Proper football, Wilder and Basset

[DronnieBlade]

What about Arsenal? Mourinho teams do not dominate possession, Conte doesn't, neither do Italian teams, Argentinians, even Brazil these days, nor do Real Madrid v Barcelona. 'Proper football' may not be winiing football.

Wilder can play it both ways depending on the opposition. I hope our players are coached to believe possession is not necessarily success and I'm sure they are taught to be patient out of possession. That will happen next season.

What about Arsenal ?

A side that has consistently challenged for honours at the top of the PL, the CL the cups. And on a fraction of the budget of other comparable top clubs. I think Wenger has done an unbelievable job and leaves (eventually) an incredible legacy (stadium payed for etc etc.).

Have they won enough ? Probably not. But Arsenal as a club is a sound sustainable business model whereas when the sugar daddies at other top clubs grow tired, they are fucked !

As for the other bits I did say the most successful teams are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have. And I'll add to that by saying the most effective with the possession they don't have (in a defensive sense).

But don't kid yourself that possession isn't the constant. As impossible as it is, a team with 0% possession in a game might, just might, struggle a wee bit !

UTB

 

[DronnieBlade]

But those of us of a nervous disposition note that teams do concede goals when they lose possession in the defensive third of the pitch (think Weir).

So they have lost possession then. However / wherever it's happened.

Possession is the constant.

UTB

 

[Woodwardfan]

Oh aye, it's different. But, for example, with the resource we had there was very definitely only one style of play that was going to get us from the third division to the premier league in the Bassett era.

Of that, there is surely no argument whatsoever?

No mistake, that brand of football was really exciting. Watching Deane and Agana marauding with belief, pace, skill and total commitment, absolute affinity with us fans, unforgettable.

I'd take that as 'proper football' any day, every day.

 

[Woodwardfan]

What about Arsenal ?

A side that has consistently challenged for honours at the top of the PL, the CL the cups. And on a fraction of the budget of other comparable top clubs. I think Wenger has done an unbelievable job and leaves (eventually) an incredible legacy (stadium payed for etc etc.).

Have they won enough ? Probably not. But Arsenal as a club is a sound sustainable business model whereas when the sugar daddies at other top clubs grow tired, they are fucked !

As for the other bits I did say the most successful teams are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have. And I'll add to that by saying the most effective with the possession they don't have (in a defensive sense).

But don't kid yourself that possession isn't the constant. As impossible as it is, a team with 0% possession in a game might, just might, struggle a wee bit !

UTB

You mention defensive stength as an afterthought. Don't kid yourself, it's the top priority.

Wenger never got his 'spine' right and he inherited his best defence when he had the most success.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Oh aye, it's different. But, for example, with the resource we had there was very definitely only one style of play that was going to get us from the third division to the premier league in the Bassett era.

Of that, there is surely no argument whatsoever?

I hazard a guess that one forum member would argue with you on that!

 

[lingsbord]

And defensively?

Same

 

[DronnieBlade]

You mention defensive stength as an afterthought. Don't kid yourself, it's the top priority.

Wenger never got his 'spine' right and he inherited his best defence when he had the most success.

Oh I agree totally.

Build your strength, your solidity, your spine, then build the flair around that.

UTB

 

[Woodwardfan]

Oh I agree totally.

Build your strength, your solidity, your spine, then build the flair around that.

UTB

We agree then, possession is secondary but important.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

So they have lost possession then. However it's happened.

Possession is the constant.
,
UTB

But the consequences are very different. A winger loses possession by the opponents corner flag, and the team should cope; the goalkeeper loses possession rather than boot it out of play (I speak from bitter experience), and the consequences are severe.

 

[lingsbord]

You've got your angles wrong but I agree with your points. Triangles (which is what I assume you meant). Football is a game of triangles. Which is why all my teams have always played 3:5:2 (or like variations thereof).

UTB

Angles are right mate. 45 degrees is too obvious, and there's a subconscious ability for even the most challenged footballer to close the avenue off. 30 and 60 are the ways to go, in any direction from either the parallel or the perpendicular, and either side of either of the above.

I used to like Keegan's angles. Up to a holding player, and while he plays that back to a deeper midfielder at another angle, another player was advancing past his marker to receive a longer through ball, played when the opposition was ball-watching. 1,2,3 football using the triangles and hugely effective.

 

[Woodwardfan]

But the consequences are very different. A winger loses possession by the opponents corner flag, and the team should cope; the goalkeeper loses possession rather than boot it out of play (I speak from bitter experience), and the consequences are severe.

And if John Stones loses possession, just as bad!

Give me the Magic Hat any day of the week!!

 

[alcoblade]

I hazard a guess that one forum member would argue with you on that!

No doubt he would, and even less doubt that he'd be wrong. Only the mist of time can make us forget what a shambolic football club we were back then.

 

[DronnieBlade]

We agree then, possession is secondary but important.

Absolutely not.

How the fuck do you expect a defensively magnificent side to achieve without any significant possession of the ball ?

Could a side that's defensively gash get through games by dominating possession ?

2 very separate issues for me. Both are important.

UTB

 

[DronnieBlade]

Angles are right mate. 45 degrees is too obvious, and there's a subconscious ability for even the most challenged footballer to close the avenue off. 30 and 60 are the ways to go, in any direction from either the parallel or the perpendicular, and either side of either of the above.

I used to like Keegan's angles. Up to a holding player, and while he plays that back to a deeper midfielder at another angle, another player was advancing past his marker to receive a longer through ball, played when the opposition was ball-watching. 1,2,3 football using the triangles and hugely effective.

There are 360 degrees.

Are you suggesting, by inference, there will be 12 different (30x 12) and available options for a player based on your numbers ?

Me thinks not.

The correct angles are triangular. Not necessarily 120 120 120. Could just as easy be 180 90 and 90. Or indeed any other 3 (triangulation) angles that add up to 360.

But 3 options rather than 12 is the best you could expect.

UTB

 

[Woodwardfan]

Absolutely not.

How the fuck do you expect a defensively magnificent side to achieve without any significant possession of the ball ?

Could a side that's defensively gash get through games by dominating possession ?

2 very separate issues for me. Both are important.

UTB

You've changed tack mate, fair enough. Any team needs every department to function well to succeed, not just 'possession' that's for sure. Mourinho hates 'possession' and many highly successful teams are never happier than when they are out of 'possession' and getting ready to counter-attack.

 

[DronnieBlade]

You've changed tack mate, fair enough. Any team needs every department to function well to succeed, not just 'possession' that's for sure. Mourinho hates 'possession' and many highly successful teams are never happier than when they are out of 'possession' and getting ready to counter-attack.

Mourninho hates possession for possessions sake. But I can assure you he does not hate possession.

Counter attacking strategies to nullify possession are intriguing, and of course can be effective.

And you edited your post (not quite in time for me not to notice !).

UTB

 

[Woodwardfan]

I don't think it is lost on Pinchy, although you would have to ask him !

Some of the points made on this thread have been somewhat skewed.

The only real point I wanted to make is this.

Let's pretend YOU (yes you, whoever is reading this) is now the Manager.

Your brief is to achieve winning football. That's a given and the bit that I think has been the most skewed. The winning brief is something I think we can all agree on.

The only point I am making is that the best, most reliable and most likely way of achieving this objective is the proper way. So what's the proper way ?

As another poster has said earlier in the thread, this is based on possession. The same poster has said when players and managers speak of the proper way, they refer to possession based. I whole heartedly agree. They do not refer to a more direct approach. A percentage approach.

Players and managers do this for a living and are experienced / expert in their field. Make the connection !

It's very very easy to say we aspire to winning football. That's a given.

I have complete faith that our current manager both aspires to this mantra and has the expertise to formulate a strategy to achieve it.

UTB

I'll make it easier.

The most successful sides are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have in any given game.

Effectiveness can be variable. Possession is the constant.

I have played in / coached / managed / watched thousands and thousands of football matches.

Freak instances aside, which are rare, i have yet to see a team score when not in possession of the ball. Nor do you see teams concede when they have possession.

Possession is the constant and it should be cherished. The good news is that our manager is well aware of this

UTB

What about Arsenal ?

A side that has consistently challenged for honours at the top of the PL, the CL the cups. And on a fraction of the budget of other comparable top clubs. I think Wenger has done an unbelievable job and leaves (eventually) an incredible legacy (stadium payed for etc etc.).

Have they won enough ? Probably not. But Arsenal as a club is a sound sustainable business model whereas when the sugar daddies at other top clubs grow tired, they are fucked !

As for the other bits I did say the most successful teams are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have. And I'll add to that by saying the most effective with the possession they don't have (in a defensive sense).

But don't kid yourself that possession isn't the constant. As impossible as it is, a team with 0% possession in a game might, just might, struggle a wee bit !

UTB

Mourninho hates possession for possessions sake. But I can assure you he does not hate possession.

Counter attacking strategies to nullify possession are intriguing, and of course can be effective.

And you edited your post (not quite in time for me not to notice !).

UTB

Re edits:Are you called Sean? Just take a look at your posts above, which cannot be edited at this stage.

 

[1danewhitehouse]

You mention defensive stength as an afterthought. Don't kid yourself, it's the top priority.

Wenger never got his 'spine' right and he inherited his best defence when he had the most success.

---------------Lehmann

Lauren, Toure, Campbell, Cole.

That wasn't an inherited defence and did rather well. He's struggled to get it as good again though.

 

[lingsbord]

There are 360 degrees.

Are you suggesting, by inference, there will be 12 different (30x 12) and available options for a player based on your numbers ?

Me thinks not.

The correct angles are triangular. Not necessarily 120 120 120. Could just as easy be 180 90 and 90. Or indeed any other 3 (triangulation) angles that add up to 360.

But 3 options rather than 12 is the best you could expect.

UTB

Mate, whatever thee thinks, the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees, not 360. That's not an inference, it's a fucking fact. GCSE text book.

"Team-mates offering triangular support are best finding space at 30 or 60 degrees from the parallel or the perpendicular". UEFA Pro Licence text book.

Your idea that the angles available might be 90, 90, 180 suggests sideways or backwards. Are you David Weir?

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

Mate, whatever thee thinks, the angles in a triangle add up to 180 degrees, not 360. That's not an inference, it's a fucking fact. GCSE text book.

"Team-mates offering triangular support are best finding space at 30 or 60 degrees from the parallel or the perpendicular". UEFA Pro Licence text book.

Your idea that the angles available might be 90, 90, 180 suggests sideways or backwards. Are you David Weir?

(Genuine question - all this is new to me) Are players from the team without the ball coached to look out for and mark opponents providing these angles? If they are, does this mean players with the ball will eventually need to look for something different? In other words, coaching is a constant battle of wits, rather than an application of never-changing truths?

 

[lingsbord]

(Genuine question - all this is new to me) Are players from the team without the ball coached to look out for and mark opponents providing these angles? If they are, does this mean players with the ball will eventually need to look for something different? In other words, coaching is a constant battle of wits, rather than an application of never-changing truths?

To a degree HBT you're right that these things should be taken into account and planned for by the opposition, but human nature means people will still automatically ball-watch, and a mobile midfield will always find space at angles as defenders try to maintain shape and not get pulled all over the pitch.

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

To a degree HBT you're right that these things should be taken into account and planned for by the opposition, but human nature means people will still automatically ball-watch, and a mobile midfield will always find space at angles as defenders try to maintain shape and not get pulled all over the pitch.

Thanks. Perhaps if we get another few weeks of this, when a defender has the ball, we won't be shouting 'gerritforrerd', we'll be shouting at a midfielder 'get thisen at 30 degrees'. More seriously, the best players do this by instinct; I remember TC interviewed after a match saying that his role had been to run up and down the right-hand side of the pitch. I wondered if he knew just how good he was.

 

[Pinchy]

I thank you !

You gonna fix all the other Tufty references as well ?

Might take a while !!!!

UTB

He's been known as Tufty since he was a Junior at The Lane. He's called by that name every day by all sorts of people. It's Chrissy that bothers me. Fucking "Chrissy"?

I Tufty Fluffytail.

 

[Pinchy]

Really.

So you seriously don't prefer watching a team gain promotion like United did last season over say how Bolton achieved it?

Of course winning beautiful is better than winning ugly. I don't understand why that is so hard a concept for some to grasp.

I do. I've been trying for years. I've explained in simple terms that proper football isn't just decorative it's functional as well. It is the way to win. It's cause and effect not a coincidental optional extra.

Skulls like granite, I'm afraid.

 

[Pinchy]

Point is mate, 46 dogshit performances that get promotion will always be better than 46 scintillating performances that leave us struggling at the bottom. I GUARANTEE "Tufty" would agree.

Still, you and pinchy are the footballing visionaries on here, so I doff my cap as appropriate.

I have never been an advocate of the "gerrit forrerd" style of football, but regardless of what's on the pitch, I prefer going home with 3 points in the bag first. How we got them is next on the priority list. You football geniuses have to try to accommodate or otherwise try to suffer the complete lunatics and fuckwits like the rest of us who just want to win first, and analyse it later

An object essay on point-missing. Proper football is much more likely to win games and points than ragamuffin, upanatem shadow-chasing, otherwise known as 'crap'. That's the way all the best teams play. It's cause and effect. If you don't realise that after last season, you never will.

 

[Pinchy]

Bushy mate I would take the Wilder way every time but too many people are missing my point. I want us to play the Wilder way forever, BUT whatever is successful is the "proper" way at the time. It's fluid. Leicester won the PL playing "proper" football (who could doubt it?) but they also nearly fell out of the League supposedly playing the same way.

The loss of Deane/Fjortfoft and therefore Spackman robbed us of what could have become a serious footballing dynasty imho. I loved watching us play great football like he had us playing, and with bigger cojones we could have become serious players in the years that followed, but in the end it ended in tears.

To answer your point I would prefer to watch great football with a team that just about survived than watching a side that clogged its way to 8th place, but I'd rather clog our way to promotion than pass our way to survival.

The hypotheses are flawed. Based on an entirely false premise of equality of methods. Great football ultimately provides great results. Crap football ultimately fails. It really isn't difficult to comprehend.

 

[Pinchy]

Anybody who thinks Bassett's style was simply hoofball is clueless. Percentage football has its place, and for a good few years under Bassett it worked a treat. Overlapping fullbacks, balls into the channels to turn defences to give the strikers a chance against retreating defenders, the rest of the side pressing the second and third ball, it's all good when it works (the unclean got close to promotion the last 2 seasons - Carlos is a percentage coach).

On the other hand, keeping the ball for the sake of keeping the ball, massively high pass completion rates and possession percentages etc might be considered "proper" football, but if you're David Weir and you can gain 70% possession but lose 1-0 week after depressing week, you can stick your "proper" football up yer arse. If you want perfect shapes and movement, fuck off and watch Strictly....

PROPER football is winning football. As fans, we turn up to watch a team that wins football matches. How they achieve those wins matters as much as the order in which winning lottery numbers are drawn out. These poncy cunts who think we have to dance the right steps while we're going about our business are sad and delusional clueless no-marks looking to provoke a response on forums.

WINNING football is all that matters to a genuine fan, and however you achieve it is absolutely and completely irrelevant.

That's the widest margin by which I've seen the point missed in a long time. It doesn't just miss the dartboard; it's speared a guy in the next street.

 

[Pinchy]

I would suggest that every professional manager in the world whose job hinges on results would say the only proper football is winning football.
But hey what the fuck would they know. They arent lucky enough to never get nearer to actually doing the job than posting on a football forum.

Yet they are the ones who repeatedly refer to 'proper football' and the 'right way'. Everyone knows what they mean by these phrase, though the disingenuous will pretend otherwise.

There are many ways to write prose, but literary prizes are won by those who write with elegance and flair, producing an attractive product; not by those who toss a few sentences together at random. There is a way of writing that is inherently more likely to succeed than others.

Football is no different. Proper Football is Winning Football. Too many are inverting the equation and thereby creating a false premise and a flawed answer.

I'm not sure whether I can explain this any plainer. It won't register though. It never has before, sadly. I had hoped that last season's superb passing football and the results achieved as a consequence, might have been persuasive. Then I realised where we are...

 

[Pinchy]

I'll make it easier.

The most successful sides are the ones that are most effective with the possession they have in any given game.

Effectiveness can be variable. Possession is the constant.

I have played in / coached / managed / watched thousands and thousands of football matches.

Freak instances aside, which are rare, i have yet to see a team score when not in possession of the ball. Nor do you see teams concede when they have possession.

Possession is the constant and it should be cherished. The good news is that our manager is well aware of this

UTB

The bad is that there is very little agreement with such an unassailable proposition. We are very uneasy about good football in S2. We're restless to be upanatem underdogs. Anything else takes us outside our comfort zone.

 

[Pinchy]

Absolutely not.

How the fuck do you expect a defensively magnificent side to achieve without any significant possession of the ball ?

Could a side that's defensively gash get through games by dominating possession ?

2 very separate issues for me. Both are important.

UTB

Very few goals are scored when a team is not in possession and about the same number are conceded when said team is.