Are you any good at dominoes?

[toddy]

I will give you my experience  of dominoes when I get old enough to play them , still a few years yet before I have to retire..........

As for Cloughie, wouldn't have a bad word said about him, controversial he was, but so are most geniuses.

I suppose the Rotherham fiasco proves tactics lose you games. 

[SaintRam]

1 minute ago, toddy said:

I will give you my experience  of dominoes when I get old enough to play them , still a few years yet before I have to retire..........

As for Cloughie, wouldn't have a bad word said about him, controversial he was, but so are most geniuses.

I suppose the Rotherham fiasco proves tactics lose you games. 

Actually it's about as solid proof as you can get that it's the players that lose you games.

 

Even though we didn't lose. 

[Kernow]

3 hours ago, SaintRam said:

How'd that work out? Genuine interest. 

I once went into the editor and put the 16 best players in the world (in my opinion) at (then non-league) Burton, made them super happy etc. as you can do in the editor. Started the season, went on holiday til it finished. They finished 8th. 

I used the editor to edit my local side (Conference South) and give them some decent quality League 1 and League 2 players with a few young players just as a bit of a change to see how they done. I won the Conference South winning every game bar 4, which were draws. Currently top of the Conference after winning the first 10 games with only 2 signings. Surely the 16 best players would win the league with ease regardless of tactics or manager?

[SaintRam]

1 minute ago, Kernow said:

I used the editor to edit my local side (Conference South) and give them some decent quality League 1 and League 2 players with a few young players just as a bit of a change to see how they done. I won the Conference South winning every game bar 4, which were draws. Currently top of the Conference after winning the first 10 games with only 2 signings. Surely the 16 best players would win the league with ease regardless of tactics or manager?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? That's why I went on holiday, was planning on going back on holiday every season until they were in the prem. But noooooooo.

 

[toddy]

9 minutes ago, SaintRam said:

Actually it's about as solid proof as you can get that it's the players that lose you games.

 

Even though we didn't lose. 

Tactics lost us the points at Rotherham, you never change a winning formation unless forced to do so.

Hanson for Thorne was the change that game, only an inexperienced coach would do what Wassall done.

What's that saying about only a bad workman blames his Tools.......?..

[SaintRam]

Just now, toddy said:

Tactics lost us the points at Rotherham, you never change a winning formation unless forced to do so.

Hanson for Thorne was the change that game, only an inexperienced coach would do what Wassall done.

What's that saying about only a bad workman blames his Tools.......?..

I mean it's a combination of both.

A workman is unscrewing a screw, but half way through he puts his screwdriver away and brings out a hedgetrimmer. That was a foolish thing to do, and it's his fault that the hedgetrimmer has been brought out but the REASON the screw does not get unscrewed is because the hedgetrimmer is not a screwdriver.

Players lose you games. 

[duncanjwitham]

The biggest issue, is people not really understanding what 'tactics' actually is (are?).  People saying things like "manager X got his tactics all wrong, he should be playing 442" drives me mad. Formations aren't tactics - they're part of it, but you don't inherently play differently because you play a different formation. And likewise, switching to a different formation won't always fix a tactical problem.  In the first half a dozen games under Clement, we played 442 diamond, 4231, 433 and a flat 442, but in every case we played the same way and we had exactly the same set of tactical issues.

To me, 'style of play' is probably a better phrase than tactics.  As a manager, you should be able to write down, in a few simple sentences, what the plan is to score goals, and what the plan is to stop conceding goals.  That plan should be coherent (for example: you can't defend by staying compact and also press high up the pitch, you can't play pacy forwards to get in behind and then have traditional wingers crossing the ball).  And that plan should fit the players you have and aim to get as many of your best players doing what they are best at as possible (so Chris Martin isn't running the channels, Bradley Johnson isn't controlling possession and Shackell isn't playing out from the back).  Whether you sign players to fit the plan, or fit a plan around the players you have doesn't matter as long as they end up fitting.

Overall, you will live or die by how well all of those things mesh, and you can't isolate any one thing.  No matter how well players play, you will struggle if your tactics don't make sense.  And no matter how well designed your tactic is, if it doesn't fit the players, or the players play badly, or your players are badly motivated or lacking confidence, you will struggle.

[Mr Tibbs]

5 hours ago, King Kevin said:

Un-balanced sides lose you games , also there are 22 players and the game is 90 minutes long . If they all had equal share of time with the ball its only roughly four minutes, so its probably more important what you do without the ball as when you are in possession .

That's a big thing a lot of people overlook in football, not just on here. It's always us, our tactics, our performance etc. Credit is hardly ever given to the opposition team despite them playing well. We've been poor in many a game since the turn of the year but there's also been teams who have turned up on the day and executed a plan to perfection.. not enough hat tipping is done IMO. 

[archied]

So we should buy a small pacey striker then adopt the tactic of high balls and crosses into the box? Can't see us doing well with that and do we blame the small pacy striker or the manager for picking a player not best suited to the job in hand? The job in hand at Rotherham was to close the game out for three points,,, schoolboy error and I think wass would have earned more respect and faith from the fans if he'd at any point since just said so and took a share in the blame for the debacle,, 

[Highgate]

The most important aspect of a managers job is to recruit good players with the right attitude, play them in their strongest position and then motivate the team collectively.  Creating a strong team/squad spirit is crucial. That way each player will know their job, give 100% for their team and for their teammates.  If a manager succeeds in that then a very large portion of his job is done in my opinion.   Obviously on field tactics also have to be considered too, but their importance is often exaggerated i'd say.  You do have to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the opposition before playing them (do they have a lot of pace up front....so it is unsafe to play a high defensive line), do they have a play maker than might require man marking and so forth?  As for formations i'm pretty sure you could any reasonable one work if you had the right players. But for some reason team formations seem to be as responsive to 'fashion' as clothing and hairstyles.

[rynny]

19 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

The biggest issue, is people not really understanding what 'tactics' actually is (are?).  People saying things like "manager X got his tactics all wrong, he should be playing 442" drives me mad. Formations aren't tactics - they're part of it, but you don't inherently play differently because you play a different formation. And likewise, switching to a different formation won't always fix a tactical problem.  In the first half a dozen games under Clement, we played 442 diamond, 4231, 433 and a flat 442, but in every case we played the same way and we had exactly the same set of tactical issues.

To me, 'style of play' is probably a better phrase than tactics.  As a manager, you should be able to write down, in a few simple sentences, what the plan is to score goals, and what the plan is to stop conceding goals.  That plan should be coherent (for example: you can't defend by staying compact and also press high up the pitch, you can't play pacy forwards to get in behind and then have traditional wingers crossing the ball).  And that plan should fit the players you have and aim to get as many of your best players doing what they are best at as possible (so Chris Martin isn't running the channels, Bradley Johnson isn't controlling possession and Shackell isn't playing out from the back).  Whether you sign players to fit the plan, or fit a plan around the players you have doesn't matter as long as they end up fitting.

Overall, you will live or die by how well all of those things mesh, and you can't isolate any one thing.  No matter how well players play, you will struggle if your tactics don't make sense.  And no matter how well designed your tactic is, if it doesn't fit the players, or the players play badly, or your players are badly motivated or lacking confidence, you will struggle.

Exactly this.

Watching the Southampton vs Leicester game last week all Southampton did was put high balls into the box, made it so easy for Huth and Morgan. They are the type of defenders where you want them running towards their own goal chasing after your player.

I remember watching Dalgleish plauing with Andy Carrol up front on his own with Bellamy and Kuyt as wingers, when they were losing taking Carrol off for Downing and putting Bellamy up front. Just absolutely no idea of players strengths and what he wanted the team to do.

[Dimmu]

Players vs tactics debate (if there even has been one...) is about as crazy as nature vs nurture. Both meaningful, percents could be better subject to talk about IMO.

[duncanjwitham]

1 minute ago, Dimmu said:

Players vs tactics debate (if there even has been one...) is about as crazy as nature vs nurture. Both meaningful, percents could be better subject to talk about IMO.

I don't think you can even put percentages on how important they are.  Under McClaren, we had a system that allowed players to express themselves - the players playing well was very important.  Under Clement, we were much more regimented, and the most important thing was how well the plan worked against the opposition (and how well the players executed it), how well the players actually played was less important (but obviously still important).  And again, it all boils down to fitting the tactics and the players together.

[MuespachRam]

Formations don't win games, footballers do.  

[Dimmu]

6 minutes ago, duncanjwitham said:

I don't think you can even put percentages on how important they are.  Under McClaren, we had a system that allowed players to express themselves - the players playing well was very important.  Under Clement, we were much more regimented, and the most important thing was how well the plan worked against the opposition (and how well the players executed it), how well the players actually played was less important (but obviously still important).  And again, it all boils down to fitting the tactics and the players together.

I think you can, but it is very, very hard. You could start with McClaren's attacking football tactic and Clement more defensive one and start counting correlations to goal scoring opportunities of ourself and opponent etc..

Up to debate, of course, and not sure is there even program that best analytics of the game can use...

[loweman2]

Square pegs forced into round holes lose you games !! 

As for dominoes you could say I know a thing or two !!

[Rammeister]

I played dominoes once in a pub just outside of  Sunderland with Gary Bennett and Gordon Armstrong who were both players there in the 1990s. 

When I say players, I mean footballers for Sunderland. Not domino players, though they were playing dominoes. Just not professionally- as far as I am aware. TBH, they were barely playing football professionally either.

[Inglorius]

8 hours ago, David said:

"Players lose you games, not tactics. There's so much crap talked about tactics by people who barely know how to win at dominoes."

I searching for a Brian Clough quote for another thread and stumbled on this gem which made me think about the Wassall.

Does anyone disagree with Brian Clough, how good are we all at dominoes and are we maybe being a touch harsh on Wassall for recent games using Rotherham and Cardiff as examples?

 

Is this the same Brian Clough that used to give his team booze before a game to calm their nerves the difference between now and 30 years ago is that tactics is such as integral part of the game along with diet etc. 

[angieram]

To get back on topic, you can only play the dominoes that you pick up; there are always some dominoes that remain unavailable to you that might have won you the game. 

Then you arrange the dominoes and play them in a way that you hope will win you said game. But your opponent has dominoes too and will play his dominoes in a way that stops you playing yours as you might like. So the skill is to use your dominoes in a way that prevents your opponent controlling the game while allowing you to play your winning hand. And to be smart enough to change your tactics during the game to counteract what your opponent is doing if you can.

Just occasionally you pick up such a good hand that you don't have to worry about the opposition because you are certain that you will win.

Just don't drop your dominoes on the floor or show the opposition your hand or always play the same way and you will win the majority of your games. 

The only difference between dominoes and football is a double six always performs like a double six and doesn't suddenly start acting like a 3-1, or even worse, a double blank! 

[LesterRam]

54 minutes ago, Inglorius said:

Is this the same Brian Clough that used to give his team booze before a game to calm their nerves the difference between now and 30 years ago is that tactics is such as integral part of the game along with diet etc. 

You can't call Brian on this forum, its forum rules.