Difficult to defend Johnson at the moment

Spot on this

 

I agree. But I will ridicule this because the names are f.cking funny.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

 

When I last had a season ticket int Ponty End, there was a bloke sat to the left of me who used to say with some regularity, "gerrit int mixer". I wonder if he'll now shout "gerrit int corridor of confusion". I can assure everyone that myself and Roy will NOT be using these scientific names in a humorous manner at Oakwell. Not at all.






















Not often anyway.

 

You're talking about physical exercise. I was talking about football. The presentation is clearly split in to two halves, the first deals with the tactics of football, the second with physical exercise and training. I've read much piss taking about the first half of the report, but nothing about the second. It was the first half of the report I was addressing, or rather, the reaction on here to it, and I say again, science has nothing to do with football. If you think the first half of the report is scientific then I'd be interested to know which bits you believe are and direct me to them.

 

The intial intro in the piece where the philosophy is outlined, it amused me. When I scrolled down and saw the diagram of the pitch, I pissed myself laughing at the names used, and the ridiculousness of it. The little spider diagram things were still amusing, but less so. The rest of it was boring.

It's not just us. The Oldham fans think it's hilarious. It's even on the Shrewsbury forum. I don't think any football supporter - especially of a certain age - could have looked at that diagram and resisted finding it amusing.

I also don't find anything in the first pieces that I've referred to (diagram, philosophy etc) that I'd deem scientific. But I hated science. The bunsen burner I always ended up with never ******* worked, and I never got to dissect a frog because I was excluded that week. I like science now though. Don't understand much about it, but it fascinates me. I also watched a Nathan Winder video on Player in pre season and really enjoyed it, I saw method in the 'madness'. But no, I can't read 'bomb alley' and 'corridor of confusion' and not laugh.

 

I find it funny too. I understand the reaction to it. My points has been that Johnson's squad were not the intended recipients of the presentation and that if you try to make something sound scientific that isn't, it ends up sounding like it does, which isn't good. I just don't want people to believe this is the way Johnson speaks to his players because it most certainly won't be.

 

I haven't looked at the link but I've seen the diagram on Facebook. Admittedly the names are bloody stupid but the areas actually make sense to me. Unfortunately every Barnsley manager in the last 15 years has been incapable of providing width (or is that access to bomb alley....)

One thing I don't agree on is that football is a simple game. If it was the majority of posts on this forum would be rendered useless.

 

They do. In the main. It's the names that have heralded the reaction. Human nature.

 

You try to kick the ball in the opposition's goal and stop them kicking it in to yours. You can't use your hands and you can't kick the opposition players. You can pick up the finer points as you go along but you tell people that and they'll quickly be able to play it.

People like to pontificate on it, myself included, but I believe that's because the game elicits a lot of passion, not because it's complicated.

 

Some of the lads I play with on a Monday night are intelligent people and really good athletes. They can control the ball, kick it, tackle. Terrible footballers though. They over commit, follow men across the pitch instead of passing them on, don't make the right runs. Does my head in. Just about get away with it on 7 a side but they'd be ripped to shreads at 11 a side. Admittedly all of these things in isolation are simple, but doing them all at once isn't. And that's before considering what the opposition might be doing to counteract your own game.

I'm a bit biased because I'm genuinely interested in tactics and take the point that in effect it's all pass and move but I don't think I'd enjoy the game if I thought it was simple.

 

I didn't say it was easy to be good at it. Tiddlywinks is as simple a game as you can imagine, but I can't get the bloody counters in the pot. I'm not much cop at the 100 metres either and that's just running in a straight line. To be good at football requires skill, pace, strength, stamina and speed of thought. You might get away without some of those in park football and still appear good, but you require them all at a professional level. Even the players who appear slow are fantastic athletes compared to the majority of us. But requiring a wide ranging skill set to be good at it doesn't mean it's a complicated game. The fact that it is so simple that anyone can play within seconds of being told the rules, and so accessible to people, requiring nothing more than a ball, is why it's so popular all over the planet.