Ratings vs Everton

[Conando]

Has anyone considered that given the lack of attacking guile and gradually falling efforts off the ball under both managers, that this all might be down to the players?

Some of them appear to have the brain capacity of neanderthals, in my view defensively is where the manager does most of his work, as this is about positioning and application of a plan to win the ball back; whatever that may be.

Going forward you have to rely on the players themselves much more; the decision making when we have the ball is ponderous at best and the movement is stagnant. I think in most matches under either manager we often have great opportunities to create the chances we all desire, but they are wasted by indecision or a lack of awareness.

I think as a collective attacking force we are poor, and I think its as a result of the team selection (which is of course the manager's responsibility).

Given AVBs preference to the high-line and Sherwood vocals acknowledgement of the importance of pressure on the ball, do we really believe they don't coach the players to close down the opposition?

My main gripe is the way we start games, a "Blitzkrieg" approach would improve us dramatically, a high intensity, fast tempo start can have the game over and done with before half-time. Again; is the manager sending the players out to coast for 45 minutes?

 

[dudu]

That's the difference right there BC. You liked what you saw, I didn't. You believed we were building towards something and probably thought over time we'd be better in an attacking sense, whilst doing a lot of the other things well enough that afford you that right? Laying strong foundations and a good collective understanding from a defensive point of view. You obviously saw real merit in what his overall style of play and approach was trying to achieve.

I don't believe our attacking play would of improved over time that's why I felt it was the correct decision to let him go. You see it differently. No right or wrong here, just opinions of course.

I think it was also quite obvious in the demeanour of the players. They didn't believe in the system either, and thats why i don't think eventually it would have panned out.

I was a staunch supporter of Andre and his approach, i spoke up in his defence often as i could see the logic behind what he was doing and was looking forward to watching the team evolve.

We didn't though, we got progressively worse and worse at doing all the things he was trying to make us so good at.

I don't think we successfully played to his methodology once, even in the defensive or ball retentive ways that were positive early on in the season.

We looked much more like a Harry or Tim side towards the end and nothing like the team that dominated a half against Chelsea earlier on in the season.

 

[0-Tibsy-0]

Has anyone considered that given the lack of attacking guile and gradually falling efforts off the ball under both managers, that this all might be down to the players?

Some of them appear to have the brain capacity of neanderthals, in my view defensively is where the manager does most of his work, as this is about positioning and application of a plan to win the ball back; whatever that may be.

Going forward you have to rely on the players themselves much more; the decision making when we have the ball is ponderous at best and the movement is stagnant. I think in most matches under either manager we often have great opportunities to create the chances we all desire, but they are wasted by indecision or a lack of awareness.

I think as a collective attacking force we are poor, and I think its as a result of the team selection (which is of course the manager's responsibility).

Given AVBs preference to the high-line and Sherwood vocals acknowledgement of the importance of pressure on the ball, do we really believe they don't coach the players to close down the opposition?

My main gripe is the way we start games, a "Blitzkrieg" approach would improve us dramatically, a high intensity, fast tempo start can have the game over and done with before half-time. Again; is the manager sending the players out to coast for 45 minutes?

Blitzkrieg. Go!!

 

[Spursidol]

But I didn't want AVB sacked because I liked the methodology that I believe he was trying to indoctrinate

In short I recognised in his approach values which I have always believed are at the core of good football teams. Hard work, discipline, control of the ball, suffocation of the opposition. I have never subscribed to the lets win 4-3 approach.

A much more reasoned approach - thank you. IMO that's what I was expecting when AVB started.

As with all new regimes, I was prepared to give him time to get his ideas to work at Spurs.

However, just taking this season so far (then we do not get into an argument as to how much or little the Bale effect was), there seemed to be no improvement in the attacking ability of our sides over the course of this season.

Equally AVB's tactics, all tend to centralise Spurs attack - and opposition sides foiund that if they sat back tey could hit us on the counter attack whilst Spurs lack of attacking nous (less than a goal a game) made us very vulnerable. West Ham being one of the worst examples.

Some good things from AVB, but it was clear duimng this season that there was NO progress in sorting out the attack.

So footballwise, for me its the total lack of progress and the knowledge that opposing sides could and WERE seeing how they could counter AVB's tactics and beatr us easily which meant that AVB had to change or go.

No change so he had to go

I's suggest that all the ITK regarding him falling out with Baldini (who AVB was lobbying to get as DoF), Levy, Sherwood, Adebayor, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all was just another example of AVB's intransigence.

So overall AVB - Too intransigent to change, not admittting things were going wrong in major ways, so ultmately had to go. .

 

[ShelfSide18]

Has anyone considered that given the lack of attacking guile and gradually falling efforts off the ball under both managers, that this all might be down to the players?

Some of them appear to have the brain capacity of neanderthals, in my view defensively is where the manager does most of his work, as this is about positioning and application of a plan to win the ball back; whatever that may be.

Going forward you have to rely on the players themselves much more; the decision making when we have the ball is ponderous at best and the movement is stagnant. I think in most matches under either manager we often have great opportunities to create the chances we all desire, but they are wasted by indecision or a lack of awareness.

I think as a collective attacking force we are poor, and I think its as a result of the team selection (which is of course the manager's responsibility).

Given AVBs preference to the high-line and Sherwood vocals acknowledgement of the importance of pressure on the ball, do we really believe they don't coach the players to close down the opposition?

My main gripe is the way we start games, a "Blitzkrieg" approach would improve us dramatically, a high intensity, fast tempo start can have the game over and done with before half-time. Again; is the manager sending the players out to coast for 45 minutes?

Coaches should be working on attacking patterns with players, you can't rely just on the individual inspiration of players all of the time - the coach provides the framework, players add the inspiration.

For me it's about the balance between the 'script' you give the players, and how much room for ad libbing you give them. In my opinion, Redknapp had no script, no real framework, but he had an incredible group of players, who even then had the ability to look entirely lost on occasions, but when they got it together it could be phenomenal.

I'm forming the conclusion that AVB maybe gave them too much of a script to work from, hence the football looked mechanical and methodical - I don't buy that he was teaching us to be defensive and ultra cautious at all, he wanted us to attack, he just got the balance wrong between mechanised football and individual inspiration, and the lack of tempo and change of tempo meant these patterns weren't executed correctly, or more to the point, we hadn't moved the opposition around the pitch well enough to execute them well.

I think this quote from Marcelo Bielsa sums it up brilliantly...

“Totally mechanized teams are useless, because they get lost when they lose their script. But I also don’t like ones that only rely on the inspiration of their soloists, because when God doesn’t turn them on, they are left totally at the mercy of their opponents.”

You take a couple of goals we scored early season, Siggy against Chelsea and Norwich, and they were remarkably similar in execution, they seemed to me like a determined pattern of play, the quick ball in to the CF who combines with a midfield runner - we tried this quite a lot if anyone remembers. You practice these patterns so that players play automatically when they are given that same situation in a game, they realise 'I've been here before', many, many times over in training - I move here, he moves there, when he moves over there I play here. That's the script, but players must of course use their own decision making and quick thinking, because not every single situation in the game will mirror the training environment - you're just trying to give players situations that they recognise and in theory, react quicker too.

As for the pressing, no coach in the world would want their team to not put some amount of pressure on the ball - but wanting it to happen and coaching it is a different thing entirely, whether you want a low/middle/high press, and how you want to execute the pressing - what triggers you want the players to work off and where, when and how you want to recover the ball. Sherwood can talk about wanting to press all he wants, but if the players aren't doing it then you need to either coach them better, or get rid of the players if they just won't follow instructions and get in players who will.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Im actually with you and i loved the methodical approach - it just want right and the players demeanour showed that. Ultimately his methodology cost us games because of its implementation.

The Everton game was no fun for anyone - i don't even think they enjoyed it - it was a midfield battle - 94 collective attempted tackles - and a fixture we've muddled through without a win more often than not in recent years.

AS for the 4-3 thing - we've only conceded more than 1 in 2 of the 9 league games no?

See, I think his methodology won us games that our collective individual ability wouldn't have done. Neither of us can prove our theories.

I don't agree that the demeanour of the players demonstrated that the approach was wrong.

And I also don't believe you chose players over a system anyway. If they can't grasp simple methods like working coherently, a collective ethic, then you replace them, not the system, providing you believe in the system of course. I still did at the time of his sacking. And as arsenal have proved (and Sherwood against ManC) subsequently Liverpool are capable of doing that. And arsenal didn't have 10 men for three of the goals.

 

[Conando]

Coaches should be working on attacking patterns with players, you can't rely just on the individual inspiration of players all of the time - the coach provides the framework, players add the inspiration.

For me it's about the balance between the 'script' you give the players, and how much room for ad libbing you give them. In my opinion, Redknapp had no script, no real framework, but he had an incredible group of players, who even then had the ability to look entirely lost on occasions, but when they got it together it could be phenomenal.

I'm forming the conclusion that AVB maybe gave them too much of a script to work from, hence the football looked mechanical and methodical - I don't buy that he was teaching us to be defensive and ultra cautious at all, he wanted us to attack, he just got the balance wrong between mechanised football and individual inspiration, and the lack of tempo and change of tempo meant these patterns weren't executed correctly, or more to the point, we hadn't moved the opposition around the pitch well enough to execute them well.

I think this quote from Marcelo Bielsa sums it up brilliantly...

“Totally mechanized teams are useless, because they get lost when they lose their script. But I also don’t like ones that only rely on the inspiration of their soloists, because when God doesn’t turn them on, they are left totally at the mercy of their opponents.”

You take a couple of goals we scored early season, Siggy against Chelsea and Norwich, and they were remarkably similar in execution, they seemed to me like a determined pattern of play, the quick ball in to the CF who combines with a midfield runner - we tried this quite a lot if anyone remembers. You practice these patterns so that players play automatically when they are given that same situation in a game, they realise 'I've been here before', many, many times over in training - I move here, he moves there, when he moves over there I play here. That's the script, but players must of course use their own decision making and quick thinking, because not every single situation in the game will mirror the training environment - you're just trying to give players situations that they recognise and in theory, react quicker too.

As for the pressing, no coach in the world would want their team to not put some amount of pressure on the ball - but wanting it to happen and coaching it is a different thing entirely, whether you want a low/middle/high press, and how you want to execute the pressing - what triggers you want the players to work off and where, when and how you want to recover the ball. Sherwood can talk about wanting to press all he wants, but if the players aren't doing it then you need to either coach them better, or get rid of the players if they just won't follow instructions and get in players who will.

Great post!

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that there was no coaching in an attacking sense or advocating that there shouldn't be, simply that attacking relies much more heavily on the individual intelligence and ability of the players. Rodgers' Swansea & Liverpool would be a good example.

 

[Mr Pink]

Coaches should be working on attacking patterns with players, you can't rely just on the individual inspiration of players all of the time - the coach provides the framework, players add the inspiration.

For me it's about the balance between the 'script' you give the players, and how much room for ad libbing you give them. In my opinion, Redknapp had no script, no real framework, but he had an incredible group of players, who even then had the ability to look entirely lost on occasions, but when they got it together it could be phenomenal.

I'm forming the conclusion that AVB maybe gave them too much of a script to work from, hence the football looked mechanical and methodical - I don't buy that he was teaching us to be defensive and ultra cautious at all, he wanted us to attack, he just got the balance wrong between mechanised football and individual inspiration,
I think this quote from Marcelo Bielsa sums it up brilliantly...

“Totally mechanized teams are useless, because they get lost when they lose their script. But I also don’t like ones that only rely on the inspiration of their soloists, because when God doesn’t turn them on, they are left totally at the mercy of their opponents.”

You take a couple of goals we scored early season, Siggy against Chelsea and Norwich, and they were remarkably similar in execution, they seemed to me like a determined pattern of play, the quick ball in to the CF who combines with a midfield runner - we tried this quite a lot if anyone remembers. You practice these patterns so that players play automatically when they are given that same situation in a game, they realise 'I've been here before', many, many times over in training - I move here, he moves there, when he moves over there I play here. That's the script, but players must of course use their own decision making and quick thinking, because not every single situation in the game will mirror the training environment - you're just trying to give players situations that they recognise and in theory, react quicker too.

As for the pressing, no coach in the world would want their team to not put some amount of pressure on the ball - but wanting it to happen and coaching it is a different thing entirely, whether you want a low/middle/high press, and how you want to execute the pressing - what triggers you want the players to work off and where, when and how you want to recover the ball. Sherwood can talk about wanting to press all he wants, but if the players aren't doing it then you need to either coach them better, or get rid of the players if they just won't follow instructions and get in players who will.

Good post mate. Tend to agree with most of it but your third paragraph is really attacking the heart of the issue under AVB and in particular this line:

'and the lack of tempo and change of tempo meant these patterns weren't executed correctly, or more to the point, we hadn't moved the opposition around the pitch well enough to execute them well.'

I never, ever felt we had a change of pace to our attacking play this season under AVB. It always felt we were always playing at the same speed...our movement and passing etc, which makes it easier to defend against.

Obviously last season Bale stuck out like a sort thumb in terms of having a change of pace to our attack from an individual point of view, but even then it felt exactly the same ie had Bale not been on the pitch it would of been the same as this season.

Like you say, AVB obviously didn't want us to be this impotent in attack but whilst he couldn't affect this too dramatically this season by getting rid of players and bringing news ones in who could - he still wouldn't alter something that clearly wasn't working as the current group couldn't execute it to the extent that it needed to be.

Perhaps he felt his hands were too tied in terms of the 'Committee' and getting in the players he needed to execute his on the field vision more effectively.

We'll never know the full extent of that anyway.

 

[ShelfSide18]

Great post!

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that there was no coaching in an attacking sense or advocating that there shouldn't be, simply that attacking relies much more heavily on the individual intelligence and ability of the players. Rodgers' Swansea & Liverpool would be a good example.

Of course yes I agree, it helps when you have players with intelligence and craft who see things quicker, who can unlock defences, beat a player etc - you absolutely need this, but give them a framework to work from and it can multiply their talents. You take City right now - Silva/Toure/Aguero are great players who undoubtedly would still come up with the goods if left alone to figure if out for themselves, but when they know exactly where the other is likely to be, where they've been coached to be, then you have the potential for perfection.

I watched them rotate against us, it was clearly planned - When Silva drifted into the left channel, Navas would come off the right into the channel to create 4 central midfielders in a box around our 2/3, if Silva drifted into the right channel (where he set up Aguero for the 1st), Dzeko dropped into the left channel and Navas would stay wide right. They did this time and again and it was this planned rotation that consistently overloaded our CM. Liverpool have a similar rotation pattern under Rodgers too.

Ultimately your better players will make your framework better, and often is the case better players without a framework can still, by their individual talents, beat a team of lesser players with more of a framework. Nirvana is when you have the best players and a system that multiplies their talents.

 

[ShelfSide18]

Good post mate. Tend to agree with most of it but your third paragraph is really attacking the heart of the issue under AVB and in particular this line:

'and the lack of tempo and change of tempo meant these patterns weren't executed correctly, or more to the point, we hadn't moved the opposition around the pitch well enough to execute them well.'

I never, ever felt we had a change of pace to our attacking play this season under AVB. It always felt we were always playing at the same speed...our movement and passing etc, which makes it easier to defend against.

Obviously last season Bale stuck out like a sort thumb in terms of having a change of pace to our attack from an individual point of view, but even then it felt exactly the same ie had Bale not been on the pitch it would of been the same as this season.

Like you say, AVB obviously didn't want us to be this impotent in attack but whilst he couldn't affect this too dramatically this season by getting rid of players and bringing news ones in who could - he still wouldn't alter something that clearly wasn't working as the current group couldn't execute it to the extent that it needed to be.

Perhaps he felt his hands were too tied in terms of the 'Committee' and getting in the players he needed to execute his on the field vision more effectively.

We'll never know the full extent of that anyway.

We'll never know, we can only speculate.

But last season he had to ride the crest of the Bale wave and we also had a lot of new signings to integrate too (Dembele/Dempsey/Siggy/Verthongen/Lloris/Holtby) which always takes time to sync up. Then the Bale wave left for sunnier climes, we bought in another shedload of players and people are surprised we didn't take off like concorde?

Undoubtedly AVB didn't get everything right, but the 2 seasons he had there was not a great deal of continuity at all in terms of personnel, he had 2 new squads and one of them had a player whose improvement into a fucking world superstar meant he had to maybe compromise on his philosophy a little to get the very best out of him.

Wenger was spot on when he said integrating 7 new players was only going to end one way, we were just too enthralled by all our shiny new toys to realise he was spot on.

 

[Mr Pink]

We'll never know, we can only speculate.

But last season he had to ride the crest of the Bale wave and we also had a lot of new signings to integrate too (Dembele/Dempsey/Siggy/Verthongen/Lloris/Holtby) which always takes time to sync up. Then the Bale wave left for sunnier climes, we bought in another shedload of players and people are surprised we didn't take off like concorde?

Undoubtedly AVB didn't get everything right, but the 2 seasons he had there was not a great deal of continuity at all in terms of personnel, he had 2 new squads and one of them had a player whose improvement into a fucking world superstar meant he had to maybe compromise on his philosophy a little to get the very best out of him.

Wenger was spot on when he said integrating 7 new players was only going to end one way, we were just too enthralled by all our shiny new toys to realise he was spot on.

Yes, its far from ideal but my point still stands IMO.

If we could of seen an improvement with regards to our attacking play I would of been prepared to give him more time given the defensive solidity we had achieved, even though I think that's inadvertently linked to our attacking problems! I would of accepted and understood he needed more time to get a better balance.

I just didn't see enough and although Wenger was correct in pointing that out, ultimately I think the problem with our collective attacking play compounded the integration of new signings.

Playing so slowly in possession was always going to be difficult in terms of the new faces, and existing ones, in terms of learning from one another ie passing and moving instincts etc

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Coaches should be working on attacking patterns with players, you can't rely just on the individual inspiration of players all of the time - the coach provides the framework, players add the inspiration.

For me it's about the balance between the 'script' you give the players, and how much room for ad libbing you give them. In my opinion, Redknapp had no script, no real framework, but he had an incredible group of players, who even then had the ability to look entirely lost on occasions, but when they got it together it could be phenomenal.

I'm forming the conclusion that AVB maybe gave them too much of a script to work from, hence the football looked mechanical and methodical - I don't buy that he was teaching us to be defensive and ultra cautious at all, he wanted us to attack, he just got the balance wrong between mechanised football and individual inspiration, and the lack of tempo and change of tempo meant these patterns weren't executed correctly, or more to the point, we hadn't moved the opposition around the pitch well enough to execute them well.

I think this quote from Marcelo Bielsa sums it up brilliantly...

“Totally mechanized teams are useless, because they get lost when they lose their script. But I also don’t like ones that only rely on the inspiration of their soloists, because when God doesn’t turn them on, they are left totally at the mercy of their opponents.”

You take a couple of goals we scored early season, Siggy against Chelsea and Norwich, and they were remarkably similar in execution, they seemed to me like a determined pattern of play, the quick ball in to the CF who combines with a midfield runner - we tried this quite a lot if anyone remembers. You practice these patterns so that players play automatically when they are given that same situation in a game, they realise 'I've been here before', many, many times over in training - I move here, he moves there, when he moves over there I play here. That's the script, but players must of course use their own decision making and quick thinking, because not every single situation in the game will mirror the training environment - you're just trying to give players situations that they recognise and in theory, react quicker too.

As for the pressing, no coach in the world would want their team to not put some amount of pressure on the ball - but wanting it to happen and coaching it is a different thing entirely, whether you want a low/middle/high press, and how you want to execute the pressing - what triggers you want the players to work off and where, when and how you want to recover the ball. Sherwood can talk about wanting to press all he wants, but if the players aren't doing it then you need to either coach them better, or get rid of the players if they just won't follow instructions and get in players who will.

Very much like your post, love the Bielsa quote, but do you not think the biggest problem, and a problem also showing up under Sherwood in most games (including the last 4) is the lack of collective wit/intelligence/finesse (or inspirational wit) in our team. Bale didn't look like he was suffering from over mechanisation, under AVB his talent was enhanced. Townsend didn't look like he was waring a straightjacket this season (looked more like he needed one at times).

I watched Walker get into an identical position about 5 times on Sunday and the outcome was staggeringly similar each and every time. Hit the first defender. Rose is the same. Isn't the truth that we still struggle to buy the type of player that combines intelligence and ability and the right mentality ?

My biggest criticism of AVb was that he made selections that didn't help his own system. Why the hell bring Lennon into a side lacking wit when you have 30m Lamela needing to bed in. Why drop Chiriches and play Dawson in a high line against Aguero. Chiriches might not have stopped him scoring but I don't understand the logic. Again, why pick Dempsey to play behind the striker when you have Sigurdsson (tough call but still Sigurdsson every time for me). Eriksen had one poor game and was dropped (then injured).

AVB seemed to shoot himself up the arse with his selections sometimes it seems to me. Lowering the "wit quota" voluntarily.

 

[Mr Pink]

Agree with you on Walker BC. You're right it was at least 5 times on Sunday, at least. Every cross resulted in the same outcome.

Did well for the goal mind.

 

[Legend10]

Of course yes I agree, it helps when you have players with intelligence and craft who see things quicker, who can unlock defences, beat a player etc - you absolutely need this, but give them a framework to work from and it can multiply their talents. You take City right now - Silva/Toure/Aguero are great players who undoubtedly would still come up with the goods if left alone to figure if out for themselves, but when they know exactly where the other is likely to be, where they've been coached to be, then you have the potential for perfection.

I watched them rotate against us, it was clearly planned - When Silva drifted into the left channel, Navas would come off the right into the channel to create 4 central midfielders in a box around our 2/3, if Silva drifted into the right channel (where he set up Aguero for the 1st), Dzeko dropped into the left channel and Navas would stay wide right. They did this time and again and it was this planned rotation that consistently overloaded our CM. Liverpool have a similar rotation pattern under Rodgers too.

Ultimately your better players will make your framework better, and often is the case better players without a framework can still, by their individual talents, beat a team of lesser players with more of a framework. Nirvana is when you have the best players and a system that multiplies their talents.

Most of what your talking about there is purely instinctive to good players, believe it or not the best players aren't constantly thinking about what they've been told in training during a game. There is no way Aguero is coached to be or told to be anywhere at any given time it's simply not true. All teams are drilled with patterns of play, this is true but no manager worth his salt would be saying to Aguero and when he has the ball here and when he runs there then you must go there, would be ridiculous for so many reasons, not least of which you don't know how the opposition are going to be set at any given time or where the space maybe or may suddenly appear or what error may be made by either side.

A top top players brain is working overtime like a computer, constantly reassessing, re-evaluating, all happening in split seconds whilst he's on the move or even in possession. You don't robot players, especially extremely talented ones like Aguero, that is the fullest form of over-coaching. Yes there are structures, shapes and patterns, of course there are but this is a fast game of fluid motion and not American Football. The picture is constantly changing, the shape is constantly changing.

The best sides are the ones with the best players, there's a reason for that and there's a reason that they're the best players. Technical ability is part but it's the way they constantly assess and react that makes them the best and makes the best teams the best teams. Contrary to what is often said it doesn't mean other top flight players lack intelligence, in fact far from it, you won't find many top flight footballers who don't have a good footballing brain because if they didn't they would be hopelessly exploited, even if they have excellent physical capabilities.

Let's go back to Aguero and ask a very simple question, does anybody think Pelligrini, Brian Kidd or any other coach at Manchester City knows how to play as a front man or off the front better than a player of Aguero's natural talent and with his instinctive football brain does? Not a chance do they, they don't even come close to it! Now undoubtedly they will tell Aguero to do certain things and carry out certain duties but then they know not to say you then go here and you then do that and when he goes here you run there would just be ludicrous and would very quickly turn a player so so difficult to defend against into one that would become predictable and far easier to control. We are talking about Aguero here who is in my opinion the best payer in the Premiership, i'd definitely take him over Suarez, i just think he has a bit extra. This is a player that you give basic instructions and duties to and then tell to go and destroy the opposition, to control his movement, where to run and when to run would be over-coaching in its worst form and something that players in this country are suffering from and have been for years.

There's too much talk for me about coaches and managers, they provide structures, shapes and systems that aren't actually that difficult to do. There's nothing genius about playing a holding midfield payer or 2 holding midfield players or 2 wingers or 1 up or 2 up, they are all just systems. Sure you can set up to block out danger players or play high or anything else you want to talk about, none of it is difficult, none of it.

Mourinho isn't a tactical genius, he doesn't ask his team to play any way that any other manager or coach couldn't do. 2 massively important things about Mourinho. 1) He has always for the last 10 years had one of the best groups of players, no disrespect meant by that, in fact it's credit because he can spot a player and that is one of the if not the most important job of any manager, knowing which players are good enough to achieve their objective. 2) Mourinho & Ferguson as well are brilliant psychologists, they know exactly what to do to get the very best out of every single player, and trust me it isn't telling them to run here when he runs there and he drifts of his wing to there! They make their teams mentally tougher and more determined than anybody else and then with good structure, good shape and the best players they let them go and deliver.

Over-coaching and poor coaching can kill the potential of any team, to remove empowerment and expression from a game of rapid fluidity and ever changing situations is a hindrance that can destroy a teams very potential, it will make it mechanical, robotic, very predictable and will ultimately destroy its ability and confidence.

Football isn't chess, it isn't American Football either, it's a moving picture and in a moving picture you need to be aware of your responsibilities but also be empowered to act upon the picture as it develops.

I like what Sherwood says when he says they're just systems nothing else, nothing tactically amazing, i agree with him 100% when he says you see the danger you shuffle, you see the space you close it, players responsibility, bang on the money! He hasn't got us functioning off the ball well enough yet and he hasn't got us blocking out space well enough yet, but it's hardly like he doesn't know it. He's mentioned it time and time again, players need to show responsibility, he picks the team (right or wrong players, right or wrong formation, right or wrong set up) we can all have a view on that, but he's not the one who can't pass a ball 10 yards, or lets his man run off him, or loses concentration. To my mind he's trying to give this team a platform, remove its inability to express itself and find its belief and confidence again, and if the price is a few bad performances, a few bad results, people questioning his tactics and supposed lack of coaching then i hope he has the balls to say bollocks i don't care what they think!

 

[dudu]

See, I think his methodology won us games that our collective individual ability wouldn't have done. Neither of us can prove our theories.

I don't agree that the demeanour of the players demonstrated that the approach was wrong.

And I also don't believe you chose players over a system anyway. If they can't grasp simple methods like working coherently, a collective ethic, then you replace them, not the system, providing you believe in the system of course. I still did at the time of his sacking. And as arsenal have proved (and Sherwood against ManC) subsequently Liverpool are capable of doing that. And arsenal didn't have 10 men for three of the goals.

We still can't even be certain the he was implementing the system in a correct way.

What do you do if the system is right but the man teaching it isn't the right one or experienced enough for the job considering all the factors in play here.

If what you're saying is correct, and i do believe it is.... if the system is good (that is to say the system and methodology i think is a great way to approach the game and will work if implemented properly) and it doesn't matter what players you put in there if you coach the system correctly, then the problem had to be the coach unless I'm missing something here.

I think it was much more promising early on this season when at least we could see it working at the back. In the latter stages where we were being taken to pieces by Fulham and Sunderland as well as Man City and Liverpool i think it was clear that he was, by no fault of his own, in a little bit too in over his head.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

We still can't even be certain the he was implementing the system in a correct way.

What do you do if the system is right but the man teaching it isn't the right one or experienced enough for the job considering all the factors in play here.

If what you're saying is correct, and i do believe it is.... if the system is good (that is to say the system and methodology i think is a great way to approach the game and will work if implemented properly) and it doesn't matter what players you put in there if you coach the system correctly, then the problem had to be the coach unless I'm missing something here.

I think it was much more promising early on this season when at least we could see it working at the back. In the latter stages where we were being taken to pieces by Fulham and Sunderland as well as Man City and Liverpool i think it was clear that he was, by no fault of his own, in a little bit too in over his head.

Liverpool and ManC have taken apart better teams than us, ManC also repeated the feat at our place well after AVB's departure too. I don't think the Sunderland game was like that at all, they scored dith virtually their first trip into our half. We played well that day i believe.

I don't know about the right method /wrong teacher theory, time might have told us more, and I would have happily given him that time under the circumstances, not panic and undo it all.

 

[Mr Pink]

Liverpool and ManC have taken apart better teams than us, ManC also repeated the feat at our place well after AVB's departure too. I don't think the Sunderland game was like that at all, they scored dith virtually their first trip into our half. We played well that day i believe.

I don't know about the right method /wrong teacher theory, time might have told us more, and I would have happily given him that time under the circumstances, not panic and undo it all.

We were very poor in the first half against Sunderland IIRC. Significantly better in the second though.

 

[dudu]

Liverpool and ManC have taken apart better teams than us, ManC also repeated the feat at our place well after AVB's departure too. I don't think the Sunderland game was like that at all, they scored dith virtually their first trip into our half. We played well that day i believe.

I don't know about the right method /wrong teacher theory, time might have told us more, and I would have happily given him that time under the circumstances, not panic and undo it all.

I think time certainly showed us he was struggling with the amount of new players at his disposal and he didn't get on with the one player who's individual brilliance could have made a significant difference to some of the games we struggled to win and sometimes didn't.

Part of me was intrigued to see what would happen but part of me also felt completely bewildered by what was going on and the lack of improvement we were seeing in a system Andre had been working on for 18 months.

And you're right, we didn't get battered Vs sunderland and we did play well but we certainly were not solid at the back. We were unlucky not to score more but sunderland could have had a few too.

We will never know what would have happened.....guess we just have to jump on this ride and i am willing to give the current guy in charge at least a third of the already short amount of time the previous coach had to prove himself.

 

[Stavrogin]

We still can't even be certain the he was implementing the system in a correct way.

What do you do if the system is right but the man teaching it isn't the right one or experienced enough for the job considering all the factors in play here.

If what you're saying is correct, and i do believe it is.... if the system is good (that is to say the system and methodology i think is a great way to approach the game and will work if implemented properly) and it doesn't matter what players you put in there if you coach the system correctly, then the problem had to be the coach unless I'm missing something here.

I think it was much more promising early on this season when at least we could see it working at the back. In the latter stages where we were being taken to pieces by Fulham and Sunderland as well as Man City and Liverpool i think it was clear that he was, by no fault of his own, in a little bit too in over his head.

But we know he wasn't implementing the system. Everything we saw was evidence of that failure. I don't understand how so many people are conflating the unfortunate failure of Villas Boas' efforts with a 'system'. No one is going to come out and say that we were close to getting things right, nor is anyone going to come out and genuinely say they enjoyed or had faith in his 'system' - because it was so far from being a reality... it's not even a topic that will come up.

Where was the evidence of his system? Even the high line - a straightforward tactic - was not really very effective. What formation or lineup conveyed the system? Which players exemplified it? We had so many players, he had so much time, yet there was nothing concrete. Even Ramos left Redknapp with slimmer, sprightlier players.

 

[dudu]

But we know he wasn't implementing the system. Everything we saw was evidence of that failure. I don't understand how so many people are conflating the unfortunate failure of Villas Boas' efforts with a 'system'. No one is going to come out and say that we were close to getting things right, nor is anyone going to come out and genuinely say they enjoyed or had faith in his 'system' - because it was so far from being a reality... it's not even a topic that will come up.

Where was the evidence of his system? Even the high line - a straightforward tactic - was not really very effective. What formation or lineup conveyed the system? Which players exemplified it? We had so many players, he had so much time, yet there was nothing concrete. Even Ramos left Redknapp with slimmer, sprightlier players.

There were genuinely moments that i can say i enjoyed this season under AVB. First half Chelsea, Second half Newcastle, Swansea, Norwich. You're right though, i didn't see a player exemplifying anything. Flashes but nothing consistent from anyone.