Not really, I accept that terminology changes, but its the hidden belief that its new, that I have an issue with, I read your post a couple of times actually, I wasn’t bullshitting when I said I was surprised, as I had always marked you as being a knowledgeable and thoughtful poster.
I think the biggest disconnect is in what you interpret as tactics, and what are game plans. The biggest bone of contention is that tactics are great in theory, but the more intricate you make them, the less likely they are ever to succeed, on an almost exponential level. Much of what happens on a pitch is instinctive and executed at high speed and under intense pressure, the idea of 10 players acting under extreme pressure being able to follow a game plan of the sort that you suggest all falls apart the minute a successful tackle goes in.
We will just have to agree to disagree. Im happy to accept a difference in terminology, so long as (eventually) you understand what I mean (regardless of agreeng with it).
I see tactics as the fundamental shapes and plays the team uses. Of course it is a fluid game and of course 1000 things are happening at one time, but ultimately different teams play in different styles with different strengths and weaknesses due to tactics IMO.
Play it long or on the ground? Short passing? Press high up the field or low? 451 / 433 / 442 /441? Focus high balls at their left back because he is terrible in the air and bad positionally? All things that are tactical in nature IMO. Of course if you wish to refer to them as something else that is fine, at least you see what I mean when Im talking about it.
With regards to the provoking, I do not see it as overly complex or rigid.
I dont envisage a very prescribed routine of "right, Walker - you give it to Dembele then run over there, Dembele - you pass to Lennon and move this way... Lennon - jink around a bit then pass to Defoe....oh cock where were we again?"
Im simply thinking of passing patterns practiced on the training ground being put into use.
We see teams in every single game passing and moving within the constraints of an over arching design, and of holding shape in certain ways for defensive/offensive situations.
I dont mean a controlled scientific algorythm footballers are supposed to follow dependant on a set list of variables...
We have the ball, the opposition are sitting in two banks in front of their box. What tactic do we employ to break them down? I felt under Redknapp there wasnt enough of a plan, aside from give it to Modric/VDV/Bale and hope they create something. Works a treat when those players are on form, but all to often it was fruitless (IMO).
AVBs idea of provoking is to lure players to break their lines in order to create space. This isnt something new, its just how he likes to play it.
I was thinking about this last night and one of the best examples that came to mind was Utds all conquering team of the early 2000's (most likely made the connection because of the article you linked).
They were terrifying and teams naturally just sat off them in an attempt at damage limitation. They were excellent at moving the ball from flank to flank, probing forward and back to try and move people out of their defensive positions, and suddenly within 2 or 3 passes a team has gone from a solid and inpenetrable 2 banks of 5 to being all at sea and conceeding.
This was provoking, and it wasnt terribly complex, it was just a tactic to employ.
What I like is the idea there is an underlying plan, because IMO that means there should be a consistency in our play, which means we shouldnt have to rely purely on invention to create and score. Though of course that is very welcome. In fact I think this underlying structure should mean we can create opportunities for invention more regularly.
My view is we are trying, but we are far from "there" yet.
This is reverse engineering history, to suit your proposition. We had no choice but to sit deep and hit them on the counter because of the early goal and the fact that their midfield was running ours ragged. Our first goal was the result of a long ball up the middle, the second was a penalty from a free kick and the 3rd was a mistimed header from a set piece.
I can assure you I thought exactly the same after the game. I have never credited Redknapp as being particularly tactical in how he sets teams out. He seems to pick players naturally compatible and simply let them get on with it rather than offer specific instruction. At the time of watching that Woolwich game I was blown away because I immediately saw we had a very different game plan to the usual and it was working. I got really excited at the time because I thought it was a signal Redknapp was developing us to deal with all eventualities.
If you did not see the game as a tactical masterclass by Redknapp thats cool, opinions differ, but take my work I am not re engineering anything.
Was that AVBs plan at Old Trafford as well, concede 75% possession and spend the last 40 minutes looking like a team from the southern premier league? If it was I don’t like it from a blood pressure standpoint.
I saw only highlights of that game. From what I can gather we were excellent for the first half/maybe 40 minutes and then essentially fighting a rear guard action there after.
I would guess that early dominance is what AVB was aiming for and that the later collapse was what he got due to a young team trying to gel and take on a new way of playing. I firmly believe we are in the midst of a pretty large transition and things like that second half are a symptom of it.
Like the analogy made earlier RE driving, when you are learning its the most difficult thing to do and requires huge concentration, very easy to get it wrong - until at one point it just clicks and suddenly seems like second nature.
Again, if this is his preferred policy, it’s a stupid and dangerous game to play. I like the policy (tactic in your terminology) of keeping possession – as I do believe that it’s an accepted principle that they can’t score, if we have the ball.
Again, in talking of provoking Im specifically talking of it as a tactic/policy used when trying to break through teams making life difficult.
That said in general play we do seem to like to play it between the defense a lot to try and open up space as well. Its risky I agree, but if we can become successful with it I think it could be fascinating to watch. I love the idea of manipulating a team into positions we want to exploit.
I cannot see why we would not want to spend the majority of a game camped on the oppositions penalty area, dominating possession and probing for opportunities. If we are doing that its because the opposition are shit scared of getting a tonking if they open the game up. It hasn’t happened this season, because we aren’t good enough to play that way anymore, now we have no Rat and no VDV. Our biggest problem is that for all of his plus points, Defoe aint Messi, Jimmy Greaves or Falcao – and despite the early part of last season showing Ade and JD to be a good partnership, it doesn’t seem to have clicked back into gear.
This is essentially the situation Ive been talking about all along. Clearly I havent been able to convey that or else, I suspect, we wouldnt still be in this situation!
While I agree Modrics and VDVs loss has really impeded our ability in this sense, I do honestly think we have the players - when all are fit - to be able to play this way. Ekotto at LB is a huge loss to us keeping width and possession. Vertonghen not at CB removes that composure and player to help recycle the ball whn we get stuck/closed out. Adebayor not holding the ball up and bringing people in is a real loss. All things that would, IMO, enable us to really start pulling teams around.
Firstly, I apologise for making it sound like I was blaming you – its not your fault that so many younger fans seem to think that their generation has invented everything (much like every new generation thinks it discovered great sex) – but we are back at the distinction between tactics (pre planned rehearsed routines of open play) and a game plan, and the situation of re engineering games that have finished as examples to prove your point.
Ill skip this one, I think its been covered
I don’t – as I said having better players, better motivated and led teams, discipline and teamwork win games, not tactics of the sort you proposed. This is where we are not going to meet up – I suspect!
I should point out, while I am a big fan of the tactical ploys/game plans/ policies (*delete as appropriate) that get used in matches, I fully accept that ultimately it is the players that do the job. Better players = a better job is done.
I see tactical elements as the foundation from which they play, not a constraint to inhibit them.
If they know where people are going to be, because it is second nature thanks to playing within a pattern, then they will be able to play those "telepathic" moves more often wont they? When under pressure and its so easy to fall apart, knowing what exactly you should be trying to do, because you have rehearsed/understood it, gives you a means to claw your way back to composure.
If you think differently thats fine, but Im still not convinced you are following my thinking at all yet - as I said - most likely my failing for not being able to convey it properly