A Question about the modern game

Discussion in 'Bulletin Board ARCHIVE' started by Red Rain, Sep 9, 2015.

  1. Red

    Red Rain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wombwell
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Watching the England game last night, I was struck by how familiar the whole process seemed. Every manager in the game now knows the game backwards. They know what systems work and what systems don't work. They all know what to do if the opposition manager does x, and what to do if he does y. The players are coached to recognise the switches and triggers. There are players in certain positions that are allowed to express themselves, and players playing in positions that must play to a predefined plan. There is little that happens that is not according to a manager's pre-defined vision, little that is off the cuff. Maverick players, that is players who refuse to conform, who refuse to be a cog in the wheel, are avoided like the plague in favour of those who do not have the flair, but who can be relied upon to perform to a known level and follow the overall plan. It is not just England. It is not just Barnsley. It is the whole world that has built the game on plans and strategies that are strictly and religiously enforced. Why? Because that is how the Italian game and the German game allowed them to become world cup winners without them having the individually brilliant players that the Brazil team had. It is a type of game that sacrifices the individual in favour of the team. The end result when teams are similarly matched is stalemate. It is a game that has forgotten how to entertain, a game that has forgotten that it is individual brilliance that excites passion in those watching from the side lines. A game in which winning has become everything.

    Many on here mourn the passing of 4-4-2 and the demise the individual,l in the mould of Ronnie Glavin. Of the current crop, only Crowley has the potential to become the new Glavin, but I and many others criticise him for his individuality, for his lack of teamwork and his reluctance to work hard, particularly in defence. These were the trademarks of Glavin, but he was loved by Oakwell because he excited the crowd and he scored spectacular goals. You see, those who criticise Crowley recognise that the team is greater than the individual and that winning is more important in the modern game than entertaining. The few who continue to call for 4-4-2, but do so because they see it as a winning system, have failed to recognise this dichotomy in the modern game.

    My question to those that are still with me is this. Can the cycle be broken. Can football ever become what it once was. Can teams that contain players who display individuality and flair, often to the detriment of team work, ever become winning/successful teams. Can the game of football ever be rescued from coaches who advocate team work and systems as an antidote to skill and individuality. Can football ever become entertaining again, or is winning just too important now.
     
  2. Ext

    Extremely Northern Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    11,753
    Likes Received:
    1,949
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Professional Northerner.
    Location:
    Preparing for the 4th division
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Only when the fear of losing isn't as great as it is now - and that will mean the eradication of so much money focussed on the top league and the pressure that brings to stay in there and to get in there. Once that's gone and it's a meritocracy again, then the focus will change to winning rather than not losing.

    So not for a decade or 2 imho
     
  3. Sta

    Stahlrost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    21,320
    Likes Received:
    13,497
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    None
    Location:
    Dodworth
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley Dark
    No, not at our level at least. That's why I hardly go any more.

    I didn't know England were playing last night until I came across it by accident flicking channels. That's how bad it's got for me. Apparently the game was utter boring garbage too, confirming your point.
     
  4. Oxf

    Oxford Red Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Back in Tarn
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Really good post and poses some interesting (and depressing) questions.

    Like others have said, the cycle can only change if the fear of losing is reduced. For as long as money dictates the game and manager's job security remains at an all time low I don't think we can expect anything other than rigid, structured, dull football.

    The only exceptions seems to be cup competitions that don't mean a great deal (the Everton game for example was terrific entertainment)
     
  5. SuperTyke

    SuperTyke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    56,123
    Likes Received:
    30,384
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Change to 4 points for a win maybe? Reducing the benefit of grinding out nil nil draws could force teams to attack as the benefit would outweigh the risk
     
  6. MarioKempes

    MarioKempes Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Messages:
    40,155
    Likes Received:
    7,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Project Manager
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    As I recall that was the reason for going to three points for a win back in the '80s when we converted from two points to three points.
     
  7. Jimmy viz

    Jimmy viz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2012
    Messages:
    30,001
    Likes Received:
    19,553
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Ballet Dancer
    Location:
    Hiding under the bed
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Good post and one without an easy answer. Even changing to 4 points for a win could backfire making the fear of losing greater
     
  8. red

    red24/7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    6,793
    Likes Received:
    6,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    went to game with my nephew and was shouting for a player to take a player on and beat him, he plays for an under 14 academy side and went no you cant do that, you have to build up a certain way ,you don't understand, I thought what hope is there if a lad of his age as been brainwashed into structured play and is scared to be an individual
     
  9. RichK

    RichK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    30,007
    Likes Received:
    3,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    Extra point when you get 3 or more goals?
     
  10. red

    red24/7 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2015
    Messages:
    6,793
    Likes Received:
    6,839
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    the extra point for over 3 goals is dodgy, there would be a lot of games ending 5 - 4 etc, might as well start playing after you get to 3 - 3 and get extra point ,cynical old me but think it would happen at some point especially near end of season if 2 teams need points
     
  11. RichK

    RichK Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    30,007
    Likes Received:
    3,458
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley
    Winning by 3 goals then?
     
  12. blivy

    blivy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Messages:
    5,611
    Likes Received:
    1,148
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Manchester
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Decent idea, but I can't see a mediocre team risking their 1-0 lead in an attempt to score 2 more.
     
  13. Red

    Red Rain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wombwell
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    To summarise my original post, the lack of entertainment in the modern game has, in my view, arisen through the demise of the individual, which in turn has resulted from the sophistication of modern systems and coaching methods. Furthermore, winning has become more important than entertainment, although I suspect that winning teams would dispute that there is any difference between the two.

    In the replies so far, it has been suggested that money is the route of all evil. Although I abhor the divisions in the game that have arisen from the foundation of the Premier League, and hold Sky responsible for much that is wrong with the game, particularly in the Championship, I think that blaming Sky for the world wide absence of entertainment and individuality is not a link that I personally can make.

    Others have suggested that managers are cautious because they fear for their jobs, or that 3 points for a win is insufficient incentive. They have missed the point. The point is that the reason that managers have adopted the tactics, systems and coaching tricks is that world football has proved them to be the best way of winning football matches. I do not believe any manager goes into a game hoping for a draw. They all pick a team and tactics that give them the best chance to win the game given the strengths and weaknesses of both their team and the opposition. Furthermore, the pressure to win a game that the fans exert is but a fraction of the pressure that a coach put on himself. They have all been schooled in an environment where competition and the will to win is paramount. It is their raison d'etre. Fan pressure is more important in its effect on owners and directors.

    The game has been going for 150 years, or there abouts. Its rules have remained largely unchanged for about 100 years. After all that time, everything that can be learned about the game is now probably known. All the experimentation with systems and formations has been tried. The game is probably in long term decline because entertainment and flair is gradually being squeezed out of the game because team work and systems have won the war. Brazil's humiliation to the Netherlands in the last world cup may have been the final battle.

    I believe that the age of the game, and the fact that there is nothing new for its practitioners to discover that is the very reason for its decline. I believe that the only way to revive it is to change its rules and I will explain why.

    The principle reason for that the game is played in the way that it is, is the offside law. Offside enables the game to be condensed for the majority of the time into an area that is much smaller than the dimensions of the football field. In extremis, I have watched the great majority of some games take place in an area that is 25 metres either side of the half way line. When they are waiting for a goal kick, it is not unusual to see all 20 players confined within an area measuring 50 metres by 40 metres as they all gather on one side of the field. Twenty out field players confined in an area measuring 100 metres by 75 metres leaves plenty of room to play and for individuals to shine. Twenty out field players gathered in an area of 50 metres by 75 metres means that the game has departed from its original principles and dimensions, especially when one considers players fitness, speed and endurance as compared to 100 years ago, when the present offside law was devised.

    I believe that the game can be saved, but that the offside law must be changed in order to restore the balance between the team and the individual.
     
  14. Dja

    Django Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2013
    Messages:
    12,453
    Likes Received:
    9,658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    This post is exactly why I love watching Barcelona play. That front 3 is incredible & they're all what you'd describe as street footballers.

    Modern footballers seem to have flair coached out of them, the only ones that seem to have it are South Americans, Messi, Suarez, Neymar, Tevez, Sanchez, Aguero etc.
     
  15. Ome

    Omen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    7,600
    Likes Received:
    1,113
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    ive often thought that about the offside rule and two way were to either introduce another line on the edge of the semi circle on the box or the centre circle as the new point for offside balls played - but this would probably just have teams sitting there goal raking.

    Or another way could be a ball played from within the oppositions half or after a new line would always be onside.

    Its a difficult one but it could deffo do with a revamp.
     
  16. JLWBigLil

    JLWBigLil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    50,918
    Likes Received:
    33,084
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    We don't seem to want nor encourage home grown flair players in the modern game, which means any individual creativity on show is immediately criticised. Thus a great deal of football, although played at a much greater pace, is devoid of entertainment and extremely predictable. I don't doubt others hold differing opinions, perhaps even claiming their recollections are not only different but indisputably correct & not to be challenged.
    I've always enjoyed and appreciated the flair player far more than the athlete, the workhorse. Give me the colour of the artist over the automatons favoured in today's game. The fact that such players may not tackle back, run around like a headless chicken bothers me not one jot. I'm not interested in what they can't do, I simply appreciate what they can. Imagination, individuality above and beyond the team ethic & constraints from strictly adhered to formations and pre set plans appeals more to me. They provide the excitement, the entertainment, the ability to raise the spirit of the supporter, to get them out of their seat in anticipation of them providing artistry.
    All of which is why I have always rated the God that is Ronnie Glavin way above anyone else as being the greatest player I've ever seen play for Barnsley.
    This shows me I'm a footballing dinosaur, but I'm not ashamed, embarrassed or apologetic over it.
     
  17. Farnham_Red

    Farnham_Red Administrator Staff Member Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    34,559
    Likes Received:
    24,021
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Farnham
    Style:
    Barnsley
    I didnt watch last night - just couldnt be bothered which is something that would have been unthinkable a few years ago

    2 points made in this thread do give some food for thought though

    I like the idea of bonus points based on goals scored - either if you win by 3 clear goals or possibly every 10 goals scored gets a bonus point.

    I also like the idea of improving the offside rule - its a bit tricky though to do that without encouraging goal hanging - its a shame we cant have a rule that a player just moving into an offside position has a second of grace before he counts as offside - but I dont know how that could be policed. And easier one would be that a player offside when a ball is played who moves into an onside position before he interfers with play should be allowed but I dont think that would lead to more goals - just fewer offsides
     
  18. Red

    Red Rain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wombwell
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    As I have said above, the problem as I see it with the modern game is that the modern player is being asked to play within a playing area that was designed for players of a different age. If there was more space between the players in which to play, beating your marker would mean that the next man would have further to travel in order to close you down. Furthermore, there is more time and more space to pass the ball. The dimensions of the actual field of play, that is, that in which the game is played in rather than those defined by the touchlines, becomes larger and more suited to modern day levels of pace and fitness.

    But there still has to be an offside rule or we do not have a game. If you accept this principle, all that remains is how you define the offside rule. This my friends is the point to this thread.

    I propose that there be two off side areas. The first would be the penalty box. Players would be offside if they entered the opposition penalty box either

    a. Before a defender

    or

    b. Before the ball

    So the lines of the penalty box become the off side lines. This mean that the whole length of the field except the penalty boxes becomes the playing area. Automatically, this changes the game from a team game where one player is close enough to cover his teammate into a game of individual man marking, a game in which the importance of the individual is more important and the team less so.

    Of course, other changes would be necessary as a result. Corners would have to be taken from within a quadrant at the edge of the penalty area, otherwise the defending team would simply vacate the penalty area at corners taking the opposition attackers with them. A second change would be that there would be a need for a second offside area as defined by the 6 yard box. This would prevent opposition players obstructing the goalkeeper and would operate on the same simple rules as defined above.

    I would also change throw ins to indirect free kicks. This would also serve to extend the field of play meaning an end to crowding players around a throw in, and the seemingly endless series of throws down the line for players to head on to no-one in particular. It would also mean that players would be more reluctant to kick the ball out of play, resulting in the possibility of more mistakes/players being caught on the ball in dangerous areas.

    If nothing else, these changes would occupy the minds of those attempting to defeat them for the next 100 years, when it would be time for another change.

    I commend my proposals to the house.
     
  19. Oxf

    Oxford Red Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Back in Tarn
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    I don't think that the problem with modern day football is necessarily a lack of goals but rather a lack of entertainment.

    Let's take the example of when we played away at Man City a couple of years back. We were absolutely trounced that day in every area of football that could possibly be measured. Not just technical ability (where I suspected we would struggle) but pace, strength, conditioning, discipline, finishing, stewarding! Ground staff!!! We were beaten by a well oiled machine.

    Now I suppose that may have been the same in a comparative fixture 20 years ago. However, the way City took us to pieces that day didn't involve any flair or blistering runs, or 30 yard screamers or jinky midfield runs. Rather than that, they kept the ball from us throughout, suffocated us off the ball and starved us on it. It was reminiscent of plenty of Bayern or Barca (under Guardiola) matches in the Champions league, although perhaps they throw a bit of flair in with their forward players occasionally. Basically, it's the modern way of winning football matches. Not by playing wide open attacking football but by shutting the opposition down completely until the gaps appears and thus goals go in.

    Perhaps I'm becoming a grumpy old man and football wasn't really better when I was a lad. But Red Rains post has certainly stuck a chord with me. If it's not money, or managerial confidence or training methods to blame then it must be the influx of ruthless, leave nothing to chance efficiency.
     
  20. Red

    Red Rain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,811
    Likes Received:
    2,864
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Wombwell
    Home Page:
    Style:
    Barnsley (full width)
    Addendum

    I forgot to mention that offside would be reset by both the ball and all defenders leaving the relevant box.

    Also, offside is activated when the ball is passed, just like now, so carrying the ball into the box can never be offside.
     

Share This Page