http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/41775347 I know that we are not Manchester City, and will never have the players to be anything like Manchester City but there are some interesting things said in this piece about pass accuracy, keeping possession of the ball and passing even in defensive positions. The fact that the conclusion of the piece gives kudos to the Barnsley Academy is incidental.
Great to see his talent now being fully seen and appreciated. Southgate will still choose Smalling and Jones. Laughable really. But explains why England will never, ever, win any major senior trophies.
I hope that you will forgive me for returning to a topic that I found of interest a couple of days ago, albeit from a slightly different different direction. Unusually for the BBS, there has been a fair degree of general agreement about the need for a big man to be brought into our team, a target man as many would have it. In view of the fact that in the higher reaches of football, the game is no longer played like that, would a target man simply reinforce the inaccuracy of our build up play, the long ball game and our continued attachment to lower division football. In the end, isn't it more important to develop a way of playing the game that is compatible with the way that the game is played at the levels above us, rather than the levels below. There is a perceived need for a target man because the fans are sick of watching the ball sail over the heads of our forwards. The logic is that a big man would jump higher or have the strength to hold off his marker and his size would earn us a greater share of possession higher up the park. This is the logic of the old versions of 4-4-2. It is the type of football that the British game was based upon for many, many years. However, the logic has moved on for one very important reason. The system makes a lottery out of possession, and when possession is sacrificed in the top leagues, your team is not going to see the ball again for a very, very long time. Possession is far too important to subject it to the lottery of the long ball. Even when 4-4-2 is used in the modern game, it does not operate in the same way. As a result, the target man has largely disappeared from the higher levels of the modern game. Premier League clubs do not trust us with their youngsters for them to watch as the ball sails over their heads. They are with us for education and because we play the game in a modern way, and that education starts with being able to retain possession, even when the player with the ball is put under pressure. It means that all our players must be able to pass the ball accurately, even the defenders. Row Z or distance of clearance simply hand back possession to the opposition. We must be better at retaining possession right from our very first pass. Of course, the Oakwell faithful hate to watch the ball played sideways and backwards. Like all fans, they love penalty box action, and the quicker the ball gets into the opposition penalty area, the better they like it. This is not meant to be an essay in praise of negative football. Manchester City do not have a target man, but they are able to get from box to box quickly whilst playing football that is extremely pleasing on the eye . A couple of years before them, Leicester City dominated for a year with much less than 50% possession and no target man. Just why does everyone think that it is so important to have a target man. It is lazy thinking and lazy football. It allows a team to justify the long ball over the certainty of possession. It lets a team use the skills in midfield to draw their opponents out, pull a defence out of shape and create space. At the end of the day, chances are created when space is created and not merely through field position. Whether our players are sufficiently skilled to play the passing game is another question, but never assume that a target man is the answer either.
England will never win owt whilst picking over paid pampered players from prem they need to start looking from below prem some really good players in football league
Our John has just scored against Napoli , top lad who is having a great season & the silence form his critics is deafening !
On the subject of possession, last nights games in the championship which did not end in a draw saw 7 out of 9 games won by the team with the least possession .
We have a need for a "target man" as long as we play football as though we ought to have one. We are indeed sick of watching the ball lumped forwards and our "target man" being unable to hold it. Because we don't have anyone who can do what the tactics seem to be demanding. The target man doesn't need to be "big". Hendrie was a barn door, but he could hold it up. We would not at all be upset if we played it out of defence. It would be wonderful. We can stand it being played sideways and backwards if we retain possession prior to doing something with it. That is not what we do when we are under pressure. We regularly lump it. The top level game is not played by lumping it forward. But that is what we often do, to no effect. If we lump it forward, we need someone worthwhile to lump it to. It is "lazy" to lump it forward. But it's even more lazy not to have a hold up player to lump it forward to, if we continue to lump it.
On the subject of possession, in last nights Championship games 7 out of 9 winners had the least possession.
Your point is that we lump it, therefore we must have a target man. My point was that we need to stop lumping it and start playing through midfield. The problem that we both have is that we do not seem to have the players to play either way. I questioned the target man route on the grounds that it is reinforcing bad habits, it is taking us backwards and it will eventually ensure that the flow of promising youngsters from the Premier League dries up. My preferred route is much tougher, but I would argue that it has greater long term benefits provided we are able to recruit players with potential. It is not an easy choice, which is why I raised it for discussion.
Surely the best way is to be able to mix it up? Hence why Hecky wants us to be equally able to play 4-5-1 & 4-4-2 & he wanted 4 different strikers to vary it which worked last season. You’ve got to pretty exceptional to never lump it even Barca use the ball over the top for Suarez on occasion & I’d also say you’ve got to be pretty exceptional at it to keep grinding out wins by lumping it. I’ve never really understood why certain people only ever want us to play one formation, it just limits your options & makes you predictable which is something we can’t be when we’ve got a younger, more inexperienced & probably poorer team than most sides at our level.