|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 5, 2011 16:52:01 GMT 8
.... my observation is that our build-up play can be improved considerably if we try to play short passes rather than long ball passes. Some disadvantages of long ball: - more difficult for our team mate to control the ball - our team mate (say striker) is likely to be outnumbered by the defenders - more tiring for the striker and midfielders to win back the ball .... This thread started out as being about passing and keeping the team's shape. .... ... keeping the team's shape and passing well is still the most effective way to play. .... I thought I had addressed the long ball game somewhere in the thread, but when I checked, I couldn't find any reference. The long ball is more of an issue in our 7-a-side games than they used to be in our 5-a-side games. As the quality of our games improve, a passing game requires a lot of movement off the ball, while still keeping the team's shape. Sometimes, switching to a long ball can catch your opponents off guard. On the other hand, using the long ball repreatedly becomes predictable, easily snuffed out by the opposition, and a sign that the team using it has run out of ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 23, 2011 11:24:26 GMT 8
Not infrequently, when the suggested line ups are posted, one team is perceived as weaker. The emphasis needs to be shifted to team formation, organization and tactics. When we have close games which swing one way and than the other: .... ..., the fact that a game swings one way and then the other is probably an indication that it is more about tactics, the desire to win (or not to lose) or luck, than about balanced sides. Luck may be out of our control, but the other factors are not. .... whites ... made a fatal tactical mistake of playing 2 strikers despite a 5:1 lead and - hey - reds' never say die attitude really paid off: 2:5, 3:5, 4:5, and with the finishing whistle came the equalizer. 5:5 end result. i am stunned by the tactical mistake of whites, but once again - very impressive how reds threw the kitchen sink at whites in the last 20 min. ..... I'll rename the thread "Team organization, formations & tactics" to include "tactics" in the subject.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 29, 2011 0:01:42 GMT 8
Defence is increasingly key. .... 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. .... We're regularly lining up with 3 defenders - a centre back, a left back and a right back. For 8-a-side, it's either 3-3-1, 3-2-2 or even 3-1-3. For 7-a-side, it tends to be 3-2-1 or 3-1-2. Even when we played 6-a-side on the big pitch at Turf City last Sunday, Reds lined up 3-2-0, with the two midfielders taking turns to push forward. With midfielders able to move forward quickly and finish, you don't even need an out-and-out striker, so you could end up with 3-4-0 for an 8-a-side, or 3-3-0 for a 7-a-side. Formation is increasingly important, and teams that play with just two defenders are increasingly exposed at the back, and end up losing the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 29, 2011 10:49:12 GMT 8
On "The social aspect" thread: .... It makes for better communication within a team, and a better game experience, if you know the names of your team mates, especially those you've played with before. .... , but not this thread. As the discussion on team organization has grown and evolved on this thread, it is worth highlighting that communication is crucial. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 8, 2011 9:29:11 GMT 8
I've moved my post from the thread on last Saturday's game to here. A lot Saturday regulars have not been playing over the past few weeks for one reason or another - the flu, injuries, the long weekend, travel etc. Places get filled by others, either newer players or regulars from other games. Other than last week, when I had all the non-regulars on my team, I've split up the non-regulars between the two teams. However, there's no accounting for how the non-regulars will adapt to the Saturday game. It's not just about being a more competitive game - it may also be about a different venue, and different players, from what they are used to. If they adapt quickly, the team they are on is less affected. If they take a few games to adapt, the teams they are on may suffer. You can't predict these things, and those playing the game have to be a bit more proactive to consider swaps, and provide feedback on the game for future reference. However, we've had weaker teams win with good organization. Having two or three players stranded upfront and not chasing back is a big problem for any team. If players are too tired to track back, they should have a spell in goal, or defence. That's the way our games work. Newer players may not be familiar with this, so it may need to be impressed on them. The only reason I am still doing the line ups is that there are non-regulars playing, which is what makes it difficult in the first place. If everyone playing is a regular, I'm quite happy for two regulars to pick their respective teams. In the meantime, any imbalance in line ups can be addressed by swapping players. The more difficult thing is actually getting the team shape right. By focusing on line ups, we lose sight of what can really make the difference. I think you always need 3 at the back - left back, centre back and right back. If you are the weaker team, you should consider having three, or even four in midfield. The presumption that you need one player upfront all the time is a fallacy. If you play 4 in midfield in a diamond shape, all you need is the player at the top of the diamond able to move forward quickly into a striker's position. The same player also needs to be able to drop back into the centre to pick up the ball when pushed out from defence. The player at the bottom of the diamond would have more defensive duties. He needs to be behind the ball when the opposing side is attacking. If the opposing side is able to get past the defensive midfielder, they will often score. Quick counter-attacking has repeatedly proven an effective way of playing, as long as you don't concede too many. There also needs to be good understanding between the left back and left midfielder/winger on the one hand and the right back and right midfielder/winger on the other. If the momentum of a counter-attack takes a back past the midfielder/winger, the midfielder/winger needs to cover for the back should possession be lost and the opposing side attack, until the back can get back into position. And the back needs to do that quickly. Also, if the back gets pulled into the centre to block an attack by the opposing team, and the ball gets played to the opposing team's wide player, the defending side's wide player needs to cover for the back and close him down. If the weaker team tries to play with 2 upfront, they will inevitably lose. Most of us have a natural instinct to move forward. I think it's a school recess football thing, when everyone just chases the ball, and the player with the ball just runs towards the opposing goal.  Football actually used to be played like that in its early years in the mid-19th century. I believe passing was only "invented" in the 1870s. Even then, teams lined up 2-0-8 - two defenders and 8 attackers, before evolving into 2-3-5 by the early 20th century, 3-3-4 or 3-4-3 (usually the W-M formation as 3-2-2-3) by the late 1920s or 1930s, 4-2-4 by the 1950s and 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 by the 1960s/1970s. What you do see is that as the standard of football progresses, more players get pulled back from attack into defence, so you have modern day 4-5-1 or even 5-4-1. It takes a lot of self-discipline to remain in defence. Many of us tend to drift upfield over the course of the game, especially towards the end, when fatigue sets in and the discipline breaks down. If a player moves upfield from a defensive position, he must be able to get back quickly if the other team win possession and start an attack. If a player can't get back, don't go forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Elvin on Nov 8, 2011 12:14:19 GMT 8
Jiv, i think we all share the same views on merits of organization of the team. But the guys ( me included) is trying to tell you the teams were unbalanced in terms of player levels. If you have one team much weaker in personel, you wont be able to do much no matter how you organize.
Perhaps, someone should have put it on the blog before the game that they felt a change in lineup was in order.
|
|
PRG Player
|
Post by Raj Singh on Nov 8, 2011 12:19:50 GMT 8
Jiv, i think we all share the same views on merits of organization of the team. But the guys ( me included) is trying to tell you the teams were unbalanced in terms of player levels. If you have one team much weaker in personel, you wont be able to do much no matter how you organize. Perhaps, someone should have put it on the blog before the game that they felt a change in lineup was in order. Except me |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 8, 2011 12:24:29 GMT 8
.... Perhaps, someone should have put it on the blog before the game that they felt a change in lineup was in order. Thing is, I don't think anyone (myself included) would have seen it that way before the game. I've made it abundantly clear what I post is only a suggestion, to save time at the game itself. If I'm not at the game, there's nothing I can do beyond suggesting line ups. The remaining option is to swap players at the game itself. Like I said, that's the easier part, at least for those playing in that game. The harder part, at least for those playing, and the part that is undervalued, remains how to organize the team. If there are no player swaps, perhaps players should just accept that sometimes, being part of a weaker team is part of the challenge of our games. |
|
PRG Player
|
Post by Raj Singh on Nov 8, 2011 12:27:33 GMT 8
Sometime when you have new players who are unknown is not easy to come up with the line up . Rajiv I suggest every line up you come up with also to indicate the captains for both team so that both can decide while playing to swap players when not balance and thus no argument after match . Only captains can decide . Good suggestion ? Do I get $5 for this |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 8, 2011 12:47:39 GMT 8
... Rajiv I suggest every line up you come up with also to indicate the captains for both team so that both can decide while playing to swap players when not balance and thus no argument after match . Only captains can decide . Good suggestion ? ... . At that time, I said: I'm not keen on appointing captains. The players on each team should choose a captain from amongst themselves before the game starts. Players who are late don't get a say. Or: |
|
PRG Player
|
Post by Raj Singh on Nov 8, 2011 13:32:29 GMT 8
.... The loudest player? .... OK That has to be JYE then . He giggles Loudly all the time for all reasons or no reasons |
|
|
|
Post by Reza on Nov 11, 2011 12:10:40 GMT 8
I agree it would be a good idea to reintroduce captains (whoever appooints them) not only to decide whether to swap players but also to organise teams. There's the odd occasion where a player comes out of goal in exchange for a defender and goes right up front to play striker. before you know it, you have conceded 2 or 3 goals figuring out what the revised positions should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 20, 2011 22:18:12 GMT 8
.... .... whites were moving a lot more to want the ball in scoring positions, and to attack. Reds i feel dabbled on the ball a little longer which does allow whites to always reorganize to our defensive duties and that i feel made the major difference. whites don't tend to dribble/hold the ball much except me and always run even if they wont receive the ball whereas reds players hold the ball a little longer which allows 2 whites players to quickly close the reds player down, and thats where the reds attacks breaks down. in the end the reds were resorting to long balls which would be lost as the pitch was wet which made the ball skid off the surface and harder to control. summary..quicker passing, running around like a monkey, not trying too much fancy footwork, should probably win any team the game..of course some defensive mistakes by any opponents help a lot. We have a wide variety of players, playing in different styles. Many of our younger players tend to run more with the ball or hold the ball longer, while many of our older players tend to prefer a passing game. Younger players are keen and want the ball more, and have more energy to burn in running with the ball. Many of our older players can't run as much, and also know through experience that a good passing game is more effective in the longer run. Not that a good passing game doesn't involve a lot of running, as players need to be moving off the ball into space. And to be really effective, you need to be closing down the opposition when they have possession. I think it's just a more efficient way to use your energy, and when you're older, you don't have too much to spare.  The following posts on the old blog touch upon playing styles and a passing game. * Playing Styles And Foul Play* Keeping Shape - Passing v DribblingA passing game also reduces the risks of injury. As Andy M, one of our older players back in 2009, is quoted as saying in the latter post: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 23, 2011 8:40:55 GMT 8
2 words to describe tonight's game .. FAST & FURIOUS!! Both teams were going 120km for most of the 60 mins resulting in non-stop actions at both ends. The game ended 8 apiece and could have been more if not for some great saves by respective GKs and shots against the goalposts. Both teams kept their shape well and spreading play from one side to another side of the pitch with overlapping team mates providing support for each other. One of the most enjoyable game definitely for the past few months. .... More evidence, if it were needed, that team organization is crucial. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Dec 6, 2011 9:58:21 GMT 8
On Sunday's game: Some other recent views about defence: .... ... finally 9 - 4 [to Reds]. .... Both teams had about the same amount of possession and chances. A difference was the organisation and defence. Sushil did the organisation and Reds played with 3 defenders all the time. Whenever Reds changed goalie, Sushil put the players back to their usual positions. Reds managed to resist Whites' attacks and block a few shots. The flip side is that Reds had lesser players in attack but somehow, often with just 3 attackers, sometimes with 2, managed to unpick the Whites' defence. .... .... Whoever said that defense is the most crucial part of a team, was definitely speaking from experience .... Reds were rock solid on defense .... ... and the final score was 6 -4, win for the reds. .... .... Whites captain Rainer decided to play with four defenders in a 4-1-2 or 4-2-1 formation. For the whole match Whites had to work hard. It was more graft than skill. .... Whites actually had the chance to win the match but saw three shots hit the post during a purple patch. Reds equalised through Kelvin Xu. 2 - 2 and the match was delicately poised. Lynz was fouled inside the D and Rainer blasted the penalty at Sivaraj. Reds also hit the post, can't recall if it was once or twice. Time was up and we went into injury time. From a corner, Tim T made a run and was not picked up. His shot squeezed into the near post. That was the last shot of the game. Final score 3 - 2. The prediction was for Reds to win by a comfortable margin. The poll is informative, it shows that collective wisdom is not so wise, or that tactics can (or almost did) overcome majority opinion. 4 in defence?  My previous view: .... We're regularly lining up with 3 defenders - a centre back, a left back and a right back. For 8-a-side, it's either 3-3-1, 3-2-2 or even 3-1-3. For 7-a-side, it tends to be 3-2-1 or 3-1-2. .... Formation is increasingly important, and teams that play with just two defenders are increasingly exposed at the back, and end up losing the game. If the result matters, you need to get players behind the ball, that's for certain. Back to the Sunday game: .... .... Credit to Lynz for ensuring that the defenders maintain their shape and thanks for the constant reminders Lynz not to go too far up .... ... IMHO there was a gap between the attacking and defending players in Red team which proved the difference between the 2 teams. .... .... You do need someone on the team to remind players to drop back. I suppose that's the advantage of having team captains, preferably a defender or a defensive midfielder. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 4, 2012 22:18:50 GMT 8
Although we had some one-sided score-lines in the last week of January 2012, we had some good come backs earlier in January 2012. Nothing quite like the come back on Wednesday, 1 February 2012, where Whites came from 0-5 down to win 6-5. .... Reds were quick off the blocks ... taking a commanding 5-0 lead, .... ... there was a change in formation [for Whites] .... whites started to gather momentum, ... to narrow the margin and then level the score. Whites then took the lead ... and the match ended 5-6 .... .... Reza was on Reds, so his praise for Whites should not be taken lightly. Where a team does come back, it usually involves a re-organization. However, if one team is losing badly, and has run out of ideas halfway through the game or later, then re-doing the line ups is a solution. This would be very rare in games were a majority of the players are regulars, provided the regulars are fairly split between the two teams. Experience, adaptability, leadership and the right temperament are important qualities when it comes to being able to re-organize the team in the middle of a game. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 3, 2012 10:58:58 GMT 8
Saturday before last (24 March 2012), final score 6-3: .... Not so much a counter-attack strategy, just the fact that passes connected well for the reds, allowing them to move swiftly to the whites' half when they had the ball, whereas whites struggled to make two consecutive passes. .... .... Actually, that's quite typical when the opposing side is well-organized and plays on the counter. All just my opinion though. ..., I wasn't there. .... I don't know if the same applies to last Tuesday (27 March 2012): Generally a very bad day at the office for the whites. Nothing seemed to work - stray passes/throws, misplaced/mis-timed passes, shots going wide 3 feet in front of goal... .... Or last Saturday (31 March 2012): It was the experience of Whites vs the more youthful Reds. Whites settled much quicker with regulars in the team and went into an early 2-0 lead. Reds were trying to organised the team and had Antonio and Brendan upfront running at the defence with CH and Xiong covering the flanks. Reds pulled 1 back to make it 2-1. Reds continued to struggled in organisation but somehow couldn't get our game flowing. Whites passed the ball around very well and went on to end the game at 5-2. Tough one for the Reds but well-played Whites. .... For Thursday (29 March 2012),Whites won around 12-6. I was there for the first half hour: .... From what I saw, Reds looked the better team player for player. Fitness is a big factor though, especially when you get into the second hour. And of course, experience of that particular venue and familiarity with the other players. And team organization. .... For Sunday (1 April 2012): ... Reds were on the defensive throughout the game and counter-attacked ... (to give Reds a 5 - 2 lead). .... After taking the lead, Reds played to its strengths. With more defenders, and in such stifling heat, it was easier to sit back and defend. .... [Finally, Whites] scored to make it 5 - 3. .... Two common themes: * Organization is more important than personnel. * Counter-attack is a very effective way to play. Team selectors will have to think about these issues before and during the game: |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 1, 2012 10:04:06 GMT 8
The match last Saturday is perhaps one of the best illustrations we have whereby its not the team lineup/composition that mattered but rather the actual performance of the players during the game that made all the difference. The Final score was 6-3 but in terms of performance it felt alot more one sided. To put it simply, there was just an apparent lack of desire and cohesion in the Reds. Apart from a few players in the Reds side that ran their hearts and balls out tirelessly (albeit an exercise in futility), there were quite a number of players who seemed completely disoriented and disinterested to play at all. .... and .... Team selectors do have to bear in mind the idiosyncrasies of individual players when agreeing on line ups. .... |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 30, 2012 12:45:40 GMT 8
Team organization has come up a few times recently on the report threads, for example: * Wednesday, 23 May 2012, at Khalsa. * Saturday, 26 May 2012, at Turf City. * Last night (Tuesday, 29 May 2012), at East Coast. More players are seeing that organization is more important than personnel. That is not to say personnel is not important, just that organization more so. When I was doing the line ups, several players kept coming back to line ups, as reflected in this thread and in the "Line Ups" thread, despite my repeatedly pointing out that organization, formation and tactics were more important. Now with team selectors doing line ups, more players are beginning to see this. It helps to have designated team captains. By default, the team selectors are also team captains. It is of course open for team selectors to appoint someone else on their team as team captain. Where are there insufficient votes for team selectors, but there are players with votes, 2 of them will be team captains. Since the two games on Sunday 6 May 2012, even if there are insufficient votes for team selectors (minimum of 2 players with at least 2 votes each), I have been appointing two players with votes as team captains. The two team captains can agree on changes to the line ups, and have the other responsibilities of team selectors. .... The responsibilities of team selectors other than those relating to line ups are actually those of team captains: |
|
|
|
Post by Clarence Lee on May 30, 2012 16:03:32 GMT 8
Rajiv, just a thought :
what you said works on the assumption that everyone plays to win and are willing to work together as a team to make that happen
But in reality, i have played many games where some players just want to play up and do not even want to help out in defence. to them, what matters is that they enjoy themselves (often at the expense of others and the team) playing in their favourite positions rather than in the position that best suits the team's needs
|
|
Football actually used to be played like that in its early years in the mid-19th century. I believe passing was only "invented" in the 1870s. Even then, teams lined up 2-0-8 - two defenders and 8 attackers, before evolving into 2-3-5 by the early 20th century, 3-3-4 or 3-4-3 (usually the W-M formation as 3-2-2-3) by the late 1920s or 1930s, 4-2-4 by the 1950s and 4-3-3 or 4-4-2 by the 1960s/1970s. What you do see is that as the standard of football progresses, more players get pulled back from attack into defence, so you have modern day 4-5-1 or even 5-4-1. 
