The groupthink of modern day football types

[paulhanley]

Long post alert but I want to write this to see whether people are in agreement with me about the way football has gone this past 10-15 years. It's not just the way Bolton Wanderers play - but it definitely includes us. 

 

Sport is legion with coaches, sports scientists and others who seek to find "extra one per cent" improvements, bits of things that when done consistently well can lead to big progress.  British cycling became famed for this. All very laudable

 

Somehow in the search for the new, football seems to have lost its corporate memory and what was good about the old. In effect a series of one per cents have been cast to oblivion. Such is the obsession with playing out from the back and "through the thirds" that certain basics from the past seem to have been deleted from our culture. They are especially but not exclusively focused on defensive play

 

Keepers: The modern day ones seem often to be elevated because of how they are with the ball at their feet rather than their actual keeping skills. Cart before horse. Many have chocolate wrists, have no idea how to command their box and regularly commit the cardinal sin of being beaten at their near post. It's incredible how often the latter happens compared to days of yore. 

 

Full backs: Does anybody simplify it down for them and say that whatever attacking play they get involved in the number one job is to block crosses? 

 

Centre backs: More cardinal sins of yesteryear committed with regularity, chiefly letting the ball bounce and opening up a pandora's box of danger rather than the tried and trusted method of meeting it with the head or boot and getting the ball to safety. 

 

Defenders generally: Great that they are more comfortable on the ball but messing around with it in your own six yard box and having no instinct as to when "the right moment" to play as opposed to get rid of it comes along.

 

I could go on...

 

I am no advocate of the Charles Hughes inspired "play the ball down the channels" dinosaur philosophy that retarded English football for so long. We don't want that back and I hope the era of liberated, free flowing home bred midfielders and strikers, comfortable in possession is here to stay. But surely we have to ally that to a few forgotten old truths about defensive play.  Maybe if we get this back in to our culture England won't have to resort to two holding midfielders to protect suspect defenders.

 

In terms of our own backyard I don't think this could  ever happen under Evatt who is a high priest of these modern methods - living the 2020s footballing wet dream with no compromise or pragmatism, over-thinking, over-coaching, over-complicating. 

Edited January 5, 2025 by paulhanley

[wakey]

Never, ever play the ball across your own goal.

Not sure when we decided to ditch that long-held wisdom.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

Total football!

The only way. 

[Rizlar]

Just watching Hibs vs Rangers 1-0 Rangers what you have posted tells you everything about modern defenders dithering on the ball not clearing the ball passing across the box and Rangers score. 

[only1swanny]

For me it's the heading, just getting a head to it, with little consequence of where it's going to end up, often at the head or the feet of an opponent. As you say, just get the ball out, 

[Dimron]

I sometimes watch the sessions and matches going on at our local rec when dog walking.

Little kids turning up with all the latest gear and being indulged by their parents, all being taught about tactics and formations from too early an age in my opinion.

What I don't see is kids out there just kicking the ball around with their mates at all hours and developing that second-nature ball control. If you read (say) Worthy's biography he would spend hours kicking the ball against a gable end in an Huddersfield street when a  youngster.

Result... we now see players who run into all of the correct tactical areas but need too many touches when they get that instantaneous chance as they have not developed the spatial awareness and the psychomotor skills needed to have that sub-conscious "feel"

[freds dad]

1 hour ago, wakey said:

Never, ever play the ball across your own goal.

Not sure when we decided to ditch that long-held wisdom.

And if you’re going to pass back to the keeper make sure you know where he is.

[paulhanley]

Not just me then thank goodness.

You begin to doubt your own sanity when you see things consistently going on during a football match that are madness. There are so many stats in football now, has nobody ever done a cost benefit analysis of playing the ball out from the your own six yard box - how many goals are conceded compared to scored? I don't know but I reckon it'd blow the whole nonsensical approach out of the water.

Meanwhile there are still some people in the game who understand the value of sound defence. I hate to say Shaun Maloney is one (despite coming unstuck yesterday). Another is Scott Parker at Burnley. Here's what he said after yesterday's game at Ewood. If Evatt reads these comments it'll be like someone is speaking to him in an alien language. 

"What this team have done defensively this year has been nothing short of sensational and I get it's not the most glamorous part of the game but I've been around long enough to know it's the bedrock and foundation of any team."

[RONNIE PHILLIPS]

25 minutes ago, paulhanley said:

Not just me then thank goodness.

You begin to doubt your own sanity when you see things consistently going on during a football match that are madness. There are so many stats in football now, has nobody ever done a cost benefit analysis of playing the ball out from the your own six yard box - how many goals are conceded compared to scored? I don't know but I reckon it'd blow the whole nonsensical approach out of the water.

Meanwhile there are still some people in the game who understand the value of sound defence. I hate to say Shaun Maloney is one (despite coming unstuck yesterday). Another is Scott Parker at Burnley. Here's what he said after yesterday's game at Ewood. If Evatt reads these comments it'll be like someone is speaking to him in an alien language. 

"What this team have done defensively this year has been nothing short of sensational and I get it's not the most glamorous part of the game but I've been around long enough to know it's the bedrock and foundation of any team."

But could Burnley do it under scoreboard pressure? 

[Dr Faustus]

Hmm… I agree to an extent; I’ve got a vested interest in keepers. I’ve coached some amazing shot stoppers, but the ones who make it are generally better organisers and communicators so they don’t have to be Neville Southall- think it was Mourinho who said one day a keeper will be like Pirlo.

Nothing wrong with passing sideways if forwards isn’t an option- but individuals make decisions as to whether it’s safe or not… 

With regards to kids and tactics, that’s your eager volunteer trying their best; personally I try and stay away from managing, but coaching should be working on ABCS (agility, balance, coordination, speed) and ball mastery at foundation age; let them make mistakes, they’ll learn. The FA are making more changes that will put less emphasis on tactics at the younger age.

Burnley still incorporate playing from the back- it cascades down through the academy- they are given set instructions on how to play both in and out of possession; there is still the emphasis on playing through the thirds, and they work on control and distribution.

My biggest frustration watching us comes from the dinosaurs behind me who want us to go long every time- why work on a style all week to give up after an hour? If it’s not working, we mix it- but we need to know whether- 

we’re good enough

if it’s effective… 

 

[desperado]

26 minutes ago, Dr Faustus said:

Hmm… I agree to an extent; I’ve got a vested interest in keepers. I’ve coached some amazing shot stoppers, but the ones who make it are generally better organisers and communicators so they don’t have to be Neville Southall- think it was Mourinho who said one day a keeper will be like Pirlo.

Nothing wrong with passing sideways if forwards isn’t an option- but individuals make decisions as to whether it’s safe or not… 

With regards to kids and tactics, that’s your eager volunteer trying their best; personally I try and stay away from managing, but coaching should be working on ABCS (agility, balance, coordination, speed) and ball mastery at foundation age; let them make mistakes, they’ll learn. The FA are making more changes that will put less emphasis on tactics at the younger age.

Burnley still incorporate playing from the back- it cascades down through the academy- they are given set instructions on how to play both in and out of possession; there is still the emphasis on playing through the thirds, and they work on control and distribution.

My biggest frustration watching us comes from the dinosaurs behind me who want us to go long every time- why work on a style all week to give up after an hour? If it’s not working, we mix it- but we need to know whether- 

we’re good enough

if it’s effective… 

 

A good post which offers the alternative perspective.

I think as always there’s a balance, and @paulhanley makes some good points about not losing some of the more traditional aspects of our game and over-complicating things in the modern game.

However we have to be very careful this doesn’t come across as a narrow-minded generational moan.

When I first came into PE teaching/Coaching in the late 80s/90s, I was forever faced with being told this is how it should be done with old traditional methods, very little openness to change and adapt.

My early experiences of our academy weren’t great, turning down kids because they weren’t tall enough or big enough.

A lot of changes have been for the better, kids are being coached much better now than they were 30/40 years ago. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that our fortunes on the international stage are better too.

Edited January 5, 2025 by desperado

[paulhanley]

14 minutes ago, desperado said:

A good post which offers the alternative perspective.

I think as always there’s a balance, and @paulhanley makes some good points about not losing some of the more traditional aspects of our game and over-complicating things in the modern game.

However we have to be very careful this doesn’t come across as a narrow-minded generational moan.

When I first came into PE teaching/Coaching in the late 80s/90s, I was forever faced with being told this is how it should be done with old traditional methods, very little openness to change and adapt.

My early experiences of our academy weren’t great, turning down kids because they weren’t tall enough or big enough.

A lot of changes have been for the better, kids are being coached much better now than they were 30/40 years ago. I don’t think it’s any coincidence that our fortunes on the international stage are better too.

If you read my original post I am careful to say that the change in mindset has been very beneficial. We've largely eradicated Charles Hughes dinosaur football and English footballers are now far more composed and technically gifted. My point is that the baby has gone out with the bathwater. Especially on the defensive side of the game there were things passed from generation to generation for the very good reason that they worked. I list some above and others have added. What's the point of increasing and polishing your attacking play if the price is losing defensive solidity. Some of the passing around in a team's own penalty area and goalkeeper errors are embarrassing. Who the hell stopped coaching keepers how to position themselves to avoid getting done at the near post for instance? It's maddening.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

In a way, it doesn't matter what your approach is- if you're good at it the success should follow.

Just got be remembered that there are two teams on the field.

If for whatever reason its not working on the day, then the squad/subs, willingness and flexibility to change things as necessary. 

Also the willingness to look at an opponent and see strengths and weaknesses there.

Interesting vid of Rioch after the white hot wins, saying "we don't worry about the opposition". He had managed to assemble a squad who could support and manage themselves to an extent, but I doubt he never did any homework whatsoever, and he wasn't averse to changing things according to need on a given day.

[paulhanley]

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

In a way, it doesn't matter what your approach is- if you're good at it the success should follow.

Just got be remembered that there are two teams on the field.

If for whatever reason its not working on the day, then the squad/subs, willingness and flexibility to change things as necessary. 

Also the willingness to look at an opponent and see strengths and weaknesses there.

Interesting vid of Rioch after the white hot wins, saying "we don't worry about the opposition". He had managed to assemble a squad who could support and manage themselves to an extent, but I doubt he never did any homework whatsoever, and he wasn't averse to changing things according to need on a given day.

I can remember him changing to three central defenders In the Autumn of the season after he got us promoted (93/4). We went on a big unbeaten run and got a foothold in our new division after a really patchy start in August and September. He didn't stick with it, but it got us through. A lot of those games were draws but it needed doing and he did it. And this was three centre backs with two full backs, not wing backs. Good management, read the situation, saw we were struggling defensively and shored it all up for a time. 

[Traf]

2 hours ago, RONNIE PHILLIPS said:

But could Burnley do it under scoreboard pressure? 

They couldn't do it last season and if they go up, they'll fail again.
Scott Parker's defences are generally as piss weak as he is, when it comes to the Premier League.

[Underpants]

A league 2 team from today would have a good chance of winning Div 1 in the late 70s.

[wakey]

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

 

Interesting vid of Rioch after the white hot wins, saying "we don't worry about the opposition". He had managed to assemble a squad who could support and manage themselves to an extent, but I doubt he never did any homework whatsoever, and he wasn't averse to changing things according to need on a given day.

banging on about opposition's strengths can be hugely counter-productive.

it's funny when you look back to the times pre sports psychologists how many managers were brilliant natural sports psychologists.

And conversely, how few appear to be today. Especially including our mon.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

13 minutes ago, wakey said:

banging on about opposition's strengths can be hugely counter-productive.

it's funny when you look back to the times pre sports psychologists how many managers were brilliant natural sports psychologists.

And conversely, how few appear to be today. Especially including our mon.

There's a difference between banging on about them, and being aware and making subtle adjustments. 

Looking at Birmingham and Arsenal this season, we were beaten before we got there.

Unlikely to win the latter obviously, but hardly comments to instill any belief.

[wakey]

18 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

There's a difference between banging on about them, and being aware and making subtle adjustments. 

 

100% agree. No doubt Bruce made adjustments as required for the opposition. He wouldn't necessarily have told the players why, and certainly wouldn't have glorified the opposition in doing so.

I think the tendency these days is to do the opposite, and I've a sneaking suspicion it's on the back of people trying to show how clever they are whilst - in reality - proving otherwise.

All about getting players in the right mindset. Plenty old-time managers were geniuses in that regard, Bruce being one.

[Casino]

1 minute ago, wakey said:

100% agree. No doubt Bruce made adjustments as required for the opposition. He wouldn't necessarily have told the players why, and certainly wouldn't have glorified the opposition in doing so.

I think the tendency these days is to do the opposite, and I've a sneaking suspicion it's on the back of people trying to show how clever they are whilst - in reality - proving otherwise.

All about getting players in the right mindset. Plenty old-time managers were geniuses in that regard, Bruce being one.

id better start with rioch is in my top 4 bolton managers, probably 2nd, maybe 3rd, poss 4th depending on my mood

 

While we were pulling off giant killings, we still only got promoted through the play offs

And lets be honest, we got lucky on the day

Would rioch have got dogs abuse had we failed, probably not

Were they just different times?

 

Similarly, when we decided not to turn up v watford, my recollection is the stick was aimed the players, not at the manager...was it todd?

 

Whats changed?

[Leyther_Matt]

1 minute ago, Casino said:

id better start with rioch is in my top 4 bolton managers, probably 2nd, maybe 3rd, poss 4th depending on my mood

 

While we were pulling off giant killings, we still only got promoted through the play offs

And lets be honest, we got lucky on the day

Would rioch have got dogs abuse had we failed, probably not

Were they just different times?

 

Similarly, when we decided not to turn up v watford, my recollection is the stick was aimed the players, not at the manager...was it todd?

 

Whats changed?

Think there’s a whole lot more tactical (over) analysis, and of course far more ways to transmit that to anyone rather than just ranting down the pub.

94/95 was a bit of a freak one because of the reduced automatic promotion place, but still an incredible effort to get two promotions in three seasons

Just a completely different game now though. 

[Casino]

Just now, Leyther_Matt said:

94/95 was a bit of a freak one because of the reduced automatic promotion place, but still an incredible effort to get two promotions in three seasons

 

2 good points

[Traf]

4 minutes ago, Casino said:

id better start with rioch is in my top 4 bolton managers, probably 2nd, maybe 3rd, poss 4th depending on my mood

Coyle, Megson & Freedman being the others?

[Casino]

Not fit to lace stan andersons boots

 

[Stig]

2 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

In a way, it doesn't matter what your approach is- if you're good at it the success should follow.

Just got be remembered that there are two teams on the field.

If for whatever reason its not working on the day, then the squad/subs, willingness and flexibility to change things as necessary. 

Also the willingness to look at an opponent and see strengths and weaknesses there.

Interesting vid of Rioch after the white hot wins, saying "we don't worry about the opposition". He had managed to assemble a squad who could support and manage themselves to an extent, but I doubt he never did any homework whatsoever, and he wasn't averse to changing things according to need on a given day.

This is the biggest part of the problem for me. It doesn't matter about the results to a degree, if you're now seen as progressive you'll get ahead as a manager. Look at Kompany at Burnley last year - no adaptability at all, just an innate belief that the total football way I'd the best, when they had limited players and needed to be more defensive. Failure for Burnley but success for Kompany on getting a better job.