Printable View
As witnessed in U/14 with CCB & OlympicQuote:
Originally Posted by Bremsstrahlung
Round 1 Olympic won 5-0,
Round 2 Olympic won 1-0 but CCB coach tried a few different things, some worked some didnt
Grand Final CCB won 2-1, perfect example of coach adapting his game to counter that of the opposition and then being able to express that plan in a manner that 14yo boys could understand
Well Done
I don't need Google to construct a few sentences and arguments (again highlighting your lack of sensible argument on matter as well as your inability to count - 3 paragraphs, not 5), not to mention I am a university academic. I believe your football knowledge may unfortunately be lacking if you can only see the game as being either a long ball game or not. You are missing the point I am making in acknowledging the finer details of tactical game plans, and that is what bothers me. You'd think someone with a UEFA Pro License would have a broader understanding of game strategy.Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
I am curious to know your coaching/football history over the past few years if you are willing to share? I understand if you prefer not to disclose such information.
If I read correctly, all NPL coaches require a basic youth NPL coaching certificate. As of next season, from under 19s onwards all must have C license (first grade must need B)Quote:
Originally Posted by stopper2
As an independent observer, I have seen a few games played by Olympic 17's, 19's and 22's this year. All 3 sides tend to play long balls. I'm not disputing the worth of the long ball, IMO though, you need to have more than one string to your bow. Yes that tactic gets results, and clearly Olympic have had success in those 3 grades this year. There certainly are more than one way to play football.
What is interesting though, is that the younger Olympic NPL teams, especially the 14s, do not play the long ball game all the time.
The long ball is a useful tactic if the opposition is attempting to press or have a high line of defence. The tactic should be used to try and push the defense back and have a deeper line as they try to adapt to the long ball employed.
If the defence sits deeper, the long ball is seemingly ineffective or less effective. This creates space in the midfield to play. If the team continues to play long ball, potentially as that's the only skills they have, then they will be caught out and left impotent in attack. Then, commment a regarding the excessive use of long ball can be validated.
Should the defense choose to remain high, I'd have no problem with a team continually exploiting this and utilising fast attackers down the flanks or central.
The game is a head to head game of tactics and skill. As Why Blue says in his example, they were beaten and caught off guard. One could assume the Olympic coach had better tactics. The next time the charlestown? Coach would've changed and adapted his team's tactics to best counter Olympics and it was much more evenly matched. Without seeing the games, you could assume(and agree with why blue) that Olympic stuck to their original Gameplan. So the 3rd time, Ccb knew what extra tactics were needed and devised a plan to beat them. So while Olympic have kept their tactics/Gameplan the same (assumption) Ccb have adapted. In this situation you would say the Ccb coach is better, in this instance as he was able to adapt and counter opposition tactics while the other coach stuck to his original plan and was seemingly unwilling to adapt.
**this may not be the actual case but the analogy still stands**
On the other hand, if team A use the "long ball" tactic against team B. Team B did not react and continued to play the same way, then it could be said that although coach A is using the same tactic, it is effective and winning, while team B is not changing and losing out. This infers coach/team A > coach/team B.
I agree with an earlier point made that teams should learn a variety of different styles and tactics and then use whichever to be successful. But I disagree with the notion that Coach A is not a good Coach because he uses the same effective tactic each week. I think it says more about coaches b,c,d etc that can't organise their team to counter the tactic.
EDIT: this is just a general statement.
In Essence, this does highlight the lack of tactical abilities of our region if this tactic is getting the results it is. Maybe Olympic is doing the region a favour by forcing teams to actually adapt.
Fun discussion!
One of the interesting things about the FFA curriculum is that if you base your training sessions only on what is suggested, you will tend to be more vulnerable to balls over the top of your defense, be they long or short.
This is mainly because you will NOT be doing this in training sessions (everything on the ground) and your players will not get the experience they need. This matches previous comments about a lack of heading skills.
The Jaffas in 17s this year tended to use that route, so before we played them we had part of session where our attack tried to play like (we thought) the Jaffas would against our backs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
Agreed MT on all fronts.
The point is - Magic defence dealt with the long balls all game. Yes both sides had chances. Olympic's goal came from a set piece not a through ball in any case. Olympic could not match Magic's possession play and to me, as an independent observer, Magic were unlucky not to win the game. There certainly weren't too many times when Olympic played the ball out.
I know that NNSWF expect clubs to follow the FFA criteria, in fact they pay someone to attend NPL Youth training sessions & games to ensure this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bremsstrahlung
From my experience in U/14 mainly this was followed by most clubs/coaches. Some might have done it better than others but probably gets down to coach and or kids available.
But kids also have to learn how to make decisions and take best option, this is the debatable part. EJ's for example must play out, watched it for years, kids are certainly coached how to cope and react under pressure , FFA follows this believe as well, but player needs to have knowledge to make decision. With correct coaching i have seen this year that both can happen. You reset and play out or if necessary keeper/defence can play long ball, I have actually enjoyed the decision making from the kids. Not always perfect but better than trained robots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Why Blue
Couldn't agree more Why Blue. My point with the older Olympic teams, is it seems, by virtue of the fact the long ball is played the majority, if not all of the time, that the coaching instruction to play the long ball takes the player's decision making ability away from them. They have to follow the coaches instruction, and as Mother Theresa said in an earlier post, on Saturday, the instruction to hoof it was easily able to be heard time and again from the Olympic bench. Makes it difficult for a player who likes to play the ball to be confident enough to do just that.
I don't think you do, and it was not stolen from anywhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
So, although the long ball tactic is winning them games, they should stop doing it because it doesn't meet the new age philosophy of Tikka Takka. IMO, Tikka Takka is now being replaced with Counter Attacking with speed.
If they played Tikka Takka, and were undefeated and had the success they did, played the same way every time, every game, every week, we wouldn't be having this debate. There are many ways to play the game, you play the way that wins you games.
If the focus is development, no points, just games, week in week out. While there are points, the objective will be to win. Hell, the objective to playing any game is to win. If the objective is to win the game, why would you change the way you play if it has been successful?
It is not shit. It is a tactic, for the reasons discussed earlier. It is no more "shit" than playing Tikka Takka. It is a style of play. There are many styles. These styles polarise people. Look at Chelsea vs Liverpool last year, Chelsea decided to Park the bus, time waste and keep possession while rarely even trying to score. Some people see this as a shit tactic (myself included), but it won them the game, so does it make that particular tactic worse or better than Liverpool's?Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
Lets face it, the team in question that has sparked the debate, will more than likely be split up next season as some may change clubs etc, or Olympic may get a new 18s coach (with the current coaching merry-go-round), who will bring new ideas, new tactics and develop new skills. They will learn a different way of playing, the new coach may prefer Tikka Takka, so they can play that way, but if they notice a high defence that is pressing them, they can resort to a long ball and catch the defence out.
The issues regarding Australia's world ranking are mainly due to the refusal to introduce new players and give new talented players international experience, in favour of playing the Germany 2006 squad who were gradually becoming too old, too slow and not able to compete. There are glaring issues, but to blame the Ranking on "Long Ball" philosophy is a bit of a stretch. Also, if Olympic are the only team playing long ball, there's still 7/8/9 other teams NOT playing this style. So there are players learning the "new age style".
In the defence, it was a grand final, i wouldn't be playing out from the back in a drawn grand final, when i could gain some field position and exploit other strengths.Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
I agree, it will catch up with them if they do not learn any other ways of playing. Assuming they play for Olympic, they must have a fairly decent pedigree. So chances are they have previously been taught the passing, and other tactics. This year would account for 10% of their football coaching/development.
I understand, and agree to an extent that the Long Ball, is not a technically skilful tactic and relies on athletic attributes of players up front.
The issue I am proposing is that if this team/coach/tactic is so neanderthal and amateur. Why did it bring them so much success? Is this not more of an indication of poor coaching from the other clubs or poorly skilled players at other clubs that they were unable to recognise the tactic, defend the tactic and counter in their own way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
:whistling:
Again you keep making assumptions and personal jabs with no factual analysis or examples. As for your apparent bitterness toward Hamilton, think what you want but this isn't the EPL. I do agree with your arguments regarding the first grade team as I believe they have the talent in their squad to play more possession based football which will hopefully be rectified in the future, but 17 year olds aren't going to string 48 5 yard passes together every week to score goals, particularly in a grand final with the pressures of an undefeated season on the line. Seeing as you continue to assume things and respond in an insulting manner, I will assume that you have struggled to find any kind of coaching/footballing role in Newcastle due (possibly a sore point for yourself) to your inability to consider efficient methods in football and lack of diverse tactical awareness of different on-field situations . At the end of the day it is a results based game and an undefeated season speaks for itself. I am in no way criticising Magic, as they did perform well and I thought the game had a great intensity to it, however the plausibility for every argument you have made is poor and your naive retort highlights your social inadequacy to take part in any kind of discussion. Therefore I will choose to no longer respond to you as you have polluted this forum enough and I prefer to have sensible discussions with reasonable football fans. Kindest regards Mother Theresa, and I hope future NPL seasons prove more satisfying to your needs.Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
What's wrong with test match cricket? Richie is the best bit of the summer.
MT, I do have coaching qualifications and am in the process for applying to do the C license.Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
I insult came in response to your labeling of Hamilton's coaching as "atrocious" as having seen the team play from the previous season (same squad bar a couple of new additions) to now and the range of tactical adaptions I have seen them make at various points, I believe their footballing education is of a fairly high quality. My comment regarding my own education was in response to you claiming that I plagiarized my words from Google, which I did not, and I did not criticize your lack of education, just your lack of consideration for different in-game strategies and tactical alterations. I will admit my initial comment that you have zero football knowledge was inappropriate and I apologise for that, however I am a massive advocate of teams/coaches who can play expansive football, expose opposition weaknesses and alter/adapt their game-plan to obtain results, not merely being stubborn to playing the 'Barcelona' possession game.
Criticising undefeated teams based on the way they play... Blaming it as a partial on Australia being so low ranked... how does it compare
Only saw the Under 17's game and I agree it was entertaining. Olympic had the majority of chances in the 1st half and I thought Magic's goal was against the run of play. Olympic's equaliser came from a quality set piece and hung on for the draw despite Magic having some chances in the closing minutes. If it wasn't for quality goal keeping from the Olympic No. 1, Magic would have one it. 58 points out of a possible 60, I don't think anyone should criticise the coaching, playing talent or style of play.
MT, glad we could kiss and makeup. The two points I wanted to make was that there is a difference between aimlessly pumping the ball into the box or towards a number 9 to try win an aerial battle and releasing wide players early in space to exploit teams with a high line.Quote:
Originally Posted by mother theresa
The other is that I have seen plenty of games where Hamilton under 17s have comfortably kept possession for long periods of time.
They need to know how to pump the ball aimlessly up field to the No 9 otherwise they wont know how to play NPL or New FM footballQuote:
Originally Posted by death_sphere
Not that it matters but whats coaching/football history over the past few years if you are willing to share?Quote:
Originally Posted by death_sphere
I thought you two weren't talking...Quote:
Originally Posted by death_sphere