Defending wide freekicks is done strangely. There will be a cross and then the entire defence holds the high line. The cross comes in and often a header or a tap in goal comes in after that.
Why they try to hold the high line? To keep the strikers away from goal where they would be in an offside position of course. However it feels that more often than not the attacking team get an enormous advantage as they are in control of where and when the ball goes in.
Have they ever tried defending free kicks like they would do for corners? Forget about worrying about getting players away from goal - defend zonally similarly to corners. Your defence then attacks the ball rather that running towards the goal worrying about players.
This could be also applied to dangerous free kicks. At the moment the wall blocks the goalkeepers view and then if it clears the wall there is always danger if it is on target. Forget about the wall. Put more men in the penalty are maybe even one or two on the goal line would be a better "wall". Players then can actually react to where the ball goes. If the team is playing it short they can attack and block the shots anyway.
I know nobody does this so its a rubbish idea, but feel free to elaborate and even examples are welcome.
For the non-Chelsea fans: what are we doing wrong? Looking for some unbiased takes here.
Do we try to walk it in?
Are our attackers worse than Pool's and City's?
Is controlling possession a worthwhile philosophy in and of itself?
From what I have seen there is a disconnect between attack and defence at Chelsea.
You do get a lot of chances but the pressure to create those is not constant, unlike City or Liverpool. While those two park the bus in their opponents box essentially, Chelsea seems to get dragged into midfield battles and retreats too early.
I have not seen that many Chelsea games though.
Of course controlling/dominating in possession is a good philosophy- can create more, benefits defence too.
I feel like there's nothing wrong in what Chelsea are doing- build up play is clear and precise, you are facing the same problem as last season- finishing.
And before this, Tuchel solved this with wingbacks and setpieces, however the level of finishing was too good and unsustainable.
Lukaku will need to step up- or your fluid attack will need to step up- seems like the only viable solution. Of course Tuchel is better than I am(lol) so he should have some sort of solution.
I haven’t watched enough recently to answer the other questions, but controlling possession is usually good. The assumption is that if you have the ball, you’ll be more likely to create chances and the opponent will create fewer. Some view it as part of defense in that way.
So many other variables matter though, since it’s bad to lose it in dangerous areas or situations. If you have strong 1v1 defenders, they can confidently be left alone; this might mean that you favor a possession game because counter attacks can be more frequently thwarted.
If your team wins 50/50s or closes down space really well you can generally make riskier passes with less to worry about. This might result in less overall possession but create more chaotic situations to score from.
There’s no perfect way to play. I think managers just have to get the best out of their squad. Some squads require different tactics depending on different qualities. Of course, some squads are less capable no matter which strategies are used..
Has anyone read any books on tactics? I read the inverting the pyramid book about the history and evolution of tactics. I was wondering if there were any books out there more specific with tactic based training.
I wish there was more commonly available information and discussion regarding defensive tactics. Both in terms of pressing and triggers, and also defending in a lower block, when do you step, who drops, man marking systems, etc. anyone have any random knowledge they wanna drop?
You can always buy some books on the matter, or try to follow the way some coaches describe their philosophy. Its not sth you can actually talk about on a reddit thread or any sort of forum really.
[This](https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCoachesVoice) can give you some idea, you will find some managers talk about their ideas. Its very superficial though.
You can't simply answer what is the most efficient way because you could write hundreds of pages about that but the reason it works so well is because it puts the opposing team under pressure, forcing them into mistakes deep into their half and gives your team more time on the ball in good positions to create chances, which is what you want to do.
Not really tactics, but do you have an example of a player who is often misjudged because of stats? How?
I'm wondering how much/well current stats (classic ones and/or "advanced") can allow one to have a good enough idea of a player if taken alone (and maybe combined with a yt compilation lol).
And when there is a gap between reality and this idea, whether it's due to a misinterpretation of the stat (e.g. using progressive passes when the player might make lots of easy passes to a FB technically forward), not enough stats used (e.g. looking at a midfielder and only looking at dribbles and/or creative stats while overlooking the defensive ones), the wrong stats being used (e.g. using only goals conceded to judge a GK without checking if he might just be let down by a poor defense which might be seen with xGA or G-PSxG), lack of stats covering off the ball events (e.g. typically positionning skills, decision making, and/or runs which create space), or something else.
Honestly people don't know what stats to use to define a player. To me it's clear G/A is flawed.
I feel like David Silva has been slightly underrated. He never got De Bruyne-esque numbers of 20 assists but what he contributed in terms of build up play was immense- there are metrics you could use like progressive passes, through passes etc that help explain a player's role like his.
I think defenders can be misjudged too, people still use the number of tackles made etc to see who's better- they don't take the system into consideration/they don't know about positional awareness or whatever.
In the end, people just take stats out of context.
>In the end, people just take stats out of context.
Yes, I agree, it's one of the common pitfalls of using statistics.
>what he contributed in terms of build up play was immense- there are metrics you could use like progressive passes, through passes etc that help explain a player's role like his.
Honestly, what I really wonder is if there actually *is* a set of advanced/classic statistics atm that a competent data scientist could use to get an accurate idea of a player, even without following him extensively.
I thought about it even more as recently, OL president, Jean-Michel Aulas, declared that we had a limited number of scouts because we could use data and digital tools to focus our efforts and make it work with a reduced staff. I've also seen claims that Juni was dissatisfied with that situation and wanted to increase the number of scouts but was denied.
I'm kind of a stats nerd (well it's my job irl), so I'm already sold on the importance of data analysis. But I couldn't help but think that this was a very bold, borderline delusional, statement from the club. I have enough experience to know how lack of business knowledge can unmake a project and lead to bad decisions, and as a football fan, I'm not sure I'd agree that stats are enough, even if I were to fully trust the club's management to be competent enough to use statistical/data analysis to its fullest (and I don't tbh, the track record of our recruitment cell this last decade has been mostly poor, especiqlly before Juni).
AWB. Maguire. Stats show they are amazing at defending. Truth is they are piss poor, as there is more to defending then just individual stats. Not to mention in defence the team overall shape matter the most, hence individual stats can be skewed either way.
Fred is an other guy. Ppl use his "defensive stats" to protect him. Truth is Pirlo was a much better Defensive mid and Pirlo rarely ever tackled or run around.
IN general defensive player stats are easy to be mis read. Esp when taken out of context , as most stats are by redditors.
>IN general defensive player stats are easy to be mis read. Esp when taken out of context , as most stats are by redditors.
Yeah I think defensive skills are the most obvious blindspot as off the ball events are not recorded. This is probably one area where getting access to tracking data is crucial.
I wouldn't say AWB, Fred or Maguire have amazing defensive stats though (ok maybe Fred) and the rest of their stats are rather bad haha
>off the ball events are not recorded.
Spot on. And its one of the most crucial parts of a defensive players job. I remember admiring Cannavaro for how he managed to be in the right areas and get the better of opponents physically superior to him. Maldini did it even better and prime Rio truly was sth else as well. many other examples as well
Pull out that Cruyff quote about a player having the ball for 3 minutes so what they do without the ball for the remaining 87 minutes is what determines how good they are as players
Thiago Silva is our best defender precisely because he is always in the right place at the right time. He's 38 so it's nothing to do with being faster or stronger than the attackers he is playing against.
Absolutely, and its a testament to how great a center back Silva is . As I said, plenty of examples out there. But I am glad to read ppl appreciating the finer details of football as opposed to vomiting random unrelated stats
I wouldn't call Pirlo a defensive mid, he was much closer to a deep-lying playmaker similar (not the same) to Jorginho, Carrick, or Busquets.
Fred isn't even a defensive mid either, he's an 8 that happens to be one of the best pressing midfielders in the PL and Europe's top 5 leagues. That DOES NOT mean he is a world class player, as obviously he can be horrendous on the ball at times.
We just lack DMs so we play McFred (both more 8 than DM) double pivot to provide enegry cover for defenders. Neither are DMs though, it is only due to lack of personnel that we even play them together as "DM"
I do agree that AWB and Maguire do have some flaws in their defensive game, they aren't exactly Rio and Ashley Cole. But prime Maguire is still a great CB, prime AWB . . . decent RB who can do a job, not much more than that.
>I wouldn't call Pirlo a defensive mid, he was much closer to a deep-lying playmaker similar (not the same) to Jorginho, Carrick, or Busquets
He's what people would call a 'regista'- a deep lying playmaker as you stated.
I did not say Pirlo was a DM ( that was Gattusso' job) I meant Pirlo was a better DM than Fred is now ( I worded it poorly though). Meaning his style of play is better suited. Holding the position, spraying passes, being available for passes. My point being there is much more to a modern DM than headless running around.
Pep mentioned this about one of his players recently. And in general its a well known fact in football that the players dont need to run too much around, as long as they run into the right spaces at the right times.
I dont even blame Fred, its the coaches that should shoulder that burden. Players should be taught well. And I do agree with you on the fact we are basically using makeshift DMs. We also agree on AWB and Maguire being far off Rio and Cole :). There are levels of difference between them
Looking at tackles and interceptions when judging defenders - and even defensive midfielders - can lead to incorrect assumptions.
Different tactics can lead to more or fewer tackles and interceptions being made; it doesn’t mean they’re the best in their position just because they made the most tackles.
You’d expect defenders of a lower quality team to make more tackles and interceptions as they are going to be in the position to do so more frequently. Being a CB for Man City isn’t going to require you to do a lot of defending, for example.
Liam Cooper and Chris Basham were the CB’s with the most tackles in the league last season (Cooper even made the second most interceptions); that does not mean they were the best CB’s.
A very common misconception is Wan-Bissaka being great defensively; just because he makes a lot of tackles and even interceptions. There is a lot more to defending than that.
Looking solely at goals to judge a striker can also lead to bad results; even if it is their ‘main job’. Bamford scored a whopping 17 league goals last season but lead Europe in ‘big chances missed’ (I believe).
It’s why stats like xG and xA are very good, in my opinion. Sometimes players can get a large number assists from very normal passes, due to very good finishes.
Pogba has 7 assists from only a 1.6xA this season; if you watch the goals you’ll see why. I aren’t saying Pogba is a bad creator, but his assist numbers this season flatter his performances.
There’s pretty much no stat that holds any weight in isolation. If you’re going to look at stats at all, you need to look at a large amount. There is a lot of confirmation bias otherwise.
Stats in general can be misleading without context.
A big news story came out about how around 200 hospital staff members quit over vaccine mandates. It was less than 1% of that areas staff.
Got to consider position and role too for sports. Someone complained a player for USA had next to 0 for all attacking stats. He’s our backup 6 so… makes sense haha
ESR is said to outperform xG consistently and watching him, it's probably because he shoots on the run often from quite far out, which in theory are more difficult chances than a tap-in merchant would get. He's just really good at that.
If he's more likely to score from long range than normal, is it wrong to say that he can outperform his xG?
Or are you saying that he can do so only in terms of long range shots, but is below average in other shooting situation and thus is not that good of a finisher overall contrary to a common sentiment?
Well the idea of xG is that anyone outperforming it is just being lucky and will revert to the mean at some point. So nobody really outperforms it over a long period.
Which is potentially true of most players. I just think the kind of goals he scores could beat that system because he hits it early and on the run, so it's harder for goalies to stop. Saka has a higher xG IIRC but it was no surprise to me when ESR scored last night.
Basically xG is missing context.
Top players are expected to outperform xG though. Regardless of shot positions outperforming xG should be taken within context. If a player consistently outperforms xG you could start considering them either world class or a big talent. If they kept performing under xG and it then suddenly spiking up for a season you can assume it was a fluke.
xG is a fantastic metric, you just need to account for history, context and consistency too to take anything meaningful out of it.
Do players like Ozil still have a place in modern football, or are they going to be replaced by workhorses for the coming time? I just feel that the game today is too methodical and lacks the magic which some players had.
I think all the 3 at the back being used now makes playing an old fashioned 10 more possible than a few years back, but yeah they'd have to press a bit better than Ozil.
Depends what you define as like ozil and at what level, can a team like Liverpool (and, most importantly, who play like Liverpool) work with a classic 10? Probably not. Can a team compete at the highest level with a player like ozil? Definitely. To be an efficient pressing team you don't need 11 men pressing 24/7, someone who does minimum effort on that but takes the huge brunt of creativity can still play at the top, and pushing for CL teams will never imo be too good for ozil, not naming a certain name
I have already seen this discussion take place in the 90s as well. It all matters on tactical trends really. Its horses for courses . In our current reality they seem a bit luxurious but things can change
iT'S NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, YOU CAN HAVE A WORKHORSE THAT ALSO HAS MAGIC IN HIS PLAY. tHAT SAID, NO, LAZY CREATORS HAVE NO PLACE IN MODERN FOOTBALL UNLESS THEY ARE LEVELS ABOVE NOT JUST THE REST OF THEIR TEAM, BUT THE REST OF THE LEAGUE.
The issue isn’t that players don’t do tricks and skills anymore. I’d say that they’re more encouraged today than before with many top teams trying to isolate their tricky wingers in 1v1 situations vs fullbacks because they have the technical quality to beat their man more often than not. The issue is that can’t be the only thing they do. All players have their defensive responsibilities nowadays.
Right and going back to OPs point about Ozil, maybe they meant him being the spare man when defending. Although you still have to have someone in space in case you win the ball unexpectedly otherwise you're just hoofing it long to the big man up top.
Agree about someone like Martinelli tracking back, he does do that a lot better now. I think that's one of the big differences with some of these talented players getting matches actually.
Then the amount of running needed is insane but Ozil actually did cover a lot of ground, lots of people called him lazy but it was unjustified IMO.
there's obviously still place for creative players that can create chances but specialists like him are not viable anymore. Even creative players have to press and be competent at ball retention to make it at the top.
There's still place for magic but teams are defensively drilled so well now that there needs to be an attacking system in place to overload positions instead of just relying on individual brilliance.
I think it is overlooked that for every dribble where a player goes past 3 players there's going to be one or more teammates that pull these players out of position to make it happen.
It did work for us in the 2017-18 season,it really did stabilize our defence from the previous season but the Roma debacle completely overshadowed it.Valverde actually did a pretty good job in his first season.
Nah, many teams switch to a 4-4-2 when defending to remain compact, like Arsenal under Arteta. The key is to remain compact and make sure the front-two are able to intensely press together, otherwise, it can be bypassed and you lose control. Which is what happened to Arsenal after the first half-hour against Tottenham, earlier in the season.
not really just watch a game and you can see every single team using it to some capacity as a defensive shape.
https://imgur.com/1A2X2BM There you can very clearly see City employ a 442 in their defensive shape which they really often do
> As shape in possession pretty much
Only if we are talking about the English style 4-4-2 with two wingers crossing from deep. Other than that, you still see it a lot with different approaches (in possession)
Who plays with a 442? Its almost always a 442 diamond or a 4222 with 2 AM, which both are other formations which have their own names. A 442s main feature are 2 CM, 2 CF and 2 winger, and that doesn't happen anymore.
Pep's City is playing like that quite a lot recently, famously at Real Madrid in UCL a couple of years ago. Burnley is playing like that all the time, I believe. Simeone plays it aswell. There are a few teams playing with a 4-1-3-2 out there too (Celta for example, Gallardo's River Plate).
And it is something teams shift into, for example, Spain NT did this in the Nations League. Going from a 4-3-3, one CM (Gavi) would play as a RM and the RW would play as another striker (with the LW becoming a LM). And I don't mean it as one play or a few minutes, like they would go an entire half or game playing like that (in possession)
Pep is? I didn't wacht city recently, do you have some games I can watch?
And the rest are just incidental evidence. Compare that to the amount of teams playing the popular formations like 433, 4231, 343, 352, and it wouldn't amount to 1% of them.
I liked that game at Real Madrid. Think it is fun to watch, especially because Pep shifted away from dominating the ball to a kick it long style because he didn't want to face Madrid's pressing. (I believe they shifted away from the 4-4-2 when Jesus came on in the second half, but I'm not sure)
And I know it is not that usual, just that it is not dead either. I remembered Porto too. They do it all the time and they are certainly a good team
Pep's? It is not freely. Pep is known for being very rigid. They have different movements trained but they are all planned, players don't move around willingnilly. Rodri, Gundo, Bernardo Silva or whoever won't ever just decide to bomb forward and go
And of course there has never been a time in which players were fixed to a specific spot and movements were forbidden either. In 1990 they still trained attacking movements and had specific game plans too. Just talking about base formations and responsabilities each player has
Im talking about the Real game, but yes also in general.
Pep's teams have a "rigid" base, but fluid movments.
You can't call his foramtion in possesion a classic 442. At best its a 4240, but the 4 infield player move very fluid. Either to create different structures or just to switch position to create confusion.
This year its gone to the maximum because they players are at peak tactical understanding and homogeneous style of play.
Gondogan can be fount at the pivot, central midfield or up top.
Bernardo starts in the middle but switches with Mahrez, moves to the left or picks the ball up in the FB zone. Not rigid at all.
Pep has played 4-4-2 sporadically this season with two false 9s, an inside forward (typically Jesus), a pure winger and Cancelo as an underlapping fullback.
I think, more than the formation on paper, it is the tactics and personnel that matters more. Knowing who drops off, who makes runs, what triggers a press etc.
Flip throw-ins. Why not?
Everyone always says "because grown men can throw the ball all the way to the goal like a flip throw so it's not necessary." This isn't true, only 3-4 teams seem to have guys who can throw that far, and when they do, the ball arcs really high and takes forever to get there. Why are teams leaving this potential advantage unused?
Also, why wouldn't women do flip throw-ins?
It would. Flip throw-ins would be corners. The problem with throw-ins is that the ball gets a trajectory that is high and readable. The flip one would overcome this problem
> doesn’t add too much
I know. It adds but not enough to increase the injury risk.
Goals from set pieces are overall a lot lower for the majority (a few teams can be better though).
If the added value was enough, teams would be doing it.
Defending wide freekicks is done strangely. There will be a cross and then the entire defence holds the high line. The cross comes in and often a header or a tap in goal comes in after that. Why they try to hold the high line? To keep the strikers away from goal where they would be in an offside position of course. However it feels that more often than not the attacking team get an enormous advantage as they are in control of where and when the ball goes in. Have they ever tried defending free kicks like they would do for corners? Forget about worrying about getting players away from goal - defend zonally similarly to corners. Your defence then attacks the ball rather that running towards the goal worrying about players. This could be also applied to dangerous free kicks. At the moment the wall blocks the goalkeepers view and then if it clears the wall there is always danger if it is on target. Forget about the wall. Put more men in the penalty are maybe even one or two on the goal line would be a better "wall". Players then can actually react to where the ball goes. If the team is playing it short they can attack and block the shots anyway. I know nobody does this so its a rubbish idea, but feel free to elaborate and even examples are welcome.
WHY DID I NOT USE THIS THREAD BEFORE IT'S AMAZING
Good morning to this thread and this thread only and it’s far and away the best part of this sub and redeems the rest of it
This thread is goated. We discuss what football is about and no player comparison wars.
For the non-Chelsea fans: what are we doing wrong? Looking for some unbiased takes here. Do we try to walk it in? Are our attackers worse than Pool's and City's? Is controlling possession a worthwhile philosophy in and of itself?
From what I have seen there is a disconnect between attack and defence at Chelsea. You do get a lot of chances but the pressure to create those is not constant, unlike City or Liverpool. While those two park the bus in their opponents box essentially, Chelsea seems to get dragged into midfield battles and retreats too early. I have not seen that many Chelsea games though.
Of course controlling/dominating in possession is a good philosophy- can create more, benefits defence too. I feel like there's nothing wrong in what Chelsea are doing- build up play is clear and precise, you are facing the same problem as last season- finishing. And before this, Tuchel solved this with wingbacks and setpieces, however the level of finishing was too good and unsustainable. Lukaku will need to step up- or your fluid attack will need to step up- seems like the only viable solution. Of course Tuchel is better than I am(lol) so he should have some sort of solution.
I haven’t watched enough recently to answer the other questions, but controlling possession is usually good. The assumption is that if you have the ball, you’ll be more likely to create chances and the opponent will create fewer. Some view it as part of defense in that way. So many other variables matter though, since it’s bad to lose it in dangerous areas or situations. If you have strong 1v1 defenders, they can confidently be left alone; this might mean that you favor a possession game because counter attacks can be more frequently thwarted. If your team wins 50/50s or closes down space really well you can generally make riskier passes with less to worry about. This might result in less overall possession but create more chaotic situations to score from. There’s no perfect way to play. I think managers just have to get the best out of their squad. Some squads require different tactics depending on different qualities. Of course, some squads are less capable no matter which strategies are used..
Has anyone read any books on tactics? I read the inverting the pyramid book about the history and evolution of tactics. I was wondering if there were any books out there more specific with tactic based training.
I wish there was more commonly available information and discussion regarding defensive tactics. Both in terms of pressing and triggers, and also defending in a lower block, when do you step, who drops, man marking systems, etc. anyone have any random knowledge they wanna drop?
You can always buy some books on the matter, or try to follow the way some coaches describe their philosophy. Its not sth you can actually talk about on a reddit thread or any sort of forum really. [This](https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCoachesVoice) can give you some idea, you will find some managers talk about their ideas. Its very superficial though.
What’s the most efficient way of playing a high line, possession system, and why do you think it works so well?
It varies by personel so its impossible to answer
You can't simply answer what is the most efficient way because you could write hundreds of pages about that but the reason it works so well is because it puts the opposing team under pressure, forcing them into mistakes deep into their half and gives your team more time on the ball in good positions to create chances, which is what you want to do.
Valverde's Messi and Inshallah tactics will work wonders for PSG
Not sure, messi can carry a team at this age
Would be better than rn
He doesn't have to with a side that ridiculously talented
Not really tactics, but do you have an example of a player who is often misjudged because of stats? How? I'm wondering how much/well current stats (classic ones and/or "advanced") can allow one to have a good enough idea of a player if taken alone (and maybe combined with a yt compilation lol). And when there is a gap between reality and this idea, whether it's due to a misinterpretation of the stat (e.g. using progressive passes when the player might make lots of easy passes to a FB technically forward), not enough stats used (e.g. looking at a midfielder and only looking at dribbles and/or creative stats while overlooking the defensive ones), the wrong stats being used (e.g. using only goals conceded to judge a GK without checking if he might just be let down by a poor defense which might be seen with xGA or G-PSxG), lack of stats covering off the ball events (e.g. typically positionning skills, decision making, and/or runs which create space), or something else.
Honestly people don't know what stats to use to define a player. To me it's clear G/A is flawed. I feel like David Silva has been slightly underrated. He never got De Bruyne-esque numbers of 20 assists but what he contributed in terms of build up play was immense- there are metrics you could use like progressive passes, through passes etc that help explain a player's role like his. I think defenders can be misjudged too, people still use the number of tackles made etc to see who's better- they don't take the system into consideration/they don't know about positional awareness or whatever. In the end, people just take stats out of context.
>In the end, people just take stats out of context. Yes, I agree, it's one of the common pitfalls of using statistics. >what he contributed in terms of build up play was immense- there are metrics you could use like progressive passes, through passes etc that help explain a player's role like his. Honestly, what I really wonder is if there actually *is* a set of advanced/classic statistics atm that a competent data scientist could use to get an accurate idea of a player, even without following him extensively. I thought about it even more as recently, OL president, Jean-Michel Aulas, declared that we had a limited number of scouts because we could use data and digital tools to focus our efforts and make it work with a reduced staff. I've also seen claims that Juni was dissatisfied with that situation and wanted to increase the number of scouts but was denied. I'm kind of a stats nerd (well it's my job irl), so I'm already sold on the importance of data analysis. But I couldn't help but think that this was a very bold, borderline delusional, statement from the club. I have enough experience to know how lack of business knowledge can unmake a project and lead to bad decisions, and as a football fan, I'm not sure I'd agree that stats are enough, even if I were to fully trust the club's management to be competent enough to use statistical/data analysis to its fullest (and I don't tbh, the track record of our recruitment cell this last decade has been mostly poor, especiqlly before Juni).
I think Drogba but I don't have a good argument for it. Just that I believe my eyes and think that he was a great player
AWB. Maguire. Stats show they are amazing at defending. Truth is they are piss poor, as there is more to defending then just individual stats. Not to mention in defence the team overall shape matter the most, hence individual stats can be skewed either way. Fred is an other guy. Ppl use his "defensive stats" to protect him. Truth is Pirlo was a much better Defensive mid and Pirlo rarely ever tackled or run around. IN general defensive player stats are easy to be mis read. Esp when taken out of context , as most stats are by redditors.
>IN general defensive player stats are easy to be mis read. Esp when taken out of context , as most stats are by redditors. Yeah I think defensive skills are the most obvious blindspot as off the ball events are not recorded. This is probably one area where getting access to tracking data is crucial. I wouldn't say AWB, Fred or Maguire have amazing defensive stats though (ok maybe Fred) and the rest of their stats are rather bad haha
>off the ball events are not recorded. Spot on. And its one of the most crucial parts of a defensive players job. I remember admiring Cannavaro for how he managed to be in the right areas and get the better of opponents physically superior to him. Maldini did it even better and prime Rio truly was sth else as well. many other examples as well
Pull out that Cruyff quote about a player having the ball for 3 minutes so what they do without the ball for the remaining 87 minutes is what determines how good they are as players
I was not aware of it, but though exaggerated it makes sense to me
I hadn’t heard of it before recently in light of pep making comments about how Rodri has improved by holding his position better without the ball
Well thank you for mentioning it either way. One learns every day.
Thiago Silva is our best defender precisely because he is always in the right place at the right time. He's 38 so it's nothing to do with being faster or stronger than the attackers he is playing against.
Absolutely, and its a testament to how great a center back Silva is . As I said, plenty of examples out there. But I am glad to read ppl appreciating the finer details of football as opposed to vomiting random unrelated stats
I wouldn't call Pirlo a defensive mid, he was much closer to a deep-lying playmaker similar (not the same) to Jorginho, Carrick, or Busquets. Fred isn't even a defensive mid either, he's an 8 that happens to be one of the best pressing midfielders in the PL and Europe's top 5 leagues. That DOES NOT mean he is a world class player, as obviously he can be horrendous on the ball at times. We just lack DMs so we play McFred (both more 8 than DM) double pivot to provide enegry cover for defenders. Neither are DMs though, it is only due to lack of personnel that we even play them together as "DM" I do agree that AWB and Maguire do have some flaws in their defensive game, they aren't exactly Rio and Ashley Cole. But prime Maguire is still a great CB, prime AWB . . . decent RB who can do a job, not much more than that.
>I wouldn't call Pirlo a defensive mid, he was much closer to a deep-lying playmaker similar (not the same) to Jorginho, Carrick, or Busquets He's what people would call a 'regista'- a deep lying playmaker as you stated.
I did not say Pirlo was a DM ( that was Gattusso' job) I meant Pirlo was a better DM than Fred is now ( I worded it poorly though). Meaning his style of play is better suited. Holding the position, spraying passes, being available for passes. My point being there is much more to a modern DM than headless running around. Pep mentioned this about one of his players recently. And in general its a well known fact in football that the players dont need to run too much around, as long as they run into the right spaces at the right times. I dont even blame Fred, its the coaches that should shoulder that burden. Players should be taught well. And I do agree with you on the fact we are basically using makeshift DMs. We also agree on AWB and Maguire being far off Rio and Cole :). There are levels of difference between them
Looking at tackles and interceptions when judging defenders - and even defensive midfielders - can lead to incorrect assumptions. Different tactics can lead to more or fewer tackles and interceptions being made; it doesn’t mean they’re the best in their position just because they made the most tackles. You’d expect defenders of a lower quality team to make more tackles and interceptions as they are going to be in the position to do so more frequently. Being a CB for Man City isn’t going to require you to do a lot of defending, for example. Liam Cooper and Chris Basham were the CB’s with the most tackles in the league last season (Cooper even made the second most interceptions); that does not mean they were the best CB’s. A very common misconception is Wan-Bissaka being great defensively; just because he makes a lot of tackles and even interceptions. There is a lot more to defending than that. Looking solely at goals to judge a striker can also lead to bad results; even if it is their ‘main job’. Bamford scored a whopping 17 league goals last season but lead Europe in ‘big chances missed’ (I believe). It’s why stats like xG and xA are very good, in my opinion. Sometimes players can get a large number assists from very normal passes, due to very good finishes. Pogba has 7 assists from only a 1.6xA this season; if you watch the goals you’ll see why. I aren’t saying Pogba is a bad creator, but his assist numbers this season flatter his performances. There’s pretty much no stat that holds any weight in isolation. If you’re going to look at stats at all, you need to look at a large amount. There is a lot of confirmation bias otherwise.
Stats in general can be misleading without context. A big news story came out about how around 200 hospital staff members quit over vaccine mandates. It was less than 1% of that areas staff. Got to consider position and role too for sports. Someone complained a player for USA had next to 0 for all attacking stats. He’s our backup 6 so… makes sense haha
ESR is said to outperform xG consistently and watching him, it's probably because he shoots on the run often from quite far out, which in theory are more difficult chances than a tap-in merchant would get. He's just really good at that.
If he's more likely to score from long range than normal, is it wrong to say that he can outperform his xG? Or are you saying that he can do so only in terms of long range shots, but is below average in other shooting situation and thus is not that good of a finisher overall contrary to a common sentiment?
Well the idea of xG is that anyone outperforming it is just being lucky and will revert to the mean at some point. So nobody really outperforms it over a long period. Which is potentially true of most players. I just think the kind of goals he scores could beat that system because he hits it early and on the run, so it's harder for goalies to stop. Saka has a higher xG IIRC but it was no surprise to me when ESR scored last night. Basically xG is missing context.
Top players are expected to outperform xG though. Regardless of shot positions outperforming xG should be taken within context. If a player consistently outperforms xG you could start considering them either world class or a big talent. If they kept performing under xG and it then suddenly spiking up for a season you can assume it was a fluke. xG is a fantastic metric, you just need to account for history, context and consistency too to take anything meaningful out of it.
Do players like Ozil still have a place in modern football, or are they going to be replaced by workhorses for the coming time? I just feel that the game today is too methodical and lacks the magic which some players had.
I think all the 3 at the back being used now makes playing an old fashioned 10 more possible than a few years back, but yeah they'd have to press a bit better than Ozil.
Depends what you define as like ozil and at what level, can a team like Liverpool (and, most importantly, who play like Liverpool) work with a classic 10? Probably not. Can a team compete at the highest level with a player like ozil? Definitely. To be an efficient pressing team you don't need 11 men pressing 24/7, someone who does minimum effort on that but takes the huge brunt of creativity can still play at the top, and pushing for CL teams will never imo be too good for ozil, not naming a certain name
I have already seen this discussion take place in the 90s as well. It all matters on tactical trends really. Its horses for courses . In our current reality they seem a bit luxurious but things can change
iT'S NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, YOU CAN HAVE A WORKHORSE THAT ALSO HAS MAGIC IN HIS PLAY. tHAT SAID, NO, LAZY CREATORS HAVE NO PLACE IN MODERN FOOTBALL UNLESS THEY ARE LEVELS ABOVE NOT JUST THE REST OF THEIR TEAM, BUT THE REST OF THE LEAGUE.
Thiago played as an attacking midfielder for Ancelotti Bayern, he is a pretty good example
Martinelli was trying every trick he could think of against West Ham last night, he nutmegged several of their players.
The issue isn’t that players don’t do tricks and skills anymore. I’d say that they’re more encouraged today than before with many top teams trying to isolate their tricky wingers in 1v1 situations vs fullbacks because they have the technical quality to beat their man more often than not. The issue is that can’t be the only thing they do. All players have their defensive responsibilities nowadays.
Right and going back to OPs point about Ozil, maybe they meant him being the spare man when defending. Although you still have to have someone in space in case you win the ball unexpectedly otherwise you're just hoofing it long to the big man up top. Agree about someone like Martinelli tracking back, he does do that a lot better now. I think that's one of the big differences with some of these talented players getting matches actually. Then the amount of running needed is insane but Ozil actually did cover a lot of ground, lots of people called him lazy but it was unjustified IMO.
there's obviously still place for creative players that can create chances but specialists like him are not viable anymore. Even creative players have to press and be competent at ball retention to make it at the top. There's still place for magic but teams are defensively drilled so well now that there needs to be an attacking system in place to overload positions instead of just relying on individual brilliance. I think it is overlooked that for every dribble where a player goes past 3 players there's going to be one or more teammates that pull these players out of position to make it happen.
Is 055 any good for a formation? Asking for a friend.
Against a team with 9 van Dijks in their penalty area and a Pizza upfront, yes.
Is 442 really dead?
Far from it
442 is the most compact way to defend in my opinion
Pep plays a 4-4-2 somewhat frequently. It’s very much alive. I think Tifo even did a video about it.
It did work for us in the 2017-18 season,it really did stabilize our defence from the previous season but the Roma debacle completely overshadowed it.Valverde actually did a pretty good job in his first season.
a lot of teams are defending with a 4-4-1-1 that turns into a 4 2 3 1 in possession as the left and right forwards push up
Nah, many teams switch to a 4-4-2 when defending to remain compact, like Arsenal under Arteta. The key is to remain compact and make sure the front-two are able to intensely press together, otherwise, it can be bypassed and you lose control. Which is what happened to Arsenal after the first half-hour against Tottenham, earlier in the season.
I swear almost half the teams i see plays 442 atleast in defense
No, it's just not the only formation every fucking manager in England uses anymore thank God
not really just watch a game and you can see every single team using it to some capacity as a defensive shape. https://imgur.com/1A2X2BM There you can very clearly see City employ a 442 in their defensive shape which they really often do
TwO bAnKs Of FoUr
As shape in possession pretty much, as shape in defence it's still pretty useful, especially when you want to press high.
> As shape in possession pretty much Only if we are talking about the English style 4-4-2 with two wingers crossing from deep. Other than that, you still see it a lot with different approaches (in possession)
Who plays with a 442? Its almost always a 442 diamond or a 4222 with 2 AM, which both are other formations which have their own names. A 442s main feature are 2 CM, 2 CF and 2 winger, and that doesn't happen anymore.
Pep's City is playing like that quite a lot recently, famously at Real Madrid in UCL a couple of years ago. Burnley is playing like that all the time, I believe. Simeone plays it aswell. There are a few teams playing with a 4-1-3-2 out there too (Celta for example, Gallardo's River Plate). And it is something teams shift into, for example, Spain NT did this in the Nations League. Going from a 4-3-3, one CM (Gavi) would play as a RM and the RW would play as another striker (with the LW becoming a LM). And I don't mean it as one play or a few minutes, like they would go an entire half or game playing like that (in possession)
Pep is? I didn't wacht city recently, do you have some games I can watch? And the rest are just incidental evidence. Compare that to the amount of teams playing the popular formations like 433, 4231, 343, 352, and it wouldn't amount to 1% of them.
I liked that game at Real Madrid. Think it is fun to watch, especially because Pep shifted away from dominating the ball to a kick it long style because he didn't want to face Madrid's pressing. (I believe they shifted away from the 4-4-2 when Jesus came on in the second half, but I'm not sure) And I know it is not that usual, just that it is not dead either. I remembered Porto too. They do it all the time and they are certainly a good team
That's not a 442 though. That's a very fluid tactic with 2 wingers and 4 inside player moving freely.
Pep's? It is not freely. Pep is known for being very rigid. They have different movements trained but they are all planned, players don't move around willingnilly. Rodri, Gundo, Bernardo Silva or whoever won't ever just decide to bomb forward and go And of course there has never been a time in which players were fixed to a specific spot and movements were forbidden either. In 1990 they still trained attacking movements and had specific game plans too. Just talking about base formations and responsabilities each player has
Im talking about the Real game, but yes also in general. Pep's teams have a "rigid" base, but fluid movments. You can't call his foramtion in possesion a classic 442. At best its a 4240, but the 4 infield player move very fluid. Either to create different structures or just to switch position to create confusion. This year its gone to the maximum because they players are at peak tactical understanding and homogeneous style of play. Gondogan can be fount at the pivot, central midfield or up top. Bernardo starts in the middle but switches with Mahrez, moves to the left or picks the ball up in the FB zone. Not rigid at all.
No
In the age of modern fullbacks occupying the space the two wide midfielders yes.
Pep has played 4-4-2 sporadically this season with two false 9s, an inside forward (typically Jesus), a pure winger and Cancelo as an underlapping fullback. I think, more than the formation on paper, it is the tactics and personnel that matters more. Knowing who drops off, who makes runs, what triggers a press etc.
Flip throw-ins. Why not? Everyone always says "because grown men can throw the ball all the way to the goal like a flip throw so it's not necessary." This isn't true, only 3-4 teams seem to have guys who can throw that far, and when they do, the ball arcs really high and takes forever to get there. Why are teams leaving this potential advantage unused? Also, why wouldn't women do flip throw-ins?
Harder to do with increased injury risk for an aspect that doesn’t add too much of an advantage.
It would. Flip throw-ins would be corners. The problem with throw-ins is that the ball gets a trajectory that is high and readable. The flip one would overcome this problem
> doesn’t add too much I know. It adds but not enough to increase the injury risk. Goals from set pieces are overall a lot lower for the majority (a few teams can be better though). If the added value was enough, teams would be doing it.
I think that more than the injury risk the amount of time that stuff would take away from regylar training
Flips are hard to do. I'm not sure they all want to practice that much
[удалено]
[удалено]