Topic: Stupid Football

[Peter McGurk]

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.

Thank you for that post. I was starting to think there's none of us left.

[Peter McGurk]

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...

...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.

I don’t wish to be pedantic but... I think it was you who articulated the antithesis of ‘stupid play’ as cold and calculating reasoning and decision making (it may have been someone else but the thread has certain lingered on it - as ‘intelligent play’).

This intelligent play is intrinsically more ‘complicated’ than intuitive brilliance ie., a decision must be made using intelligent thought. You have to think about it. There are no thoughts in intuition (other than the years of subconscious thought emerging as intuitive leaps or ‘leaps of the imagination’ - even flights of fancy but that really is another story).

And yes it has been my side that there should be nothing complicated here. Nothing complicated works - even for under 16-year olds.

And without wishing to seem to disappear up my own orifice on it, there really is nothing to suggest that Barcelona would make a ‘rational decision’ either way. Yes, they really would carry on as before. Neither to decide to go into a defensive shell nor on all out attack.

It certainly was you who suggested that they would make a change. Make a decision. That “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” was an example of "common sense" or "simple basics of the game" ie rational decision making at every level and an example of ‘intelligent play’. No?

Good OP Roy. Nice to expand the debate on the mental aspect of the game beyond "mentality" and "intelligence." I have been thinking about the importance of thinking correctly under pressure myself lately. I think there is some kind of pressure threshold after which the mind starts to close down. I think each person has his/her own threshold, which can probably be moved slightly either way by environment, condition, coaching, form and other factors, but the main constituent of the threshold is innate and not variable. The question for someone more qualified than me is what percentage can be improved--but my guess is it's single digits.

In a professional comparison, you can't see this when you interview someone for a job. You can maybe get some idea if the person exhibits signs of temperamentality when you turn up the heat a bit, but you never really know with someone until you're in the heat of some minor battle. I note that you/we all talk of this in terms of hot and cold, sang froid and all that, and it's also talked about sometimes as steadiness--the hand not shaking under pressure. Professionally, I have had a couple of circumstances lately where I've exceeded my own pressure threshold, watched the mind shut down/take its leave in front of me and then made decisions that, while not disastrous or even particularly problematic, would not be the same as the decisions I would have made if I had "had my wits about me"/not reached the threshold.

So in that sense, I agree that it makes sense to test for this when signing/scouting players rather than trying to improve something that probably cannot be improved significantly enough to make that much difference.

I wonder whether players are ever interviewed for the job. It seems to me that scouts look at players in a completely different context, different playing style, different tactics. What works elsewhere might not work here. Carroll?

And who's to say that xyz would not be an even better player if he was playing here instead of there. Who knows what light is hidden under what management bushel?

I'm sure manager says to scout, we need a this or a that type of player but you get what you (or the scout) see and that's all. "What are you best at?" is often asked in job interviews. Or perhaps "what do you like to do best". I don't see this happening in football. Perhaps because of the shopfront nature of the transaction.

I would have thought that a detailed model for the team and a thorough examination of the prospective player for fit to that model would be a better way forward. Players change. Fade. Move on. The model may evolve and it does but it's an essential static thing in which to fit players. Lose a Keegan? - we need a better one. I think this was Shankly's model (and Bob's and...). Almost literally plug and play!.

Perhaps 'the boys' were rather better at getting at what a player was about than most. Perhaps they could see genius where others could not. Again, the reputation for turning dust into gold but perhaps they were just giving the gold a polish and putting it in the right setting to shine.


.

[Peter McGurk]

Peter, I was just using the workplace comparison to agree with Roy's initial points, i.e. thinking clearly under pressure is an important mental attribute (in all walks of life) and it's not necessarily something you can teach--you either have it or you don't.

Yes I understand that but was moving on from there to something else.

Roy did make the case for the importance of thinking clearly but this isn’t supported by any argument that it cannot be taught. Rather, the point I made for brilliance or indeed intuition is that indeed it really cannot be taught as it has little to do with rational thought (or 'muscle memory', no matter how many hours) - it is not a skill. It is a talent. There are no schools for talent but there are plenty of schools for fitness and skill-acquisition. Plenty of schools for music. None for Mozarts.

To take on your point of testing for tolerance to blowing it - this really is more to the point than testing for or teaching to avoid, unintelligent play. The only way to test for it, is to be in it. In the final. Penalty to take. If you could do it (at an early age), you’d be on a gold mine.

***

Clearly there is a strong case for the push button/get response training done so well it seems at Barcelona. But this only serves to take decision making away from the player. It does not promote ‘intelligent play’. Intelligent play infers rational thought - a decision making process.

Rational thought, intelligent play, even tactics, in the head of a footballer, detract from the performance of a player. Even if it is only (and as you say) the split-second needed to decide.

And at the very top, brilliance makes the difference. And brilliance can flower only if all that stuff isn’t in the way.

All that stuff is there but it’s just, there. A given. No decisions required. As the man who was actually making all the real decisions at the time said, "If you're in the penalty area and don't know what to do with the ball, put it in the net and we'll discuss the options later."

[Saul Goodman]

This intelligent play is intrinsically more ‘complicated’ than intuitive brilliance ie., a decision must be made using intelligent thought. You have to think about it. There are no thoughts in intuition (other than the years of subconscious thought emerging as intuitive leaps or ‘leaps of the imagination’ - even flights of fancy but that really is another story).

Have you read 'Blink' ? This is a short extract from it in which it suggests subconscious thought can reach meaningful decisions.

Imagine that I asked you to a play a very simple gambling game. In front of you, are four decks of cards--two red and two blue. Each card in those four decks either wins you a sum of money or costs you some money, and your job is to turn over cards from any of the decks, one at a time, in such a way that maximizes your winnings. What you don't know at the beginning, however, is that the red decks are a minefield. The rewards are high, but when you lose on red, you lose a lot. You can really only win by taking cards from the blue decks, which offer a nice, steady diet of $50 and $100 payoffs. The question is: how long will it take you to figure this out?

A group of scientists at the University of Iowa did this experiment a few years ago, and what they found is that after we've turned over about fifty cards, most of us start to develop a hunch about what's going on. We don't know why we prefer the blue decks. But we're pretty sure, at that point, that they are a better bet. After turning over about eighty cards, most of us have figured the game out, and can explain exactly why the first two decks are such a bad idea. This much is straightforward. We have some experiences. We think them through. We develop a theory, and then finally we put two and two together. That's the way learning works. But the Iowa scientists did something else, and this is where the strange part of the experiment begins. They hooked each gambler up to a polygraph--a lie detector machine--that measured the activity of the sweat glands that all of us have below the skin in the palms of our hands. Most sweat glands respond to temperature. But those in our palms open up in response to stress--which is why we get clammy hands when we are nervous. What the Iowa scientists found is that gamblers started generating stress responses to red decks by the tenth card, forty cards before they were able to say that they had a hunch about what was wrong with those two decks. More importantly, right around the time their palms started sweating, their behavior began to change as well. They started favoring the good decks, and taking fewer and fewer cards from A and B. In other words, the gamblers figured the game out before they figured the game out: they began making the necessary adjustments long before they were consciously aware of what adjustments they were supposed to be making.

The Iowa study is just an experiment, of course, a simple card game involving a handful of subjects and a polygraph machine. But it's a very powerful illustration of the way our minds work. Here is a situation where the stakes were high, where things were moving quickly, and where the participants had to make sense of a lot of new and confusing information in a very short time--and what does the Iowa experiment tell us? That in those moments our brain uses two very different strategies to make sense of the situation. The first is the one we're most familiar with. It's the conscious strategy. We think about what we've learned, and eventually come up with an answer. This strategy is logical and definitive. But it takes us eighty cards to get there. It's slow. It needs a lot of information. There's a second strategy, though. It operates a lot more quickly. It starts to kick in after ten cards, and it's really smart because it picks up the problem with the red decks almost immediately. It has the drawback, however, that it operates--at least at first--entirely below the surface of consciousness. It sends its messages through weirdly indirect channels, like the sweat glands on the palms of our hands. It's a system in which our brain reaches conclusions without immediately telling us that it's reaching conclusions.

[Peter McGurk]

Have you read 'Blink' ? This is a short extract from it in which it suggests subconscious thought can reach meaningful decisions.

Of course it can. No I haven't but you might also read Asimov's 'Feminine Intuition' for even readier access to the idea if you have time. He made the point more pointed by making his 'feminine' a robot.

***

The thrust of it is, we are subconsciously making, storing and evaluating billions of decisions from our everyday experience and, subconciously, determining what does and what does not work. Which decisions were successful and which were not.

Not only can we learn skills to deal with an everyday circumstance whenever it is repeated (eg a hot stove is present - the correct decision is immediately to hand without any conscious thought - don't touch it) but also the huge body of subconscious knowledge can readily formulate responses to slightly different circumstances previously not encountered (there is a hot stove here but I want to move it - I've used gloves for hot things before - I'll do that).

But more, the subconscious mind can make these connections based on a probability or combinations of probability and make leaps ie decide on little or no apparent evidence. The bigger the leap (and paradoxically our ability to simultaneously hold the previous knowledge and ignore it) the greater are propensity to genius.

***

The point with the card game is that the process is lightning fast. It starts on card one - ok, that wasn't good, so the working assumption is negative. Now let's see what happens with card two...

The rather different point here is that it is entirely based on experience (like training and the 10,000 hours - but subconscious) , not 'leaps' in reason for which there is little apparent empirical evidence. That other thing is something we call Genius.

***

The point with football is we can train the bejeezus out of someone and they can rely on that training to perform the skills that have been taught. You cannot teach people to have a propensity to make the imaginative leap of genius. That is innate.

.

[Yorkykopite]

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.

This isn't true in football. The experience of playing it suggests the opposite.

But even in theoretical terms it doesn't make sense. After all the very lack of options is still information that needs processing. A player on the ball who sees only one possible outlet has still had to scan at least part of the field to know that is the sole outlet! An abundance of options is, if anything, easier for the brain to process than a series of cul-de-sacs. Decisions are made quicker. And, obviously, very quick teams are generally teams whose players have choices on the ball.   

[Peter McGurk]

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.

This isn't true in football. The experience of playing it suggests the opposite.

But even in theoretical terms it doesn't make sense. After all the very lack of options is still information that needs processing. A player on the ball who sees only one possible outlet has still had to scan at least part of the field to know that is the sole outlet! An abundance of options is, if anything, easier for the brain to process than a series of cul-de-sacs. Decisions are made quicker. And, obviously, very quick teams are generally teams whose players have choices on the ball.

The point being made is that the information is pre-processed (tried that, doesn't work - no thought needed. Didn't even think about it). The number of options is irrelevant to the decision-making process.

But, the more options there are out there, the more likely one of them will be known to work. At one level...

At another, a player just might succeed with something never tried before - Genius!

.

[Yorkykopite]

The point being made is that the information is pre-processed (tried that, doesn't work - no thought needed. Didn't even think about it). The number of options is irrelevant to the decision-making process. But the more options there are out there, the more likely one of them will be known to work. At one level. At another, a player just might succeed with something never tried before - Genius!

.

Players learn all the time. You can see that by following somebody's career. What they do at the end of it is often very different from what they were doing at the start. Some of this is forced on them by aging limbs. But much of it is to do with following the ever-evolving nature of the game. They learn new ways of striking the ball, new ways of beating a man, new ways of tackling, new ways of trying to avoid hand-ball. It's no surprise really. Footballers are great copiers. They copy each other's skills on the training ground, they copy stuff they've seen off tv. And, as much as you seem resistant to the idea, they also learn things from coaches.

[Saul Goodman]

Of course it can. No I haven't but you might also read Asimov's 'Feminine Intuition' for even readier access to the idea if you have time. He made the point more pointed by making his 'feminine' a robot.

Cheers, I will seek that out.

The thrust of it is, we are subconsciously making, storing and evaluating billions of decisions from our everyday experience and, subconciously, determining what does and what does not work. Which decisions were successful and which were not.

Not only can we learn skills to deal with an everyday circumstance whenever it is repeated (eg a hot stove is present - the correct decision is immediately to hand without any conscious thought - don't touch it) but also the huge body of subconscious knowledge can readily formulate responses to slightly different circumstances previously not encountered (there is a hot stove here but I want to move it - I've used gloves for hot things before - I'll do that).

But more, the subconscious mind can make these connections based on a probability or combinations of probability and make leaps ie decide on little or no apparent evidence. The bigger the leap (and paradoxically our ability to simultaneously hold the previous knowledge and ignore it) the greater are propensity to genius.

The point with the card game is that the process is lightning fast. It starts on card one - ok, that wasn't good, so the working assumption is negative. Now let's see what happens with card two...

The rather different point here is that it is entirely based on experience (like training and the 10,000 hours - but subconscious) , not 'leaps' in reason for which there is little apparent empirical evidence. That other thing is something we call Genius.

The point with football is we can train the bejeezus out of someone and they can rely on that training to perform the skills that have been taught. You cannot teach people to have a propensity to make the imaginative leap of genius. That is innate.

See I agree with all that but we're far more likely to remember the times something works then the times it doesn't work, it's just the way most people are in relation to results orientated thinking. That in itself isn't a bad thing until you take it in context of if the learned process which leads the person subconscious to a certain decision making is correct.

Take for instance a footballer who has been making thousands of decisions over the course of his career. Maybe he is a very good footballer with immense technical/physical attributes that allowed him often to make up for mistakes. Maybe he remembers the times he smashes in the winning goal but if actually analysed the same player causes us to conceed many at the other end due to his walkabouts. Confirmation bias will mean he won't learn in a footballing sense or from just playing but needs to be thought about his ability by someone who understands it from an intelligent footballing point of view.

[Saul Goodman]

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.

This isn't true in football. The experience of playing it suggests the opposite.

But even in theoretical terms it doesn't make sense. After all the very lack of options is still information that needs processing. A player on the ball who sees only one possible outlet has still had to scan at least part of the field to know that is the sole outlet! An abundance of options is, if anything, easier for the brain to process than a series of cul-de-sacs. Decisions are made quicker. And, obviously, very quick teams are generally teams whose players have choices on the ball.

That depends surely on the player in question. Not all players are created equal and some don't evaluate options better than if they're given a list of predefined learned options. A player can compensate in football for a lack of individual game intelligence with huge amounts of technical quality. This doesn't mean you aren't better trying to BOX that player because genius doesn't go hand in hand with technical quality in football.

Edit - Just to add I use the word genius to describe game intelligence in that last sentence which isn't right as genius can manifest in many forms but for genius to be left alone to do it thing in football the player requires a huge level of game intelligence imo.

[Yorkykopite]

That depends surely on the player in question. Not all players are created equal and some don't evaluate options better than if they're given a list of predefined learned options. A player can compensate in football for a lack of individual game intelligence with huge amounts of technical quality. This doesn't mean you aren't better trying to BOX that player because genius doesn't go hand in hand with technical quality in football.

Struggling to know what you mean there, especially with all the double negatives in the last sentence.

[Saul Goodman]

Struggling to know what you mean there, especially with all the double negatives in the last sentence.

Sorry I was just adding an edit as I realised I used genius in the sense I prioritise most important in football without thinking but of course genius comes in many forms. The thing is genius without football intelligence needs coaching or managing.

You won't like this yorky one little bit - Gerrard.

[Peter McGurk]

See I agree with all that but we're far more likely to remember the times something works then the times it doesn't work, it's just the way most people are in relation to results orientated thinking. That in itself isn't a bad thing until you take it in context of if the learned process which leads the person subconscious to a certain decision making is correct.

Take for instance a footballer who has been making thousands of decisions over the course of his career. Maybe he is a very good footballer with immense technical/physical attributes that allowed him often to make up for mistakes. Maybe he remembers the times he smashes in the winning goal but if actually analysed the same player causes us to conceed many at the other end due to his walkabouts. Confirmation bias will mean he won't learn in a footballing sense or from just playing but needs to be thought about his ability by someone who understands it from an intelligent footballing point of view.

You’re right that ‘confirmation bias’ (reinforcement) teaches nothing about the game. It is simply conditioning. Much like Pavlov’s dog (last pretentious reference), it salivates when the bell rings; food or no food. And thousands of ‘decisions’ and 10,000 hours won’t help him understand why.

***

In parting the subject, I would say that the trick is to distinguish between conscious ‘remembering’ (the voice of experience and very limited in scope) and subconscious ‘learning’ (a powerful ‘trick’ of the mind and almost unlimited). The former can be learned - even passed on by coaches - but the latter cannot.

We’d all like to think that we have intelligent teams who make the right decisions on their own two feet - because they represent us and we can reflect in that glory.

Fortunately or unfortunately, rational thought or ‘intelligent play’ has little part to play. Genius or Brilliance (the difference at the highest level of the game) comes from the Gods. You’re better to spend your time trying to find that than trying to teach it or anything like it (based on experience from cycling or not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

.

[Saul Goodman]

You’re right that ‘confirmation bias’ (reinforcement) teaches nothing about the game. It is simply conditioning. Much like Pavlov’s dog (last pretentious reference), it salivates when the bell rings; food or no food. And thousands of ‘decisions’ and 10,000 hours won’t help him understand why.

***

In parting the subject, I would say that the trick is to distinguish between conscious ‘remembering’ (the voice of experience and very limited in scope) and subconscious ‘learning’ (a powerful ‘trick’ of the mind and almost unlimited). The former can be learned - even passed on by coaches - but the latter cannot.

We’d all like to think that we have intelligent teams who make the right decisions on their own two feet - because they represent us and we can reflect in that glory.

Fortunately or unfortunately, rational thought or ‘intelligent play’ has little part to play. Genius or Brilliance (the difference at the highest level of the game) comes from the Gods. You’re better to spend your time trying to find that than trying to teach it or anything like it (based on experience from cycling or not).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

.

I don't believe that rational thought can't form part of genius. It's evaluting genius and breaking down into attributes so that you can see from a tactical perspective how those players can be hardness in the best way.

Players will have a combination of loads of attributes such as overall game intelligence, technical quality, physical attributes, football intelligence etc

Some positions in the team will require higher levels of these attributes than other areas. For instance a central midfielder will require higher levels of game intelligence than say a forward. The forward will require a higher level of shooting etc etc. This is why when managing those players picking positions to best suit the player overall like Lucas would always get the CM role and Gerrard would always get the forward role. People seem to take this as some slight on him as a player but it's merely playing to his strenghts/weaknesses. I know, I know tactics 

Many of the problems I see at the moment is that we have players within Kennys team who don't have sufficent levels of the important attributes to play the roles within the team.

From your posts in this thread you don't seem to have much love for Rafa or this tactical hocum but he is rather edcuated in its ideas so I hope at least you can take on board that his words have weight. He did an interview recently in which he woudln't say anything bad about the club when pressed but he mentioned one thing "You need to manage Gerrard"

That isn't about putting him in a box but not putting him in a sitaution as a CM in which he is a danger to the team. Put him in the area in which he can best use his outstanding attributes/genius which made him the best player I have ever seen play for this club.

If this is tactics versus the romantic nature of just let him play then I am not a romantic.

[royhendo]

What is this constant reference to "genius"?

I'd settle for just not kicking a journeyman striker in the face and stopping Gary Caldwell from looking like Lionel Messi in the box. With respect, those things may actually be coachable.

[royhendo]

It's interesting also to see the reference to basic 'atypical' stupidity on the part of fans. Yet a lot of them still learn what it means to be a Liverpool supporter, even these days. Why is that? Processes and context and transmission from their elders and peers? Or pure chance?

[hesbighesred]

Yes I understand that but was moving on from there to something else.

Roy did make the case for the importance of thinking clearly but this isn’t supported by any argument that it cannot be taught. Rather, the point I made for brilliance or indeed intuition is that indeed it really cannot be taught as it has little to do with rational thought (or 'muscle memory', no matter how many hours) - it is not a skill. It is a talent. There are no schools for talent but there are plenty of schools for fitness and skill-acquisition. Plenty of schools for music. None for Mozarts.

I don't agree with that at all. There are plenty of schools which consistently mould talent into genius - or top level talent. Take the Brits for example. Or RADA. Or Goldsmiths. Or Oxbridge. The very best is only achievable with talent PLUS education. You're looking at Mozart and drawing the wrong conclusions. You say he's a one-off because of his talent. I agree. But would that talent have flourished if he'd been a butcher's son?

His father was a top class musician. He was trained as a musician more or less from birth. He was surrounded by musicians in a country known for it's music at the height of that country's musical flowering under a king who loved music and wasn't afraid to gamble on it. In short, Mozart was like Messi - top class talent given top class coaching at every single step of the way. That's how you make genius flower, but the great thing is it doesn't just work for geniuses - Pedro is also a quality player for Barca even though he hardly seems to have a fraction of the talent of some of the others.

[Aristotle]

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.

This isn't true in football. The experience of playing it suggests the opposite.

But even in theoretical terms it doesn't make sense. After all the very lack of options is still information that needs processing. A player on the ball who sees only one possible outlet has still had to scan at least part of the field to know that is the sole outlet! An abundance of options is, if anything, easier for the brain to process than a series of cul-de-sacs. Decisions are made quicker. And, obviously, very quick teams are generally teams whose players have choices on the ball.

You could argue that point about Walcott though. Only times he scores or has an assist is when there is no alternative. Walcott with 6 defenders infront of him is more dangerous than Walcott with space through on goal. Same can be said for many footballers, Babel against Lyon springs to mind. Where there was nothing else to do but cut inside and let it fly and what a beauty it was. With the highlights of athletes over thinkers, espescially in the English game sometimes you have to wonder whether to work to their strengths or simply ignore them. You get the feeling that the English game is based around a single gameplan, specialists if you will who will only do the thing they know again and again. The type of understanding the game that seems to be beaten out of them when they sign pro. The difference between Maxi taking his only shot outside the box in the season against Fulham to Downing repeatedly crossing into the box with no one attacking the ball

[Vulmea]

I don't agree with that at all. There are plenty of schools which consistently mould talent into genius - or top level talent. Take the Brits for example. Or RADA. Or Goldsmiths. Or Oxbridge. The very best is only achievable with talent PLUS education. You're looking at Mozart and drawing the wrong conclusions. You say he's a one-off because of his talent. I agree. But would that talent have flourished if he'd been a butcher's son?

His father was a top class musician. He was trained as a musician more or less from birth. He was surrounded by musicians in a country known for it's music at the height of that country's musical flowering under a king who loved music and wasn't afraid to gamble on it. In short, Mozart was like Messi - top class talent given top class coaching at every single step of the way. That's how you make genius flower, but the great thing is it doesn't just work for geniuses - Pedro is also a quality player for Barca even though he hardly seems to have a fraction of the talent of some of the others.

mmm but if Mozart had a thousand brothers would they all have turned out concerto's by the age of 5? Granted Mozart born to a family of chimney sweeps isn't likley to have written a single note so opportunity is a big part but there is something unique about certain individuals.

there's also the issue of age - clearly its beneficial to start training (good training) early
and football also has such a wide exposure that identifying those unique individuals is probably easier than its ever been

but you quote Pedro yet how many players fall by the wayside through the years at Barca and presumably players who've shown a great deal of potential  through their youthful years - Pedro may not be Messi but he presumably scores quite highly in the talent stakes

[Sangria]

mmm but if Mozart had a thousand brothers would they all have turned out concerto's by the age of 5? Granted Mozart born to a family of chimney sweeps isn't likley to have written a single note so opportunity is a big part but there is something unique about certain individuals.

there's also the issue of age - clearly its beneficial to start training (good training) early
and football also has such a wide exposure that identifying those unique individuals is probably easier than its ever been

but you quote Pedro yet how many players fall by the wayside through the years at Barca and presumably players who've shown a great deal of potential  through their youthful years - Pedro may not be Messi but he presumably scores quite highly in the talent stakes

See the Polgar case study for how it works.

[Vulmea]

See the Polgar case study for how it works.

not sure if thats proving or disaproving anything

the sisters didn't all achieve the same level (in fact there is some dispute that the most naturally talented achieved less), chess doesn't require any motor skills  and perhaps there is some genetic predisposition to certain things.

I guess the Williams sisters would be an example in 'sport' but these are cases that serve to prove a point -

how many fanatical parents have tried and failed - we'll never know will we?

[Tonyh]

And more stupid football and player reactions today!!

[Yorkykopite]

Is the current team even being coached? It doesn't look like it. With each passing game it becomes harder to see what they're trying to do. They were a rabble today really. Players converging on the same ball, occupying the same space while waiting for a pass, passing to colleagues who are in far worse positions than they're in themselves. And so much hoofing from the back.

The great fear is that Suarez will soon want out. He's the only one prepared to take a risk and make something happen but he's surrounded by spectators in Red shirts who, for some reason, have stopped trying to help him. Are they that scared of failure? Are they clueless about what to do? It looks like it.

I really don't think I've seen a Liverpool team so bereft of ideas. Or purpose.

[Hank Scorpio]

Is the current team even being coached? It doesn't look like it. With each passing game it becomes harder to see what they're trying to do. They were a rabble today really. Players converging on the same ball, occupying the same space while waiting for a pass, passing to colleagues who are in far worse positions than they're in themselves. And so much hoofing from the back.

The great fear is that Suarez will soon want out. He's the only one prepared to take a risk and make something happen but he's surrounded by spectators in Red shirts who, for some reason, have stopped trying to help him. Are they that scared of failure? Are they clueless about what to do? It looks like it.

I really don't think I've seen a Liverpool team so bereft of ideas. Or purpose.

I thought at the start of the season and certainly up to January, we had a clear style of play.  We were trying to pass and be fluid.  It's why Andy Carroll struggled to adjust and why the likes of Maxi would come in after several games out and play well.  But since the turn of the year, I don't know what's happened.  I think motivation has played a part because of the cup runs and since CL football has looked an impossibility, we have not looked the same.

We actually started the game really well yesterday and should have been at least two goals with Skrtel missing from 5 yards and Carroll's one on one.  But again we looked like we had no answer to the problem of going a goal down or when something hasn't gone right for us.  Not every bit of play or ref decision will go for you and how we react to that will determine how well we do.  That's up to the leaders on the pitch to show direction and purpose even in the face of adversity.  I'm also hugely disappointed with our reaction to Reina's sending off.  There was an acceptance about it, with only Reina and Skrtel fighting his case.  I think some of our players even nodded when in conversation with the ref as if they had come to the same conclusion.  Reina may have been silly but you fight your corner.

Another thing on the players.  I think we have made way too much of players in the last 20 years.  Yes, there have been some fantastic talents here but I think we have firmly placed the power in the hands of the players.  As you have said yorky, we may now fear that Suarez will leave due to lack of success or progress.  But we should never have that fear.  I was glad at the beginning of Dalglish's reign because it appeared as though he was trying to sort out the system and the style of play.  As if we were making it clear to everyone how we wanted to play and that the players should support that system, not the other way around.  I still believe we are on this path despite current form.

I do think we have a deep rooted problem.  It's going to be some task for Dalglish to completely change the mindset of the club.  And I think he is going to have to make some painful decisions along the way.

[John C]

Is the current team even being coached? It doesn't look like it. With each passing game it becomes harder to see what they're trying to do. They were a rabble today really. Players converging on the same ball, occupying the same space while waiting for a pass, passing to colleagues who are in far worse positions than they're in themselves. And so much hoofing from the back.

The great fear is that Suarez will soon want out. He's the only one prepared to take a risk and make something happen but he's surrounded by spectators in Red shirts who, for some reason, have stopped trying to help him. Are they that scared of failure? Are they clueless about what to do? It looks like it.

I really don't think I've seen a Liverpool team so bereft of ideas. Or purpose.

I agree completely yorky. The title to the thread is so apt to our current style, they are stupid and brainless to a man. The worrying issue is that even leaving out Kuyt, Henderson, Adam & Downing who have all contributed to a poor league season didn't resolve anything. The stupidity continues.
We don't look like a team and we don't resemble a unit. Suarez is still trying to do everything himself while SG is sometimes too eager to get an early ball to Carroll which is often not the right decision.
There's so much that is incoherently wrong. And its not necessarily about suffering back luck - if we'd have got the penalty and scored, I still wouldn't expect us to settle down and push on. There's an incapability about us currently.

[John C]

I do think we have a deep rooted problem.  It's going to be some task for Dalglish to completely change the mindset of the club.  And I think he is going to have to make some painful decisions along the way.

I agree mate although I hope it can be as simple as bolstering the spine. A continuously fit Agger or a.n other, the return of Lucas and a frequent goalscorer. As VdM says, build the shape around them to whatever formation Kenny wants and then we can look forward.

[Discipline]

We have a spine of:
Pepe; Johnson, Skrtel, Agger, Enrique; Gerrard Leiva; Suarez

That's eight players. Signing a finisher will give us 9. Only Agger (Coates / Carragher) and Gerrard (Henderson / Adam / Shelvey) from the 'spine' would be considered injury prone and we have reasonable back-up. So signing a forward who can score.... and is preferably not injury prone would be the only signing we would require imo.
Rotation through the likes of Downing, Henderson, Adam, Bellamy etc will be fine. We may need a defensive midfielder also, as our season fucked up this year as we still havn't found a way to replace Leiva.

[Sangria]

I agree mate although I hope it can be as simple as bolstering the spine. A continuously fit Agger or a.n other, the return of Lucas and a frequent goalscorer. As VdM says, build the shape around them to whatever formation Kenny wants and then we can look forward.

For all the talk about our lack of wingers and so on, the centre of the pitch remains by far the most important section. You can get away to some extent with substandard flanks, but if your middle is weak and disjointed, you're asking for a beating.

[Yorkykopite]

For all the talk about our lack of wingers and so on, the centre of the pitch remains by far the most important section. You can get away to some extent with substandard flanks, but if your middle is weak and disjointed, you're asking for a beating.

Although the two go so closely together. It's Bale's excellence on the wing that allows Spurs to control the centre of the pitch. Man Utd have got away with a sub-standard centre midfield for about 3 seasons now because of the brilliance of Ronaldo and the high quality of players like Valencia and Nani.

[Discipline]

Gerrard and Leiva isn't weak.

[Yorkykopite]

Gerrard and Leiva isn't weak.

Although it leaves Lucas with a hell of a lot to do?

[Discipline]

That's why I feel Gerrard is playing CM now.

So he understands the role more.

[Adamski LFC]

Started reading the OP and immediately thought of Steve Peters, even before he stated it, I am reading (and re-reading bits) of his book The Chimp Paradox which explains far more of Steve's methods from a self-help POV.  This talks about three areas of the brain and has direct bearing on the comments from Steve in the OP.

It is a very approachable book in being able to understand yourself and others, with also a view on how to set yourself up for success, and how to manage your more irrational behaviour, which I think has a bearing on everybody, not just sportsmen.

[Roger Federer]

You can get away to some extent with substandard flanks, but if your middle is weak and disjointed, you're asking for a beating.

I'm not sure that's true. Toure is a beast, but apart from him, none of the top two clubs have a strong central midfield. Carrick, Anderson, the old Scholes and Giggs really isn't anything special. It's been like that for years. A couple of outstanding attacking players, atleast one out wide, and a solid defence seems to have been the winning formula lately.

[scatman]

Although it leaves Lucas with a hell of a lot to do?

The fact that we rely on him so much is ridiculous. One player in the middle of the park who is constantly playing as one and a half men is going to take it's toll. The fact that he does his job plus half the job of his midfield partner regardless of who that is needs to be addressed.

[scatman]

I'm not sure that's true. Toure is a beast, but apart from him, none of the top two clubs have a strong central midfield. Carrick, Anderson, the old Scholes and Giggs really isn't anything special. It's been like that for years. A couple of outstanding attacking players, atleast one out wide, and a solid defence seems to have been the winning formula lately.

I think it comes from Rafa's teams. We dominated games with our central midfield at the time and beat the top sides too. I'd say for Europe it is a must, but for the premier league? having top attacking talent is a must to challenge because even if you're on the back foot for 85-90 minutes, one of those players can create a chance out of nothing and win you 3 points.

[Hank Scorpio]

For me, what the top clubs have are systems, formations, routines that allow them to marginalise their reliance on players.  The teams have been drilled to perfection.  It means you can still perform to a high level even when top players are missing or leave.  Of course, better players will make you better but they do not form the core of the club.

It's what we had for years but we did a fantastic job of firstly breaking up this pattern and then sitting on our hands until our rivals had caught up and then overtaken us.

[Peter McGurk]

For me, what the top clubs have are systems, formations, routines that allow them to marginalise their reliance on players.  The teams have been drilled to perfection.  It means you can still perform to a high level even when top players are missing or leave.  Of course, better players will make you better but they do not form the core of the club.

It's what we had for years but we did a fantastic job of firstly breaking up this pattern and then sitting on our hands until our rivals had caught up and then overtaken us.

Yup. That'll be it. And it makes ok players look great and let's great players be brilliant.

.

[John C]

Although the two go so closely together. It's Bale's excellence on the wing that allows Spurs to control the centre of the pitch. Man Utd have got away with a sub-standard centre midfield for about 3 seasons now because of the brilliance of Ronaldo and the high quality of players like Valencia and Nani.

Yep, I mentioned the spine as it is crucial but I've said for a while now we need quality right sided player.

[Yorkykopite]

Yep, I mentioned the spine as it is crucial but I've said for a while now we need quality right sided player.

I think we've missed Johnson more than some would admit. Not just his defensive solidity but his enterprising attack play. Kelly and Flanagan are fine prospects but neither is as skillful or quite as fast as Johnson with the ball. He's on a different level to them as an attacker.