Topic: Is the importance of tactics overstated in the modern game?

[Mutton Geoff]

Can you predict anything based on your assessment of the players' heart and determination? If you have relatively reliable indicators of those, you're being systematic, rationalistic, "robotic".

Can you set up a training-session that will measurably increase "team-spirit" and a "roll-up-your-sleeves" and "wanting it more than the other side"? if you (not you specifically, obviously) can and you routinize that, turn it into a method, one that is teachable/transferable to others, you're already operating in a way that is "robotic".

The players are not robots. Managing them cannot be haphazard, etc and be consistently successful.

The importance of tactics is not overstated in the modern game, I am sorry.

After the fact rationalizations and 'explanations' do not amount to real explanations.

actually you are arguing with yourself if you rely on Stats and graphs for a winning team they might as well be Robots,

however i will simplify all the tactics in the world mean fuck all if the players haven't got trust in the manager, if the players haven't got the motivation to fight for the team and if the players need a spreadsheet to know where to pass the ball to.

Or to put it another way you can take a horse to water but you cannot make them drink, Tactics for me are way below motivation, Man management, guts and the will to win. In fact i reckon Shankly found out more in five a side game about his team than you will ever find in your stats and spreadsheets.

[diegoLFC7]

Well i was just roaming the internet and saw an article by the daily fail stating we are keen on signing Saido Berahino. What do you lads think? Pertaining to tactics it would be wonderful to see him play along sturridge with sterling in support, we could very well have 3 of englands best attackers.

[kingkenny79]

I dont care weather next game we play 4-4-2, 4-4-1-1, 5-3-2, etc

If we can't score from open play, at least train, train, and train to score from corner & train, train and train to defend a corner.

Which we fail time and time again.

[AfricanBavarian]

Its important to have a gamplan to make sure all the players are on the same page but in the end it comes down to one on one match ups

[GrkStav]

actually you are arguing with yourself if you rely on Stats and graphs for a winning team they might as well be Robots,

however i will simplify all the tactics in the world mean fuck all if the players haven't got trust in the manager, if the players haven't got the motivation to fight for the team and if the players need a spreadsheet to know where to pass the ball to.

Or to put it another way you can take a horse to water but you cannot make them drink, Tactics for me are way below motivation, Man management, guts and the will to win. In fact i reckon Shankly found out more in five a side game about his team than you will ever find in your stats and spreadsheets.

Jeff,

I am obviously failing to express myself clearly. I understand the importance of "heart", etc but what I've been trying to say is this: Managers cannot consistently create or coach or manage that, they cannot control it. And 99% of the time, any 'explanation' on the basis of "heart", "guts", "team spirit", "wanting it more" and the rest of it is after the fact.

The "heart" etc of the players is the part of the game that a manager can consistently affect the least.

Tactics, planning, drilling, preparation, pouring over objective indicators, carefully analyzing 'film', that's what the manager and his/her team can consistently do and improve. Team morale, the 'expressive' life of the group is important. But, there's no consistent, predictable way for a manager to affect it. Generals can't affect it. Business managers can't affect it, predictably and reliably. If/when the players/group decide to give charisma to a manager, it will look like he/she is performing miracles. As soon as they take it away, it all goes to pot. Drilling, preparation, tactical nous, improving players competence, comfort, co-ordination, that stuff stays with players, and they have a much greater chance, all other things equal, of improving results than 'exhortations' and 'team building exercises' and the rest of it.

On the other hand, some actual knowledge of individual and group psychology can definitely help a manager assess what kinds of interactions to have with the players, what kind of rotation (if any) to have, etc. At least one can thus avoid taking too many risks.

Tell me, for example, what BR, proclaimed as a great man-manager and self-proclaimed 'educator', has accomplished in this non-tactical part of the game? What can you show empirically that he did (or did not do) that led to 'team spirit', 'fight', 'heart', etc?

If the players are themselves tacticians, if they know each other really well, or have gone through the same academy and know the 'style of play that works' like the back of their hands, maybe just a great motivator is required.

One-off performances can be 'manufactured' by a great motivation speech, although I can assure you that the best speeches are only declared thus AFTER the fact. The same exact speech can fall on deaf ears and have zero effect.

[Ken-Obi]

I think Rafa at HT in Istanbul is proof that tactics - the dots, arrows and crosses - matter.

[Ibelieve]

Much like how one tend to work or do stuff better if instructions/information are passed down or received.

The better the instructions/information are, the better the end product will be. Likewise for football.

Chelsea wouldn't be Chelsea without Mourinho. I think most have seen that during their non-mourinho years.
Utd was fearsome under red nose despite their scrappy squad. Utter crap under Moyes and still very average despite big name signings.

So you see tactics play a pivotal role on how well the team does. Players do make a difference but the man in charge and his tactics is the game changer.

[OOS]

No.

The best managers have complex tactical plans for every player, and to deal with every opponent. They won't tell the player or team straightaway but drip feed it into the team over a few months in different drills and talks. Getting the balance right in getting the team to function and not overloading the player with too many instructions.

[Mutton Geoff]

The question raised is are tactics overrated and well if a team won't play for you or hasn't got the mindset to carry them through they are useless, tactics before a game are only as good as the people working to them, motivation is as important if not more important in my opinion!

[goalrushatgoodison]

Think some people arent thinking how much tactics are involved here. The way each team basically sets up defensively, attacking, when to press, how to press, when to retain shape, attacking and defending set pieces etc. That is all tactical and coached accordingly to the teams principles. For instance ive read Rafa used to put the defence on a rope. The defender nearest the ball would defend on the front foot and press the ball so the others had to follow until they learned regularly the movements he wanted. If have 2 mates who work for Everton although 1 recently left. They coach and watch all the opposition tapes. They see how they set up for set pieces and how best to defend it or how to take advantage.  When they press so how to best keep the ball and i know they always work on their regular patterns of play. If anything its understated for me. If we relied just on talent ballotelli would be scoring week in week out. Can put that down to not fitting our team model. Or not having adapted to our tactics yet. Or any number of variables. Or just leave it at hes lacking confidence.

I'm not trying to suggest that tactics aren't significant nor that, as I acknowledged in my OP, the advent of video and multiple substitutions haven't made them more so.

Neither am I trying to say that Shanks and Paisley, for instance, didn't instil their footballing philosophy into their players on the training field. Quite the opposite in fact. However I would differentiate between the undoubted importance of coaching, obviously if it wasn't significant Managers/Coaches wouldn't do it, and the level of effect that the tactics being coached actually have on the outcome of the game.

My point is that a lot of commentators (I use this word in the widest sense) seem to think that the tactical approach is the most significant contributor to the outcome of the game. Grk Stav , for instance,  seems to be arguing that because a lot of the other factors such as confidence, team spirit and motivation are intangible and therefore unmeasureable they aren't as important. Now i could accept an argument that because they are less tangible that coaches don't spend as much time on them but I don't think it makes them less important. In this regard I think the importance of tactics is, though significant, overstated.

I responded to you Macca because you have clearly seperated the philosophy itself from the coaching that goes into instilling that philosophy but my comments are not specific to your post

[sempi]

I'm not trying to suggest that tactics aren't significant nor that, as I acknowledged in my OP, the advent of video and multiple substitutions haven't made them more so.

Neither am I trying to say that Shanks and Paisley, for instance, didn't instil their footballing philosophy into their players on the training field. Quite the opposite in fact. However I would differentiate between the undoubted importance of coaching, obviously if it wasn't significant Managers/Coaches wouldn't do it, and the level of effect that the tactics being coached actually have on the outcome of the game.

My point is that a lot of commentators (I use this word in the widest sense) seem to think that the tactical approach is the most significant contributor to the outcome of the game. Grk Stav , for instance,  seems to be arguing that because a lot of the other factors such as confidence, team spirit and motivation are intangible and therefore unmeasureable they aren't as important. Now i could accept an argument that because they are less tangible that coaches don't spend as much time on them but I don't think it makes them less important. In this regard I think the importance of tactics is, though significant, overstated.

I responded to you Macca because you have clearly seperated the philosophy itself from the coaching that goes into instilling that philosophy but my comments are not specific to your post

But Shanks and Paisley did have tactics. They employed a high tempo pressing style at home which slowed as we scored goals. Away we would play possession football, stifling our opponents. The philosophy was that a point was better than nothing.

[Mutton Geoff]

Shanks tactics just put the ball in the net we will talk about later! People just  try to complicate a very simple game !

[Bird Bird Bird The Bird Is The Word]

No.

When you get it tactically right, it's like a beautifully running, purring engine hidden beneath a bonnet, its all running smoothly but you can't see the intricate inner workings, only the end product.

When you get it tactically wrong, it's like a bicycle with square wheels.

[Cid]

Well i was just roaming the internet and saw an article by the daily fail stating we are keen on signing Saido Berahino. What do you lads think? Pertaining to tactics it would be wonderful to see him play along sturridge with sterling in support, we could very well have 3 of englands best attackers.

A)  how is that relevant to this thread?
B)  he would cost a bomb as the club would see it as a massive pay day while he is in form.
C)  we'll probably sign him and he'll turn crap overnight.

[GrkStav]

Shanks tactics just put the ball in the net we will talk about later! People just  try to complicate a very simple game !

Jeff,

Seriously, mate. Shankly thought about and implemented tactics. His motivational speeches etc are one thing. What he actually did is another.

He certainly didn't talk about his tactics with journos. He rightly assumed that most of the supporters at the time couldn't a flying eff about 'tactics' so long as the club were doing well and getting better.

Run ins with the FA, with folks that had 'their badges' etc. do not prove a disdain for tactics. They prove that the WRONG tactics can be terrible.

Have you ever watched a football match with someone that has "no concept" of football, at all, be it tactical, from the players' playing perspective, nothing? Even if they're rooting for the same club you're rooting for? Is that not one of the most frustrating experiences of all time? It is for me.

A mix of actual psychological (individual and group) knowledge and techniques, plus old-fashioned skill-development and conditioning, PLUS tactical knowledge, sophistication and ability to put them into practice is ideal.

[GrkStav]

The question raised is are tactics overrated and well if a team won't play for you or hasn't got the mindset to carry them through they are useless, tactics before a game are only as good as the people working to them, motivation is as important if not more important in my opinion!

Well, then, phrased thus, I agree 100%.

Negative motivation, especially, or even indifference/lethargy/apathy can be killers.

Having said that, great positive motivation, an "I will do whatever it takes for this manager" attitude can overcome lack of or poor tactics very infrequently. A somewhat positively motivated opponent, with superior tactics and comparable talent will prevail 9 times out of 10.

And, I didn't say motivation, etc. are not important. I said that they become things that managers can routinely, regularly affect, improve, etc. when, other things equal, they are treated in the detached, 'scientific', cold-robotic way in which tactics and conditioning are treated. Not with 'intuition' and 'charisma' but in a disciplined, methodical way. Now, if one does have/is given charisma, so much the better. A well-drilled squad, properly 'educated' who ALSO has 'esprit de corps' and believes in their leaders will perform better, consistently than its average talent level would indicate.

[socrates the sophist]

Jeff,

Seriously, mate. Shankly thought about and implemented tactics. His motivational speeches etc are one thing. What he actually did is another.

He certainly didn't talk about his tactics with journos. He rightly assumed that most of the supporters at the time couldn't a flying eff about 'tactics' so long as the club were doing well and getting better.

Run ins with the FA, with folks that had 'their badges' etc. do not prove a disdain for tactics. They prove that the WRONG tactics can be terrible.

Have you ever watched a football match with someone that has "no concept" of football, at all, be it tactical, from the players' playing perspective, nothing? Even if they're rooting for the same club you're rooting for? Is that not one of the most frustrating experiences of all time? It is for me.

A mix of actual psychological (individual and group) knowledge and techniques, plus old-fashioned skill-development and conditioning, PLUS tactical knowledge, sophistication and ability to put them into practice is ideal.

Totally agree with every word here. I wouldn't want my manager to talk about his tactics to the press either. I do find the answer to the thread's topic obvious, just look at our defense for the answer, they are obviously not getting any tactical coaching.

[b_joseph]

No..over the course of the season, being tactically correct with the players you have should lead to you have a good year.
I think overrating players or under rating players has an influence in how some people view the tactics of certain teams.
Also think that some people think tactics are the answer to every result..but sometimes in a single game, random things happen that go against what should have happened based on any measurement. A decent example of that would be Chelsea vs West Ham last season. Sam was yapping about how he did this and that but in reality, Chelsea battered them and were very unlucky.

Do I think we as fans think we know more than we actually do, fuck yeah. But that's a good thing in the long run..people trying to acquire more knowledge is always a good thing.

[slaphead]

Good question
And something I've often thought about
I was unsure of the answer, until a while back I heard a similar question put to Harry Redknapp. He basically said tactics are a load of crap, and only 2 or 3 managers in the game really use them effectively. That its all about management and playing simple
So that confirmed it for me, if that bell end thinks that tactics are overstated, then they definitely aint.

[Lovely Man]

I think it has a big place, but the most important factor is down to personnel.

Ideally, you'd like all your players to be like Ronaldo and Bale, just physical freaks with a great work ethic but also incredible skill and athleticism.

How many of those players do we have? Sturridge perhaps?  Henderson at a push.  Balotelli in theory.

Size and power is a massive factor and it's increasingly a problem for us I feel, so tactics get rendered obsolete if your players can't win their individual battles.

Chelsea have Zouma, Ivanovic, Costa, Willian, Matic, Drogba, these are all units with great technical qualities and real desire to win.

[plums123]

Read a book about football and statistics once, and apparently  86% of the outcome of matches is just random. Only the last 14% are down to controllable factors.


But to get back to the topic, the idea is probably that with modern coaching, players make less and less mistakes, and can be controlled like chess pieces on the pitch.

t

Last season Brendan only had one tactic, which was give the ball to any of s.a.s. dont worry about the defence as we will score more than the opposition anyway, now his naivety is beginning to show , we cherry picked southampton but under Koemans tactical ability they are doing better than we are.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

t

Last season Brendan only had one tactic, which was give the ball to any of s.a.s. dont worry about the defence as we will score more than the opposition anyway, now his naivety is beginning to show , we cherry picked southampton but under Koemans tactical ability they are doing better than we are.

You're username is apt, as from your posts you seem a bit of a plum.

Did you not notice how many different formations/tactics Brendan used last season? Did you not start watching until we were top of the league? Whopper.

[kcbworth]

the most important factor is down to personnel.

How did Manchester Utd win so many titles then?

Chelsea have Zouma, Ivanovic, Costa, Willian, Matic, Drogba, these are all units with great technical qualities and real desire to win trillions of ££ in oil money

Fixed that for you...

Seriously I hate this fixation on "the transfer market" and "who made the best buys" and etc etc. Of course having the right players to support your system and tactics matters, but most professional footballers can do pretty bloody well in the right circumstances

[indlfc]

t

Last season Brendan only had one tactic, which was give the ball to any of s.a.s. dont worry about the defence as we will score more than the opposition anyway, now his naivety is beginning to show , we cherry picked southampton but under Koemans tactical ability they are doing better than we are.

Its not his naivety, its his inexperience. And if it was that easy, why aren't other managers doing it? Moyes had RVP and Rooney, yet they struggled to score, you cannot just play two strikers and expect them to score without the work done in training ground.

I hope you are not from Brendan 'Frauders' gang. I am pretty sure BR will prove that it was not just Suarez show last season and he played a large part in it.

[Mutton Geoff]

The answer is simply yes tactics are part of the game but it isn't the game itself, I cringe when I see someone even Pascoe showing a world class player what to do from some help sheet!

[plums123]

You're username is apt, as from your posts you seem a bit of a plum.

Did you not notice how many different formations/tactics Brendan used last season? Did you not start watching until we were top of the league? Whopper.

I started watching Liverpool in 1958, I have seen all our greats since then, and if you didn't see that the basic tactic last season was attack all teams via sas then some of your username must have rotted your brain

[jooneyisdagod]

The answer is simply yes tactics are part of the game but it isn't the game itself, I cringe when I see someone even Pascoe showing a world class player what to do from some help sheet!

Goodness me.

[Samie]

I started watching Liverpool in 1958, I have seen all our greats since then, and if you didn't see that the basic tactic last season was attack all teams via sas then some of your username must have rotted your brain

For someone who's been watching us this long I'm shocked you can't see what Brendan was doing last season and basically saying he got lucky with SAS.

he's still earning on the job as it were he's not very experienced.

You should read this thread as well and see what Luis Suarez thinks.

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=317517.0

[Ken-Obi]

You're username is apt, as from your posts you seem a bit of a plum.

Did you not notice how many different formations/tactics Brendan used last season? Did you not start watching until we were top of the league? Whopper.

I started watching Liverpool in 1958, I have seen all our greats since then, and if you didn't see that the basic tactic last season was attack all teams via sas then some of your username must have rotted your brain

Has the makings of a classic there.

[sushared]

tactics is very very important, personnel are secondary. the team should be moving in one direction for which tactics team formations are all important, otherwise it will be like 11 individuals playing.

I became a avid fan of tactics after our champions league will in 2005. forget the half time in Istanbul, with the team of individuals we had we had no business to be in Istanbul. it was pure tactics, that took us to the submit that year. away to Juventus was a master class.

yes tactics can be undone by momentary act of brilliance by individuals but for me in the long run you require tactics, formations and a footballing philosophy to succeed.

[plums123]

Its not his naivety, its his inexperience. And if it was that easy, why aren't other managers doing it? Moyes had RVP and Rooney, yet they struggled to score, you cannot just play two strikers and expect them to score without the work done in training ground.

I hope you are not from Brendan 'Frauders' gang. I am pretty sure BR will prove that it was not just Suarez show last season and he played a large part in it.

Someone who is naive lacks experience

[L666KOP]

How did Manchester Utd win so many titles then?

Fixed that for you...

Seriously I hate this fixation on "the transfer market" and "who made the best buys" and etc etc. Of course having the right players to support your system and tactics matters, but most professional footballers can do pretty bloody well in the right circumstances

Really, you need to ask ?

The same reason they went from 1st to 7th.

Fuck all to do with tactics mate. They had a manager that always got 100% out of the majority of his players, every game. They were relentless for 90 mins, 38 games a season. That my friend is mentality. Every single one of them were winners. Every interview you read from the players is about winning, never giving up, incredible desire etc etc.

You don't teach that on an ipad.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Ferguson was a green behind the ears motivator that got lucky, but how many seasons did we look on and wonder how the teams he put managed to celebrate the league around easter time.

It doesn't matter how much of a tactician you are, if you can't get the players to utilise them it's not going to matter.

[clinical]

Really, you need to ask ?

The same reason they went from 1st to 7th.

Fuck all to do with tactics mate. They had a manager that always got 100% out of the majority of his players, every game. They were relentless for 90 mins, 38 games a season. That my friend is mentality. Every single one of them were winners. Every interview you read from the players is about winning, never giving up, incredible desire etc etc.

You don't teach that on an ipad.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Ferguson was a green behind the ears motivator that got lucky, but how many seasons did we look on and wonder how the teams he put managed to celebrate the league around easter time.

It doesn't matter how much of a tactician you are, if you can't get the players to utilise them it's not going to matter.

Mentality is number 1 imo.
Then ability
Then tactics

But you need all 3.

We're missing Suarez's mentality a lot this year, aswell as his ability and the fact he never got injured once in 3 and a half years.

[L666KOP]

Mentality is number 1 imo.
Then ability
Then tactics

But you need all 3.

We're missing Suarez's mentality a lot this year, aswell as his ability and the fact he never got injured once in 3 and a half years.

Yep.

Tactics are what will win when you have 22 robots on the pitch.

Tactics are often the 'difference maker' but it's fundamentally the player, and his ability to adhere to what he's been told.
 Can he remain mentally focused for 90 minutes, and is his body physically able to do what he needs to do. If the answer is yes on both counts then the more tactically astute team will win.

[redmark]

Really, you need to ask ?

The same reason they went from 1st to 7th.

Fuck all to do with tactics mate. They had a manager that always got 100% out of the majority of his players, every game. They were relentless for 90 mins, 38 games a season. That my friend is mentality. Every single one of them were winners. Every interview you read from the players is about winning, never giving up, incredible desire etc etc.

You don't teach that on an ipad.

I'm not suggesting for one minute that Ferguson was a green behind the ears motivator that got lucky, but how many seasons did we look on and wonder how the teams he put managed to celebrate the league around easter time.

It doesn't matter how much of a tactician you are, if you can't get the players to utilise them it's not going to matter.

This is why I was trying to talk about the difference between tactics - a slight change in shape, you do this, keep tight on so-and-so - and 'strategy' - a general approach or philosophy. That mentality comes I think as a result of players slotting into a strategy which works and which doesn't require individual players to really be aware of it in any great detail. It's the stuff that's 'coached' through simple practice until it becomes first nature, not drawn on whiteboards or iPads. As discussed at length in the old 'the system is king' thread, it's the strategy that produces effective sides which last for years despite personnel changes, in which players appear to be astute, intelligent and tactically aware - but, infact, judging by their later punditry or autobiographies, had very little tactical understanding of the system at all.

Football is a simple game, viewed from the perspective of an individual player. Football needs to be kept simple for (most) individual players, so that they do the right thing, as quickly and smoothly as possible, without having to think about it. But how that gels together, between eleven individual simpletons, is quite complex; like clockwork, individual cogs perform simple functions which in combination produce a complex, sophisticated, smooth running machine. The genius of the best football managers (and unfortunately for us, Ferguson was one of them) is designing such a system while allowing (most of) the individual cogs to focus on their personal battles, physical and mental.

So yeah, 'tactics', in terms of game-to-game adjustments, shape, instructions and tweaks is overrated. The best tactical managers, I think, can become lost in the detail and struggle to convey the bigger picture; the sort of manager who can manufacture a great victory, but struggle to win week in, week out. A good 'cup manager'. But strategy, philosophy and 'the system', I think, is critical.

[robgomm]

I wish PoP was here to comment on this one.

[L666KOP]

This

Good post.

The 'cup manager' would be Rafa.
The 'league manager' would be a Mourinho/Ferguson.

Rafa for me often over thought it, forgive me for not remembering but when Rafa left Valencia didn't the new incumbent ask the defenders to "defend how they did under Rafa" only to be told that Rafa had 6 ways of defending ?

You always knew that he had it in him to be able to beat any team on the planet, even if he was in charge of a pub team.

The best tactics are always the simplest. Mourinho, and Ferguson are case in points. Every man and his dog knows how they will set their teams up. There'll be little adjustments here and there, and certain players may have their 'jobs' altered from week to week to take advantage of opponents weaknesses, but invariably they remain consistent in shape, formation, and application. Once you start to become successful in the given 'shape' then the players are much more likely to jump on board and give 100% more often because they know that generally it results in a win, and in the long(season) term, a trophy or two with a bit of luck on their side.

[Phil M]

I wish PoP was here to comment on this one.

What about MoM?

[robgomm]

What about MoM?

She once asked me what team the ref was on so I don't think she'd be much help here.

[SamAteTheRedAcid]

I started watching Liverpool in 1958, I have seen all our greats since then, and if you didn't see that the basic tactic last season was attack all teams via sas then some of your username must have rotted your brain

Can't really deny the brain rot

Fair enough you've thirty years watching on me. And yes the object of football is to score more goals than the opposition, as ever. But the tactics changed many times last season, three at the back, Gerrard moving back, the opening run of 1-0 wins with a tight defence,  I think there a was significant tactical evolution over the course of the season.