|
Post by booblehead on Oct 11, 2010 18:28:25 GMT 8
Hey Buddha
What defensive strategy did the Azkals use in Thailand? Im assuming this is the Suzuki Cup where we got thrashed by the Thais 4-0, Malaysia 4-0. Hehe. I only saw clips and highlights on youtube but it seems we got beaten on through balls and well timed runs by the forwards. There was even a bicycle kick from a Malaysian that was painful to watch.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Oct 11, 2010 23:29:10 GMT 8
booblehead: I watched the Philippines vs Malaysia match. (I might be able to post some pictures.) In that match our defenders weren't marking tight enough and communication was poor. I vaguely remember them playing in a 4-4-2ish formation that tended to look more like a 4-5-1 since our striker appeared to be isolated most of the time. The Malaysians were stretching us and looked more composed on the ball. One thing stood out: we clearly had difficult maintaining our shape. Despite all these, a strong positive in that match was how we were able to match them physically. Our players were strong in the air and didn't pull out of challenges. But then again, this is just me talking. I'm not an expert.
|
|
|
Post by insider on Oct 11, 2010 23:32:05 GMT 8
I've seen their 2 games in Long Teng, and they used a modified 4-4-2 formation with ian on top and phil slightly behind him which allows him some room to maneuver. Although when phil had to be taken out of the game, they went to a 4-3-3 formation.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Oct 11, 2010 23:43:05 GMT 8
The trouble with formations is that they only give a vague idea of where players are but it does not accurately describe a PLAYING STYLE.
How did we play? What's the philosophy behind these formations? It's different when you mark it out on paper and when you actually see the players movement.
Did we play short passes and try to keep possession or did we use the method that brought us some success in Panaad Stadium... pumping balls down the flanks for our wingers to run to?
|
|
|
Post by insider on Oct 12, 2010 0:47:34 GMT 8
i agree with you buddha.
looking at the tapes, james had a lot of success running down the flanks. chieffy, had the tendency to run going in, rather than play to his strength which was bringing it out to the side. in most cases when he did that, he caused a lot of problems as well.
phil(when he is in the game) and jason provides creative plays in the middle. Manny Ott's arrival would add more quality in this area.
most of the goals conceded were due to defensive lapses that can be avoided as the team plays more games and achieve cohesion. ray jonsson will certainly provide his skill and experience to complete our back 4. He can easily take the left wing position if chieffy is off as well.
|
|
|
Post by locotes on Oct 12, 2010 12:01:47 GMT 8
I saw the Azkals game in Davao against local club. They dominated possession but they still love that long ball which I dont like. But their longballs are better this days than before coz it has directions, most of the time they drop it on the wing side, unlike before they just kick it anywhere like clearing the ball.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Oct 12, 2010 13:05:59 GMT 8
I think the Azkals are doing the right thing by going with a more direct approach (long balls).
It's the quickest way to the goal. Statistics show that the longer a ball is kept in possession the less chance it has of ending inside the goal. In other words, it is easier to score from a counter-attack or a direct pass.
An exception to this rule would be Spain and Barcelona who use possession not only as an offensive tactic but also as a defensive weapon as well ("if you don't have the ball, you can't score"). However, the only reason why they are so good at possession football is because of their utterly superior individual technique and a footballing history based on a short-passing style (thanks to Johan Cryuff).
But for the Azkals, who are hungry for some sort of success, we don't have time to waste on pretty football. We don't have time to build a culture of short-passing because we want success NOW.
The trend in Philippine football seems to be on developing wingers more than creative midfielders which isn't actually a bad thing. We should just adapt our playing style to suit these players.
Yes, the long ball approach can be very predictable easy to play against (not to mention boring) but again, a short-passing game would be out of the question at this moment for our Azkals.
---- If we want our national team to play more short-passing, attractive, possession based football we should start now... with school teams and amateur clubs. Then wait for 15-20 years for that idea to ferment, to be internalized, and become part of our national footballing psyche.
|
|
|
Post by insider on Oct 12, 2010 13:44:44 GMT 8
i agree with buddha. it will take time for our national footballing psyche to internalize this style of play.
However, currently, we are fortunate that we have filipino players who actually have top-level experience in the short-passing game. we have jason, manny, phil, ray, and hopefully schrock who have been trained in this kind of system and thus could help us dominate the middle third. james and chieffy could still do the flank attacks.
|
|
|
Post by booblehead on Oct 12, 2010 18:28:37 GMT 8
hmmm seems like you guys are saying we should get an italian coach hek hek hek.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Oct 13, 2010 17:32:19 GMT 8
If you were the Azkals coach, would you consider "doing a Scotland" against stronger teams in the Suzuki Cup? Scotland recently played a qualifying match against the Czech Republic in a much criticized 4-6-0 formation. The football world is starting to see more strikerless formations coming out in the recent years. At club level, AS ROMA is a pioneer in this formation (Francesco Totti wasn't playing a traditional striker's role by leading the line, instead he would roam in the hole as a trequartista/attacking midfielder) and Manchester United as even flirted with this formation in one match. Scotland, however, is the first country to have dared to use this tactic at an international level. They almost achieved their objective by snatching one point through a draw but were undone by a set-piece with the Czechs walking away with 1-0 win. Scotland's 4-6-0 set-up successfully nullified the midfield threat of the Czechs although unsurprisingly, it produced one of the most boring matches in recent memory. However, the tactical implications are fascinating! (With the amateur club I used to coach, I've always wanted to try a strikerless formation in instances where we were facing teams coming from higher divisions during inter division cup tournaments... sadly my manager would have nothing of it and wanted us to go toe to toe with the big boys. Which of course always resulted in us getting a whipping.) Imagine the Azkals playing Singapore in the Suzuki Cup. Now nobody likes to mess around with Singapore as they are (at this level) a quality team. Would it be realistic to go toe to toe with Singapore? Personally, I don't think slugging it out with Singapore will realistically yield a positive result. I'd be more results oriented and play very, very conservatively... even if that means playing without a striker regardless of how boring and "anti-football" it will turn out to be! But then that's just me. So roughly, ..................................(no forwards here!)...................................................... ----Caligdong---------------------------------------------------J. Younghusband----- ......(wing)............................................................................(wing)................ -------------S. Greatwich--------Gould-------------De Jong--------------------------- ..................(MC)......................(MC)..................(MC)...................................... -------------------------------------M. Ott-------------------------------------------------- .......................................(defensive mid)...................................................... -------DL------------DC-----------------------DC----------------DR----------------------- ............................(a tight, compact flat back four)......................................... ------------------------------N. Etheridge------------------------------------------------ ............................................(GK).................................................................. And of course, --------------------------Buddha------------------------ ..............................(waterboy)........................... Cheers
|
|
|
Post by booblehead on Oct 14, 2010 18:36:45 GMT 8
bwahahaha
i think we should heed the advise of every great generals... no one wins on defense. you can repel an attack but no matter how hard you try, they will always find ways to score. i think we should go for it. i know it sounds crazy.... but i dont think we should be afraid of indonesia, thailand or singapore right now. they only way for our team to go somewhere is to let their balls hang out in the air. im no tactics or strategy wizard.... but i do know where your coming from. hehehehe but i would really like to see our team slug it out with the bad ass teams of our region.
MABUHAY ANG PILIPINAS!
|
|
|
Post by booblehead on Oct 14, 2010 18:41:16 GMT 8
and yeah... the only way to win an international match... is by scoring goals. new zealand in the last world cup never lost a match in their group stage, and never won either. the drew all their matches but that wasnt good enough. i dont think id want our team to mentioned in the same breath as that crappy pathetic excuse for a team that is new zealand. its either we are winners or losers. nothing in between hehehhe.
I HATE NEW ZEALAND. THEY SHOULD GET RID OF THE OCEANIA ZONE AND LET THEM SLUG IT OUT IN THE AFC.
|
|
|
Post by buddha on Oct 15, 2010 1:10:27 GMT 8
A weaker team MUST find ways to shorten the technical gap against stronger teams. This can be done by using physical intimidation or hyper-defensive tactics. Or both. (If I were a football player playing against Cristiano Ronaldo in a match, I don't think my stepovers and dribbling skills is gonna work against him. Oh I can try and try all day long but there's just no way I can out-play him.) We all know the legend of the 1988 FA Cup Final when humble Wimbledon FC defeated the recently crowned league champions and most popular team of the 80's, Liverpool FC. How did a small, unfancied team do it? By hitting long ball after long ball hoping it gets to their forwards and by physically manhandling the pretty boys of Liverpool. It was not pretty. Purists were shocked. But for the Wimbledon fans and neutrals it was heaven watch Liverpool eat humble pie. No amount of wailing and bleating about anti-football hooliganism can hide the incredible fact that a crazy bunch of nobodies are FA Cup champions. The team that plays the most attractive football is Barcelona hands down. Nobody can play Tiki-taka like Barcelona can. But that night in the Bernabeu I could only shake my head at the TV screen in disbelief as Mourinho's Inter Milan out-smarted Guardiola's Barcelona. It was one of the most crashingly boring games I've seen and people will always bad mouth Mourinho and his tactics (i'm not a Mourinho fan) but they are the champions and Barca is second best and nobody wants to be called second best. At the end of the day it is THE RESULT THAT MATTERS and it is the result that people will remember. I'm not saying we MUST play negative football in order to compete in the Suzuki Cup. I'm saying we should CONSIDER more defensive, out-of-the-box strategies on a game to game basis depending on who we're facing, in order to get a positive result. A draw is a positive result. For New Zealand to reach the 2010 world, DRAW all their matches (especially against former champions Italy) and exit the match with a no-loss record is very positive result. Consider the fact that New Zealand has no professional soccer league (and that their best players are only tiny fish in the ocean of world football) and yet they have played in the World Cup. Twice. --- You're probably imagining me as some twisted coach who sends out his team to hurt the opposition and bore the spectators to death. Quite the opposite. I coach amateur football. I like my teams to attack and I demand good movement and passing from my players. I encourage creativity. However it doesn't come easy. You have to do the ground work for attractive football by creating that type of mentality in training and you have to be patient because it might take up to two years before you see players playing the way you want. And while you are waiting for your "beautiful football" to blossom, you have to get results in the real world. So you have to adapt, think out of the tactical box, and sometimes play negative football in order to shorten the gap in quality between your team and a better team. Sending my team out to attack every time we play would be irresponsible and foolish. But then this is just a forum and these are just my opinions and I'm just a plankton in the ocean of world football. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by locotes on Oct 15, 2010 5:03:09 GMT 8
The azkals are taller this time, thats our biggest advantage. If Im not mistaken we are the tallest team. During ball fights ground balls or air, we have the upper hand.
Defense should be a prio, but to much of it? Im not sure...
|
|
|
Post by futbolerole16 on Oct 15, 2010 21:29:10 GMT 8
i think the best was the Diamond formation. a 4-4-2 that becomes a 4-1-2-1-2.
Alf Ramsey first used that in '66. and it went successful as the win the Jules Rimet trophy..
we can also use counter attacks and long balls..and mark the hot player with hardcore defense..
|
|