Real Madrid (old thread)

[poncirus]

I think there's a reason for why poncircus name contains circus. He's clearly a clown or something. Tactics are not AS important vs bad teams, especially at home turfs but every system has a weakness, why not use the weakness?

I mean just look @ Pep. The change to 4-2-3-1 last year => barca became more unpredictable.
Messi -> CF => 6-2.
Manmark the fuck out of Xabi => 5-0.

How did Liverpool win the CL? How did Porto win the CL? How did Monaco reach the final? Sure.. you need players at your disposal aswell, but having good players won't be enough. Mental preparations before a match are vital, as are tactics and inspiration.

And to teach you something about Barca. We attack all the time, but we play defensive football. There's a big big difference between attacking football and defensive football. We might be the most defensive team on the planet, if you think outside the box. The accurate 100% passes are not to show off, simply to keep the ball out of the opposition, so that they might not score. Pep's "Barca is not a great team without the ball" is anoher evidence of tactics(we'r bad defensively, so let's be n offense all the time)...

Oh, another good example:
Unai Emery, 2 attacking leftbacks vs Barca that almost left us exposed. When Mathieu raped us in 5 holes wth one d. What was that?

Really? Wow, you teached me something...

How many of these vile 12 year olds actually are on this forum, and why are they allowed to arrogantly babble commonplace stupidities and abuse?

The argument was that tactics were not as important as they are made out to be when in fact they are. They are neither overrated or underrated. Some managers are more competent than others at tactics but some managers cover their lack of tactical awareness with man management.

Raed, i read your post and agree wit most of the stuff you wrote. However, I think you slightly misunderstood my argument. I see you are using word tactics for whole coaching/ training/game shaping process, while I was referring to what Meta called "minutiae" and incresing obsession with it.

I also play football whole my life and when I see (when we're talking about top teams): Man Utd playing some brilliant, seemingly simple first touch football regardless of quality of the squad at disposal, or Barca all around pressing and isolating - I don't see minutiae, but some crazy methodical work and inventive drills day after day.

That is the work top coaches do, and while fine tweaking for an opponent is necessary, without essential job that you do on a trainng ground, it's nothing. People are superficial, and when they see Inter's great defending against Barca they spot only eye-catching details that sound nice (Etoo as a defender - WOW!) and think it's brilliant tactics, while it's routine stuff.

What I see and what's really brilliant is some crazy work on perfecting zonal defending to the level it could be played with eyes closed, by a passionate coach and some extremely intelligent, talented or experienced players. That's what won them the game in the first place, not some tactical decision (although there were a few nice ones), but obviously latter sounds better for an average fan.

 

[Metaphysical]

Meta, stop blaming americans for everything, total football wasn't influenced by mad american tactical nerds playing football and basketball...nor was catenoccio...

the game has always been tactical, changing shape at every turn...you entire squad is a result of the tactics that have been implemented for the past decade and a half, not the other way around...

yeah, that's not what I was blaming on Americans.

football is expressionist and the "tactics" you speak of are more like philosophies. broad ideas that can be expressed in various ways, through various different types of minutiae. what the people obsess over are the minutiae themselves, and THAT is what I lay at the feet of Americans. in their sports, minutiae can be very important. but in football they're not fundamental at all. sure, they're important, but the overall philosophy (or, tactic, if you want) is much more crucial.

you dig?

 

[Gnegneri]

I once ate a whole box of tictacs prior to a match and I didn't win the game.

 

[Aryagorn]

I once ate a whole box of tictacs prior to a match and I didn't win the game.

 

[Sergio]

I can imagine, tictacs have a laxative effect. Fact.

 

[Ryan_Cule]

If these aren`t tactics then what ..... ?

i) Possessional Football - Keep the ball - let the opponent chase it - ran them out of stamina - get some of the players out of their positions - making spaces for through balls


ii) Counter attack - Withdraw your team to your own half , keep 1 or 2 player on half line - keep lurking in the midfield - let the opponent attack you then - do solid defending and get the ball and look for through ball or negotiate with one or two players staying at midfield position . Use the wings in this case.


iii) Slow Pitch(rain) ; playing long ball / Direct football.

There are also so many things in modern football which came into center stage with loads of improvisation like Man to Man marking , Zonal Defense , Alternative use of Wing plays etc etc .


We have instances like N.Korea playing 3-3-3-1 in the History .For years in EPL there were 4-4-2 and still now , in liga 4-2-3-1 . How many times in EPL we have seen 4-4-2 becoming 4-4-1-1 ??? How many times have we seen in La Liga , 4-2-3-1 becoming 4-3-3 ? ( When Messi plays in deep back and wide attackers go to front ; isn`t that tactics ? isn`t that improvisation by Coach and tactical manager for their own advantages ? )

And how did Diamond style come in ? Wasn`t that a part of football tactical mind ? Here Another example of tactical mindset in football -Use of False Nine - Example Messi`s play . Remember 6-2 of Madrid ??? Watch the game you will understand what role tactics play in football. When Messi dropped deep back to disrupt the marking of Madrid defenders , he was playing as a playmaker and the outcome is History written in Golden words.

and there can be so many other things ...

 

[gingerless]

man this argument just has everyone creating their own theory on what is tactics/what isn't. no one really gets the point

 

[Raed]

An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
2. The art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, esp. during contact with an enemy.

 

[Metaphysical]

An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end.
2. The art of disposing armed forces in order of battle and of organizing operations, esp. during contact with an enemy.

 

[dalitis8]

Yeah, but I think that the whole argument, begun, when a member of this forum suggested that it is not so much who the manager is, or what he decides to do with formations and subs and so on, but it is the players at a team's disposal and their form that are most important. (well it is a very simple and straightforward argument that actually makes a lot of sense) He also suggested that lady luck has a huge part in football (most of us would agree on that one)

In very vulgar terms, let's just say that Pep and Mourinho were managers at Almeria and Hercules respectively, those teams would probably be at the bottom regardless (I tend to agree wih this)

It's something very simple.

Tactics sure do matter, but football journalists and many soccer fans tend to exaggerate the importance of a tweak in formation, or a sub, or so-called "mind-games"...things that were either way quite obvious to begin with.

To give another example. Lots was made last year about Mourinho "brilliance" in defeating Barca at the San Siro. But these people tend to forget the ABC of Logic. just because A occurs concurrently with B, it doesn't automatically follow that A and B are bound by causal relationship. This is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc or believing that correllation implies causal relation. For example:"When Putin took over the Russian Presidency in 2000, the economy started growing" The fallacy here is to deduce, that Putin's rule led directly to economic growth. Fact of the matter is, that there may be other concurrent factors of greater importance, like the worldwide rise in oil prices and other primary commodities.

The fact that the presence of Mourinho coincided with a Barca defeat, simply does not mean that Mourinho was indeed the deciding factor here. It is quite possible, that Barca themselves experienced a dip in performance levels (as demonstrated by statistics concerning the distance covered by the Barcelona players in the Inter game as opposed to the Arsenal game - around 10% less) due to consecutive ties against Arsenal, Madrid, Espanyol and also due to the now infamous bus-trip.

But the inane, and sensationalist sporting press, of course tend to provide the most vulgar and simplistic of explanations.

 

[Ocelot]

A great manager with a shit team will not do very well.
A fantastic team with a shit manager will not do very well either

 

[gingerless]

Yeah, but I think that the whole argument, begun, when a member of this forum suggested that it is not so much who the manager is, or what he decides to do with formations and subs and so on, but it is the players at a team's disposal and their form that are most important. (well it is a very simple and straightforward argument that actually makes a lot of sense) He also suggested that lady luck has a huge part in football (most of us would agree on that one)

In very vulgar terms, let's just say that Pep and Mourinho were managers at Almeria and Hercules respectively, those teams would probably be at the bottom regardless (I tend to agree wih this)

It's something very simple.

Tactics sure do matter, but football journalists and many soccer fans tend to exaggerate the importance of a tweak in formation, or a sub, or so-called "mind-games"...things that were either way quite obvious to begin with.

To give another example. Lots was made last year about Mourinho "brilliance" in defeating Barca at the San Siro. But these people tend to forget the ABC of Logic. just because A occurs concurrently with B, it doesn't automatically follow that A and B are bound by causal relationship. This is called cum hoc ergo propter hoc or believing that correllation implies causal relation. For example:"When Putin took over the Russian Presidency in 2000, the economy started growing" The fallacy here is to deduce, that Putin's rule led directly to economic growth. Fact of the matter is, that there may be other concurrent factors of greater importance, like the worldwide rise in oil prices and other primary commodities.

The fact that the presence of Mourinho coincided with a Barca defeat, simply does not mean that Mourinho was indeed the deciding factor here. It is quite possible, that Barca themselves experienced a dip in performance levels (as demonstrated by statistics concerning the distance covered by the Barcelona players in the Inter game as opposed to the Arsenal game - around 10% less) due to consecutive ties against Arsenal, Madrid, Espanyol and also due to the now infamous bus-trip.

But the inane, and sensationalist sporting press, of course tend to provide the most vulgar and simplistic of explanations.

A great manager with a shit team will not do very well.
A fantastic team with a shit manager will not do very well either.

yes, yes, and yes

 

[dalitis8]

Bastards Madrid, they boast a full squad, while we are missing three players. All defenders.

 

[Ryan_Cule]

we have asked for 6.2 M from that madrid based Radio .

 

[knicks]

how I heard, Carvalho will miss in the first semi-final game!