|
|
Post by Rajiv on May 30, 2012 16:33:53 GMT 8
Good point Clarence. I guess initially, it's just an "idiosyncrasy" that the team selectors have to bear in mind when agreeing on line ups. However, the team selector/captain has the final say. In the longer term, players have to adapt or they will end up being excluded from games.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jun 8, 2012 9:41:33 GMT 8
Some thoughts on formations and team organization: .... Formations only work if everybody is disciplined in their positions & do what is required in the role. In this case the formation I went for was 1-2-3-1, where the 2 wide midfielders would be fitter guys able to support the lone striker and drop back when not in possession, basically work the lines! We had central defenders going up attacking, midfielders attacking and not coming back, it was a bloody shambles! These things happen from time to time, but holding your role and being disciplined in your movement is not rocket science, me included at times! When 1 or 2 lose shape then the rest tend to be dragged out of positions also trying to fill gaps that they didn't create in the first place, in the end they look like the players at fault! .... .... Agree with Babs totally. Formations are only as good as players who want to play to them. .... To a large extent, the formation has to fit the players, rather than the players fit the formation. For our regular games, team selectors do have some choice over players, but it is limited by the available pool who have put their names down for the game. Team selectors do need to bear in mind the "idiosyncrasies" of individual players. No point trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. Team selectors also need to bear in mind the players on the other team. Sometimes, no matter how good the team organization, formation and tactics, the other team may have players that will overwhelm your team. That's why knowing the players both on your team and on the other team is important. .... If its a couple of players you don't know, you can ask me. If I know the player, I will give you my opinion. If I don't know the player, I'll refer you to his introducer, or even the player himself. If there are several players you don't know, it might be better to opt out as team selector. .... Also, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, a defensive formation works best. For our 7-a-sides, I find 1-3-2-1 works better than 1-2-3-1. The biggest problem with the latter is that having two centre backs rather than 1 centre back with 2 full backs leaves the defence vulnerable through the middle. However, the centre forward needs to cover more ground, dropping into centre midfield whenever necessary. And the full backs need to cover more of the wings. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 3, 2012 22:51:50 GMT 8
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 16, 2012 13:43:56 GMT 8
The long ball game came up again recently. Previously: .... 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 repeatedly becomes predictable, easily snuffed out by the opposition, and a sign that the team using it has run out of ideas. I see the long ball in our games as having an attacking player behind the last defender, waiting for a ball played over the last defender. It can be effective in one of 3 ways: - The attacker controls the ball instantaneously and gets a shot off on goal.
- The attacker knocks the ball down for a team mate running forward to get a shot off on goal.
- The attacker gets his head on the ball and flicks it past or over the goalkeeper into the opposing goal.
If the attacker takes more than one touch, he is likely to be closed down, and possession lost. Also, if one side relies too heavily on the long ball, the other team learn to deal with it, and it becomes ineffective. Our games, more so our 7 or 8-side games than our 5-a-side games, are increasingly about position, passing and possession. The three Ps.  The long ball, or a skilful individual dribbling past 2 or 3 opponents, are more effective when used in smaller doses. Adaptability is an important part of our games, for example, last Saturday: .... ... quite interesting how a couple of tactical changes in a team can bring about a dramatic turnaround in the balance of play. Adapting is more about changes in formation and positions, not so much in the basic premises.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Nov 16, 2012 15:22:45 GMT 8
From the report thread: whites definitly deserved the win. very clinical finishing. i think it is worth sharing an observation - in my last three games i lost three times with a goal difference of at least three goals. lots of threes - hope everyone is still with me. of course i have to take my share of responsibility but i think it has to do with the formation. the game on the 3rd nov we played too offensive with rainer, rockstar, matthias, ch, babs at some point either playing striker or winger. then i played a game in khalsa (7 vs 7 players) and we permanently played with 2 strikers. and finally, last sat game for which this thread is actually about we played - generously speaking - with one real midfielder but had constantly three guys upfront. don't remember all the whites goals in detail (there were too many) but it felt like all of them were from long ball - header - goal or long ball - pass - shot - goal. whereas reds seemed to pass the ball from side to side and probably had even more possession than whites. the only goal we achieved was from a long ball to nick and he did some magic to put it away. don't wanna sound like i am a die-hard fan of the long ball but i am a fan of the quick pass forward. whether that's a long ball or a short pass, i am not biased as long as it's forward. and to sum it up, i think it is probably most effective to play a 3-3-1 (at turf city) instead of a 3-1-3. I agree with Rainer's comments above but don't think it was the main reason behind the score-line/result on Sat. The issues started right from the beginning at team selection, with Ade pulling out we only had one natural out and out CB which was Jye. Me and Brendan fought hard for Jye's services with every team being proposed/counter proposed containing Jye! I can not overstate the importance of getting the defense right & then building a team around that, anyway I conceded defeat on Jye & Brendan got his man. .... I think everyone is agreed that defence is crucial, especially at Turf City, where the games are more tactical. Anyway, it's been said often enough on this thread alone, going back to September and October of last year. Because of the fluid nature of the personnel for each game (depends who put their names down, plus withdrawals and replacements), its more important to adapt the formation to the personnel rather than the personnel to the formation. An excessive focus on personnel over formation and organisation was prevalent in the past, especially when I used to do the line-ups.  Now, with team selectors agreeing on line ups, personnel is less of an issue. The emphasis is now rightly on formation, organisation and tactics. Even then: .... To a large extent, the formation has to fit the players, rather than the players fit the formation. For our regular games, team selectors do have some choice over players, but it is limited by the available pool who have put their names down for the game. Team selectors do need to bear in mind the "idiosyncrasies" of individual players. No point trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. .... .... 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, .... ... .... 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. .... As for passing, I've at various time said the following: .... Passing is as much about keeping possession as making progress towards the opposing goal, .... 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. And the ability to to execute it. .... Vision is grossly under-estimated in our games. .... .... .... ..., like all football, quick and incisive counter-attacks is more effective than having a lot of possession. .... It's about both the player in possession making the pass quickly, and other players moving quickly into space to receive the pass. If the player in possession decides to run with the ball, there still needs to be an end product. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 1, 2013 17:20:40 GMT 8
I just have one little thing to say...... If you're tired, and can't run no more - please don't be shy to get into goal. Do your team that favor. Let others who can still run, run. You can always swap out when you've caught your breath. Even playing at the back for a bit to catch your breath is better than "defending" the opponent's goalkeeper. Ok thanks! At first instance, these a matters under the purview of team selectors/captains. If after several reminders, a player still can't grasp what our games are about, it might be necessary to exclude him, at least for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 19, 2013 10:42:51 GMT 8
Our last two games have seen one team, in both cases, Reds, take an attacking stance by keeping a high back line In both cases, Reds lost badly. For the game on Sunday at The Grandstand: .... Whites opened the scoring . Can't remember the scoring after that except that Reds were trailing and went for all-out attack. No difference losing by one goal or by a lot was the justification. .... I think the final score was 7 - 2 to Whites. Even though Reds were trailing, perhaps it would have been better to be defensive (or play a normal game) to allow Reds to re-organise and get back into the game, instead of pressing a high line. Sometimes Reds can find more room in attack if the Whites are drawn out. .... For the game last night (Monday) at East Coast: .... 3 way tie for team selectors. Rai (30 games over the current 6 month period) and Kelvin Au (27 games) just about get in ahead of Melvin Au (25 games). We looked balanced on paper...I think... But whites were hungrier, more composed and defended very well as a team. I think score was 9-3 whites... But I don't think we were keeping track anymore when it was clear who was controlling the game. On reflection, my bad for trying to play a pressing game when I didn't get the rest of the team to do it together, not realizing that we were not up for it (high tempo pressing).... .... I'm surprised anyone tries a high line, pressing game in our games. We have a lot of older players, many of whom end up playing in defence (often because the younger players don't want to or don't seem able to keep their position as well). Playing a high line means the team is vulnerable to pacey attacking players on the opposing side, especially when the defenders are older, slower players. Playing a high line also means the attackers don't have to cover as much ground as the defenders, which doesn't make sense, when the attackers are often younger players, while the defenders are often older players. The pressing game sometimes works when there are lot of younger, faster players playing, including in defensive positions. By and large though, teams have more success with defensive, counter-attacking formations. This is addressed repeatedly on this thread, most recently on 16 November 2011. Just goes to show players don't read the message board enough. To reiterate: .... While Reds had a good spell attacking, they could not score when Whites had 7 men behind the ball. Reds left a lot of space in defence which Whites exploited. Whites scored most of their goals on counter-attacks; sometimes their attackers outnumbering the Reds' defenders. I think the final score was 7 - 2 to Whites. .... Also: .... I think score was 9-3 whites... But I don't think we were keeping track anymore when it was clear who was controlling the game. .... Many times when [reds' attack] were pressing, reds' defense were sitting deep, allowing whites tones of space in 'no man's land'. Other times, reds had strikers too deep and we couldn't get the ball to them. .... On a separate note, I've given a younger (ok, only a few years younger) team mate a look of incredulity when he has asked me, as left back, and at the age of almost 48, to race up and down the left flank, while he holds central midfield. If I have pushed forward, there's no way I can get back in time if the other side counter (and I always drop back immediately), so a midfielder or central defender has to drop or move into the left back position to cover. If the central midfielder does so, then one of the other players needs to drop back into central defence to cover for him. Our game really needs to be a lot more about reading the game and playing with intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Apr 14, 2013 10:34:58 GMT 8
From the report on the game last Sunday (7 April 2013) at The Grandstand: .... Whites started with an untested formation: 4-2-1 The idea was to pack the middle with 2 centre backs (rotating between the trio of Stanley, Damian and Anthony) and two wide wing backs (mainly Timmy and Tan Wee), while Melvin and myself supported Nordin who was the target man. As reds had more ball players, our idea was to sit deep and try to counter attack with pace which we had loads of. .... .... I would have thought that 3-3-1 was sufficiently defensive. 4 in defence does seem excessive, and leaves the other team to control the midfield. Apart from conceding the midfield, a potential problem with two centre backs is that they can actually get in each other's way. After all, our pitch is much narrower than a full 11-a-side pitch. 3-1-2-1 might have worked better than 4-2-1, with a defensive midfielder providing an additional layer of defence. I have to admit, it was a gamble which I took in that formation. With the firepower and ball players that Reds had, I knew that if we sat back and just tried to absorb, it wouldn't end well....been there, done that and time and again, it proved that the pure defensive (Italianesque) strategy doesn't work...at least not for Giffa matches  So what I wanted to do was to squash the midfield and play a disruptive game while using the flanks. It was not really 4-2-1 but rather 2-4-1 with 2 wingbacks Tan Wee (right) and Timmy (left) who were tasked with playing both defense and offense. So effectively, we only had 2 center backs, Stan and Anthony who both did a brilliant job and Tim and Tan Wee...who were floating between def and attack. And as Tan Wee said I was elated in the first 20 mins that it seemed to work, I had nothing much to do as goalie with 4 in defence at any 1 time and the very nippy, high workrate and one-touch almost psychic link-up play between Kelvin and Melvin upfront was causing Reds many problems. In the postmortem, both Kelvin and Tan Wee's assessment are spot on! I knew when we decided on the wing-back role that fitness would be an issue and it would be unfair to expect Timmy and Tan Wee to be sprinting up and down the flanks for the full 60mins So I had hoped that by then, we would have enough of a lead for them to settle back to playing a 4 man defense. In the first 20 mins, the plan worked as I said above, however as our wing backs began to tire, I had not expected Reds to play Yas as a striker but rather in his usual holding midfield position. With Yas upfront, it took both our fullbacks, Stan and Anthony to contain him and yet he has this amazing ability to hold the ball while holding off both defenders and pass to the onrushing forwards! Our midfield began to collapse gradually too as it would not be fair to expect Kel and Mel to keep up the high level of industry and pace at which they started off at. Ram was masterful in calming the situation with Elvin as usual causing trouble down the left flank this time around. Imran who started out in defensive also started his surging runs which threw us off when no one followed him as he penetrated the White's half. .... .... 2-4-1 makes more sense than 4-2-1, but two points: * You do need to be able to swap players to the wingback position, otherwise, it's too tiring for the same players over 60 minutes. * Your midfield becomes too crowded. 2-3-1-1 or 2-3-2 might make more sense, with either a defensive midfielder together with the 2 primarily defensive wingbacks making 3, with a more attacking midfielder supporting the striker, or three across the midfield (with the wingbacks covering he whole length of each side, and 2 strikers. Having 2 defenders on Yaseen means another player is going to have a free run at goal. It's very difficult to get the ball off Yaseen, especially when he shields the ball with his body, with his back to the opposing goal. It actually makes more sense to stand off a bit, and try win the ball if he tries to turn, or to block a shot or any forward pass. Or a backheel.  Even if a team has 3 or 4 good finishers, they can't all play in attacking positions, for if they did, they'd leave themselves exposed in midfield or defence. At the most they're going to have 2 up front. The others will be in wider or deeper positions, so you need to be able to pick them up there too. And whatever formation you take, midfielders and attackers do need to track the forward runs of the opposing midfielders and defenders. Anyway, discussion of formation is interesting. I think we started with 2-4-1, but after 20 minutes, it became more 4-2-1 .... 2-3-1-1 is an interesting formation.....and I think we could actually have done that with Tan Wee, Mel and Timmy in mid and Kel in attacking mid supporting Nordin. In fact that was actually what did happen at one stage in the game. .... It's fine to experiment, but sometimes, there is a price to be paid in terms of outcome. The other thing that comes out of the above discussion is you sometimes do need to adapt formations, tactics and positions as the game progresses. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Oct 22, 2013 22:38:57 GMT 8
From the game last Monday (14 October 2013) at East Coast: .... .... .... Who says "Defending doesn't win game"!! .... .... Actually, the opposite. On the "Team organization, formation & tactics" thread: .... By and large though, teams have more success with defensive, counter-attacking formations. This is addressed repeatedly on this thread, .... .... .... You consistently find that a well-organised defence wins games. And from the game on Saturday, 14 September 2013, at The Grandstand: .... very interesting tactics from Tim T. he insisted reds play with a 2-4-1 formation and it turned out the key factor for the lopsided scoreline. .... .... And team organisation. For 8-a-side games at The Grandstand in particular, crowding the midfield seems to work towards both defensive strength as well as dominating possession and creating chances. I suppose it depends on having the right players as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Feb 6, 2014 22:29:04 GMT 8
Under the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" section of the GIFFA System thread: The general part and the first part relating to "Team selection" are set out on the "Team selectors/captains & line ups" thread on the Discussion board. It is set out below: Team organization and game playTeam selectors/captains also have the final say on how the team in organized, formation and tactics. This includes the position that each player in the team plays. There is much discussion on formations and the importance of defence on the "Team organization, formations & tactics" thread. Formations will vary depending on whether the game is 4, 5, 6, 7 or 8-a-side. As stated under "Team selection" above, each team will comprise of both stronger and weaker players, and players who are more attacking or more defensive. Team selectors/captains will have to take these into account in deciding team organization, formation and tactics. Players are expected to be adaptable. As the games are also meant to be social, there should also be a large degree of flexibility and accommodation in how any particular player is deployed. A player's preference should be taken into consideration, but more importantly, his capabilities. It is also important to know if a player prefers to be on the left, right or down the middle. Asking a naturally left sided player to play on the right side is like trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole, unless the intention is for the left sided player to regularly cut in from the right. There's also no point having a player who can't tackle in the centre of defence, or a 50 year old cover an entire wing. Although players should be adaptable, and may be able to develop new skills and abilities or re-discover old ones over time, it's not going to happen overnight. If any player does not co-operate with a team selector/captain, please let me know. Conversely, if any player feels that a team selector/captain is making unreasonable demands of him, he can let me know as well. Flexibility and accommodation extends to making changes during the game. If one team is dominating the game and take a big lead in the first half of the game which appears unassailable, or one team is a player short due to uneven numbers, a no show, a late withdrawal, an injury to a player, a player having to leave early, or a temperamental player walking out of the game, team selectors/captains need to consider what changes to line ups and formations are necessary to keep the game competitive. During a game, team selectors/captains also have the final say on the application of the Playing Rules & Principles. Any residual dissatisfaction after the game can be discussed on the report thread. Often, a team that is perceived as weaker wins or avoids defeat by being well organized. Better team selectors/captains do well in the longer run. Previous experience as team selector/captain helps. Ultimately, it is about making the most of the player resources available to you, by deploying and organizing the players in your team effectively. Accordingly, each of our games has become essentially a contest between team selectors/captains. There is a half-yearly prize for the most successful team selector, as determined by GIFFA parameters. Dealing with one-sided games and uneven numbers is also addressed under the "Playing Rules & Principles". The Playing Rules & Principles are addressed on the "GIFFA system & playing rules" thread. The half-yearly prize is addressed on the "Keeping score & the competitive edge" thread. The "Skill sets & playing positions" thread is also relevant. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Mar 29, 2014 22:50:45 GMT 8
From the report thread for the game last Thursday (27 March 2014) at Balestier Road: .... .... ... as I have pointed out before, the initial effect of a late-comer joining the game is usually disruptive to his team, .... .... and: When a team is a player short before a latecomer arrives, and for a while after he arrives, it is important for team selectors/captains to keep the defence tight. Previously, on the "Latecoming, late withdrawals & no shows" thread: Players occasionally SMS me 5 to 10 minutes before the game is due to start to inform me they are running late or stuck in traffic and will be late. Like I said before, there's not much I can do about it. Now, with team selectors/captains, better you SMS your team selector/captain. You can ask me if you need the contact number for your team selector/captain. They can try to make the necessary adjustments to the team organization, formation or tactics until the latecomer turns up. .... Now, with the WhatsApp group chat created before the game (to which all the players for that game with WhatsApp are added) and running up until after the game starts, those on the group chat can message there that they are running late (as the player did on Thursday), and team selectors/captains should take note. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Aug 19, 2014 20:39:34 GMT 8
From the report thread for the game last night, the second game at MacPherson: .... Anyway, just my 2 cents worth. I think no matter how wide or narrow the pitch is, we all must keep to possession. The ball doesn't necessarily have to go towards the other end. We can always play near to each other. Pass and move. The flow should be nice and eventually movement will flow thru upwards. I dunno, I might be wrong. .... There has been discussion on passing and keeping possession earlier on this thread. The last post on the subjects of passing and keeping possession on that thread was: .... ..., I've at various time said the following: .... Passing is as much about keeping possession as making progress towards the opposing goal, .... 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. And the ability to to execute it. .... Vision is grossly under-estimated in our games. .... .... ..., like all football, quick and incisive counter-attacks is more effective than having a lot of possession. .... It's about both the player in possession making the pass quickly, and other players moving quickly into space to receive the pass. If the player in possession decides to run with the ball, there still needs to be an end product. The wider pitch at MacPherson will affect team organization, formations and tactics. Discussion more generally on passing and keeping possession can be on this thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Jan 20, 2016 13:25:31 GMT 8
From the "Introductions, Chat & Requests" board: While updating the weekly rounds up overnight, I came across a few references to formations and tactics: .... There is already a fair bit of discussion on formations the "Team organization, formation & tactics" thread on Announcements board. Issues relating to team organisation, formation and tactics should be discussed far more openly on the forum. Accordingly, I have changed the subject of this thread from "Defend or attack?" to "Analysis of formations & tactics". In order to have competitive games, both teams should be an equivalent blend of stronger and weaker players. If team selectors/captains are able to achieve this before the game starts, or even by making changes during the game, then the outcome of the game turns primarily on team organization, formation and tactics. We should be focusing a lot more of the discussion on the forum on these factors, rather than on personalities and personal attitudes. And no, the use of gamesmanship is not a legitimate tactic.  Team organization also reflects a value which has been unsaid on this forum before now, that of enhancing appreciation and understanding of team-work and co-operation. I will add that to the core values with immediate effect, both of the "Forum Overview" post, and the "Playing Rules & Principles" thread. |
|
|
|
Post by Rajiv on Sept 19, 2019 10:31:08 GMT 8
There is a lot of discussion and feedback on personnel and line ups on this forum, and some amount of discussion about organisation in reports, but very little discussion on formation and tactics. Since the post above, there has been no further post on the "Analysis of formations & tactics" thread referred to above. The post is now on the newly created "Discussion & Posts Relating to GIFFA" board. Our primary routine games start 10 minutes before the hour not only to ensure punctuality, but to allow captains time to brief their teams on positions, formation and organisation. Of course, formation and organisation needs to be adaptable, and may need to be changed over the course of the game. It benefits our games if there is proper briefing, discussion and feedback on positions, formation and organisation by or to captains, apart from or in addition to any discussion or feedback relating to the attitude or abilities of particular players. Players do need to make reasonable effort to contribute positively to the team effort. And captains do need to organise and direct players adequately. What is particularly unhelpful is to see a player in a position in which he is largely or totally ineffective. It is like playing a player short, or worse! Apart from taking his turn in goal, a player who is proving ineffective in an forward position can be re-deployed in defence. If nothing else, he can close down one opposing player, thus redressing the balance between the two teams. Further, I maintain that over time, playing in defence does improve a player's understanding of the game. As much of the game is played in front of the player, he has a better view of the game play, and a better understanding of the game will follow. Captains should inform me if they find that a player on their team is not co-operative. I will address the matter with the player. |
|
