Creative/Attacking Central Midfielder

[Stonigut]

Don1 you are a JC man, yuh know more than everyone else that we need brain and brawn, ala Norman Manley.

[Karl]

USA!

[Stonigut]

Yes, right.

[USAF]

Yes! But the discussion has progressed past the intro question.

[Rockman]

We do not have a striker like Drogba that can make something out of nothing(the inverse is true, they make nothing out of something).
We are really a nondescript team(except the gifted CD).
Regarding Man U,even when Scholes retired, we were abound with attacking midfielders,the noticeable drop in performance occurred when we lost the defensive midfielder Fletcher, Carrick is the one that made the transition for team Man U to restore order.
Dunny,we owe it to the strikers and the defenders to field a holding midfielder;keeping the ball deprives the other team from having it and we are asking too much of the strikers to create scoring opportunities.
A holding midfielder instills a passing game to his team.
Having a discussion that maybe we do not need one really shows that the fundamentals are in place that would make it fruitful having one.

[Stonigut]

Absolutely, as a matter of fact counterattack ball is much more natural and easy to plan for when you have the comparative advantage in straight up speed and even more so if you really practice it a lot and can execute multiple variations of that counter regardless of play origin point.

Again everything comes down to scenario planning, practice and execution, the rest of it is already there good one on one skills, open field dribbling with your opponent on a bicycle going backwards always best, and pure raw unadulterated speed into open spaces, delivering that ball into that open space is not threading Ederle anybody at that level shoulde ale o make that outlet pass or start that chain relation pass on the counter and keep that time advantage.

What we are trying to do now is ridiculously hard, play possession ball at lazy man speed, it cannot be done consistently, maybe in the 1st and 2nd third of the field but by the last third the space is much tighter, the defense is compressed and pressing it is like attacking a walled city with ladders, the defenders have it easy there is little if any surprise and we don't have the Ronaldo's or messi's that can create magic or just Rachet up another level. All the Italians and Spanish players have been chosen literally from they emerged the womb and have been selected based on their unusual gifts which to me the first one is a brain to action speed that is lightening fast, our guys touch the ball, touch the ball, thinking, passing too much time. Space is closed already, you have lost possession. Not enough time is spent practicing all possession under final third type pressure. Ottom lie I believe we ave all necessary top lay this all, now it is practice, time and execution.

[Rockman]

Wouldn't beating the US depends on having an advantage?

[USAF]

You say "absolutely", but it sounds more like a wish list than reality with the present lineups. Remember that MENTAL/COGNITIVE speed is more important and can neutralize PHYSICAL speed, and that is a problem you have.

A counter attacking game looks/seems easy if you already have the personnel, on the field, that can effectively & efficiently PASS, MOVE WITH & WITHOUT THE BALL, EXPLOIT SPACE and FINISH.

[USAF]

Just executing the basics can & will beat this present U.S. team. As I have said before, they have been very lucky thus far.

[Stonigut]

It is as easy as that relative to what we have been trying to do, what you gain with the counter strategy is space and time, if you have speed and one on one skill which we can find aplenty, what we don't have is guys that can pass quickly and effectively in tight spaces, we definitely do not have that, Spain has that, mexico, etc etc., what you are doing is setting them up in the best system to harness and reap the rewards of existing skills and ability, then first touch and passing in tight space is not as much of an issue you have shifted the space and time continuum into a different relationship relative to the density of defending players and the shape of the defending players who will be scrambling to get back to position first.

[Stonigut]

Btw mental cognitive is more important in tight spaces not as critical with space and time not being critical. Playing a possession game and attacking into the teeth of a set defense is not easy and we don't really have the players nor the aptitude or the preparation for that type f ball and it shows Everytime we play a higher ranked team.

[Muadib]

Counter attacking without a clinical striker ?

Heh, heh..

Everywhere yuh tun Macka Juk yuh..

[Stonigut]

Alright so what s your option regular attack without a clinical striker, what's the difference, difference between the two is counter attack striker has more space and he has a time advantage, regular attack s facing a staked defense and he is facing them head on, either you have a great short passing game or you go home. What is so hard to understand about that, all you are looking at doing is playing a system that is better suited to our players. It is just straight common sense.

[Karl]

What are you saying?
Surely not that the TEAM is expected to count only on counter-attacking...or even that counter-acting is "first option'?

TEAMs are good at counter-attacking but counter-attacking is never what a TEAM is built for. It is merely an option which some TEAMs have mastered.

All teams are expected to have full complement of good movers and passers. Players who employ commonsense - looking always for options that ensure possession of the ball and scoring opportunities. Counter-attacks most often 'come off' when the opponents are pressing high up the field....loses the ball...and the 'counter-attacking TEAM' has the speed (of thought and of covering of distance) and 'commonsense' to exploit passing options.

The GUNNERS today provided a classic example...the holes (passing options)are usually there to be seen by even 'the blind'. The execution depends more on commonsense (TEAMplay...a lack of selfishness) than any other thing!

Again you do not build a TEAM for counter-attacking play. It is worked at just as many other tactics. ...but the overriding task is good 'passing and movement' & 'movement and passing'.

It is the lack of effective movement and passing that is the bane of our TEAM. It leads to giving away the ball too often...lack of swift passing in and around the penalty-area...low goal-scoring and a defense that is not as 'stingy' as it should be.

The GUNNERS, ManUs, Barcelonas and Real Madrids...and top national teams are good at counter-attacking because the players are fast thinkers, fast runners and play a TEAM game. The coaches would not have it any other way.

Our TEAM current has too many players who do not put TEAM above all else.

Again...that anti-TEAM behavior results in a *Jobi McAnuff, *McCleary and *Shelton attempting too much while on the ball - and results in losing same or being late with the pass...or not doing enough when without the ball.

Clearly seen - particularly those named - not attacking balls coming from long passes (ground or in the air) and allowing opponents to run greater distances to 'pick up' the ball...holding onto the ball a) while they try to outrun faster opponents (dumb! dumb! selfish acts)...or b) try to 'beat' (pop) an opponent when a simple pass would have dismissed same.

Our possession %age rate, accurate passing rate and goal-scoring opportunities would immediately increase if the simple sensible things were improved.

Picking TEAM and coaching for counter-attacking as 1st priority is a fool's errand.

*Those players are not the only ones engaged in 'forming the fool'...others also attempt to much at times and at times become slackers. ...but they engage in either of those so often that it is disgusting!

I guess the three players who try hardest at sticking to TEAM 1st, 2nd, 3rd...to infinite degree are Ricketts, Mariappia and Demar Philips! ...and that also stands out such that even the blind sees it!!!

[Karl]

You do realize that the question suggests thinking a TEAM without a striker' should never counter-attack?

Would such a stance be wise?

Would you suggest that as a result of our strikers' poor performances we should not attack/attempt goal-scoring?