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

Parma's Tactics Masterclass 2

Recommended Posts

It seems like an opportune moment to assess the eight block vs the embarrassment of riches.

Recent games - and much of the previous regime - have shown us that pragmatism and entertainment are not always natural bedfellows.

As we have noted in 1, "playing your own game" is a luxury philosophy only available to the superior. It is only a fool or a King that can ignore what the opposition does.

There is nothing inherently clever about stationing eight players within 30 yard of your own defensive third and ensuring that the minimum amount amount of space is available for the opposition to attack. It does however require concentration, discipline and communication. The danger areas to protect from a defensive point of view include the space behind the final line of defenders and the goalkeeper, the space "down the sides" between the centre backs and the full backs, and the area between the central defenders and the two central midfielders (typically the edge of the D and 25 yards out, which emphasises that we are talking about "pockets" not much more than 5 yards square).

That this set up is not wholly attractive at home if you are Manchester United vs Stockport is clear, that it can win European Cups for Inter vs Real Madrid (under the pragmatically watchful eye of Mourinho) or indeed garner points at Carrow Road for inferior opposition, must also be recognised.

As we have seen in 1, what appears to be "attacking" on paper to the man in the pub, may actually be no such thing. Territory may be important in Rugby, but simply "getting the ball up there" may be thoroughly detrimental to your chance of success. The notion that 2 strikers are inherently more attacking than 1 striker is nonsense, it entirely depends on how and where such players receive the ball - or indeed if they do so at all.

Let us place ourselves in the joyous - and not entirely inaccurate - position of being the superior side and looking to break down an opponent defending stubbornly. What can we do to "concretise" our superiority and what must we be wary of in doing so (even though we are superior, we are still going to look at what the opponents game plan and "weapons" are in determining our strategy)?

Firstly a poker lesson, the opponent has 2 outcomes out of 3 that they are happy with ( a draw or a win), we have only 1 out of 3 (a win); so they immediately have a broader scope for "success".

In a football sense (as close Hughton-watchers will know well) in order to score a goal or penetrate an eight block defence in open play, you yourself will have to come out of a "protective" shape and try to create a little attacking "chaos". The opposition - if they are canny and well drilled - almost want you to do this, they are waiting for this moment. This is the "counter-punching" theory from boxing and is entirely distinct from the "you attack, we attack" counterattacking theory, where a game is open and "stretched".

Thus our attack of eight block must be respectful of any clumsy, but effective "we suck you in, you pile on top of us, we nurdle the ball away and bang it early and long to the isolated, but fast chap who nicks a goal "against the run of play". This is not really "against" any run of play, it was precisely what was intended and the "pocket ace" that our eight block friends retained (a further way is a "Crouch" at 9 and - say - a floating "Redmond" at 10, though those who like the eight block might well prefer workhorses at 10 and possibly 9 as well). [Qv: Quite where RVW or Hooper fitted into such a model is unclear to me].

So, we are better and not blind to the dangers and game plan of the opposition, so what do we do?

Well sadly we ignore the clamour from the terraces for multiple big centre forwards up front. In fact we don''t necessarily play our best 11 players, rather we look at how we can best maximise our odds in the way our eight block friends are doing.

Forgive a little indulgence, but let''s go back to what Parma would have done in their heyday. Given our opponents propensity to defend, we will not give them what they want, we will play one forward with a particular repeatable skill - Casiraghi an occupier of multiple defenders and as master at winning free kicks - and a 10 whose job it is to smuggle short 4 yard passes into him from a free position between the midfield 4 and defensive 4 (Zola or indeed Hoolahan).

This fairly simple ploy has created a problem for our defensive friends. Who are they defending against? They cannot leave the game 8 v 2, so they either sit where they intend and allow us to retain possession in our 65% of the field or they loosen their shape.

Forgive me for stating the obvious to the tactically literate amongst you, but up until now we are not really trying to score. If our magical 10 and savvy 9 win us a free kick, we have a well-drilled specialist eager for the chance. It''s a strategic "free hit" so far, as - unless we have made a monumental mistake, we have not been threatened 2 v 8 and have had plenty of - admittedly fairly passive - possession. Which is as intended. We are patient Italians.

We clearly do not need to leave the attacking situation at 2 v 8 for long, and we are in the fortunate position of having two fast running, clever dribbling young players. What we are not going to do is try to match up these players in the wide areas, the eight block will simply see our wonderful weapons briefly excite, perhaps get past one, then run down blind alleys, perhaps getting the occasional corner. Instead we are going to use the defensive eight block as a target, switching the dribbling players inside and encouraging them to dribble between the lines (into the small spaces between the wide midfield of the eand play for free kicks (again) in the space between the wide midfield of the eight and the same-sided centre back of the defensive eight. Instead of attacking outside beyond our dribbler (overlapping) with our full back, we are going to encourage him to take up a regular cover position , slotting alongside our two central midfielders, explicitly to guard against our dribbler losing the ball and a counterattack being sprung. Again our dribbler is not trying to score, he is playing for free kicks. Naturally If a shooting opportunity presents itself, or a ball can be slid beside the centre back for our mobile forward then great, though this space is unlikely to be there.

You will note that We are still not trying very hard to score (by English pub standards), what we are doing is focusing on equally specific, repeated strategies as the defensive side is doing. No individual action is overwhelming likely to lead to a goal, but we are repeatedly getting a 6 or 7 out of 10 result from the action and with limited risk to ourselves. By this time our two central midfield players and - particularly - our central defenders should have seen a great deal of the ball. The crowd have likely moaned that the ball is not getting forward quick enough, that we haven''t created enough goalmouth action, but our players have had plenty of touches and are emotionally positive. The defensive eight block is tiring , somewhat negative and possession passive. This is less fun and one mistake is often costly, as a strategic switch from eight block to possession pressure is not easy.

So I hear you say, we''ve got some free kicks, our dribblers scare them, we are playing reasonably well, though it''s still nil nil and I''m getting nervous, so what now?

Well firstly, I''m not getting nervous. I''ve been brought up under a different culture and all I''m trying to achieve is a tactical superiority that puts the odds of winning in my favour. Whilst the odds (pattern of play) favour me and mean that it is more likely that we will score than the opposition I don''t need to change (whatever the shrieks from the stands). It might be the 70th minute.

What may change now is the opposition. Their manager is also not stupid. Whilst he is pleased with nil nil, he can see that the pattern of play moves against him. He knows that as tiredness creeps in, more errors occur. I can afford errors in my striker, 10 and dribblers, he can''t afford one in his eight block.

My superior side naturally has a superior bench, so I can replace my cunning Casiraghi with a powerful runner. Replacing centre backs, defenders or even central midfield players is a far greater risk, carrying as it does the need for new communication, a period of adjustment and a risk of errors. Tiredness is creeping in though.

If I want to I can exchange one of my central holding players for a breaking player, I can encourage the best ball-playing centre back to start stepping higher into midfield with the ball and playing passes into the dribblers, 10 or new runner. I let my central drop pivot cover this run (strikers track players far less well - and willingly - than midfielders)

What I do not do is unnecessarily shut the space further than the eight block is already doing. Simply piling more strikers into this area will not increase my chances, it will simply serve to eliminate space which makes it harder for me to penetrate and clearly favours the eight block tactic. Should I happen to have a wonderful striker of the ball (Magari Quagliarella?) then I would naturally fashion repeated possession in front of or on the edge of the eight block for repeated shots. These are low odds, but the set up means there is likely to be a volume of them.

At no time have I risked anything other than a clumsy 2D counterattack with inferior numbers. The odds are that this can be dealt with comfortably barring individual error.

The eagle-eyed amongst you will have spotted that this has not guaranteed victory. Some of you may even feel it is a little passive. There will be days when it finishes nil nil and "we could have had 3 points if only we''d gone for it". For those of you that play poker, or have visited a casino, the house makes it''s billions on 0 on the roulette wheel (1 in 36). Don''t panic and overplay your winning hand.

England have nearly scored or nearly won for a lifetime. What looks like pressure in England is often the clumsy chess player who nearly gets checkmate early in the game, only to lose later because his pawn structure is weak.

Sometimes not over-attacking IS pressing home the advantage.

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote user="Nexus_Canary"]Wow, you really do think you know what your on about.....You lost me at "It seems....." *yawn*  Stick to FM14 or Fifa [/quote]

Italy, 5 World Cup finals, 4 times the winner.England............we all know the answer to that .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My mind always goes back to Nottingham Forest and the way they played in the seventies and eighties.  Very much a counter punching team, with ace wingers and speed on the break.  Suck them in then hit them hard was the motto - or so it seemed to me.   But also at  times they overpowered opposition teams with their work rate and complete focus - no arguing with refs, no histrionics and feigned injuries.  Brian Clough was a bit of a genius in getting the maximum from his players.   I can see Norwich playing that way this season when we come up against sterner tests and we have the players to do it (the third goal against Blackburn for instance) and with a strong bench, to me that is a good strategy, especially late in games.   But for most weeks it looks to me as if we should be dominating possession, playing with neat passing football and being patient, working the opposition.   The trouble is, we still give the ball away too much with poor passing.   That has been an area over several seasons that has caused problems.  Wes still is both good and bad.   Johnson is still wayward from time to time.   I''ve not followed all Parma''s reasoning on this thread - it seems to me he has a point, but you can''t change a culture over night.  Whatever tactics and/or formation is used, I just want to see the players making good decisions on the pitch, passing neatly to one of our own players and  playing with patience and composure.  We''ve done that in spells, but to emulate what Parma seems to be suggesting, we need more consistency of approach, pay attention more just to keeping the ball and make the opposition tire by trying to get it back.  Then our quality in depth will shine through from the bench. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem as I see it with the "keep the ball and tire the opposition out" tactic is that it belongs to the 70`s and is no longer a successful ploy.Technically poor or teams with fewer gifted players usually make up for that deficit by being super fit, actually virtually all teams are now very fit and can bring on 3 fresh legged substitutes which should be enough to stiffen any tiring midfield. Teams that are camped in their own third for much of the game and have a back 8,9 or even 10 do not need to cover great yardages but simply have to use the "slide" defence guiding the attacking team across the pitch from one side to the other.Basic math tells you that to score by keeping possession and building slowly needs both a greater passing accuracy and a larger sequence of accurate passes than quick counter attacking football. We should know as almost all the goals we have conceded this season have come from opposition plays of 5 or less passes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be refreshing to have a manager who has a plan & style he wants to utilise and builds that team to suit his ideas, like Shanks, Clough and Fergy.

In a perfect world as in the 70''s & 80''s managers would have a few seasons to build that squad but with the new pressures of Sky money and the expectations of each clubs board to succeed, managers are not given the time to build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There seems to be two versions of this thread, so I''ll say it again here:

I have read with interest both the master classes and agree with much, though there are a few points I''d differ on. I personally dislike the 4-4-2 because of its inflexibility, as you rightly argue. A 4-2-3-1 provides far more flexibility to use the limited spaces available against teams defending in depth. Like others I fail to see why NA has abandoned that flexibility for an unbalanced 4-4-2, especially when we have strikers like Grabban, Jerome and Lafferty who suit that flexibility and who seem to be overcrowding the box in a 4-4-2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Parma''s point about full-backs adopting a covering position rather than constantly attempting to overlap is a good one when you look at the team Norwich have used since adopting a 4-4-2. Hoolahan''s tendency to drift in central means that Olsson almost always attempts to overlap as space is always available. He does this even when the ball is on the other side of the pitch (the right flank) when conventional footballing logic would suggest that he should adopt a more defensive position in order to keep a back three. Some teams don''t follow this logic and encourage both full-back sto attack at all times but they still take precautions in order to not leave themselves too defensively vulnerable. Barcelona, for example, allow both full-backs to go forward and attack whenever the team has possession but the holding midfielder then drops between the centre backs in order to give Barcelona that extra defensive cover.
Norwich don''t do that. Both full-backs press forward as do both midfielders. Norwich have often attacked with 8 players in this 4-4-2 and defended with just 2. When you factor this in, is it any surprise that Norwich have often looked so vulnerable to counter-attacks considering that you are asking just 2 (relatively) slow CB''s to cover the entirety of their own half?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bravo Pippo Fritto.

The defensive pivot role is indeed key. This role as auxiliary centre back allows for greater shape, flexibility and scope for other areas, it is key. The weakness of the 4231 is that the 2 are still boxy and have a tendency to be similar. In Italy there are a variety of ways and titles for the role that can be played here: a disciplined player who has a metronomic passing ability and doesn''t give it away (deep Pirlo), a general type who tends to be aggressive and unflinching (gattuso), a passer who becomes playmaker (Pirlo further forward, Alonso), or a screen that just sits and protects (Makelele for Chelsea). This last one is such a key figure that this would be a default choice on the continent, with the other role one of the others, though it would not be played in a flat shape. The area in front and between the central defenders is too important.

For a start it is the shortest route to goal. The English dream of wide players running outside and crossing is the longest way round and therefore the slowest (however fast or tricky your wingers are). If they lose it you can counterattack "inside" their shape, which is far more dangerous.

As Pippo says, this screen position allows for others to make different movements and create angles between the lines of a 442. In England you instinctively look for players that conform to the central midfield, centre back, full back, winger, striker roles. In Holland you look for players that don''t. You are just starting to learn this with Sterlings, Welbecks or Hoolahans.

You are beginning to see that inferior players than you had in the Golden Generation may do better simply because of HOW they play, not necessarily their intrinsic ability.

Germany now have a clutch of technically-gifted, fluid moving players that drift seamlessly between "positions" as we understand it.

They have 30,000 coaches and we have 2,500. They have embraced Spanish Movement, Italian tactical nous and have retained the powerful No-excuses German mindset. They have been in 14 major finals. And they changed.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma, you''ve expertly described the woeful tactics employed by Adams against Rotherham, a game which we were lucky not to lose. I''ve mentioned before how weak we are at shooting from around the edge of the penalty area, and I concur that this would have been an obvious tactic against a bus-parking team such as Rotherham.Another weakness arises from the fact that we failed to strengthen the midfield in the summer. Namely, we lack the nous and ability to pull a team like Rotherham off balance in order to set up the sort of penetrating play and shooting opportunities that your post advocates. Instead of knocking at the door hoping to be let in, we ended up employing the battering ram virtually all game.Even if we employed probing attack tactics, the basic passing and movement isn''t of the standard required to make the inevitable 0-0''s into 1-0''s and 2-0s. Centrally attacking play along the ground, needed to unlock a stubborn defence, isn''t really in the repertoire of our midfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As we have discussed previously managers are often influenced by the position they played as players.

Human nature is also to solve yesterday''s problems, to put right the things that you would have wanted yourself (when you played).

There is also a commendable desire to give people want they want - particularly after a period of steadfastly not doing so - though this does not necessarily translate into success.

Redmond has improved greatly recently - and this is no accident - but I like seeing him coming inside and running. At defensive blocks and winning free kicks. As Pippo says, let him do this freely with the full back stepping into the central ish space behind him. Do not endless overlap outside leaving our central position exposed, nor offer unnecessary options wider and higher, this is too open and not needed.

A clever 9 such as Lafferty, supported by a deep Hoolahan, with narrow running pace from Redmond and Murphy looks like a balanced attack.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Parma,

La ringrazio molto - mantenere il buon lavoro

... or at least that''s what Google translate said.

I enjoy these essays enormously as I''m not au fait with the tactical side of the modern game. Thank you and keep them coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting discussion but I would want to further discuss the "Don''t panic and overplay your winning hand." sentiments. If we were in a world where you only received 2 points for a win then your argument would hold stronger ground. However the fact that a win will give you 3 points means that if you are gambling by playing attacking football, even if it is a 50/50 chance of winning or losing, that would still give you a total of 69 points at the end of the season. If you did not gamble and played for a draw each match, even if you are successful you would only get 46 points. On average victory will favour the brave.This isn''t simply 50-50 either. As was shown against Rotherham even though we got caught on the break when we went all out attack we still came back and recuperated the draw we originally set out to achieve.Mourinho''s defensive style last year is possibly a good example. Whilst they managed credible results against other big teams where they could play the defensive reserved style and look for a point they struggled to consistently pick up wins against poorer sides in the league and lost the title because of a lack of attacking play. Something I feel he''s looked to counteract by bringing in Fabregas and Diego Costa so he can adapt his team more efficiently.Some of our issues right now appear to be psychological. Even though we were winning with a conservative style of play at the beginning of games the local press has harassed the team for not playing better in the first half of games. Since then I''ve seen several of the over exuberant chess player examples in our style of play. Adams needs to stop worrying about pleasing every man and his dog and do what he feels is right to win football matches. After all, you don''t get any extra points for scoring in the first 10 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I''m afraid Parma that is horse sh it on stilts. Ok for the Colins and Tevors who might pull themselves silly reading similar nonsense on saddo.com but has no relationship to the game of football.

It is football not chess, or some contrived pantomime like american ''football''. The whole beauty of it is in it''s fluidity, where one slip/bit of skill/or luck can change things immensely. Try watching the game and then try spotting where this 44442 33442 horse shi it can be seen. It can''t, as players are moving about all the time in relation to where the ball is and where the opposition players are. And that movement is further determined by who has the ball, and where they are when the ball may lost or won.

Having played at a semi pro level (as it was then) what you talk of has about as much to do with what goes on on the pitch or in players minds as a physic has with speaking to the dead.

Brian Clough"I often used to think the Forest side of the 1980s was too

relaxed at the start of a match. The players would run onto the pitch,

seemingly without a care in the world.

That was because a Clough team-talk would rarely last a

minute - no hairdryers, no ranting. He would place a ball on the

physio''s couch and say: "That''s your best friend for the next couple of

hours. Treat it like your wife or girlfriend - caress it, love it."

"Footballers don''t have a long attention span; they are instinctive."

He would get irritated at the idea of micro-managing

footballers and demanded that they relaxed once they knew what was

necessary.

"Come and see my coaching certificates - they''re called the European Cup and league championships

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I have to agree with City 1st. The first clue is in the title of the thread, "Parma''s Tactics Masterclass 2", followed by nearly 2000 words that most professional footballers, if subjected to it, would have decided to give up the ghost and become tyre fitters, plumbers helpers or anything other than be put to sleep ad nauseam. Have you seen a coach on the touchline attempting to inject a message to an impact substitute before the player trots on to the field? If there was a caption over the head of such players it would read, "Shut up already....I''ve heard enough." 

Get over yourself already Parma and, after you''ve done that, try to communicate a simple message to the rest of us Neanderthals in a similar manner that you would use to convince footballers because this one wouldn''t work.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the above two neanderthals really can''t be bothered to try and understand what Parma says, or haven''t got an interest in his slightly wider view of what happens abroad and the shortcomings of the upbringing of players in this country, then why bother to comment at all?  Personally,  I would rather read two thousand words of Parma''s to two hundred of either of yours.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Parma, I too have really enjoyed your posts and think aside from one notable, and sadly predictable exception, it has led to an interesting thread.Don''t let the insults concern you in any way - "criticism from some people is praise indeed!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the purpose of clarity, the intention is to explain what coaches or managers are thinking. What is endeavouring to be achieved and why.

That what Managers and Coaches think, what factors they give weight to and the strengths and weaknesses of their own side is not communicated directly - or in the same way - to players should be self-evident.

It is indeed correct that a substitute about to enter the fray should be given simple, mind-clearing and short direction.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holt,

Good distinction, though "don''t overplay your winning hand" refers to the English tendency to panic early because of the nil nil scenario - even when the pattern of play is clearly in your favour. The odds are that you will win, and the set up means your opponent has less and limited options to do so.

This is distinct from the Catennaccio style defensive mindset of rather passive dominance that protects a draw and may lead to a narrow win. I am not advocating that as it requires enormous drilling and patient discipline - and rather unentertaining approach - that is at the extreme end.

I am also not against pressing harder in the later stages - or even throwing on a Peter Crouch if you have one - but not the rather clumsy flat line all out attack (vid PJF), borne out of frustration, which so often exposed the key centre of the field and causes a loss.

Parma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in the rare position of disagreeing with something Yankee has posted. I don''t know whether Parma''s tactical expositions are right or wrong in their particular applications, but they are invariably interesting. And I don''t doubt that the kind of sophisticated thinking they attempt to explain is a fair representation of what really top-level coaches and managers try to put into practice. But the odd paragraph break wouldn''t go amiss...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for information/interest, this is an extract from the BBC''s coverage of Guardiola''s new book.

Barcelona''s ability to dominate teams and possession with their tiki-taka passing style won them plaudits around the world.

But Guardiola told Perarnau: "I loathe all that passing for the sake of it, all that tiki-taka. It''s so much rubbish and has no purpose. You have to pass the ball with a clear intention, with the aim of making it into the opposition''s goal. It''s not about passing for the sake of it.

"Don''t believe what people say. Barca didn''t do tiki-taka! It''s completely made up! Don''t believe a word of it! In all team sports, the secret is to overload one side of the pitch so that the opponent must tilt its own defence to cope.

"You overload on one side and draw them in so that they leave the other side weak. And when we''ve done all that, we attack and score from the other side.

"That''s why you have to pass the ball, but only if you''re doing it with a clear intention. It''s only to overload the opponent, to draw them in and then to hit them with the sucker punch. That''s what our game needs to be. Nothing to do with tiki-taka."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]For the purpose of clarity, the intention is to explain what coaches or managers are thinking. What is endeavouring to be achieved and why. That what Managers and Coaches think, what factors they give weight to and the strengths and weaknesses of their own side is not communicated directly - or in the same way - to players should be self-evident. It is indeed correct that a substitute about to enter the fray should be given simple, mind-clearing and short direction. Parma[/quote]

 

Parma, despite the criticism, you have attempted to respond to the message ( rather than the poster ) which is to your credit.

 

I have no reason to question your coaching qualifications, and you obviously love communicating.  The introductory aspects of your initial post appear to be driven, understandably, by some of the challenges Norwich City faced in the manner they were set up tactically in recent matches and/or how the Norwich players executed those tactics. My challenge to you is this. Given the player resources available in Norwich currently, along with your coaching knowledge and desire to communicate, what specifically would you communicate to the players in order to maximize the probability of success of your preferred set up ( which, of course, might differ for various opponents )? You see, while you kindly did react with the words "for the purpose of clarity" in indicating that your initial post was intended to reflect what managers and coaches "think"  , you then go on to say that it should be self-evident that they would not communicate their thoughts in the same manner to the players. What would be appreciated ( by me at least ) is hearing what you think should be communicated to the players. I don''t know that I would agree or disagree with your thoughts in this specific regard, but that''s because I don''t know what your thoughts are.

 

P.S: Purple, I think a little disagreement makes for a healthier forum for discussion, so no need to restrict it to a "rare occasion." [:D]

Share this post


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

[quote user="Parma Hams gone mouldy"]For the purpose of clarity, the intention is to explain what coaches or managers are thinking. What is endeavouring to be achieved and why. That what Managers and Coaches think, what factors they give weight to and the strengths and weaknesses of their own side is not communicated directly - or in the same way - to players should be self-evident. It is indeed correct that a substitute about to enter the fray should be given simple, mind-clearing and short direction. Parma[/quote]

 

Parma, despite the criticism, you have attempted to respond to the message ( rather than the poster ) which is to your credit.

 

I have no reason to question your coaching qualifications, and you obviously love communicating.  The introductory aspects of your initial post appear to be driven, understandably, by some of the challenges Norwich City faced in the manner they were set up tactically in recent matches and/or how the Norwich players executed those tactics. My challenge to you is this. Given the player resources available in Norwich currently, along with your coaching knowledge and desire to communicate, what specifically would you communicate to the players in order to maximize the probability of success of your preferred set up ( which, of course, might differ for various opponents )? You see, while you kindly did react with the words "for the purpose of clarity" in indicating that your initial post was intended to reflect what managers and coaches "think"  , you then go on to say that it should be self-evident that they would not communicate their thoughts in the same manner to the players. What would be appreciated ( by me at least ) is hearing what you think should be communicated to the players. I don''t know that I would agree or disagree with your thoughts in this specific regard, but that''s because I don''t know what your thoughts are.

 P.S: Purple, I think a little disagreement makes for a healthier forum for discussion, so no need to restrict it to a "rare occasion." [:D][/quote]

I agree.  Disagreement is healthy.   I disagree with you telling  Parma "get over himself".  No amount of covering your tracks can disguise your disdain for his initial post.    Suggest you think before you disrespect someone, if you want to have a decent discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man-management is distinct from tactics.

Different players require different approaches. A Hoolahan may require different instruction and encouragement to a Michael Turner.

Tactics are absorbed by players over time via the osmosis of good, targeted training. Psychology can be worked on alongside tactical repetition.

Specific coaching works better than general cliche''s in my experience. Direct instruction with clear outcomes per player that can be clearly judged by coach and player.

This process is better carried out in Italy (where I played), in Holland (where I had coaches from), in Germany (where I spend a lot of time), than in England (where I qualified alongside an International manager).

Parma

Sent from my iPhone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Parma, I understand the comments in your last post ( even though I don''t agree with all of them....and I don''t ). However, to repeat what I  stated previously, it appears to me that your initial thoughts regarding tactics and the execution of them were triggered by what you had seen in recent Norwich performances. At least that''s what I thought I read in your opening effort.

 

Your oft repeated belief and learning in other countries is that coaching and tactical approaches are superior there to what exists in England. Added to that handicap, Neil Adams is new to the senior scene so is presumably in a learning mode. I fully understand your point about tactical repetition over time and different approaches with individuals regarding man management. Anyone who has the responsibility of managing others in different walks of life understand those requirements. However, given the newness of Neil''s tenure and the general substandard coaching in England, surely you are in a position of knowledge as to what you would actually be communicating to the players right now if you had the job and were going to work tomorrow morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Parma, I''m sure you have your reasons on why you don''t provide a personal opinion, however, it would have been interesting to see your specific thoughts on 2 or 3 objectives for each of 12-15 players or so, coupled with a perspective on how that could be integrated into more tactical effectiveness for the team unit. Could have probably been done in 500 words or less.

 

Thank you for the reference to the other thread. I did review it. I found it interesting that you gave a personal opinion on that one, but you did say "rarely."

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...