AVB & Spurs Tactics and Formations discussion thread

[joey55]

I always thought Ancelotti, Mourinho and Team Ferguson (SAF works with fine coaches and is a fine manager, thus I wouldn't separate them). Guardiola would also have been in there despite only having been at Barca, as I feel he could really give Bale the confidence to do the simple things even better than he does them (keeping shape, moving around the pitch and making runs/passes at the right times being principle). Bale is a great player right now with bristling potential to be even better. I am hopeful AVB can do this for him too, but we'll see...

For what its worth I genuinely think we'd have won the league with Ancelotti in charge last year, but it's all conjecture now obviously!

When we add the "next level coaching" to the "AVB system" and the revitalized scouting network, the rest of the league might as well not bother turning up!

Out of interest given that Ancelotti won 2 titles in 10 years with Juventus and Milan, what makes you think he'd have won it for us? In the 10 years prior to his reign at those clubs won the league 8 times. He's hardly got a history of over achievement in league football. Yet if he took charge of Spurs we'd have won the league! It's far more likely we'd have finished 7th or 8th. Even when he won the title at Chelsea, there form dipped from when Hiddink was in charge. During Hiddinks reign Chelsea won more points than any other club. Utd then sold Ronaldo and Chelsea won the league by 1 point. There isn't a great deal of evidence that Ancelotti took them forward. The following season the only reason they finished above us was due to goals that shouldn't have counted. They didn't score a single goal against us that should have been awarded. If you take those points away we are level. They only finished on 72 points and this is after spending £100 million on transfers! That's pathetic. He's since gone onto PSG, taking over when they were top of the league and finishing in 2nd. No chance he'd have done well for us!

I really think fans need to stop this rating managers on purely what they've won. We have to take into account the circumstances and look at their paths to getting job at clubs that give them a shot at winning things. In Europe the path to the top is very different, as they are employed as a head coach, yet all to often we credit their achievements as if they were traditional managers.

Which players would you say are examples of Mourinho's "next level coaching?" Interestingly he and Redknapp have coached 5 of the same players (not counting youngsters), those being Lass Diarra, Glenn Johnson, Muntari, Parker and Adebayor. Of those 5, I think it's fair to say Harry got more out of all of them. If I look at Mourinho's background, I see a lot of spending on top quality players, that improve teams, but I'm not sure I see a great deal of taking players to the next level. He was always credited as improving Joe Cole's game, but he never reached the heights that were expected of him as a youngster, when ironically he was coached by Harry.

I really don't see any evidence of this next level coaching that doesn't also coincide with insane spending and working with brilliant players. If anything Mourinho has shown he's a manager that likes to buy the finished article as much as possible. His strategy since joining Chelsea has seemed to be buy as many great players as possible. This is probably the reason why he hasn't followed the Paul Le Guen and Juande Ramos path of going from hyped master coach, to plonker in the space of a couple of years.

I'm not saying coaching doesn't matter because it does, but that there is a limit to what can be achieved. All too often as fans we assume there is more in our players than there is and think a different coach can extract more. I think fans need to know when a club has reached it's limits and not a coach or manager. To ask Mourinho or anyone to get more out of our squad than we did last season would be very unfair. He isn't suddenly going to be able to succeed with Walker and BAE in the way he failed with Glenn Johnson. He's not going to be able to get more out of Bale than he did with Robben or SWP. He isn't going to be able to improve VDV given he couldn't get more out of Kaka. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Yes Mourinho et al are highly successful and great managers, but if you look at their work with the standard of players we have here, rather than judging them on what they've won when working in very different circumstances, then it's pretty clear there aren't going to take us to the next level without spending and in most cases will take us backwards. Yes, the managers with the best reputations in the world would probably finish lower than 4th if they had the Spurs job!

 

[thfcsteff]

When we add the "next level coaching" to the "AVB system" and the revitalized scouting network, the rest of the league might as well not bother turning up!

Out of interest given that Ancelotti won 2 titles in 10 years with Juventus and Milan, what makes you think he'd have won it for us? In the 10 years prior to his reign at those clubs won the league 8 times. He's hardly got a history of over achievement in league football. Yet if he took charge of Spurs we'd have won the league! It's far more likely we'd have finished 7th or 8th. Even when he won the title at Chelsea, there form dipped from when Hiddink was in charge. During Hiddinks reign Chelsea won more points than any other club. Utd then sold Ronaldo and Chelsea won the league by 1 point. There isn't a great deal of evidence that Ancelotti took them forward. The following season the only reason they finished above us was due to goals that shouldn't have counted. They didn't score a single goal against us that should have been awarded. If you take those points away we are level. They only finished on 72 points and this is after spending £100 million on transfers! That's pathetic. He's since gone onto PSG, taking over when they were top of the league and finishing in 2nd. No chance he'd have done well for us!

I really think fans need to stop this rating managers on purely what they've won. We have to take into account the circumstances and look at their paths to getting job at clubs that give them a shot at winning things. In Europe the path to the top is very different, as they are employed as a head coach, yet all to often we credit their achievements as if they were traditional managers.

Which players would you say are examples of Mourinho's "next level coaching?" Interestingly he and Redknapp have coached 5 of the same players (not counting youngsters), those being Lass Diarra, Glenn Johnson, Muntari, Parker and Adebayor. Of those 5, I think it's fair to say Harry got more out of all of them. If I look at Mourinho's background, I see a lot of spending on top quality players, that improve teams, but I'm not sure I see a great deal of taking players to the next level. He was always credited as improving Joe Cole's game, but he never reached the heights that were expected of him as a youngster, when ironically he was coached by Harry.

I really don't see any evidence of this next level coaching that doesn't also coincide with insane spending and working with brilliant players. If anything Mourinho has shown he's a manager that likes to buy the finished article as much as possible. His strategy since joining Chelsea has seemed to be buy as many great players as possible. This is probably the reason why he hasn't followed the Paul Le Guen and Juande Ramos path of going from hyped master coach, to plonker in the space of a couple of years.

I'm not saying coaching doesn't matter because it does, but that there is a limit to what can be achieved. All too often as fans we assume there is more in our players than there is and think a different coach can extract more. I think fans need to know when a club has reached it's limits and not a coach or manager. To ask Mourinho or anyone to get more out of our squad than we did last season would be very unfair. He isn't suddenly going to be able to succeed with Walker and BAE in the way he failed with Glenn Johnson. He's not going to be able to get more out of Bale than he did with Robben or SWP. He isn't going to be able to improve VDV given he couldn't get more out of Kaka. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Yes Mourinho et al are highly successful and great managers, but if you look at their work with the standard of players we have here, rather than judging them on what they've won when working in very different circumstances, then it's pretty clear there aren't going to take us to the next level without spending and in most cases will take us backwards. Yes, the managers with the best reputations in the world would probably finish lower than 4th if they had the Spurs job!

First of all, nowhere did I rate any manager that I named purely on what they've won. Secondly, I wouldn't disagree that there is more to management than raw coaching knowledge and tactical ability. As for your assertion that Mourinho would not b able to get more out of Bale, I strongly disagree. Your comparisons with Robben and SWP are, to me, bizarre. SWP and Bale don't belong in the same paragraph, let alone sentence, and Robben enjoyed his finest years under that manager in a 4-3-3; good grief, he managed to make Damien Duff look like a world star!!! Cryptically, the fact we are not in the CL might well be the reason a Mourinho is not in charge because, as you said, they wouldn't have the money. With regards to my Ancelotti comment, if he hadn't won us the title (perhaps a little dramatic) he most certainly would've slam-dunked 3rd and possibly got 2nd IMO. It wouldn't have taken much more than concentrating on your job and having the nous to work through the tricky Spring months using your full squad and keeping things fresh and confident.

You've chosen to home in on Mourinho and Ancelotti, yet not addressed Ferguson or Guardiola. I'm interested as to why this is. The bottom-line is, Gareth Bale needs a better level of coaching to fuly achieve the nous and dimensions his raw talent carries. I sincerely hope he gets it from AVB, because if not he will find it elsewhere...

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

But that is about players and not style. It's why we looked to by Cazorla and Mata. Players like Lennon, Bale and Adebayor just aren't suited to playing in tight spaces. Their main skill sets are more physical, as opposed to technical. To break down teams who sit back, you need players who can pass and receive that ball in tight spaces. At the end of the day if a team has a line of 5 across the midfield and 4 across the back and there are camped deep in their own half, you have to have players who can play between those lines, which is an extremely small area. Ideally we need a very technical striker and an attacking midfielder, like Silva, Carzola or Mata, who are extremely gifted at playing the incisive passes with one or two touches, that can open teams up in when they are very compact.

We had VDV and Modric, but really needed another plus the striker. Now we've got Dembele who has the skill to create space, but we are still lacking a couple of other really top quality, technical attacking players. The trouble is they cost a fortune. City have Aguero, Silva and Nasri and they were able to break teams down, but they cost a combined £85 million and are on insane wages. We can talk about the need to break teams down and discuss all manners of tactical approaches, but ultimately if teams sit deep, in means little space and to open them up players of real ingenuity are needed. At the moment, other than Dembele, I don't see anyone in our squad who can really has that ability to unlock a defence on a regular basis. Some may argue Sig can, but though we can see on Youtube he can be a clever passer, I'm not sure he could do it regularly when teams sit back as they do against us.

It is the style/system/formation/tactics that puts players in those positions. It is that which makes sure they have the appropriate support and options, and that which finds them in these positions to begin with.

I can see the logic of the examples like Mata, but think you are underselling a lot of our players.

Lennon has a first touch and close control among the best in the league. Bale is good in tight spaces, yes marauding down the wing is his forte but he uses his physique well when pressured to come away with the ball. Dembele is excellent in tight spaces, incredibly skillfull. Even Parker turns out of tight spaces.

We have at least a competent level of player to operate in tight areas - what is more important to me is doing so with purpose - having options and support ready for whoever has the ball. This makes life so much easier for that player. And its well drilled tactics/stye/formation that achievess it.

Last season we hadterrible movement in these situations IMHO. People got boxed in and no one showed for it or made themselves available, and countless moves broke down because of it.

 

[joey55]

First of all, nowhere did I rate any manager that I named purely on what they've won. Secondly, I wouldn't disagree that there is more to management than raw coaching knowledge and tactical ability. As for your assertion that Mourinho would not b able to get more out of Bale, I strongly disagree. Your comparisons with Robben and SWP are, to me, bizarre. SWP and Bale don't belong in the same paragraph, let alone sentence, and Robben enjoyed his finest years under that manager in a 4-3-3; good grief, he managed to make Damien Duff look like a world star!!! Cryptically, the fact we are not in the CL might well be the reason a Mourinho is not in charge because, as you said, they wouldn't have the money. With regards to my Ancelotti comment, if he hadn't won us the title (perhaps a little dramatic) he most certainly would've slam-dunked 3rd and possibly got 2nd IMO. It wouldn't have taken much more than concentrating on your job and having the nous to work through the tricky Spring months using your full squad and keeping things fresh and confident.

You've chosen to home in on Mourinho and Ancelotti, yet not addressed Ferguson or Guardiola. I'm interested as to why this is. The bottom-line is, Gareth Bale needs a better level of coaching to fuly achieve the nous and dimensions his raw talent carries. I sincerely hope he gets it from AVB, because if not he will find it elsewhere...

You may strongly disagree about Bale, but he had a player of the talent of Robben, but never took him to the heigths of being named POTY. The Robben we saw at Chelsea was the same level of huge talent we saw PSV. It wasn't until he moved to Bayers that he scored in double figures, before that he most was 7 in a league season. It wasn't until he moved to Madrid that he got double figure assists for a season. That is why I mentioned him as he's a good example of a amazing wide player, but wasn't taken to the next level by Mourinho. SWP was another winger who moved to Chelsea for big money on the back of great form, but again Mourinho didn't take him to the next level. Duffs big money move to Chelsea happened before Mourinho and his first season was arguably his best, but still not s good as the season he had at Blackburn prior to that. The point is there is no evidence of the "next level coaching" you spoke about that will take Bale to a higher level. As I said before, Mourinho's style of management is very much more focused on buying the finished article, not developing players.

I didn't focus on Guardiola and SAF as there was too much with the other examples. Guardiola we simply don't know enough about and can't be sure what was his influence on players is and what was just the natural progression of players in the Barca system. He's only ever worked at one club. A club made Rijkaard look like a great coach. I suppose the only way we could judge is to look at the players brought to the club during his reign and see if they developed. I'm not sure Villa, Zlatan, Adriano, Cesc, Sanchez, Mascherano and Alvez really showed much to suggest they were now working with a "next level" coach.

As for the SAF example, well we've had 3 high profile transfers of Spurs players to Utd over the years. In your opinion do you think Carrick, Sheringham and Berbatov became better players at Utd due to "team Ferguson," or would you say they benefited from playing with better players and thus won things? Carricks been great for them, but has he ever really reached the form he showed for us in 2005/6? Teddy won many plaudits, awards and trophies, but was he really better for them than he was when playing in brick Spurs teams all those years. We knew how great he was, but it was only really recognised by the football world when he was at Utd. Berbatov was better at Utd than he's given credit for, but I didn't think he ever reached the levels of sheer brilliance he showed for us. Also at the time we bought Bale, Utd bought Nani. On the world stage Nani had a much bigger reputation, was 3 times the price and is probably more talented. But I don't think he's developed as well as Bale has.

The Ancelotti stuff is still beyond ridiculous. He'd be lucky to finish top 6 with our squad. He got only 72 points with Chelsea in 2010/11 yet you come out with the crazy statement that we'd have "slam dunked" 3rd and possibly finished 2nd! No Spurs manager stands a chance with fans thinking things like that.

You say the bottom line is Bale needs a better level of coaching, but it really isn't. We've seen a year on year improvement in Bales game. If he keeps progressing at that rate, which is much faster than an incredible amount of players who have worked under the managers you've mentioned, then he'll be the best winger in the world in a year or two. The worry is, the environment in which he made these great strides has now changed. I think he'll continue to improve, as that is normal, but to the same extent I'm unsure. But the idea that he requires next level coaching is simply flawed beyond doubt when you take the time to look at the incredibly inconsistent records of improving players that most successful managers in the world have.

 

[africanspurs]

It is the style/system/formation/tactics that puts players in those positions. It is that which makes sure they have the appropriate support and options, and that which finds them in these positions to begin with.

I can see the logic of the examples like Mata, but think you are underselling a lot of our players.

Lennon has a first touch and close control among the best in the league. Bale is good in tight spaces, yes marauding down the wing is his forte but he uses his physique well when pressured to come away with the ball. Dembele is excellent in tight spaces, incredibly skillfull. Even Parker turns out of tight spaces.

We have at least a competent level of player to operate in tight areas - what is more important to me is doing so with purpose - having options and support ready for whoever has the ball. This makes life so much easier for that player. And its well drilled tactics/stye/formation that achievess it.

Last season we hadterrible movement in these situations IMHO. People got boxed in and no one showed for it or made themselves available, and countless moves broke down because of it.

???

but you dont think there are that many different formations though..just a variance of the same base shape.

or am i thinking of something / someone else

 

[Jordinho]

???

but you dont think there are that many different formations though..just a variance of the same base shape.

or am i thinking of something / someone else

The movement of the players off the ball, what kind of positions they're asked to look for, ie. coming for the ball or trying to find space to exploit. If you're a posession based team it's vital that there are at least a couple of passing options at all times and preferably not your own defenders. When you're in the opponents half it's the movement that will cut them open. If they players stand still the play quickly becomes very static and easy to defend against.

You need everyone constantly moving into new positions when the ball is played to advance territorially. The wingers become very important as they can either stretch play or come inside to offer another option. Players can interchange to try and drag the defenders out of position. This can be worked on and improved in training, but requires a good coach. Hodgson as an example will be on the pitch when they're training so he can stop play to show them what they've done right or wrong and how to improve.

edit: Once the players are truly comfortable with how to play, changing formations in matches will be much easier as the basic play is very similar, it's just the type of players that differ. If you go to a more attacking formation you'll hopefully get another option up front.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

???

but you dont think there are that many different formations though..just a variance of the same base shape.

or am i thinking of something / someone else

I think 4231/433/451 are basically variations on the same theme, if thats what you are thinking of. I think though formations have a huge impact on how a team can play

 

[joey55]

I think 4231/433/451 are basically variations on the same theme, if thats what you are thinking of. I think though formations have a huge impact on how a team can play

If you look at the formations themselves and the tactics you employ within them are all or should be reflective of the players you have. The players should mould the formation/tactics, not the other way round. That is just common sense and I think I can put forward a good reason why.

A clubs success is largely dependent on it's transfer market activity. But the competition for the best players is fierce. Finding top quality players is hard and finding affordable one's is even harder. So by further limiting yourself to finding players that fit a specific way of playing is even harder and by doing so you are creating a disadvantage for your club. You need to be more adaptable and allows for your club to recruit from a great pool of players.

In 2005/6 we player a very defensive formation, with Davids on the left and Mido as a target man. The next season we brought on Malbranque and Berbatov and changes our style greatly. But we weren't necessarily looking for those specific types of players. We tried for Kuyt and Duff, which had we signed would have required a different approach again. To this day it still tinkles me off that we had to sell Carrick as I think had we kept him the 2006/7 side could have been very special.

For the first half of the 2009/10 season we largely played the Kranjcar or Modric on the left. When Bale came to the fore, we simply adpated our style, by removing the DM from the starting line up. The following season we bought VDV at the last minute, but didn't ask him to fit into our 442, rather we changed formation.

I think tactics and formation should to a large extent sort themselves out. From the basic stuff such as targeting tall players in the air right through to the more technical instructions. It's the same with movement. Good movement is as much a quality or skill as vision or creativity is. You also have to match that movement with a technical skill set. For example, no ones movement is better than Robbie Keane's. But despite his great movement, he doesn't have the technical ability to play consistently create and play the killer passes in the way Cazorla, Silva and Mata do. we can ask player to move better, we can instruct them to do so, but despite what a lot of our fans might think, I bet they've been asked that their entire football careers. But only a few exceptional talents have the ability to see the space before other players, move into it, receive the ball, use it well and move again all at high tempo. These players usually cost a fortune. Some fans seem to think that this can be coached into them, but as I said, it's as much a talent as vision or even pace. You can't expect Santi Cazorla to run as fast as Aaron Lennon, even with loads of sprint training.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Depends which you believe should inform which.

If you believe you just play to suit your current staff then obviously its players.

If you believe in a system of play, you buy to suit it instead - favouring the style over the current crop.

In the short term you have to play to the players strengths, but longer term I think an emedded style of play is a very powerful thing

 

[joey55]

Depends which you believe should inform which.

If you believe you just play to suit your current staff then obviously its players.

If you believe in a system of play, you buy to suit it instead - favouring the style over the current crop.

In the short term you have to play to the players strengths, but longer term I think an emedded style of play is a very powerful thing

I agree it's which you believe should inform which. But feel the arguments are massively more in favour of playing in a way that suits the players. If you can have you pick of the best players in the world, then there is an argument that you can buy to suit a specific way of playing. But for the vast majority of clubs, you've got to be more flexible.

 

[NWND]

I think we are getting the players in that can play a number of positions and this seems to be a key part of our transfer strategy where possible. This ties in with one of the players (can't remember who) that says AVB has a particular approach to each individual game which can alter.

Most of the new signings are pretty versatile bar one or two:

Lloris - GK
Vertonghen - CB, LB, can probably at a push play DM
Sigurdsson - AM, CM, can probably at a push play further forward in a front 3 either side of the centre-forward
Dembele - CM, AM, CF - has played all these roles in the past
Dempsey - AM, RW, LW, CF
Adebayor - CF

I'd say the real flexibility that will change the shape of the team is who is playing either side of Ade. Lennon and Bale on their natural flanks will give a lot of width and pace, but you could play Dempsey and Dembele there and change the dynamic of the team quite considerably.

In this way its also a shame we didn't get Moutinho or another central midfield lynch-pin as it probably means Dembele will have to drop into that role and means we might miss the flexibility of having him in the forward positions.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I agree it's which you believe should inform which. But feel the arguments are massively more in favour of playing in a way that suits the players. If you can have you pick of the best players in the world, then there is an argument that you can buy to suit a specific way of playing. But for the vast majority of clubs, you've got to be more flexible.

Actually a 'fixed' style of play can make you more successful in the transfer market. If you know exactly what you want in a player for a position you have a very specific set of qualities in the market - you can find the things you need more reliably. You can also plan succession of players better, and also how to blood players into the team through the academy.

 

[BrainOfLevy]

I agree it's which you believe should inform which. But feel the arguments are massively more in favour of playing in a way that suits the players. If you can have you pick of the best players in the world, then there is an argument that you can buy to suit a specific way of playing. But for the vast majority of clubs, you've got to be more flexible.

Not necessarily. You can get results and overachieve with a system as Swansea have shown, and they didn't need to buy the best players around to do it. They had a defined system, know which type of players they need, and put them all to work. It can work too, but it just involves getting the right style of players for your system of play.

What concerns me is that after the Norwich game, if AVB is altering our set up from game to game, what exactly was the plan against Norwich? At Saudi Sportswashing Machine, I think he had a plan and it worked well. Against West Brom, we started well but then fell apart as if the players didn't know how to react to the changing scenarios around them. Against Norwich, it was like the plan was not to press high, and to invite them onto us. I presume this is then to leave space for Bale and Lennon to run into, but it's a funny way of approaching a match against one of the worst sides in the league, at home, IMO.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I wouldnt get caught up on this game to game idea - its no doubt small instructions/tweaks within a consistent formation.

 

[thfcsteff]

You may strongly disagree about Bale, but he had a player of the talent of Robben, but never took him to the heigths of being named POTY. The Robben we saw at Chelsea was the same level of huge talent we saw PSV. It wasn't until he moved to Bayers that he scored in double figures, before that he most was 7 in a league season. It wasn't until he moved to Madrid that he got double figure assists for a season. That is why I mentioned him as he's a good example of a amazing wide player, but wasn't taken to the next level by Mourinho. SWP was another winger who moved to Chelsea for big money on the back of great form, but again Mourinho didn't take him to the next level. Duffs big money move to Chelsea happened before Mourinho and his first season was arguably his best, but still not s good as the season he had at Blackburn prior to that. The point is there is no evidence of the "next level coaching" you spoke about that will take Bale to a higher level. As I said before, Mourinho's style of management is very much more focused on buying the finished article, not developing players.

I didn't focus on Guardiola and SAF as there was too much with the other examples. Guardiola we simply don't know enough about and can't be sure what was his influence on players is and what was just the natural progression of players in the Barca system. He's only ever worked at one club. A club made Rijkaard look like a great coach. I suppose the only way we could judge is to look at the players brought to the club during his reign and see if they developed. I'm not sure Villa, Zlatan, Adriano, Cesc, Sanchez, Mascherano and Alvez really showed much to suggest they were now working with a "next level" coach.

As for the SAF example, well we've had 3 high profile transfers of Spurs players to Utd over the years. In your opinion do you think Carrick, Sheringham and Berbatov became better players at Utd due to "team Ferguson," or would you say they benefited from playing with better players and thus won things? Carricks been great for them, but has he ever really reached the form he showed for us in 2005/6? Teddy won many plaudits, awards and trophies, but was he really better for them than he was when playing in brick Spurs teams all those years. We knew how great he was, but it was only really recognised by the football world when he was at Utd. Berbatov was better at Utd than he's given credit for, but I didn't think he ever reached the levels of sheer brilliance he showed for us. Also at the time we bought Bale, Utd bought Nani. On the world stage Nani had a much bigger reputation, was 3 times the price and is probably more talented. But I don't think he's developed as well as Bale has.

The Ancelotti stuff is still beyond ridiculous. He'd be lucky to finish top 6 with our squad. He got only 72 points with Chelsea in 2010/11 yet you come out with the crazy statement that we'd have "slam dunked" 3rd and possibly finished 2nd! No Spurs manager stands a chance with fans thinking things like that.

You say the bottom line is Bale needs a better level of coaching, but it really isn't. We've seen a year on year improvement in Bales game. If he keeps progressing at that rate, which is much faster than an incredible amount of players who have worked under the managers you've mentioned, then he'll be the best winger in the world in a year or two. The worry is, the environment in which he made these great strides has now changed. I think he'll continue to improve, as that is normal, but to the same extent I'm unsure. But the idea that he requires next level coaching is simply flawed beyond doubt when you take the time to look at the incredibly inconsistent records of improving players that most successful managers in the world have.

If you're interested in being right and telling me I am wrong, then I think the discussion is heading for an exit. I prefer to see it as a severe difference of opinion. Anyway... Addressing a few points here...

Guardiola. Yes, one club. I agree. Mentioned it myself. I would say that all the players you mention have improved simply by being part of a club with a system and a philosophy as imprinted by a very smart coach, instead of just thrown out there like the Harlem Globetrotters. I think Carrick became a better player with United, yes, I think he learnt more about the WHOLE game and his role in it. Teddy? Always a briliant player so I'd agree he did not personally improve in terms of knowing where to be on a football pitch, but I'd wager that if you asked him, he became a better player because of (yes!) the team around him which was moulded and shaped (much of it via the youth system) by SAF. Berba didn't get on at Utd, and we can debate the reasons for that and likely never know the answer, but I'd guess that this brilliant talent can only play one way and could not add extra string to his bow, thus found his time at Utd increasingly limited.

Now, the Ancelotti comments. I'm sorry if you think it's ridiculous. Throwing '72 points' at me as proof means nothing to me. You cannot argue with the facts. Carlos Ancelotti has won a lot of trophies. He has a track record of being a winner. We were 3rd with a 10 point lead. Do you honestly in your heart of hearts think that Carlos Ancelotti might not have stood an outrageously good chance of not just finishing 3rd but pushing for 2nd? Seriously? In lieu of a manager who wasn't able to focus on the job at hand, we needed an experienced steward, an experienced manager and coach who had a history of winning things. "No Spurs manager stands a chance with fans thinking like that.' Thinking like 'what'? I am at a loss to understand your point. Are you suggesting that we should've been grateful for 4th last season? Because if so, I would turn around and tag you with EXACTLY the same phrase given the context of our season.

As for Bale, yes yes yes! He NEEDS even BETTER coaching than he got the last two years. A lot of his game has relied on his devastating speed and pace, but last season especially, he often lacked the discipline to hold a position or the instruction as to when to take up one! QPR away is a wonderful example of a superb talent playing an average team who was totally lost. 'Get out and do it' doesn't always work.Sometimes you need more. I always thought if he started to move inside from time to time he would add another string to his bow, he got results against Norwich and boom. That's it. He was inside half the bloody match! Obviously I'm sure he was coached, my point is that all the managers I mentioned somehow manage to get world class players to play in teams and systems which then win things. They don't lose their individual brilliance, they just develop into fully rounded footballers. I personally (and you obviously disagree - all good) feel Bale needs that. And I hope he gets it with AVB.

I agree with regards to the new environment, it will take him time, and with the changes which taken place at the club, I would absolutely give AVB time to settle and map out his plan and hopefully our successful future. Who knows? Maybe I'm wrong and maybe AVB is weird aspergers case who is going to prove an awful appointment. Obviously that's beyond our scope of knowledge. But what I will be watching, carefully, is to see whether this much-venerated coach can help players like Bale and Lennon grow as footballers, or whether the inevitable will happen in Bale's case...

p.s. Robben...again, you have come up with individual stats. Do you genuinely, genuinely believe there is anyone who would not view the most successful and effective portion of Robben's career as NOT at chelski? Remember too, his injury record. But I personally think the most effective years of RObben were at chelski, where Mourinho was successful in making his jet-heeled excellence work forthe team. At Bayern he has been something of a semi-unmanageable enigma.

Good discussion.

 

[thfcsteff]

If you look at the formations themselves and the tactics you employ within them are all or should be reflective of the players you have. The players should mould the formation/tactics, not the other way round. That is just common sense and I think I can put forward a good reason why.

A clubs success is largely dependent on it's transfer market activity. But the competition for the best players is fierce. Finding top quality players is hard and finding affordable one's is even harder. So by further limiting yourself to finding players that fit a specific way of playing is even harder and by doing so you are creating a disadvantage for your club. You need to be more adaptable and allows for your club to recruit from a great pool of players.

In 2005/6 we player a very defensive formation, with Davids on the left and Mido as a target man. The next season we brought on Malbranque and Berbatov and changes our style greatly. But we weren't necessarily looking for those specific types of players. We tried for Kuyt and Duff, which had we signed would have required a different approach again. To this day it still tinkles me off that we had to sell Carrick as I think had we kept him the 2006/7 side could have been very special.

For the first half of the 2009/10 season we largely played the Kranjcar or Modric on the left. When Bale came to the fore, we simply adpated our style, by removing the DM from the starting line up. The following season we bought VDV at the last minute, but didn't ask him to fit into our 442, rather we changed formation.

I think tactics and formation should to a large extent sort themselves out. From the basic stuff such as targeting tall players in the air right through to the more technical instructions. It's the same with movement. Good movement is as much a quality or skill as vision or creativity is. You also have to match that movement with a technical skill set. For example, no ones movement is better than Robbie Keane's. But despite his great movement, he doesn't have the technical ability to play consistently create and play the killer passes in the way Cazorla, Silva and Mata do. we can ask player to move better, we can instruct them to do so, but despite what a lot of our fans might think, I bet they've been asked that their entire football careers. But only a few exceptional talents have the ability to see the space before other players, move into it, receive the ball, use it well and move again all at high tempo. These players usually cost a fortune. Some fans seem to think that this can be coached into them, but as I said, it's as much a talent as vision or even pace. You can't expect Santi Cazorla to run as fast as Aaron Lennon, even with loads of sprint training.

Of course. You don't sign a plumber and train him to be a carpenter because it's actually your cabinets which need fixing. But, if your prospective plumber also shows great skill at being able do carpentry, you might have a chat with them about the possibility of adding a bit of carpentry to their duties.

I disagree that tactics and instruction should sort themselves out. I think you need a combination of what you've mentioned dovetailed with a plan and philosophy. Otherwise you end up with what we had last March, where a blip became a slump simply because we needed a little more thought and structure beyond letting VdV and Modric pick the lock for others. I genuinely genuinely believe that going to Arsenal with a 4-4-2 was one of the most stupid things I have seen in football shape-wise.Ditto the cavalier comments from supporters about going there and tearing them a new arsehole (hey! I was probably one of them!!!!!!!!)...great coaches and managers will recognize that those are the times you need to show the most nous and discipline. It was absolutely indicative of the problems which were to come IMHO. That defeat was not an anomaly, it was a huge mistake. And no-one held their hands up to it or bothered to learn from it, instead writing it off as 'one of those days'...

 

[Hully]

Not necessarily. You can get results and overachieve with a system as Swansea have shown, and they didn't need to buy the best players around to do it. They had a defined system, know which type of players they need, and put them all to work. It can work too, but it just involves getting the right style of players for your system of play.

What concerns me is that after the Norwich game, if AVB is altering our set up from game to game, what exactly was the plan against Norwich? At Saudi Sportswashing Machine, I think he had a plan and it worked well. Against West Brom, we started well but then fell apart as if the players didn't know how to react to the changing scenarios around them. Against Norwich, it was like the plan was not to press high, and to invite them onto us. I presume this is then to leave space for Bale and Lennon to run into, but it's a funny way of approaching a match against one of the worst sides in the league, at home, IMO.

Swansea we're so successful with their system because almost all teams went after them, allowing Swansea to play on the break. Interesting to me that Lambert's Norwich out played them every time they met. But then Lambert is a genius.

Brendan Rodgers will find it much harder to impliment the same thing at Liverpool where a lot of teams will set up defensively.

 

[africanspurs]

swansea werent a fast break team though, they were as much a possession team as anyone we have seen out there

 

[glorygloryeze]

Swansea we're so successful with their system because almost all teams went after them, allowing Swansea to play on the break. Interesting to me that Lambert's Norwich out played them every time they met. But then Lambert is a genius.

Brendan Rodgers will find it much harder to impliment the same thing at Liverpool where a lot of teams will set up defensively.

Really?? Not sure about that; in fact they often played pretty triangles in their own half and then quickly went forward only when gaps appeared after the opposition had been drawn in to try and chase the defenders who had been playing trangles between themselves and the nearest midfielders. I'm sure most of Swansea's wins came when they had large monopolies in possesion (i'm sure their possession stats were often in their favour anyway) and NOT when they hit teams on the break.

Lambert is just one manager that knew that if you concentrated in winning possesion in key areas further up the pitch in their half then Swansea's passing game could easily be nullified (e.g. they didn't really have th hoof ball to a 'hold it up merchant' as much as others did; I don't see Danny Graham as that type of forward). Redknapp, Warnock, Moyes and Hughes were other managers that used and exploited this tactic against them.

I agree that Rodgers will find it harder to implement that style at Liverpool.

 

[glorygloryeze]

I have to say I am really looking forward to how we play away at Stoke this season..that could be AVB's defining hour (for better or worse) imo