|
Post by ************** on Aug 19, 2014 11:00:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nott1 on Aug 19, 2014 11:08:44 GMT
He's just admitted he's too thick to understand tactics!
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Aug 19, 2014 11:10:57 GMT
He's just admitted he's too thick to understand tactics! The game has moved on and I don't agree with him much these days, but he was foooking great back in the day.
|
|
|
Post by lastoftheldk on Aug 19, 2014 13:01:39 GMT
Most of what he has said is correct
|
|
|
Post by maninasuitcase on Aug 19, 2014 13:02:44 GMT
Thought this was a thread about a sitcom with John Thaw and Reece Dinsdale (he of ID fame)
|
|
niel
Academy Starlet
Posts: 196
|
Post by niel on Aug 19, 2014 13:07:47 GMT
Nowt wrong with anything he said ...... Those in this thread who think they know more than a guy who has been in the game all his life need a reality check on just how relevant their own opinions based on zero experience are........
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 13:10:16 GMT
I'm sorry but he says exactly what I've believed for longer than I care to remember. I too am heartily sick of hearing about systems and tactics to the degree that we now get bombarded with them and I particularly agree with him where youngsters are concerned. Of course tactics matter but we get completely wrapped up in them and I go into a full blown rant when I see managers sitting writing every little incident down on their little notepads. Yes the game HAS moved on but tactics and systems can't be all that crucial when almost every Premier League team employs the same bloody systems and tactics. We didn't lose to Villa because of any tactical failings or the system we played. We were second best because too many players performed below their best. That and Villa snuffed us out pretty well and, sometimes, the opposition deserve a little more credit than they get.
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Aug 19, 2014 13:51:14 GMT
I'm sorry but he says exactly what I've believed for longer than I care to remember. I too am heartily sick of hearing about systems and tactics to the degree that we now get bombarded with them and I particularly agree with him where youngsters are concerned. Of course tactics matter but we get completely wrapped up in them and I go into a full blown rant when I see managers sitting writing every little incident down on their little notepads. Yes the game HAS moved on but tactics and systems can't be all that crucial when almost every Premier League team employs the same bloody systems and tactics. We didn't lose to Villa because of any tactical failings or the system we played. We were second best because too many players performed below their best. That and Villa snuffed us out pretty well and, sometimes, the opposition deserve a little more credit than they get. I think Villa came with a game plan (and a system) that worked like a dream. Sorry to say it but we needed to change our system, it simply wasn't working. Hughes will be working hard on developing systems of play, usually triggered or identified by certain choices in the starting XI and the subs used. Although I know fuck all about football management, I've watched a few games and it's fun to have a guess at it now and then. Point taken.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 13:58:22 GMT
I'm sorry but he says exactly what I've believed for longer than I care to remember. I too am heartily sick of hearing about systems and tactics to the degree that we now get bombarded with them and I particularly agree with him where youngsters are concerned. Of course tactics matter but we get completely wrapped up in them and I go into a full blown rant when I see managers sitting writing every little incident down on their little notepads. Yes the game HAS moved on but tactics and systems can't be all that crucial when almost every Premier League team employs the same bloody systems and tactics. We didn't lose to Villa because of any tactical failings or the system we played. We were second best because too many players performed below their best. That and Villa snuffed us out pretty well and, sometimes, the opposition deserve a little more credit than they get. So basically we needed to change the system....? How do you reach that conclusion from what I said **************? They snuffed us out because their players played better than ours did. So much so that we ended up punting balls up to Crouch (with no more success). When almost all (if not ALL) Premier League clubs play the same system week in, week out with a little tinkering here and there, games usually come down to who's players play best, how motivated individuals are, application, hard work and individual skill as well as (occasionally) a bit of luck. Pretty much what Lou was saying.
|
|
|
Post by sportsman on Aug 19, 2014 14:04:27 GMT
Systems and tactics nowadays are for people who try to over complicate the game. Trying to create jobs that shouldn't be there.
'We should play a 4-2-3-2-1-1-2-4-3-2-1'..........bollocks! It makes as much sense as I've just typed.
When the game gets going you stay solid at the back. Your holding midfielder/s do exactly that. Players pass and move trying to keep possession and always try make yourself available to receive the ball. When you work an opening with players moving about...bloody shoot and try score. That's your tactics simplified.
This week we'll have 'we should play 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 3-5-2' etc.....ahhhhhhhhhh!
Go out and win. Enough said.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2014 14:11:10 GMT
Agree with doz, with the addition that we also looked very weak. It's got to be said!
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Aug 19, 2014 14:23:38 GMT
So basically we needed to change the system....? How do you reach that conclusion from what I said **************? They snuffed us out because their players played better than ours did. So much so that we ended up punting balls up to Crouch (with no more success). When almost all (if not ALL) Premier League clubs play the same system week in, week out with a little tinkering here and there, games usually come down to who's players play best, how motivated individuals are, application, hard work and individual skill as well as (occasionally) a bit of luck. Pretty much what Lou was saying. Sorry Doz - see EDIT
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Aug 19, 2014 15:03:54 GMT
Systems and tactics nowadays are for people who try to over complicate the game. Trying to create jobs that shouldn't be there. 'We should play a 4-2-3-2-1-1-2-4-3-2-1'..........bollocks! It makes as much sense as I've just typed. When the game gets going you stay solid at the back. Your holding midfielder/s do exactly that. Players pass and move trying to keep possession and always try make yourself available to receive the ball. When you work an opening with players moving about...bloody shoot and try score. That's your tactics simplified. This week we'll have 'we should play 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 3-5-2' etc.....ahhhhhhhhhh! Go out and win. Enough said. My favourite is "it's a 5-1-1-2-1 which changes to a 3-1-0-2-3-1 when we attack." I think some people think the whole formation changes because a full-back makes an overlapping run. God knows what they make of it when we get a corner... "Bloody hell, this is positive, we've gone seven up front!"
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 15:21:03 GMT
How do you reach that conclusion from what I said **************? They snuffed us out because their players played better than ours did. So much so that we ended up punting balls up to Crouch (with no more success). When almost all (if not ALL) Premier League clubs play the same system week in, week out with a little tinkering here and there, games usually come down to who's players play best, how motivated individuals are, application, hard work and individual skill as well as (occasionally) a bit of luck. Pretty much what Lou was saying. Sorry Doz - see EDIT No probs **************. I don't think it failed tactically mate, I just think our players were poor on the day. You're right that Villa set out with the right approach but they set their team out pretty much the same as ours. They won too many of the individual battles and we struggled to create anything of note. When they broke, they broke with far more conviction than we did and, to be honest, I think we got away fairly lightly at 1 - 0. It didn't quite gel for us on Saturday and there's obviously work to be done but I honestly think we'll be far better with Moses in front of our right back but that's a matter of personnel rather than tactics. I'm not being stupid about it, I do realize that you have to make adjustments here and there so systems and tactics do matter but, when almost everyone sets their teams out pretty much the same way, I do think it usually comes down to individual and team performance in the end (and sometimes downright luck).
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 19, 2014 15:28:40 GMT
Maybe if Lou had understood systems way back when, he'd have made a better fist of the Celtic job?
I'm firmly in the camp that says that Villa's "system" certainly contributed to our downfall on Saturday. OK their players (mostly) played well and ours (mostly) didn't. But that packed midfield certainly contributed to making life easier for Villa's players and harder for ours. As others have said, the game reminded me of the Norwich home game last season - another game where our opponent's "system" gave them a decent chance of snuffing us out.
Anyone who says systems mean nothing must be pretty blind if they haven't noticed that the way Pulis set up Stoke and the way Hughes sets us up are as different as chalk and cheese.
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Aug 19, 2014 15:35:05 GMT
I agree with doz!
The thing is when our little flicks and interplay doesn't come off we can look awful. But fair play to Villa they were much more physical than us and they roughed us up. Hopefully it will give some our débutantes the 'welcome' they needed and we go forward from here. If they don't cut it I have no doubts Hughes will react.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 15:46:50 GMT
Maybe if Lou had understood systems way back when, he'd have made a better fist of the Celtic job? I'm firmly in the camp that says that Villa's "system" certainly contributed to our downfall on Saturday. OK their players (mostly) played well and ours (mostly) didn't. But that packed midfield certainly contributed to making life easier for Villa's players and harder for ours. As others have said, the game reminded me of the Norwich home game last season - another game where our opponent's "system" gave them a decent chance of snuffing us out. Anyone who says systems mean nothing must be pretty blind if they haven't noticed that the way Pulis set up Stoke and the way Hughes sets us up are as different as chalk and cheese. Oh I think Lou understands 'systems' very well Lakeland. He's probably (like myself) just sick and tired of all the 'football experts' talking systems and tactics like they are the be all and end all. Villa's team weren't set out terribly differently to ours on Saturday but they won all the major battles and, when they broke, they got numbers forward far better and quicker than we did. Too many of our individuals played badly and, yes, I know Villa were a major factor in that and I have given them due credit. You say Villa 'packed the midfield' but we had 5 men in midfield unless you think we had two up front on Saturday. They had the same numbers as us in midfield but won all the individual battles there. Very few teams in the Premier League set out markedly differently to be fair. As for the last sentence, come on mate, who would possibly attempt to argue that Pulis's Stoke and Hughes' Stoke are set out the same. Pulis's Stoke were a complete 'one off' in the Premier League. It's also a strange example to use when arguing for adapting tactics which is something that Pulis NEVER did. He stuck by his tactics come what may.
|
|
|
Post by tuum on Aug 19, 2014 15:47:04 GMT
I think what Lou said was pretty much spot on and I wholeheartedly agree with Sportsman and Doz. I think most people agree that you need to have a general game plan but that plan is pretty simple and very rarely could you say that it was the main reason why one team wins. Its just a small part of the puzzle but its importance is massively exaggerated so as to provide punters with jobs and something to talk about at half time.
|
|
|
Post by The Stubborn Optimist on Aug 19, 2014 15:47:56 GMT
Pretty much spot on from Lou, as is usually the case.
I find the slagging off of Lou a bit hard to take, as far as I'm concerned the bloke is a legend, some of my best times following Stoke were during Lou's days, so many memorable games and great mentals, The Shit at home, 4-3 v WBA, 2-0 away at WBA, 2-0 away at the Fail, last minute equaliser at Brighton, Warey's special at Peterborough, the list goes on. Loved watching that clip of Rooster v Blackpool, remember it well, got pissed wet through that day. Think I'm right in saying the game was in November, that win put us in top spot, a position we kept through till the end of the season.
He certainly knew a good player when he saw one, Stein and Gleghorn, were two of my particular favourites, and he knew how to put a side together. Not many Stoke managers can boast a 25(?) game unbeaten run. His sides could play, could look after themselves and knew where the net was.
As far as all this tactics and positional stuff is concerned I'm with Jock Stein who, when pestered by some journo's as to which was the best formation and tactics for his great Celtic side, just said, "Och for god's sake, I just give the boys a ball and let them play."
When I read some of the stuff on here I'm reminded of this
|
|
|
Post by pottersrule on Aug 19, 2014 15:48:35 GMT
I'm sorry but he says exactly what I've believed for longer than I care to remember. I too am heartily sick of hearing about systems and tactics to the degree that we now get bombarded with them and I particularly agree with him where youngsters are concerned. Of course tactics matter but we get completely wrapped up in them and I go into a full blown rant when I see managers sitting writing every little incident down on their little notepads. Yes the game HAS moved on but tactics and systems can't be all that crucial when almost every Premier League team employs the same bloody systems and tactics. We didn't lose to Villa because of any tactical failings or the system we played. We were second best because too many players performed below their best. That and Villa snuffed us out pretty well and, some Itimes, the opposition deserve a little more credit than they get. I Agree 100%·I Played semi pro in the eighties,and played with and was managed by several ex pros.Apart from tactics regarding the strengths and weaknesses of opposition players,there was never any different formation work eg 3 at the back using wing backs. Football is a fluid game full of individual battles.The team who's players win more of those battles usually win the match.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 19, 2014 16:08:16 GMT
I think Lou's talking cock to be honest.
Tactics have never been more important in football.
Stoke were not 'unlucky' on Saturday in any way, shape or form.
The stuff about youngsters using systems to excuse their own performances is a ridiculous argument because if they're not performing the role they should be in it, they're still out of the team.
You could argue that too much emphasis is placed on systems and tactics but not to the extent he's suggesting - every team sets up a certain way with certain personnel who either are or aren't suited to that job.
The world cup showed how important tactics have become, as did the Premier League last season and the opening day this season. The Champions League shows it every year.
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Aug 19, 2014 16:08:46 GMT
Maybe if Lou had understood systems way back when, he'd have made a better fist of the Celtic job? I'm firmly in the camp that says that Villa's "system" certainly contributed to our downfall on Saturday. OK their players (mostly) played well and ours (mostly) didn't. But that packed midfield certainly contributed to making life easier for Villa's players and harder for ours. As others have said, the game reminded me of the Norwich home game last season - another game where our opponent's "system" gave them a decent chance of snuffing us out. Anyone who says systems mean nothing must be pretty blind if they haven't noticed that the way Pulis set up Stoke and the way Hughes sets us up are as different as chalk and cheese. Oh I think Lou understands 'systems' very well Lakeland. He's probably (like myself) just sick and tired of all the 'football experts' talking systems and tactics like they are the be all and end all. Villa's team weren't set out terribly differently to ours on Saturday but they won all the major battles and, when they broke, they got numbers forward far better and quicker than we did. Too many of our individuals played badly and, yes, I know Villa were a major factor in that and I have given them due credit. You say Villa 'packed the midfield' but we had 5 men in midfield unless you think we had two up front on Saturday. They had the same numbers as us in midfield but won all the individual battles there. Very few teams in the Premier League set out markedly differently to be fair. As for the last sentence, come on mate, who would possibly attempt to argue that Pulis's Stoke and Hughes' Stoke are set out the same. Pulis's Stoke were a complete 'one off' in the Premier League. I just think Lou could have made the point you say he was making without claiming he doesn't understand systems - that's just lazy journalism - so nothing new there! There have always been systems - when I was a lad we lined up in a 235 formation - then it was 424 (briefly) and then 442. Now 433 and 4231 are fashionable and 352 threatens to become fashionable after the world cup. None of this removes the need for players to play properly, make the right decisions and react to what goes on around them. But the system is important - not least because it often dictates the differing players that the manager puts out to play to that system. Some players can play as a lone striker, for example, others clearly can't!
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 16:24:37 GMT
Oh I think Lou understands 'systems' very well Lakeland. He's probably (like myself) just sick and tired of all the 'football experts' talking systems and tactics like they are the be all and end all. Villa's team weren't set out terribly differently to ours on Saturday but they won all the major battles and, when they broke, they got numbers forward far better and quicker than we did. Too many of our individuals played badly and, yes, I know Villa were a major factor in that and I have given them due credit. You say Villa 'packed the midfield' but we had 5 men in midfield unless you think we had two up front on Saturday. They had the same numbers as us in midfield but won all the individual battles there. Very few teams in the Premier League set out markedly differently to be fair. As for the last sentence, come on mate, who would possibly attempt to argue that Pulis's Stoke and Hughes' Stoke are set out the same. Pulis's Stoke were a complete 'one off' in the Premier League. I just think Lou could have made the point you say he was making without claiming he doesn't understand systems - that's just lazy journalism - so nothing new there! There have always been systems - when I was a lad we lined up in a 235 formation - then it was 424 (briefly) and then 442. Now 433 and 4231 are fashionable and 352 threatens to become fashionable after the world cup. None of this removes the need for players to play properly, make the right decisions and react to what goes on around them. But the system is important - not least because it often dictates the differing players that the manager puts out to play to that system. Some players can play as a lone striker, for example, others clearly can't! I take your point Lakeland. You're a bit older than me fella but I go back a fair way and I've joked on here before about remembering when we had one center back let alone those who like three . You're right mate that systems and formations/tactics change over the years and I'm really not arguing against that. However, what tends to happen is that, when new systems appear, they quickly get taken up by all teams and that becomes the 'new way of playing' and it's happened several times as you rightly point out. The striking example was the development of Ramsey's football for, and after the 66 World Cup. My point is that, at any given time, most teams in a league tend to play the same systems and tactics and I really do think that's blindingly obvious in the Premier League at the moment. Obviously there will be tweaks and adjustments to allow for your opponents and the quality (or not) of the players you have available but tactics and formations vary very little in the Premier League from where I'm sitting. Given that, I think it's fair to say that personal performance, winning the individual and team battles plays a far greater part than tactics. I think THAT's what Lou meant (though I can't be sure) but, if it is, I wholeheartedly agree with him.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 19, 2014 16:26:30 GMT
Aren't the 'tweaks and adjustments' pretty key tactical things Doz? As is team selection - horses for course etc?
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 16:39:05 GMT
Aren't the 'tweaks and adjustments' pretty key tactical things Doz? As is team selection - horses for course etc? Absolutely mate and I haven't dismissed tactics or their influence on a game because that would be completely stupid. What I AM saying is that there is too much emphasis placed on tactics when, the truth is, most teams get beaten because the other team play better both individually and as a team. We didn't lose the tactical battle with Villa as they set out pretty much the same as we did. We lost because they played better than us both as individuals and as a team. If the other team adopts a different tactical approach to a game and comes out on top well that's great and they deserve full credit for that. I don't think that was the case on Saturday and I think it very rarely is the case in the Premier League since formations and tactics tend not to vary much. Games tend to get won by better players or players that play better on the day.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 19, 2014 16:40:48 GMT
Aren't the 'tweaks and adjustments' pretty key tactical things Doz? As is team selection - horses for course etc? Absolutely mate and I haven't dismissed tactics or their influence on a game because that would be completely stupid. What I AM saying is that there is too much emphasis placed on tactics when, the truth is, most teams get beaten because the other team play better both individually and as a team. We didn't lose the tactical battle with Villa as they set out pretty much the same as we did. We lost because they played better than us both as individuals and as a team. If the other team adopts a different tactical approach to a game and comes out on top well that's great and they deserve full credit for that. I don't think that was the case on Saturday and I think it very rarely is the case in the Premier League since formations and tactics tend not to vary much. Games tend to get won by better players or players that play better on the day. I thought we manifestly did lose the tactical battle because they came with a gameplan that worked and completely stopped us playing and we had no answer to it. Of course individuals play a big part but tactics are a lot more important than this 'football is a simple game' stuff Lou is peddling.
|
|
niel
Academy Starlet
Posts: 196
|
Post by niel on Aug 19, 2014 16:44:19 GMT
Systems without effort fail......any system.....end of.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 16:44:20 GMT
Absolutely mate and I haven't dismissed tactics or their influence on a game because that would be completely stupid. What I AM saying is that there is too much emphasis placed on tactics when, the truth is, most teams get beaten because the other team play better both individually and as a team. We didn't lose the tactical battle with Villa as they set out pretty much the same as we did. We lost because they played better than us both as individuals and as a team. If the other team adopts a different tactical approach to a game and comes out on top well that's great and they deserve full credit for that. I don't think that was the case on Saturday and I think it very rarely is the case in the Premier League since formations and tactics tend not to vary much. Games tend to get won by better players or players that play better on the day. I thought we manifestly did lose the tactical battle because they came with a gameplan that worked and completely stopped us playing and we had no answer to it. Of course individuals play a big part but tactics are a lot more important than this 'football is a simple game' stuff Lou is peddling. Villa played pretty much the same formation that we did mate. They didn't have some master plan to foil us, they just won all the key battles.
|
|
|
Post by chiefdelilah on Aug 19, 2014 16:47:33 GMT
I thought we manifestly did lose the tactical battle because they came with a gameplan that worked and completely stopped us playing and we had no answer to it. Of course individuals play a big part but tactics are a lot more important than this 'football is a simple game' stuff Lou is peddling. Villa played pretty much the same formation that we did mate. They didn't have some master plan to foil us, they just won all the key battles. Playing the same formation doesn't mean you play the same way Doz. They clearly did have a plan to foil us, they pressed us hard at every opportunity, defended deep and made sure they gave us no space at all. They wasted as much time as they could get away with and weren't bothered about having much of the ball. Even Hughes commented on their gameplan.
|
|
|
Post by dozintheseventees on Aug 19, 2014 16:56:40 GMT
Villa played pretty much the same formation that we did mate. They didn't have some master plan to foil us, they just won all the key battles. Playing the same formation doesn't mean you play the same way Doz. They clearly did have a plan to foil us, they pressed us hard at every opportunity, defended deep and made sure they gave us no space at all. They wasted as much time as they could get away with and weren't bothered about having much of the ball. Even Hughes commented on their gameplan. Hughes was doing what all managers do on these occasions....... "they made it hard for us, stiffled our play, struggled to break them down etc etc" All secret code for....."they played better than us" and an excuse for very poor play from our own players. You'll hear these same phrases every single week that a team fails to win at home except when they are totally outplayed by one of the big boys. All the things you say they did (and they DID) are exactly what most teams (bar the very best) do (or try to do) away from home (including us). The tactics throughout the Premier League tend to vary very little week to week and so individual and team performance on the day tend to count for more IMO.
|
|