Arsenal banter 68463

 

Use our rumours form to send us arsenal transfer rumours.


(single word yields best result)

20 Apr 2018 20:58:56
Now would it be a mistake to instal or try for one of the more wildcard options to succeed Wenger? Someone like Nagelsmann or teddesco? Someone new and fresh someone who we feel we could give time? Ok if we look at other options (these ain’t mine) for example Rodgers he would have everyone waiting for him to screw up and not take to him, Benitez much the same! Although I would massively prefer Benitez I can still see him been a harder sell, and agian we would be expect results quicker again jardim I would like this but we would expect quicker results. I like the sound of naggkesman and teddesco, would also like jardim, sarri or allegri . Out of the bums been mentioned I would have to take Benitez. I think we will make a decent choice.

Question for ed01 as I always love his opinion on coaches. Do you think the standard of coaching has improved? Do you think that it’s actually cool to be a coach in the modern game and people are treating it more of an art form if you will and be living there’s that chance to become involved in the highest level of football when you know your football skills are modest.

Not best at wording stuff hope it makes sense
SLB.

{Ed001's Note - I am not sure the standard has improved, but it has become more complex and involved tactically. Coaches are more like chess players these days, whereas in previous days they were actual coaches who taught their players to think for themselves. Now they produce automaton they move around a board who need constant tactical input from the sidelines to know what to do when something changes. For me, in a lot of respects, coaches are worse, in others they are much, much better.

By the way, I think you are in the perfect position to take a chance, there are so many dross teams in the Prem that a top half finish is achievable with dags in charge, let alone someone with a clue about football ;-)

Agree0 Disagree0

21 Apr 2018 06:35:10
i think it's a general shift of perspective and a realization, that instead of being a game of 11 individual players, football is a game dependent on a holistic system, it's more fluid than chess, since in chess the pieces are fixated to a set number of squares in any given position, a footballer can rotate 360 degrees to pick out the best possible "move" for him, so it might even be more complex than chess (not sure how you'd count the possibilities here though) , obviously this could never have happened without cryuff, the only negatives i see is that because of his "total football" ideal the media seems to push any non possession based tactics under the rug claiming its "anti football" it's utter dross, since that "anti football" uses cryuffs version of football which utilized zonal marking etc to strengthen defense etc, which is why i like mourinho more, it's what people mean by a "strategic depth" of a position, it doesn't have to look pretty on paper to be very rich in terms of how it operates.

{Ed001's Note - Cruyff never wanted football to be like this and he would hate what Pep does with his constant instructions. Cruyff always believed coaches should coach players to play and understand the game and figure out how to make the tactics work on the pitch. He would get them to sort out between themselves how to defend set pieces, despite what he would say, it was not because he had no interest, he just wanted them to be able to think for themselves, so when an opponent does something different, the players are able to adapt without having to look to the sidelines for instructions. You saw what happened when Pep was sent off at half time - his team fell to pieces without his tinkering. If the coach was truly great, his players would have rose to the occasion, not floundered like fish out of water.

And your comments about it being more complex is exactly the opposite to Cruyff's thinking. He always said it was simple and the mistake people made was trying to complicate it.}

21 Apr 2018 06:53:15
when i said "complex" i was comparing it to chess ed, i think in chess after 40 moves there are more possible positions than there are galaxies in the universe, and that's because over the 64 squares there is only a fixed line of squares that a piece can move, an individual footballer however has a range of options going in a full 360 degree circle and you'd have to think that there'd be more options for a footballer after you'd consider that, though it's not exactly dependent on "moves" but that was the gist of my comment, i think what he meant by not complicating stuff would be not to mash up gameplans and use a simplified game plan dependent on selective weaknesses

also, players thinking for themselves have a major flaw, they can be stupid, you'd have to admit that you can't exactly transform a player from the championship to a level of intuition ( i dislike the term intelligence, intelligence implies calculation while intuition is something that'd come more naturally to a footballer) where he'd fit into the dutch team 30-40 years ago, which is why teams with players who are not on the level of manchester city or any of the bigger clubs simply can't play that way.

{Ed001's Note - I disagree, you only have two objectives. Score a goal and prevent a goal being scored. It is not that difficult or complex in reality, but coaches like to mystify it and create complexity to make themselves seem more important. The best players are those that teach themselves how to play anyway, the George Best's, the Messi's, even Ronaldo, it is not what they are coached that makes them so great, it is what they do themselves.

Playing like Man City is not what anyone should aspire to, every team should aspire to playing to the strengths of the players it possesses, whatver they may be. You would be surprised how much of the intelligence or intuition is simply being stifled by coaches, particularly at youth levels, who obsess over making their role seem more important and focus solely on winning rather than what is best for the players they are coaching. When you hear someone like Gerrard talking, you realise that he is utterly unsuited to youth coaching, he talks in terms of results on the pitch, not results off it. Not improved touches or a player learning to deal with being marked or learning how to make the right runs.

Football is not complicated. You only have to think about two things, when your team has the ball you look to create opportunities for your team to score. When your team has not got the ball, you look to stop them doing the same. All a player should need to be given is the basics, everything else should be coming from the player, otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of robots with no personality, which is bloody close now.

When you watch a Guardiola team it is constantly being instructed on when to run, where to run, how far to run, who to pass to etc, it is micro management and why he never lasts long. It is like having your boss constantly looking over your shoulder at work saying do it this way, no that way, now this way etc. It is ok when you are first there and learning ajob, but it soon becomes tiresome and you want a bit of freedom, such as an Ancelotti manager gives players.}

21 Apr 2018 07:27:11
" The best players are those that teach themselves how to play anyway, the George Best's, the Messi's, even Ronaldo, it is not what they are coached that makes them so great, it is what they do themselves" are you honestly telling me, that if i work as hard as ronaldo i could achieve a millionth of what he's been able to do across his whole career? no, that's a matter of talent and innate intuition.

"Football is not complicated. You only have to think about two things, when your team has the ball you look to create opportunities for your team to score. When your team has not got the ball, you look to stop them doing the same. All a player should need to be given is the basics, everything else should be coming from the player, otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of robots with no personality, which is bloody close now. "
well then i could argue that to acheive those two objectives you have to build up your game plan targeting specific weakness and strengths of the opponent, see how mourinho exploited liverpools defensive weakness (i. e in lovren) , they scored two goals by doing the same thing twice, lump up the ball to lukaku and it'd set up rashford to score, you have to keep in mind that in specific areas of the pitch some teams are weaker and in some others there are a stronger, i merely used manchester city as an example because, even if it was a game based on what the individual would do against say newcastle they'd wipe the floor with them for most games, why? because simply they're more talented and they have a better footballing intuition

about the gerrard thing, i agree with that, those are things a young player should have drilled into him, i'd also like to take a jab at why exactly great players don't make good coaches, it's a matter of introspection, i doubt they ever think "woah why am i so good and aware of all these things going around the pitch and others aren't what do they exactly lack that i have? " because again that'd require some sort of intelligence, i have my qualms with guardiola because he's not resourceful enough, i find it funny how people say that mourinho is the one who needs players finely tuned for a specific position when guardiola won't tweak his team to accomodate for other players (like kolarov and zabaleta last season)

"All a player should need to be given is the basics, everything else should be coming from the player, otherwise we will just end up with a bunch of robots with no personality, which is bloody close now. " i agree with that, but the point is, would your idealized team compete with a team with highly efficient robots with no personalities who would pick on the individual weaknesses of players because they can't cover up their weaknesses because the absence of micromanagement from managers.

{Ed001's Note - on the first part, you have no point to make, no one said anything about talent, it was a discussion about coaching in football, not about some guy sat on a keyboard and coaching. If they don't have an innate talent already, they would not be there to receive the coaching. So it is irrelevant what would happen to you if you worked hard. No idea what you are even doing bringing that into the conversation, it is utterly irrelevant.

Again seems the point is missed, in fact I have no idea what point you are trying to make as you are talking about something simple and trying to make it sound complicated. What is so complicated about telling a player to lump it long to one player who is good in the air and has the beating of his opponent? That would be simple basics imo. Nothing complicated about it at all. What worries me is that Mourinho should need to tell his players to do that, I would want them to spot the weakness and play at it. The moment it stops being a weakness it should stop being utilised, unlike the way City played in the first leg at Anfield against Liverpool when Pep had picked out TAA as a weakness and they constantly, throughout the 90 minutes, tried to attack him, even though Sane was having no joy. No one in the team thought to say 'hang on, this isn't working, let's try something else'. They just kept on plugging away at it and it cost them the game.

Of course the idealised team would win. Precisely because the ideal is that a personality is able to figure out ways to overcome a weakness innately while the robots need constant instruction from the sidelines to react. It is why a martial artist does repetition of their moves, to allow them to become instinctive and cut out thinking time. They just do it, rather than think, then do. That is what you are aiming for in an idealised time. Players who just do it, players who are gelled as a team so instinctively know where to put a pass for their mate to get to as they know he will already have seen the space and be moving into it etc.}

21 Apr 2018 07:29:06
i'd also like to remark it seems like you're arguing more on the point of football losing its "soul" as a game than how efficient the two approaches are.

{Ed001's Note - no I am not. I am arguing that a team working together with players able to think for themselves will beat a bunch of robotic players more often than not. Which is why Barcelona were so much more successful than other clubs over the last 30 years or so. It is why Ronaldo can lead Madrid to success over a very efficient Juve side on multiple occasions.}

21 Apr 2018 07:56:06
the first part was about how a player can't simply think like any of those great players because they're in most cases not up to the intelligence level they're up to. something you were arguing against and then i used my own example.

second of all
"Again seems the point is missed, in fact I have no idea what point you are trying to make as you are talking about something simple and trying to make it sound complicated. What is so complicated about telling a player to lump it long to one player who is good in the air and has the beating of his opponent? That would be simple basics imo. " you could scale up that example and use it for other areas on the pitch, if a teams midfield is weaker you could try to play around that specific portion of the field, rather than the player just figuring that detail out for themselves.
"I would want them to spot the weakness and play at it. " yes, and how exactly would you teach someone to do that? you'd offer them up with the thousands of examples already played and tell them this is what they're supposed to do in that position, which again means that they won't exactly think for themselves unless there's someone yelling those instructions out, which was the whole point.

"The moment it stops being a weakness it should stop being utilised, unlike the way City played in the first leg at Anfield against Liverpool when Pep had picked out TAA as a weakness and they constantly, throughout the 90 minutes, tried to attack him, even though Sane was having no joy. No one in the team thought to say 'hang on, this isn't working, let's try something else'. They just kept on plugging away at it and it cost them the game. " then pep should have had a plan B.
"Of course the idealised team would win. Precisely because the ideal is that a personality is able to figure out ways to overcome a weakness innately while the robots need constant instruction from the sidelines to react. " you're running in circles here again, you can't teach a player to do exactly that, not all players are as talented as those players and lack the intelligence to make those decisions, they're mentally inept to be able to make those decisions on the pitch, because they can't figure out how to make use of that right there and then. which is my point.

{Ed001's Note - but your example is irrelevant, no one said that anyone can be as good as those greats, you were completely missing the point and still are. The point was that it was not coaching that made them great, all you did was agree without even understanding what you were discussing.

You do not offer them examples. This is not a schoolroom. They learn from experience playing the game and seeing what works and what doesn't for themselves. A good coach should only need to use the odd guiding word here or there to just point out what didn't work and what did. You shouldn't need to sit there with examples to look at, they will learn far more by doing something than they will by looking at someone else doing it. How did you learn to play football? I bet you didn't have to be sat down with the rules before you went out and kicked a ball did you? I really do not get your argument, it is so out of date like the crap that held back English football for 50 years. Stop instructing players and start coaching and they will be better players for it.

No you are running in circles based on ignorance. You can teach people to think for themselves, no matter how bright or otherwise they are, everyone is capable of making decisions for themselves if they are given the chance to do so at a young enough age. I am done, this is pointless. You are the one who doesn't understand and are constantly missing every point I make. There is no point continuing.}

21 Apr 2018 08:01:52
also, just to add a funny thought, if every player on your team was actually as intelligent as you say they would be then they'd be more akin to robots with highly efficient AI's who could make the most profitable decision from the get go.

{Ed001's Note - that is just incredibly ignorant. AI is an attempt to get computers and robots to think like humans. There is a reason why we aim to do that, because the human thought process is so much more advanced than anything computers can do, in terms of decision making. The key being decision making is what makes the difference on the pitch. Again another thing that you have completely missed the point on.}

21 Apr 2018 08:14:01
Do you think that the micro management coaching is more effective though Ed, because wenger had belief in his players and would rarely change tactics in a game himself, but then the players never took it upon themselves to adapt to the game either and you mentioned anchelotti as a manager that offers freedom yet his way didn't seem to work as well at bayern after pep.

{Ed001's Note - Ancelotti's way didn't work because he didn't even bother to train the players hard. They were going off to a local park after training to do some actual training each day.

Micro management is never more effective in the long term. Short term it is an effective solution to get through a difficult period, but then you need to gradually give more freedom or you end up with constant tension and things fall apart. Wenger was like Ancelotti, he gave too much freedom. It is like anything, balance is the key in the long term, short term you might need to give lots of freedom or micro-manage to get through, depending on the moment, but overall you need to have balance. It is not easy whatever way you choose, you might have some players that need someone overlooking their every move, while others need to be given freedom to perform to their best. Someone like Nedved, for instance, did not need someone watching him to make sure he trained properly, he would go straight home after training to use his personal gym to improve his fitness. Whereas some like Gascoigne needed constant watching and a firm hand.}

21 Apr 2018 10:00:37
Ed,
I agree with the above - arsenal study players a lot. Why didn’t they bring players in with the right discipline and professionalism and leadership to fit Wenger’s style. the team he inherited had it and he added players with those attributes - Vieira, Henry etc
We seem to have lost our way and signed players who couldn’t cope with the laissez faire approach and Wenger didn’t micro manage when appropriate and the board just let it happen
It’s frustrating as you could see the change in players and attitude but we kept signing them hence not knowing if we would thrash someone or be thrashed
A big puzzle to me.

{Ed001's Note - that would be poor scouting and recruitment policy. I have no idea why they did not change it, makes no sense to me. Just buying the best players does not make the best team, you need the right blend and Arsenal have not had that for a long time. I would suggest it was down to Wenger, sadly. He was the one deciding who to buy and what type of player. I do think he did try to bring in a bit of bite latterly with Xhaka, but it was a poorly scouted choice.}

21 Apr 2018 10:13:46
Sanogo mate am all in for tedesco or nagelsmann both would be great. Not sure who the better coach between the two is, but they went to the same coaching schoool at the same time and tedesco finished number one in their class.

21 Apr 2018 10:24:08
Very true -Thomas Vermalen and Kos as two I’ll dusciplined centrehalves were the perfect example. You needed a Terry / Adams or Kweon type demander in there to keep shape. Once the disciplined Gilberto left - the midfield lost its shape. Song should have been the one but lacked discipline to stop him running up field trying to grab the headlines and big contracts. We suffered most in those two roles as that’s where we neve recruited players who had that leadership / discipline / personal sacrifice for the team may be a David Devin would have forced that agenda more as he knew Wenger best so knew his weaknesses.

{Ed001's Note - that was the big loss for Arsenal, losing that partnership at the top of the club. Dein and Wenger were a great combination.}

21 Apr 2018 15:59:29
Just got to reading the thread through. Cheers ed.







 

 

 
Log In or Register to post

User
Pass
Remember me

Forgot Pass