Trend mate, while I don't disagree with anything you say above, I do take issue with the narrow focus of your viewpoint. It's not all about tactics. Also, when the word tactics is used, it does mean different things to different people. It doesn't stimulate everybody's mind the way it does yours. When you discuss tactics you do so through the prism of having studied the subject and earned your coaching badges etc. For a lot of us it's not like that but classifying us as casual is somewhat dismissive. Now I have learned a lot from POP, for instance, on this forum about coaches approach to the game but nothing he or anybody else has written has fundamentally changed my knowledge of what makes a good team good. I will give you a hint, it isn't tactics despite the attempts to bring everything back to it.
I will be fifty years of age at my next birthday. I lived through a period of unprecedented success for Liverpool Football Club without giving as much as a fleeting thought to tactics, at least to tactics as they are now viewed and dissected. The first time I really took note was when Kenny started to use Jan Molby as sweeper in a five man defence! Looking back at that, I still can't make up my mind if it's evidence that Kenny was ahead of his time or if it was the first acknowledgement that our side was no longer good enough to rely on our player's superior ability alone.
Since the advent of the premiership there has been a successful attempt to portray the tactical battle between two managers as the single biggest influence on the outcome of the game. This is a remarkable feat when we think about the incredible hyperbole that surrounds the standard of the players themselves. The respective team bosses are now portrayed as Chess Grand-Masters where every move is a pre-ordained response to the others various gambits. It reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes. But then a lot of the sensationalism around football evoke similar musings.
I am not trying to make out that tactics didn't exist back in the day, of course they did, they were just presented more in terms of footballing philosophies. I am trying to explain that their perceived influence on the game was somewhere behind the ability of the players themselves and the capacity of the manager to motivate them. I remain to be convinced this has greatly changed although i do acknowledge that the ability to extensively scout the opposition through TV/video etc as well as the increase in the number of substitutions has changed the landscape somewhat.
I was reminded the other night that Bill Shankly often said that anybody who needs to read a book about the game shouldn't be invoved in it. Now that was circa fifty years ago but it's food for thought.
This is a fantastic post.
I like it for its honesty, challenge, and its well-measured tone. To be honest, you make many good points about tactics, the usual supporter's experience, your personal experience watching LFC and how to create a culture of inclusiveness.
In the larger scheme, you are right, mate. However, the title of this thread specifically uses tactics, and some of us are drawn to this and others not so much.
I do want to offer a few mild counterpoints, though.
While I agree tactics (defined as changing the decisions to be made on the pitch by players) are not the whole enchilada, there is a culture of game analysis in the coaching profession. Its called the "game within game". Often we are tested, quizzed or challenged upon how (we) might make a change in a game that would benefit our side. "What would you do with your U8 boys in this situation etc."
This predilection towards prediction or trying to know more can be and often is misguided, especially in public internet forums. I will say though, that when we watch our gaffer make a change in the game or via substitution that stunningly works (i.e. Subbing off Manquillo and going to a five man midfield leading to Sterling's goal at West Ham or moving to three centrebacks at Goodison in his first year), this creates a passion to understand this 'game within the game' all the more ---- usual fan or coach.
The other counterpoint I might gently offer (as I agree with Shankly's quote there) is that we live in the age where information is a commodity unfortunately. The right information at the right time often leads to an effective change in any line of work. While I agree with you about significant change to footballing philosophies have occurred (in fact BR mentioned this in his presser this week ---- he used the term "cycles" through coaching milieus), there is a hidden message that has devilishly reared its head for supporters ----- "to show my loyalty to the club, I must know everything about it is about how they play." This is hardly possible due to competence, access to practice and a specific knowledge player profiles etc... So this becomes, in some cases, a journey toward jumping at windmills.
For me, this is where PoP was so good. He was among the first here (Dougle has just stated something similar) that coaches at the top level tend to be practical with the resources they have. There is little purity, more adaptation to some coveted principles. He spent hours clarifying exercise physiology, training methods, set plays, myths about formations, and what makes each player special at this level. For me, since I already have some of the language of football, this was so valuable. I did not see it as him talking down, but rather him spending the time for me to uncover what it is that I do not know. The next time I am in that situation, I thought to myself, I will remember this. It was valuable. Now, this may not mean as much to the casual fan, but we do need our translators.
There is little more upsetting than those who call for absurd changes to the squad based on one or two games, or those who consistently draw the wrong conclusions about obvious footballing issues (as stated by Brendan - not me). This does not mean the casual fan need not participate. On the contrary, they should. But, there should be a standard in my opinion. To echo another poster's idea here, this is what made the RAWK Round Table so interesting to read. We need more casual fans posting in there, but there needs to be quality too. Maybe this is too hierarchical and too much for some. Granted. However, I am convinced most here know what they like to read and don't.
Loosely translated, this means we should do more watching for enjoyment, trusting the gaffer to make decisions, and looking for trends that keeps us balanced (never get too high with a win and never too low with a defeat) while balancing this with the game inside the game.
Truly outstanding post, mate!