Football fans and their "understanding" of tactics

[Lynty]

I'm of the opposite conviction really. Football isnt nearly as complicated as we think and seeing as John Heitinga passed the exam for pro football trainer the minimum requirement to become one is having a barely 2 digid IQ.

It's about managing bratty millionaires more than some sort of higher understanding of the best way to kick a ball in the goal.

I disagree, from people I know who work in the sport, it takes a good amount of dedication and obsession to progress. Obviously, well known pro footballers with good connections have easy access.

Passing your pro license doesn't make you good. This isn't Med School. It's literally a mark of minimum competency.

 

[Spiersey]

Not sure I'd agree that people can't have their say on tactics due to a lack of experience.

I think one big issue is that people point to the result as being the only factor in deciding whether a team set up well or not. Obviously it's important but in a single game, it's a pretty small sample relatively speaking and the best managers will get it right more often that not. You can set your team up as well as possible and completely outclass the opposition but if you make individual errors then your tactics are out the window. I don't think the formation was that bad pre game from United. It was pretty obvious that the team would have been told to go out, keep it tight, don't concede early and hope to counter. The game would most likely have been completely different if United could have survived the initial 20 minute high press from Leipzig. Leipzig are very open to conceding counters, especially when chasing a game. If United had some out and tried to outplay Leipzig from the off it would have played right into Leipzigs hands and then Ole would have been criticised for that too. It's only in hindsight with the early errors resulting in goals that the tactics become wrong. The issue with the 5 at the back is that once you concede then you're in big trouble as you now need a goal and are obviously not set up for it. You can't set up on the basis that you'll concede early. United had a huge advantage pre game with a draw being enough and Ole set up a team with that in mind. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. However, United are a complete mess tactically, theres no style of play bar counter attacking and individual quality. This won't change under Ole as he clearly lacks the ability to coach a team to do anything else. Leeds are probably the most tactically astute team going forward in the league (in terms of patterns of play etc), you'll never see anything resembling that under Ole at United.

Ole's subs however were terrible. No idea why Telles came off instead of Shaw for Shaw to then come off later on. I also think the penalty and the fortunate goal sheltered United from a lot of abuse as they were really poor all night, never really looked like scoring and were very fortunate to even get 1 goal back in the end.

 

[Cheimoon]

To those claiming that this is an Ole-thread because of my username and timing:

1. Is the topic not relevant for every coach of every professional team?
2. Which parts of the topic do you disagree with?
3. Do you think the tactical opinion of a fan should hold as much value as the tactical opinion of a manager?

Well, if you want specifics:

The most annoying part about being a football fan is having to listen to other football fans constantly blame managers for their tactics. It doesn't matter which team you support. It happens with every team, on every professional level. Am I really gonna listen to Armchair Bob, fueled by Stella and the power of hindsight, and value his opinion over a professional manager with years of experience, hours of research delivered to him/her by professionals before each game and exclusive "behind the scenes" knowledge?

...

"So we can't discuss tactics and in-game adjustments then?". Of course you can! This is a forum after all. But have at least an ounce of humility and don't talk as if you definitely have the answers, because you don't.

These two paragraphs dont' work together for me. On the one hand, you don't like these amateur analyses at all; but people can post them as long as they admit to being amateurs. So are you really just saying that you don't like people's tone of voice? I can connect to that, but it's a battle you'll never win.

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right. In some cases people will claim that the win was lucky, though. It largely depends on the popularity of the manager and past results(I'm beginning to see a pattern).

This I deeply disagree with. Yes, results are important and in the end determine a team's success; but there is a lot behind results that's worth looking at. Say that United get battered next week by City for 90 min, but win 1-0 because De Gea has a godlike match stopping a zillion great goalscoring opportunities and Bruno scores a disputed penalty. Would you tell people criticizing Ole or the team for the match to shut up cause United won and that's all that matters? That would be extremely short-sighted. It would also rather defy the point of having a forum, if basically all you can do is grunt your approval or disapproval.

The elephant in the room remains the same: you don't know shit. You don't know what the research behind the scenes have picked up. You don't know the thought processes and how the managers try to predict and counter each other. You don't know what is according to the plan or not. You don't know which players have performed in training or look especially motivated. You don't know which players are most suited to deal with the manager's tactics for a particular game. The only thing you do know is the end result. But you don't know how much of the loss/draw came down to failure in tactics or in-game adjustments. If tactics and in-game adjustments are responsible for 20% of the outcome(which I think is a very generous number), then the majority of losses and draws aren't primarily gonna be because of this. And it's not like tactics are binary either. There are many grey areas and you can get some things wrong and some things right.

There's also a reverse elephant here: you don't know anything about posters. Some of them spend a lot of time watching and reading about football, or are involved in the game at a fairly high level, and really are true experts. What if someone like René Marić had been on this forum back in the time when he was still posting on spielverlagerung.de and had not yet been scouted as a coaching talent? 'Shut up @RM_tactics_geek, you're an amateur who doesn't know shit!'

As for myself, I would like it if people took up a more discussant tone, as there is little black and white in football. And personally, if I were to tell anyone to back off, it'd be the ones telling people to shut up because football is just a simple game where tactics and conditioning matter little. Not on this level it isn't.

 

[Zlatan 7]

This ain't the 20th anymore. You have multiple tv programs, videos and videogames to fully understand the game and its tactics.

And there in lies the problem. Fans thinking they know more or better than professionals because they watched a tactics DVD or set a team up in a computer game

 

[GeniusIdiot]

I might not know what will work or how to get a tactic to work but its a lot easier to see what doesn't work especially with hindsight.

I don't think most of are saying that we are more qualified for the job than XYZ but we can point out when XYZ has done something wrong. Its pretty much what pundits do and why you can praise Gary Neville on his analysis but he is a terrible coach.

 

[bosnian_red]

We're allowed to criticize. We aren't saying we'd do better. We're saying other top managers would do better than a manager with negligible experience at this level who only got the job based on name value as a player, completely unrelated to any management experience.

Fans can see when something is wrong or not working. Its obvious that we're a team reliant on individual quality and mentality/determination. All of our games are end to end battles. All of them have nervy starts because we don't have any sort of good game plan to start. But we do have superior players than most, and a mentally strong group where we can chase games quite well and put in everything to come back. From there, its easy to conclude that you add a manager who is proven at implementing a positive play style that he would raise the collective level, as we'd still have the mentality and individual quality to fall back on.

 

[Danny Roberts]

The most annoying part about being a football fan is having to listen to other football fans constantly blame managers for their tactics. It doesn't matter which team you support. It happens with every team, on every professional level. Am I really gonna listen to Armchair Bob, fueled by Stella and the power of hindsight, and value his opinion over a professional manager with years of experience, hours of research delivered to him/her by professionals before each game and exclusive "behind the scenes" knowledge?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. You might protest and claim that you have watched football all your life and therefore don't fall into the "no experience" category, but you're wrong. You haven't managed a professional football team and you never will.

The worst culprit is the power of hindsight. Unless the team you support dominated the game by every reasonable metric, you can quite literally blame any loss or draw on poor tactics. You disagree with the selection of a player? Well, the player that wasn't selected would have made all the difference! You disagree with the formation? Ditto. Individual errors cost you the game? Well, the coach should have spent more time on X, Y and Z in practice! A more attacking setup than usual? Naivety! More defensive setup? Cowardice! The usual setup? Lack of creativity!

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right. In some cases people will claim that the win was lucky, though. It largely depends on the popularity of the manager and past results(I'm beginning to see a pattern).

The elephant in the room remains the same: you don't know shit. You don't know what the research behind the scenes have picked up. You don't know the thought processes and how the managers try to predict and counter each other. You don't know what is according to the plan or not. You don't know which players have performed in training or look especially motivated. You don't know which players are most suited to deal with the manager's tactics for a particular game. The only thing you do know is the end result. But you don't know how much of the loss/draw came down to failure in tactics or in-game adjustments. If tactics and in-game adjustments are responsible for 20% of the outcome(which I think is a very generous number), then the majority of losses and draws aren't primarily gonna be because of this. And it's not like tactics are binary either. There are many grey areas and you can get some things wrong and some things right.

"So we can't discuss tactics and in-game adjustments then?". Of course you can! This is a forum after all. But have at least an ounce of humility and don't talk as if you definitely have the answers, because you don't.

I agree with a lot of what you say but one thing I have to pick Ole up on is the structure of the team. I don't know why he sticks with fielding XI players when 12 or maybe even 13 would be more effective. It's obvious really.

 

[RashyForPM]

I’m not having this bollocks that fans don’t know anything about football tactics. Where is the proof?

 

[jamesjimmybyrondean]

Citizens also can't shouldn't complain if their president is destroying their country since they don't understand politics

 

[Zlatan 7]

I see a few with their panties in a twist because their tactical knowledge has been questioned

 

[Bubz27]

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right.

False. Ole's had some good results, last night was 6 inches away from progressing. He still would not have been right.

And to the point you're making, I tend to sit in the middle. Do I know better than Ole? No. He's been in dressing rooms for 30 odd years. Do I know that there are better equipped people than Ole? Yes.

 

[FattyFooty]

Nah, we don't know more about football than Ole.

But, Fergie sure did.

 

[Ramshock]

The most annoying part about being a football fan is having to listen to other football fans constantly blame managers for their tactics. It doesn't matter which team you support. It happens with every team, on every professional level. Am I really gonna listen to Armchair Bob, fueled by Stella and the power of hindsight, and value his opinion over a professional manager with years of experience, hours of research delivered to him/her by professionals before each game and exclusive "behind the scenes" knowledge?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. You might protest and claim that you have watched football all your life and therefore don't fall into the "no experience" category, but you're wrong. You haven't managed a professional football team and you never will.

The worst culprit is the power of hindsight. Unless the team you support dominated the game by every reasonable metric, you can quite literally blame any loss or draw on poor tactics. You disagree with the selection of a player? Well, the player that wasn't selected would have made all the difference! You disagree with the formation? Ditto. Individual errors cost you the game? Well, the coach should have spent more time on X, Y and Z in practice! A more attacking setup than usual? Naivety! More defensive setup? Cowardice! The usual setup? Lack of creativity!

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right. In some cases people will claim that the win was lucky, though. It largely depends on the popularity of the manager and past results(I'm beginning to see a pattern).

The elephant in the room remains the same: you don't know shit. You don't know what the research behind the scenes have picked up. You don't know the thought processes and how the managers try to predict and counter each other. You don't know what is according to the plan or not. You don't know which players have performed in training or look especially motivated. You don't know which players are most suited to deal with the manager's tactics for a particular game. The only thing you do know is the end result. But you don't know how much of the loss/draw came down to failure in tactics or in-game adjustments. If tactics and in-game adjustments are responsible for 20% of the outcome(which I think is a very generous number), then the majority of losses and draws aren't primarily gonna be because of this. And it's not like tactics are binary either. There are many grey areas and you can get some things wrong and some things right.

"So we can't discuss tactics and in-game adjustments then?". Of course you can! This is a forum after all. But have at least an ounce of humility and don't talk as if you definitely have the answers, because you don't.

They dont

 

[Ricardo de la Vega]

FV

The most annoying part about being a football fan is having to listen to other football fans constantly blame managers for their tactics. It doesn't matter which team you support. It happens with every team, on every professional level. Am I really gonna listen to Armchair Bob, fueled by Stella and the power of hindsight, and value his opinion over a professional manager with years of experience, hours of research delivered to him/her by professionals before each game and exclusive "behind the scenes" knowledge?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. You might protest and claim that you have watched football all your life and therefore don't fall into the "no experience" category, but you're wrong. You haven't managed a professional football team and you never will.

The worst culprit is the power of hindsight. Unless the team you support dominated the game by every reasonable metric, you can quite literally blame any loss or draw on poor tactics. You disagree with the selection of a player? Well, the player that wasn't selected would have made all the difference! You disagree with the formation? Ditto. Individual errors cost you the game? Well, the coach should have spent more time on X, Y and Z in practice! A more attacking setup than usual? Naivety! More defensive setup? Cowardice! The usual setup? Lack of creativity!

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right. In some cases people will claim that the win was lucky, though. It largely depends on the popularity of the manager and past results(I'm beginning to see a pattern).

The elephant in the room remains the same: you don't know shit. You don't know what the research behind the scenes have picked up. You don't know the thought processes and how the managers try to predict and counter each other. You don't know what is according to the plan or not. You don't know which players have performed in training or look especially motivated. You don't know which players are most suited to deal with the manager's tactics for a particular game. The only thing you do know is the end result. But you don't know how much of the loss/draw came down to failure in tactics or in-game adjustments. If tactics and in-game adjustments are responsible for 20% of the outcome(which I think is a very generous number), then the majority of losses and draws aren't primarily gonna be because of this. And it's not like tactics are binary either. There are many grey areas and you can get some things wrong and some things right.

"So we can't discuss tactics and in-game adjustments then?". Of course you can! This is a forum after all. But have at least an ounce of humility and don't talk as if you definitely have the answers, because you don't.

feck off I literally know more about tactics than OGS.

 

[Zlatan 7]

They dont

Nice timing, see above

 

[Bobcat]

Meh, everyone is capable of making observations like "x player" should not have started or "y formation" was wrong. All that takes is sight and the ability to shitpost on the Caf after the game. At times, someone pops up with such an observation/opinion before the match, and if you are right, then kudos

What really grinds my gears is the people who make bold, sweeping statements about coaching when.
A: You have never even coached U7's and all your experience comes from FM
B: You dont know the first thing about what goes on at the training ground
C: People who think you can coach players to become adept at literally anything. If that was all it took, then any athlete could also become a decent footballer. In peak physical condition? Great, now all it takes is some good old coaching and you can become good at literally anything from shooting to tending the goal

Of course coaching can make players slightly better or worse at certain aspects, but its fairly limited. That's why so few become pro footballers and even fewer become truly elite. But no matter how hard you try you cant turn Emile Heskey into Didier Drogba

To be fair, laymen like ourselves can make basic observations like "x team looks very well drilled in attack" and "y team looks very disorganized in defense". Anyone could see that turn of the decade Barcelona was capable of playing some devastating attacking football, but from there it becomes a more vague nature vs nurture question. Of course their daily training is going to be important, but imo its much more about having the right kind of players to play the football you want.

 

[bsCallout]

I agree with the sentiment but I'm still going to argue as if I have more coaching badges and I am more experienced than our coaching staff and manager because I have hindsight on my side.

I think it is fair though to call into question 'tactics' when you see repeat behaviours that should not be happening such as always conceeding first. It suggests that something isnt being rectified in training.

Our 3 examples -

1. Corner kicks
2. Balls to the back post
3. DDG not commanding his box or back line

They happen consistently and it doesnt seem to have been addressed effectively . . .ever.

Edit: That doesnt mean i have any idea how to train a team to do those things, I'd just like to think our coaching team should know.

 

[Amerifan]

20-20 hindsight, confirmation bias, and games like Football Manager fuel egos. No one on here could manage at the PL level on their best day. Same goes for the ex-player loudmouths in the media. Acting the football genius on a forum is as close as any of us will ever get to actually being one. It’s harmless fun.

 

[harms]

I'm of the opposite conviction really. Football isnt nearly as complicated as we think and seeing as John Heitinga passed the exam for pro football trainer the minimum requirement to become one is having a barely 2 digid IQ.

It's about managing bratty millionaires more than some sort of higher understanding of the best way to kick a ball in the goal.

Absolutely. There’s more and more insight in how managers set up their tactics today (they talk more open about that, but, most importantly, we have stuff like Amazon’s Spurs series that literally show us Mourinho explaining tactics to his players etc.). I personally know a tactical blogger who got a job at Zenit because of his texts – I know that it’s not Manchester United, but Zenit regularly (and horrendously) plays in CL and is generally one of the best sides in the league

Post-match tactical analysis is also not that hard, especially if you watch a lot of that manager’s games. You have absolute tactical freaks like Bielsa and no fan will ever get close to his understanding of the game; but in general managers (and players, as we see so often on MotD & the likes) don’t really get too involved – especially since tactics aren’t a set of parameters, it’s something that you have to explain to and teach your players for it to work.

Take Neville & Carragher, for example. Do you question their ability of analyzing the tactical side of the game as well? Neville even was an actual manager, so he’s certainly not that far away from the world of mystical “professional” football knowledge.

The other thing is, will an arm-chair critic be able to act as a manager if called upon? Obviously not, and even good analytics often fail at the job, like Neville did. Because management is about a lot more than that – it involves leadership, psychology, practical knowledge of the game (like Guardiola explaining to Sterling how to set up his body while shooting), that a random guy from a street doesn’t possess. You also have the mental side – players will never trust someone who had won a manager’s seat in a Football Manager 2020 World Cup championship.

Although when I was watching “peak” Moyes I sometimes wondered if a random fan would’ve really done a worse job He probably would’ve though.

 

[KirkDuyt]

Absolutely. There’s more and more insight in how managers set up their tactics today (they talk more open about that, but, most importantly, we have stuff like Amazon’s Spurs series that literally show us Mourinho explaining tactics to his players etc.). I personally know a tactical blogger who got a job at Zenit because of his texts – I know that it’s not Manchester United, but Zenit regularly (and horrendously) plays in CL and is generally one of the best sides in the league

Post-match tactical analysis is also not that hard, especially if you watch a lot of that manager’s games. You have absolute tactical freaks like Bielsa and no fan will ever get close to his understanding of the game; but in general managers (and players, as we see so often on MotD & the likes) don’t really get too involved – especially since tactics aren’t a set of parameters, it’s something that you have to explain to and teach your players for it to work.

Take Neville & Carragher, for example. Do you question their ability of analyzing the tactical side of the game as well? Neville even been an actual manager, so he’s certainly not that far away from the world of mystical “professional” football knowledge.

The other thing is, will an arm-chair critic be able to act as a manager if called upon? Obviously not, and even good analytics often fail at the job, like Neville did. Because management is about a lot more than that – it involves leadership, psychology, practical knowledge of the game (like Guardiola explaining to Sterling how to set up his body while shooting), that a random guy from a street doesn’t possess. You also have the mental side – players will never trust someone who had won a manager’s seat in a Football Manager 2020 World Cup championship.

Although when I was watching “peak” Moyes I sometimes wondered if a random fan would’ve really done a worse job He probably would’ve though.

I think that there's indeed a few who are actual tactical geniuses, but they're very few amd far between. Most of them are as good as there team, but the higher you go, the bigger the challenge to keep all the ego's in check.

But guys like Neville or in The Netherlands Van der Vaart, Sneijder, Van Hooijdonk or all the other pundits say very basic stuff that even I could point out, as you said.

 

[harms]

You don’t have to be a genius director to understand the work of Lynch or Bergman. You’ll certainly need a lot of time dedicated to watching cinema and, ideally, some film theory/critics etc. to do so, but it’s achievable.

It’s not really hard to talk about Nolan (I’m taking a step down btw) movies. With a certain dedication and background you can even analyze them and figure out patterns and ideas that are specific for Nolan’s movies (and even explain why Tenet doesn’t work as well as Memento or Inception).

Does it mean that, given the resources, you’ll be able to shoot a movie like Tenet (a random example of a technically well-made movie that didn’t really work?). I’d certainly not bet on you. Are the cases of movie critics developing into good directors? Yes, but those are scarce. Does this mean that even the best critics understand movies worse than even the worse directors? Absolutely not. By the way, by “understanding the movie” I mean technical aspects of story-writing and movie-making, not the original concept and the stuff that has more to do with the artistic side.

Then forget about Nolan and think of a random Moyes-like movie director analogy to better understand the point.

 

[Foxbatt]

They are coming like bots now and most of them have Ole in the username. United's PR department are trying their best.

For a moment I thought it was the handle of the Istanbul player Bolingoli.

 

[AshRK]

This is a stupid thread. I am not a manager but even I was able to see how tucked in Awb was instead of man marking angelino. It was not just a one off incident,.for the majority of first half the same thing happened. Either Ole instructed him to do that or Awb is shit. Either way it is for the manager to get up from his seat and advise his player to do a job. The same thing happened against Brighton when their full back kept on getting the better of Awb who instead of playing rb was playing at cb. Surely the manager has.to address.it.

Also, it's not about Ole in or Ole out but just pointing out some basic tactical errors.

 

[Zen86]

The most annoying part about being a football fan is having to listen to other football fans constantly blame managers for their tactics. It doesn't matter which team you support. It happens with every team, on every professional level. Am I really gonna listen to Armchair Bob, fueled by Stella and the power of hindsight, and value his opinion over a professional manager with years of experience, hours of research delivered to him/her by professionals before each game and exclusive "behind the scenes" knowledge?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. You might protest and claim that you have watched football all your life and therefore don't fall into the "no experience" category, but you're wrong. You haven't managed a professional football team and you never will.

The worst culprit is the power of hindsight. Unless the team you support dominated the game by every reasonable metric, you can quite literally blame any loss or draw on poor tactics. You disagree with the selection of a player? Well, the player that wasn't selected would have made all the difference! You disagree with the formation? Ditto. Individual errors cost you the game? Well, the coach should have spent more time on X, Y and Z in practice! A more attacking setup than usual? Naivety! More defensive setup? Cowardice! The usual setup? Lack of creativity!

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right. In some cases people will claim that the win was lucky, though. It largely depends on the popularity of the manager and past results(I'm beginning to see a pattern).

The elephant in the room remains the same: you don't know shit. You don't know what the research behind the scenes have picked up. You don't know the thought processes and how the managers try to predict and counter each other. You don't know what is according to the plan or not. You don't know which players have performed in training or look especially motivated. You don't know which players are most suited to deal with the manager's tactics for a particular game. The only thing you do know is the end result. But you don't know how much of the loss/draw came down to failure in tactics or in-game adjustments. If tactics and in-game adjustments are responsible for 20% of the outcome(which I think is a very generous number), then the majority of losses and draws aren't primarily gonna be because of this. And it's not like tactics are binary either. There are many grey areas and you can get some things wrong and some things right.

"So we can't discuss tactics and in-game adjustments then?". Of course you can! This is a forum after all. But have at least an ounce of humility and don't talk as if you definitely have the answers, because you don't.

The negative reaction to this post, which is pretty much fact at the end of the day, says it all.

 

[big rons sovereign]

how can this be possible?

Dunno, ask rawk or blue moon.

 

[Nani Nana]

The most annoying part about being a football fan is having to listen to other football fans constantly blame managers for their tactics. It doesn't matter which team you support. It happens with every team, on every professional level. Am I really gonna listen to Armchair Bob, fueled by Stella and the power of hindsight, and value his opinion over a professional manager with years of experience, hours of research delivered to him/her by professionals before each game and exclusive "behind the scenes" knowledge?

The Dunning-Kruger effect is evident. You might protest and claim that you have watched football all your life and therefore don't fall into the "no experience" category, but you're wrong. You haven't managed a professional football team and you never will.

The worst culprit is the power of hindsight. Unless the team you support dominated the game by every reasonable metric, you can quite literally blame any loss or draw on poor tactics. You disagree with the selection of a player? Well, the player that wasn't selected would have made all the difference! You disagree with the formation? Ditto. Individual errors cost you the game? Well, the coach should have spent more time on X, Y and Z in practice! A more attacking setup than usual? Naivety! More defensive setup? Cowardice! The usual setup? Lack of creativity!

Ultimately it all falls back on one thing: the result. If the manager wins, then he/she got it right. In some cases people will claim that the win was lucky, though. It largely depends on the popularity of the manager and past results(I'm beginning to see a pattern).

The elephant in the room remains the same: you don't know shit. You don't know what the research behind the scenes have picked up. You don't know the thought processes and how the managers try to predict and counter each other. You don't know what is according to the plan or not. You don't know which players have performed in training or look especially motivated. You don't know which players are most suited to deal with the manager's tactics for a particular game. The only thing you do know is the end result. But you don't know how much of the loss/draw came down to failure in tactics or in-game adjustments. If tactics and in-game adjustments are responsible for 20% of the outcome(which I think is a very generous number), then the majority of losses and draws aren't primarily gonna be because of this. And it's not like tactics are binary either. There are many grey areas and you can get some things wrong and some things right.

"So we can't discuss tactics and in-game adjustments then?". Of course you can! This is a forum after all. But have at least an ounce of humility and don't talk as if you definitely have the answers, because you don't.

Considering the time they invest in following the game, I fancy supporters having their own tactical suggestions on their team.

On the other hand, behaving like transfer budgets influence their own bank accounts, and this or that player is too expensive, is not too constructive.

 

[hobbers]

Some people don't like being reminded of this - but football is not complicated. Tactics are not some sort of black box that only the elite few have access to. Managers are not geniuses, or anything close.

You don't have to be a manager to see how utterly ridiculous our set ups this season have been, resulting in all the atrocious first half performances. Starting every match with no width whatsoever. Starting every match with no coordinated press, low energy and second to every ball.

How we were humiliated so badly against Spurs because our defenders have either had no positional coaching, no preparation for the threats Spurs pose, or were just ignoring everything they've been told, or a combination of all 3. You dont have to be Jurgen Klopp to spot that Spurs always overlap Aurier and so it isn't very wise for your left centreback to go charging into midfield and leave your left back covering for him. Although evidently you do have to be a bit smarter than a combination of Ole, McKenna, Carrick, Maguire and Shaw to spot it and change your approach.


Anyone who watched the Spurs doc should know how basic most of it is. Mourinho's team talks are not complicated, he's talking to footballers after all.

 

[hasanejaz88]

Got a link?

Thanks for the interest

This is the blog:

http://redandwhitedoublepivot.blogspot.com/2011/12/perfect-european-team-lucien-favres.html

And the article from Zonal Marking quoting it:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/12/04/borussia-monchengladbach-dortmund-tactics/ (the link called "more on that here")

It's from 2011, alas my old days of watching a huge amount of football and having time to write about it

 

[Ollie Derbyshire]

This is a stupid thread. I am not a manager but even I was able to see how tucked in Awb was instead of man marking angelino. It was not just a one off incident,.for the majority of first half the same thing happened. Either Ole instructed him to do that or Awb is shit. Either way it is for the manager to get up from his seat and advise his player to do a job. The same thing happened against Brighton when their full back kept on getting the better of Awb who instead of playing rb was playing at cb. Surely the manager has.to address.it.

Also, it's not about Ole in or Ole out but just pointing out some basic tactical errors.

Got to agree with this, you don’t need to know the in and outs of football tactics when the team is making such basic positional mistakes, it’s not just AWB, I’ve seen Shaw do the same on numerous occasions this season.

Other simple issues are getting our forwards to pass to each other when in better positions, rashford and Greenwood just shoot from anywhere ignoring each other. Our short passing is beyond a joke, every game we give the ball away countless times, even throws in are starting to be an issue, we may as well just give them the ball back, we end up just throwing it to the player in the most difficult position to control it. And corners well, I think we have given up on them, surely you’d expect even a scruffy goal or two with the ball bouncing around the box but we can’t get it anywhere near our players.

I’ve said it for years and years now, we are a shockingly poorly coached team who struggle to consistently do the simple things I’d expect a kids team to be able to do, until all of this is fixed you can forget about whatever tactics we are meant to be using cause it doesn’t matter.

 

[Ramshock]

FV

feck off I literally know more about tactics than OGS.

No you dont

 

[Oranges038]

The negative reaction to this post, which is pretty much fact at the end of the day, says it all.

It's not fact though is it? It's just somebody having a bit of rant about something that annoys them and using a theory to back it up.

As I said before on here as football fans all we really have is conjecture and hindsight to discuss the game. You remove that and we may aswel not watch or speak about the sport or even post in this or any forum.

Now if you want people to prefix everything with "I think" or "In my humble opinion" or "I don't know shit but" before posting so you know they aren't trying to be factual without any proper insight or footballing qualification then that's fine.

So, I don't know shit but, in my opinion I think your assertation this is fact without any you having any qualification or insight to backup that statement is actually type of post the Op is annoyed by.

Edit: I thought about what I posted and in hindsight, I wasn't sure if you are dropping in a subtle joke by using the word fact as a means to poke fun the original post. If so I sincerely apologise and bow to your superior sense of humour. If not I stand by what I posted.

 

[Sky1981]

The next time OP post something football related we should just tell him to shut up, you're just a football fans.

 

[Foxbatt]

Actually it is a very difficult job because it involves a lot of things normal fans do not think about or have to worry about. Some have very good coaches who can do the individual training or group training. You know the defence against attack etc. The normal stuff. Then the intensity increases with eventually the defence vs 11 players or so but in half off the pitch. ( This depends obviously who is the coach) This gives practical experience for the defence in denying space and how to react when out numbered. Keepers have to be so tuned in that if they have to think then it is too late. This is the same with defenders. They have to practice and practice with the same bunch of players so they all know what each other thinks. I have seen corners practiced without any defenders until they get it spot on. I mean the head of either a near post flick or the far post and all the variations of the near and far post. Then once this is spot on , the defenders come into the scene.
We all blame DeGea for not coming out but does anyone realise that probably at United he has no say in how we defend corners? So if he has no say how can he be responsible for organising his defense? DeGea is not an idiot. He knows that it is his weakness and it is inherent in him. Now we all remember when he played with Rio and Vidic, we had Evra and Rafa or someone on the posts. Why? Because SAF realized the weakness of DeGea and he put a cover for him. Rio and Vidic are way much better headers of the ball than Maguire and Lindelof. Yet we had players on the post but now we do not.
Then you have the game management during the match. You may get experience by getting more matches but normally either you have it or don't have it. Players like Scholes have the vision when playing not because they practice every day but it is natural for him. Anyone on CAF would probably most of the time pick the same 11 or very close to it so picking the team is not the issue but what happens on the pitch.
Look at the corners we have problem with. Surely the coaching staff should be able to see that we struggle against near post corners? Then they have to negate it by keeping players on the posts.
Look at AWB going missing for the first goal. This is not the first time or second time or third time he has gone inside and we have conceded. This should be practiced and practiced until he gets it right. I am betting that Nagelsmann has seen this happen before and hoped that he can get a goal by exploiting this.
What bothers me is that we keep on making the same mistakes and I wonder if United do not have good analysts working for them or they simply do not see these things? Sometimes when you are too close to the situation you may not see it.
I had no problems with Ole starting with that team at Leipzig apart from Greenwood. Simply because Greenwood is not going to defend or chase the ball. But I had enormous problems with the way we started by chasing the ball in their own half. If we want to defend then defend in numbers and deny them the space. Especially early on.
I think the whole thing is a fad for the coaches. Just because Klopp or Pep play from the back they want to play from the back even though we do not have the capability to do so. Ole does not know how to make best use of the players he have.

 

[Red00012]

This was true for Moyes, Van Gaal, Mourinho and now Ole. It was annoying then, and it's annoying now. Even Fergie, for feck's sake, was criticized in the same manner every time his team lost or played a draw. The greatest manager in history wasn't safe. It's ridiculous.

So what you’re saying is Fergie knew more than some of the posters did?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

Another pro Ole thread, just feck up.

It's funny. Even ex players and other managers criticise managers for their tactics or team selection. But nah, given the OP loves Ole, "leave Brittney alone!!!" won't you?

 

[amolbhatia50k]

If you can see these errors and know the fixes submit your cv

Knowing that a rash player on a yellow card should be substituted needs a brain not a CV. You should use yours before hurling smileys around for no reason.

 

[Stack]

I did a shit load of coaching at a wide range of levels and I dont think fans who havent coached are any less capable of understanding the tactics on display by a team.
I think the one thing that may be missing would be the training drills, processes and progressions that lead to implementing tactics but fans can easily understand and see tactical plans in place. Also even if you have done every coaching badge under the sun it doesnt mean you can coach well. The most important ingredient in coaching is the ability to teach, the ability to assist players to succeed in tasks required. You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you cant express that in a manner others can learn from then you wont get anywhere. Another thing is that there is a significant difference between designing a coaching drill or coaching a training drill to managing a team and the tactics. The difficulty for fans to ever see what, why and how training is implemented leaves a gap in the understanding of why a Manager will set a team up tactically a certain way but it in no way means fans cant understand or spot a tactical approach.
I do wonder whats going on at Utds training sessions because we can be so inconsistent.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Knowing that a rash player on a yellow card should be substituted needs a brain not a CV. You should use yours before hurling smileys around for no reason.

My last laughing smiley in this thread was at a post saying no one thinks they’re better than Ole, directly above a post by a poster saying that they’re literally better than Ole. Also Any poster who thinks they could do better than Ole deserves to be laughed at

 

[Zlatan 7]

Thanks for the interest

This is the blog:

http://redandwhitedoublepivot.blogspot.com/2011/12/perfect-european-team-lucien-favres.html

And the article from Zonal Marking quoting it:

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/12/04/borussia-monchengladbach-dortmund-tactics/ (the link called "more on that here")

It's from 2011, alas my old days of watching a huge amount of football and having time to write about it

Thanks, I’ll have a read

 

[Foxbatt]

I did a shit load of coaching at a wide range of levels and I dont think fans who havent coached are any less capable of understanding the tactics on display by a team.
I think the one thing that may be missing would be the training drills, processes and progressions that lead to implementing tactics but fans can easily understand and see tactical plans in place. Also even if you have done every coaching badge under the sun it doesnt mean you can coach well. The most important ingredient in coaching is the ability to teach, the ability to assist players to succeed in tasks required. You can have all the knowledge in the world but if you cant express that in a manner others can learn from then you wont get anywhere. Another thing is that there is a significant difference between designing a coaching drill or coaching a training drill to managing a team and the tactics. The difficulty for fans to ever see what, why and how training is implemented leaves a gap in the understanding of why a Manager will set a team up tactically a certain way but it in no way means fans cant understand or spot a tactical approach.
I do wonder whats going on at Utds training sessions because we can be so inconsistent.

Entirely spot on. My nephew was at an academy where Carrick was coaching while doing his badge. He was not impressed at all. It is also more difficult for what fans call game management. It is actually the ability to be able to see what is going on at that moment in time. What is most difficult to see when the equilibrium swings to the other side. That is when a change is needed. Not when it is 85 minutes after kick off.
What most of the top coaches do is implement the right space at the right time theory. I do not think anyone at Manchester United understand that. I think they are like World War 2 Generals who thought of fighting still the 1st World War at the start of the 2nd World War. The Germans spanked them. What worked under SAF in 1999 does not work now in 2020. Football has moved on and the rules have changed and the equipment has changed and the players have changed.