In the raging aftermath of our late setback in Tel Aviv most of us banged on about tactics, lack of substitutions etc. Eirebhoy emphasised the importance of psychology in defending a 1 goal lead.
I've watched several games since, bearing this in mind. Chelsea usually retreat back, though in fairness their defensive record warrants them doing so especially as they're pretty deadly on the counter (not to mention them riding a massive wave of luck too though IMO).
Liverpool were hardly threatened last night yet as soon as the clock struck 88 or 89 minutes there were 21 players in Liverpool's half and Liverpool just seemed intent on defending deep.
Maybe Liverpool had to retreat because Juve put everyone forward, but it looked like it was just instinctive.
I think it's just natural. Sometimes you get away with it, sometimes you don't (i.e., when an Arab Israeli guy hits the best shot of his career)
I think it works both ways.
The defending team think they are 'there' and defend deep and just hoof it anywhere.
The attacking team get panicky and start launching balls into the box and pushing bodies forward. All it takes is one of these balls to drop kindly for someone to smack it.
Last night all Liverpools headers were good and cleared the box by twenty yards.
That's well and good when you score the desired '1' goal well into the game... But to score so early and then to settle was the mistake. I would've coped with a 1 all scoreline had we scored in say the 60th minute only to get pulled back. But to mentally settle for a 1-0 scoreline with 87 minutes to go was always going to be a huge gamble... It said to me that they would've settled for the draw from the outset, but "hoped" for the win, if you know what I mean. We had the players and the abillity to put that team away, but didn't have the mentality to do it.
Yeah the Liverpool match last night reminded me of the Isreali game alright. They seemed much more composed in all area's of the pitch though. It was so slow last night as in Israel. The thing is if you play like that your playin on a Knife's edge. And indeed there was less chance of the Israeli player hitting the best shot of his life then it would be for one of Juventus stars doin the same. The thing is I think Ireland had much more oportunity to kill the game and chose not too. Liverpool were resolute and assured something I haven't seen in an Irish side away from home for a long long time even against the very weak sides of which there are less and less now.
It seemed as if Ireland assumed that Israel couldn't/wouldn't score so they were not too concerned about getting a second goal.
Liverpool obviously could not make this assumption.
Liverpool actually created some chances and attacked every now and then and went forward well into the dying stages of the match. Baros was giving the Juve defenders no rest at all and could have scored if he had his shooting boots on.
Ireland didn't do this during the second half at all.
In fairness, thats what happens when there's 18 men in the Liverpool end of the field and the ball gets hoofed up to Baros.Originally Posted by brine3
Firstly, Liverpool were defending against an allegedly superior team, Juventus. Israel are an inferior team to us.
Chelsea's defensive policy hasn't really worked of late - they conceded 3 to Bayern in that game and lost it.
Anyone going out with a negative policy usually gets what they deserve (us vs Croatia for example under Mick).
With our history, we needed a 2nd goal to be sure of victory. England in Stuttgart and at home to Holland 1-0 are the exceptions but we were blessed those days.
OwlsFan - Look at the title of the thread again. Psychology, not tactics.
Only the Germans and Italians have the right mentality to defend a 1-0 lead. We dont really. We are best when we we take the game to the opposition.
IF we are to defend then we really have to close everyone down in our own area. We never do that and let play develop to our peno area.
Accurate enough assessment. One problem only Liverpool and Chelsea in England's Premiership know how to defend properly. And we do not have enough people from those teams in our Republic of Ireland back four.
Whether we know how to defend or not, it doesn't make much different when you can't beat the pyschological effects on a match, which I repeat is the title of this topic.
Personally I think you have to balance defence and attack, seems to me
that when you have 10 (11) men behind the ball all camped in your own
penalty area there is only one team likely to score and thats not the team defending.
When initially you were successful with a more attacking formation why change a winning formular? Far better off to keep pushing for more goals
and kill off the game? This would also help keep the opposition pinned back.
You might get punished sometimes but I think it would earn more points in the long run and you are probably more likely to get punished defending.
I think you have to take the view that attack, or at least a balanced
formation, is the best form of defense.
Easier said than done I guess.
Maybe we need the help of a hypnotist such as Paul McKenna to overcome
any negative psychology?
Last edited by tricky_colour; 19/04/2005 at 1:50 AM.
A lot of clubs do use sports psychologists nowadays. Its no good talking about tactics in this thread lads. I've often seen a manager tell players to push up when they're holding a lead but as soon as they give the ball away their instinct is to run back and protect the lead. As soon as they all run back into their own box it means the other team has the ball until it basically goes out of play. I'm sure Jose Mourinho would be the last manager on earth to tell his players to "park the bus in front of the goal" but it didn't stop his players doing that in Barcelona.
Yesterday's Old Firm game was yet another example of a team in the ascendancy just retreating further & further back to defend a lead. If Rangers had scored 5 mins earlier it could have been a different story.
I know Bellamy going off changed things but it shouldn't have led to a wholesale retreat like that. Celtic rode their luck in the second half against an inferior team, we didn't in Israel.
Predetermined tactics or a natural mental reaction?
Probably predetermined tactics, O'Neills been called tactically inflexibile before, mainly because in the majority of game in the SPL he doesn't have to change, but in Old Firm games I've seen him make changes when they've been needed in the past. McLeish did seem to have an indian sign over him when he first took over, Lovenkrands always seemed to score, and O'Neill always turned it around, lost twice to Rangers this season, and when the chips are down his team ground out a result at Ibrox of all places. To quote Mick McCathy's autobiography "If you can do it at Ibrox..."
If anyone wants proof as to what a sports psychologist can do for you look at Ian McCulloch in the snooker. He turned pro 13 years ago but only ever made one final. He took on a sports pychologist and is in the sem-final's of the World Championship and is playing better snooker than anyone left in it.
http://www.worldsnooker.com/players_search-8829.htm
The Lancastrian puts a lot of his recent success down to two people – Mick Caddy, owner of the Potters Snooker Club in Great Harwood, and sports psychologist Graeme Slater.
Sports psychologist or no sports psychologist, the Duffer will never get to a World snooker championship semi-final.
"Can I have a Kit-Kat, chunky?"
"you mean a big one"
"No a normal kit-kat you fat bitch"
Holding on to a 1-0 score if a very fine balancing act Psychologically
Ireland...........................................Israel
1. Do we hold what we have............They are sitting back...ATTACK
2. Do we go for the jugular..............They are leaving hole at the back..ATTACK
3. Do we play posssession football.........We need to get the ball..
'we have the ball they cannot score'
In most cases, the winning manager does not have a policy, especially in our case where we scored so early. So in most cases when a team scores early the responsibility, falls to the captain or the 'leader' on the pitch. A small exception maybe a good goalkeeper pushing his team out. Funnily enough the same applies to the opposition.
The time then becomes an ever increasing factor Psychologically.
The losing team gets more desparate and the winning team becomes more rigid and gets tangled in an ever increasing self fulfilled prophecy, in believing that what it is currently doing is correct, "we winning, they are losing"
Option no. 1 above is the worse option for a winning team. They would have to be exceptional defensively to be confident, to the extent of a premiership team playing a Sunday league team. The main hole with 'lets hold what we have' is that luck plays a big role and bites you when you least expect it.murphy's Law. The biggest example is the losing team getting a last minute deflected goal or ball spinning unexpectedly in to the goal or the the linesman not sticking up his flag when the scorer was offside..Wim Kieft type goal.
Option no. 2 above is the next bad option for a winning team. They would have to be exceptional attacking team to be confident, again to the extent of a premiership team playing a Sunday league team. The main hole is that your defense needs to be as good as your offense. The biggest example is Kevin Keegan at Newcastle, they would score 3, but the opposition would score 4 !!
Option no. 3 This is what Ireland played against Israel. The trouble is that it plays the law of averages. This is where Ireland's logic takes a hit.If the ball is in our possession for 60 minutes, the Israelis have less chance to score, this is true, but it only takes a minute to score. So it would still leave Israel with 30 chances to score. Where we started to fall down in this possession footbal logic was that for the 60 minutes we had the ball we only used 10 of them to score where Israel used all 30 minutes !!!
Personally, what I believe is a combination of all 3.
With Option 3 being used the greatest.
Once we scored the Important thing was to ensure that the opposition did not strike back soon. Once 10-20 minutes of defending has passed after we scored, we then use Option 3 , with opportunities in there final third punished using option 2 this puts the opposition on the back foot and stops them building a momentum towards a pre half time charge, this is one of the most crucial things to do in a Psychological game especially away from home. For the 5 minutes before half time we slowly revert back to option 1
The second half should mirror the first, defend after their onslaught in the begining of the second half, play option 3, and slowly revert back to Option 1.
Attacking with vigour when in the final third. unbalances the opposition, they have to regroup, this takes time, this is where the odd serious attack can be worth 10 minutes of possession football.
This is where we really fell down in Israel, when we attacked, we got to the edge of their box, we stopped, put it into reverse and went back to the halfway line. Soon the Israelis realised that we were not even going to have a shot at goal, they pushed even more forward and we paid the consequence.
Never give 'the opposition' an even break.... Psychologically, this game effected ME, it took a while to stop me sulking about the result, but I am alright now..........
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks