Unpopular Football Opinions

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,526
One of the main reasons why England fail to make an impact in the WC is down to their insistence in playing a breathtaking and physical game which puts entertainment ahead of technique and tactics. PS, we haven't seen a decent English manager for ages and a substantial number of English players tend to not give a feck about their national side
 

devilish

Juventus fan who used to support United
Joined
Sep 5, 2002
Messages
61,526
I think that Drogba would be a great signing for United.
 

KingEric7

Stupid Conspiracy Enthusiast Wanker
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
24,005
Well it's not outrageous is it? He's as good at shooting from distance, as good a crosser, a better dribbler, more creative, better defensively, less likely to lose possession, as fast and has similar levels of acceleration.

Ronaldo is more consistent, a better goal scorer (better in the air, better movement, better finisher) and is taller.

Consistency is the important factor, so it's really Ronaldo's mentality that sets him apart. Nani's got several gears to step up based on his attributes - it's completely dependant on whether he has the mental capabilities to do. It's an unpopular opinion, but it's certainly not a stupid one when you assess the players' attributes.
 

Liam147

On Probation
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
16,714
Location
Not a complete cock, just really young.
Well it's not outrageous is it? He's as good at shooting from distance, as good a crosser, a better dribbler, more creative, better defensively, less likely to lose possession, as fast and has similar levels of acceleration.

Ronaldo is more consistent, a better goal scorer (better in the air, better movement, better finisher) and is taller.

Consistency is the important factor, so it's really Ronaldo's mentality that sets him apart. Nani's got several gears to step up based on his attributes - it's completely dependant on whether he has the mental capabilities to do.
Whoooooosh.

You've just said Nani is better than Ronaldo at most things apart from shooting, and then said Nani has to step up several gears based on his attributes.
 

2Bullish

Full Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2001
Messages
4,846
Location
Arcadia with a mortgage.
Well it's not outrageous is it? He's as good at shooting from distance, as good a crosser, a better dribbler, more creative, better defensively, less likely to lose possession, as fast and has similar levels of acceleration.

Ronaldo is more consistent, a better goal scorer (better in the air, better movement, better finisher) and is taller.

Consistency is the important factor, so it's really Ronaldo's mentality that sets him apart. Nani's got several gears to step up based on his attributes - it's completely dependant on whether he has the mental capabilities to do. It's an unpopular opinion, but it's certainly not a stupid one when you assess the players' attributes.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this one..
 

reddevilcanada

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
11,339
Being talented doesn't mean better. Talent doesn't mean much if there isn't much consistency in the end product. It's all relative. Many might be as talented as Messi and show glimpses of similar qualities, but without the opportunity to play alongside Xavi and Iniesta & Co or might not have have the consistency or end product. Potential & talent alone isn't enough.
 

reddevilcanada

Full Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
11,339
To be considered as Argentina's finest, Messi must replicate Maradona's success with the national team and play a key role for Argentina in winning a world cup. Like Maradona, Messi has done it at club level, but unlike Maradona, he has failed to have the same effect on the national team so far.
 

Pogue Mahone

The caf's Camus.
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
133,350
Location
"like a man in silk pyjamas shooting pigeons
I think your average football fan places far too much importance on formations and they don't understand that it's the playing model that is the important factor and that formation is a function of the playing model. I think too many fans today base their belief on how football is played on their playing of games such as championship manager or FIFA football on the play station.
Mine is I bet the most unpopular opinion here.
Not that unpopular. I share it.
 

alastair

ignorant
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
16,310
Location
The Champions League
United ones - Rafael won't cut it. Jones will not be a top defender, forever a squad player, whilst Smalling(who gets very little press) will become one of the finest defenders in world football given a couple of years. His rise from the non-league is sensational.

Arsenal ones - Koscielny is a much superior player to Vermaelen at centre-half. Gibbs really shouldn't be playing left back for a side with aspirations of finishing in the upper echelons of the league right now, and Chamakh would be a good player for most teams in the division, used correctly.
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,521
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
But it has everything to do with the suggestion he's overrated and his achievements aren't what they're built up to be. However I think you were just stating a general opinion, so ignore me :D.
I will :D

Actually for me his only overrated achievement was France 98 and (people thinking Plaitini was inferior). Euro 2000 and world cup 2006 had Zidane at his brilliant best.
 

adexkola

Doesn't understand sportswashing.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
48,033
Location
The CL is a glorified FA Cup set to music
Supports
orderly disembarking on planes
I think your average football fan places far too much importance on formations and they don't understand that it's the playing model that is the important factor and that formation is a function of the playing model. I think too many fans today base their belief on how football is played on their playing of games such as championship manager or FIFA football on the play station.
Mine is I bet the most unpopular opinion here.
What do you mean by playing model?
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
United ones - Rafael won't cut it. Jones will not be a top defender, forever a squad player, whilst Smalling(who gets very little press) will become one of the finest defenders in world football given a couple of years. His rise from the non-league is sensational.

Arsenal ones - Koscielny is a much superior player to Vermaelen at centre-half. Gibbs really shouldn't be playing left back for a side with aspirations of finishing in the upper echelons of the league right now, and Chamakh would be a good player for most teams in the division, used correctly.
I actually agree with a few of those, especially the one with Smalling. I do think that Jones will be a lot better than you think he'll be, however I definitely think that when both have hit their prime, Smalling will definitely be the better of the two players, despite the fact that he was signed for a lot less and had a much smaller profile when coming to us.

I also agree with the Koscielny one. What happens Vermaelen is that he's a much better all-round footballer, but his defensive ability is overrated by some. He's often very positionally suspect at times. That's not to say he's a bad defender, but I do agree with you that Koscielny is the better of the two when it comes to being a centre back.
 

Red Devil 26

Premature Examination
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,329
Location
Sydenham
Wayne Rooney's all round game is too inconsistent for him to ever be deemed 'world class'.

The idea of him being brandished a Utd legend sickens me, after the manner in which he held the club to ransom.
 

Stack

Leave Women's Football Alone!!!
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
13,288
Location
Auckland New Zealand
Playing model refers to what style a coach wants his team to play. This can also change during a game depending on the situation. The playing model covers a number of different scenarios and the most simple explanation will be to use the phrase "4 moments of the game". The 4 moments being when a team first gains possession, once a team has possession what do its players do, when a team loses possession and once possession is lost what does the team do. If you are a coach and you work through the 4 moments and the players available and your preferred style of play you can then work out individual player roles for those situations and also team roles for those situations.

So for example a coach may love to use width on attack and to also force the opposition to play wide if they are in possession, so the coach will get his players to be set out to provide width when attacking and then to slide inside so the opposition has space available out wide but not centrally. You might use this if a team you are playing doesnt make use of wingers or have strikers who usually score from headers or crosses etc.

The playing model is also how teams deal with defending a counter attack, how they deal with defending long balls, how they use width etc. Do they like overlapping fullbacks, do they like a target man, is the target man someone who is good in the air or likes the ball played to his feet etc.

So before the formation is worked out its best to work out how you want to play and more importantly how you want to play with respect to each of the 4 moments of the game.

The 4 moments thing was something I first became aware of while on a coaching course where Mourinho was featured on a FIFA UEFA coaching licence video explaining his approach to tactics etc. In the interview i watched it was interesting to note that the most important thing for him was the immediate time around when possession was either won or lost. In a 30 minute interview he never once mentioned formations. I dont know if it was he who came up with the term but using it as a backbone for what i do has helped me a lot.

When you work through the 4 moments and your own playing model you start to become aware that any formation can be used to play any style of football as long as the player roles are clearly defined during the 4 moments.

John Barnes in a very recent interview said that for him formations are not the most important thing, when he played at Liverpool both Liverpool and Watford played 4-4-2 but both teams played completely differently.

What do you mean by playing model?
 

Cheesy

Bread with dipping sauce
Scout
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
36,181
Wayne Rooney's all round game is too inconsistent for him to ever be deemed 'world class'.

The idea of him being brandished a Utd legend sickens me, after the manner in which he held the club to ransom.
What would your opinion on the matter be though if he went on to comfortably be the clubs top ever goalscorer?
 
Joined
Jul 13, 2002
Messages
52,521
Location
Founder of IhateMakeleles.org and Gourcufffanboysa
Playing model refers to what style a coach wants his team to play. This can also change during a game depending on the situation. The playing model covers a number of different scenarios and the most simple explanation will be to use the phrase "4 moments of the game". The 4 moments being when a team first gains possession, once a team has possession what do its players do, when a team loses possession and once possession is lost what does the team do. If you are a coach and you work through the 4 moments and the players available and your preferred style of play you can then work out individual player roles for those situations and also team roles for those situations.

So for example a coach may love to use width on attack and to also force the opposition to play wide if they are in possession, so the coach will get his players to be set out to provide width when attacking and then to slide inside so the opposition has space available out wide but not centrally. You might use this if a team you are playing doesnt make use of wingers or have strikers who usually score from headers or crosses etc.

The playing model is also how teams deal with defending a counter attack, how they deal with defending long balls, how they use width etc. Do they like overlapping fullbacks, do they like a target man, is the target man someone who is good in the air or likes the ball played to his feet etc.

So before the formation is worked out its best to work out how you want to play and more importantly how you want to play with respect to each of the 4 moments of the game.

The 4 moments thing was something I first became aware of while on a coaching course where Mourinho was featured on a FIFA UEFA coaching licence video explaining his approach to tactics etc. In the interview i watched it was interesting to note that the most important thing for him was the immediate time around when possession was either won or lost. In a 30 minute interview he never once mentioned formations. I dont know if it was he who came up with the term but using it as a backbone for what i do has helped me a lot.

When you work through the 4 moments and your own playing model you start to become aware that any formation can be used to play any style of football as long as the player roles are clearly defined during the 4 moments.

John Barnes in a very recent interview said that for him formations are not the most important thing, when he played at Liverpool both Liverpool and Watford played 4-4-2 but both teams played completely differently.
Why would any coach explaining the details of tactics ever talk about formations?
 

Stack

Leave Women's Football Alone!!!
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
13,288
Location
Auckland New Zealand
From this interview http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/barnes-on-lfc-barca-future

If you had to design a new football philosophy for Liverpool, what would it look like?

[Laughs] How long have you got?! Well, first of all you have to decide what kind of football you want to play. It's such a comprehensive vision, it would take me so long to explain, you'd have to go through every position and go into detail on what is the requirement of this position - when the goalkeeper gets the ball, where should the full backs be? Where should the centre-halves be? Where do the midfield players go? You need to do that for every position and every different scenario that can arise in a game. Understanding the philosophy and the method is the most important thing. The workings of it will always be different. Graham Taylor, for example, his philosophy was a long ball game however everybody in their position knew exactly what was required from them.

Formations mean nothing. Look at 4-4-2 for example... Watford played 4-4-2 and Liverpool played 4-4-2 but the way they played it was completely different. It's more to do with the players understanding their role in that team for 90 minutes. Every time the ball is in a particular position on the pitch, where are the players? What position do they need to get into to be in the correct area on the pitch no matter what the circumstance is?

I've watched Brazil train and they go through this for hours and hours and hours. It's quite boring to watch but once you understand the method and you see it in action - as you do with Barcelona - it looks like they can play it with their eyes closed. It takes a long time to implement but once it's implemented and the players understand it, then what happens is you don't have to rely on players to do individual brilliant things to win you matches. Sometimes you need a moment of brilliance but for 99% of the time, it does work and if 99% of the time your philosophy works then you'll be happy
Ha, ha, ha.
 

peterstorey

Specialist In Failure
Joined
Nov 16, 2002
Messages
37,293
Location
'It's for the Arsenal and we're going to Wembley'
You're just re-emphasising that you're talking a level down - about tactics not strategy. (and you're not going top down). Formation and team shape is part of the strategic discussion. As I said before Wenger decided to move to possession-based football in 2006, this meant a change of shape and a recruitment/deployment of different kinds of player. After these considerations come the tactical minutiae of who does what and when, that you are on about.
 

Stack

Leave Women's Football Alone!!!
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
13,288
Location
Auckland New Zealand
John Barnes is just one of many ex players or coaches who have said similar. However saying John Barnes hasnt got a clue is pushing it a bit. The guy played for England and Liverpool during successful periods and during that time was coached and played under managers who had been in the game a long time. His experience and time as a professional player at the highest level and as a coach should indicate that he does have a clue. His lack of success coaching could be the result of a large number of reasons but his observations based upon many years at the top count.

Harry Rednapp has said similar but some people will dismiss his observations based on the fact they think he is a knob because of how he talks and his facial twitching....

George Best never won a world cup but it doesnt mean he didnt know what he was doing.

Back to the original thread though, unpopular football opinions.... mine being the average fan places too much importance of formations....

This thread gives you an idea of what i mean https://www.redcafe.net/f6/midfield-tactical-traditions-352780/
You were chattin a good bit of sense there but using John Barnes to backup an opinion is a bad idea. The man couldn't buy a clue.