Official 2018 Nadeshiko Japan Thread [R] - なでしこジャパン（英語スレッド）

HISTORY! @jfa_nadeshiko 🇯🇵have become the first team since the #U17WWC started in 2008, to score 100 goals. We salute you too Haruka Osawa. 🙌 pic.twitter.com/p02reUijSI

— FIFA Women's World Cup (@FIFAWWC) November 16, 2018

 

Not bad 103 goals in only 6 editions. Exactly in 28 games. I think the first game is only the second of these 28 games that Japan didn´t score.

 

I just saw a replay of the second penalty and I think the GK grab the right leg of the japanese player very clear.

 

They just say the total number of spectators is only 392. That´s very poor for a World Cup.

 

The only good attendance I've seen was at the Uruguay game, and that's a given.

 

I don't understand why some people can´t see the beautifulnes of women's football like we do

 

I'm holding out hope that in the knock out phase it'll improve.

 

Game, set and match, Japan

Yamamoto with the 6th.

 

RSA coach....very gracious in defeat.
(Wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of her though}

 

Cheers!

 

They beat Norway 5-1 in a competitive game, back when Norway were a top 3 team. Possibly the best game the Nadeshiko ever played. And they didn't play a flat 4-4-2, they played a 4-4-2 diamond (4-1-2-1-2).

And my point is that this has already been the case 10 years ago (except for the "fast direct play" part which has never been true and isn't true today). Japan hasn't improved in the last 10 years, but all other teams in the top 10 have. And unless Japan switch to a system with three central midfielders, this trend will continue, because you cannot effectively play the style of football Japan like to play if you only have two central midfielders while your opponents have three, especially if your best players are slow and not very physical. Seriously, this is such a basic concept of modern tactics that I cannot understand how it is in any way controversial here.

Ignore the U-XX teams, they're irrelevant to the topic since at that level technique and discipline tend to trump tactics. The 2011 Nadeshiko were successfully playing 4-4-2 because their strongest opponents also played 4-4-2, so that wasn't a problem. Today, many top international teams play 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1.

Stop pretending that U-XX games matter.

Because unlike 4-4-2, 4-3-3 is a versatile formation that allows very different styles of football to be played effectively, regardless of the opponent's formation.

1-0 is not a comfortable win.

1-0 is still not a comfortable win.

None of them were in the top 5. The wins were all by a 1 goal difference. Japan played only one top 5 team the entire tournament, and lost by three goals. Seriously, that game was an embarassment.

And what you're ignoring is that what Takakura is doing is hammering square pegs into round holes, and that whatever team will play in 2019 will be nowhere near winning anything other than the Fair Play Award.

Sameshima was better in 2011 than today. Sakaguchi was already as good in 2011 as today. Kumagai may have improved in theory, but played the tournament of her life in 2011 and will not be able to improve on that performance (just as she didn't in 2012 and 2016). Also, prime Miyama and Sawa are better than prime Sameshima and Sakaguchi. Comparing Kumagai to Ando makes no sense.

Look, I get it. You're a fan and you want the Nadeshiko to win. You want to believe that they're still a top team, and if someone criticizes the Nadshiko then you take that critique personally. That's normal. But it also means that you're not looking at this objectively and that you should take your own views with a large grain of salt.

What you're also missing is that I've never been some fanatical proponent of 4-3-3. It's just that the Nadeshiko need to play with three central midfielders, and if you keep the back four (which I don't think anyone wants to change) then you're left with two wide players and one centre-forward. Whether the resulting formation is a 4-1-4-1, 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 should depend on the players. This has always been my position, but for some reason only @datschge gets it.

Anyway, whatever. Nothing I have said is new. Nothing anyone else has said is new. Nothing Takakura does is new. Why are we having this discussion?

 

And you are not? I am just curious, because I have never read anything positive
from you about either our senior teams or youth teams, even though they were very successful in the past. Why is that so? Just because of tactics?

I agree, at this point it does not make any sense to continue this discussion,
as we both have a different view of how Nadeshiko Japan should play.

And as you rightfully pointed out, Takakura will coach the team at the World Cup,
not you or me, so lets wait and see, if Nadeshiko Japan is still a Top Team or not.

 

Sure, why not? There's no shortage in any position. The back four are unchanged, Japan has never had problems finding central midfielders, there are plenty of right-footed forwards to play centrally or on the left (and you can easily change things up with substitutions since you don't depend on your forwards for link-up play) so the only real concern is at right-wing (since Momiki isn't all that fast and the fast players aren't left-footed) but that's also an issue with any other formation.

But I think Takakura sees the 4-3-3 (and also the 4-2-3-1 we saw against Vietnam) as a backup plan at best. If she considered using the 4-3-3 as the main formation, or even just as a tactical tool against specific teams, then we would have seen a lot more 4-3-3 matches by now. Or maybe she has played some super-secret training matches behind closed doors and will surprise everyone by playing 3-4-3 next year. Who knows.

I have written very positive things about the 2011 senior Nadeshiko as well as the 2010 and 2012 U-17s. In fact, I was one of the few who prior to the 2011 World Cup claimed that Japan was a top 3 team on the same level as Germany and the US and that they had a very real chance of winning, when most people were still considering Japan to be nothing more than plucky underdogs.

Since then, it has gotten more and more frustrating to watch the Nadeshiko play against top teams, with less incisive passing, fewer chances created, and so on. It's like watching an F1 race where the car you want to win drives with the brakes on. Not much fun.

Then my favourite players started retiring, and other teams started playing possession football as well, and since I'm not Japanese I have increasingly less reason to even support the Nadeshiko. Nowadays I'm here mostly for Nadeshiko League. Of course, the moment they start to play beautiful football again, this changes. So probably in a year or two when Takakura will be sacked and the JFA finally lets a coach take over who actually understands modern football. One can hope, anyway.

 

I know nothing about formations or tactics. I just like watching Nadeshiko... but a bit of history.....4-4-2
In the 1950's a team from overseas (not sure about my memory) but I think it was Moscow Dynamo came to play one of the leading teams of the day Wolverhampton Wanderers.
At that time all English teams played what I suppose must be described as 2-3-5 and always had done.
Every position had a name.It was just the way it was.It was carved in stone.That's how you played footie....you were a Right back or a Centre Half a Centre Forward or an Inside Left etc etc ....and this is how you lined up...
Goalkeeper
Left back - Right back
Left half -Centre half - Right half
Left wing - Inside left - Centre Forward - Inside right - Right wing
(This is not news to anyone who has been around a long time but younger viewers may not know)

To the astonishment of the 50 odd thousand crowd the opposition came on to the pitch and stood in two rows of four with two at the front.
What the hell is going on?...who's the Inside Left?..which one is the Centre Half?...how can they possibly play a game of football like that?
In the newspapers they were actually accused of cheating!

 

How things stand now, the first real test of this Young Nadeshiko team will come in semi-final against Ghana. Japan needs to top the group before this but I don't see them loosing against Mexico in 3rd group game (nor with New Zealand in QF for that matter). If they win against Ghana in semi-final then it's either Germany or Spain waiting in final (unless Korea DPR will manage somehow to turn the tables in their group and after that to stun Spain in QF - possible but not very likely).

 

I think you're mixing up several matches there:

• Dynamo Moscow (really a Soviet national team in Dynamo colours) vs Chelsea in 1945, which ended 3-3 and where the English professionals were surprised by the fluidity and off-the-ball movement of the Russian amateur team (this was the first of four games played as part of a British tour by the Dynamo team, which remained unbeaten)
  
  
• Honved Budapest vs Wolverhampton Wanderers in 1954, in which Honved thoroughly outplayed Wolves in the 1st half but eventually lost 2-3 due to the atrocious pitch conditions
  
  
• Two games played between Dynamo Moscow and Wolverhampton Wanderers in 1955, the 1st in Moscow (won by Dynamo) and the 2nd in Wolverhampton (won by Wolves) which otherwise weren't very noticeable AFAIK

However, none of these games featured a 4-4-2, which hadn't been developed yet. I believe most if not all the matches were 2-3-5 vs 2-3-5, though lineups at that time were almost always given as 2-3-5 for traditional reasons and this did not necessarily have to match up with how the teams actually played. Still, the flat 4-4-2 (disctinct from the Brazilian 4-2-4 of the 50s/60s as well as the European diamond 4-4-2 / 4-3-1-2 / 4-1-3-2 of the 60s/70s) is a comparatively modern concept that wasn't developed until the 80s.

This reminds me of a quote from a Jonathan Wilson article that I may have linked here some years back:

"Football used to be an easy game. The big lads played at centre-half and centre-forward, the hard lads played at full-back, the bright lads played at inside forward, the hard lads who were a bit bright and the bright lads who were a bit hard played at wing-half, and the little, quick lads played on the wing. Left-footers played on the left and right-footers played on the right. And the one with no mates went in goal."

The full article is here. It's well worth a read, as is most stuff by Jonathan Wilson and Michael Cox.

 

And G.......Thanks for the correction....my memory is not as good as I thought it was....I was convinced that the visitors played something other than 'conventional' line up.Could I be mixing up a recollection of formations with that of the newfangled 'wall' of defenders formed to defend free kicks.Oh to get old. I,as you may have guessed obviously didn't play schoolboy football as an inside left or right. Either way thanks for the correction and my compliments on your extensive knowledge
Brilliant J.W. quote