Tactics and Formations (Split)

[Lord Duckhunter]

11 minutes ago, Totton Saint said:

Why don't you all e mail each other instead of cluttering up the forum with this stuff

Can you let me have your email address & I’ll email you my response to this post. 

[AlexLaw76]

I much prefer the Christmas Pudding formation, from the great Mike Bassett

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

I could explain the difference between the 10 in a 442 diamond and that in a 4231, point out a 442 diamond is often more like a 433 with a deeper lying false 9. But even this brief snippet has too much terminology you don't know. I'd spend half my time defining things. Thats why fervently refusing to learn new terms holds you back. Would be like trying to teach your dog to do your taxes.

Such a shame you can’t post anything without being patronising. Clearly rattled 

[TWar]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Your Salah point in a 442 discussion is pointless. He doesn't play as a winger, and Liverpool don't play 442. They play, usually, a 433 so Salah plays as wide forward in a 3 up top. Indeed, you've said above that TAA essentially plays as the right winger in that formation so make your mind up. 

This is literally my point. I'm using liverpools 4231/433 to illustrate how different the roles are in these formations compared to the 442 which you claimed is similar to the 4231 but with a deeper lying second forward.

[TWar]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Such a shame you can’t post anything without being patronising. Clearly rattled 

I can, I just choose not to with you. Some people are worth talking to and arguing in good faith and some are not. Sorry bud.

[TWar]

2 hours ago, CB Fry said:

What's the hipster name for the Terry Venables Christmas Tree formation?

I'd guess an attacking 433 with a loan target man and two deeper lying inside forwards.

[egg]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

This is literally my point. I'm using liverpools 4231/433 to illustrate how different the roles are in these formations compared to the 442 which you claimed is similar to the 4231 but with a deeper lying second forward.

The problem is you don't seem to understand how 442 can be played going forward. If 2 men in the middle stay deep, and 1 of the front 2 drops off, the team advance in a 4231. 

I get the impression that if you read a Michael Roux cookbook you'd be convinced that you're a Michelin star chef. 

[TWar]

1 minute ago, egg said:

The problem is you don't seem to understand how 442 can be played going forward. If 2 men in the middle stay deep, and 1 of the front 2 drops off, the team advance in a 4231. 

I get the impression that if you read a Michael Roux cookbook you'd be convinced that you're a Michelin star chef. 

The wingers still play a different role as do the fullbacks, hence my question regarding Salah and TAA. You don't see players in a 442 with their output because they are dramatically different roles.

[Lord Duckhunter]

4 minutes ago, TWar said:

This is literally my point. I'm using liverpools 4231/433 to illustrate how different the roles are in these formations compared to the 442 which you claimed is similar to the 4231 but with a deeper lying second forward.

4-4-2 isn’t the Mike Bassett throw back some people claim. It’s only certain managers that make it so.  Defensively it’s 2 banks of 4, but many many “old fashioned “ managers had different permutations when going forward. It just wasn’t given stupid names and over analysed . 

[Lord Duckhunter]

7 minutes ago, TWar said:

I'd guess an attacking 433 with a loan target man and two deeper lying inside forwards.

Perhaps that’s why Ralph doesn’t play it, only Broja could start as target man , the other strikers are permanent signings 

[Fan The Flames]

12 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Load of old pony.

Pitches, rule changes & balls are more responsible for tactical changes than the modern  tactical genius, they’re bluffers most of them. 
 

Pep, fuck me, holland were playing that way 50 years ago. I presume you’ve heard of Johan Cruyff and his influence on Pep.

 

Difference nowadays is managers stand on the touch line ( or technical area lol) and tell people where to stand, where to run and who to pick up. In past years the players sorted most of it out themselves. If the full back was struggling the midfield would shift over, if they were getting over run in midfield a striker would drop in. The didn’t give it fancy names or try to pretend they’d re invented the wheel. There’s not a formation or tactic that’s anything new, it’s all just a slight twist on the way it’s been done  for years. 

And there was some boring old twat then bemoaning the modern way and screaching 'what about Huddersfield'.

What the hard of thinking never seem to get is that this great sport that we all love is a very broad church, from the stats loving guys through to the old school firms. Pissed up aways days and non-league stalwarts, 92 ground baggers, prem only glory boys, player obsessed shirt swappers, scarfers, Stone Island, multi gen family day out, armchair viewers, hipsters, tactic analysts, tekkers, history buffs, bloggers, vloggers and podders.... the list goes on.

We are all in to it in different ways, you can't dictate how football is consumed so live and live.

There endeth the lesson for today.

[Turkish]

19 minutes ago, TWar said:

I can, I just choose not to with you. Some people are worth talking to and arguing in good faith and some are not. Sorry bud.

Don’t apologise pal. My services aren’t required on this thread as you’re showing yourself up nicely without me

[TWar]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps that’s why Ralph doesn’t play it, only Broja could start as target man , the other strikers are permanent signings 

Yeah we don't really have a target man. Then again we have been trying a 4141 which also uses a target man but haven't scored much since so that's not exactly working in an attacking sense. 

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Dunno, but it was a shocker. I remember being at Wembley watching us play it against Norway (I think). 0-0 and the players had no idea what they were supposed to be doing. 

Well, I know for a fact that there wasn't a single Ipad in that coaching set up, none of them had a clue about XG and the level of freeze frame video analysis of formation and positioning was absolutely woeful. Are where were the computer game data guys? Nowhere.

So no wonder it didn't work.

Quite frankly I struggle to see how any teams won anything back in those days. Hopeless.

[TWar]

3 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Quite frankly I struggle to see how any teams won anything back in those days. Hopeless.

Well no one had them so everyone was on a level playing field and someone had to win! 

Now we have modern techniques basically everyone uses them which is a good endorsement of their merits. 

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Well, I know for a fact that there wasn't a single Ipad in that coaching set up, none of them had a clue about XG and the level of freeze frame video analysis of formation and positioning was absolutely woeful. Are where were the computer game data guys? Nowhere.

So no wonder it didn't work.

Quite frankly I struggle to see how any teams won anything back in those days. Hopeless.

There were no computers in Formula One cars in the 1950s... that doesn't mean no-one won a race.

[CB Fry]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

Well no one had them so everyone was on a level playing field and someone had to win! 

Now we have modern techniques basically everyone uses them which is a good endorsement of their merits. 

No but the point people are making is that the formations/roles/positions/tactics have all been there.

What is new is technology and a proliferation of theories.

Your dismissal of a diamond formation 4-4-2 as not being the same as some jolly exciting modern formation is a case in point.

There aren't many new ideas at all, all that there is, is a room if 14 analysts going into the minutiae of the detail  and then an entire industry selling that data back to TV companies and other media to create content.

I think you need to accept that the history of football is a lot more complex than everyone was a caveman 442 slogger until Pep and Carling Opta stats turned up.

 

[Lighthouse]

Perhaps (certainly) someone knows more about this than I but weren’t Big Sam’s Bolton pioneers of certain aspects of sports science in the early 2000s? As much as he is viewed as an old school clogger, he managed to ‘refurbish’ the likes of Okocha, Ivan Campo and Djorkaeff.

[Fan The Flames]

10 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

Perhaps (certainly) someone knows more about this than I but weren’t Big Sam’s Bolton pioneers of certain aspects of sports science in the early 2000s? As much as he is viewed as an old school clogger, he managed to ‘refurbish’ the likes of Okocha, Ivan Campo and Djorkaeff.

He was the first manager to have his mobile hooked up to a bluetooth ear piece and his car and house keys on a belt loop key ring.

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

There were no computers in Formula One cars in the 1950s... that doesn't mean no-one won a race.

Whoosh them cars went. Whoosh.

[Sweet dee]

While there's clearly some merit to having a solid tactical game, and to a lesser degree maybe formation, I don't think they're anywhere near as important as people have us believe, it's definitely a modern thing, football is pretty simple to play, the reason why it's so popular, if anyone has ever played it at any level they know that whatever the manager says pretty much leaves your head the second you leave the changing room, then you just get on with actually playing, also "pep" and his tactical genius, he's managed Barcelona, bayern and now City, squads that I could send out play rush goalie and still walk their leagues 😂😂😂

[TWar]

1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

No but the point people are making is that the formations/roles/positions/tactics have all been there.

What is new is technology and a proliferation of theories.

Your dismissal of a diamond formation 4-4-2 as not being the same as some jolly exciting modern formation is a case in point.

There aren't many new ideas at all, all that there is, is a room if 14 analysts going into the minutiae of the detail  and then an entire industry selling that data back to TV companies and other media to create content.

I think you need to accept that the history of football is a lot more complex than everyone was a caveman 442 slogger until Pep and Carling Opta stats turned up.

 

I asked this to someone else earlier but if there are no new tactics being developed then why do clubs pay people so much money to do so? 

Also, for the record, I don't think older formations are basic, I just think we have moved on a lot since them. Be it Jose bringing in the 433 from europe, the 4231 coming in to reintroduce the luxury 10, klopps high pressing automisms, or peps passing lane and half space based possession domination scheme. Things have moved on. To think otherwise is frankly crazy to me. 

Another question I wonder is how come older managers seem to find their methods get less effective as time goes on? Why are we seeing younger guys like Potter and Ralph rather than seeing the old guard of Curbishley, big Sam, 'arry, and such managing teams? I would argue its because their tactics became outdated but I'd be interested to see your opinion. Also how come basically no one plays a 442 anymore, if its fundementally the same how come most top teams moved away from it around the same time?

Edited 25 September, 2021 by TWar

[Highfield Saint]

Personally I want to learn and understand the tactical analysis better than I do and for me TWar's insights and perspective is interesting and helpful.

The suggestions that there's nothing new is probably correct in part as, after all, it's a game that's been around for a long time and if you have the best players (most money) you will tend to come out on top more often than not. For me it's an appreciation of the application of tactical changes and strategies to get the best out of what you have and to counter the opposition. A game plan maybe rather than the St Marys cry of "get it forward"

[skintsaint]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Perhaps that’s why Ralph doesn’t play it, only Broja could start as target man , the other strikers are permanent signings 

👏

[Minsk]

2 hours ago, TWar said:

Yeah we don't really have a target man. Then again we have been trying a 4141 which also uses a target man but haven't scored much since so that's not exactly working in an attacking sense. 

Ducky was taking the piss out of you writing 'loan' (borrowed) vice 'lone' (single).

To be fair, that was quite witty for him.

[egg]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

I asked this to someone else earlier but if there are no new tactics being developed then why do clubs pay people so much money to do so? 

 

Clubs pay analysts to understand how opponents play and coaches to coach them to deal with how opponents play, but what's the basis of your claim that clubs pay people to develop new tactics? I find it hard to accept that any top flight clubs would do that. Barca aren't, they're threatening to sack Koeman if he doesn't stop trying to be innovative! 

[benjii]

Why do the same three or four numpties have such a strong desire to make themselves look stupid on every thread?!

I don't even think they're that old. More middle aged than old gits yet they're already like a thick Victor Meldrew tribute act.

Fucking sad and funny in equal measure.

 

Edited 25 September, 2021 by benjii

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, TWar said:

I asked this to someone else earlier but if there are no new tactics being developed then why do clubs pay people so much money to do so? 

Also, for the record, I don't think older formations are basic, I just think we have moved on a lot since them. Be it Jose bringing in the 433 from europe, the 4231 coming in to reintroduce the luxury 10, klopps high pressing automisms, or peps passing lane and half space based possession domination scheme. Things have moved on. To think otherwise is frankly crazy to me. 

Another question I wonder is how come older managers seem to find their methods get less effective as time goes on? Why are we seeing younger guys like Potter and Ralph rather than seeing the old guard of Curbishley, big Sam, 'arry, and such managing teams? I would argue its because their tactics became outdated but I'd be interested to see your opinion. Also how come basically no one plays a 442 anymore, if its fundementally the same how come most top teams moved away from it around the same time?

What's this pony, write English man.

What the fuck is Pep's passing lane. Is that were he blew the champions league final by playing Gündoğan as his central midfield player? More hard shoulder than passing lane I'd have said. 

What the fuck is a luxury 10, a fucking chocolate?  

Curb's, BFS and Twitchy, easy Targets mate. It's always ever been slight tweaks to basic formations, but you hipsters have given them new names and make out the wheel's been re-invented. Like I said earlier Malcolm Allison discussed using Pep type football in the 60's. Genuine innovative thinking is few and far between and most of it is driven by rule changes. Goalkeeping has gone through a massive change, but not getting barged into the net, kicked up into the air or having to dribble through a fucking great puddle probably did as much for the evolution as tactical brains.  

[TWar]

5 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What's this pony, write English man.

Sorry, I don't want to define terms for you. I suggest you Google them. 

[Verbal]

21 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

There was different terminology for some things in my old mans era compared to mine, the difference is hipsters nowadays think they’ve invented something new. It’s the same old simple game it’s always been. Some of us don’t need a computer game or pony stats to form our opinions. 

Exactly so, Lord Pony - we're all familiar with your endearing refusal to let facts get in the way of your opinions.  May you be fact-free until you pop your hooves.

[egg]

1 hour ago, benjii said:

Why do the same three or four numpties have such a strong desire to make themselves look stupid on every thread?!

I don't even think they're that old. More middle aged than old gits yet they're already like a thick Victor Meldrew tribute act.

Fucking sad and funny in equal measure.

 

Your contribution hasn't added much to the topic though has it. 

[wooley7]

19 minutes ago, egg said:

Your contribution hasn't added much to the topic though has it. 

It hasn’t but it needs to be said. It’s very boring reading ignorant poster spouting none sense Ad Nauseam.

A couple of posts up we have another lazy generalisation, anyone who uses modern terms is a hipster. Again just shows lack of intelligence. It seems if there is anything these poster don’t understand, it’s hipster! 

it’s on every bloody thread too.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 minute ago, wooley7 said:

It hasn’t but it needs to be said. It’s very boring reading ignorant poster spouting none sense Ad Nauseam.

 

It’s nearly as bad as some posters spelling. 

[wooley7]

2 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s nearly as bad as some posters spelling. 

Good one.

[wooley7]

8 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

It’s nearly as bad as some posters spelling. 

Reading that again, is there a word misspelled? I did mean to write nonsense not none sense and there should be an S on poster but all the words used are spelt correctly.

[egg]

14 minutes ago, wooley7 said:

It hasn’t but it needs to be said. It’s very boring reading ignorant poster spouting none sense Ad Nauseam.

A couple of posts up we have another lazy generalisation, anyone who uses modern terms is a hipster. Again just shows lack of intelligence. It seems if there is anything these poster don’t understand, it’s hipster! 

it’s on every bloody thread too.

Personally I'd rather read an opinion relevant to the topic, even if I disagree with it, than someone whingeing about those opinions but making no actual contribution. 

What's the issue with describing hipster phrases as hipster phrases? It's what they are. 

 

[SFC Forever]

How about the 1966 World Cup win with Sir Alf

[wooley7]

9 minutes ago, egg said:

Personally I'd rather read an opinion relevant to the topic, even if I disagree with it, than someone whingeing about those opinions but making no actual contribution. 

What's the issue with describing hipster phrases as hipster phrases? It's what they are. 

 

Why are they hipster?

like I said before they are phrases used by coaches, managers and analysts. They are not something I associate with blokes in checked shirts with manicured beards!😀

Edited 25 September, 2021 by wooley7

[egg]

8 minutes ago, wooley7 said:

Why are they hipster?

like I said before they are phrases used by coaches, managers and analysts. They are not something I associate with blokes in checked shirts with manicured beards!😀

Ha!! Manicured beards. Hipster. New words to describe nothing new. Hipster. And pointless. 

[sadoldgit]

3 hours ago, Highfield Saint said:

Personally I want to learn and understand the tactical analysis better than I do and for me TWar's insights and perspective is interesting and helpful.

The suggestions that there's nothing new is probably correct in part as, after all, it's a game that's been around for a long time and if you have the best players (most money) you will tend to come out on top more often than not. For me it's an appreciation of the application of tactical changes and strategies to get the best out of what you have and to counter the opposition. A game plan maybe rather than the St Marys cry of "get it forward"

I’m with you. I find TWar’s posts about tactics and formations interesting and informative but then they get drowned out by posters who have issues with hipsters (what have they got to do with the people in the football fraternity?) or let their own egos get in the way of a decent thread. Here’s a thought, if you don’t agree with TWars posts, explain why and make you case in a way that helps the discussion progress in an adult way rather than throw juvenile insults around about social stereotypes or let your ego get in the way of a proper discussion.

[The Left Back]

In amongst all the name calling and ranting there's a lot of interesting views on this thread.  It's a shame there isn't a filter to weed out all that because what would be left would be an interesting exploration on the evolution of formations and descriptions of positions over the last 50 years.

My contribution to the topic is probably not going to help but here goes anyway.

When I was a child I remember my uncle going on about half backs, wing forwards and inside forwards, and formations seemed to be basically 2-3-5, which was a bizarre concept to me when I played him at subbuteo.  I also remember Holland in 74 and the idea of total football and being in awe and confused.   I also remember in the 80s after a period of dominance in Europe we seemed to get left behind because we insisted on 4-4-2 to the point of rigidity, which left us (English clubs/England) overwhelmed in midfield and lacking in creativity with the ball.  I don't remember 66, but wasn't Sir Alf considered revolutionary for creating "the wingless wonders"?  My uncle saw it as heresy to pick a team without wingers (he was one when he played).  So  no doubt these things have always evolved and will continue to do so long after we become as old as my uncle.

I hadn't heard of 4-2-2-2 until Ralph joined, and pivots were something dancers did.  I remember Barcelona (under Pep I think) played with. a 'false 9' and found it bewildering.  I guess what I'm saying is, like most things, styles, tactics, formations and names for positions just keep evolving whether I like it or not.   I think what does seem different (and I'm guessing started in 92 with the Premier League and grew with new technology) is the amount of scrutiny and analysis that goes on.  It really is mind boggling just how much stuff there is to measure that we just didn't in the past.   Most of it goes over my head or leaves me cold - I prefer the simplicity of the game.  But (as I've said elsewhere) I've enjoyed learning some of the new thinking and it definitely helps me keep up with my son (21).  I've realised that possession stats are pretty pointless, but that XG helps me understand how a team is playing at a glance.

Two other thoughts.  I always found it strange that Matt Le Tiss was called a midfielder because I grew up thinking midfielders were like Bryan Robson and Steve Williams.  But Matt didn't do midfielder things like tackling and tracking very well.  So I'm not sure how he would be described now.

And finally I remember the season (or two) when Chris Nicholl picked Rod Wallace, Rideout, Shearer and Le Tiss in the same team.  He was asked in interview how come a dour old defender like him picked such an attacking formation.  He said (something like)" I would prefer to pick a more solid, defensive team but these are my best players so they have to play" So perhaps it was different back then, and simpler.  Formations and tactics were dependent on personnel, whereas now it feels like the other way round.

[egg]

2 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

I’m with you. I find TWar’s posts about tactics and formations interesting and informative but then they get drowned out by posters who have issues with hipsters (what have they got to do with the people in the football fraternity?) or let their own egos get in the way of a decent thread. Here’s a thought, if you don’t agree with TWars posts, explain why and make you case in a way that helps the discussion progress in an adult way rather than throw juvenile insults around about social stereotypes or let your ego get in the way of a proper discussion.

Look at this in a different way SOG.

On this thread, TWar uses phrases without explanation. Assuming there's an understanding, there's no insight given so it doesn't actually help. That said, it's obvious what the terms mean, and the point many have made is that they describe nothing new.

You're no hipster (no offence), and like most people on here you'll refer to gaps between players as exactly that, not passing lanes to try to make yourself sound clever. 

I'm interested in the discussion but when someone seeks to suggest that a 442 never has 2 defensive midfielders (that you must refer to as a double pivot, of course), or that you can't have attacking full backs in a 442, I tend to think that they don't really have much knowledge. 

[wooley7]

8 minutes ago, egg said:

Look at this in a different way SOG.

On this thread, TWar uses phrases without explanation. Assuming there's an understanding, there's no insight given so it doesn't actually help. That said, it's obvious what the terms mean, and the point many have made is that they describe nothing new.

You're no hipster (no offence), and like most people on here you'll refer to gaps between players as exactly that, not passing lanes to try to make yourself sound clever. 

I'm interested in the discussion but when someone seeks to suggest that a 442 never has 2 defensive midfielders (that you must refer to as a double pivot, of course), or that you can't have attacking full backs in a 442, I tend to think that they don't really have much knowledge. 

Why does he have to be making himself sound clever. These are terms used across football and make sense and fit with all the analysis that is done these days.

I 100% agree on formations, in the 80’s and 90’s most teams lined up 442 or that’s how the teams were displayed to fans but players would take different positions. Before their was a ‘10’ there was the Teddy Sheringham position. Was never sure which position le tiss played in our 442 but it didn’t fit in that structure and the other players often changed their positions to accommodate him.

Although Adams and Banali played ‘full back’ their roles in the team were very different. These days there is a way to differentiate these roles. I think that is similar across the pitch. Again there was less analysis so the subtleties of the various positions/roles within the ‘formation’ wasn’t discussed like it is now.

I really don’t see the problem with these terms.

 

[egg]

1 minute ago, wooley7 said:

Why does he have to be making himself sound clever. These are terms used across football and make sense and fit with all the analysis that is done these days.

I 100% agree on formations, in the 80’s and 90’s most teams lined up 442 or that’s how the teams were displayed to fans but players would take different positions. Before their was a ‘10’ there was the Teddy Sheringham position. Was never sure which position le tiss played in our 442 but it didn’t fit in that structure and the other players often changed their positions to accommodate him.

Although Adams and Banali played ‘full back’ their roles in the team were very different. These days there is a way to differentiate these roles. I think that is similar across the pitch. Again there was less analysis so the subtleties of the various positions/roles within the ‘formation’ wasn’t discussed like it is now.

I really don’t see the problem with these terms.

 

People can use terms if they understand what they mean, but have the courtesy to explain what they mean as the masses won't recognise the jargon.

That said, in my experience (and its a generalisation) people who use jargon usually don't really understand the subject - real understanding means a person can avoid jargon and explain something technical in simple parlance. 

Anyways, unless and until anyone posts anything insightful about the evolution of tactics or similar, I'll shut up. 

[TWar]

38 minutes ago, egg said:

Look at this in a different way SOG.

On this thread, TWar uses phrases without explanation. Assuming there's an understanding, there's no insight given so it doesn't actually help. That said, it's obvious what the terms mean, and the point many have made is that they describe nothing new.

You're no hipster (no offence), and like most people on here you'll refer to gaps between players as exactly that, not passing lanes to try to make yourself sound clever. 

I feel like if you don't know what terms mean you could Google them, it's not really my responsibility to define everything I use. 

For example passing lanes, it's not actually the gaps between players. It's the idea that you can split the pitch into a grid with horizontal and vertical lines and implement a kind of zonal marking but over the whole pitch. This cuts off "lanes" for passing in defence and insured you always have someone to pass to in offence. If I remember correctly Pep institutes that one cannot stand on the same verticle line as another player on your team or two players horizontally. When Pep first arrived at City he physically painted these lines on the pitch. I'm paraphrasing some of this as it's been a while since I read about it but it is really interesting and a good example of his tactical ingenuity. Here are two excellent videos on it for those curious - 

 

 

This also somewhat proves my point. Defining terms which are two words long can take a couple of sentences so if I stopped to define everything you'd never get through the post. I encourage people to Google things they don't know, or watch videos on them by tifo football who are a great resource to explain these things simply. 

Edited 25 September, 2021 by TWar

[egg]

5 minutes ago, TWar said:

I feel like if you don't know what terms mean you could Google them, it's not really my responsibility to define everything I use. 

For example passing lanes, it's not actually the gaps between players. It's the idea that you can split the pitch into a grid with horizontal and vertical lines and implement a kind of zonal marking but over the whole pitch. This cuts off "lanes" for passing in defence and insured you always have someone to pass to in offence. If I remember correctly Pep institutes that one cannot stand on the same verticle line as another player on your team or two players horizontally. When Pep first arrived at City he physically painted these lines on the pitch. I'm paraphrasing some of this as it's been a while since I read about it but it is really interesting and a good example of his tactical ingenuity. Here is an excellent video on it for those curious - 

 

This also somewhat proves my point. Defining terms which are two words long can take a couple of sentences so if I stopped to define everything you'd never get through the post. I encourage people to Google things they don't know, or watch videos on them by tifo football who are a great resource to explain these things simply. 

Passing lanes used to be called gaps between defenders/players. Read this. 

https://www.empirecityacademy.com/blog/creating-and-using-passing-lan

Anyways, I'm not sure how this helps a discussion, or how it's felt to be anything new. Players have always passed into space. Other players have always ran into space to receive the ball. Defenders have always tried to cut off the space. Theres absolutely nothing new in that, regardless of how much paint Pep may have put on a pitch. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, SFC Forever said:

How about the 1966 World Cup win with Sir Alf

Good case in point. It was always said it was an old fashioned system that held English football back, it wasn’t,  it was 4-4-2 without the ball, but a 4-1-3-2 when we had it. Nobby sat in front of centre halves before Claude  Makalele was even born. Martin Peters was an incredibly modern player, 10 years before his time!, he was 50 years ahead of his time, he’d fit in any side today. Bally tucked in but broke wide, Bobby Charlton broke through the lines, or whatever pony describes it now, and Bobby Moore set up attacks better than any modern day centre half. The only real difference from now is the full backs sat and Big Jack kicked a few. As I posted earlier 4-4-2 is a lazy description of many varied tactics that now have hipster names. 

[TWar]

11 minutes ago, egg said:

Passing lanes used to be called gaps between defenders/players. Read this. 

https://www.empirecityacademy.com/blog/creating-and-using-passing-lan

Anyways, I'm not sure how this helps a discussion, or how it's felt to be anything new. Players have always passed into space. Other players have always ran into space to receive the ball. Defenders have always tried to cut off the space. Theres absolutely nothing new in that, regardless of how much paint Pep may have put on a pitch. 

The point is, a passing channel or passing lane is not just "gaps between players", for example the gap between a striker and an attacking mid or the gap between the DM and the CB behind him are not really passing lanes, however the vertical channel which runs between the horizontal positions of an attacking mid, DM, LB, and CB is.  Passing lanes are channels that formally exist vertically between the half spaces and widespaces defined by the defensive formation. I dare say this blog post is simplifying things a little and you would be better off viewing the videos I posted.

What Pep brought was formally assigning your "segment" in a 20 segment pitch devised by him so as to best cut off vertical passing lanes, and so as to create overloads in the attacking sense. I think if you think Peps positional play methods boil down to "Other players have always ran into space to receive the ball. Defenders have always tried to cut off the space." then you should look into how Pep plays a bit more, as it is a lot more than that and a lot more formal. Both videos really are interesting watches.

Edited 25 September, 2021 by TWar

[egg]

1 minute ago, TWar said:

The point is, a passing channel or passing lane is not just "gaps between players", for example the gap between a striker and an attacking mid or the gap between the DM and the CB behind him are not really passing lanes, passing lanes are channels that formally exist vertically between the half spaces and widespaces defined by the defensive formation. I dare say this blog post is simplifying things a little and you would be better off viewing the videos I posted.

What Pep brought was formally assigning your "segment" in a 20 segment pitch devised by him so as to best cut off vertical passing lanes, and so as to create overloads in the attacking sense. I think if you think Peps positional play methods boil down to "Other players have always ran into space to receive the ball. Defenders have always tried to cut off the space." then you should look into how Pep plays a bit more, as it is a lot more than that and a lot more formal. Both videos really are interesting watches.

Yep, passing into space for runners, and blocking off. You've convinced yourself that this stuff is something new. It isn't. Yes it has a name now, but it's happened since football was first played. Sure, the organisation of the runners and the pre planned strategy is more sophisticated than it was, but we're not seeing anything radical as a concept. 

[TWar]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Yep, passing into space for runners, and blocking off. You've convinced yourself that this stuff is something new. It isn't. Yes it has a name now, but it's happened since football was first played. Sure, the organisation of the runners and the pre planned strategy is more sophisticated than it was, but we're not seeing anything radical as a concept. 

Did you watch the videos? And is this literally all you took from the intricate rotational play between different predefined segments through pretaught automism?