|
Post by buddha on Mar 24, 2011 19:33:32 GMT 8
-----WEISS MUST MOTIVATE! Any team given the right tactical set-up and who are highly motivated can overcome all odds. Think Rubin vs Barcelona, Greece beating Portugal to become Euro champions (2004), North Korea beating Italy (1966), USA beating England (1950). So far Weiss hasn't settled on a particular formation. On the other hand, we have to fully understand the dilemma of a national team manager/coach: his players aren't always the ones he want. Because of this a national team coach has to be very flexible in tactics and has to shape his team to the strengths of the players that happen to be available to him. He should be given space and freedom to set his formation on a game to game basis. However, it is highly detrimental to a team's stability to keep changing formations. The players will struggle to settle. Our only hope will be in Weiss' ability to motivate. This is one side of Weiss' coaching that nobody has talked about. Can he motivate? HE MUST if the Azkals under his watch is to succeed. ------ badleftfoot: That's a great buy! What a bargain.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 22, 2011 9:34:41 GMT 8
Here's an interesting article from BBC. Considering that it has taken Japan and Korea more than 20 years to reach their current level (we can't wait that long now, can we?!) isn't it time we explore alternative methods of coaching to fast track the development of our youth players? Here's the BRAIN CENTERED LEARNING method by Belgian coach Michel Bruyninckx: news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/9421702.stm
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 22, 2011 7:31:04 GMT 8
I still believe we should build on our strengths... and that is defensive, counter-attacking football. But each coach has his own philosophy and Weiss's philosophy is based on attack.
However, I applaud his pragmatism as demonstrated by his determination to defend well against Myanmar, which we did.
I believe that hard fought draw was a fair result.
--------To attack or not to attack, that is the question...
There's a quote from one of the best attack-minded coaches ever, Cesar Luis Menotti:
"I maintain that a team is above all an idea and more than an idea it is a commitment, and more than a commitment it is the clear convictions that a coach must transmit to his players to defend that idea. So my concern is that we coaches don't arrogate to ourselves the right to remove from the spectacle the synonym of festival, in favour of a philosophical reading that cannot be sustained, which is to avoid taking risks. And in football there are risks because the only way you can avoid taking risks in any game is by not playing …
"And to those who say that all that matters is winning, I want to warn them that someone always wins. Therefore, in a 30-team championship, there are 29 who must ask themselves: what did I leave at this club, what did I bring to my players, what possibility of growth did I give to my footballers?
"I start from the premise that football is efficacy. I play to win, as much or more than any egoist who thinks he's going to win by other means. I want to win the match. But I don't give in to tactical reasoning as the only way to win, rather I believe that efficacy is not divorced from beauty …"
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 22, 2011 7:17:18 GMT 8
badleftfoot: I do have a library of football books but "Inverting the Pyramid" remains the holy grail. I believe any coach worth his salt should be well read. I'm currently working my way through David Goldblatt's fantastic tome "The Ball is Round: A Global History of Football." Another brilliant read is Simon Kuper's "Football Against the Enemy." But now that I'm back in Bukidnon I'm sorely missing out quality football books. ----- The best tactical analysis anywhere on the net, hands-down, is: www.zonalmarking.netZonalmarking.net has been an inspiration to many armchair analysts like me. Writers with amazing insights into the game are Tim Vickery and Jonathan Wilson. -------WEISS CHANGES I do agree, Caz. The 2nd half looked like a totally different game. Unfortunately we'll never fully know what tactical adjustments were made as there's been a media blackout. Does anyone feel that conceding a last minute equalizer is preventable? I know I do.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 21, 2011 17:01:11 GMT 8
cjeagle: A defensive midfielder who drops back to "sweep" behind the defense sounds very much like the "libero" role as interpreted by Germany. Yes, you are right about catenaccio not being played anymore. Catenaccio (or "results soccer") is no longer common BUT teams do use its PRINCIPLES in rare occasions. It is interesting to note that during the UEFA Champions League Final between Barcelona and Inter, Jose Mourinho said that his men would DELIBERATELY GIVE UP THE BALL. There was no attempt by Inter to keep possession of the ball. This was "results soccer" at its finest. ----4-3-3 Yes, the 4-3-3 is a naturally attacking formation that encourages compactness and short passing. What is interesting is Jose Mourinho's interpretation of this formation; he turned it into a defensive, counter-attacking formation by exploiting its compactness which meant that other teams would have difficulty passing through his three man midfield (especially when he had Claude Makelele covering the hole in front of his defense). In Mourinho's version of the 4-3-3 he depended on marauding fullbacks (which is why he just had to buy Ashley Cole) on launching attacks and to provide width to the naturally narrow 4-3-3. Then you have the targetman, Drogba. Mourinho's teams weren't meant to be aesthetically pleasing. Instead they were direct, incisive, and a tad boring but guaranteed wins. Forget about tiki-taka artsy-fartsy... this was a machine made for winning games. ----Brazil's "4-3-3" I'm not sure exactly if Brazil played a 4-3-3 during their golden years. What I do know is that Brazil was very tactically innovative and ahead of its time. It was Brazil who invented the modern back four because they wanted that solid defensive base to allow their creativity to shine. Brazil was also the first national team to employ a full time psychologist on its staff. They were also very innovative in their fitness programs and were actually very biased towards strong and tall players as they believed the game of the future will feature bigger, stronger, and faster players... and they were right. (I know, I know... they still do produce small geniuses like Roberto Carlos and Dani Alves.) Some say that if you tracked the movement of Brazil's players (during their "golden years") their movement looked more like a 4-2-2-2. Thus was born the idea of a BOX MIDFIELD. Roughly resembling, --------F---------------------F---------- <----------AMC-------AMC-----------> ^.............................................^.. .|..............................................|.. .|---------DMC-------DMC----------|- .|..............................................|.. .|..............................................|.. -WBL----------------------------WBR- ------------DC-------DC--------------- -----------------GK--------------------- In the box midfield you have two forwards (F's) supported by two creative central attacking midfielders (AMC's) who control the game and they take turns with the wingbacks (WBL and WBR) in stretching the game wide. It is my personal belief that the box midfield in popular Brazilian football culture has been influential in the formation of creative attacking midfielders like Ronaldinho and Kaka and more so in Brazil's phenomenal production of wingbacks like R.Carlos, D.Alves, Maxwell, etc. ----WEISS pragmatic I can't say how relieved I was to read Weiss saying that they were approaching the Myanmar game defensively. No more of the "we'll-attack-Mongolia-and-blow-them-out-of-this-world" bluster. He's learning fast! I think Angel Aldeguer Guirado will prove to be a fantastic addition to the squad. Personally, I'd play him alone up front as a lone TARGETMAN. He's got the size and strength to win aerial battles. Apparently he's intelligent in his play meaning he'll hold up the ball well and distribute wisely PLUS he's said to be a serious finisher. There you go, our very own Didier Drogba!
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 19, 2011 8:19:06 GMT 8
cjeagle: I believe you mean "defensive midfielder" instead of "sweeper." The main difference is that a DM (defensive midfielder) plays IN FRONT of the centerbacks and behind the center midfield. The SW (sweeper), or "libero" if you prefer, plays BEHIND the centerbacks. I have no preferred formation for the Azkals. (But the college and highschool teams I coach play in a 4-3-3 set-up because by some simple tweaking I can turn the formation into defensive or offensive. I find that 4-3-3 is so versatile that it becomes easier for me to make in-game adjustments. The formation also naturally encourages the type of short passing that I favor.) The 4-4-2 is said to be the most complete formation because it covers the most area on the pitch and the work load of the players is distributed evenly. Other formations tend to favor certain areas (remember the pitch is divided into Thirds and further divided into 12 zones) and thus overload certain players. So a 4-4-2 is good when you are confident that every single player on your team can hold his own in one-on-one battles. If you want to see the Azkals play really defensively then I suggest you look no further than CATENACCIO. Thus, ----------------------ST--------------------- ---------------------AMC-------------------- ------------MC-----------------MC---------- ---------------------DMC------------------- ---WBL-----------------------------WBR---- -------------DC------------DC--------------- ---------------------SW--------------------- Here your main attacking threat would come from the WINGBACKS (WBL and WBR) who must bomb forward during counter-attacks. All players would then have man-marking duties (as opposed to the more open zonal marking) except the SWEEPER (SW) who would be given a freer role in starting and joining attacks.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 17, 2011 2:58:56 GMT 8
ioannesmarcusI believe you'll find the information you're looking for somewhere on this thread. And yes, contrary to popular belief, statistics show that direct football (where passing to maintain possession isn't the priority) tends to win more games. I love watching Barcelona play and tiki-taka is just fantastic but not everyone can play like them. At our level, we can't afford the risk. Arguing about football formations and playing philosophies is kinda pointless. It's just like saying "my kung-fu is better than your kung-fu" or "my M16 rifle will beat your kitchen knife" (no, the kitchen knife wins... if we fight inside a metal drum). Sometimes we get too hung up on formations. Formations are just that... formations. They're static and look good on paper and they give armchair coaches like us something to discuss. BUT MORE IMPORTANT than formation is the players MOVEMENT during the game. For example, in the 2011 Asian Cup between Australia (6) and Uzbekistan (0) it was difficult to figure out the formation of Uzbekistan until you realized that their centerback, Odil Akhmedov, was also their playmaker! He would run from centerback into the central midfield position to dictate play! He was their best passer, hands down. It wasn't his position that was important, it was what he actually did with his position. On paper he was a centerback but in reality he was a playmaker, an attacking minded midfielder at that. (And if you're thinking it's just a "libero," no, it's actually not a "libero's" role.) Did it work? Well... let's just say all Australia had to do was defend deep and counter quickly on the left flank and voila! six goals to Australia! Formations simply serve as reference points for the team during the game BUT what they actually do during the match is a different thing. ---- If our new attractive, attacking philosophy is to be successful then we need to have one or two players who CLEARLY dictate the play and tempo of the game (in the mold of Nakamura, Riquelme, Xavi and Iniesta, Pirlo, Valderama, Veron, etc.). I don't see any particular player among the Azkals who just can control the ebb and flow of the game just like that. We don't have those types of players just yet. I'm saying let's be practical. Go back to playing simple, basic football. The kind we used under Mcmenemy. Mind-numbingly boring, yes, but ultimately successful. ------- I think the best way to discuss formations isn't "my 4-4-2 will beat your 4-2-3-1" or "the Azkals will attack better in a 4-3-3" or but more of an analysis of what each player does within the context of his formation. -------- By the way, the most interesting "formation" to come out in recent years is Chile's 3-3-1-3 under Marcelo Bielsa. They rocked in the 2010 WC qualifiers, blazed in the early days of the World Cup, and were the only national side that gave Spain serious competition. 3-3-1-3 might look bizarre on paper but then again, it's the movement that matters not what they look like before kick-off. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 17, 2011 1:16:28 GMT 8
NOT SO WEISS?
If the Azkals didn't have a good game against Mongolia and I think coach Weiss was in particularly bad form.
I've always believed in playing to your strengths and that any change takes time and has to be gradual which is why when Weiss announced his intentions to create a new-look Azkals I felt my hackles rise.
Most coaches know that statistically more games are won when the ball is passed around LESS. I have a feeling Barcelona and Spain are merely aberrations just like the Netherlands and their Total Football (nobody even attempts to play Total Football these days).
Mcmenemy's basic 4-4-2, hard-tackling, counter-attacking football might seem unglamorous and too simplistic to many but the fact is... it works. It's not pretty but it gets the job done. I feel it's something we should stick to and develop further before venturing out into the other side of the fence (where Barca and Arsenal live).
Again, don't get me wrong. I love attacking football (my U-17 team is Tiki-Taka-ing happily these days) and I'm hoping to see a brilliant attacking Azkal side in my generation but I think coach Weiss is pushing it too fast.
With all the problems the lads went through just to get to Mongolia, the "weather" (the Younghusbands are right... just run around more and you'll be warm), and the new playing surface WOULDN'T IT HAVE BEEN WISER TO CHANGE TO A MORE DEFENSIVE TACTIC PRIOR TO THE GAME?
Despite James scoring a brilliant goal in the opening minutes didn't it become quickly obvious how sluggish and poor we were as the game progressed?
Wasn't it obvious that the lads weren't adjusting and settling into the game well? Or that we could have turned Mongolia's frenzied attacks to our advantage if we just sat back, draw them in, and then hit back on a counter once they've committed too many of their players up front?
That's exactly why we did so well in the Suzuki Cup. It's great to play attacking football in our home turf but as we'll be on the road more often than not we'd better go back to what got us here in the first place: direct football.
What I'm missing from Weiss are those in-game adjustments that can turn around games. If he made any they weren't particularly brilliant enough to be noticed.
TIME TO WEISS UP?
(Dammit, I'll better shut up or I'll run out of Weiss-cracks and puns.)
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 6, 2011 21:56:09 GMT 8
vimjonkI don't think there's a feminine form for the word "TURBA." In terms of grammatical gender it is neutral. It only means "crowd," "rabble,"... or "gang" if you want. And basically, it's because TURBA SALVAJE was an actual, factual, historical Filipino team and that's one big reason why it appeals to me... it's got that historical connection to the era of Paulino Alcantara. Hope it clears things up, mate. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 6, 2011 7:24:31 GMT 8
I'm glad a lot of you like Turba Salvaje. Actually, it should read "Turba (space) Salvaje" I didn't realize I had spaced the letters equally.
My strongest arguments for "Turba Salvaje" is it's history and Spanish connection. And it sounds ferocious!
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Mar 5, 2011 17:05:10 GMT 8
How about the name of that old Manila team in the early 1900's (they used to play against Paulino Alcantara's BOHEMIANS):
**T U R B A S A L V A J E**
(it roughly means, "a group of savages")
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Feb 23, 2011 14:21:44 GMT 8
Rob isn't our fastest player but he's got a lot of characteristics that more than make up for it.
His lack of pace isn't an indicator of his fitness. He IS very fit. Speed isn't an indicator of fitness. You can be slow AND fit.
Rob's lack of pace isn't a problem since his ability to read the game, anticipate situations, and command his area is way better than many of our local centerbacks (except Ali Borromeo, or course).
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Feb 23, 2011 14:16:42 GMT 8
What's all the fuss about?!
Ian was fantastic against Mongolia.
His movement off the ball and ability to get to the end of passes is brilliant. A little bit more composure in front of the goal is needed maybe but other than that I think he's one of the best attacking options we've got at the moment.
He's not yet 30 so he's got a few more years to sharpen up.
Ian is an asset to the Azkals.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Feb 23, 2011 13:55:12 GMT 8
behoI'm curious why you think Rob was out of shape. I thought he did well but then that's just me.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Feb 23, 2011 13:52:15 GMT 8
@al luz812
I reread what you posted and you're right, I DID MISS YOUR POINT! Sorry about that. ;-)
I'm not overly concerned about Rob's pace. As players get older their speed naturally declines but the centerback position is a position where pace is not as important as experience, positioning, anticipation, and the ability to read the game. What Rob brings to the team is his experience from playing consistently at a reasonably higher level.
What about that new finding, Patrick Aebersold? He's a centerback although we really haven't seen him play. He could be good competition for Rob.
Cheers
|
|