GregCharrua started a thread, the other day, about Brendan and what tactics he should employ and it got me thinking. While I like to learn about the tactical side of the game myself, it seems that the tactical battle has become the be all and end all as far as commentators, pundits and more and more fans are concerned. Below is part of the post that I contributed on that thread. It was completely off topic but it's a discussion that I'd like to pursue. The gist of it is that the tactical approach of a team is but a small factor in the overall outcome of a game but takes up an inordinate amount of the post match debate. I am hoping this topic can be discussed with a Liverpool slant but if the mods think this is more general than LFC please feel free to move.
I will be fifty years of age at my next birthday. I lived through a period of unprecedented success for Liverpool Football Club without giving as much as a fleeting thought to tactics, at least to tactics as they are now viewed and dissected. The first time I really took note was when Kenny started to use Jan Molby as sweeper in a five man defence! Looking back at that, I still can't make up my mind if it's evidence that Kenny was ahead of his time or if it was the first acknowledgement that our side was no longer good enough to rely on our player's superior ability alone.
Since the advent of the premiership there has been a successful attempt to portray the tactical battle between two managers as the single biggest influence on the outcome of the game. This is a remarkable feat when we think about the incredible hyperbole that surrounds the standard of the players themselves. The respective team bosses are now portrayed as Chess Grand-Masters where every move is a pre-ordained response to the others various gambits. It reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. But then a lot of the sensationalism around modern football evokes similar musings.
I am not trying to make out that tactics didn't exist back in the day, of course they did, they were just presented more in terms of footballing philosophies. I am trying to explain that their perceived influence on the game was somewhere behind the ability of the players themselves and the capacity of the manager to motivate them. I remain to be convinced this has greatly changed although i do acknowledge that the ability to extensively scout the opposition through TV/video etc as well as the increase in the number of substitutions has changed the landscape somewhat.
I was reminded the other night that Bill Shankly often said that anybody who needs to read a book about the game shouldn't be involved in it. Now that was circa fifty years ago but it's food for thought.
From a coaching perspective, there are four
core components of the game:
1)
Technical (passing, receiving, heading, shooting, shielding, and goalkeeping areas)
2)
Tactical (making decisions, speed of play, using technical advantages, covering up technical weaknesses, game within the game)
3)
Psychological (information processing, putting emotion aside, playing within yourself - limits, visual cues, rewards of repetition)
4)
Physical (preparing the body, athleticism, VO2 max endurance, positional demands, team needs)
Tactics or decision patterns are a huge part of the game. For the ordinary supporter who might not never come near the academic side of the sport or get a coaching badge, this word might get confused with only 11 vs 11 game dynamics. It might seem unnecessarily complicated, or be privileged above other areas of the game, which at times both can be.
Nevertheless, using LFC's team last year as a guide, we were a damn hard team to play against if the opponent could not get the ball.
First, we made centrebacks make a shitload of decisions (running behind, in between gaps, and sliding across the face of the back four). This opened up boatloads of space for the top of our diamond (offensive midfielder), and also provided unmarked spaces for the opposite side midfielder (non-ball side) to make penetrating runs through the back four.
Second, we had speed on the flanks and found ways to expose marking backs (which did two things, made them defend more than they wanted, and also made them think twice about getting forward so much). This leads to exploiting the decisions that defenders had to make between Sturridge and Suarez.
Third, we did a good job with set plays (corners, free-kicks, and exploiting near post spaces using Gerrard as weapon).
Fourth, we were very dangerous on the counter. We attacked with pace. The tactic was to get the ball and go. We see this in the Everton match as well as the remnants of it a few days ago against QPR (Sterling). How and where we attack involve instinct, in the game tactical awareness (which Rodgers is so high on), and preparation.
In fact, you might say there are
layers of tactics. There is implementing the tactics of the game plan (exploiting lineup tendencies, system demands - we need to keep one midfielder home when playing this team, and accounting for dangerous players on the opponent to take away what they do well). And there are on-going tactics that change with the conditions, score, referee decisions, and minute to minute information feedback loop.
This evolves as players have off days, and the best preparation can be shredded almost immediately (just Arsenal players during their game at Anfield last year). Sometimes there are no answers and you have to adapt. For Liverpool, my understanding of Rodgers' training method is that players are equipped to sensitive to subtle changes in the game and are ready to adapt methods (pressing, passing, exploiting space or attacking formations) at any time. This is the reading of the game.
For supporters, this is not an easy task to see how players adapt to the initial tactics. We tend to see this more transparently when the gaffer makes a change in formation, or a substitution which is designed to change the game. And he has done this consistently. Our most recent games, it has been easy to see (Allen and Coutinho at QPR or taking off Manquillo against West Ham --- led to Sterling's goal). Then, there are the tactics of going after vulnerable players on the opposing team (psychology - yellow/red cards) (technically - few defenders can handle Sterling's pace on the flanks) or (game situations where when the score changes so do the decisions that need to be made).
This last one cannot be overstated enough. Our tactics when leading this year need some work. We have been allowing far too many goals in the last 10 minutes of games this year. Now, one might say this is a conditioning (physical) issue. Or another might say it is in our heads (psychological) as one of the team's emotional cores (Suarez) is gone. I am not so sure about these. For me, it comes down to our decisions and our players not adapting to the tactics of urgent pressure, reduced time, and adjusting to the opposing team's present risk. Whether it is the Lovren-Migs communication (Ludogorets) or last minute restart goals (Vargas/Austin-Vargas header), LFC are failing to account for risk. This is a pattern, emanating from decisions and need to be addressed.
Goalrush, respectfully, now there could be another issue here other than tactics are overrated. It may be there are too few people here with the ability to explain, translate, and spend the time necessary to write about the importance of tactics in the modern game or during previous eras. I think this possibility highlights the importance of engaging some of the older members here in RAWK, not only to engage them as knowledgeable and valuable resources, but also to make this translation a matter of tradition the club never loses in the world of casino capitalism football.
