If I was a coach one of my mantras would be that the way to get through 11 behind the ball is tempo. Just passing and passing by itself won't get you anywhere, but speed it up and the gaps will appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
Printable View
If I was a coach one of my mantras would be that the way to get through 11 behind the ball is tempo. Just passing and passing by itself won't get you anywhere, but speed it up and the gaps will appear.Quote:
Originally Posted by shakermaker1982
I think its the distance on the ball, pull them in then spray the ball 20 yards, the oppossing team is pulled over and back and then space will be provided on the other side of the pitch, the system chelsea used yesterday was very rigid and very tight. They weren't getting pulled over and back but why would they, Barca were hitting 20-25 consecutive passes over and back no more than 10 metres, thats all well and good if you want to create space in behind and pull defenders out, but it didnt work for Barca because Chelsea stuck to the system and didnt move. Had barca kept it tight and short at first, then sprayed the ball 25-30 yards across pitch it would have sucked chelsea in and create space on the other side. They were too direct trying to walk it in behind them and it backfired for them, even though they still managed to create 4-5 clear cut chances. Had they played the above type possession play id say they would have created at least double that.
I'm begining to think Trap is quiet an intelligent tactician, which I dont and didnt think we need against some opposition but is justified in some instances.
Do we need Walters up top against Spain?
The Nou Camp pitch is much bigger, it'll be harder for Chelsea to pack the last third of the pitch like they did last night. But I still think Chelsea will get at least one, probably someone like Terry from a set piece. The thought of JT ending up as a heroic captain fills me with dread.
Ha ha wish he was :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kev mcq
He does play in Spain so he is half Spanish.
I work in England im not .0000000001% english.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kev mcq
Actually I was right, albeit accidentally , "Messi obtained Spanish citizenship on 26 September 2005". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Messi
What a piece of luck!!!
It's 2 metres longer ans 1 metre wider, according to wiki. Not a huge difference. I think the height of the cameras plays tricks with our eyes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I'd be amazed if that was true.
If what was true, the pitch size or the camera height playing tricks?
The 'huge pitch at the Camp Nou' compared to Stamford Bridge, is a pundit myth.
Christ, it's nitpickers galore on here today.
Nou Camp certainly looks bigger than Stamford Bridge.
I always look to the shortest distance between the circumference of the centre circle and the "D". In some piches it looks big - e.g., Parkhead where there's a lot of green space in between whereas in others, e.g., Highbury, you can tell that it was short.
Maybe I'm just being conned by an optical illusion but I trust my instincts.
The camera angle makes a massive differnce. They seems to have two different camera angles for White Hart Lane. It looks quite spacious normally with the high camera angle, but they had a low camera for Champions League games for some reason and it's looked very narrow. The new Wembley looks narrow as well because of the camera angle, I don't like it!
Poor James Mc won't know what's going on when he logs in.
Nou Camp: 105 x 68 m
Stamford Bridge: 103 x 67 m
Also from wikipedia.
Not a big difference.
7140 sq. meters v. 6901 sq. meters...It's quite a bit more green space than you would think.
There was many a major Land dispute in Ireland over a lot less !Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
1 meter wider along each sideline? I suppose the green space location value is higher along the sideline than the endline.
Tony Pulis would consider the green space over the sideline to be more valuable, useful as a runway for a Delap throw.
Maybe the extra 1m along the sideline has the makings of a deal breaker to Barca getting their act together on home ground against the Chelsea wall?
As far as I can tell, those are the correct figures, which are normal dimensions for top tier professional clubs. I, too, recall tell of Barca's enormous pitch, and even remember reading that a Belgian team successfully appealed that it was too wide, delaying a match while the sideline was repainted. A quick google fails to confirm it, so while I guess some construction or rule change has forced them to reduce the pitch dimensions since, it's possible the whole thing is nothing more than urban legend.
It's half a metre each sideline and a metre on each end a difference of 3.5% in area.
I compared it to the rest of the premiership pitch sizes
1. Manchester City, City of Manchester Stadium, 116 x 77 yards, 8932
2. Manchester United, Old Trafford, 116 x 76 yards, 8816
3. Blackburn Rovers, Ewood Park, 115 x 76 yards, 8740
4. Everton, Goodison Park, 112 x 78 yards, 8736
5. Aston Villa, Villa Park, 114 x 75 yards, 8550
6. Middlesbrough, Riverside, 114 x 75 yards, 8550
7. Arsenal, Emirates Stadium, 114 x 74 yards, 8436
8. Derby County, Pride Park, 114 x 74 yards, 8436
9. Reading, Madjeski Stadium, 111 x 76 yards, 8436
10. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 114 x 74 yards, 8436
11. Wigan Athletic, JJB Stadium, 114 x 74 yards, 8436
12. Portsmouth, Fratton Park, 115 x 73 yards, 8395
13. Chelsea, Stamford Bridge, 110 x 75 yards, 8250
14. Fulham, Craven Cottage, 110 x 75 yards, 8250
15. Liverpool, Anfield, 110 x 75 yards, 8250
16. Birmingham City, St. Andrews, 110 x 74 yards, 8140
17. Newcastle United, St. James’s Park, 110 x 73 yards, 8030
18. Tottenham Hotspur, White Hart Lane, 110 x 73 yards, 8030
19. Bolton Wanderers, Reebok Stadium, 110 x 72 yards, 7920
20. West Ham United, Boleyn Ground, 110 x 70 yards, 7700
(2007 figures, Portsmouth have not been promoted, :) )
Unfortunately that is in square yards.. so converting the original figures
Nou Camp 8539
Stamford Bridge 8253.
So the Nou Camp is big but not particularly big and vice versa for Stamford Bridge.
I am not sure if Barcelona need a particularly big pitch, they don't seem to use the whole with of the pitch when attacking, would help if they had bigger goals though, the would be about 3-1 up if they were.
Craven Cottage looked tiny, maybe it was the camera angle, maybe it was the 4:3 streamed transmission,
or maybe that missing yard on the sideline is the hard yard that matters.
I just started watching when Wigan went ahead midway in the 2nd half. Those last 30 minutes were about Wigan trying to hang on. I dozed off before the end and missed the Fulham winner. Maybe it's me, maybe it was the game, but it was a hard 30 minutes of football (midfield clutter) to watch.
I think that any new stadiums should be required to make their pitch to the upper limit (whatever that is). Extra room gives good players the opportunity to play and makes it a lot more difficult for less good players to squeeze the footballing ability out of the game.
There has been examples past and present when the not so good footballing teams have moved in the sidelines (on their own pitchs obviously) so that they can put the squeeze on the opposition.
I expect a number of thing affect how big the pitch appears to be, ie the size and closeness
of the stand and maybe even how wide the strips on the grass are.
Sure if the Camp Nou is a teensy bit bigger than Stamford Bridge what difference does it make? It's just a little extra space for Drogba to roll around in!
I can't believe you don't understand how much a difference space makes. Drogba touched the ball like 10 times in the entire match. 75% of the game, Barcelona had the ball and were desperately trying to find little pockets of space to get away from the Chelsea players.
From the Times' Tony Bennett on twitter:Quote:
James McCarthy is one of few Wigan players who hasn't come close to scoring but he's been outstanding.
Just another day at the office for James. In the first half Newcastle were impotent and Wigan were relaxed and confident.
Perhaps Pardew's reaping the effects that his midweek bluster about the CL spot had on his team.
got a high rating on sky sports a 9 and a 8.7
Wonder if Trap would ever start him at Euro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
He needs to be in the squad first!
Grt performance, more aggressive, more attacking and driving forward like I like to see him, great composure on ball
He had a very good game, not much different from the level he has been performing to, for most of this season.
No doubt the mistake spotters will note that he got caught, ambushed and lost the ball in a dangerous area.
I only watched the last 30 minutes of this afternoon's game against Chelsea but McCarthy looked very good in possession and some precise passing.
He played very well I thought. Chelsea could have done with him in CM with Mikel instead of an overweight Lampard.
Wigan are tough to watch.
According to GreenScene.me on Twitter, McCarthy had a very impressive pass completion rate of 94 per cent this afternoon. 47 of his 50 attempts reached their target.
All passes here, including one key pass: http://epl.squawka.com/matches/engli...-vs-stoke-city
Click Stats -> Individual -> James McCarthy and select "All Passes"
Wigan were brilliant to watch last season, I think I just happened to see most if not all of their last ten league matches. All out attack. Are they still playing 3-4-3? Highlight of the season was watching them play Arsenal off the park.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosby87
I'm an Arsenal fan and was enthralled by that Wigan performance.
won the penalty for the opener today, shot hit a Stoke defender on the arm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tetsujin1979
Excellent stats sight. Could not find a player with higher pass rate, score overall but I only looked at a few.
McCarthy at fault for United's third goal after a really weak tackle in the box.