Re: Serie A Thread - 2009/10 Season
Goonerlover said:
Hmmm...that's an interesting definition of tactic. But surely every formation and every line up is a tactic, but it is only the truly successful ones that satisfies both of those needs? Although it's not your speciality, I'd like to know what your opinion is of the ideaology that Tony Pulis adopts at Stoke
yeah, i can see where you're going and the fact that u mentioned stoke city makes me get your point even better.
yes, i guess we could define any deployment of players on the pitch (no matter how basic is the tactical idea behind it) as "tactic". and then move forward in some sort of a sophistication ladder.
but even then, any tactic (basic though it may be) must still be instrumental to win a game (wich means both aspect, the defensive one and the offensive one, must come into play).
stoke city definitely has a tactic imprint. and pulis probably went for the plan that suits best his squad. he clearely favours the defensive aspect, but afterall this becomes quite "natural" when u have many players with a very good work rate (like faye, wilkinson, delap, etherington, lawrence, just to mention a few). they have a big, heavy, tall and strong backline, wich obviously means the line will tend to stay pretty deep (and, as a consequence of that, the midfield won't be able to "stretch the pitch" very much and will be forced to a very hard work (in terms of pressing). that would obviously frustrate any team's offensive wills. they also have some pretty good long range passers (like delap, etherington, lawrence and even shawcross isn't bad in that department) and that might be another reason of their basic-sitting deep kinda football. and clearely when u have delap on your team, throw ins become an important asset aswell.
i think all theese factors play a role in their lazy offensive gameplan (i mean "lazy" only under the offensive perspective.... stoke as a team is everything but lazy of course.... actually they're probably the most "hardworking" and "die hard" team in the league).
but still, u can see an offensive pattern, basic though it may be (delap's throw ins, whelan's free kicks, etherington's runs on the left flank). i know it's not much, but at least there's a (minimal) focus on scoring opportunities.
what we saw wednesday instead was a team confortable with the 3-1 advantage, a team that had absolutely no offensive pattern whatsoever, no offensive will at all. it was all just about protecting the box.
if pandev would have been available, we would have probably seen something more from inter in terms of passing and possession. they would have at least tried to hit barca on the counter. but when mourinho was forced to put chivu instead of pandev, it was clear the team gave up to any possible offensive inspiration.
even the so called "calcio all'italiana" ("football a la italian"... that's an expression used to describe that horrible, boring, conservative kinda football italian teams used to play in the '60s, 70's and '80s, and which is unappropriately identified with the catenaccio) still had (just like stoke) a glimpse of offensive pattern in it: italian teams used to defend deep to attract the opponent teams in their own midfield and then hit them on the counter with a long pass.
well wednesday's inter didn't even get to this (very basic) level of tactical sophistication. it was all about pressing (to frustrate barca's passing game) and covering, and no offensive pattern whatsoever.
so, yeah, on second thought u're right when u say that ANY pattern and gameplan (as simple and basic it might be) can be defined "tactic". but any gamplan (defensive and conservative though it might be) will always at least consider the opportunity to deploy an offensive scheme (even if it's nothing more than a long pass, a free kick or a throw in).... inter didn't even do that against barca.... so it's hard to talk about tactics.
but as i said, this doesn't want to be a criticize to mourinho. he did the right thing. and obviusly if the 1st leg would have ended differently (a 1-1, a 2-2 or even a 3-2 win for the nerazzurri) we would have seen a completely different inter at the nou camp.
my only point is: let's not talk about a great showcase of defensive strategy or about a tactical masterpiece.
no tactical masterpiece could be completely focused on one aspect of the game alone (defending or attacking).
and we can't certainly talk about a great showcase of defensive strategy when a team defends with more than 7 players.
sacchi's football was a real marvel of tactics applied to defending, even though his football was much more focused on attacking.... actually we might say it was a marvel precisely because sacchi's football was mostly an offensive football. he used to defend with 4, 5 players (tops), hence his milan never had a clear numeric superiority in defense (over the opponent's attacking players). but he used to cope with the lack of defending personnel with his defensive patterns, his diagonals. there was some "coachcraft" at work.
defending with 8 men instead means u'll always have a numeric superiority. that'll give u a chance to have a double coverage on each zone of your own midfield. it ceases to be a matter of "coach craft", a matter of tactics. it becomes just a matter of numeric superiority.
Goonerlover said:
I'm just glad that I was able to use Inter's ascent to the final to piss of a mate, a big Barcelona fan. I asked him how he felt after last night's event, he said that he could cry, so I said "That's okay, I've got something you can wipe your tears on" and pulled out an Inter shirt. I was somewhat proud of that.
----------------------------------------------------------
i got a put a disclaimer though. my knowledge of stoke city is quite limited as i've watched just about 3 or 4 potters match this season (therefore everything i wrote about them should be taken with a pinch of salt
).
)
that's a joke right? it's impossible that somebody had the balls to write down that unbelievable load of bullshits and then called it an "analysis". UNBELIEVABLE. as i said yesterday, some people shouldn't be allowed to write about football.
