Pirlo is irreplaceable. We'll have to face it sooner or later. I can't see us spending 25m+ for Verratti next summer.
Buy on AliExpress.com
Tactics and Formations (24 Viewers)
- Thread starter JCK
- Start date
- Tags pavlutroll
Buy on AliExpress.com
League Focus: Striking Duos Set To Storm Serie A
http://www.whoscored.com/Blog/gigl4...ague-Focus-Striking-Duos-Set-To-Storm-Serie-A
http://www.whoscored.com/Blog/gigl4...ague-Focus-Striking-Duos-Set-To-Storm-Serie-A
This is a point partly about Juve, but it can also be said of very many teams around Europe:
Why do teams insist on always playing the ball out short a goal-kicks nowadays?
Once upon a time it was a fine tactic, but most decent teams now just use that as a way to press you very high up the pitch very early.
That press means that even though you have played the initial ball out short, there is every chance that you will very quickly be in a position where you need to kick the ball long - and because of the press, it is going to be a less controlled long ball than would have been played if the keeper had just kicked it up to the halfway line initially.
For a team like Juve, who have a decent physical presence among the forwards, when playing against a good team, I think they would be much better off taking an orthodox goal-kick i.e. long, aiming for a centre-forward and hoping that he will win the header or that one of the midfielders picks up the loose ball from the aerial challenge. The other main option for Juve playing long would be for Lichtsteiner to puch high up his wing and for him to try and win the header.
I understand teams like Barca who have no physical presence and, therefore, no chance of winning the long ball, needed to play short relentlessly, but that doesn't mean everyone else should.
Anyway, that's what was bouncing around my head last night watching Juve-Inter and watching Inter, in particular, get themselves in trouble trying to play out from the back.
Why do teams insist on always playing the ball out short a goal-kicks nowadays?
Once upon a time it was a fine tactic, but most decent teams now just use that as a way to press you very high up the pitch very early.
That press means that even though you have played the initial ball out short, there is every chance that you will very quickly be in a position where you need to kick the ball long - and because of the press, it is going to be a less controlled long ball than would have been played if the keeper had just kicked it up to the halfway line initially.
For a team like Juve, who have a decent physical presence among the forwards, when playing against a good team, I think they would be much better off taking an orthodox goal-kick i.e. long, aiming for a centre-forward and hoping that he will win the header or that one of the midfielders picks up the loose ball from the aerial challenge. The other main option for Juve playing long would be for Lichtsteiner to puch high up his wing and for him to try and win the header.
I understand teams like Barca who have no physical presence and, therefore, no chance of winning the long ball, needed to play short relentlessly, but that doesn't mean everyone else should.
Anyway, that's what was bouncing around my head last night watching Juve-Inter and watching Inter, in particular, get themselves in trouble trying to play out from the back.
I think it's part of the recent thinking that possession = winning (or at least possession being the single most important factor).
The conundrum reminds me of rugby, actually. In that game, possession is only really worth something if enjoyed in the opponents half. Territory is of massive importance and turning the ball over to your opponent by way of well placed punts is a very valid and thoughtful tactic. It gives you the opportunity of then turning the ball over in an area where it can instantly hurt your opponent or, at the very least, apply pressure to them in an area where they wouldn't want to make mistakes. That used to be part of association football too.
Obviously the sports are different and the mechanics and tactics are also, but a well placed goal kick into the opponents territory reminds me of a well placed punt in rugby - with the added benefit of footballers being allowed in front of the ball and thus giving a higher chance of winning back possession.
In any case, doing things the same way all the time doesn't generally sit well with me. If Llorente kicks on there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't explore territory options further by way of proper goal kicks. If one can point the finger at any part of our winning tactics, it would be that we're not exactly "mixing it up" and that we've been a little vulnerable when our "playmaking" defenders have been pressed in an organised fashion.
The conundrum reminds me of rugby, actually. In that game, possession is only really worth something if enjoyed in the opponents half. Territory is of massive importance and turning the ball over to your opponent by way of well placed punts is a very valid and thoughtful tactic. It gives you the opportunity of then turning the ball over in an area where it can instantly hurt your opponent or, at the very least, apply pressure to them in an area where they wouldn't want to make mistakes. That used to be part of association football too.
Obviously the sports are different and the mechanics and tactics are also, but a well placed goal kick into the opponents territory reminds me of a well placed punt in rugby - with the added benefit of footballers being allowed in front of the ball and thus giving a higher chance of winning back possession.
In any case, doing things the same way all the time doesn't generally sit well with me. If Llorente kicks on there's absolutely no reason why we shouldn't explore territory options further by way of proper goal kicks. If one can point the finger at any part of our winning tactics, it would be that we're not exactly "mixing it up" and that we've been a little vulnerable when our "playmaking" defenders have been pressed in an organised fashion.
