I have recently read an Interview with Swiss Urs Siegenthaler who is technical advisor for the German national team. And he had some interesting thoughts and observations about the development of modern football. This thread is in a way a response to bertje with whom I had a very interesting conversation about the 4-3-3 tactic but it is also of course open for general discussion as I am interested on all your toughts about this. So here are some relevant parts of the interview: Q: Mr Siegenthaler, after winning the Confed Cup, is Brazil now favourite for winning the World Cup? A: Yes, Brazil is the benchmark and favourite for 2006. Those guys have an enormous potential when it comes to creativity, they keep order - if someone stands two meters off his position, Emerson will drag him on his spot - and they form one unit. Q: What do you mean by that? A: Balance is important: Self confidence must not be excessive and the players must accept criticism. Q: Did you find any weaknesses? A: I've seen Brazil twice before the Confed Cup and I've noticed weaknesses in their central defence. Also the Brazil players play roles not positions, which means that their fullbacks attack a lot so that there are a lot of one-on-one situations. Q: What means are there to exploit that? A: One has to chase the opponent. In general, when a player gets the ball, another one always has to be lurking immediately for the eventual free ball. We scored 11 out of our 15 goals by this so called offensive doubling. Q: Were there any negative examples at the Confed Cup? A: One team had eleven coaches on the field. Everyone was giving orders, the coach this way, the players some other way. Q: Which was the most important insight on the further development of football? A: The gap between the top teams and the rest is getting bigger. The big teams play with bigger faith to the system. Nowadays you have to work to the smallest details. Q: What are the developments went it comes to tactics? A: The game over the wings is dead. The game develops in the center which means that you need a stong axis with two central backs, two midfielders and two forwards. Modern football doesn't know wingers anymore, only in the front third of the field the ball is put on the wings. From the back you basically always come through the middle. Brazil is a good example for that. Q: What else caught your attention? A: If you want to score goals you have to have two strikers. If you only have one striker, the defence will move in a way that leaves him no chance. Also very serious is the fact, that as soon as a team gains posession, only two players stay behind. The teams trust ther strength in one-on-one situations. ... Q: Does the defencive midfield need reinforcement? A: No, the so calld zone-play is important, the right way of shifting positions. It's also not about the midfield diamond, it's simply a matter of doing the "dirty work". Marquez playes for Barca behind the defence if necessary. Q: What do you think about Ballack? Does he have to do more defencive work? A: He already does that fabulously. The Germans don't know all his qualities yet. He saves in the defence, scores goals and has a fantastic header. Q: Which players did impress you the most at the Confed Cup? A: Marquez with his presence: The way he switches from defence to offence! Or Emerson, the father figure in the Brazil team. This is great football. Q: Is Adriano the best Striker by far? A: He wouldn't score those goals against Maldini. I wouldn't yet count Ronaldo off. ... Q: What makes the Pekerman system special? A: It's the absolute role model. Q: What is happening on the field when you have Pekerman? A: The routes the players take are the same in all their national teams: U17, U20 and the seniors. That is development. Q: What about Pekermans tactics? A: He works to the smallest details and always has a conception in mind. The way he lets the collective chase the ball, with superior numbers close to the ball. When the ball is played wide or back its a signal for the rest. If the opponent looks at me, I cannot engage in pressing. Q: Which way of playing is closest to your ideal? A: Brazil: I am for total creativity, based on a tactical order. Only when it comes to the youth, the result shoudn't be the most important thing. Q: Is that realistic? A: Everybody is talking about the Ajax school. On mondays they discuss results. If the U19 coach lost 7-9 everybody applauds. If he won 1-0 he's told to re-think his approach. We have to do the same thing. ...
Thanks benztown. Interest piece, if a little obtuse (maybe something was lost in translation?). What jumped up at me was..... This contradicts the prevailing thinking about NTs.
I guess some things got lost in translation. I also cut out most of the parts about the German team that were very specific. The part you pointed out also puzzled me a bit, even in German. I think he was talking about the tactical development and not about the talent of the players. What also surprised me was that he said that the game over the wings is dead. I've always been told that this is the modern way to play football. But thinking back at the Confed Cup, I have to admit that he's right.
meh, tactics like this go in cycles. becomes all the rage to focus on one thing, until some day somebody wakes up and realizes that it leaves a weakness in this other place, so it becomes all the rage to focus on that, yada, yada, yada.
He has some very good points, but he also neglects some other things. His point about the game over the wings being dead isn't so much as that it isn't effective any more. It is just that since a lot of teams prefer defensive certainty these days they mostly use a 4-4-2 system. In this system you could use wingers, the wingers would then be the outside midfielders, but it leaves very only two midfielders to control the midfield. Where otehr teams have atleast three and sometimes four midfielders. So for this reason the choose to go with a attacking midfielder in a free role instead. Another point is that is is still possible to play with one striker and score goals, but for this to succeed you will need wingers and/or midfielders who can also score goals. I actually prefer this because you depend less on one or two player(s) but more on the enitire team to win. And thus if a player is injured he can be replaced without much difficulty.
What he probably meant is that putting loads of balls from the touchline in to the box will not result in goals. Defenders are very good at defending that. Wing play can be used to draw opponents away from the center, but even if you have the ball wide and high up the pitch continues passing is the better option than immediately crossing it.
Passing is always the better option, when using the wings it is better to pass the ball hard on the ground to someone who can score then to give a high cross. It will always be easier for defenders to defend in the air then to defend on the ground. What makes using the wings effective is that defenders cannot defend all players at once because the field is larger then when the attack would go through the center. For this reason it is easier to create a situation in which there is one attacker with the ball and only one defender with him. The attacker will only need to get past that defender to pass teh ball to a striker or score a goal himself.
I like the 433 or one mainstriker system as well, however this is not true. When Ruud gets injured what happened to ManU? Our goals dried up. No matter what formation is used, its the way the players play that matters... in that respect he is spot on... its not positions, its roles. I love the way Argentina play... their system is very good and even without top class players in every position they are able to stick with top notch competion (I' not criticizing the strength of their players, but just look at their use of relative unknowns in their system). I guess Argentina's formation might be described as a 3-3-3-1 They employ one target man it seems or someone who is almost always pressing forward with 1 support striker who is either wide or forward when the team has the ball and then 2 centerish mids one of who is pushed to one side when the team is defending (Lucho Gonzalez). There is one anchor in midfield (sometimes Mascherano and Cambiasso play in the same team, but then it seems Lucho is sacrificed) and 2 flankers who basically press the opposing team's wingers alot sooner than a traditional fullback would do and they also provide width in the intermediate stage of attack. Riquelme runs the show next to that withdrawn forward I mentioned who has been Saviola or Tevez and next to the other Central mid who gets pushed to the side sometimes (Lucho Gonzalez or Cambiasso)... From what I've seen recently (WCQ and Confed cup) the play something that looks like this. -----------------Crespo ------Lucho-----Riquelme----Saviola Sorin------------Mascherano-----------Zanetti --------Heinze-------------Colocini ----------------Samuel -----------------Lux Like I said... I love the formation, its a bit weak on attacking width sometimes, but it depends on how well, Saviola/Tevez play and how far forward Zanetti/Sorin go.
But then again Manu doesn't really play a traditional 4-3-3. Ruud isn't really a target man, he somewhat lacks the ability to hold the ball. The best example you will ever find is the Oranje of '74. Cruijff scored some goals, but even 4 years later without him they were still the best team. Just not good enough to beat some cheating Argentines.
Your knowledge of the past is immense, but for you to say Ruud is a) not a target man and b) that he isn't a proper target because he can't hold the up make me question if you've watched Ruud play a full season or two for United. Ruud's hold up play is immaculate, and his passing out of hold up play is very very accurate, not creative, but very accurate.
I have seen plenty of matches with Ruud. With PSV, Oranje and Manchester United. Van Nistelrooij is a striker who if he get's teh ball in or around the penalty area will score about any time. But he isn't a player who get's the ball, holds it for a few seconds and then passes it to a midfielder. This is the main problem Oranje has these days, a striker who can effectively hold a ball up front. I am starting to believe we are better off playing van der Vaart as a striker.
Like jonho, I thought this was one of his strengths. I'm interested in what you are saying. Maybe you can explain further. EDIT: Just caught your response. Still not sure that your point is correct regarding Ruud. Who then is an ideal target man in your system (a current player)? How did Arg cheat in that game? I don't recall any.
You should try to find some games of Oranje under van Basten, you will see what I mean. About the cheating, it wasn't really the team that cheated. But that referee was insane.
I have plenty of games of Van Basten; but if you need a Van Basten to make it work, then its practical applications are very limited. I'm sure that is not what you are saying. Which target man today would fit the system as you describe it?
Not a game in which van Basten played, but a game of Oranje from the last year. The striker in a 4-3-3 doesn't have to be target man. The most important thing for a Dutch(Ajax) striker is that he needs to be able to hold the ball. Thus he needs to have good technical skills. If there is a number 10 close behind him who scores goals with relative ease the striker doesn't even have to score goals that much. The Ajax of '95 trashed Milan twice with Ronald de Boer as a striker(I can tell you he was a wonderfull player but I have heard a lot of complains about the amount of goals scored) and Jari Litmanen behind him. Then the striker just has to hold the ball and at the right time give the ball to the number 10 for that player to score the goal. Without a number 10 it will be more important for the striker to score goals or there will need to be another subleme goal-getter. A good example these days is Eto'o. He holds the ball and creates scoring chances for him or another player. If your team lacks this kind of player, you can also use a number 10 who can hold the ball and create scoring chances as a withdrawn striker. You do not need a van Basten, but it is important for the striker to have good technical skills.
I'm a big Etoo fan as well. As for the games from Oranje last year (as opposed to Van Basten games ), I can't say that I've seen even one; but now I'm intrigued as to how they play. Who was VanB using to fulfill the middle striker role? And, are you a proponent of keeping Ruud off the starting squad?
Ruud has played when he was fit, other players who have played as the centerstriker are P-Air(van Hooijdonk ) and Kuijt who get's better every game he plays. If Ruud can get his act together before the WC I am all for letting him play, otherwise I'd go with Kuijt if we need someone who can work hard and get that ball from the defenders. If a more technical player is needed I prefer van der Vaart. Unless ofcourse Ruud becomes the saviour. Or maybe even Kluivert will get back in the squad.
Actually, there was one part of the interview that I omitted, that supports your point of view. Urs is not going into detail but here is what he said: Q: Is a player like Ronaldo who is only waiting in front of the goal and doesn't help the team a species close to extinction? A: Yes, you can see it at Real. Something can't be right with their team building. Later he sort of takes part of it back, by saying, that team building basically means that you can have only so many leaders in a team and that at Real that's not balanced out. But his point remains, that nowadays you need strikers who work for the team. I don't think he necessaryly means one with excellent technical skills, just as long as you're valuable for the team.
As you were writing I was re-reading your earlier post and thought that you were describing Kluivert to a tee. You are not part of the Oranje fans down on him? He certainly fits the description of your ideal forward with his passing ability. I'm curious Bertje, what is your ideal line-up for the Orange under this system assuming all the available players are playing to their full capabilities?
Yes, the days of the specialists are behind us. It is also because the game is played so fast these days. You have to be able to keep up with the rest. So a coach will rather make sure your running stamina is good then let you perfect what is most needed at your position.
Well its nice to know that you are not the Oranje coach... otherwise Ruud would play second fiddle to P-Air and Dirk. P-Air is good on the ball and I've not seen that much of Kuijt to say he isn't but I cant really say that P-Air is much better on the ball than Ruud... Ruud is known for his amazing technique and ability to control the ball in any situation, he may not be as passive as a Pierre, so if you want someone to basically lay the ball off all the time, I guess P-Air would be your pick but then the Dutch dont have a goal scoring 10 right now, certainly not one to replace the scoring of a prolific striker like Ruud.
I used to be a big fan of Kluivert, back in days of the Ajax of '95. After that he got some problems of the pitch and don't like him as much now. But while he is great at holding a ball and scoring with just a small part of his toe, he doesn't create to many scoring chances. He does have about the best control of the ball I have ever seen though. My favorite line-up would be: ----------Van Nistelrooij Robben---------------------Van Persie --Van der Vaart--------Davids --------------Maduro Jansen---Cocu-Boulahrouz---Kromkamp ------------Van der Sar Davids and van Persie on the right even though they are left-footed but so be it. Van Nistelrooij if he becomes the player we so desperately need. I don't think you have heard of Jansen though. Plays with Vitesse.
I think they secretly installed some computer chips in the brain of the Dutch defenders so that they would go brain-dead every time Kempes got the ball.