AVB & Spurs Tactics and Formations discussion thread

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Of course system based sides can have bad days. The idea is though that they should be fewer than otherwise as the team has a consistent basis from which to operate.

I see it as a foundation from which to play. A strong system is a strong foundation for a strong level of performance. That is not to say it is restrictive to freedom or creativity, just that it informs a way to operate, allows you to know who is where and when...

In a non (lesser?) system focused base that foundation is less and so the continuity in performance is soley dependant on players naturally working to winning effect.

These are the benefits offered, consistency, continuity. And as I also pointed out the ability to effectively manage strategies such as sqouting and transfers.

If everything is a lot more intuitive it is by its nature less consistent and reliable. It is also much more difficult to effectively plan around.

As I said - all the pros you put in the "non system" side of the argument actually apply to the system based approach.

Converseley, the pros in the system approach do not apply the non-system way.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Of course system based sides can have bad days. The idea is though that they should be fewer than otherwise as the team has a consistent basis from which to operate.

I see it as a foundation from which to play. A strong system is a strong foundation for a strong level of performance. That is not to say it is restrictive to freedom or creativity, just that it informs a way to operate, allows you to know who is where and when...

In a non (lesser?) system focused base that foundation is less and so the continuity in performance is soley dependant on players naturally working to winning effect.

These are the benefits offered, consistency, continuity. And as I also pointed out the ability to effectively manage strategies such as sqouting and transfers.

If everything is a lot more intuitive it is by its nature less consistent and reliable. It is also much more difficult to effectively plan around.

As I said - all the pros you put in the "non system" side of the argument actually apply to the system based approach.

Converseley, the pros in the system approach do not apply the non-system way.

All I would say is that even Arsenal have bad days, seemingly as much as any other team, and their form is still dependant on their confidence and the quality of player they have available to them. They made a terrible start to last season and the system didn't help them out much there.

But I do see systems as good for continuity, in terms of not needing to make sweeping, expensive changes to a squad. Liverpool are having to do that now, but if Rodgers is successful at implementing his system and given time, the next guy that comes along after him should come from his way of thinking, and therefore they shouldn't have any Carroll/Henderson/Downing esque disasters holding them back.

I would say a positive of the loose system is that there doesn't seem to be a long transition, bedding in period. Harry got us playing almost straight away and the players looked liberated, but maybe it is all worth it in the long run for the lack of transition that is needed to be made in the future.

I was going to say that a negative of the system approach is that players can still fail, even if they are scouted to perform excellently within it. They could still be subject to confidence issues, failing to settle in the country, missing their family back home or whatever. But then I thought, if you look at a club like Arsenal, even their failures could probably be sold for some money because in their system they were able to demonstrate some talent, however inconsistently.

I hope we can compete this season, but I would actually be willing to right it off completely if it meant it stood us in good stead for the future. If the players got used to playing it, and if it meant any transition into the squad from a new player/academy player/new manager was a lot easier and less disruptive in the future, I would willingly go through the pain of a mid-table finish. It may even mean we might lose Bale, but if we are looking for the long term benefits of ingraining a system within our club, it is something we may have to go through. To say you are not prepared would be to say that you think a system should be implemented a lot quicker than needing a season written off to achieve it, but is that possible? Some clubs have been able to, Arsenal did. But Swansea took a couple of years to get to the Prem for example. But does it mean that a manager that cannot implement radical change and keep us competitive is a bad one? Or is it something that will simply take time, and we may have to accept dropping points because the margins are so fine?

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Another question, when some people say that AVB is making changes too quickly, what would they like to see instead?

I would argue that he hasn't made changes quick enough yet, that what we are seeing is a half way house between what he eventually wants, but also acknowledging he hasn't quite got the players for it, so I see less pressing, possibly to avoid leaving Brad exposed, less patient passing, again perhaps for that reason, and I see a focus on keeping us solid and not losing because losses could be even more damaging to belief at the start of a season than draws. And we may well lose if we tried to go the whole hog with the new system because it would take one mistake of being badly caught out for us to fall behind.

But what would people like to see if not the beginnings of the system being implemented? He has to make these changes at some point, and has had a whole pre-season to start it off. If he came in mid-season, I would agree that he should keep things ticking over. But with a whole pre-season, he should at least start to make some of the changes he needs to make...but people still say he is making changes too quickly. But what do they think will happen? At some point, he will have to decide that it is time to implement the changes. And at this point, there will be a transition period, getting used to the new ways, and points may be dropped. Whenever it happens, that could happen, so why not make some changes straight away?

I would like to see more changes implemented now we have finished our transfer business for the next few months, and I think if we do it will see us looking less awkward in the coming games, because we aren't then trying to compensate for certain players that wouldn't be able to carry off what was asked of them if we went the whole way with it.

(Although this doesn't quite explain the Saudi Sportswashing Machine game, where it looked like we were pretty much pressing high and didn't mind leaving a big gap between Brad and the back-line for example...I just can't get my head around that one...)

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I think people like the idea of a phased approach to change. Small amounts that can be easily digested/absorbed/implemented by the players so that we can play consistently the whole time. By effecting the change in small increments...

I also think that there are times when that just isnt possible, and that for some set ups its the case that the system wont really work until its all in and so an incremental approach is never going to work.

 

[jts1882]

Does he have the players he needs for his full system, especially central backs and midfielders? If not, then a phased approach, introducing the parts that suit the current players makes more sense.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

Does he have the players he needs for his full system, especially central backs and midfielders? If not, then a phased approach, introducing the parts that suit the current players makes more sense.

Would a phased approach do more harm than good though? It could be that not implementing full changes will be holding a team back, because they are still trying to compensate for players that can't really carry off the new way of thinking totally.

For example, intending to be a possession team and making some changes to move towards that, but still granting players freedom to do the occasional hoof/forcing a high risk ball through could mean we aren't really anything. We wouldn't be a possession team, but yet the players wouldn't be set up to make the most out of quick passes forward because they would be offering shorter options. That could be where a lot of supposed rigidity comes from.

I get the feeling that to be truly successful with a system you have to go all the way with it, but maybe not going all the way allows us to keep an element of solidarity that means we haven't been torn apart for the majority of the games we have played so far.

 

[joey55]

Would a phased approach do more harm than good though? It could be that not implementing full changes will be holding a team back, because they are still trying to compensate for players that can't really carry off the new way of thinking totally.

For example, intending to be a possession team and making some changes to move towards that, but still granting players freedom to do the occasional hoof/forcing a high risk ball through could mean we aren't really anything. We wouldn't be a possession team, but yet the players wouldn't be set up to make the most out of quick passes forward because they would be offering shorter options. That could be where a lot of supposed rigidity comes from.

I get the feeling that to be truly successful with a system you have to go all the way with it, but maybe not going all the way allows us to keep an element of solidarity that means we haven't been torn apart for the majority of the games we have played so far.

We already were a possession team. The only way we could realistically look to improve our possession is to pass the ball in our own half. But I don't think that is the right way to go. So far my biggest worry of the AVB regime is the amount of passes our defenders have. This isn't due to playing it out from the back, but mainly due to playing to the back.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

We already were a possession team. The only way we could realistically look to improve our possession is to pass the ball in our own half. But I don't think that is the right way to go. So far my biggest worry of the AVB regime is the amount of passes our defenders have. This isn't due to playing it out from the back, but mainly due to playing to the back.

To be honest I think our defenders haven't seen enough of the ball for what we seem to be intending to do.

I don't think we were a possession team. I think we were a direct team, not in the long ball sense of the word, but in the 'leave Bale and Lennon fairly high up the pitch to receive a quick pass and counter' kind of sense. From February onwards teams started showing zero ambition against us, and we didn't know what else to do. We couldn't go direct, and we weren't clever enough in opening teams up otherwise. If we were a possession team, I think we would have been used to teams sitting back against us, and been used to picking them apart. As it was, I don't think we adapted very well and couldn't do much more than get it to the flanks quickly.

And what I think is happening with us right now is we aren't fully there yet with AVB's system. We aren't playing proper possession football because you can tell the players still want to force it through to Bale and Lennon too quickly. The crowd also don't appreciate that, or help it, because when we do pass back, they get anxious because they are used to getting it forward. I think that definitely transmits to the players. But the times I have seen us willingly play it back, we've then created space and allowed for a higher percentage attack soon after.

I think we need to be more of a possession team. We need to use our defence more, and our keeper. That way we will open up the gaps that aren't immediately available because teams sit in on us. We had a lot of possession against some teams last year because teams gave it to us, not necessarily because we played for it. When they did sit in on us, we didn't seem to have a clue what to do, which resulted in aimless passing rather than possession football - and I think there is a distinction between the two.

 

[joey55]

To be honest I think our defenders haven't seen enough of the ball for what we seem to be intending to do.

I don't think we were a possession team. I think we were a direct team, not in the long ball sense of the word, but in the 'leave Bale and Lennon fairly high up the pitch to receive a quick pass and counter' kind of sense. From February onwards teams started showing zero ambition against us, and we didn't know what else to do. We couldn't go direct, and we weren't clever enough in opening teams up otherwise. If we were a possession team, I think we would have been used to teams sitting back against us, and been used to picking them apart. As it was, I don't think we adapted very well and couldn't do much more than get it to the flanks quickly.

And what I think is happening with us right now is we aren't fully there yet with AVB's system. We aren't playing proper possession football because you can tell the players still want to force it through to Bale and Lennon too quickly. The crowd also don't appreciate that, or help it, because when we do pass back, they get anxious because they are used to getting it forward. I think that definitely transmits to the players. But the times I have seen us willingly play it back, we've then created space and allowed for a higher percentage attack soon after.

I think we need to be more of a possession team. We need to use our defence more, and our keeper. That way we will open up the gaps that aren't immediately available because teams sit in on us. We had a lot of possession against some teams last year because teams gave it to us, not necessarily because we played for it. When they did sit in on us, we didn't seem to have a clue what to do, which resulted in aimless passing rather than possession football - and I think there is a distinction between the two.

This isn't to do with just this post per se, but your posting in general. I think you really place far too much emphasis on what you think are tactical/system based changes or instructions, to the point you lose sight of what is really happening. You massively over complicate things and talk about the game in a way that simply isn't reflective of what is happening on the pitch.

You said:

"We had a lot of possession against some teams last year because teams gave it to us, not necessarily because we played for it. When they did sit in on us, we didn't seem to have a clue what to do, which resulted in aimless passing rather than possession football - and I think there is a distinction between the two."

This is a classic example of what i'm talking about. It's sounds analytical and insightful, but really it is just with so little foundation. In short, it sounds good, but what on earth are you basing this on? In terms of chances created per minute of possession we were the most effective team in the league. So if we were passing the ball aimlessly, then what on earth were the other 19 teams doing? Anyone can point to games during a season when their team didn't make the most of possession, but to judge things fairly, one has to be comparative. You could see RVP miss a few easy chances and thus argue he's a bad striker. But if you compare his games with actual other footballers over the course of the season, rather than some unrealistic ideal, it's hard to argue he isn't a great striker.

Sorry to be critical of you personal posting style, but it really does seem like you create arguments, to sustain pre conceived beliefs that aren't founded in much of any substance, but support them with tactical analysis that sounds good, but likewise has little substance. Our fans do this all the time and I don't understand why. The game is what it is and I don't see the point of talking about it in a way that doesn't reflect this.

 

[Eriktheviking]

but it's mostly incorrect imo.

Bale doesn't have the movement, finishing and overall ability to play as a wing forward? he sure does imo.

Bale still wants to hug the touchline? no he doesn't. In fact that's part of the problem at times (the fact that he likes drifting everywhere).

Both Bale and Lennon look somewhat akward around the box. Both these players over the last 2 seasons for sure have had opportunities in most games to score or assist, look at the goal returns for each player... For players who apparently have the skills to be wing forwards their shooting and finishing was tinkle poor.

Their assists were generally from wing play and crosses. I cant remember a game other than Norwich away last year where Bale has had a big impact in the middle of the pitch.

Also, look at Bales goals from last season, yeah hes a good player but a lot of his goals were somewhat spectacular - he doesnt really do 'bread and butter' goals by getting into great positions. I judge a striker by how many tap ins he gets, a great defender is not always the one who makes great last ditch flyimg tackles but the one who reads the game and defends by havig great positional sense.

Dont take this as a bale and lennon bashing post. It isnt. Imo Bentley would make a better wing forward than Lennon. Crossing is not the be all of a wing forward - i cant think of any in that position in the world who are superb crossers of the ball and score/assist/contribute to the game as they should.

 

[thfcsteff]

Both Bale and Lennon look somewhat akward around the box. Both these players over the last 2 seasons for sure have had opportunities in most games to score or assist, look at the goal returns for each player... For players who apparently have the skills to be wing forwards their shooting and finishing was tinkle poor.

Their assists were generally from wing play and crosses. I cant remember a game other than Norwich away last year where Bale has had a big impact in the middle of the pitch.

Also, look at Bales goals from last season, yeah hes a good player but a lot of his goals were somewhat spectacular - he doesnt really do 'bread and butter' goals by getting into great positions. I judge a striker by how many tap ins he gets, a great defender is not always the one who makes great last ditch flyimg tackles but the one who reads the game and defends by havig great positional sense.

Dont take this as a bale and lennon bashing post. It isnt. Imo Bentley would make a better wing forward than Lennon. Crossing is not the be all of a wing forward - i cant think of any in that position in the world who are superb crossers of the ball and score/assist/contribute to the game as they should.

It's funny you raise this point as I feel Bale really really needs some excellent coaching right now to fulfill his potential. Pre-season, he looked better and sharper overall than I'd seen him for a long time. And I agree, for his skill, frame and position, he should be starting to encroach on Ronaldo territory finishing. Of course, he is virtually incomparable, but you know what I mean. I am hopeful that AVB will soon begetting a far greater level of raw productivity from both players...Lennon has actually shown signs of being that player, but now's the time to usb on. Both great talents, Bale potential to be a world class legend...here's hoping...

 

[BrainOfLevy]

This isn't to do with just this post per se, but your posting in general. I think you really place far too much emphasis on what you think are tactical/system based changes or instructions, to the point you lose sight of what is really happening. You massively over complicate things and talk about the game in a way that simply isn't reflective of what is happening on the pitch.

You said:

"We had a lot of possession against some teams last year because teams gave it to us, not necessarily because we played for it. When they did sit in on us, we didn't seem to have a clue what to do, which resulted in aimless passing rather than possession football - and I think there is a distinction between the two."

This is a classic example of what i'm talking about. It's sounds analytical and insightful, but really it is just with so little foundation. In short, it sounds good, but what on earth are you basing this on? In terms of chances created per minute of possession we were the most effective team in the league. So if we were passing the ball aimlessly, then what on earth were the other 19 teams doing? Anyone can point to games during a season when their team didn't make the most of possession, but to judge things fairly, one has to be comparative. You could see RVP miss a few easy chances and thus argue he's a bad striker. But if you compare his games with actual other footballers over the course of the season, rather than some unrealistic ideal, it's hard to argue he isn't a great striker.

Sorry to be critical of you personal posting style, but it really does seem like you create arguments, to sustain pre conceived beliefs that aren't founded in much of any substance, but support them with tactical analysis that sounds good, but likewise has little substance. Our fans do this all the time and I don't understand why. The game is what it is and I don't see the point of talking about it in a way that doesn't reflect this.

Mate, a lot of what I have said, particularly in these last couple of pages, has just been posing questions for the purposes of debate since the transfer window has ended. But you're right, I do probably think about the game in a complicated way, and see things as tactics...but that's why I'm in the tactics thread.

The quote you put up, I don't think is overcomplicating it though. I think it's pretty much right. I don't think we were a 'possession' team, in the way that Swansea were a possession team for example. Our ideal was to break quickly, I don't think many can argue that. We had games where we had more possession than the opposition, because often teams come and sit back against us and concede possession to us anyway. That will happen. It doesn't mean we particularly play to have that possession, and set ourselves up to make sure we have as much possession as possible, it means we will always have more if the other team sits back. Again, it's not a baseless thing to say with no foundation.

And the specific period of time I am talking about, was that annoying run from February onwards. Week after week we encountered teams that sat back against us and showed little ambition. We couldn't break them down, I remember the games against Stoke, Everton, Norwich, Villa, QPR, Sunderland etc where we didn't really create good chances in any of those games. If our ideal play is to hit Bale and Lennon quickly, then if teams sit back against us, they leave us no space to play them in, we can't get them one on one with the full back, and we are forced to have lots of possession which is ultimately meaningless because we aren't as well prepared in how to use it.

What I was trying to say, is that if we are a team that is trained and prefers to play with possession, we will become more adept at picking apart packed defences, because we will be playing patiently all of the time anyway.

I may often say baseless and incorrect things on here, I may over-react a lot, but I don't think on that post it was one of those times.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Not sure if anyone has touched on this but in my opinion its Bale and Lennon who are the biggest problems for AVB. The fact is, they are not wing forwards. They dont have the movement, finishing and overall ability to play in that position. Its not their fault they have played most of their careers as wingers (if left back in bales Case)

I think it would be much better playing Bale at left back. He is too far up the pich to hage an impact and use his atributes properly such as pace and power. They both still want to hug the touchline and cross the ball, with the lone striker up front and the other guy on the oposite wing doesnt come into the middle (box) to make up numbers its never going to work.

AVB tends to play one winger and one inside forward (his classic Porto side had Varela and Hulk respectively).

I think we'll therefore generally tend to see only one of Bale and Lennon paired with Dempsey.

Also, IMO Bale and Lennon have been hamstrung a bit in these first 3 games by having Defoe, rather than a centre forward, to play off/target. Bale and Ade in particular have always linked up well.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

And joey55, to answer your specific point about us being the most effective team per minute of possession in the league, that kind of backs up what I'm saying. We weren't a possession side, we were a side that got the ball up the pitch quickly. So therefore, we weren't playing for possession.

There were a lot of games, that I mentioned above, where we had lots of possession and did bugger all with the ball. Not just that we didn't score, but we found it tough to even create decent scoring chances against teams we were well infront of in the league. What I am trying to say is that if we were more suited/schooled/coached into playing possession football, and learning how to break down packed defences patiently, then we might have done better in those games.

You may just want to look at it as another team having a bad run, but I think there was a problem there in those games and the system, which is what we were discussing, may be able to help with that.

 

[joey55]

And joey55, to answer your specific point about us being the most effective team per minute of possession in the league, that kind of backs up what I'm saying. We weren't a possession side, we were a side that got the ball up the pitch quickly. So therefore, we weren't playing for possession.

There were a lot of games, that I mentioned above, where we had lots of possession and did bugger all with the ball. Not just that we didn't score, but we found it tough to even create decent scoring chances against teams we were well infront of in the league. What I am trying to say is that if we were more suited/schooled/coached into playing possession football, and learning how to break down packed defences patiently, then we might have done better in those games.

You may just want to look at it as another team having a bad run, but I think there was a problem there in those games and the system, which is what we were discussing, may be able to help with that.

We were a possession side though. We had the 5th highest possession stats in the league! There is no point saying we weren't, when we were. It's a fact! We had the 5th highest amount of possession and made the second highest amount of chances. So we certainly didn't pass the ball aimlessly compared to the other 19 Prem sides.

This is the important thing to remember. It's easy to pick out games when we struggled to use the ball as you'd like. But to make a fair assessment you'd need to compare this with the other teams in the league. So often football fans construct arguments based on their team failing to compare with the perfect way of playing the fan has in mind. But no team can live up to that. For expectation and criticism to be realistic and fair, we have to compare with other Prem teams and not some fantasy football. So, though in your mind everything you say is right, in terms of what is viable in the real game, your criticism is unfair.

I can see why you'd be annoyed at us not making the most of our possession, but I'm not sure you'd share that view if you were a fan of any of the other Prem teams. Our trouble was we were the only top 4 side that didn't have a world class (or close to it) striker to finish. We had plenty of the ball, we used it well, but we just didn't or don't have a Rooney, Aguero or RVP type player. People can go on and on about systems etc, but ultimately, had we had a world class front man, we'd have probably gone very close to winning the league. Let's face it, RVP in particular, wasn't scoring tap ins all the time. He was producing match winning moments of brilliance on a regular basis, that won Arsenal points they often didn't deserve. That's what makes the difference, not passing the ball in your own half.

The only way to sustain an argument that we can bridge the gap via tactical change is to over complicate and not make fair comparison. This is why many fans will be disappointed with AVB. The areas where they think he can improve us, almost certainly aren't there. We've signed some very good players, but ultimately without that top class forward, we wont finish higher than last season. In fact by changing things we'll almost certainly finish lower. At the end of the day, at various points during the season players like those I've mentioned will make match winning contributions at a higher rate than anyone in our squad. We'll have similar possession and if we play as well as last season, we'll create more than anyone, but without a genius footballer or two in the front line, we'll have a disadvantage.

For all the tactical analysis in the world, the one person who really nailed what the difference between us and the best teams is, was Harry Redknapp, when he said the difference between us and City is that they have better strikers. That's the truth and no "system" is going to make up for it.

 

[milo]

We were a possession side though. We had the 5th highest possession stats in the league! There is no point saying we weren't, when we were. It's a fact! We had the 5th highest amount of possession and made the second highest amount of chances. So we certainly didn't pass the ball aimlessly compared to the other 19 Prem sides.

This is the important thing to remember. It's easy to pick out games when we struggled to use the ball as you'd like. But to make a fair assessment you'd need to compare this with the other teams in the league. So often football fans construct arguments based on their team failing to compare with the perfect way of playing the fan has in mind. But no team can live up to that. For expectation and criticism to be realistic and fair, we have to compare with other Prem teams and not some fantasy football. So, though in your mind everything you say is right, in terms of what is viable in the real game, your criticism is unfair.

I can see why you'd be annoyed at us not making the most of our possession, but I'm not sure you'd share that view if you were a fan of any of the other Prem teams. Our trouble was we were the only top 4 side that didn't have a world class (or close to it) striker to finish. We had plenty of the ball, we used it well, but we just didn't or don't have a Rooney, Aguero or RVP type player. People can go on and on about systems etc, but ultimately, had we had a world class front man, we'd have probably gone very close to winning the league. Let's face it, RVP in particular, wasn't scoring tap ins all the time. He was producing match winning moments of brilliance on a regular basis, that won Arsenal points they often didn't deserve. That's what makes the difference, not passing the ball in your own half.

The only way to sustain an argument that we can bridge the gap via tactical change is to over complicate and not make fair comparison. This is why many fans will be disappointed with AVB. The areas where they think he can improve us, almost certainly aren't there. We've signed some very good players, but ultimately without that top class forward, we wont finish higher than last season. In fact by changing things we'll almost certainly finish lower. At the end of the day, at various points during the season players like those I've mentioned will make match winning contributions at a higher rate than anyone in our squad. We'll have similar possession and if we play as well as last season, we'll create more than anyone, but without a genius footballer or two in the front line, we'll have a disadvantage.

For all the tactical analysis in the world, the one person who really nailed what the difference between us and the best teams is, was Harry Redknapp, when he said the difference between us and City is that they have better strikers. That's the truth and no "system" is going to make up for it.

A fantastic post, I agree with just about everything here.

Your point about fans comparing a teams performance with their perfect way of playing has always been a bugbear of mine. "If we had started with player x rather than player y" arguments are largely futile because we will never have the option of playing the game again with player y, so you are always comparing against an ideal and no team can ever be better than that.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

We were a possession side though. We had the 5th highest possession stats in the league! There is no point saying we weren't, when we were. It's a fact! We had the 5th highest amount of possession and made the second highest amount of chances. So we certainly didn't pass the ball aimlessly compared to the other 19 Prem sides.

This is the important thing to remember. It's easy to pick out games when we struggled to use the ball as you'd like. But to make a fair assessment you'd need to compare this with the other teams in the league. So often football fans construct arguments based on their team failing to compare with the perfect way of playing the fan has in mind. But no team can live up to that. For expectation and criticism to be realistic and fair, we have to compare with other Prem teams and not some fantasy football. So, though in your mind everything you say is right, in terms of what is viable in the real game, your criticism is unfair.

I can see why you'd be annoyed at us not making the most of our possession, but I'm not sure you'd share that view if you were a fan of any of the other Prem teams. Our trouble was we were the only top 4 side that didn't have a world class (or close to it) striker to finish. We had plenty of the ball, we used it well, but we just didn't or don't have a Rooney, Aguero or RVP type player. People can go on and on about systems etc, but ultimately, had we had a world class front man, we'd have probably gone very close to winning the league. Let's face it, RVP in particular, wasn't scoring tap ins all the time. He was producing match winning moments of brilliance on a regular basis, that won Arsenal points they often didn't deserve. That's what makes the difference, not passing the ball in your own half.

The only way to sustain an argument that we can bridge the gap via tactical change is to over complicate and not make fair comparison. This is why many fans will be disappointed with AVB. The areas where they think he can improve us, almost certainly aren't there. We've signed some very good players, but ultimately without that top class forward, we wont finish higher than last season. In fact by changing things we'll almost certainly finish lower. At the end of the day, at various points during the season players like those I've mentioned will make match winning contributions at a higher rate than anyone in our squad. We'll have similar possession and if we play as well as last season, we'll create more than anyone, but without a genius footballer or two in the front line, we'll have a disadvantage.

For all the tactical analysis in the world, the one person who really nailed what the difference between us and the best teams is, was Harry Redknapp, when he said the difference between us and City is that they have better strikers. That's the truth and no "system" is going to make up for it.

I'm liking your stuff at the end, that's exactly what I was thinking after the Norwich game. What Harry had right was that for all the talk of complex system, he played the right players in the team to give it balance, and he played good players. Need more bite in midfield? Sign a tough tackler. Need to hold the ball better upfront? Sign a target man. We could see against Norwich that even though I'm sure the plan was something completely different and we weren't supposed to look boring and negative, we needed someone like Dembele to bring the ball forward and give us a bit of purpose.

But I can't accept that we were a possession team. As stupid as it sounds, just because we had the 5th highest possession, it doesn't make us a possession team, in that our route to goals is to monopolise the ball and pick apart a team with patience. Swansea are a possession team. Barcelona are a possession team. We were a direct team. We were 5th highest because 15 other teams would likely sit back against us, and let us have more of the ball. They knew our gameplan was to hit Bale and Lennon quickly, so if they sat back and made that impossible, we couldn't hurt them. We were the 5th best in possession because we were one of the top 5 sides, not because our gameplan was based around it.

The top sides for possession last season were Arsenal, Emirates Marketing Project, Man United, Us, Chelsea and Liverpool....because they were the best sides. The difference was, and this is what I am trying to describe as a possession team - Swansea were up there in 3rd because it was their gameplan. Wigan were 8th because they played for it a lot too. No surprise to see Stoke and Villa on the bottom 3 on that score too.

I know fans often look at their team when they are failing, and it is easy to pick points out if we do it that way. But there simply was a very clear run of games where teams sat back against us, showed no ambition, and we couldn't break them down. It wasn't the odd game where that happened. It happened over and over again for a prolonged period of time. I don't see why we can't discuss the tactical reasons of why that may be the case.

Ultimately I agree with you though. Better players will lead to better results. But that was the point of me asking the question earlier in the thread - is a system even worth it? You seem to think it isn't. Fair enough!

 

[milo]

But I can't accept that we were a possession team. As stupid as it sounds, just because we had the 5th highest possession, it doesn't make us a possession team, in that our route to goals is to monopolise the ball and pick apart a team with patience. Swansea are a possession team. Barcelona are a possession team. We were a direct team. We were 5th highest because 15 other teams would likely sit back against us, and let us have more of the ball. They knew our gameplan was to hit Bale and Lennon quickly, so if they sat back and made that impossible, we couldn't hurt them. We were the 5th best in possession because we were one of the top 5 sides, not because our gameplan was based around it.

I think that you are selling us short saying that we just tried to hit teams on the break last season, our game plan was definitely more than that and we definitely tried to keep hold of possession.

We weren't the 5th highest because 15 other teams would likely sit back against us because those teams only got to play us twice a season. We were the 5th highest because we held onto the ball the fifth most.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I think that you are selling us short saying that we just tried to hit teams on the break last season, our game plan was definitely more than that and we definitely tried to keep hold of possession.

We weren't the 5th highest because 15 other teams would likely sit back against us because those teams only got to play us twice a season. We were the 5th highest because we held onto the ball the fifth most.

Of course we weren't all about hitting teams on the break, but we weren't a possession side either. Not in the sense that we valued possession above all else and made it central to our philosophy like some managers do, that's what I'm trying to say. Of course we were the 5th highest side because we were one of the top 5 teams, and the better teams tend to have more possession. I wouldn't particularly describe Man United as a possession side either, but they were up there.

Of course, Man United have more possession in most games, as they would considering they are better than 18 other teams. Of course this also means that most teams realise it would be pointless to try and 'out posession' a team like Man United, or us, and therefore they sit back against them and look to play a more how direct game themselves. I don't see how that can be argued.

To be clear, I'm not saying we were a pure counter attacking team. What I'm saying is that we were at our best when we could hit Bale and Lennon quickly and get them one on one with a full back. That was our main weapon. It wasn't patient possession picking apart packed defences.

 

[joey55]

I'm liking your stuff at the end, that's exactly what I was thinking after the Norwich game. What Harry had right was that for all the talk of complex system, he played the right players in the team to give it balance, and he played good players. Need more bite in midfield? Sign a tough tackler. Need to hold the ball better upfront? Sign a target man. We could see against Norwich that even though I'm sure the plan was something completely different and we weren't supposed to look boring and negative, we needed someone like Dembele to bring the ball forward and give us a bit of purpose.

But I can't accept that we were a possession team. As stupid as it sounds, just because we had the 5th highest possession, it doesn't make us a possession team, in that our route to goals is to monopolise the ball and pick apart a team with patience. Swansea are a possession team. Barcelona are a possession team. We were a direct team. We were 5th highest because 15 other teams would likely sit back against us, and let us have more of the ball. They knew our gameplan was to hit Bale and Lennon quickly, so if they sat back and made that impossible, we couldn't hurt them. We were the 5th best in possession because we were one of the top 5 sides, not because our gameplan was based around it.

The top sides for possession last season were Arsenal, Emirates Marketing Project, Man United, Us, Chelsea and Liverpool....because they were the best sides. The difference was, and this is what I am trying to describe as a possession team - Swansea were up there in 3rd because it was their gameplan. Wigan were 8th because they played for it a lot too. No surprise to see Stoke and Villa on the bottom 3 on that score too.

I know fans often look at their team when they are failing, and it is easy to pick points out if we do it that way. But there simply was a very clear run of games where teams sat back against us, showed no ambition, and we couldn't break them down. It wasn't the odd game where that happened. It happened over and over again for a prolonged period of time. I don't see why we can't discuss the tactical reasons of why that may be the case.

Ultimately I agree with you though. Better players will lead to better results. But that was the point of me asking the question earlier in the thread - is a system even worth it? You seem to think it isn't. Fair enough!

That didn't happen against the good teams though. It's the bottom half that play that way against us and they do that against all the better teams. The reason you particularly noticed it was because it was during a frustrating period when we couldn't buy a win, but this included many games against the top teams. When we can't break down Stoke or Norwich having recently lost to Arsenal, Utd and Everton away, then it's incredibly frustrating and memorable. But don't let the emotion caused by this frustration cloud your judgement.

Ultimately Arsenal are the best possession team in the league. They prove it every year. Yet despite this, they won 46 points against the bottom half last year and we won 46 points against the bottom half. So they must have been having just as many problems against these sides as we were. In fact probably more as we didn't have anyone do us any favours as WBA's keeper did for them to hand them 3rd.

Significantly RVP scored 20 goals against the bottom half teams. That's 3 more than our top scorer got all season! So I seriously doubt one can make a very good argument that employed a poor tactical system that prevented us breaking them down. Even with a world class striker, named best player in the league, they got the same amount of points as us. Without RVP you wonder just what would have become of Arsenal.

Ultimately we just have to accept it's very hard to break down teams in the modern game, as they are so damn organized. You have to make the most of the chances you create and have players that can win these games with unplayable brilliance. I seriously doubt City and Utd did better due to tactics, but more to do with the fact they paid insane amounts of money to employ a host of amazing players to lay siege to the opposition goal. Adebayor brought a hell of a lot to our team last season, but it certainly wasn't deadly finishing and moments of sheer technical brilliance. According to the EPL Index Adebayor didn't score a single goal last season that didn't count as a clear cut chance. Whilst RVP scored 10. That is massive difference and that simple stats alone will tell you far more about our issues breaking down teams than anything else.

Football really is simple and in the modern game which is so influenced by money, it's become more simple than ever before. The best tactic or philosophy is to buy the best players! By paying £24 million for RVP, Fergie has proved what a tactical master he is.