|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 15, 2011 9:29:03 GMT 8
This thread currently deals with the above subject matter. Announcements and developments relating to the subject matter are posted below. Go to the last page (by clicking the largest number to the left of "NEXT >>" above) for the latest announcement/development. As the subject matter has been modified from time to time, as described in various posts below, any given post may not fall squarely within the subject matter. As at 17 February 2014, this first post on this thread was: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 14, 2011 10:27:45 GMT 8
Two games this week where one team dominated by passing the ball well and keeping its shape. .... Reds maintained a passing game and good shape through the whole game. .... .... Reds got their passing game together and pulled ahead .... ..... Ok, it didn't help that the opposing side wasn't balanced, but keeping the team's shape and passing well is still the most effective way to play. There are two types of players that detract from a passing game: * Players who hold the ball too long. These may be skilful players, and may be good to have on your team, but if they hold the ball for too long, sometimes, there team mates stop running off the ball, because they don't know whether the player will pass the ball or not. If players stop moving into space, the passing game breaks down. * Players who are lacking in the technical ability to control the ball quickly and lay it off and/or positional sense. Both skills are necessary for a passing game. Our games remain open to anyone who can control a ball (even if it takes 2 or 3 touches) and can kick a ball fairly straight. I try to balance this out in the line ups, but it's harder when there are newer players whom I haven't met before. The tendency is to stick a weaker player in goal, in defence or up front, depending on what their basic skill is. Hopefully, by playing with better players, weaker players improve. A weaker player is only weaker relative to the others playing in that game. There are games in which I am a weaker player, their are other games in wihch I am one of the better players. Talented players who tend to hold the ball may be able to beat one or two opponents with a run and finish it off with a goal, or lay it off to a team mate to score. However, if the opposing side is well organized, they should be able to neutralize such runs. Even worse is when a player loses possession due to holding the ball too long, and doesn't chase back. There's no point saying that you're tired from running so much. If you're out of steam from running with the ball too much, you need to pace yourself better, including passing the ball earlier, rather than holding it or running with it. If you're out of steam, go in goal, or at least stay in defence. Hopefully, by playing against better opponents in our games, even talented players see the benefits in passing the ball earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 28, 2011 10:58:54 GMT 8
.... ..., it seems that Reds dominated for much of the game, and only collapsed in the last 10 minutes or so. It looks like Reds' collapse had more to do with losing the team shape when pushing forward for the win, and after they fell behind, in trying to come back into the game. .... From the old blog, on 8 February 2009: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 17, 2011 12:08:39 GMT 8
.... After we went to 7-a-side, much of the game was played in Whites half, with Reds having 4, even 5 players consistently in the opposing half. However, Whites defended well around their D, with Rajseran, Jye and Kum Kong intercepting passes and blocking shots, and hitting Reds on the counter, with quick balls out of defence to CH on the left, Fred on the right or Rainer down the middle. Raminder dropped into defence when necessary, and came forward to link up with the attack when Whites countered. When Reds were on the attack, they ended up being crowded out in Whites' half, losing possession on several occasions, leaving themselves vulnerable to the counter-attack. In the end, Reds ran out of ideas. Final score, Whites 7 Reds 3. Psychologically, it might be easy for Reds to blame fatigue from playing with only 6 for the first 20 minutes or so. However, the score was 2-2 with 6, and Reds actually took the lead and dominated territorially with 7. If fatigue was a factor, Reds should have been playing a lot deeper. I think Whites adjusted their shape well, and kept it well. Reds failed to do either. Quick counter-attacks is a very effective way to play our games. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jul 21, 2011 11:14:28 GMT 8
Three draws in a row, all involving coming back from 3 or 4 goals down: * On Sunday, Reds came back from 0-3 and 3-6 down to draw 7-7. * On Tuesday, Whites came back from 1-4 down to draw 5-5. * Last night, Whites came from 0-4 down to 4-6, and then 8-8. Trailing, even by several goals, is an opportunity to re-organize the team, as long as the team doesn't lose it's head or become discouraged. A comeback earlier in the month - on 7 July 2011, Whites came from 3-6 down to level at 6-6. The game finished 7-7. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 5, 2011 10:16:13 GMT 8
Last night, Whites came back from 0-4 down to win 8-7. .... stephen organized the defense around jason n jim very well. tristan led the midfield in a similar style as boris and was supported by the physically strong players like eddie and philip. i did the usual pressing upfront. .... Keeping a good shape helps. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 22, 2011 23:30:07 GMT 8
Worth comparing the game on Saturday with the first game on Sunday, both at Turf City. The line ups for Saturday: Whites: Ade, Timmy, Boris, Nawal, Raminder, David M, Julius, Arijit Reds: CH, Rajseran, Jye, Lynz, Sushil, Imran, Rainer, Tim T David M pulled out late, and a replacement was found after about halfway through (with the score still 0-0?). The replacement was a good player. However, Reds won 6-0. The line ups for the first game on Sunday: Whites : Rajseran, Albert, Hong Wee, Boris, Elvin, Jye, Fred, Arijit Reds : Raminder, Nawal, David M, Lynz, Ganesh, Julius, Reza, Andrew Y Reds won 4-2. Reds on Sunday were very similar to Whites on Saturday except: * Ganesh, a more versatile player who is also good in defence, in for Ade, a strong defender. * Reza, a versatile player, more comfortable in attack, in for Arijit * Andrew Y in for Timmy * Boris and Lynz swapped. * David M played.  I would say the Saturday team was slightly stronger than the Sunday team. I would say Whites on Sunday were at least as strong Reds on Saturday, with the addition of Albert, Elvin, Fred, Hoong Wee and Arijit in place of Tim T, Imran, Rainer, CH and Sushil (plus the Boris/Lynz swap referred to above). Faced with a more difficult game, Whites won the second time round. It's a lot to do with the team shape and organization. There is a large mental element in deciding on the shape and organizing the team. The largest mental element of course is the desire to win. We tend to focus too much on line ups, and underplay these other factors. From two Sundays ago: .... After going down 3 goals, Whites instinctively felt that we were being outrun and dispossessed in the midfield, and so Tan Wee moved in the center of the fray which managed to diffuse their main competitive advantage. H/w for me, what truly inspired the team was LL who when he came out from goal more than ably filled a left WingBack position playing both in defence and offence and always running and hassling anyone with the ball so much so that it disrupted Red's game significantly. .... Whites won 7-3 in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Aug 23, 2011 10:34:09 GMT 8
and on 14th aug damian wrote:
"No biggie lah...with all the vicissitudes of life we are lucky if we can get a balanced game 80% of the time Can't expect perfect balance all of the time, though at times when you are in the obviously weaker side, its good to see how the team/individuals react...whether they are give-uppers or fighters. Even more encouraging is when the weaker team reacts positively and in such cases, its not "if you won or not" but "how you lost" that really matters. "
and i totally agree with you - we tend to focus too much on line ups. it's more important how one plays the hand he is being dealt and not blame it on the cards. instead of switching players the team should play its cards differently and above example from 8th aug underscores that in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Raminder on Aug 23, 2011 22:37:36 GMT 8
I'll politely disagree with Rajiv here. I played on the team that lost 6-0 as well as the one that won 4-2. The team that I played on Sunday was stronger in my opinion. Whilst 6-0 was a bit too flattering, it'd be too much of a reach to suggest that Saturday team was comparable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 24, 2011 10:54:26 GMT 8
Fair enough Raminder, I see where you're coming from. I would still say that the Saturday side had more outright defenders and more "technically versatile players", which is more a response to Rainer's original write-up I suppose. I would also still say that the opponents on Sunday were at least as strong as on the opponents on Saturday, which begs the question, why the very different results. |
|
PRG Player
|
Post by Fred on Aug 24, 2011 12:07:33 GMT 8
I didn't play saturday, but the sunday game could have gone either way.
In football if you just look at the game results it often doesn't tell the whole story.
We missed a lot of chances that could have tipped the balance in our favour.
I didn't think that one team was stronger than the other.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Aug 24, 2011 12:26:23 GMT 8
good discussion. since i feel like a full-time sports analyst these days, i just keep adding my 2 cents. from my experience a point that rajiv mentioned above - "keeping a good shape helps." - can make a significant difference.
last thursday i played in khalsa and our team was very disorganized with many players not committing to a specific position. we had no chance despite seemingly good individual players. maybe something similar happened to the 6:0 game from last saturday: reds were extremely well organized whereas whites were not.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 24, 2011 15:18:28 GMT 8
... i feel like a full-time sports analyst these days .... That's one of the aims of the message board ( as with the blog before that). Why discuss Premier League or other matches you watch on TV (over which you have no influence), when we can analyse our own games, and influence future games? |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 26, 2011 12:08:11 GMT 8
.... .... If you're out of steam, go in goal, or at least stay in defence. .... On a similar note: .... General observation: Everyone is likely to go thro period of the game whereby we simply run out of gas. But instead of just staying upfront and "try" to score goals and not chasing back, it would be more efficient staying at the back and try to defend and attack on the break and at the same time "refilling" our tanks. It should always be "mind over body" and not vice versa : ) .... If the team decide to stick the player up front, that's fine, but if a player just loiters around the opposing D because he is tired, and refuses to drop back even when asked to, that's just lazy and/or selfish. My pet peeve: .... Even worse is when a player loses possession due to holding the ball too long, and doesn't chase back. There's no point saying that you're tired from running so much. If you're out of steam from running with the ball too much, you need to pace yourself better, including passing the ball earlier, rather than holding it or running with it. .... .... Not only does the player lose possession, he compounds it by leaving it to his team mates to do the chasing for him. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 5, 2011 15:22:56 GMT 8
.... .... i m a big advocate of passing. however, if a player asks for the ball he should be standing in front of the opponent and not behind him, going towards the ball and not running away from it, and generally be in front of the player with the ball. .... Passing is as much about keeping possession as making progress towards the opposing goal, so I wouldn't advocate restrictions on passing. At any time, a player in possession should have more than one option in making a pass, even if it is to turn around and pass back to his keeper. If the other team is playing as a team and closing down on players in space, the options may be more limited, or certain options may be more difficult. It's really about the vision of the player in possession to find the right pass. It's about ability to to execute it. Sometimes, it is about threading it between two opponents to find a team-mate in space behind them. Occasionally, it a longer, higher ball. Vision is grossly under-estimated in our games. We should all try the Self-Rater. |
|
|
|
Post by Rainer on Sept 5, 2011 16:17:20 GMT 8
i agree that there should not be any restrictions (for the player with the ball, and only for him) for passing. it is, however, counter-productive to ask for a pass when one is out of position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 5, 2011 16:29:47 GMT 8
... counter-productive to ask for a pass when one is out of position. Lack of vision on the part of the player calling for the ball then. To put it mildly. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 21, 2011 16:59:52 GMT 8
I felt the two teams were quite evenly matched in the first 15-20 minutes of the game. Over time, fatigue, ability to adapt to opponent's gameplay and team cohesion can play a part in how well/badly the team plays and I personally feel that challenge brings about the beauty of the game. I speak from having been in the position of part of a team that seemed to be on equal grounds at the start but then lacked any form of team play as the game went on. Nothing seemed to be going right no matter how hard I tried. .... Our games are increasingly about intelligence, tactics and spirit, rather than mere ability, which can only be a good thing in the longer term. .... From my observations, teams which can (a) keep/maintain positional discipline & (b) teamwork, can usually trump a team with seemingly "better" players. (a) Positional Discipline: + It's important that players stick their positions to give stability to the teams. + Running all over the shop puts the entire team at risk, no matter how skillful or fit you are + I like to using a 1-3-3 formation (keeper-defence-attack) which is fairly balanced + We tried a 1-2-3-1 formation yesterday (keeper-defence-mid-attack) - but this needs a lot of movement and cross-covering - probably for a more advanced/experienced team + Staying in your position allows your team mate to know where you are, and allows you to know where they are - so passing and movement becomes instictive rather than laboured - a split second to look up to find a team mate is the difference between a goal or not  + Some players excel in certain positions because of their inherent styles of play and abilities. Some right footers prefer to stay on the right. Some prefer the left. Some are faster players. Some are taller. It gives colour to the game Important things is work to your strengths, but work for the team at all times. I prefer to hug the left, but if necessary I will play in the middle, for the team. (b) Teamwork + Cover cover cover - in a small pitch like ours, it's very easy to cover another team mate (as compared to a large 11-a-side pitch). You don't need to do a lot, to contribute a lot. Standing on your toes within 3m of a team mate who is challenging/tackling an opponent is all it takes. + As per above - don't run all over the shop! And if you do, make sure someone is covering. Counterattacks usually last 2 secs - if you leave your position, and leave a gaping hole behind - your opponents only need 2 secs to score against you. + Don't get sucked in! You may think that closing down the opponents defender/goalie!! on your own (because you're fit or energetic) helps - but on some (mostly often) occasions, it means your backline is under-strengthed (man for man) --- Bottom line: defend as a team. Pick your moments to charge forward, and the moments to sit back and wait for them to come at you. Hope this helps You do need players in each team who can organize the team. I'll change the subject of this thread to "Team formation & organization" so that there can be more discussion of these matters. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 24, 2011 14:39:59 GMT 8
.... The lead was 4-1 at the halfway stage for the game as Reds defence was constantly exposed by the quick attacking play from Whites and Reds had more attack-minded players in than defensive ones in the team. After a slight re-group, where Reds paid more attention to their defence, Reds managed to pulled back to level terms at 4-4 & 5-5. The game eventually finished with Reds scoring the winning goal to give them a 7-6 come-from-behind victory. .... We've seen several times how re-organizing the formation and tactics can swing a game. As we don't have a half-time break, the real challenge is to re-organize while the game continues, without any one person in charge. And it's been said often enough that defence is crucial to winning our games. In fact, like all football, quick and incisive counter-attacks is more effective than having a lot of possession. A couple of examples: .... Second leg: .... Reds now were having more of the possession .... .... Whites having the extra man in defence made all the difference in the second leg. They were able to nullify most of Reds attacks, and when they pushed forward, they were able to get the extra man forward quickly, creating several good chances, taking a few, but missing several others. .... .... From then on Reds dominated the possession and went ahead 3-2. Reds should have pulled further ahead but some desperate defending by Whites kept them at bay. Whites remained dangerous on the counter, and levelled at 3-3, before pulling ahead 4-3. At that stage, Reds stilled looked the stronger, but three more goals from Whites killed off Reds: .... After we went to 7-a-side, much of the game was played in Whites half, with Reds having 4, even 5 players consistently in the opposing half. However, Whites defended well around their D, .... With so much of the game being played in Whites' half, Reds ended up being crowded out when on the attack, losing possession on several occasions, and leaving themselves vulnerable to the counter-attack. .... I think Whites adjusted their shape well, and kept it well. Reds failed to do either. In the end, what should have been a very good game ended on a somewhat flat note, as Whites won comfortably. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 3, 2011 9:00:57 GMT 8
More reports where organization, or re-organizing the team, have come up: .... For the 2nd half, The Reds then reorganised with Arijit taking goal and we started playing with more discipline and structure. This resulted in the reds pulling back 3 goals to level the game at 3-3. The game was even after that. .... .... Surprised that it ended 12-3. I guess it makes a lot of difference to have one or two players in a team that work to galvanize the team. Or who can re-organize the team when things are not going its way. .... |
|
Matters arise from time to time which has me looking back at old articles on the blog. 
