Tactical Understanding

[Abrahammer]

The inside out winger is all the rage these days, most Premiership teams do it, England were doing it the other night with Downing on the right.  I can see the benfits of it, an "in-curling" cross (right phrase?) is more dangerous "out-swinging" cross.

Someone mentioned being in the TE makes it tought to see some tactical setup aspects, definately agree with that i think when you are low down behind a goal its tougher to see player movements on & off the ball from a positional sense.

[hanneyred]

Formations and tactics all depend on the players you have in the squad.

Personally my fav is the 1-4-5-1 (remember the GK!) . This is a possesion formation, out-packing the midfield, then when in control of the ball, you can change formation to a 1-4-4-2, or if the ball is down one flank, even progress to a 1-4-3-3 with one wide player creeping in around the back to create the 3rd forward

[Gethimout]

Good article to read! I agree that the team can become too stretched at times when attacking. As said in the article, when the attack breaks down the midfield and forwards are having to do a lot by tracking back.

This can be solved by the defense pushing up as fast as possible to the halfway line, meaning the midfield are pushed on etc etc.

Watching the game on the TV Saturday gave a good insight to this.

[Batch]

(remember the GK!)

Pah never, its implicit that the formation starts with a 1!

[Frigby Daser]

Only thing is, the article assumes that everything we do is intended. Some good points, like the wingers playing on the "wrong" sides, but I doubt Kennedy is under instructions to lump it into the playerless void 70 yards down the line whenever he gets the ball. Can't say I've pcked up on the crosses to the back post either - if you think of Connell's second, the (superb) ball was put right into the middle - as was De Vita's at City - the only straightforward chance at the back post I can think of is Ritchie's open goal miss, which was a ball put across the face that anybody could have tapped in.  

I don't think Di Canio has defined a set way of playing yet -other than he likes his wingers to get forward and doesn't mind playing direct football, even though his preference would no doubt be footie full of passing and flair.

Compare that to Sturrock's system, which was very very defined. Two battlers in centre mid who were forbidden to run with the ball (which Curtis Weston failed to take note of and was shown the door), whose job it was to win the ball and spread it wide as quickly as possible, often switching play to pull the opposition's shape around. Two attacking wingers whipping balls into two forwards who are decent in the air. Forwards jobs were to play with their backs to goal and allow time for the midfield to push on - all we ever needed was a goal or two, because Blackley's defence was solid. I haven't looked, but I doubt there were many times we let in more than two goals under Sturrock.  

[Muffin Man]

I took the uefa level B course several years ago with the idea that eventually I would like to manage at a good level similar to the playing level I got to back in the 80's when I turned out for Trowbridge and Chippenham.

I think of myself as being able to understand tactics very well and the article is written well, tactics are fairly easy to understand and follow on and off the pitch but there are a couple of points that I wish to bring up.

1. as stated above not all things that go on in a game are as planned on the trainign pitch and happen in the "spur of the moment" e.g. like Kennedys aimless hoofs on occassions, I am certain that this is not part of the overall plan.

2. not all players will follow instruction on how they play as they think of themselves as being able to change matches by changing how they play. Gasgcoine, Messi etc would be obvious examples, but they need to have the the ability to play to set patterns/tactics as well as using moment of brilliance to play. NOT ALL PLAYERS THAT THINK THEY CAN DO THIS ACTUALLY CAN DO IT!

3. the lower the level that players play at - the less the tactics will be acted up/stuck to/followed even closely. The more intelligent in general the more the player is willing to or even possess the ability to follow instructions, which is why at this level there is a lot more emphasis put upon set plays, free kicks and corners as its easier for the less intelligent and less footballing ability brain to remember intricately.

Players need to be disciplined on the pitch as well, to be able to follow orders, a willingness to play as part of a team for one goal.

[iffy]

Only thing is, the article assumes that everything we do is intended.

Exactly.

I can only assume Jerel Ifil was under strict instructions to calmly bring the ball out of defence, panic, fall over, then recover himself in time to hoof the ball 15 yards in front of the furthest player forward. He did it so often and so consistently, he must have had it drilled into him on the training ground.

[Bob's Orange]

Only thing is, the article assumes that everything we do is intended. Some good points, like the wingers playing on the "wrong" sides, but I doubt Kennedy is under instructions to lump it into the playerless void 70 yards down the line whenever he gets the ball. Can't say I've pcked up on the crosses to the back post either - if you think of Connell's second, the (superb) ball was put right into the middle - as was De Vita's at City - the only straightforward chance at the back post I can think of is Ritchie's open goal miss, which was a ball put across the face that anybody could have tapped in.   

I don't think Di Canio has defined a set way of playing yet -other than he likes his wingers to get forward and doesn't mind playing direct football, even though his preference would no doubt be footie full of passing and flair.

Compare that to Sturrock's system, which was very very defined. Two battlers in centre mid who were forbidden to run with the ball (which Curtis Weston failed to take note of and was shown the door), whose job it was to win the ball and spread it wide as quickly as possible, often switching play to pull the opposition's shape around. Two attacking wingers whipping balls into two forwards who are decent in the air. Forwards jobs were to play with their backs to goal and allow time for the midfield to push on - all we ever needed was a goal or two, because Blackley's defence was solid. I haven't looked, but I doubt there were many times we let in more than two goals under Sturrock. 

Interesting that we face Sturrock's Southend on Saturday. Wonder if we'll be able to score more than 2 goals?

[sonicyouth]

Only thing is, the article assumes that everything we do is intended. Some good points, like the wingers playing on the "wrong" sides, but I doubt Kennedy is under instructions to lump it into the playerless void 70 yards down the line whenever he gets the ball. Can't say I've pcked up on the crosses to the back post either - if you think of Connell's second, the (superb) ball was put right into the middle - as was De Vita's at City - the only straightforward chance at the back post I can think of is Ritchie's open goal miss, which was a ball put across the face that anybody could have tapped in.

Two of Ritchie's goals have come from headers at the far post IIRC.

[Frigby Daser]

Two of Ritchie's goals have come from headers at the far post IIRC.

Yeah, fair point! My point is I think there's been just as many front ad central  ritchie is just better at finishingthem off than anyone else!

As for Luggy's Southend, not been so tight at the back as he was here - no idea if Blackley is still with him.