12.09.2007: Germany - Romania (friendly) [R]

Well, the coach is always given full credit for it. Or so it seems to me anyway. With comments like "Loew is such a good coach" or "Loew made the right changes" or "Loew knows how to get the best out of his players" or "Loew made smart adjustments to get the result they did".

So I wanted to point out that I think that the players make the bigger contribution.

Or at least that them and the coach know the same things. I really don't think that our best and better players need to be told what to do. They will realise it.

Not saying that the coach doesn't know. But the players definitely do, and most importantly, they are the ones on the field who have to play the game and do those things practically.

So in all situations; win or lose, we must put blame on the players first. Simple as that.

Well to be honest, unless I was in the dressing room myself or was told directly from someone who knows for sure, I wouldn't trust this because we don't know the context he said this in. Kind of like quoting aragones and his comments about henry. The latest one I mean.

Yes, but as I explained earlier in this post, I think that the best and better players are by far the most important part of it.

Coaches will know the same things that they know.

And also, if the players are feeling down, then coaches can act as consellors to motivate them to do what they do again.

Sometimes a coach can do this to a team feeling down by actually not being there. World Cup 74. End of group stage 1.

 

I couldn't agree more, Trochowski played really awful. He hasn't national team calibre.

 

Right, there are examples of the players and leaders within the team taking over, like Germany and Beckenbauer in 74 or Zidane this past summer but thats not really a commonplace thing.

Why don't we agree that both players and coach play a big part in what happens?

 

Stop making sense ForeverRed This would be one boring forum if everyone thought things through logically.

 

Well I think our our young team, coach and his quality play an important role...Klinsi has
introduced some new methods....Löw is continuing in his job....and I think both has made big progress...and introduced many new coaching practises ....so I think both players and coach are responsible for the success of german team.....our team does not have any second "Beckenbauer" or player like Zidanne...maybe Ballack can play this role..but he has been injured for many months..and despite he did not play, we won......I think our team is young and very motivated, very skilled....but this team need good coach...and maybe some
"leader" players....

so I think we have good coach and good players.

Personally...I don´t care...the most important is that we win games...and are successful
currently we are surely the best european team....so why to complain?...and look who is responsible for our success?...I´m happy and proud of our team.....

 

ACtually, that Forum exists.... its called "Yanks Abroad"...

 

Gotcha. I read the entire response and well stated. I understand now where your were coming from.

I agree there are certain players that are "managers" on the pitch, and hopefully those players are the coach's choice as captain. It takes a special kind of player and moreso a special relationship with that player and the manager, and that player and his fellow teammates. The Beckenbauer's and Cruyff's of yesteryear are nearly a by-gone era, but some of these players do exist still today.

 

Are you serious?

That's not only fantastic, it's a real sensation!

 

Btw: Who can explain this choreo to me?





Some highlights of the game:

http://www.dfb.de/?id=503617


Interview with Joachim Löw:

http://www.dfb.de/index.php?id=500014&tx_dfbnews_pi1[showUid]=12168

 

Not zidane only, but several others in the team

And not beckenbauer only, but several others in the team. Although he did pick the team himself.

But can you explain further than that?

This is my attempt to, so tell me which part of this you do not agree with :

I think that the better players (plural) in the squad have the same understanding of the game and what is going on as the coach does.

So in training etc, they contribute ideas and thoughts and so does the coach. They have as much an idea of what is going on as the coach does.

It's a discussion...a time to talk about ideas and bounce them off each other.
Imagine you and I were both grad students in the same field...and we have a discussion about it.

And then those players have to go and do it practically. Ie. on the field. Not the coach either. They have to play, understand, react on the go etc. Players are always talking on the field and directing off the ball.


What I am saying is, that we can play a football match and win if we have these better players, but with no coach.

But with just a coach and no better players, we can't do it.

Which is why the last few games have not been quite as smooth as the earlier ones when the full lineup or at least the immediate subs were all available.

Agreed?

You tell me what you disagree with in that too, like FR

 

Ok, we do agree on several points but I'm not ready to relegate the coach to a secondary position. A good coach is just as important as the players plaing the game when the team is successful. A weak coach on the other hand, that the players don't respect is another story. I think that is the case to a certain extent with the Spanish and Portugese NTs.

Now, there are those more experienced players who have a great understanding of the overall game, like Ballack, who is an example for the younger players and the coach's representative on the field. A good coach is usually the one that is introducing ideas and tactics that the players have to implement during the game. There is a different dynamic that the coach is responsible for, sometimes he can get the best out of players and unite the team to push beyond its potential like Rehagel did with Greece three years ago.

 

with a team of players set, we would expect them to perform to a certain standard judging by the players' quality and reputation. however, the coach will be driver of this team, and methods off the pitch as well as decisions on the pitch can often makes this team overperform or underperform. if the players is the car, then the coach is the driver. look what happened to brazil in 2006? or korea in 2002, just to name a few.

 

We are both real coaches then

How many players with this capability are we talking about? I reckon almost all the starting XI, and some others like borowski are in this.

I can see schweinsteiger without a doubt moving towards this now.

And that's why he's playing better.

Suddenly we sit back and admire how he is starting to make cleverer movements on the field in search of space, and then good decisions which lead to productive passes and dribbles.

This makes him like a good driver of a car. He can see and react accordingly for productive results in different situations.

 

When the team is succesful, the coach is not insignificant.

But if you read what I wrote in my last post again, I said the reason for that:

(1) He can along with the good players contribute ideas and things in training as they both should possess the understanding of what happens during a football match from the player's POV, to a high level.

I mean, think about it practically.

How do you know that it is usually the coach who introduces the ideas. It doesn't matter what cliches everyone churns out non-stop.

Isn't it more practical to think that the better players in the team can all contribute just as much too? They are the ones who are in the know so to speak. "The field experts".

Ok,

Even if we go with the other theory, and the coach comes up with all the ideas, the players must understand it to a T.

So it can't be anything over their heads can it?

When Germany go out and play like they do, nothing the players did during the game was over their heads.

Doesn't this bring the whole emphasis back towards the players' understanding of a game again? - before, during, after substitutions and during the whole 90 mins in any scenario? -

Just like the scenario (analogy) when you go for a drive in a car for 90 mins...

An understanding that they perhaps already have before this, having played 100s of games before. And having thought about the game a lot.

Because of this, I don't agree that coaches can "push a team to become more than potential" or "more than sum of parts".

As eissman said, a team is a sum of it's parts. The sum of the players' actions on the field.

(2) He also has the ability to act as a consellor to the players. If the players are not doing what they do on the pitch well, then he can get their confidence back up to do so again.

After a tough loss against another good team, if the players are down, he can help them get their confidence back, and then they'll be back on the triaining ground doing everything they do.

For this reason, a weak person as a coach can also screw up team spirit and confidence. As can disruptive players too.

I mean we are talking about people and life here. It is all about being able to maintain confidence and mind to carry out things.

But do you see how you can have a succesful team with only the good players too now? When all the players are friendly and of the same goal...

This is the bit I put in italics in the last post. Germany, with the same Loew, can't play as well when 11-12 players are missing. Because the players now don't have the same on-field understanding of things, or the ability to, simply, play as well as before.

In the long term they can improve and acquire that, but probably not in 1-2 week short term before matches for Int'l teams. This is why I said in another thread that schweinsteiger should be dropped to have time away from an unproductive cycle and to think about the game; to understand the game. To acquire that.

If the players are all there, and Loew is absent, they'll still play their high standard.

So my point, is that the person who is coach, in a succesful team, can be a counsellor when needed, and also a contributor to ideas in training, besides the better players in the team themselves.

Of these two things, the counsellor part is the most important by a mile. This is what a good "coach" will get right when it is needed.

Do we agree on everything?

I have explained how I see it, all without any media cliches. As best as I could in practical terms.

That is why I don't credit the coaches in the way that everyone seems to.

But if you tell me that klinsmann took aside a player over a summer and an autumn, practiced with him every day, and discussed and acted as his tutor in helping him understand the game much better, then yes I will accept that the "coach" had a huge influence.

Hey, shows how well this national team is doing when we use match threads to discuss this

 

I prefer to think of a team made of good players as Kit The driver can be there, but it can still drive it.

You've used too many media cliches there and not enough quantitative explanation.

 

I was just making a little joke with FR squid. Hence the smileys. No hard feelings man.

 

Like I said, I agree with a lot of what you said but who knows what exactly Klinsmann did or what exactly Loew is doing that results in such a successful German NT. There is a reason he was so liked by all the players and built such great team chemistry. He might have very well done a one-on-one with each player and Loew is continuing that. And thats why with players like Ballack and Frings out, he brings out the best in some of the younger inexperienced players.

I agree with the sharing of ideas in training and the fact that the players have to understand them to a T but just like you see how players are an important aspect of a successful team you have to understand how a coach is as well.

 

Are you really discussing whether a coach is important or not? C'mon...

No they do not - as a team. Because this is assuming that lineup and tactics are not very important. But they are. Of course if you are the absolut powerhouse dominating everybody because of the individual class than it can work sometimes. Like Bayern in the 70ties sometimes. But it is very seldom now on the top level.

For example it was Löw who decided to play 4-5-1 and not 4-4-2 against England and to let Lahm play as DM etc.. His decisions brought us the win.

If you claim that the players could make these decisions as a "collective" or something than this is an illusion. Democracy in team sports does not work. You need a boss. If one of the players assumes the role of a boss than he is actually a coach too.

But you cannot have a vote or something.

Also the coach decides who he invites to the NT in the first place. Without Klinsmanns and Löws courage to call up younger players we would not have had the advancement we have seen in the last 2 - 3 years.

In fact I believe without both of them we would never have reached the WC semi final in 2006 as a lot of pundits had predicted before the WC.

 

No probs man

 

I hope you did read that carefully. It was long, but I explained it as clearly as I could. Just saying

He could be really well liked because he is a nice person who doesn't make the players upset, but makes them feel welcome and everyone gets along. These personal things. Doesn't necessarily have to do with football.

When france started winning at the world cup, nobody was too friendly with domenech.

If he really was doing 1v1s with the players - and I do believe that he and Loew were at the start - then yeah they have been a huge influence.

But, that is not the same as crediting the coaches for the results like everyone does after each game; crediting them for this or that. For this player doing this, or for this one doing that. For this working, for that working. That is what I don't do.


I mean a driving instructor can teach you for a whole year, but for the next 25 years you're on your own on the road.

Yes, and who knows what exactly klinsmann and loew did in the team to make it such a succesful team.

But I think I do, because my concept makes a lot of sense in practical ways. I've explained it clearly without using media cliches. Step by step. Which step doesn't make sense?

And that means that I think they had a huge impact in the first year or two with close sessions with the players. As klinsmann said, he regularly emailed them, sent videos, and communicated 1 on 1 in other ways. And Loew too presumably. He was in germany after all. They actually helped to improve the players. Like teaching a kid to fly before sending him out on his own.

But after that, in the last 18 months...very minimal in a footballing sense as all the players of the first XI are as a result, very good players now.

He does?

The last time I saw, the younger (I assume you mean the "crappier" ? Ie. not lahm young) players play just like they always do. Hilbert probably plays a bit worse than for stuttgart. Helmes too. Odonkor is just odonkor - not very good. Trochowski errr...So these guys play pretty much like normal. But we have a few of the better players still around. And they play superbly like they usually do.

Notice how when schweinsteiger improved as a player this season, he is playing better for the NT.

Hey it's not like we've been at full performance as with the first XI in last few games. Maybe apart from wales but that one did have a good number of good players there.

In certain ways he is, yes. But not essential in "footballing" ways if a team is filled with very good players like our first XI is.

But to help out with footballing things (remind them of things again) if needed nevertheless, and to act as a counsellor for them, definitely.

I think their "footballing" influence was done in the first year or two in charge.

I bet you anything that their input now is minimal to nothing. Because the players of the first XI are now very good.

When we have to call up others, some of the backups aren't as good, so the team doesn't play as well as normal. And the same exact Loew is still around, before and during matches

 

Well, the person Loew could be important. He is important.

But in what way?

That is what I disagree on to normally accepted logic.

Read my last post, and the one to FR before that carefully.

That is a bunch of cliches. Looks like lazy journalism

What exactly are "tactics"? Can you explain what they are to me exactly?

Are the players too stupid and petty (hopefully not! - that is what team spirit is) to figure out a lineup?

What is "individual class"

Why can't it work at the "top level" (What exactly is the meaning of "top level" anyway?)

Can you explain to me how those two things fit into a concept and paint a picture like I did?

Without using cliches.

Spend a few years with lahm in training and in person and realise what a good players he is.

I personally could have put him there. Because all I have to do is recognise that he HE CAN play like that.

In the post match interview Loew said he needed a highly intelligent (read : with football understanding) player. And he had one in Lahm who CAN play.

Lahm did it because HE CAN. Not because Loew told him to.

If Loew put odonkor there....imagine the result.

But spend 1-2 years with lahm and it's very easy to see, even from a distance on the TV screen (let alone in training and being friends with him), that he has this understanding. I could have made that decision.

If the players have team spirit like this squad, then yes they can actually decide themselves. Without arguments.

I am not arguing on the semantics of "coach" or of labelling a guy as "coach".

I am talking of a concept here.

But whatever, yes, I do credit the coach for selecting the XI players.
It's not hard to do at all. Just recognise the good players. And then make sure none of them have personal problems or the potential to, with each other. (Ie. why he did not take kuranyi to world cup). As that is the only thing that would stop them from gelling into a team.

If you read my original couple of posts properly, I have credited the coach for this

Duh. I said this at the VERY start. It is their mandate, and theirs only, on who to call up. They have to recognise the good players.

Then, it's up to those good players to produce football.


I think anything else would be answered by my last 2 posts to FR.

 

Tactics: What seems to be a dynamic play is in fact a result of long and tiresome practice. The coach has to tell the players how to move and then they practice, practice, practice...until it comes in naturally to the players.

How else would you explain for example what Hamburg did last year? After Doll left, Hamburg climbed from the bottom of the table to become the second best team of the second half of the season.

Of course there are several reasons, like injuries (however in this case, Stevens had pretty much the same material as Doll had during his final months), psychology (the way Hamburg lost their first game under Stevens would have had to disintegrate any psychological advantage though) and probably some more.
But the most important reason has to be the fact, that Stevens' tactics just worked much better with the team he had.
Or maybe he was better at motivating the team, which would still be proof of the importance of the coach.

 

Sorry to interupt the hot topic here
But, you did trained with Lahm 1-2 years ? May i know where did you trained ? and what did he like in person ?
I myself was a football player before forced to choose other way ( thankfully after i made some trip to Holland and watch some match)

 

That makes everything look very pre-meditated.

As if you can only run between the cones set out.

It also means the opposition must "move out" to make space for you. If the opposition's alignment is not correct...kaput!!

That's not how football really works is it?

And it makes the players look like robots as well. How do they keep going in this sport succesfully? (Remember, I'm talking about the good players). You have to enjoy it and feel as if it's a part of you.

Personally, I believe players play football on instinct and understanding of situations. The best players (whom my whole discussion is on), have this at a high level.

Just like driving a car on the roads through towns, valleys, fields, pedestrians, traffic, curves, corners or whatever. The ability to read and react to situations. First, you read. Sometimes well before it happens. Then you react. You can apply this to football. Read the situation. The react with the right movement into a space, pass, dribble, shot, track-back and tackle or whatever.

This is what I think high tactical awareness is :

The really high level understanding of the field and the game around you at any given moment, on almost any part of the field.

This is what I always call "field awareness"

When this is good, you can pick and choose what to do for the right moment.

Just like how I described up a few lines with the car/football situation.

Players do not play the game head down, running according to the "treasure map" plotted out for them by the coach.

When mourinho bought ballack, he said "ballack has tactical awareness, which I love". What he meant is the field awareness.

How else does a coach, at half time, even when he does need to point something out to players that he might be momentarily missing in the heat of the game, get his message across?

Teach him something in 10 minute half time break? No, the player must already have this high awareness, and when the coach points something out to him, it's : "Ah, yep, got it".

No matter what is pointed out. The best players will always understand because it is just like reminding them something that they learnt gradually since they were a kid, and is now at a very high level.

This to me, is tactical, or field awareness.

The best players have a really deep understanding and ability to read and react.

Who told andrea pirlo there was a gap there, and fabio grosso to move perfectly into that gap at the same time? You know what I'm talking about.

It's understanding/instinct.

So the best players can USE the field, rather than be restricted by the field, because they are aware of what goes on no matter where they walk on the field.

Just because germany's team was listed in a "diamond" against wales on TV, it doesn't mean a thing. Schwein and Hitz were still all over the midfield. Schwein was sometimes deep with Hitz. Sometimes in the box with Hitz nearby. Sometimes Hitz in the box, and Schwein deeper. Klose was on the flanks, deep, and in the box. Etc..

(Oh yeah, and I did watch the game later on. I said missed it live on the game thread)

Sometimes Schwein ends up on the flank to cross for schneider to score. Sometimes Schneider is in the box, flank, centre, other flank. But he's listed on the flank.

Now let's switch this to a "flat line". It's still the same thing when you watch the game isn't it?

4-3-3? Same thing. Where else do the players go? It's not like they can go and start playing on the other field next door.

4-5-1? It's not a fussball table. Players read and react to the situation and MOVE and adjust into spaces. Depending on where the spaces on the field appear. Then read again, and make a pass. Or a dribble. Or whatever.

Don't you notice how against romania, podolski actually played so much in the middle third of the field in the 2nd half? And only ran into the box late, or to assist helmes. That was because he saw space there a lot...

When the shit hits the fan of course, media, angry fans, and managers looking for any get out clause blames "the formation".

The best players USE the field. This whole discussion from me is about the better and best players.

How many times did you see andrea pirlo in the world cup final in the middle, the sides, very deep, etc.

Hey hang on a sec. What the hell was grosso doing against germany, in the box, on the RIGHT side of the field? He must have flattened zambrotta, because the coach said that one must play right and one left.

No, zambrotta was somewhere else in space, at that same time. So grosso saw that space where he ultimately ended up, and he moved there. Read and react.

Man, if football didn't work like this then we'd not have lost the semifinal.

First of all, I am only talking of the better players around. I stated that from day 1.

A team with none or very few of them would not play well.

You know, just like germany played against romania. Not quite as good as with the starters is it?

Secondly - The bundesliga is a competitive league. The points spreads are small. So hamburg don't have to become brilliant to rise up the table again. They don't have to play near perfect football like germany do often.

But, you pretty much highlighted the main reasons in the bits I put in bold.

And I always highlighted that the coach can act as a counsellor and motivate his players when they are feeling down.

The best players of course are better at keeping themselves motivated to keep playing well. They don't flake.

C'mon, I have said that about 5-10 times throughout all the posts.

If you read it properly and carefully, I wouldn't have to repeat it.

 

squidward, you must have a TON of time in your hand. Every one of your post is just long.