Re: For anyone there tonight
Posted by jimmyp on 13/9/2017, 10:46:54, in reply to "Re: For anyone there tonight"
Which, at least you're acknowledging. My big problem with this is the why can't he see what we can all see argument. Well, it's pretty simple. No, there's not loads of width other than that provided from full-back. If you can see that, congratulations, you can see that a narrow formation doesn;t provide a lot of width other than from full-back. If you were expecting width, then the problem is with you. This goes on: |
If you then think that the thing that you can see is the problem because your ignorance and arrogance only allows you to think that the limit of possibilities is what you can cencieve then you'll believe that it's simply a matter of remedying the thing that you can see and everything else will fall into place. Which is absolutely fine as long as you're prepared for the possibility that every other variation is 10 times worse. The thing is, I don't believe that many of the tactical geniuses on here would acknowledge that they're in the privileged position of not having to prove that their brainwave wouldn't be an unmitigated disaster. Nor do I believe that any of them would hold their hands up should it actually happen.
Now, seriously, how much patience and confidence would anybody have if he tried formation after formation with varying blends of personnel with even limited success? He gets slaughtered for not playing a settled team as it is. And then if he does that, he hasn't got a plan b. Seriously, WTF.
With the best will in the world, these are fourth division players. The best thing he can do is have a plan that's reasonably simple to implement and drill it so that it's second-nature to the players and that the only real tactical challenge they need to confront is how to implement it against varying opposition. If he can blend in a plan b, that can be effected simply by changing personnel and the natural games of all involved takes care of the rest, even better.
It seems like half the divs on here, and elsewhere to be completely fair, think that it's possible to make complex tactical changes mid-game and then press the play button and watch them take effect. It's great when you're at home with a bottle of wine and a few jazz cigarettes and you can stop it again and change it all if you've conceded another inside five minutes.
When you're an actual manager and literally the only thing you can do is identify the one thing that can be changed - for the better - by putting bloke a on for bloke b and hoping that his natural propensity to do one or two particular things will elicit the required response from those around him, it's a little more difficult.
I've heard Villa fans complaining this morning about Steve Bruce 'standing there with his arms folded - doing nothing'. I guarantee that not one of them has imagined that he's thoroughly considered all of his available options and thought, well I can sort that out but that leaves this open and how that bloke's playing it'll get us murdered and I can do that but it'll stop that thing that's actually working for us once in a while, there's literally nothing I can do that isn't going to make it worse, I'll have to hope that they manage to sort it out. I'm no particular fan of Steve Bruce as a Manager, tbf, and I haven't seen that game either but the point stands. You can see something, well done, don't assume it's the only thing that could go wrong and therefore changing it would make everything lovely.
Besides, one comment is that Pelly drifted out to the left-wing and did nothing for a while. Maybe he was providing width, I've seen him do it from time to time and it's certainly not forbidden even when using a formation which is not designed to provide inherent width in midfield. So, who's right, the people who can see something or the people who can see something else in the same thing?
The diamond thing, like I say, is predominantly the preserve of those who are used to playing football a certain way and get confused into thinking that because we're not doing that and not winning 10-0 every game all we've got to do is that and we will.
I will accept that I'm wholly wrong of someone can name more than a handful of successful teams who regularly use an orthodox 4-4-2, right now. If only because I'm bored of arguing about it.
Phew. Bit of a rant, that.