5 comments

• 

  Django

  1 year ago

  A response to Gabriele Marcotti's article, perhaps?
  reply
• 

  The Gaffer

  1 year ago

  Django:
  
  It was definitely inspired by it. I read in his article a few days ago how he thought the Dutch were uninspiring and had finally been found out, but I couldn't disagree more.
  
  There was such a thin line between Holland winning and losing this past Saturday. If they had taken just one or two of their golden opportunities, everyone who have been extolling how wonderful the Dutch were. But having lost, everyone is saying "I told you so."
  
  Cheers,
  The Gaffer
  reply
• 

  Kartik

  1 year ago

  I met Donadoni a few times while he played in MLS and he was amazingly arrogant. I don't cry for him or Italia.
  
  This is a good piece. Players have to execute, which is why national team fans who continuously blame managers and we see all the instability in int'l management are so foolish and out to lunch.
  reply
• 

  Lonnie

  1 year ago

  Formations are not rigid either. Far too many people tend to think of it as foosball where they move in straight lines up and down the field. Certainly, players will tend to be found in certain areas more than others but players move and interchange positions throughout the match. I completely agree that formation is often mis-used in terms of discussing 'winning' football. The difference in games comes down to the one-on-one battles and other subtleties. Does a winger or forward know where to move when their team does not have the ball? Can a forward effectively find himself space by eluding his marker? Do the wingers track back to help move the ball out of their own end? Do the defenders push out of their own end effectively to support the attack? Can you deny time and space to the other team's playmaker? Are you going to man-mark or zonal defend on set-pieces? Is the ball movement in the final third precise? That was one thing that I thought was serverly lacking in the Spain-Italy game. Both teams were very poor around the opposition goal.
  
  If you actually were to map out a 'formation' during the middle of a game, its shape would depend on whether the team is on the attack or defending. When attacking it might resemble a 2-5-3 with your full-backs pushed up high and a couple of central midfielders sitting a little in front of the central defenders. When defending (and depending where the ball is on the field) it might resemble a 5-4-1 with one of the forwards tracking deep to help link the defense to the rest of the midfield. What I tend to look for more than how they might line up at kick-off, is what type of players are out there. Has the manager opted for two defensive midfielders? Is there a lone target man up front?
  
  What I've found useful has been the 'heat map' that I believe is on the Telegraph site after Premier League games. It gives a much richer understanding of where the players were during the match and where the key battles took place. No shock to say that midfield (around the centre circle) is more often than not the 'hottest' area on the pitch.
  
  I actually find it funny how often the TV coverage gets the 'formation' of the teams incorrect. The most recent example I can think of was in the Canada-St Vincent match where the Canadian broadcaster did not even have the defensive backline correct let alone the midfield/forwards. At least they had the goalkeeper in the right spot ! :)
  reply
• 

  Django

  1 year ago

  This reminded me of an interview with one of the Phoenix Suns (NBA) rookies who entered into a game early in the season...he expressed concern to one of his teammates that he didn't know the plays, and the teammate responded, "That's fine, we don't have any." As long as there was an understanding of the pace of play and each individual's responsibility was understood, the offense was free-flowing. A little more rigid in football, but I can definitely understand how an "end rather than means" position makes sense.
  reply