Manchester United Talk banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
406 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Talk about Hollands total football, Arsenal's easy on the eye football, United's wing play, Bolton's hit the tall guy with the ball and Liverpool's ... whatever they do these days. All those variations just to put the ball in the back of the net. What works best ? Whats necessary and whats a bonus ?

From Direct football, to possession football. Counter attacking is one that comes to mind as well. All tactics that are used to win football matches. Some won major championships, and some got teams relegated. Is it the tactics being used, or how they were used ? Its a simple game really. Out score your opponent, isnt it ? But to do that you need 6 days working on positioning and different tactics depending on the way a match is heading. Football is more complicated than ever, more tactical than ever. Is it more beautiful than ever too ? I think it is, and tactical training has alot to do with it.

Although Im a 'pass and move' fan, I do enjoy all kind of tactics whenever theyre used right. Milan's tactics for the 1-0 win against us at the San Siro a few years back were spot on, although very defensive. I dont recall us having a proper shot on target that night. As are most of the tactics Jose Mourinho used with Chelsea. I couldnt see them lose whenever they played. Thats a great skill, picking the right tactic with the right players.

Some sections, most of them actually, are critical of teams like Bolton and Stoke who are organised with men behind the ball and use a direct approach. The name of the game is to win matches, and seeing Stoke play this season Id have to say theyve given everyone they faced a game. So if its working for them, not points wise yet, why shouldnt they use it ?

Im against the saying 'Im using what I have' though. Thats a poor excuse to hide someones inability to use different tactics. Reading came up and outplayed many premiership teams with a simple 'pass and move'. Coppell used that tactic to maximum effect, finishing 8th. Big Sam used a highly effective direct brand of football that got Bolton into Europe. But both teams failed miserably after using the same tactic for a long time, so does that mean that the tactics were no longer useful enough for them or does it simply mean that they over used it and never had a plan B ?

Tactics go into further detail. You've got defensive tactics. Do you man mark ? Or do use zonal defence ? Attacking tactics. Interchnage if widemen. Using a forward playing in the 'hole'. A play maker. Lots and lots of detail for the basis of football basically. Lots of people are arguing on wether a team A should use a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 but the truth is theres much more to tactics than picking one of those. So lets say you've got a very talented, highly technical and versatile players at your disposal. In what formation would you use them ? How would you your side play when you've got the ball and when you dont ? What technical area be it passing , dribbling or crossing would you focus on ? It would be interesting to know how everyone views how football should be played.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,457 Posts
With what limited knowledge of football I have, I've come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a 'best tactic'.

I think the greatest tactic is to change your formation/stratergy based on each opponent.


E.g. When Inter lost the Milan derby a couple of weeks back I blame that squarely on Mourinho's reluctance to abandon 4 - 3 - 3.

The special ones beloved system is slow & compact. The problem is Balotelli is a center forward.

He's too slow to play out wide. Playing Adriano out there seems to work better but that deprives Ibra of a world class partner.

Without a partner Ibra is only showing a bit of what he can do, still scoring but he could be doing much more.


Milan were playing in a christmas tree formation which meant they had great strenth through the middle.

4 - 3 - 3 is all about the center of the park. No width except from attacking full backs.

Maicon is brilliant but without Maxwell they lacked any real attacking force. So naturally they got caned.

Like I said I believe in adapting your tactics to your opposition but check you've got the players first.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,467 Posts
Keano's fan said:
Talk about Hollands total football, Arsenal's easy on the eye football, United's wing play, Bolton's hit the tall guy with the ball and Liverpool's ... whatever they do these days. All those variations just to put the ball in the back of the net. What works best ? Whats necessary and whats a bonus ?

Whatever tactic gets the result is what 'works best' I guess. A lot depends on what kind of players you have at your disposal and how attack minded a particular manager is.Look no further than Fergie, who likes to play attractive, patient, attacking football (most of the time). You mentioned Mourinho who also succeeded as a manager.......but he had the funds AND the players at his disposal, so he just went out and bought the best. He still had to mould a team and he did so, to great effect. He always played with a holding mid (Makalele) and that was the key. That left the other midfielr (Lampard) to get forward and join in with the attackers and get 20 goals a season. Chelsea also had great wingers and Drogba up front at this time, so they were always going to be hard to beat. But if Chelsea didnt have Maka or Lamp would they have been so successful?

From Direct football, to possession football. Counter attacking is one that comes to mind as well. All tactics that are used to win football matches. Some won major championships, and some got teams relegated. Is it the tactics being used, or how they were used ? Its a simple game really. Out score your opponent, isnt it ? But to do that you need 6 days working on positioning and different tactics depending on the way a match is heading. Football is more complicated than ever, more tactical than ever. Is it more beautiful than ever too ? I think it is, and tactical training has alot to do with it.

It is more beautiful than ever in my opinion. You can even get a decent 0-0 these days lol. I appreciate great defensive play, a nice simple pass, or closing down an opponent. football will never lose its beauty ;-)

Although Im a 'pass and move' fan, I do enjoy all kind of tactics whenever theyre used right. Milan's tactics for the 1-0 win against us at the San Siro a few years back were spot on, although very defensive. I dont recall us having a proper shot on target that night. As are most of the tactics Jose Mourinho used with Chelsea. I couldnt see them lose whenever they played. Thats a great skill, picking the right tactic with the right players.

Milan and Italians are the defensive masters, going back to the 1930's when they won 2 World cups and all the way through the 20th century, with the likes of the great Gentille who used to effectively 'kick' players out of the game...but it worked. Italy also won the last world cup without playing great football it has to be said. But it can be the key to being successful and the Italians have proved tha over time. I mentioned Jose/Chelsea before^^^^

Some sections, most of them actually, are critical of teams like Bolton and Stoke who are organised with men behind the ball and use a direct approach. The name of the game is to win matches, and seeing Stoke play this season Id have to say theyve given everyone they faced a game. So if its working for them, not points wise yet, why shouldnt they use it ?

Im all for these teams using these tactics as well. They need to play to their strengths and going gung ho against teams like United or Chelsea will mean they get beat 5/6 -0. A lot of people on this forum were critical of Bolton's heavy handed physical tactics when they beat us last season, especially criticising Kevin Davies for nearly killing poor Evra :rolleyes: But I thought it was fair enough. He got him a few times but he was just getting 'stuck in' and it would have been nothing out of the ordinary 'back in the day' especially with the likes of Giles and Bremner at Leeds lol. But did anyone bat an eyelid when they beat Arsenal those few times? Everyone hear laughed and thought it was great and bigged up their 'rough house' tactics.
Its like Blackburn under Hughes...they had a load of tough players and got stuck in. Nowt wrong with that imo. Its a mans game, so if you dont like it, **** off.

Stoke's main strength is Delap's long throw which causes all sorts of bother to defences. It works well so they should continue using it.


Im against the saying 'Im using what I have' though. Thats a poor excuse to hide someones inability to use different tactics. Reading came up and outplayed many premiership teams with a simple 'pass and move'. Coppell used that tactic to maximum effect, finishing 8th. Big Sam used a highly effective direct brand of football that got Bolton into Europe. But both teams failed miserably after using the same tactic for a long time, so does that mean that the tactics were no longer useful enough for them or does it simply mean that they over used it and never had a plan B ?

Reading's downfall was that Coppell refused to splash the cash. If he had bought 1-3 class players last Jan they would still be in the Prem, but Coppell was a tight arse and it came back to hanut him in the end. 2nd season syndrome wouldnt have helped either.

As for Bolton, they had a small-ish squad without too much quality and suffered because they werent use to travelling away and then coming back to play on the weekend. Fatigue, injuries and inexperience were all factors here.


Tactics go into further detail. You've got defensive tactics. Do you man mark ? Or do use zonal defence ? Attacking tactics. Interchnage if widemen. Using a forward playing in the 'hole'. A play maker. Lots and lots of detail for the basis of football basically. Lots of people are arguing on wether a team A should use a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 but the truth is theres much more to tactics than picking one of those. So lets say you've got a very talented, highly technical and versatile players at your disposal. In what formation would you use them ? How would you your side play when you've got the ball and when you dont ? What technical area be it passing , dribbling or crossing would you focus on ? It would be interesting to know how everyone views how football should be played.

If I was a manager Id focus on ALL the above, cos thats what a proper manager would do, focus on every small detail. Id use the good old trusted 4-4-2, with my wingers keeping the width, one of the 2 central mids having the more defensive role, allowing the other to get foard and join the attackers. Obviously its all hypothetical.....but a lot would depend on the players I had at my disposal. I may have better players in the midfield area and want to stack it with 5, with 2 of them bombing forward at every opportunity. Being a defender myself, Id probably concentrate more on the defensive duties and what players did when wedidnt have the ball, which would be to work their balls off getting back and helping out......
A teams shape, attitude, work rate, skill and speed are other aspects you would have to think about too......erm I think Im done writing now lol....
Great post from someone who obviously plays the game ;)
Your asking a lot of questions in there mate lol....
I replied in red and hope I made a bit of sense....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
406 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
lol well yeah, I wanted to cover just about everything. Believe me I wanted to get deeper into it ( and I will once I have the time ).

We could use the thread to discuss recent (or old) games tactics like dlan did. I totally agree with him in the aspect that throwing in three strikers that early into the game did cost Inter atleast a point.

We're not Lippi or Sir Alex but its nice to be able to have your own input of how a certain team should or shouldve played. When to change the system, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,467 Posts
Keano's fan said:
lol well yeah, I wanted to cover just about everything. Believe me I wanted to get deeper into it ( and I will once I have the time ).

Crikey....we should meet for a beer or 10. I could natter about footie forever ;-)

We could use the thread to discuss recent (or old) games tactics like dlan did. I totally agree with him in the aspect that throwing in three strikers that early into the game did cost Inter atleast a point.

Sounds good. THis can be the tactic thread be it for Serie A, Prem, international or any games.

We're not Lippi or Sir Alex but its nice to be able to have your own input of how a certain team should or shouldve played. When to change the system, etc.
Its a plan batman. Good to see you back on the forums. Its been a while Abby.
Even Siti has been dropping by more and more these days. Just like the good old days ;)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
15,336 Posts
I don't think theres a right tactic to use, Its whats the best option for who your playing and the team you have at your disposal.

We may get frustrated when someone comes to Old Trafford and throws everyone behind the ball. But the fact is, if it works for them then why should they come to attack, just to please us and the "pure football" believers?

Jazz made a reference to Blackburn under Mark Hughes, and I admired him for the way Blackburn played. Although they weren't afraid to get stuck in and were a solid, organised team, they also played good football as well.

In terms of Bolton and Reading, I think that Boltons failure was down to the manager changing, and that the next managers weren't as good as Allardyce playing that way, and getting the best out of the limited squad. I think Reading was down to the fact that people knew more about them, and the fact that Coppell didn't freshen up the squad when they needed it.
 

·
MUT all-time great
Joined
·
21,962 Posts
Given the proper players, I suppose any manner of football could be successful. My ideal team would be something to the effect of:

--------------------------------------------Keeper(1)
Attacking Fullback(2)-----------------CB(4)-----------CB(5)----------Attacking Fullback(3)
-------------------deep-lying playmaker(6)------------dlp(8)

Winger(7)-----------------------------------------------------------------------Winger(11)

-----------------------------Supporting striker/AM ("the hole") (10)
----------------------------------Pure central striker (such as Ruud)(9)

That formation given the right players would be great, some ideas for each position new and old are as follows:

1:Buffon or whoever else
2:Ramos/Neville
3:Evra/Irwin
4:Rio or whoever
5:Vidic or whoever
6:Essien/Keane
7:Ronaldo
8:Gerrard
9:Ruud/Zlatan
10:Rooney/Kaka/Ronaldinho(Barca)
11:Messi/Ribery/Giggs

The importance of two center backs that fit well together and have good communique with the keeper is paramount to a team's success. As well as the two people in the center of the midfield. In my midfield, Essien wouldn't be getting as forward as Gerrard would, and would most likely sit quite deep, just spraying passes around and letting Gerrard getting to be just behind the number 10.
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top