Being one of the least respected and most reviled posters on here I feel I have to give my opinion the lack of success of the tactics we deploy.</p> 1. The two full backs have moved wide to recieve the ball. Colgan has the ball and hoofs it forward creating a 50-50 situation.The defence intercepts the ball and we are immediately pushed back onto defence. A long ball hoofed forward is easier for a defence to deal with than it is for the attack to capitalise on. 2. Colgan hoofs ball forward it goes stright to the other keeper or out of play for a goal kick. Question. Why dont we play the ball out from the back? When we do so the ball enters the attacking 3rd in our possession and not having to run round like headless chickens trying to win 50-50 balls. 3. When we have a goal kick why do we compress play ourselves by moving into one quarter of the field. Question. Why dont we spread out and create space in which we can play our passing game? Spreading out creates space. There were times today when both sides were just hoofing the ball to each other.It was like watching a very dull game of tennis. Why dont we get the ball down on the floor and play Football not skyball?
Having been a football fan 30 years and not claiming to be an expert but do'nt 99.99% of teams employ this tactic,i agree teams should be more inventive but it's not just a Richie tactic.
To be fair I thought Hayes won more balls in the air today than he has done all season- and Richards won his share.Our problem was not taking our chances. Regarding the tactic of using a quarter of the field at goal kicks baffles me too especially when we are one of the few teams that employ two wingers.
I agree up to a point.</p> A lot of teams in England play that way because they copy a team who are able to use those tactics successfully. Very few managers are inovative, in the UK there has been little tactical inovation since Ramsey stumbled upon 4-3-3. Managers tend to copy a particular style of play because it has worked for someone else.They take little consolation from the fact that for a tactic to be successful you have to have players who are skilled enough to carry it out. At Ipswich Ramsey won the Old Championship by pulling Jimmy Leadbeater a left winger into midfield.It took the opposition quite a while to work that tactic out which effectively took the opposing full back out of the game and gave Ipswich numerical superiority in midfield. Take the Dutch 4-3-3. They will play with two wide players/wingers and a central striker in England we would play with 3 strikers. I have asked managers and coaches why they play a particular style of play and not like the continentals who developed it. Some of the answers I have been given have had no thought behind them at all. Because so and so did and if it was good enough for him its good enough for me was a common answer. A lot of todays managers simply repeat what they themselves did when they were players. That results in tactical stagnation and the game does not move forward. <span style="font-style: italic;"> </span>
You're not reviled at all, you express an opinion, some may not agree, well, thats what this is all about, I happen to agree with most things you've said, but it must be said I've had a good rinse, ergo, I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone, apart from Mr Ritchie, who, as it happens is a complete bottler.
The dutch call it kick and rush ,they think thats how all british teams play.</p> I prefer to play it out from the back starting with a throw from the keeper to the wing/full backs, then keep possession while pushing the whole team up the pitch,then build from there.</p> Sometimes we panic on the ball because we don't know what to do with it, either that or its like an hot tatty and we hoof it without even looking up for a player,this in my opinion is wrong because.</p> 1. Its alot easier to play football when you keep the ball.</p> 2. There is less pressure when you are in the oppositions half.</p> 3. Leadership comes from play makers.</p> Ah! english boy....you play kick and rush ah, ha ha ha... </p>
To play from the back for 90 minutes you have to have players capable of passing the ball to feet and the strenghth to shield the ball from opposing players to keep possession.We lost the goal yesterday from a player losing the ball because he is incapable of doing either of the above.I think Richies substitutions in both the Bournemouth and yesterdays game were poor, in both games he changed things when we were on top.The Bournmouth game we were pressing for a goal,Nardiello comes on and the flow of the game was completely changed.Yesterday Shuker went off ,who was doing well defensively and down the wing,to be replaced by a lightweight who apart from one cross against Hartlepool has looked completely out of his depth.
Valid points But I think they apply to most British teams. Is it any coincidence that most good 'footballing' sides in the top division have a prevalence of foreign players? It's our coaching style to blame. I think it was Johann Cruyff who, when he came to England and saw our coaching methods, said something along the lines of: "How can you expect players to learn about football when they spend most of their time training without a ball at their feet?" He said that at most Dutch clubs, even the sprints and long distance runs are done with players having a football at their feet. It becomes second nature, whereas ours still look genuinely surprised when a ball appears next to them. No point being able to run all day if you don't know what to do when you actually get the ball.
