How important is it to understand tactics?

Started following the Australian League this year because of Ale del Piero. From an outsider's perspective, the league here seems to be very physical and the enthusiasm that surrounds the game is unbelievable. However, the general tactical standard seems to be very poor, it is the first thing that I have noticed and the very issue you guys need to address if you want to take the game to the next level. One way to improve this would be hire good managers, then make sure the press understand the importance of tactics and acts accordingly to educate the readers. Are tactics the most important thing? This is open to debate, surely they are not something you can afford to neglect in modern football. If you ever played soccer under a tactically informed manager I am sure you understand what I mean. Good luck guys, all the best.

Matsu's post is admirable. Articulate and well written and a joy to read. .. To say Mike's articles, or those like his which discuss the game, are hindering a sport verges past the ridiculous - are you suggesting kids will stop playing in the park, the roos wont qualify, the expansion problems and Bridge being the first player to score for WSW are because Mike prefers others like Tony Tannous to write about inverted christmas trees and fullbacks overlapping and false 10s and the rest o fit all? Really? .. How is it holding the sport back? (and what a rude and stupid statement on the other hand.) .. In my opinion, one of the biggest hinderances to the sport are "fans" who do not embrace different views, aspects and levels of interest and support in the game. You dont need to have Johnny Warren tatooted across your beliefs to have an opinion on the game, you dont have to just watch football 24/7 andnot care for anything else to be a fan, not blindly believing in Barcelona or shitting on Stoke or caring or uncaring for the Aleague, EPL or Bundesliga doesn't mean you are wrong and preferring to discuss the fabric of a game over the tactics is no less valid. Wilson's Guardian also has an amusing Rumour Mill section - for a reason. .. The game is broad enough, multifaceted to reflect a lot of views, tastes and opinions. If you don't embrace one aspect, so be it, but don't ridicule or belittle others if that's their preference or they write about something you disagree with. Its an arrogant and boorish trait all too familiar at times.

Men's Health magazine? That's the one that includes semi-naked men on the front cover. I've always assumed it was a front for a legit gay man's magazine (not that there is anything wrong with that). TC

Matsu, I admire your spirited defence. But Mike Tuckerman, your critic is right. You are still a hack. You may have an understanding of tactical issues but most of your articles are sensationalist tripe. You clearly love the game, but mediocre writers and pundits in this country are holding the sport back. Perhaps you'd better consider if you are part of the problem or the solution?

been enjoying this thread. lots to chew over. 2 parts of wilson's book i really enjoyed the bit about celtic vs inter in the european cup. its a story about tactics (formation, instructions), but also a story of a group of players who broke living under high pressure. guys couldn't sleep the night before - guys messed up, not believing they could win ... Inter wasn't mentally ready to go out and play their best in that game. so the way i see it a coach has 2 jobs - 1 send a team out with tactics that will make the most of their abilities, and 2 (and this is the messy bit) send a team out focused and ready to play to the best of their abilities. Guys like Harry Redknap is known for his skills at 2 ... dunno, what do we call that. Player whispering? And the other interesting thing for me in wilson's book is how the same formation can be interpreted differently. they were talking about Brazil in the 90s i think, and european writers looked at them and saw a 4 - 2 - 3 - 1, while brazillian writers looked at the same team and saw a 4 - 4- 2, with the middle 4 in a rhomboid (flattened diamond - left midfield more attacking, right midfield more defensive). Formation is an attempt to make sense of what 11 players are doing on a pitch, and different people will come to different conclusions about what a team is doing. if you enjoy tactics dig in, if not, there is plenty of other stuff to enjoy in footy. something for everybody.

The problem here is not people taking an interest in tactics, its the snobby mentality of a few who seem to think that if you cant dissect a game into minute parts then you're not a proper fan. I find tactics interesting to a point, but I suspect like most fans, I go to football for the entertainment and excitment. Its human drama. To reduce it to a set of salt and pepper shakers, endlessly discussing number 8's and number 6's (which seems to be the new fad for the elitists), is to exclude most people.

Sorry for any misconceptions. My post was simply intended to respond to your comment that "some people are confusing tactics with formations". If I had expressed my response in its simplest terms, I should have just said : "I dont think that is true. I think people are simply mentioning formations because that is the one aspect of tactics that can be easily and unambiguously stated" Which expresses my entire point without the need to display or expound upon my own personal grasp of tactics.

Phil, I assume you are including my comments in your response, and if you did you did not really read them. I personally was not suggesting that formations and tactics have no place in the game, it's like turning your headlights on when you go driving at night, it's common sense that you need to have structure and plans for when certain situations arise like set pieces and times of intense pressure. There are a myriad of options available to a coach that can influence the outcome of a game, I simply believe that formations and tactics are not as influential in the result as others.

Matsu-no offence taken but I thought my offering was quite simple in spelling out that in our game there are 2 factors (not only two) to be considered,tactics and formations.Formations these days are usually spelled out as a series of numbers many of which you see used in these columns and widely used by people in describing how the game is being tactically played when in fact they are simply noting a geographical distribution of players.Tactical play is something totally different as you obviously know and as I said is usually the thoughts of how a coach plans to beat his opponent by assessing their strengths and weaknesses and by planning how to nullify the strengths and take advantage of the weaknesses he perceives in that opposition I only used the Barcelona game as a recent example of how Lennon,the Celtic manager,totally changed his tactics,and his team's formation in an attempt to achieve what I have just described. My reference to Inter Milan was simply to use them as the ultimate example of "catenaccio", a reputation they enjoyed under Hererra in the early '60's.That is not to say they developed the tactic which can be traced back to Switzerland in pre-war days (1938) by a coach called Rappan(Verrou) and was develeped under various coaches Abramov in Russia,(the Volga clip), before moving to Italy where various coaches Viani,Pozzo,and Rocco ,who put the Italian name "catenaccio" to the tactic as practised in Italy. Rocco had probably the best success and it is he who is widely credited as introducing the rugged play,fouling etc that you describe.But it was when the amateur psychologist Hererra went to Inter and brought the tactic to it's ultimate that the tactic got world publicity.There's one stand out difference in all these applications by various coaches in various countries,and that is in the standard of the teams using it.Rappan,Viani, Pozzo and Rocco were all coaches of lowly placed teams and used the tactic to achieve results against better sides.Hererra on the other hand applied the tactic using world class players and took the tactic away from local leagues into top class competition even at international level.That is the tactic of catenaccio but as you too point out the formation when using it can be many and varied. I first saw it used in Glasgow in 1959 when Fiorentina used a world class winger Kurt Hamrin, as their "front man",not roving around, but standing just inside his own half on the extreme wing. The defence soon forgot the "lazy bugger" and left him. He set up the 2 goals which won them the game!!!!.In that game Rangers would have had at least 75% of possession but could not break down "the wall". So you see Matsu,not only have I read about tactical football I have also been blessed to watch many of the teams credited with changing the tactics in the game and through my experience I have grown to love investigating how and why the tactical changes have been made. The strange thing is that in your summation "at the end of the day" I agree wholeheartedly with every thing you say so perhaps we are not so different after all. Good writing jb

Well i am a little bemused why TC would attack A-League fan culture on a piece about tactics,im also intrigued how he has the ability to decypher accents from thousands of chanting people.I wonder if we were to play a sound bite of the Celtic YNWA and the Liverpool YNWA,would he be able to split the difference?

I think I know the author of the that comment on 442. He is a statistics freak, a Dutch KNVB trained coach and obsessed with tactical theory. I've noticed lately that he has it in for some of the journos in Australia. Although, to be fair to him he is pretty positive about most Australian players and coaches when he does his stats threads on 442. Stats and game analysis aren't my cup of tea. But this 442 bloke, whose name escapes me, Craig Foster and Kate Cohen of Kate Cohen Soccer, are doing in Australia what happens in England when David Pleatt writes in The Guardian, Henry Winter writes in the Telegraph, as well as Zonal Marking. Should the other Australian football writers raise their game and complete FFA coaching courses, like Foster, the 442 bloke and Cohen? These blokes seem to come from coaching /playing backgrounds. Should the other Aussie journos write about soccer when they are simply trained journos, or have degrees? The 442 bloke, Foster and Cohen seem to come from a football coaching or playing background and they may also have tertiary qualifications too. I'm not that interested in stats and in depth match analysis, but there seem to be others who are.

You clearly underestimate the influence of magic and sacrifices to pagan deities in the result!

BOOM!!! Well spotted, Brick Tamlin otPP! The ARFers claim "SOCKAH fans being interested in tactics is cringeworthy" ... but, finally, their coaches are starting to have a basic tactical plan ... even though the end result is similar watching seagulls chase a piece of food. The ARFers claim "SOCKAH group culture is cringeworthy" ... but, Collingwood mimic MVFC's "walk to the stadium" and make a advertisement out of it The ARFers claim "SOCKAH chanting is cringeworthy" ... but, Collingwood make pathetic attempts to replicate football chants. ARFers now want to have "small-sided games" ... on a rectangular pitch. Heck they'll introduce off-side & no catching next :D

I know its cringeworthy,its even worse hearing my fellow Collingwood fans copy the "CMOOON UUUU IROOOONS" and replace it wth,"COOOLLLLIIIGGGWOOOOOD",in their english accents.

Spot on

For those that dont believe in tactics their argument implies that you can put 11 players on the park, give them no instructions on where to go or what to do, and they will do just fine. Clearly this is a nonsense. I was watching MV closely last week and in simple terms, when they defended they set up in a 5-2-3 formation and as soon as they got the ball they switched to a 3-4-3 formation (and there were other variations at times), but it was clear as day that under different circumstances the players had different positioning and roles to play (you just have to stop ball watching occasionally and watch player movement instead and it's usually not possible to see on TV because the camera is too focused on the ball). Of course the game is fluid, but there is structure to it as well. And while individual runs, shots, dubious penalties, etc may be what you remember as being the reason a team won or lost a game, it is the tactical set-up that probably kept the winning team in the game in the first place.

I do rather like the Iranian tactic. Certainly fooling & intimidating the ref plays a big part!

Nice work, like it ;)

whiskeymac - I think it's both. You need to understand these basic skills that are not purely technique (i.e. passing, dribble, control). The person with the best technique/control I've ever seen of a football juggles it hanging off a pole at the bottom of the steps of the Sacre Coeur in Paris for tips. That is technique, it's the nuances of the game that need to be taught by a coach i.e. when to make runs, how to make them, how to make through balls, how to defend. The tactics then come in how and when you do those things in a game against a certain opponent. If you've got a great fullback who usually makes great runs and crosses but next game is coming up against Ronaldo, he may provide the tactical solution of holding back and not providing those runs so as to limit Ronaldo's effectiveness. That affects the way the whole team plays so they will implement a tactical solution for that game. And then vice versa madrid will need to implement a counter tactical solution to combat it. That of course needs to be gone through with the players by the coach correct. Ultimately though I believe the coach should be about using his players to define a strategy the team will implement, and provide tactical tweaks depending on the opponent/situation. And the strategy revolves around using what the technical/physical strengths of your players to the max. So Barca payers who a small and have good control and spacial awareness use possession and exploit spaces as their tactic, while Madrid use their strength and speed to launch lightening fast attacks as their strategy.

Definetely agree- football shouldn't simply be about tactics and analysis, and there is definetely room for blogs/articles both tactic related and not tactic related.