Physicality or technique?

Rossa

Full Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
11,295
Location
Looking over my shoulder.
Looking at the direction United under Mourinho are heading, with a team with an average height over more than 6ft, I started wondering about whether I think a typically physical team or a more technical team is the way forward. United is a tall, heavy, strong and pacy over distance type of team, but most other top managers seem to prefer more nimble, technical players. Even the big brutes at CB are being replaced by ball playing centre backs that are not necessarily that physically imposing. Even goalies? Most likely, a combination of the two is preferable, but if you had to choose, what would you choose? Create two XIs, one of a physical side and one with technical players, usually not very physically imposing. Find the best in each position, physical and technical. I'd say that Ronaldo is typically a physical player whereas Messi is technical, for instance.

I can think of few teams that are typically physical that have dominated, but there might be a few. Obviously, Mourinho seems to prefer them, and Real Madrid, compared to most other Spanish teams, have been quite physically imposing both in teams of players' size and strength.
 
It's not one or the other. Unless you can field a team consisting of the likes of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta & Co. physicality has a big place in the game. Even in that team players like Puyol and Busquets knew how to get physical when they needed to.

Certain leagues have different demands too. Spain leans more towards technical skills, whilst England is more physical. In general the Spanish technical teams have had the better of English physical teams in head to head games, but could they maintain it for a whole season of Burnleys and West Broms kicking lumps out of them? I have my doubts.
 
11101 said:
It's not one or the other. Unless you can field a team consisting of the likes of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta & Co. physicality has a big place in the game. Even in that team players like Puyol and Busquets knew how to get physical when they needed to.

Certain leagues have different demands too. Spain leans more towards technical skills, whilst England is more physical. In general the Spanish technical teams have had the better of English physical teams in head to head games, but could they maintain it for a whole season of Burnleys and West Broms kicking lumps out of them? I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

As I said, I think it's a combination that would give you the best results. However, if you had to go all out with either or - United are seriously closing in on becoming a purely physical team - which would be better. Pep's City is fairly technical by comparison, but there are some players that make up for the rest. With Barca, after Puyol, you could argue that they only had one or two physical players. Pique, although big and strong, is not the most physical CB around, and he played alongside Mascherano for a while with Alba and Alves as fullbacks and a midfield of Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets (big, but not physical). I'd say that is probably as close to a purely technical team that you can come.
 
Technique but you still have to be strong. You wouldn't simply be allowed to over power teams. You have to be able to play and the best ones tend to be able to do that AND have a nasty streak
 
Rossa said:
As I said, I think it's a combination that would give you the best results. However, if you had to go all out with either or - United are seriously closing in on becoming a purely physical team - which would be better. Pep's City is fairly technical by comparison, but there are some players that make up for the rest. With Barca, after Puyol, you could argue that they only had one or two physical players. Pique, although big and strong, is not the most physical CB around, and he played alongside Mascherano for a while with Alba and Alves as fullbacks and a midfield of Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets (big, but not physical). I'd say that is probably as close to a purely technical team that you can come.
Click to expand...

I disagree on Busquets. Physical doesn't always mean winning 50/50 shoulder barges. Busquets knew exactly when to leave a late tackle on someone.

If you were going purely physical, or purely technical, i think physical wins. At professional football standard everyone has a high minimum technical ability so i think its easier for your average physical team to break up the play of a technical team, than it is for a technical team to play around a physical team. What you're looking at is essentially possession vs counter attack. Against all but the very best counter attack has proven an effective way of winning games. To be a purely technical team you have to be outstanding or teams easily roll you over.
 
You'll fail as a footballer withour both of them.

Any kids on the streets of brazil can dribble like ronaldo, problem is having the physicality AND still able perform it, against an equally world class defender week in week out.

I bet even luke shaw, valencia can run rings with technique against u18 players. Whether they can pull that stunt up against fellow premier league level footballer is another thing.
 
11101 said:
I disagree on Busquets. Physical doesn't always mean winning 50/50 shoulder barges. Busquets knew exactly when to leave a late tackle on someone.

If you were going purely physical, or purely technical, i think physical wins. At professional football standard everyone has a high minimum technical ability so i think its easier for your average physical team to break up the play of a technical team, than it is for a technical team to play around a physical team. What you're looking at is essentially possession vs counter attack. Against all but the very best counter attack has proven an effective way of winning games. To be a purely technical team you have to be outstanding or teams easily roll you over.
Click to expand...
Think it's the other way around. Because at professional football standard everyone has a high minimum of physical qualities and can't be easily overpowered or overrun
 
There are different types of physicality though. Liverpool, City and Chelsea are way more physical than United in some respects like running further and quicker. Lukaku is much more physical than Firmino in some respects and less physical than Firmino in other respects. Firmino runs a lot more than Lukaku, his mobility is on another level.

Physicality and work rate are related. And in terms of work rate United are the worse in the top 6.
 
A 2009 study reckoned it was better to have taller players - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...er-at-least-in-football-claim-scientists.html

A 2017 study reckoned there was no difference - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41818468


I think quite a few people would say that Spurs play with a decent amount technique under Pochettino, or at least more than we do. I remember once being surprised by how tall they were. It was when Wanyama scored from a set piece against us the other year, Rooney was marking him and I, probably like many were wondering why. He was one of about 8 or 9 6 footers in their team that day where we only had about 4 from memory. Spurs didn't have that many giants, but loads around 6'0-6'2. I don't think that should be necessarily regarded as that tall these days though.
 
Last edited:
The nature of physicality has changed somewhat. You can have a huge team of giants and get bullied off the pitch by smaller players just because they play with intensity.
I think the ability to run has surpassed the size of a player in terms of necessity.
For me, physicality will never be as important as technique.
Just have a look at us. We have one of the biggest teams in the country but I can't recall it ever being an advantage.
 
11101 said:
I disagree on Busquets. Physical doesn't always mean winning 50/50 shoulder barges. Busquets knew exactly when to leave a late tackle on someone.

If you were going purely physical, or purely technical, i think physical wins. At professional football standard everyone has a high minimum technical ability so i think its easier for your average physical team to break up the play of a technical team, than it is for a technical team to play around a physical team. What you're looking at is essentially possession vs counter attack. Against all but the very best counter attack has proven an effective way of winning games. To be a purely technical team you have to be outstanding or teams easily roll you over.
Click to expand...

I always thought Busquets was more technical/great reader of the game, like Carrick - two big lads that wasn't/isn't known for their physicality, more for their intelligence.

I think at the top level, both the physical part and the technical part are of high calibres, but there are differences of course. I'm not so sure...
 
Is there any thing that prevents a player to have both ? Which category does Pogba fall under then ?
 
Rossa said:
I always thought Busquets was more technical/great reader of the game, like Carrick - two big lads that wasn't/isn't known for their physicality, more for their intelligence.
Click to expand...

He is. I'm just saying he also knows when to leave one on his opponent.
 
Would you rather have 11 Matas or 11 Fellainis?

That Fellaini team would not lose to that Mata team.
 
11101 said:
I disagree on Busquets. Physical doesn't always mean winning 50/50 shoulder barges. Busquets knew exactly when to leave a late tackle on someone.

If you were going purely physical, or purely technical, i think physical wins. At professional football standard everyone has a high minimum technical ability so i think its easier for your average physical team to break up the play of a technical team, than it is for a technical team to play around a physical team. What you're looking at is essentially possession vs counter attack. Against all but the very best counter attack has proven an effective way of winning games. To be a purely technical team you have to be outstanding or teams easily roll you over.
Click to expand...
Counter attacks largely rely on quick, technical wingers and midfielders with good passing range and technique. The WBA or Stoke like football won't work against a good technical side. The bigger side may get away with parking the bus once in a while but on the longer run the technical team will always win.
 
Harry190 said:
Would you rather have 11 Matas or 11 Fellainis?

That Fellaini team would not lose to that Mata team.
Click to expand...
Poor Mata, those bastard Fellaini's would elbow his friendly face into submission and score a late winner while the Mata's are sitting in a semi circle reciting poetry and playing a lute.
 
redIndianDevil said:
Counter attacks largely rely on quick, technical wingers and midfielders with good passing range and technique. The WBA or Stoke like football won't work against a good technical side. The bigger side may get away with parking the bus once in a while but on the longer run the technical team will always win.
Click to expand...

Agree but the OP was asking for technical ability without physical ability or vice versa. Kind of hard as no team exclusively has one or the other, especially in the PL.
 
You can't separate them these days.

If you're a flair player but you're built like a car radiator, you won't make it pro.

Ideally you'd think that technical skills are better, because the physical condition is easier to grow.
 
11101 said:
Agree but the OP was asking for technical ability without physical ability or vice versa. Kind of hard as no team exclusively has one or the other, especially in the PL.
Click to expand...
But exceptional physical ability with poor technique never results in world class players whereas there have been plenty of technical players who've succeeded despite their lack of physicality. Also, people can work on their physique in the gym whereas I've rarely seen players improve technically.
 
Technical but footballers nowadays have to be athletes. You can't teach most technical aspects of the game as it comes naturally, you can train to be stronger and faster to a certain degree.

I'd always pick technical because what's the use being a speed merchant, if the opposition is always a few steps ahead of you in speed of thinking.
 
MuFc_1992 said:
But exceptional physical ability with poor technique never results in world class players whereas there have been plenty of technical players who've succeeded despite their lack of physicality. Also, people can work on their physique in the gym whereas I've rarely seen players improve technically.
Click to expand...

Individual players yes, but I can't think of any teams that have excelled with purely technical players. I cant think of any teams that even play with purely technical players. The closest is the old Barcelona team but they had a once in a lifetime level of technical ability, and they still had players to get aggressive and physical when it was needed.

Perhaps Wenger's last Arsenal team. They had all the ability but the slightest bit of fight from the opposition and they rolled over.
 
11101 said:
Individual players yes, but I can't think of any teams that have excelled with purely technical players. I cant think of any teams that even play with purely technical players. The closest is the old Barcelona team but they had a once in a lifetime level of technical ability, and they still had players to get aggressive and physical when it was needed.

Perhaps Wenger's last Arsenal team. They had all the ability but the slightest bit of fight from the opposition and they rolled over.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you have a good core of technical players than it's easy to go into the market and sign physical players to complete the team. Mourhino seems to prefer the opposite approach.
 
Exactly why Pogba is unique and irreplaceable. He so easily blends and combines both to a very high level.
 
Harry190 said:
Would you rather have 11 Matas or 11 Fellainis?

That Fellaini team would not lose to that Mata team.
Click to expand...
11 Fellainis :lol: That team would lose to pretty much anyone as they'd struggle to get into shape. It's useful to have one such player in some situations, as we've seen, but he has awful spatial awareness and positioning (hence why he's rarely used as a defensive midfielder and is at his best as a free-roaming attacking midfielder).
 
Physical side:

GK: Neuer
RB: Walker
CB: Ramos
CB: Chiellini
LB: Alex Sandro

DM:Casemiro
CM: Pogba
CM: Milinkovic Savic

RW: Bale
LW: Ronaldo
ST: Lukaku
 
Technique first and foremost all day. We lack it, and we struggle to build attacks because of poor passing, poor control, poor shooting.
 
Prime yaya toure was a combination of both. Was a point in this league where he used to drive through teams on his own.
 
There is actually an example when you compare old Raul and prime Heskey, Raul wins everytime even though he was slow and weak.
 
Technique is more important. But a bigger and faster guy with comparable technique will be better than a smaller counterpart.
 
You need a combination of both in your team overall to have any chance of success.

You need a few tall players to defend against set pieces but height is generally overrated as a physical attribute, as is pace in long sprints. Its quickness over relatively short distances and the ability to run for days that really makes the difference in today's pressing oriented high intensity game, especially in midfield. In this regard, people really underrate the physical ability of players like Xavi and Iniesta, as well as others like Casemiro, Kante, Torreira, Veratti, etc. Putting technique aside, I will always take the quick midfielder with great stamina over a big bruising CM like Matic, Carvalho, Wanyama, Krychowiak, or Dier.
 
You do not make it as a Footballer without technique. Especially at the level of Football we are used to watching. And I think we all underestimate the level of technique of the "physical players". But, you do need a good deal of both to play at the highest levels. We also underestimate the physicality of "technical players".
 
I think you need to consider what difference it will make according to the more coman phases of play that a team will experience. A team that is going to score a lot on the break can certaintly use quick and nimble players whereas a team that will likely need to put more pressure against parked busses can certiantly use some physicallity in the box. If you are a weaker team in the league that is going to defend a lot then a somewhat larger number of strong and tall men might be interresting, whereas when youre one of the richest teams you can buy some of the best technical players and and hope to win it trough technical dominance and ballcontrol foremost.
 
11101 said:
It's not one or the other. Unless you can field a team consisting of the likes of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta & Co. physicality has a big place in the game. Even in that team players like Puyol and Busquets knew how to get physical when they needed to.

Certain leagues have different demands too. Spain leans more towards technical skills, whilst England is more physical. In general the Spanish technical teams have had the better of English physical teams in head to head games, but could they maintain it for a whole season of Burnleys and West Broms kicking lumps out of them? I have my doubts.
Click to expand...

It's true as a general statement and yet, if you take Hazard, Kante or most of the best players in PL, they're far from being monsters.
 
Which is easier to develop?

If you have a proper physical specimen with substandard technique, can you get him up to levels on technique? I don’t think so.
If you have a brilliant technical player, can you improve him physically with hours in the weight room? That seems more likely to me
 
You must log in or register to reply here.