QuoteI swa that this morning too. I thought it was very interesting.
At what point is a game of football won and lost?
Late last year a conference of coaches in Brazil was debating this very topic.
Former Scotland coach Andy Roxburgh, now on Uefa's technical staff, was attending the event.
He had recently discussed the subject with Jose Mourinho and he passed on the views of the Chelsea boss.
While many believe that set-pieces are the decisive factor in a game, for Mourinho the key to winning lies in transitions - the moment when possession changes hands from one side to another.
If the side winning the ball can quickly organise a counter-attack and if the side losing the ball are slow to re-organise their defence, then there is a good chance that the move will end in a clear goalscoring opportunity.
It was an idea enthusiastically picked up on at the conference.
It was stressed that the physical development of the game, with players covering more ground during the course of the match, has made space on the field much harder to come by.
The moment of transition, with the side losing the ball caught off-guard, is the point when space is most easily found.
Roxburgh brought the house down by pointing out that it was all a bit like the appearance of the sun in Scotland - so rare that you have to take advantage of it.
The conference, the first of its kind in Brazil, was set up by national team coach Carlos Alberto Parreira.
With decades of profound knowledge of football theory, Parreira was already fully familiar with Mourinho's ideas.
He pointed out that when he was studying the game in the 1960s his physical education professor was arguing that the counter-attack was the future of football.
Brazil do not dominate you. They are a counter-attacking team
Argentina coach Jose Pekerman
Even so, it could well be that the event late last year help turned a few keys in Parreira's mind. Since then he has changed the balance of the Brazil side.
And he has done so in a way that gives priority to cashing in on moments of transition.
Brazil were playing 4-3-1-2, until Parreira dropped a midfielder to include an extra striker.
The logic is plain; the object of the exercise is to outnumber the opposition in the most important zone of the field.
With Brazil seeking to get the ball down the field quicker there is less need for another midfielder, more need for another striker to provide an option to receive the early pass.
It also means that Brazil can use more of the devastating attacking resources at their disposal.
This change in the formation caused Brazil some problems while they tried to get the balance right and will probably continue to give the odd headache.
But on its day the new system has already shown its potency. Argentina coach Jose Pekerman would doubtless agree.
After Brazil beat his side 4-1 in the final of the Confederations Cup he lamented that "every time you lose the ball Brazil kill you.
"It's not like people think. They don't dominate you. They're a counter-attacking team.
"When our creative players try something and lose the ball three quarters of the way down the pitch, Brazil start a move which ends up in a goal because they switch from defence to attack with incredible speed."
In other words, the game was won and lost in the moments of transition.
From the BBC Website,
In Trap we trust
I swa that this morning too. I thought it was very interesting.
It has some good reading there but most of us know and/or have seen games where teams have defended for 90 mins and still won
I don't think how a match is won can be put on paper. Football still has some luck in it which cannot be reproduced week in week out which is why we all love it
IMO, it's how long it takes for you to get possession back after losing it, combined with how long you keep possessions that determines who wins a game, if the opposition doesn't have the ball, they can't score, and if you keep their possession to a minimum, they can't create anything.
On the other hand, one long Wimbledon-esque punt downfield can win a game for you!!
There are many varialbe ways to win a game but I suppose the best thing is to look at the most likely and at International level you need to look at the most likely way with the players at your disposal. At least at club level you can buy in the type of player that you want to fit yoru system whereas at international you need to create the system around the players.
In Trap we trust
On that very point I remember reading years ago that the old George Graham Arsenal won a title back in 1989 while averaging barely 40% ball possession over the season.Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
one for the stato's
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
I tend to approach this differently: as a game, that is what football is.
A game is won if I have had a good time at the stadium with friends, if I met some nice people at the ground, had a good atmosphere on the supporters coach on my way to the ground, ... Then a game is won, regardless the result on the field.
A game is lost when it becomes more than a game.
Fair enough but I remember the game in Basel in 2003 and the result their dictated the whole enjoyment of that game and of the few days i spent in France and Switzerland. Sometimes results do dictate the mood of a trip esp if you travel away for the match.
In Trap we trust
Games are usually won or lost by either lapses of concentration on the part of defenders or other slackness of play by them, which creates the space which allows the Brazil's of this world "kill you " with counter-attack.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks