• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tactics Thread

Lemonade Money said:
It's where they are in importance I'm getting at. With Simons or Maddison, everyone's looking at them from both sides, so it's easy to shut them down. With Eriksen, he benefited from playing with alot of other good players who were also a threat - an opponent couldn't just target him.
The way we are playing without a playmaker (now and at the start of the season) it's almost like no one's a threat, so no one is targeted.
Click to expand...
Gotcha.

If we can start next season with, say, Kudus, Maddison and [insert LW option], then it opens the pitch up considerably.
 
With any goal, someone has created it.
I guess it's better that the responsibility is everyones, rather than putting the focus on one person.
So back to my original point, I think we've benefited from not relying on one person, and its happened by accident, rather than design.
 
Playmaking for me is a role, one where you have the responsibility in setting tempo and dictating your teams play, with most of the teams build up play going through you, which means being given the freedom within your teams setup to have that responsibility and to play off the cuff.

Maddisons natural game is to be one, but wasn't really used as one under Ange - he had a defined role as part of a system but had to follow the gameplan
 
Lemonade Money said:
It's where they are in importance I'm getting at. With Simons or Maddison, everyone's looking at them from both sides, so it's easy to shut them down. With Eriksen, he benefited from playing with alot of other good players who were also a threat - an opponent couldn't just target him.
The way we are playing without a playmaker (now and at the start of the season) it's almost like no one's a threat, so no one is targeted.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement with your point (I think). There are more ways to win a game than just have a playmaker. Playing one and having all go through them, you only need them to have a stinker for the tactic to fail and I get it all tactics fail to some point if someone plays bad, but you can win games of football without one, as we have just shown.

For me the best tactic you can ever have is people that attack and defend in a coordinated team effort, flooding the box with a well coordinated high press and causing chaos is a very effective tactic, as is a very well put together swashbuckling counter attack
 
billyiddo said:
Maddisons natural game is to be one, but wasn't really used as one under Ange - he had a defined role as part of a system but had to follow the gameplan
Click to expand...
You may be right, but as Grays says, you don't want to put all your eggs in one basket, he can have a bad game (Mr 33%), or get marked out of the game (maybe explains his bad games?). As AF says, we should look better when/if we can play three playmakers.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
Klopps Liverpool side never had a playmaker.
Click to expand...
Both Mane and Salah were wide creative attackers. If you have players of that type then you don't strictly need a playmaker. We are however quite from that having only Kudus who isn't really that type or calibre and basically nothing on the left. Our need for someone to create is much more pressing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back