In this era of social media where you can see so many analysis online. There is this obsession on tactic. It is as if tactic is the everything. But as alonso say

Most of the time tactic is never the main thing. 

I will give you an example of our game vs arse. I have this screenshot ready a while ago to analzye our defensive problem. 

1st arse goal. 

We have seen this shape before. 325 narrow build up vs 424 narrow defending. 

This is a common idea facing narrow build up system. Block the middle and force your opp to build from the wide area and squeeze them into one side. 

Gallagher press white, the ball goes to odegaard, good track back by Mudryk but look at the space that Saka has. Cucu need to be very tight with him. You can also see Partey who is free. 

Caicedo need to press Saka straight away. Talking about Partey, you can see that he is no longer free,  Gallagher is already back marking Partey yet everyone question why poch keep picking Conor. 

But the next sequence is a mistake by Conor, good back door from Partey to escape from Conor. 

Good movement by Kai. But look at Madueke, he is still stuck on tomiyasu. He never look at rice throughout the whole sequence. We all knew what next and Petrovic should have saved it. 

As you can see after the 1st paragraph, I have stopped talking about tactic and system. It was all about do you understand where the danger , where the space, what angle do I have press, is my man left footer/right footer, do I need to push up, do I need to drop,etc. It is no longer 325 vs 424, it is extemely dynamic 1v 2, 2 v 2, 3 v 3. Everything keep changing in real time and this happen on both side of the game. Arse player is doing the same thing, where is the space, how can I help the ball carrier, should I drop back to give passing option or run forward to give him more space, etc. 

This is where you combine everything. Coaching, player skill, effort, tactical understanding, etc. If Gallagher didn't put the effort to run back and cover Partey, it was 3v4 instead of 4v4.  If Cucu has better defending skill he won't lose Saka. If Madueke has better sense of danger and put more effort or if he is kante, rice won't be free. 

This is far more important than inverted fb, false 9, 343 because as alonso said the main thing is how the player interpret and react to his situation. 

Manager through drill/video/conversation try to improve and influence how player see the game but it is not easy. It is a two way street. As Arteta has proven it is so much easier to replace holding with Saliba than to improve holding 😁😁😁

 

 

Bonus analysis 

Enzo defensively is 🫣🫣🫣🫣

I saw this sequence. Enzo see Partey and odegaard and he goes to press, that is not a problem but the idea to press is to make it difficult for Partey to pass forward to ode and push him left where he has help

Enzo 🫣🫣🫣 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is definetly a blend, I have mentioned elsewhere that this obsession with tactical battles has got out of hand, with microanalysis of every facet of the game. 

My personal opinion is that a teams structure and tactical direction is simply the framework to support individual play. If the framework is weak, it won't support those that need support. Some players will still be capable of performing in this framework, but its not ideal. 

However, if the framework is strong, all within it are supported and elevated to a level that their decision making is enhanced by security and comfort. Like City for example, there is a clear confidence in the ideas that Pep has installed, both in how they counterpress after losing the ball but also the instructions of players to provide options for the player on the ball. It empowers the players to express themselves without fear of consequence or failure. Its easy for Rodri to demand the ball when getting 2 man pressed, if he has confidence that he will imediately have an option to play a pass to because of the system that has been installed. 

Closer to home, you see this with Caicedo and how he became more prominent and reliable as the season went on. Of course, a lot of that is down to him. But early in the season, he was looking for passes that would have been there under RDZ at brighton, particularly when being pressed on the turn. The team hadn't learnt their structure nor gained familiarity and confidence which led to frequent errors. But as we saw at the end of the season, Caicedo was able to more freuqently play out of the press and link up with players. Wether that was down to the system change or just simply increased cohesion within the squad is open to debate. 

There is a reason Pep is able to continually adapt and tweak his system to maintain results (and 115 probably helps). He has always admitted to providing a template and structure for his teams to progress the ball through the first 2/3 of the pitch before allowing more creative freedom in the final 1/3. The principle remains the same, how its achieved is all that is tweaked.

 

That's all very well Bob, but how was anyone going to beat Pochettino with the "tactics" stick if "tactics" are secondary to having decent players ? 

Read the room LOL

 

 

That's all fine and dandy Bob, but during a hot summer Sunday dinner, who will feed Mudryk?

2 hours ago, Sconnie Blue said:

That's all fine and dandy Bob, but during a hot summer Sunday dinner, who will feed Mudryk?

😁😁

5 hours ago, Niall1905 said:

There is definetly a blend, I have mentioned elsewhere that this obsession with tactical battles has got out of hand, with microanalysis of every facet of the game. 

My personal opinion is that a teams structure and tactical direction is simply the framework to support individual play. If the framework is weak, it won't support those that need support. Some players will still be capable of performing in this framework, but its not ideal. 

However, if the framework is strong, all within it are supported and elevated to a level that their decision making is enhanced by security and comfort. Like City for example, there is a clear confidence in the ideas that Pep has installed, both in how they counterpress after losing the ball but also the instructions of players to provide options for the player on the ball. It empowers the players to express themselves without fear of consequence or failure. Its easy for Rodri to demand the ball when getting 2 man pressed, if he has confidence that he will imediately have an option to play a pass to because of the system that has been installed. 

Closer to home, you see this with Caicedo and how he became more prominent and reliable as the season went on. Of course, a lot of that is down to him. But early in the season, he was looking for passes that would have been there under RDZ at brighton, particularly when being pressed on the turn. The team hadn't learnt their structure nor gained familiarity and confidence which led to frequent errors. But as we saw at the end of the season, Caicedo was able to more freuqently play out of the press and link up with players. Wether that was down to the system change or just simply increased cohesion within the squad is open to debate. 

There is a reason Pep is able to continually adapt and tweak his system to maintain results (and 115 probably helps). He has always admitted to providing a template and structure for his teams to progress the ball through the first 2/3 of the pitch before allowing more creative freedom in the final 1/3. The principle remains the same, how its achieved is all that is tweaked.

 

Pep is probably the only manager who can win 4 PL in a row with his squad but without city continue splashing the money, city title steak would have stopped a while ago. 

Build up structure is all good and fun. But it is so much easier to build up when you have silva / Grealish who can dribble as if the ball stick to their feet vs having winger who baited 3 v 1 in their own half. 

The same thing with my analysis above, Chelsea press break down the moment Saka can get free easily from Cucu. If Cucu can stay tight, Saka will need to pass the ball back. Or if Saka ball security is very weak, Cucu can nick the ball and we can counter arse straight away. 

But in this case Saka ability to get free (not difficult) make the whole build up system work

 

Edited May 24, 20242 yr by Bob stark

8 minutes ago, PloKoon13 said:

Ancelotti eyebrow trick is better than any tactic 

On 24/05/2024 at 11:46, Bob stark said:

In this era of social media where you can see so many analysis online. There is this obsession on tactic. It is as if tactic is the everything. But as alonso say

Most of the time tactic is never the main thing. 

I will give you an example of our game vs arse. I have this screenshot ready a while ago to analzye our defensive problem. 

1st arse goal. 

We have seen this shape before. 325 narrow build up vs 424 narrow defending. 

This is a common idea facing narrow build up system. Block the middle and force your opp to build from the wide area and squeeze them into one side. 

Gallagher press white, the ball goes to odegaard, good track back by Mudryk but look at the space that Saka has. Cucu need to be very tight with him. You can also see Partey who is free. 

Caicedo need to press Saka straight away. Talking about Partey, you can see that he is no longer free,  Gallagher is already back marking Partey yet everyone question why poch keep picking Conor. 

But the next sequence is a mistake by Conor, good back door from Partey to escape from Conor. 

Good movement by Kai. But look at Madueke, he is still stuck on tomiyasu. He never look at rice throughout the whole sequence. We all knew what next and Petrovic should have saved it. 

As you can see after the 1st paragraph, I have stopped talking about tactic and system. It was all about do you understand where the danger , where the space, what angle do I have press, is my man left footer/right footer, do I need to push up, do I need to drop,etc. It is no longer 325 vs 424, it is extemely dynamic 1v 2, 2 v 2, 3 v 3. Everything keep changing in real time and this happen on both side of the game. Arse player is doing the same thing, where is the space, how can I help the ball carrier, should I drop back to give passing option or run forward to give him more space, etc. 

This is where you combine everything. Coaching, player skill, effort, tactical understanding, etc. If Gallagher didn't put the effort to run back and cover Partey, it was 3v4 instead of 4v4.  If Cucu has better defending skill he won't lose Saka. If Madueke has better sense of danger and put more effort or if he is kante, rice won't be free. 

This is far more important than inverted fb, false 9, 343 because as alonso said the main thing is how the player interpret and react to his situation. 

Manager through drill/video/conversation try to improve and influence how player see the game but it is not easy. It is a two way street. As Arteta has proven it is so much easier to replace holding with Saliba than to improve holding 😁😁😁

 

 

Bonus analysis 

Enzo defensively is 🫣🫣🫣🫣

I saw this sequence. Enzo see Partey and odegaard and he goes to press, that is not a problem but the idea to press is to make it difficult for Partey to pass forward to ode and push him left where he has help

Enzo 🫣🫣🫣 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is all well and good, and of course there is a risk of over analysing every small play or situation in any given game....but it ignores one huge issue.

The majority of people on here were not pissed off with poch for the small details - at least I wasn't.

You can say tactics are not the biggest consideration - but when a manager constantly directs his players to go out, and play slow and stagnant football - game after game of passing it aimlessly between the defenders 500 times - then that is DEFINITELY a big problem, and it sets the tone and energy for the team and players.

If we are agreeing that Poch made the players play with this passive tactic - then that is criminal, and not how to set up this chelsea team.

If we were to argue and say that the players "went rogue" and played this slow, negative football of their own accord - then it is all on poch for them allowing them to play with this tactic. Allowing them to get away with it is also criminal.

So we have 2 situations. Either Poch directed the team to play with this awful, negative, passive tactic..... or....he let them continue to do it when he told them otherwise. Either way - it is on him.

This is definitely a style and tactical issue that contributed to a lot of rubbish performances, and also which contributed to our players making individual mistakes - which cost us goals. So again - a player error is not directly on the manager, but his tactics facilitated and increased the odds of that error happening.

4 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

So we have 2 situations. Either Poch directed the team to play with this awful, negative, passive tactic..... or....he let them continue to do it when he told them otherwise. Either way - it is on him.

This is definitely a style and tactical issue that contributed to a lot of rubbish performances, and also which contributed to our players making individual mistakes - which cost us goals. So again - a player error is not directly on the manager, but his tactics facilitated and increased the odds of that error happening.

Or maybe it is merely just the inconsistency that comes with the territory of having a squad that is 90% young players ?

"Man who consistently advocates patience in the project doesn't actually ever show any ... "

Makes me laugh that you (and others) always bang on about needing to control games, but any time there is some backwards and sideways passing to retain possession and build patiently from the back you immediately jump on the manager's head (unless it is Potter LOL)

Anyway ... 🙂 

2 hours ago, Sexyfootball said:

Or maybe it is merely just the inconsistency that comes with the territory of having a squad that is 90% young players ?

"Man who consistently advocates patience in the project doesn't actually ever show any ... "

Makes me laugh that you (and others) always bang on about needing to control games, but any time there is some backwards and sideways passing to retain possession and build patiently from the back you immediately jump on the manager's head (unless it is Potter LOL)

Anyway ... 🙂 

I am all up for patience - and have been clear that this extends to accepting poor results whilst the process takes shape...

... I have also been consistent that on the need to see - and judge on - progress. But when we are not seeing any progress, and instead see the same passive tactic happens over and over again, game after game, then iit doesnt become a case of patience, as it seems to be that the manager wants to play that way and isnt doing enough (or anything) to change it.

Go and watch the game against Forest at the end of the season. I think that was 36 league games in to the season, plus however many cup games - and we were still playing the same trash, boring, passive - rinse repeat football that we had for goodness knows how long.

Controlling a game, is not about passing between the CBs 500 times a game. Possession for the sake of possession is pointless.

In fact, against most teams who sit back agaisnt us, our passive play can be portrayed and summed up as the opponent controlling us - because it is exactly what they want us to do. They know that if they sit back, we will take it slow and easy and pass it between the defenders over and over again - never causing any damage or threat. And they also know that given time, one of our defenders will make a mistake, or they will get a cross or corner, and grab a goal. It is the opponents plan - so it is disingenuous to spin this as us "controlling".

 

It's all about the tactics at the highest level, everyone can run and everyone can try to "interpret and read a situation" but if you don't prepare at the training ground, no matter what the quality of the players is, it won't make a difference against a well drilled and disciplined squad.

It matters how the team moves as a unit, as well as how much space is pre-made for the best player in attack. Tuchel winning the CL is a prime example of how every player can get to play their best role and contribute while not disrupting the system.

Good manager makes the difference at the drawing board and on the training ground.

 

21 hours ago, nonotnowjim said:

This is all well and good, and of course there is a risk of over analysing every small play or situation in any given game....but it ignores one huge issue.

The majority of people on here were not pissed off with poch for the small details - at least I wasn't.

You can say tactics are not the biggest consideration - but when a manager constantly directs his players to go out, and play slow and stagnant football - game after game of passing it aimlessly between the defenders 500 times - then that is DEFINITELY a big problem, and it sets the tone and energy for the team and players.

If we are agreeing that Poch made the players play with this passive tactic - then that is criminal, and not how to set up this chelsea team.

If we were to argue and say that the players "went rogue" and played this slow, negative football of their own accord - then it is all on poch for them allowing them to play with this tactic. Allowing them to get away with it is also criminal.

So we have 2 situations. Either Poch directed the team to play with this awful, negative, passive tactic..... or....he let them continue to do it when he told them otherwise. Either way - it is on him.

This is definitely a style and tactical issue that contributed to a lot of rubbish performances, and also which contributed to our players making individual mistakes - which cost us goals. So again - a player error is not directly on the manager, but his tactics facilitated and increased the odds of that error happening.

You want to play fast, no problem. 

How do you play fast with enzo is the question? 

Edited May 27, 20242 yr by Bob stark

On 24/05/2024 at 13:07, Sconnie Blue said:

That's all fine and dandy Bob, but during a hot summer Sunday dinner, who will feed Mudryk?

Apparently RDZ can. With golden balls. 

1 hour ago, Bob stark said:

You want to play fast, no problem. 

How do you play fast with enzo is the question? 

Not sure I understand your point. Fast as in fast counter attackers can definitely be done with Enzo as he did it with Benfica.

5 minutes ago, Remodez said:

Not sure I understand your point. Fast as in fast counter attackers can definitely be done with Enzo as he did it with Benfica.

I agree with you but realistically we are not going to play counter attacking system with this team. 

Going back to Alonso. He had I think about 8 of the same players as the previous manager but produced quite different result. If it's not about tactics how did he do it? This is what is missing in tactical analysis and also in saying it's just the quality of the players. In my view both are only part of the issue. The manager has to have a plan and the players have to buy into it and then execute it. What ever the role of tactics it was Alonso's success in getting the team to play and be world beaters, something they as a group or as individuals had never shown before.

Explain that part of the job sensei Bob.

Having good players gives you the advantage in the long run but, on a game per game basis, how you prepare the match, the tactic you use and how you drill the "lesser" players in that tactic makes a difference between getting points from better teams or not. We've dropped points mostly against teams that have worse players than us, why were they able to get those points from us? Because they were drilled in their tactic and knew exactly what was expected from them. A failure in the deployment of the tactic and you give a chance that the better players will take; that's why coaching is important, the better the coach, the less opportunities you give the opposition when you have worse players. Take your example from the Arsenal game. You say that if Cucurella had been more on top of Saka, we could have had a chance of a counter. OK, we have seen Cucurella defending like that all season, which suggests that the coach did not see anything wrong with it and therefore, against Saka it was normal to see Cucurella where he was. He's not been coached to do otherwise, the same goes for Enzo or for Madueke. The coach has a lot to do with how players that are worse technically can do a perfect job in specific matches if they have been well coached on a tactic. The problem with Pochettino was, for me, that he did not coach any of our players how to defend (or attack, for that matter), he left it to their individual skills and reading of the game, which is great for players like Palmer but does not work well when you don't have 11 players with Palmer's skill.

On 29/05/2024 at 06:18, ozboy said:

Going back to Alonso. He had I think about 8 of the same players as the previous manager but produced quite different result. If it's not about tactics how did he do it? This is what is missing in tactical analysis and also in saying it's just the quality of the players. In my view both are only part of the issue. The manager has to have a plan and the players have to buy into it and then execute it. What ever the role of tactics it was Alonso's success in getting the team to play and be world beaters, something they as a group or as individuals had never shown before.

Explain that part of the job sensei Bob.

Player quality and tactic goes hand in hand. Absolutely. Tactic matter. Of course. 

The question is what is tactic? 

And when you watch a game and you say the problem is tactic, what are you criticizing? 

 

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

Player quality and tactic goes hand in hand. Absolutely. Tactic matter. Of course. 

The question is what is tactic? 

And when you watch a game and you say the problem is tactic, what are you criticizing? 

 

 

 

 

 

Great response to @ozboy there. Very perceptive and illuminating. Like a Poch press conference. 

20 minutes ago, WhiteWall said:

Great response to @ozboy there. Very perceptive and illuminating. Like a Poch press conference. 

I only read the last part of his post 🫣🫣

On 29/05/2024 at 06:18, ozboy said:

Going back to Alonso. He had I think about 8 of the same players as the previous manager but produced quite different result. If it's not about tactics how did he do it? This is what is missing in tactical analysis and also in saying it's just the quality of the players. In my view both are only part of the issue. The manager has to have a plan and the players have to buy into it and then execute it. What ever the role of tactics it was Alonso's success in getting the team to play and be world beaters, something they as a group or as individuals had never shown before.

Explain that part of the job sensei Bob.

Due to complaint by @WhiteWall

Let me redo my reply. Instead of alonso, let's use Lamp vs TT, so much easier because I have only watched leverkusen under alonso once. 

Tammy 

Puli - Mount - Kai - Ziyech 

Kante 

Chilwell - Rudi - Silva - James 

 

Mount - Kai - Timo 

Chilwell - Jorgi - Kante - James 

Rudi - Silva - Azpi 

TT replaced 3 players and he transformed a team who can't defend to a defensive juggernaut almost overnight. 

How? He replaced two attackers with two defender. 

 

 

 

 

Edited May 30, 20242 yr by Bob stark

3 hours ago, Bob stark said:

Due to complaint by @WhiteWall

Let me redo my reply. Instead of alonso, let's use Lamp vs TT, so much easier because I have only watched leverkusen under alonso once. 

Tammy 

Puli - Mount - Kai - Ziyech 

Kante 

Chilwell - Rudi - Silva - James 

 

Mount - Kai - Timo 

Chilwell - Jorgi - Kante - James 

Rudi - Silva - Azpi 

TT replaced 3 players and he transformed a team who can't defend to a defensive juggernaut almost overnight. 

How? He replaced two attackers with two defender. 

 

 

 

 

You're contradicting yourself, mate. You were saying that the players was the most relevant part of the game and now you are saying that the tactic matters more than the players. With almost the same players but radically different tactics, Lamps' and Tuchel's teams were completely different (with different output as well).

9 minutes ago, RMH said:

You're contradicting yourself, mate. You were saying that the players was the most relevant part of the game and now you are saying that the tactic matters more than the players. With almost the same players but radically different tactics, Lamps' and Tuchel's teams were completely different (with different output as well).

If TT played the exact same player as Lamp then you are right, it is all about coaching. But he didn't, he played two more defender. 

I have never said it is all about player though. Tactic is also not about 433/4231/3box5, football is far more complicated than that. If you want to talk about structure is actually more of 3v3, 2v2, etc2 

 

 

Edited May 30, 20242 yr by Bob stark

29 minutes ago, Bob stark said:

If TT played the exact same player as Lamp then you are right, it is all about coaching. But he didn't, he played two more defender. 

I have never said it is all about player though. Tactic is also not about 433/4231/3box5, football is far more complicated than that. If you want to talk about structure is actually more of 3v3, 2v2, etc2 

 

 

I interpreted your first post as you being in agreement with Alonso in that "the main thing is the quality of the players". Sorry if I misinterpreted you. In my opinion, both things are important, tactics is the scaffold to approach a game, get it right and the quality of the players will do the winning. But with a wrong tactic, the quality of the players might not be enough to beat the opposition.