Was having an interesting discussion with a few faceless clowns on the forum earlier.
According to these peasants, football has increased in quality.
Personally, I couldn't disagree more.
I believe footballers are more of athletes rather than footballers.
Although, there are some technically gifted players about I think those are far and few in between.
Bringing the argument closer to home (The Prem).
Do you think the Top 4 from present time can hang with the top 4 from the 07-08 season?
That ridiculously overpowered Man U side with Ronaldo, Tevez, Rooney, etc for one?
What about that that very good Arsenal side which bottled it?
Chelsea were extremely strong as well.
Not to mention Liverpool a year later or so with Gerrard, Alonso, Mascherano, Torres, etc?
There is a reason why things are competitive now between all the teams in the Prem. And that is down to the top teams going downhill and the smaller ones picking it up a little bit. The gap has been bridged a little bit in that sense.
With all due respect, Leicester winning the league shows how poor the Prem is in terms of quality.
Generally speaking football on world level has just gone backwards.
There were so many amazing strikers from the 90s down to the mid 2000s like Romario, Ronaldo, Batistuta, Shevchenko, Van Nistelrooy Henry, Rivaldo, etc.
Midfielders was the same stacked with quality. Don't even mention cbs when you had the likes of Thuram, Nesta, Maldini, Canavarro, Sol Campbell, Ferdinand, etc.
There are way too many players to list.
I dread to think what a Brazilian Ronaldo would do the defenders nowadays for example.
What do you guys think? Looking forward to your replies.
Has The Quality In Football Regressed?
posted on 11/9/17
I wish greavesie could be alive to read this
posted on 11/9/17
posted on 11/9/17
Chelsea fans in trouble
posted on 11/9/17
I miss Hamann and Hyypia. And Garcia
posted on 12/9/17
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/17
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 12/9/17
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 20 hours, 9 minutes ago
How is 3-5-2 more attacking than 4-4-2?
Teams are trying to suffocate the opposition by playing an extra defender. Its no surprise that an Italian started this fashion. We are now all trying to play the awful Italian system. Only one step from from the truly boring catenaccio that destroyed Italian football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not a case of simply putting another defender in.
In Spurs case - last season anyway, and when Rose and Aurier play this season - it is a way freeing players up a bit.
The outside CBs are comfortable on the ball. They often act as your traditional fullbacks would, defending and attacking.
If you have two attacking fullbacks they are freed up by this to stay further up. Our fullbacks had higher average positions than the forwards in some games last year. They play like wingers.
So while you lose a player behind the striker - 2 instead of 3 - there is little need or expectation on them to pull wide as there is in the latter, they have much more freedom to go where they please to support the striker.
3421 or 5221 defending.
Often 3223 or 3241 attacking.
As with any system, the players shape it.
Put more defensively-minded fullbacks in, or centre-backs not comfortable on the ball, and it becomes quite a rigid, defensive system
posted on 12/9/17
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 20 hours, 9 minutes ago
How is 3-5-2 more attacking than 4-4-2?
Teams are trying to suffocate the opposition by playing an extra defender. Its no surprise that an Italian started this fashion. We are now all trying to play the awful Italian system. Only one step from from the truly boring catenaccio that destroyed Italian football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any system, the players shape it.
Put more defensively-minded fullbacks in, or centre-backs not comfortable on the ball, and it becomes quite a rigid, defensive system
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy the argument that playing your fullbacks slightly higher up means the formation is suddenly an attacking one. Even your most attacking fullback is more defensive than the most hard working winger. Essentially its about the starting positions. And a wing back is starting deeper than a wide player in front of a traditional fullback in a back 4.
In my opinion 3 at the back is a reaction to 4-2-3-1. The success of Barcelona and Real Madrid have created a type of player. The wide attacker. Wing players are expected to cut into the box as a striker would. That means they can't get back to protect their full back because they are playing slightly higher and more centrally than a traditional winger. As a result full backs have been exposed. As a reaction to this the more defensive managers have added the extra centre back to cover for their deficiency. Good fullbacks have always been able to defend one-on-one and shouldn't need their winger to protect them any way. Danny Rose, Walker, Bellerin, Monreal, Clichy, etc. are all poor defending when they are isolated.
I think any team playing 3 at the back would be destroyed by Barca or Madrid.
posted on 12/9/17
Depends on the team really, with us last season it allowed our two fullbacks to act as wingers; allowed our back line to play more aggressively and higher up the pitch which worked as they are our best creators from deep, and allowed our attacking three to play higher up the pitch as well.
Only the midfield looks more negative due to the formation change.
posted on 12/9/17
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
comment by HRH King Ledley (U20095)
posted 1 hour, 22 minutes ago
comment by Jenius99 (U4918)
posted 20 hours, 9 minutes ago
How is 3-5-2 more attacking than 4-4-2?
Teams are trying to suffocate the opposition by playing an extra defender. Its no surprise that an Italian started this fashion. We are now all trying to play the awful Italian system. Only one step from from the truly boring catenaccio that destroyed Italian football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As with any system, the players shape it.
Put more defensively-minded fullbacks in, or centre-backs not comfortable on the ball, and it becomes quite a rigid, defensive system
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't buy the argument that playing your fullbacks slightly higher up means the formation is suddenly an attacking one. Even your most attacking fullback is more defensive than the most hard working winger. Essentially its about the starting positions. And a wing back is starting deeper than a wide player in front of a traditional fullback in a back 4.
In my opinion 3 at the back is a reaction to 4-2-3-1. The success of Barcelona and Real Madrid have created a type of player. The wide attacker. Wing players are expected to cut into the box as a striker would. That means they can't get back to protect their full back because they are playing slightly higher and more centrally than a traditional winger. As a result full backs have been exposed. As a reaction to this the more defensive managers have added the extra centre back to cover for their deficiency. Good fullbacks have always been able to defend one-on-one and shouldn't need their winger to protect them any way. Danny Rose, Walker, Bellerin, Monreal, Clichy, etc. are all poor defending when they are isolated.
I think any team playing 3 at the back would be destroyed by Barca or Madrid.
--------------------------
We had the joint-best defence and best attack in the prior season playing 4231, our switch had nothing to do with protecting Rose and Walker in the slightest. They had fantastic seasons in a back four.
We had two fantastic fullbacks who were great at pinning back the opposition fullbacks, and freed up from a lot of defensive duties it allowed them to do so more effectively.
We also have two amazing, but stylistically different #10s in Alli and Eriksen. Rather than shunt one 'wide', it allowed us to play both where they cause most damage, in and around Kane.
While other sides may have gone to 3 at the back to shore up a leaky defence, ours was simply playing to our strengths. Our squad is made for it.