Topic: Stupid Football

[Peter McGurk]

There's the counterpoint that Messi is bright enough because he's been coached enough, and in the right way. Roy's posted a lot of material showing the science behind sports, enough to show that the adage that (football) geniuses are born not made is oversimplified to the point of being misleading, and that practice makes perfect is a far better approximation. 10,000 hours is one of the numbers to look at.

A nice answer but nearly as circular as my suggested non-answer. In the context of 'being clever enough to understand complicate instructions', it goes without saying that if you're not bright enough, no amount of coaching will help you.

I'm sure Roy has posted a lot of the theory of sports psychology. However, I suspect there is relatively little empirical research to support that theory. Of course I could be wrong. In which case maybe someone could post that. Even if they could, I'd want to pretty rigorously test the application of that research to football alone (not Cycling, or Rugby or...war] and I'd want to see the research that establishes conclusively that the paths to mastery are indeed the same.

It is of course true that without practice even a genius cannot build the innate and un-thinking technical skill he needs but it's not the technical skill that makes him a genius. It's his personal qualities (of unshakeable self-belief. For others, no amount of practice will help. And there's the central fallacy of the proposition. The proposition that with a bit of science (or even quasi-science), genius can be wrought from a donkey or a thoroughbred. It cannot.

What we all know about (at least a little bit if you include me) are the peculiarities of football or rather of Liverpool Football Club. We've seen it, we've touched it, we've felt it. We've learnt some lessons over the years and maybe it's worth relying more on that.

.

[Red_Mist]

Physique, technique, psychology. All are critical in their own way. You can teach a player to deal with pressure and I agree with the OP that this is necessary for a lot of our current team. I am not convinced that you can teach a player to make the right decisions though. This is what sets the very elite players out from the rest - excellent decision making and consistently accurate execution.

Add speed of thought / instinct and I agree. Don't think you can teach the Suarez's and Messi's all that much. The manager's might think they can, but there's no real need. It's all already there. As for the rest (the mere mortals), as with most things, there's merit in what both sides are saying in this debate.

[exiledinyorkshire]

And there is evidence that intelligent coaching and tactical discipline can shackle and beat the Madrids and Barcelonas of this world.

Absolutely, unless you are anywhere near as good as them its the only way your going to do it, And Rafa was as good as any at it. Jose is probably the very best.

Peter i'm suprised to learn you have no real interest in football tactics. You sound like you know what your on about and certainly make very good points. The brendan rodgers thing has started to really interest me, since i heard that they never do anything without the ball. Also since i read that Fabregas siad that it was much stricter discipline wise, as in they absolutely had certain places to play and tactical plans layed out for them at Barca, unlike he at arsenal. Just find it interesting. I think you could be correct with your ideas as regards to Kenny, but somehow i find that a wee bit disheartening, because i want him to be a tactical genius. Everything the 88-89 players have ever said backs you up, they never got coached tactically they just basically played five asides.

I was kinda hoping for lots of five asides and some modern day shrewd tactical drilling, i guess thats coming from Clarke.

[Sangria]

A nice answer but nearly as circular as my suggested non-answer. In the context of 'being clever enough to understand complicate instructions', it goes without saying that if you're not bright enough, no amount of coaching will help you.

I'm sure Roy has posted a lot of the theory of sports psychology. However, I suspect there is relatively little empirical research to support that theory. Of course I could be wrong. In which case maybe someone could post that. Even if they could, I'd want to pretty rigorously test the application of that research to football alone (not Cycling, or Rugby or...war] I'd want to see the research that establishes conclusive that the paths to mastery are indeed the same.

It is of course true that without practice even a genius cannot build the innate and un-thinking technical skill he needs but it's not the technical skill that makes him a genius. It's his personal qualities (of unshakeable self-belief. For others, no amount of practice will help. And there's the central fallacy of the proposition. the proposition that with a bit of science (or even quasi-science), genius can be wrought from a donkey. It cannot.

What we all know about (at least a little bit if you include me) are the peculiarities of football or rather of Liverpool Football Club. We've seen it, we've touched it, we've felt it. We've learnt some lessons over the years and maybe it's worth relying more on that.

.

If I remember right, there was actually a lot of empirical research, not necessarily related to football, that established 10,000 hours of practice as the critical number at which muscle memory properly kicks in, allowing sportsmen to think about what to do rather than how to do it. It follows from that that the search for players must necessarily start young, not to look for born geniuses, but to get them started and going on the right road so those 10,000 hours are spent productively rather than learning bad habits. There were also figures on the correlation between the concentration of youth coaches in a country and how successful it is internationally. That's just the empirical research, with concrete numbers backing up the research. The tactical side is another matter, and I don't think anyone has yet managed to find a way of quantifying that particular discussion.

Of course, there is another route we can try, which is a tried and tested shortcut past the 10,000 hours mark. I don't think many people would find it tolerable though, and from your posts in this thread, you'd probably find it repugnant.

[Not A Scouser]

I think something to consider with stupid football and the psychology of performance is the snowball effect.  Once you notice that you are making mistakes the idea that at the next opportunity you will make a mistake is greater.  This makes you more likely to make a mistake because you aren't using the "right bit of your brain", the one that intuitively selects and performs the necessary skill.  Andy Carroll misses a couple of sitters and then thinks "I've got to score in this game or I'm not going to play."  The next chance he's thinking "Don't fuck this up!" instead of just watching the ball go off his boot into the net.

This is common in phobias, where you have a disturbing incident that makes you scared (a dog bites you and you become scared when you see a dog.)  What happens next is each time you see a dog you associate that fear with dogs even more closely until even the idea of a dog makes you scared.

The more you do stupid things the harder it becomes not to do stupid things.  Stewart Downing, Andy Carroll, Luis Suarez can all finish more effectively than they have this season.  Charlie Adam can pick a defence apart better than he has this season.  It seems to me that there's a feeling around the club that something will go wrong, we'll hit the post or they'll score in the last minute.  I think it is noticeable that Steven Gerrard and Dirk Kuyt don't seem to have that feeling.

[Peter McGurk]

If I remember right, there was actually a lot of empirical research, not necessarily related to football, that established 10,000 hours of practice ...

Of course, there is another route we can try, which is a tried and tested shortcut past the 10,000 hours mark. I don't think many people would find it tolerable though, and from your posts in this thread, you'd probably find it repugnant.

Are you on about eugenics? Yep dodgy ground (my reference wasn't serious BTW but now you're getting scary).

Yes but that empirical research is merely establishing a required input to gain mastery of a technical skill. Technical skill is not enough. Perhaps in more ‘mechanical’ sports. I don’t know much about Cycling but...

.

[Not A Scouser]

If I remember right, there was actually a lot of empirical research, not necessarily related to football, that established 10,000 hours of practice as the critical number at which muscle memory properly kicks in, allowing sportsmen to think about what to do rather than how to do it

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html

[Sangria]

I think something to consider with stupid football and the psychology of performance is the snowball effect.  Once you notice that you are making mistakes the idea that at the next opportunity you will make a mistake is greater.  This makes you more likely to make a mistake because you aren't using the "right bit of your brain", the one that intuitively selects and performs the necessary skill.  Andy Carroll misses a couple of sitters and then thinks "I've got to score in this game or I'm not going to play."  The next chance he's thinking "Don't fuck this up!" instead of just watching the ball go off his boot into the net.

This is common in phobias, where you have a disturbing incident that makes you scared (a dog bites you and you become scared when you see a dog.)  What happens next is each time you see a dog you associate that fear with dogs even more closely until even the idea of a dog makes you scared.

The more you do stupid things the harder it becomes not to do stupid things.  Stewart Downing, Andy Carroll, Luis Suarez can all finish more effectively than they have this season.  Charlie Adam can pick a defence apart better than he has this season.  It seems to me that there's a feeling around the club that something will go wrong, we'll hit the post or they'll score in the last minute.  I think it is noticeable that Steven Gerrard and Dirk Kuyt don't seem to have that feeling.

The shortcut method I referred to practically guarantees proof against stupidity and panic, and indeed, is designed to eradicate such in stressful situations. However, I'm not sure if it doesn't violate various human rights conventions, and I'm fairly certain it would land the club in severe legal trouble unless the players sign their rights away, which is doubtful. It would guarantee a certain minimum level of performance though, below which we absolutely won't drop.

[royhendo]

There's plenty of empirical research.

The book "Bounce" by Matthew Syed is a good summary across many sports and pastimes, and it boils down to common sense: good quality coaching x intensity of competitive level x number of hours played = maximised talent.

The story of the Russian couple who trained their daughters to be Chess grandmasters is a good example, because the father was an academic and tracked the whole thing.

But that's a whole different debate.

[royhendo]

This was good from John Sinnott.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/soccer/12/17/blizzard.sinnott.mental/index.html

[AJ4Seven]

Add speed of thought / instinct and I agree. Don't think you can teach the Suarez's and Messi's all that much.

Maybe they have little to learn on the ball, but they can learn to be more effective without the ball (in a defensive sense).

[Sangria]

There's plenty of empirical research.

The book "Bounce" by Matthew Syed is a good summary across many sports and pastimes, and it boils down to common sense: good quality coaching x intensity of competitive level x number of hours played = maximised talent.

The story of the Russian couple who trained their daughters to be Chess grandmasters is a good example, because the father was an academic and tracked the whole thing.

But that's a whole different debate.

There's also the military method of guaranteeing a certain level of performance under stress, on which the higher ups can then plan things. Break the individual down, not just technically but also mentally, then rebuild to the required set pattern. Proven to have very good results with relatively short preparation time, and produces a uniform component which you can rely on for a given level of performance. Of course, there's fuck all chance any civilians would tolerate the mistreatment necessary for this coaching method.

[Sangria]

There's plenty of empirical research.

The book "Bounce" by Matthew Syed is a good summary across many sports and pastimes, and it boils down to common sense: good quality coaching x intensity of competitive level x number of hours played = maximised talent.

The story of the Russian couple who trained their daughters to be Chess grandmasters is a good example, because the father was an academic and tracked the whole thing.

But that's a whole different debate.

Just to reply to this again. Was that the Polgars?

[CHOPPER]

Stupid is as stupid does. Just look what happened to Forest.

[royhendo]

Just to reply to this again. Was that the Polgars?

Aye, sorry - and they're Hungarian not Russian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/László_Polgár

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200506/the-grandmaster-experiment

[Peter McGurk]

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.exp.perf.html

Did you read this? Chess ok. Bridge too. Highly skilled performers in the arts, such as music, painting and writing, sports, such as swimming, running and golf... football? no.

The shortcut method I referred to practically guarantees proof against stupidity and panic, and indeed, is designed to eradicate such in stressful situations. However, I'm not sure if it doesn't violate various human rights conventions, and I'm fairly certain it would land the club in severe legal trouble unless the players sign their rights away, which is doubtful. It would guarantee a certain minimum level of performance though, below which we absolutely won't drop.

yep. You're really scary now.

There's plenty of empirical research.

The book "Bounce" by Matthew Syed is a good summary across many sports and pastimes, and it boils down to common sense: good quality coaching x intensity of competitive level x number of hours played = maximised talent.

The story of the Russian couple who trained their daughters to be Chess grandmasters is a good example, because the father was an academic and tracked the whole thing.

But that's a whole different debate.

Roy, lad. There's no such thing as 'common sense'. It's a myth debunked by science. Ask any first year psychology student. There are only 'common perceptions' which when researched and analysed often as not boil down to bias and prejudice. I haven't got the books any more but this one was top of the google search 'Debunking Common Sense and the Taken for Granted: A Pedagogical Strategy for Teaching Social Problems Terri LeMoyne1 Jean Marie Davis1 1University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA Terri LeMoyne, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Department of Sociology, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, USA Email: Terri-LeMoyne@utc.edu


I notice the full title of your reference  is Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice. But fair-dos. I've not read it. I've no idea how well-researched it is. Again - is it football specific?

.

[Sangria]

Did you read this? Chess ok. Bridge too. Highly skilled performers in the arts, such as music, painting and writing, sports, such as swimming, running and golf... football? no.

.

"Anders Ericsson is only vaguely familiar with the Polgars, but he has spent over 20 years building evidence in support of Laszlo's theory of genius. Ericsson, a professor of psychology at Florida State University, argues that "extended deliberate practice" is the true, if banal, key to success. "Nothing shows that innate factors are a necessary prerequisite for expert-level mastery in most fields," he says. (The only exception he's found is the correlation between height and athletic achievement in sports, most clearly for basketball and volleyball.) His interviews with 78 German pianists and violinists revealed that by age 20, the best had spent an estimated 10,000 hours practicing, on average 5,000 hours more than a less accomplished group. Unless you're dealing with a cosmic anomaly like Mozart, he argues, an enormous amount of hard work is what makes a prodigy's performance look so effortless."

[steveeastend]

I would rather be worried on the stupidity of our squad management in the last couple of years since Rafa left. Pretty remarkable...

[Peter McGurk]

"Anders Ericsson is only vaguely familiar with the Polgars, but he has spent over 20 years building evidence in support of Laszlo's theory of genius. Ericsson, a professor of psychology at Florida State University, argues that "extended deliberate practice" is the true, if banal, key to success. "Nothing shows that innate factors are a necessary prerequisite for expert-level mastery in most fields," he says. (The only exception he's found is the correlation between height and athletic achievement in sports, most clearly for basketball and volleyball.) His interviews with 78 German pianists and violinists revealed that by age 20, the best had spent an estimated 10,000 hours practicing, on average 5,000 hours more than a less accomplished group. Unless you're dealing with a cosmic anomaly like Mozart, he argues, an enormous amount of hard work is what makes a prodigy's performance look so effortless."

I accept is say practice makes for technical perfection but otherwise this is beautifully self-defeating! (well ok, only in terns of our debate but) what it says, is there's no link between innate ability and genius unless your talking about a genius (like Mozart)!

***

And in conclusion...

Absolutely, unless you are anywhere near as good as them its the only way your going to do it, And Rafa was as good as any at it. Jose is probably the very best.

Peter i'm suprised to learn you have no real interest in football tactics. You sound like you know what your on about and certainly make very good points....

I was kinda hoping for lots of five asides and some modern day shrewd tactical drilling, i guess thats coming from Clarke.

No mate, I haven't a clue. Other topics maybe but I’m seriously making it up as I’m going along here. Really. I find the only way to cyrstallise thought is to write it or debate it.

***

Maybe I’m closer  to ‘Dick Emery’’s ‘styles make fights’. Marry the right attitude to the right aptitude and everything else falls into place.

Because to be honest I find tactics a bit dull. I’d much rather Liverpool pulled on the shirt and battered the shit out of the opposition without giving it too much thought or intellectualisation. I certainly don’t need to know what makes it tick. A bit like Nijinski (the other one) - if I could explain it, I wouldn't have to dance. I realise that may seem a bit philistine to some but the science of it all smacks of enjoying the chopping of the wood and not so much the fire to me.

What’s more, certain aspects (such as the notion of ‘stupid play’) strike me as strongly counter-productive - merely because they are barking up the wrong tree (at great expense of rare resource).

***

I was saying in another thread that it’s the owners’ business to run the club, the manager’s to manage, the players’ to play and the supporters’ to support. I don’t want to repeat the debate about the ongoing voice of the fans in that but that role split is really where I’m coming from.

I know other people love wrangling over tactical patterns and fantasy football but I’d rather leave it someone who knows something about it - like the manager and the coaching staff.

My enjoyment of the club is not trying to be an owner (although I’m happy to make a nuisance of myself and try to advise them on a stadium - something I do know something about). Or a manager (of which I realistically know sweet FA).  And I can’t be a player (it’s the knees) but I rather enjoy being a supporter. Tremendously so.

Having said that we must all keep an eye on what we can for want of our club slipping off down the slippery slope (again). But again, nothing if not selfish (aren’t we all. Yes we are) I only get particularly interested if it might particularly affect my enjoyment of the game.

And in truth I’d rather our style was more about 5-a-sides and brilliance than cold-hearted science and a technocracy. I don’t believe the road to mastery is via the spreadsheet. Or that the Mount Olympus of genius can be scaled by science. I simply don’t. And I’ve said enough to say why I don’t.

***

And what did they call themselves? The School of Science? No thanks.

.

[royhendo]

Roy, lad. There's no such thing as 'common sense'. It's a myth debunked by science. Ask any first year psychology student. There are only 'common perceptions' which when researched and analysed often as not boil down to bias and prejudice. I haven't got the books any more but this one was top of the google search 'Debunking Common Sense and the Taken for Granted: A Pedagogical Strategy for Teaching Social Problems Terri LeMoyne1 Jean Marie Davis1 1University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, USA Terri LeMoyne, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, Department of Sociology, 615 McCallie Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37403, USA Email: Terri-LeMoyne@utc.edu

I notice the full title of your reference  is Bounce: The Myth of Talent and the Power of Practice. But fair-dos. I've not read it. I've no idea how well-researched it is. Again - is it football specific?

No mate, it covers many sports (including football). It's a very well researched book, albeit I personally think Syed is a bit of an arse.

Re the first paragraph, maybe re-read the phrase replacing "common sense" with "simple basics of the game". Taking a free kick or corner? Beat the first man with it. Winning 2-0 with 15 minutes to play? Keep the ball and take the sting out of it. That kind of thing. The kind of stuff you got told by your coach in the under 12s.

[royhendo]

BTW, Bounce includes some compelling context on Mozart too. 10,000 hours by about as tender an age as possible, with world class tuition. That coupled with his ear and musicality meant a phenomenon, the book argues.

But again, it's a whole different debate - the o.p. is far more mundane in its scope.

[royhendo]

Should add btw, a bloke I work with manages an under 16 side that last night progressed to their regional cup semi on pens. He took them aside and asked them to just make a clean strike and get the ball on target - make the keeper work - you can't ask for any more than that.

That's the kind of thing I mean, albeit on a systematic basis.

[Peter McGurk]

No mate, it covers many sports (including football). It's a very well researched book, albeit I personally think Syed is a bit of an arse.

Re the first paragraph, maybe re-read the phrase replacing "common sense" with "simple basics of the game". Taking a free kick or corner? Beat the first man with it. Winning 2-0 with 15 minutes to play? Keep the ball and take the sting out of it. That kind of thing. The kind of stuff you got told by your coach in the under 12s.

See now you've dragged me in again..."Winning 2-0 with 15 minutes to play? Keep the ball and take the sting out of it" - is that really the 'simple basics of the game' thing to do? Would Man United do that? Would Barcelona do that? Or would they knock the third one in for a bit of a lark, up the goal difference and keep the buggers out of our penalty area? Maybe Carroll should have stayed on the bench after all.

Should add btw, a bloke I work with manages an under 16 side that last night progressed to their regional cup semi on pens. He took them aside and asked them to just make a clean strike and get the ball on target - make the keeper work - you can't ask for any more than that.

That's the kind of thing I mean, albeit on a systematic basis.

Sliding...

.

[royhendo]

Would Barcelona do that? Read the Kuper article posted above and then you tell me.

[royhendo]

This one I mean: http://www.miostadium.com/opinions/simon-kuper/barcelonas-secret-soccer-success

[royhendo]

Sliding...

You've lost me there Peter.

[Peter McGurk]

This one I mean: http://www.miostadium.com/opinions/simon-kuper/barcelonas-secret-soccer-success

and... we're back.

I saw nothing there to suggest what Barcelona would do in those circumstances but what I did see was a manager taking whole-heartedly responsibility for the hard thinking - out of the hands of the players and letting them get on with it. And more interestingly to get on with it their way. Guardiola it seems has adapted his philosophy to that of the locale. Quite extraordinary I agree but nevertheless allowing the players the freedom of not having to think too hard. A signal, a response. A button, a reaction. But not an alien reaction. A reaction entirely in tune with their natural instincts - with their genius. Some imports didn't have it. They didn't stay.

But really, there's nothing complicated there. No 'six different ways of pressing for the ball'. If they couldn't pick the 'rules' up in a morning followed by a month's drumming it into their muscles - maybe they are as thick as pig shit.

You've lost me there Peter.

He was just letting them get on with it. To follow their natural instincts To be genius.


And.... we're gone again.

.

[Vulmea]

Unless you're dealing with a cosmic anomaly like Mozart, he argues, an enormous amount of hard work is what makes a prodigy's performance look so effortless."

its an intersting debate but if Mozart was a 'cosmic anomaly' - how many people were in a position to do what he did or actually tried to do what he did? It was a triumph of opportunity wasn't it? his dad was also a composer, its not like he was street urchin who miraculously found a violin one day and wrote music without ever having seen it.

there's an implication  that cosmic anomolies might actually be quite common - that some people have a nautural genius which circumstances and coaching can bring to their peak - given the numbers of people playing football you could expect that those anomolies could be relatively frequent

thats not to say coaching doesn't help , that it can't improve and develop that talent but that there is some form of spark which transcends that -

[rafa4eva]

Interesting.

I agree genius is there or it isn't, I also agree geniuses by their very definition are rare. Genius is also not linked to great intellect.

Football is a team game, every now and then a genius can turns game themselves, usually the team wins the game or the team allows the genius thrive or the genius Provides a platform for the team .... To win...Together...

There is a danger however of over simplifying the ability to simplify matters of complexity..... The idea that instructions ate complicated or instructions should be to go out and enjoy yourselves... Not muddying the mind .... Well it puzzles me.... Unless the manager or coach starts throwing new and wonderful things on the day of the game rather than reinforcing what has been practiced thought the week or season then I really dont get it.....

Tactics and practice are fundamental to any teams success, cause focusing on us as a team when you have 2 geniuses, 4 or 5 class players and the rest are good to ok with a plodder thrown in.... How do you manage that into premiership and cl winning team? By letting them play and just get on with it...?

[Danyaals Kop]

Have read through the whole thread. Must say, excellent discussion going on.

[royhendo]

I saw nothing there to suggest what Barcelona would do in those circumstances...

You ask whether they'll try and keep the ball or will they go for a third and hang the consequences. I'm suggesting they follow their drilled game plan whatever the score or pressure in the game, calmly and with clear heads.

6. Possession is nine-tenths of the game
Keeping the ball has been Barcelona’s key tactic since Cruijff’s day. Most teams don’t worry about possession. They know you can have oodles of possession and lose. But Barcelona aim to have 65 or 70 per cent of possession in a game. Last season in Spain, they averaged more than 72 per cent; so far this year, they are at about 70 per cent.

The logic of possession is twofold. Firstly, while you have the ball, the other team can’t score. A team like Barcelona, short on good tacklers, needs to defend by keeping possession. As Guardiola has remarked, they are a “horrible” team without the ball.

Secondly, if Barça have the ball, the other team has to chase it, and that is exhausting. When the opponents win it back, they are often so tired that they surrender it again immediately. Possession gets Barcelona into a virtuous cycle.

Barça are so fanatical about possession that a defender like Gerald Pique will weave the most intricate passes inside his own penalty area rather than boot the ball away. In almost all other teams, the keeper at least is free to boot. In the England side, for instance, it’s typically Joe Hart who gives the ball away with a blind punt. This is a weakness of England’s game, but the English attitude seems to be that there is nothing to be done about it: keepers can’t pass. Barcelona think differently.

Jose Mourinho, Real Madrid’s coach and Barcelona’s nemesis, has tried to exploit their devotion to passing. In the Bernabeu in December, Madrid’s forwards chased down Valdes from the game’s first kickoff, knowing he wouldn’t boot clear. The keeper miscued a pass, and Karim Benzema scored after 23 seconds. Yet Valdes kept passing, and Barcelona won 1-3. The trademark of Barcelona-raised goalkeepers – one shared only by Ajax-raised goalkeepers, like Edwin van der Sar – is that they can all play football like outfield players.

Beyond that, again, there's nothing you're saying that contradicts the o.p.. There's nothing 'complicated' about any of this - you're the one who keeps coming back to that idea.

[royhendo]

He was just letting them get on with it. To follow their natural instincts To be genius.

A bunch of 16 year old park footballers. The biggest game of their season, and unsettled, tired minds after extra time. The manager takes the result out of their minds and makes them focus on a simple movement. Charlie Adam maybe could have used that simple idea a few weeks back.

Again, nothing complex - just managing stupid stuff out of the team's play. Making the clever stuff simple habits. Exactly the kind of thing you're talking about.

[TomDcs]

Good read that Roy, thanks!

[GeneticRed]

To me, following the science is genius.
Continually honing it with patience and dedication.
Carrying on repeating when others wilt.

[djschembri]

Well that was a brilliant example of stupid football.

Man for man compared to Wigan we beat them all over the pitch. Suarez on his own is more valuable than the whole Wigan team combined.

Yet without a tactical plan, cohesion in the play or any general sense of what each player is supposed to do, brilliant players will always be beaten by an organised, competent team.

Wigan, a team who are technically, physically and mentally poor compared to us, beat a Liverpool side simply because they were more intelligent. Each player knew his job, each one knew his teammates' role, each player knew what they had to do.

If it's one thing we should have learnt from our CL win in 05 is that organisation triumphs over individual brilliance. And organisation must be trained and nurtured by the management, something which this management has, so far at least, clearly failed to do. Stupid football starts from the coaches, not the players

[Yorkykopite]

You have to say Martinez is a smart coach. I'm sure he doesn't burden them with too much information or too many instructions but unlike us they definitely had a plan and their players seemed to know the principles of how to keep the ball and how to get it back quickly.

We were definitely stupid again. We're reduced really to 'give the ball to Suarez and see if he can do anything interesting with it'. It's moronic.

[Wiggles]

Sick of saying it really but the biggest mistake by Liverpool has been the failure to replace Mascherano.  Too often the defence has lost their heads when faced with players running directly at them and Mascherano understood perfectly what he had to do and where he had to do it. Lucas has become an integral part of the team but is a 'ticking over' midfielder rather than an out-and-out defensive midfielder and the positive benefits to Liverpool/demoralising effect on the opposition of Mascherano's break up attack, simple ball out approach have been forgotten.

I think that our midfield at the moment lacks specialists - too many 'jack of all trades, master of none' types.  Players such as Adam, Henderson, Spearing have two problems:

1.  They don't understand distinct midfield roles and have the intelligence to fulfill them
2.  They get asked to do a bit of everything which is unrealistic and asks too much of them - in the same way that Charlie Adam will not track an opponent's run (goals conceded against Chelsea and Bolton) Jay Spearing will not open a defence up with a scything pass

Barcelona are a perfect example of players with clearly defined roles and players with the intelligence and understanding to fulfill them, but in Liverpool's case problem 1 is further compounded by problem 2 and the 4-4-2 tactics played.

[Zeb]

It's an interesting thought Wiggles. But I'd argue the exact and opposite reverse in terms of Barca having a lot of specialists.

eg Mascherano one of the finest wrecking midfielders, a terrier who'd make Jack Russell purr, has found himself in central defence because he is overly specialised - he doesn't possess the flexibility, the nouse, the shared common assumptions (sorry Yorky but the Heer and IDF give persuasive examples of team building via drilling and education which gives creative and flexible results within a military context - not that it's easy, the US have been trying to get there for fifty years but are still self-flagellating over their failure to get 'it' even as they introduce yet more ways to micromanage), the cultural immersion to fit into the Barcelona midfield. At least just yet. Perhaps he never will. It's happened before with overly specialised players there and elsewhere.

Could cite Sacchi, but think most here will be aware of what he said on specialists within modern football. There are different ways to shape a team. Barca have gone one way. I have doubts whether we're going down that path ourselves so would wonder of it's real relevance to us right now so I wonder whether you're correct about us lacking specialists. HBHR made a really interesting post on the other forums where he suggested that we're going down a more 'traditional' English route - Manchester United or Spurs. Direct, reactive, pacey British football. Perhaps with a bit of a slant. A different philosophy from where we seemed to be heading via Rafa. We may be measuring in fahrenheit when we should be measuring in celsius.

We may even have two (or more!) cultures colliding at the club right now. Discordant play the result. I look at the big lad on the bench and wonder.

[Saul Goodman]

I would also agree with you about Rafa. He never really understood the Liverpool Way in the way to treat genius.

The Liverpool Way is to know what players of what type to grow or buy and where to put them; to know what to say to them and how to get the best from them. Never, ever, to tell them what to do. It was fluid. We played to our strengths. If that was tactics, the responsibility was kept away from the players. The players were left to get on with it. There was no room for them to be stupid about it.

Rafa was the arch meddler. He put players in a box and would never ever let their genius out. And every single player dared not step out of that box. They were fearful. This worked in so far as Rafa’s ideas worked. Beyond that - nothing. Rafa’s responsibility. Rafa’s successes. Rafa’s failures.

For me the one person who stepped out of that box did so in Istanbul - pure Genius.

Thread has some cracking posts in it. Some of the debate has made great reading.

I am not quoting this post for much reason other than it makes a good starting place for a point I would like to try and make. That player stepping out of the box may have helped win us the final but it was the ability of a man to put players in those boxes which contributed so much in getting us to that final. It seems people fall into one camp or the other with very few who can actually see any middle ground in between the two schools of thought.

People who want players given licence to express themselves ? Dirty hippies!

People who believe players need to stay in the box ? Soulless machines!

The thing is I think it's going to be very hard to build a team of genius for quite a while so what we need at the moment is management to put players that need direction in boxes. Some players have such a high intelligence/genius whatever you want to call it putting them in boxes isn't right but others don't have that so they need boxes because they might actually be technically good footballers. I think it's what yorky talks about in an earlier post that they've the 'how' bit down and not the 'why' bit. Sorry teaching the why bit needed to happen at a much younger age even at that I think some players just will never be capable of the why bit, either way stick them in a BOX!

This is an excellent explanation of the kind of thing I mean. (Sorry should say post is from Prof in the Zone 14 thread)

In a situation where someone has a high number of options, decision-making is actually much slower and less accurate.  There is more for the brain to process.  Providing information that helps players make their decisions increases decision-making speed and accuracy.

The best way I can think of to explain this is to provide an example from chess.  At the start of the game, there are 20 possible moves for white to make.  Only about eight are frequently used, and of these, two are used the most by some distance.  If you play speed chess, where there are lots of possible moves throughout the game, having a set of principles to help you make decisions is imperative.

I'm not advocating robotising players.  I'm advocating training and teaching players in a way where they play with freedom and variety within a set of general principles.  Exactly the same idea as telling players to pass and move or kick and rush.

I know people will look at this then get bogged down in the idea that football isn't a robotic game like chess but the two aren't being compared and it isn't anything to do with the point being made.

We have a mixed bag of players some of whom will never have the kind of game intelligence needed so giving them too much freedom is a really bad idea. Surely at some point the two schools can meet in the middle.

I think maybe Rafa could learn a thing or two from Kenny but the reverse is also true.

[Danyaals Kop]

Here's my two penny's worth on football but articulating on Liverpool. Wrote it yesterday but I think it can also be put in here.

I'll say something that might make me sound like a sad bastard, wum, controversial, deluded but personally I don't give a fuck because I am going to write my heart out in the best possible manner I can.

At the moment, I don't know why but I'm starting to grow very worried. The love I have for Liverpool FC will never die but I feel the connection is wearing out. The plague of those who talk nonsense from calling Kenny to resign, to slagging off our team for every single mistake, decision, tactic is growing and what really disappointed me on Saturday was, the same aroma has reached Anfield. The atmosphere at Anfield that once made it a fortress is disappearing. The flags, banners, chants, fans from famous European nights to even letting our tremendous support being heard against Palace, Reading, Wolves. Now, we can't bother to out-sing Wigan with their few fans at the away end at our own stadium. To be honest, all the old ways that made Liverpool are disappearing. Why ? Because we really don't believe. We can't be arsed to give a shit of singing our heart out to show the team we still support them and stand by them through thick and thin but have the audacity to call ourselves fans by coming onto forums and bashing every single mistake because we are a bunch of world class expert analysts. Why should the players perform for us when we can't give a rats arse of showing our support for them when it really matters. The same people who refuse to actually have their own voice be heard around Anfield have the balls to come here and say their team performed abysmally when they can't believe in them till the end and already accept defeat. I used to love it. The roar of The Kop, whether it was travelling or Anfield and would fill my heart with pride and just ensure the passion I had but those times seems to drifting away. A couple of people will try to start a chant or so but are now actually being hushed down. God, this is really depressing. Anfield used to make the opposition shit bricks but the whole state of things at our stadium should be given thought. 3 words : RECLAIM THE KOP.

All the traditions of what made Liverpool are disappearing. The fans who really care are being out-spoken by the majority and the sky-generation are having their say be heard because they think they are important if they can call BBC or Talksport. Well, you know what - fuck every single one of them. The minority of those who actually support Liverpool will not be drowned by the voice of the the incompetent, impatient bastards who moan instead of support.

You bastards cry to get rid of Kenny. Telling the king to get out because he messes up his tactics, made some signings that have not paid off and is not ruthless. Erm, where were you when he was winning trophy after trophy for us. Where were you when he provided himself as player-manager though he had no experience but love for the club made him persuade his reluctance. Where were you when he was stood admidst all chaos to bring the most stability that was possible to be brought after Hillsborough and helped not just the club but the city of Liverpool. You were all in awe but modern football has deluded your beady minds in the age of today. Instant success is all you want. If not brought, change is the only possibility. Tell you what - if that's what you want, go support Chelsea and Man City who might keep on changing managers to your liking till success isn't bought. Kenny Dalglish doesn't need to prove anything, he has already earned all the respect and commitment he needs from those who are loyal. He has just brought to you the first cup in 6 years, trying to make a team which was shattered when he took over. Fine, the league campaign isn't going to plan but there is still the FA Cup to look forward to, CC is won, we are in Europe and there are 7 games left in the league to look forward to. Just fucking believe like you did at Istanbul. 3-0 down, yet we had hope and sang our hearts out to You'll Never Walk Alone to AC Milan. Now, we can't even sing it while losing to Wigan at home ? Fans of nowadays have failed to gather the concept of You'll Never Walk Alone, I guess.

I swear, even calling for Kenny to resign should be considered blasphemy.

The players are under-performing... Fine, debatable. I can understand the frustration that is relayed but the reaction to demonstrate it is way beyond belief. When you spend 100m on a team, it's easy to look at those stupid net figures and where we should be finishing but ever had a look that in those 100m, there have been 5 to 6 new signings. Some young, some at their peak. Under-performing to expectations ? Understandably, yes but give them time. The same idiots refused to learn their lesson with Lucas. I mean, Lucas practically was booed against Fulham AT ANFIELD. Those same 'so called fans' keep on saying Henderson is shit, will refuse to amount to anything, should be sold. Well you know what ? Piss off. I'll give him time. 21 years old, has the pressure to fill the boots of Gerrard when he retires and has to justify the 22m price tag. Andy Carroll is pretty much the same. You're bring in new players to create a whole new team. If there was only one or two players being introduced, fine but we are playing with very new formations and tactics so stop being incompetent. If you're going to boo them, why should they even care to play better or improve when they have been objected to criticism by those they should be adored by.

Quick to take the piss, aren't them. The same people who will try to demoralise by posting the same stuff, 'we are shit', 'ha! progress' and bollocks but keen to praise Kenny when we beat United or Chelsea, Everton, whoever.

Call me a super-fan, frankly I don't give a toss and yes I'll be biased and will support Kenny no matter what. The same hypocritical fans will come here before every forum before a game and post those annoying stats such as, 'we've won 9 games in which Carroll has started' and at HT, if still 0-0 call him shit, useless, unworthy of Liverpool's No.9.

Yesterday, Kenny said we need that wee bit of luck. Read between the lines you impatient twats who are quick enough to criticize everything contributing to you mood. We have had arguably our most crucial player injured in Lucas, since early November. We have had to deal without regular CB pairing of Agger and Skrtel for 2 months. Johnson out injured now. Gerrard out for most of the early half and the same case with Bellamy disappearing every now and then. The same people who will come on here - show their knowledge that they have nicked off Twatter and say we have hit the post 15/20+ times. 3 games is indeed fatiguing. The times of 08/09 are gone when we had that depth to shatter the defences of United, Madrid and Villa.

Modern football. That's what changing everything our club stood for and what I loved out club most for. Fuck all the clihés such as 'Patience is Key', 'Instant Success' is not the answer. Poor decisions, silly mistakes. They are all to be learnt from. Were all you twats are undermining the club born perfect ?

Seriously, it really pains me. I swear, it's almost depressing what we've come to. Times should be good. The Kings is back at the realm, we've won a cup, qualified for Europe, got promising youngsters coming through, league can be improved next year if we can get one/two quality players and the lads gel in more, no more H&G.
Just hope, pray, believe, try to hang on to what Liverpool FC stand for and we'll get there. Ups and downs, just keep calm and believe in Kenny and Liverpool.

But then again, that's my opinion and my feelings of course.