Real Madrid (old thread)

[poncirus]

So you don't understand football and you don't read as well ? i gave you over 10 football team examples .. did you both to debate any of it ? or have sufficient reply for Xabi ? for the 4-1-4-1 deployed by Pep last season in the home classico (notice i gave you some local examples maybe you did bother to watch football like the rest of us )
the fact that you have nothing to back up your ludicrous statement which shows if anything that your football barely go outside couple of hours on a video game
If there any "retardation " and judging by the majority of people over here who argued your case and we know their football knowledge you should quickly be looking in the mirror

To quote you as you seem to be trying to escape this corner football tactics is more than "ICING ON A CAKE "

Yeah, you throw team names and formations and that's an argument? That's the most abstract stuff that only scratches the surface of reality the game is played and means absolutely nothing by itself. That's level of a 10 year old reading journalist crap and imagining managers as wizards with secret spells, as I said before. That's as far as your "understanding" goes, and 99% of modern fans are unfortunately like this.

Sorry, I really have no time for your aggresive and ignorant stupidities..

 

[Beast]

Thank you very much for your nice words
I know you don't have any answer to your trash talk so best way is to insult the members

Way to go genius

When you learn something about football in 10-15 years come back and you are welcome to debate

 

[woobie]

Now, must I repeat for 5555th time that I never said tactics are not important? Again, my whole point was:

1) there are some much important things than particular game tactics
2) people tend to overstate importance of particular game tactics nowadays, and do it in irritatingly pretentious and ignorant fashion

Now what actually you and other posters said to convince me otherwise? Did you offer any relevant argument or only ad hominem digs?

I don't feel the need to argue against it - you're the one who seems to want to convince us of an opinion that seems to be very much the contrary to accepted opinion. And I think your argument is flawed. If you want historic examples of when game tactics can have important consequences, I can give them. I think perhaps that part of this disconnect may have to do with the sort of football you grew up watching/playing.

 

[Beast]

Yeah, you throw team names and formations and that's an argument? That's the most abstract stuff that only scratches the surface of reality the game is played and means absolutely nothing by itself. That's level of a 10 year old reading journalist crap and imagining managers as wizards with secret spells, as I said before. That's as far as your "understanding" goes, and 99% of modern fans are unfortunately like this.

Sorry, I really have no time for your aggresive and ignorant stupidities..

Oh you seem you've decide to edit your post and make some points
It's not names and formation but i understand that you never watched those tournaments and those teams before apart from some youtube clip
.. Italy-Brazil 1982 is a pure example of how important tactics is
But you probably never heard of the game cause probably you weren't born yet

the problem with kids like you is your understanding of football is very limited to video games and X or Y player is more important...
People like you probably think Pep has the easiest job in the world..

 

[poncirus]

I don't feel the need to argue against it - you're the one who seems to want to convince us of an opinion that seems to be very much the contrary to accepted opinion. And I think your argument is flawed. If you want historic examples of when game tactics can have important consequences, I can give them. I think perhaps that part of this disconnect may have to do with the sort of football you grew up watching/playing.

And it would be nice, if you already have "opinion", to show what exactly that "opinion" consists of. I tried to prove my point by some sorts of arguments, all I hear from you is your "opinion" is accepted.

OK, I don't need your "lesson" in football history, just explain why are my 2 mentioned points wrong?

 

[woobie]

I disagree with your points because in my opinion tactics are vitally important when it comes to winning games. Not going to argue with it further.

Also a note to everyone, can we please all cut down on namecalling? It's not cool.

Italy-Brazil 1982 is a pure example of how important tactics is

My very favourite goal celebration. Even if it IS by a juventino.

 

[poncirus]

I disagree with your points because in my opinion tactics are vitally important when it comes to winning games. Not going to argue with it further.

Well, then you obviously haven't read what I wrote. Well of course particular game tactics are vital. You can't play without a gameplan and knowing your opponent. But there are things in football that are more vital and require more work, knowledge and methodology to achieve than making a plan for particular game. And most people today with no real football experience are not aware of that. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[Sergio]

Yep, finally something vaguely on topic. The greatest gol ever scored in Estadio Bernabeu. Ever!

 

[jamrock]

as per usual the persons on both side of the debate, are too far off from the point, the truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle.
at the highest level, the tactics a manager employs his very important, but it isn't the be all and end all, as good a manager as jose is, be couldn't beat barca, with the players atletico have, neither can barca go out without a coach and beat a well drilled sided coach by jose, with players that are clearly not of the same level.

for example, the chess master SAF has nothing to do with man utd beat barca a few years back, it was just a matter for the barca players being lazy and unmotivated. but the chess master Rafa, played a huge part in Liverpool beating barca

 

[gingerless]

agreed, jamrock. this debate's gone on for too long anyway

 

[poncirus]

Yes, debate has become tiresome, but I feel need again to stress one more thing.

Jamrock mentions only the quality of players and chess games as vital factors. That's what bothers me. People are overlooking the hardest, the most demanding and complex thing in coaching the team: what you do on a training ground.

They overstate significance of match day tactics and think that's where the real job is done, while training and managing your group is pretty generic stuff. It's exactly the opposite.

 

[Metaphysical]

as hinted at by Jamrock, the problem is semantic.

tactics is such a blanket term that you can't really argue how important it is, because what is it?

setting the team up in a correct way and coaching them to do the right things in the right situations, the things poncirus is (correct in) saying matter most, are part of tactics. in fact they are the fundamentals of tactics.

what he is criticising, and what none of you seem able to grasp, is the obsession with minutiae (formations especially) and emphasis on the tiny tactical adjustments made by coaches in the game. basically everything zonalmarking faps over. that, too, is part of tactics. but it is NOT a crucial part of the game as a whole.

and that's basically the problem. poncirus needs to realise what he is advocating can also be called tactics, and those against poncirus need to not be as obsessive over minutiae.

for example: Fergie, Mourinho and Guardiola are probably the 3 best coaches in the World at the moment (Klopp too, tbf) and are they tactical masterminds? Unai Emery could take them all to school, not to mention the litany of tactical masterminds in Argentina and Italia. but what those three can do is motivate their players like no one else (alright in Pep's case he has the best players but he also has the best team, so that all fits) Mourinho, in particular, is far from a tactical genius but as a man-manager he's astounding. he's the Darth Vader to Fergie's Emperor. or somethin'. Pep CONSTANTLY praises the human qualities of his players. and do I need to go into Fergie's motivational brilliance? a central midfield of Carrick and Giggs, and he plays Chelsea off the park over two legs?

 

[poncirus]

and that's basically the problem. poncirus needs to realise what he is advocating can also be called tactics, and those against poncirus need to not be as obsessive over minutiae.

I agree. I noticed there is a bit of a semantic mess, so I started using term "matchday tactics". I believe that's what most "tactitians" here on the topic and fans today in general are thinking about when they say the word. That was my point in fact, overstating importance of matchday tactics while ignoring mch more important things.

 

[DucdeOrléans]

as hinted at by Jamrock, the problem is semantic.

tactics is such a blanket term that you can't really argue how important it is, because what is it?

setting the team up in a correct way and coaching them to do the right things in the right situations, the things poncirus is (correct in) saying matter most, are part of tactics. in fact they are the fundamentals of tactics.

what he is criticising, and what none of you seem able to grasp, is the obsession with minutiae (formations especially) and emphasis on the tiny tactical adjustments made by coaches in the game. basically everything zonalmarking faps over. that, too, is part of tactics. but it is NOT a crucial part of the game as a whole.

and that's basically the problem. poncirus needs to realise what he is advocating can also be called tactics, and those against poncirus need to not be as obsessive over minutiae.

for example: Fergie, Mourinho and Guardiola are probably the 3 best coaches in the World at the moment (Klopp too, tbf) and are they tactical masterminds? Unai Emery could take them all to school, not to mention the litany of tactical masterminds in Argentina and Italia. but what those three can do is motivate their players like no one else (alright in Pep's case he has the best players but he also has the best team, so that all fits) Mourinho, in particular, is far from a tactical genius but as a man-manager he's astounding. he's the Darth Vader to Fergie's Emperor. or somethin'. Pep CONSTANTLY praises the human qualities of his players. and do I need to go into Fergie's motivational brilliance? a central midfield of Carrick and Giggs, and he plays Chelsea off the park over two legs?

I agree with most of it, but exactly that part regarding Ferguson does not say anything as Chelsea were shit in both games (they have been shit all season, despite the first 5 games in September). You should instead look at his European record which is NOT impressive at all, rather the opposite. 2 CL titles in 25 years says it all.

 

[Metaphysical]

I agree. I noticed there is a bit of a semantic mess, so I started using term "matchday tactics". I believe that's what most "tactitians" here on the topic and fans today in general are thinking about when they say the word. That was my point in fact, overstating importance of matchday tactics while ignoring mch more important things.

well again, what are "matchday tactics"? setting the team up in the correct formation is very important. it isn't a magical solution and can only follow on from the work done in training, but it's still crucial.

I think part of the problem is Americanisation. the American sports lend themselves very heavily to in-depth tactics and HEAVY tactical analysis, and this has spread to football which is far more expressionist. there are general tactical trends and ideas that are important, but they're not necessarily as complicated as people make them sound.

Pep sums it up best when he says he's just the coach. the framework he provides the players with is important, but it means nothing if they aren't able to play well enough to make things happen.