negated your weaknesses in a tactical sense - you "overload yourself" in the search for goals. In effect doing the opposition''s job for you.

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though with our newly developed coaches mindset, we must now weigh it

against the number of times that our winger - let''s call him Redmond -

receives the ball in space, pauses (unnecessarily?) for a half second,

runs outside the defender, with a half second delay which allows the

centre back to readjust his position slightly, so our striker has to

check his run,"i''m afraid that is absolutely nonsense - if only on the basics of physical possibilitiesNo player can adjust his position enough to counter all the possibilities of a cross, within a half second

the rest you could have summed up in a paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if Redmond ( shall we call him that as its his name) always delays by half a second before crossing the ballAnd he ( lets still call him Redmond) has played over 50 games for us and trains with the players every day.Then why do the forwards make early runs knowing that he always delays the cross?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps he doesn''t do that (delay) in training?

Although I suspect it''s the lack of an incisive, creative midfielder (in a real-world matchday situation) that leads to this delay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Spot on Ron. I would suggest it is a psychological tic caused by a surge of excitement in a game situation. Having waited for his opportunity to impress and receive the ball, he has a momentary brain freeze for half a second, an adrenaline surge. If you watch him, this is repeated. Such things are noted in the game.

The thread is not to denigrate Redmond - or any other player for that matter - rather it is to start looking at our own players as opposition managers might and start noting both sides of the coin, something rarely seen on this board, particularly after matches. Where the result colours all views and solutions are 2D.

"Redmond needs to get past the full back more" or "Whittaker needs to get higher up the pitch" are only half the equation and do not account for the minus column of such an action.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Spot on Ron. I would suggest it is a psychological tic caused by a surge of excitement in a game situation. Having waited for his opportunity to impress and receive the ball, he has a momentary brain freeze for half a second, an adrenaline surge. If you watch him, this is repeated. Such things are noted in the game.

The thread is not to denigrate Redmond - or any other player for that matter - rather it is to start looking at our own players as opposition managers might and start noting both sides of the coin, something rarely seen on this board, particularly after matches. Where the result colours all views and solutions are 2D.

"Redmond needs to get past the full back more" or "Whittaker needs to get higher up the pitch" are only half the equation and do not account for the minus column of such an action.

Parma[/quote]

Redmond can beat any player on a one to one, but is more likely to do it from a standing start unless he gets a run on a player.  A ball over the top to him and he will be away from the defender.  However we rarely get him in this situation as he plays further back and nearly always has a defender in front of him. This means he has to beat the player and is more likely to do that if he makes the defender stop - because his strength in running is his intitial acceleration over two or three yards.  So the hesitation may be less of a psychological issue than a definite technique to slow the defender down, then accelerate past him.   A defender that is already running will be more likely to catch him as he does not have raw pace over distance.  His strength is in his pace from a standing start, not distance.  

If there is an adrenilin surge/freeze for a split second, that will stop as he matures.  At the moment he is concentrating on getting an end product and is achieving that in the way of more crosses.  However, these crosses lack bite, often more of a gentle chip into the box - no penetration or aim other than to get the ball in the area.   He has all the tools for he job and will get the balance right between all the facets of his play eventually - he knows he can get crosses in and as his confidence grows these will improve their accuracy and penetration. He knows he can shoot as shown in his goals for the U21''s, he knows how to beat players. He will improve and can get better, mixing things up more, but the great thing is that in the meantime, he is still our most exciting player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LDC, although that may be true, his hesitation allows opposition players to get back into position & mark any potential crossees (?!).

I still reckon if we could get our midfield to put the ball into space for him to run on to he wouldn''t have to hesitate, & their defence would have a much harder time of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="ron obvious"]I still reckon if we could get our midfield to put the ball into space for him to run on to he wouldn''t have to hesitate, & their defence would have a much harder time of it.[/quote]Agree with that, but that means he has to play further forward.  For that we need more in midfield.  The 442 style doesn''t suit his attributes imo as it limits him in getting forwards enough and act more as a supplier to two strikers.  One striker and Redmond buzzing around at the front with midfielders behind to supply him and cover defensive duties would be better imo and I think that any striker playing up front with him would benefit from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good LDC.

Let us look at what we have in the context of 3.

Where are our weapons? What weaknesses do our weapons have and how can we best cover them? What isn''t working and why? How can tactical wit improve our odds with the same resources?

Let us lay down some current parameters (you are welcome to question these):

We want to pass the ball and maintain a measure of control via possession

We want to be a positive, attack-minded side, as scoring volumes of goals in this league gets you promoted

We want to bring entertaining, flowing football and give the fans what they want to see.

OK, but what have we got to work with and does it fit our parameters?

Firstly we have a good, strong goalkeeper, with good back up. Fine. If we are dominant, he may have time to think, so Can we get the goalkeeper involved in fast, early distribution to feet. Work on his touch and swift release with both feet and hands.

Our centre backs are strong, dominant, but lack passing quality and the technical confidence to step into midfield. Martin is the most fluid, when we are dominant, he must play centrally and begin movement with early balls into midfield. Turner is a great dominator of 2D forwards and a powerful presence. He is ideal for this level, but we only want or need done of him. He is not quick, nor is his passing confident, crisp or early, so we need pace near him. Martin is capable of drifting into full or semi-full back positions, so we can push our right back on a little when on top, provided our midfield pivot is always disciplined. Our left back cannot leave Turner so exposed, so Olsson''s gifts are a little restricted sadly (shame he can''t play right).

This brings us to the most important position of our central midfield pivot, designed to shield - and even drop between - our centre backs. His key gift must be positional awareness and the discipline never to leave his station. He often does his job standing still and doing nothing. The fans won''t like him, rate him of perhaps even notice him, but the coaches will. This has to be Johnson. He works hard and fast, but composure is not his forte, so other players need to make an available angle for him before he needs it. Bad passes are not always the fault of the passer. Just as Pirlo "puts a message on the ball", so Xavi puts a message on a movement into space (even when he doesn''t expect - or even want - to receive it). We always need 3 in the middle if the field, so we fill our other (tight) central slots with Howson right and o''Neil left of Johnson for balance. Let''s now touch on what LDC observed and work out what our weapons really are, how we''re going to use them and protect them from their own weaknesses.

I think Redmond is a key weapon at this level. I also think he remains a liability, not as much as at the top level, but more than I would have expected. Playing him wide in a 442 simply ends up exposing our central 2, who can end up a flat screen and leave us surprisingly vulnerable to direct - even 2D central - counters. Johnson is now deepest, he is central and he''s not moving. He is going to allow us to build our attacking game plan.

Really upsetting teams in an attacking sense does not come from more forwards. Unless you play direct and long, knocking down from a crouch and bypassing midfield. We might do this from a losing position with minutes to go, but we will concede too much possession this way and expose our own defence to the same tactic through lack of numbers. We have more money and better players at this level, so why even the odds?

Goals are more often scored - and pace often better used - from attacking the spaces between opposition midfield and defence and the space between wide midfield and central defence. This is the space we leave open when we attack. We are not going to do this anymore.

Teams may have big centre backs is this league, they may even have big powerful forwards. What they don''t have is pace, allied with dribbling ability, youthful fearlessness and shooting ability. So let''s look at Redmond and Murphy (x2?).

Redmond isolates himself, drifts wide and loses possession (often unsurprisingly) when faced with two banks of four and a lack of space. He often becomes passive playing wide, a wingers complaint of not getting fed. We are going to put him at the centre of the game and have him running at the big centre backs of the opposition from deeper positions. Murphy is going to be stationed alongside him, both will have the intention of running past our central striking pivot, who needs to be a tactically aware, fluid player who knows when to drop out of the space and expose the centre backs or the space between them and the full backs. Lafferty is ideal. We are going to become more penetrative with less strikers.

Our key weapons are now set up to play between the lines, to move from in to out, and not provide the opposition with formulaic lines and patterns to defend against. We have a fluidity of position, with players that are not defined by typical roles and who are therefore harder to assign single markers to. We are overloading central areas, but with key weapons who can dart and drive into wider areas with the confidence of structure behind them. Our key weapons can take risks without exposing us to unnecessary risks.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Out of interest Parma, do you have a hypothesis as to why the introduction of Cameron Jerome into the starting line-up has coincided with our inability to score a first half goal?It may be finding trends in data that aren''t really there but the last time we scored a goal in the first half of play was against Bournemouth, the last time Jerome didn''t start a game up front. That goal scored by Lewis Grabban, the man who''s been forced to adjust his style of play to accommodate Jerome and has consequently lost form.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks Parma.

I agree that the key is exploiting the space in front of the back four and having pacey runners coming into this area is a great tactic, I seem to recall Bale using this space well against us and scoring a cracking goal.

We don''t have a Bale but in Redmond and Murphy we have pace and they are both capable of beating a man and getting a shot off just outside the box.

The key here is the pace, defenders will be scared stiff of trying to tackle them, or if they do then we will win a lot of free kicks. I think this structure could well hold the key to breaking stubborn teams down at CR. You can''t beat pace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
''''You can''t beat pace! ''''.....Jenkins

How true, pace is one thing that cannot be coached, sure ,you can improve a players running style and therefore increase their pace slightly, but pace is a gift with which Murphy and Redmond are blessed.

One tactic we''re seeing very little of is the Centre Forward(remember them, a la Chris Sutton) ''coming short'' in the centre circle area and spinning the ball out left or right to a pacey winger, that we do have...something that immediately puts the opposition defence on the back foot. We seem to play the ball to feet, or even slightly behind the wingers causing that pause, the one that lets defences re adjust.

Interesting read Parma, its a simple game, made complicated by the desire to emulate styles of play or superior teams methods. The true tactician is the one who sends out their team with a varied armoury of responses to the endless possibilities the game throws up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We do too often play the ball to feet Wc, I think this is in part why we see some hesitation from Redmond. I sometimes think he is looking for a full back to overlap so he can lay it off and move into the space, doesn''t seem to happen too often though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pace is something we are lacking and dont maximise - and it is just as important to ensure we have quick ball speed as well as foot speed - even averaged paced teams can attack effectively with swift accurate passing (between the lines) and intelligent player movement;  thats is sadly something that is currently sadly missing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont think a front three of redders, murf and grabbs/jerome could be called lacking in pace, olssen is pretty quick and bennets no slouch, i''d love someone to explain to me how(or why )we dont use this pace to rip teams up.

At the moment we are less than the sum of our parts, NA, please put this right ASAP or we''ll be in the same division nest season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Holty. Cameron Jerome is not the cause per se, but this may be a good example of good tactics bring better (for the team and the outcome) than simply playing your best players. Very much at the heart of these tactics threads.

I would suggest it is more the Lack of Lafferty - and the tactical fluidity he provides - than the presence of Jerome. Previously Grabban occupied 4 defenders almost, with his rangy running and awkward style (that''s a compliment), that Grabban scored goals too was a bonus. The introduction of (the very good) Jerome, simply saw 2 players occupy 4. We have de-facto regressed in chess terms. Lafferty would join centrally from wider, drifting into the space between wide midfielder, full back and centre back (between several lines) and would thus keep all aware, without always directly engaging any of them. Very good tactical play. With Wes naturally sitting deeper - ok not often troubling the goalkeeper - but very much troubling the space between midfield and defence, plus sometimes wider areas between midfield, defence and full backs, we had very good tactical fluidity. This deeper positioning from both Lafferty and Wes freed Redmond who was also then less fixed and felt he could join Grabban too. Again nice fluidity and an ongoing structural challenge for the defence. This was our successful results period.

Ron: Johnson over Tettey

Again here tactics are better than the best players. Tettey is "better" in many ways, he has a greater range if skills and does more eye-catching things, but Johnson happier and better suited to doing what is required of him. I cannot stress enough how key this deep central pivot role is to team shape and what else can be achieved tactically on the pitch if this role is played correctly. A great example (in the end it didn''t matter) was the World Cup final after Schweinsteiger had to step into the khedira role (Johnson). Schweinsteiger was an awesome, Gerrard- at -his- peak -best marauding presence, but he would not and could prosaically sit in the key pivot space. Germany conceded space and opportunity in this area throughout the game, which was an unnecessary risk. Argentina failed to capitalise, but darted into this space at every opportunity. Schweinsteiger may have got man if the match, but Sabella saw the minus in the positive and went after it. Good tactics.

In squad, o''Neil May have discipline to replace Johnson. Like the Schweini v Khedira example he is Less " look at me". This is a team role and positioning, discipline and an autistic adherence to station is key. Tettey cannot help but try to show what he can do....

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma, I''m really enjoying these threads. Ive long been a believer that 11 eeye-catching individual performances won''t necessarily represent a good team performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kick offThis I feel is one area where the ratio of contact with backward swing is perhaps rather over neglected in relation to the awareness of the refereess call (actually whistle) that signals the ongoing play in progress. If the kicker of the ball, the sphere as it is sometimes known, though not always as it depends on the current hip jive (err ddaddio) is not at the correct angle that corresponds to the designated treceiver that may occur a nano second of time required to adjust to receiving the ball abd then a realignment of his body which can allow the opposition to gain some distance towards him, which may be why the backward swing is not as far as it could be, and why some other players who maybe aware of this are not as close as possible and can be quite a distance aaway for the original kicker .........tossing the coinIt should be understood that the coin used will have two sides and so can land on either, although it is not beyond the realms of possiblility that the coin could land on it''s side though it would not be the best tactic to call out side when the ref asks you to call - though again we can never be sure who the ref will ask to call, so we must see more work done at Colney to prepare players for this and great development can be made with players so that the best caller can manouvre himself into the position of being the player the ref asks to call, assume it is the ref who makes that decision, something that may vary from club to club, and something Adams and his coaching staff should be aware of, and pass on to the players, in  case they are caught out and it is the tea lady who asks them, though she will usually be asking tea or coffee......................

next week we will be looking at beards, their use and the possible slowng down of the game through their drag effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
City 1st

"next week we will be looking at beards, their use and the possible slowing down of the game through their drag effect"

At last it seems as if you have found a topic that you know something about. If you keep off the football stuff you will be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the clarity of thought in your posts Parma, you make a lot of sense.   The successful period did seem that Lafferty was key to it and that with Jerome and Grabban up front lessened the space for the two strikers.   It was simply a joy to behold seeing Johnson and Tettey have so much influence in midfield because of the running/movement of everyone in front of them. 

That 4231 worked in terms of goals too.  You advocate Johnson in a defensive central midfield role on his own.  So if I read you tright, a team set up would be (with Wes injured) something like -                RuddyWhittaker Martin Turner Ollsen                 JohnsonRedmond Tettey Howson Lafferty                  GrabbanI really like the look of this - but it does depend on Johnson.  Does he have enough speed of thought and discipline for this important role?  Tettey does like to express himself more, but if he could be persuaded to operate in that more disciplined and clearly defined role, he would be the better at that position imo.  Maybe O''Neill could do it too. Tactically, I don''t know if Adams thinks of all these type of things, or if he favours a more simple approach on the lines of City 1st''s "wind them up and stick them on the pitch" approach.   We should still be winning matches, given the chances we get - so there is an argument for carrying on the same way as we have been - if the strikers can sort themselves out.   The problem is that we are not winning, so something needs to be done to give the team new impetus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LDC,

The example I gave was:

Ruddy

Martin Turner

Olsson

Bennett E Johnson

Howson O''Neil

Redmond Murphy

Lafferty

Johnson would often make a 3 in the defensive line

Lafferty would drop out of the space to sometimes make a 7 in midfield

Bennett (coached) or a.n.other would often/ mostly be further forward than Johnson.

Olsson must (unfortunately) cover Turner, he drops if we are countered

Possession is dominated in the centre of the field

Redmond and Murphy run from deep and have licence to drift in to out

Lafferty acts as pivot. Drops out of space or acts as wall for runners

Runners play for free kicks (specialist must be on field - Lafferty/ o''Neil in this example)

No "lines" are grooved for the opposition to defend against in repeated fashion. They must come out of their shape to defend.

We are avoiding our players playing "against" any individual in the opposition.

Are they going to push their full backs inside and high to deal with Redmond and Murphy? Are their big centre halves going to step higher up the field into midfield? Are they going to drop midfielders deeper? How much ball and time will Howson, Johnson and O''Neil (left footed, can drift) have?

Lafferty can also drift wide (left foot), who will go with him? What about the time after?

The individuals in the side can be interchanged - provided they are or can be fluid. The way we play will be more important than who we play.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry Parma [:D].  Missed that line up/formation before.  Must say I can''t see us playing like this under Adams - I wish we could.  The line up I gave - which I hoped had taken some of your points on board - is not so very different from earlier in the season, with a little more emphasis on one central defensive midfield player.  Your ideas make sense and Lafferty to me is key, as he seems to understand the kind of tactics you talk about and plays a prescribed role very well, presumably due to his time in Italy.  Wish that all the players could do this......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Post has scrambled what I had on my iPhone.

For simplicity, though it is almost important not to focus on the nominal "formation", it would be a variation on 4321, 3421, 3241, 3223, 343 or 370.....

The defensive three would de-facto include Johnson, rather than the full backs.

The pace of Redmond and Murphy is released, and their tactical naïveté is used to our advantage.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it now.  [Y]  One more question (sorry).  Could we achieve something similar with three centre backs with the middle one being Martin - as he is versatile imo to combine defensive and midfield play too, thus keeping two specialist centre backs and a  mobile guy in the middle to link defence and midfield.  He would certainly have the discipline to play there and stick to the task - and his passing is good too, the one thing that Johnson can be erratic at, at times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now then, Parma, I will take issue with you over your relative assessments of BJ & Tettey.

last year Tettey was probably the most disciplined player we had. He defended one area of the pitch ferociously & seldom stepped outside it Two or three times a match - never more - he would make a sortie forwards, which often had the desired effect of catching the opposition off guard. When he got the ball he would always give it to someone in more space, but usually only 10 or 20 metres away at most. For this he was roundly condemned.

Johnson by contrast was all at sea on the left hand side, too often missing tackles, getting caught with the ball & attempting ambitious passes which seldom came off.

Obviously anyone can find exceptions to these observations, but I really had no preconceived ideas about either player & the above is what I observed.

This season Tettey has been playing in a much more adventurous way. Do you think he has done so off his own bat? Unlikely, I''d have thought. Or do you think his remit might have altered slightly? If so, he is actually showing he has the discipline to follow instructions.

Johnson meanwhile is playing in much the same way - with more success, because the opposition is weaker.

So, I would expect Tettey to make a much better fist of a disciplined defensive role than Johnson. I think the former has a tendency to underrate his capabilities, the latter the opposite, & much more prone to try the ''eye-catching thing''.

As LDC says, this is a cracking discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really LDC. The important thing positionally is to not finish where you start and not to start where you finish (excepting -say- the central midfield defensive pivot and the structural 9 as the Dutch would play it).

Our (Norwich and England) problem is that our formation dictate the way the players play, the positions they take up and therefore how they can be defended against .

What I am trying to establish is a team where the players selected have natural fluidity and their natural games takes them away from the feed positions. I allow and encourage this as a coach, indeed it is this that will cause the opposition the problems.

What does the big, dominant centre back do when the centre forward isn''t there? What do the full backs do when the "wingers" Redmond and Murphy aren''t anywhere near the wings? What does the central midfielder do when Johnson drops between the our own centre backs and the full backs are in midfield? What about when this is augmented with Howson and O''Neil drifting into their favoured sides?

What about when Redmond and Murphy don''t stand on anyone''s toes and attack the goal, but just attack the space and play for free kicks?

Focusing on scoring goals is a red herring and can''t be fully controlled (sorry). What can be is a system that causes structural problems and asks uncomfortable questions of the opposition.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ron, I don''t say you''re wrong. In fact in a "scoring system" Tettey would likely come out on top.

Under a succession of managers, playing different styles, different formations and different levels, he has consistently played a high proportion of the games.

He is what I would call a "structural" player, who allows other tactics and approaches to be created because what he can do, he does do. If you are pinning me down to criticise Neil, I would say he has a bit too much freedom this season.

It is the role that is the important thing for me, not the individual. I don''t want someone good in the role, I want someone limited....

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Football is a team game and yet we focus so strongly on individual performances. Bradley Johnson''s value to the team is such, that as Parma says, he''s been a regular starter for the last three very different Norwich managers. But he''s remembered for giving the ball away and there''s tantrums from some every time he''s picked. For me Tettey, Johnson and Redmond have been vital for the team this season and would be first on the teamsheet. The way I see it Johnson is the best we have for holding the midfield and covering missing defenders. Tettey is the best engine in the midfield and breaks up play and wins posession especially with interceptions. And Redmond is our most dangerous forward even allowing for the hesitation.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]Ron, I don''t say you''re wrong. In fact in a "scoring system" Tettey would likely come out on top.

Under a succession of managers, playing different styles, different formations and different levels, he has consistently played a high proportion of the games.

He is what I would call a "structural" player, who allows other tactics and approaches to be created because what he can do, he does do. If you are pinning me down to criticise Neil, I would say he has a bit too much freedom this season.

It is the role that is the important thing for me, not the individual. I don''t want someone good in the role, I want someone limited....

Parma[/quote]I find this quite interesting. I''ve been reading a really good book about football tactics recently, and when you look at the development of the English game, this idea of "being limited as a positive" was important in the tactics of some of the successful managers in the early 20th century. The idea of being limited overall as a footballer but able to successfully fulfill a particular role, rather than being a better footballer but less inclined for a certain role or position. It''s an interesting contrast: focussing on the tactical system, or on getting as many good players on the pitch as possible. Something that was debated for quite a few years in the whole "Can Gerrard and Lampard play together for England" debate.And yes, please continue with these threads Parma! I''m also interested in listening to the views and thoughts of others, particularly those who know what they''re talking about. [:)]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...