Not exactly the point I was making, but the good thing is we all learned something today.Originally Posted by Fort York Redcoat
Some quotes are more equal than others.
Not exactly the point I was making, but the good thing is we all learned something today.Some quotes are more equal than others.
No. Wrong. so wrong. I'm sorry but I don't understand why sooooooo many people here seem to think this. Atletico are about to win their first title in however long by playing ruthlessly defensive, efficient counter-attacking football. Mourinho has made his entire career on the back of very defensive, very narrow-minded counter-attacking football. Ferguson's best united team (07-09) played brilliant counter-attacking football. Helenio Herrera won umpteen trophies with inter with an unbelievably defensive tactic. All of those teams would have been seen as the bigger club in 99% of their games. Anyway, that list goes on.
Putting an emphasis on defense first does not mean you are taking on an inferior mindset. It means you put more emphasis on defense. I'm not particularly happy with how we're passing the ball right now either but that doesn't mean that the tactic is wrong, it mean's the execution is the problem. And that problem stems from not having played together very much. Patience people. Patience.
Last edited by molenshtain; 04-22-2014 at 12:15 PM.
My favourite quote from the Athletico-Chelsea build up this week was the one where an Athletico player was asked what they would do if Chelsea just sat back and waited for Athletico to come onto them.
"We'll just give them the ball back then."
I never said you couldnt win with a counterattacking philosophy. I dont think I used the word counterattacking at all actually.
Im sure we'll get a masterclass this afternoon when Chelsea and Atletico meet.
Funnily enough I saw the Atletico v Barca game, and while Barcelona did have most of the possession, they didn't really have it long for any particular length of time. Atletico would brutally disposess them every time they had the ball and piled on so much pressure that Barca just couldnt play their game. I find it relevant that only one goal was scored, although to be fair, Atletico could have had more. This style of play, or even Chelsea's, isnt what we do, or what we seem to be trying to do, and I'd be fine with that if we werent nervously surrendering the ball every time we get it, regardless.
This is a personal thing, but I've always found Mourinho's squads to play negative, reactive football without the confidence to go balls out. Maybe a less cautious approach against teams like Sunderland would have put the title in their hands right now, who knows? We will see what happens on Sunday when faced with an open attacking style of play that prioritises scoring more than not conceding.
At Elite level, faced with elite opposition that may very well be technically superior, I will concede counterattacking can be very succesful. At our level its dull as fuck and wont work while the leagues defenders are of a much lesser quality than the leagues forwards.
So opposite tactic but same issue as with the Winter era. With the same request I'm in agreement with. Time.
FORMER FULL TIME KOOL-AID DRINKER
But defense first essentially means counter-attacking in football. There's not really any other way to attack otherwise. The whole Idea behind playing defense first in football is to draw as many opposing players forward and out of position as possible and then play it through very quickly to those open spaces once you've won the ball. This is what I see Nelsen trying to do but hasn't completely caught on yet because our front six haven't had enough time together to understand each others tendencies.
I honestly don't at all see how the attacking players in this league are better than the defenders. In fact I'd say the opposite. This league has a lower than average amount of goals per game, and It's quite obvious why that is so when you watch: fine build up play and technical ability but very, very few players are consistently capable of playing the final killer ball. that's why good possession team's are so few and far between here.
Mourinho's teams definitely play very ugly, reactive football. and you know what? they would have won the title this season if they didn't have shit defenders. He's won two champions league's by sitting 11 players in his own box.
Chelsea Vs. Atletico is going to be fucking ugly. But one of them is going through to the final. So clearly there doing something right.
I agree that the execution is poor. I just feel that we've been down this road before, and usually its come with a negative mindset. We gave up something like 18 corners in the last game, because we werent keeping the ball. This isnt something that can be fixed over a few games, our system has been exposed, challenged and broken.
That we only conceded one from a corner is a testament to our defenders, that we conceded that many corners is a red flag on the entire system as it relates to our squad.
in order to play a possession based soccer, you need defenders that are technically adept, esp first touch and composure under pressure and be able to cycle the ball with ease. most MLS players can't do this.
while it's still early in the season, Portland is having hard time because their defenders aren't good enough with the ball and fall prey to high pressure. the reality is, MLS teams skim on defence and make do most of the time. Porter did try to rectify this and brought in Paparatto who is a veteran of Argentina 1st div, but Paparatto haven't been able to adapt to high pressure game of MLS yet.
RSL gets around this by having a back 4 that has played together for a long time, and using a ball playing DM in Dirty Hippy that masks a lot of inadequacies of RSL defenders. I don't find RSL defenders any more technically better than most MLS defenders (I can't think of 1 MLS defender that is good with ball at their feet). RSL can play possession based soccer because Dirty Hippy is such a fantastic passer of the ball that the ball is cycled quickly to midfield once RSL wins possession in defence.
hence why high pressure, counterattacking soccer is prevalent in MLS. and winning is the ultimate entertainment, regardless of what brand of soccer you play.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
honestly? no, prob not. He is here now though.
Adrian serioux could
OK Chelsea's negativity is on display right now for anybody to see. You cannot tell me they've gone into this game with a belief that they are the better team, they look like they out there to try and 'squeak one in' . That is what I mean by inferior mindset. Atletico can smell blood, they're not ten men behind the ball right now like Chelsea.
For Toronto, with Bradley and Defoe, we have no reason to go into every game with the mentality that we need our opponents to make a mistake in order to win.
Off tangent - but he has the best defense in the league. It's the fact that he has garbage up front that has hurt him. If he had brought in quality up top they would have the league won already.
Compare Torres as a striker for Liverpool to Torres as a striker for Chelsea.
The difference is the negative style of play that does not allow a brilliant striker like Torres to thrive.
Is Defoe going to be maximised by the counterattacking defensive game or is he going to be hamstrung? (pun intended)
Point to brad, molesthein's just flat out wrong. I'm diehard Chels and have been for a long time, and the one thing you cannot fault in form, formation and game-in, game-out execution, is this team's defensive play. The garbage up top, indeed, is the serious problem. It'll get solved in the offseason, and then look the fuck out.
Back on topic, the fact that we gave away soooooo many corners (close to 20?) against Dallas was a chief reason we lost. And the way we gave them away, is, as someone else up top just said, indicative of our ineptitude defensively. Till that changes, this is going to be a slog (although a better one than in prior years, and one that might squeak us into the playoffs after all).
Sure, because he has the best team that plays defensive football. His defense that won titles was far better than what he has now. you wouldn't see, say, Carvalho and Ferreira making the types of mistakes that have plagued Luiz, the spanish fellow with the complicated name and recently Terry and Ivanovic. The team he had before had a very, very good back four and the best DM in a generation in Makalele. They conceded fifteen goals in his first season. This team has let in the most goals in first division on corners. Big difference in quality. Sure they could use a good No.1 forward, but collectively his forwards have scored 18 league goals this season, a not terrible number. You can make up the difference by scoring more or by conceding less. And despite what mourniho says to the press I'm sure he'd prefer to concede less, since he always seems more confident (and less crazy) of his teams when they know they can go out and not concede like his Porto, early Chelsea and Inter teams could.
Here is what worries me. It's not low possession. It's the lowest possession in the league (at 39.3%) + the lowest pass completion rate in the league (at 71.4%). To me, that just screams of giving it away cheaply - not counterattacking football.
Also, interestingly enough - for a team playing counter attacking football, we have not scored on the counter yet.
Some other interesting details. For those that think we are a long ball team - we are 3rd from the bottom in overall long balls played in the league, and lowest in the league for short passes.
We also lead the league for percentage of the game played in our own half
http://www.whoscored.com/Regions/233...ue-Soccer-2014
Make of that what you will. I'm not reading anything into it until we see our first choice team out there for a period of time, and they have had time to settle.
Last edited by brad; 04-22-2014 at 02:51 PM.
If we are really going to be a counterattacking team, we might want to do something about the pitch at BMO. It runs as slow as molasses. I don't know if it's a problem of what grass is actually there after the winter we had is cut too high, or what, but the pitch takes all the speed out of a counter.
I think this is very relevant, everybody who is unsure about the counterattacking game should be watching Chelsea right now.
Playing like this is a choice. I think its dull and ugly and indicates a lack of faith in offensive capabilities, Others think its beautiful and sophisticated and is what wins competitions.
My point is, we are bad at playing like this and counterattacking done badly results in being under fire for 90 minutes. Something like Dallas.
Is there not a better approach we can take? is it too 'low brow' to try and play an open and offensive game? Is it really unwise to try when we are so poor at the negative, defensive game?
Nobody is debating that it's a choice and that it's ugly. I'm debating that It shows a lack of faith in offensive capabilities. lots of managers just find it more pragmatic is what I'm saying and, if executed properly, just like any other tactic it can be successful.I think this is very relevant, everybody who is unsure about the counterattacking game should be watching Chelsea right now.
Playing like this is a choice. I think its dull and ugly and indicates a lack of faith in offensive capabilities, Others think its beautiful and sophisticated and is what wins competitions.
My point is, we are bad at playing like this and counterattacking done badly results in being under fire for 90 minutes. Something like Dallas.
Is there not a better approach we can take? is it too 'low brow' to try and play an open and offensive game? Is it really unwise to try when we are so poor at the negative, defensive game?
We're also evidently not poor at the negative, defensive side of things. It's won us three of our first six and kept us competitive in 5 of them. Were it not for some unlucky injuries and one of the toughest opening schedules we might have an even better record.
TFC defenders keep hoofing the ball because the midfield isn't making themselves available enough for a pass fast enough.
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
Honestly no, nelsen isn't a great manager, he mite hav the potential but I wouldn't mind a change
Actually 50% or 1.5 ppg, is the very definition of mediocrity. It may get us into the playoffs, or it may not. Will it get us deep into the playoffs? I dont think it will, especially if were the fifth spot in the conference when we get there after a gruelling season fighting for that last spot.
We are poor at the negative, defensive side of things according to GD, corners conceded, and time spent in our half.
-1 GD in 6 games is hardly the end of the world but it is not a good sign. GD is usually a great indicator of who is playing the best football.
The home opener wasn't a good win, we squeaked one goal at home against an inferior team. The loss to Colorado is what happens when you keep playing like this.
RSL was always going to be a loss so I wont factor that game. Columbus and Seattle were better, but we didnt sit back and let them do what they like in those games either. We had good periods of creativity and we harassed them offensively.
I honestly believe if we stick to this gameplan at all costs, with THIS squad, were going to suffer for it. Dallas exposed us, other teams will follow suit.
The other thing about having a counterattacking philosophy is that you have to actually well.... counterattack
Right, we've been mediocre through six games with mitigating factors that have hampered our performance, all of which had nothing to do with the tactics. I don't see why people are so urgent to judge us over such a short sample size. We haven't played a home game on a good pitch yet. We haven't had our whole lineup for consecutive games yet. We've played one of the toughest schedules in the league. all of these things sort themselves out as the team plays a more varied schedule and has more time to gel.
We did exactly what we wanted to do in the Seattle, Columbus, and D.C. games. We most definitely sat back and waited for Columbus and Seattle to do what they wanted in and around the middle of the pitch, Especially in the second halves of both games. We did have good periods of creativity because we had our whole midfield and a striker who could find some space.
Colorado, in fact executed the game plan we've been using to to great effect. once they realized our midfield couldn't produce a macaroni painting in a kindergarten class they sat very deep and nicked one on the counter.
Also, the Dallas game was a statistical anomaly. we're not going to give up 18 corners a game and very few teams can game plan around that as they don't have set-piece takers as good as Michel and Diaz.
Last edited by molenshtain; 04-24-2014 at 02:14 AM.
Possibly - but it is worth noting that Caldwell was well know as a "safety first" defender when he came here.
This team will always have 'mitigating factors hampering its performance' everything in this quote has been said before, every season for the last seven years. I said it myself once. Right now Im not convinced, but Ill admit Im not as worried as I was under Carver, Cummins, Preki, Winter or Mariner.
The DC game was shoddy and dull and could have gone the other way. I dont buy that we did exactly what we wanted to do, we looked directionless and toothless.
As an important aside, this is definitely not the kind of thing that's going to grow the sport in this country. Ill take a win every day of the week, but if theyre all like that, I'd rather just watch the highlights, all loyalty and 'true supporter' shit aside.
Also very dull and boring, and we didnt even win, Im glad I missed that one at BMO and not just because we lost.
I dont believe it was an anomaly. I believe Dallas knew exactly what we were about and exposed us. They adapted to us immediately after our goal and we didnt adjust our game to compensate. this will happen more, set piece takers aside. Even against a team of Chad Barrets, were going to concede a goal to at least one corner in twenty.
you were bored at this game?
“Years have gone by and I’ve finally learned to accept myself for who I am: a beggar for good football.
I go about the world, hand outstretched, and in the stadiums I plead: ‘A pretty move, for the love of God.’
And when good football happens, I give thanks for the miracle and I don’t give a damn which team or country performs it.”
-Eduardo Galeano
This seems to be one of those agree to disagree situations. All I can do is reiterate what I've already said: It's very early going so I wouldn't put much weight on anything other than the fact that we've won half of our games with tons of injuries and a difficult schedule. Why people are even rushing to judge Nelsen before the world cup I don't know.
Last edited by molenshtain; 04-22-2014 at 04:14 PM.
Yohan if you take all the close ups, replays and stuff out of that highlight reel you are left with three minutes out of ninety.
Im just speaking out against the negative, over cautious, sneaky game.
I am NOT calling for Nelsen's head in any way, I am also a lot more optimistic about this year than I seem to be pretending.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote