ITA v JPN - The movement and passing of

[Tilla]

Yes man I remember Eder. As I said I was just testing myself to see the names I could recall from that team and those were the names which popped up. I didn't list them in any particular order.

[T.K.]

USAF, we must be kind to our elders. Be nice to my friend Karl.

Yeah can't lie USAF seems like a really angry person these days. He needs Dr. Phil in his life.

[Jangle]

Yup, nuff arguments a school.Doigie Reds, Juvenile, Frisky (yuh remember those names Stoni?).

[GazX]

What a Brazil side?! Zico, Socrates, Junior, Falcoa, Paulo Isadoro, Serginho, Oscar. Just testing myself to see how many players I can recall. Man if I could only recall my school work like I can these footballers, I might have made it to Munro.

Oooh yes, i remember Serginiho arl too well.
But yes them Japanese and Korean man very useful players.
Ideal for the prem.

[Stonigut]

Yeah man, them guys was a little younger I remember juvy when him just come bar, one little little youth but him come with big man ball brains from him little, little doig was a good manning cup player I remember a mstch we play gainst kc in a walker cup, we ball them me and the bigger doig was in the same class.

[Me]

It would take Jamaica over a decade to get that type of ball into our National team. And that is assuming that we have coaches willing to accept that method. Like most major countries, they all play the same set system from them is little youth. in Italy they go over defensive tactics unlike any other nation. Klinsmann say him frighten when he went over there and they had entire sessions repeatedly going over positioning with no use of the ball whatsoever during the session.

Our defenders and defensive midfielders do not know how to maintain shape when a team decides to remove a point forward and play with a bunch of attacking midfielders who are frequently interchanging. The recruits don't help much in that aspect either because British players often grow up in tactically inflexible system and seem lost when they encounter such a setup.

Another aspect that prohibits us from playing like them, is the inability of our central defenders, defensive midfielders and wingbacks (particularly our right side) to play comfortably with the ball at their feet. So having a team high press them is not an issue like it is for us.

These things have to be addressed at the youth level.

[Stonigut]

Good points, it took Italy probably 50 years to develop that expertise, but I also know it is easier to defend than it is to attack in any system and pretty much everything and it is easier to develop impenetrable type defense versus overwhelming attack, thus basically Italy style versus Spanish style, look at the results over time. I will take Italy focus on defense with counter than Spain the perennial favorite that has finally come good per the past four years while trying for the last seventy.

Superior attack is incredibly hard to develop and superior defense while hard is easier with committed, organized, athletic fast players.

In football or in war we can probably count much less how superior attack won the war, win a battle but not the war, we can count a lot more instances of how superior defense stymies the most incredible attack and ultimately wins the war. All out attack is almost impossible to sustain and is always susceptible to the counter, especially if there is not continued variation in attack, not easy to be offensively creative continually.
Think hitler, think Napoleon, think hannibal all great attackers all losers in the end, think great defense, think Russia twice once with hitler once with Napoleon, think the English with a great navy defending the island from attack, much the same way a midfield should protect the back four defense from continual assault.

One of purest forms of combat is boxing or used to be think of the greatest pure attackers, all ultimately failed, Tyson, foreman, Liston all seemingly invincible at one time all ultimately beaten by boxers with good defense, stamina and counter attacking genius. One of the best fight I ever saw was hearns versus Leonard, much as I hated Leonard and his sappy pillow punches he tamed the attack of hearns over 14 rounds then knocked him out after putting up a wicked defense for that time. superior defense is more sustainable over the long run relative to superior offense,that is the history of the world except maybe in the case of the Mongols whose speed, skill and brutality was probably the most lethal offensive force continually successful on attack for the longest period in human history.

[Stonigut]

Defense rules

Good points, it took Italy probably 50 years to develop that expertise, but I also know it is easier to defend than it is to attack in any system and pretty much everything and it is easier to develop impenetrable type defense versus overwhelming attack, thus basically Italy style versus Spanish style, look at the results over time. I will take Italy focus on defense with counter than Spain the perennial favorite that has finally come good per the past four years while trying for the last seventy.

Superior attack is incredibly hard to develop and superior defense while hard is easier with committed, organized, athletic fast players.

In football or in war we can probably count much less how superior attack won the war, win a battle but not the war, we can count a lot more instances of how superior defense stymies the most incredible attack and ultimately wins the war. All out attack is almost impossible to sustain and is always susceptible to the counter, especially if there is not continued variation in attack, not easy to be offensively creative continually.
Think hitler, think Napoleon, think hannibal all great attackers all losers in the end, think great defense, think Russia twice once with hitler once with Napoleon, think the English with a great navy defending the island from attack, much the same way a midfield should protect the back four defense from continual assault.

One of purest forms of combat is boxing or used to be think of the greatest pure attackers, all ultimately failed, Tyson, foreman, Liston all seemingly invincible at one time all ultimately beaten by boxers with good defense, stamina and counter attacking genius. One of the best fight I ever saw was hearns versus Leonard, much as I hated Leonard and his sappy pillow punches he tamed the attack of hearns over 14 rounds then knocked him out after putting up a wicked defense for that time. superior defense is more sustainable over the long run relative to superior offense,that is the history of the world except maybe in the case of the Mongols whose speed, skill and brutality was probably the most lethal offensive force continually successful on attack for the longest period in human history.

[Muadib]

I would be happy if we could look like Haiti....

Look like we know what we are doing and have all players fluid in ball possession and passing..

That last game against Honduras we looked like we did not have a CLUE about coordinated movement in ANY 3rd of the field.. we made football look DIFFICULT..

[Karl]

Good points, it took Italy probably 50 years to develop that expertise, but I also know it is easier to defend than it is to attack in any system and pretty much everything and it is easier to develop impenetrable type defense versus overwhelming attack, thus basically Italy style versus Spanish style, look at the results over time. I will take Italy focus on defense with counter than Spain the perennial favorite that has finally come good per the past four years while trying for the last seventy.

The counter-attack is based on getting the few 'attacks' developed - (Does a team like Italy, the acknowledged best counter-attacker of all-time really develop that COUNTER-ATTACK?) - right just about 100% of the time.

Superior attack is incredibly hard to develop and superior defense while hard is easier with committed, organized, athletic fast players.

If getting the counter-attack right at all-times is just about achieved...then would it not suggest the incredible hard to develop has been developed to just about '100% degree' of perfection?

In football or in war we can probably count much less how superior attack won the war, win a battle but not the war, we can count a lot more instances of how superior defense stymies the most incredible attack and ultimately wins the war. All out attack is almost impossible to sustain and is always susceptible to the counter, especially if there is not continued variation in attack, not easy to be offensively creative continually.

Think hitler, think Napoleon, think hannibal all great attackers all losers in the end, think great defense, think Russia twice once with hitler once with Napoleon, think the English with a great navy defending the island from attack, much the same way a midfield should protect the back four defense from continual assault.

One of purest forms of combat is boxing or used to be think of the greatest pure attackers, all ultimately failed, Tyson, foreman, Liston all seemingly invincible at one time all ultimately beaten by boxers with good defense, stamina and counter attacking genius. One of the best fight I ever saw was hearns versus Leonard, much as I hated Leonard and his sappy pillow punches he tamed the attack of hearns over 14 rounds then knocked him out after putting up a wicked defense for that time. superior defense is more sustainable over the long run relative to superior offense,that is the history of the world except maybe in the case of the Mongols whose speed, skill and brutality was probably the most lethal offensive force continually successful on attack for the longest period in human history.

The defense was great...but so were the attacks!!! None of those you mentioned depended solely on defense. Each had potent attacks. The proof of the pudding in each case...the attack, counter-attack if you will, won the day.

[Karl]

It would take Jamaica over a decade to get that type of ball into our National team. And that is assuming that we have coaches willing to accept that method. Like most major countries, they all play the same set system from them is little youth. in Italy they go over defensive tactics unlike any other nation. Klinsmann say him frighten when he went over there and they had entire sessions repeatedly going over positioning with no use of the ball whatsoever during the session.

Our defenders and defensive midfielders do not know how to maintain shape when a team decides to remove a point forward and play with a bunch of attacking midfielders who are frequently interchanging. The recruits don't help much in that aspect either because British players often grow up in tactically inflexible system and seem lost when they encounter such a setup.

Another aspect that prohibits us from playing like them, is the inability of our central defenders, defensive midfielders and wingbacks (particularly our right side) to play comfortably with the ball at their feet. So having a team high press them is not an issue like it is for us.

These things have to be addressed at the youth level.

Absolutely correct!
Results would be evident at the 5th year...as that would be the time it would take our talented 12 and 13 year olds be then 17 and 18 year olds.

Just think on it - Our current marred U17s have the talent to overcome the awful teaching/coaches and graduate to the penultimate round of the FIFA U-17 World Cup on a consistent basis...and in 2 cases (...or was it 3 cases? Please double check?) advanced to FIFA U-17 World Cup finals. I do think with proper teaching... and removal of those imparting to our talent 'nonsense' - teachers marring the students...we would attend at the FIFA U-17 finals and once there not merely show-up...but put on display 'good football'.

[Stonigut]

Response to Karl - Italy versus Japan thread

The counter-attack is based on getting the few 'attacks' developed - (Does a team like Italy, the acknowledged best counter-attacker of all-time really develop that COUNTER-ATTACK?) - right just about 100% of the time.

Not not absolutely sure what you are asking ere, but let me take a whack.
First off let me define my understanding of the counter attack, that is strictly where in the few of play where the opponent is in the midst of attacking your goal and you are scrambling players, tightening space and trying to hold shape, the opponent is expanding their formation and you are interacting your formation, with the expansion of their formation, they are weakening their defensive shape considerably and spreading their formation in an attempt to obtain an advantage (reward and risk), if they lose the ball in the final third or even in the final half of the second third, then they are at their weakest from being able to defend and we must strike quickly to maximize the advantage in the resulting space and time chaos which they now face.

Now the question you ask s does Italy prepare responses to this or is it spontaneous reaction, I am not sure but it would be the thing to prepare for that, maroons never attacked in the light of day, or charged at the redcoats, they were never seen, they only attacked once the enemy was in a vulnerable position which is the massive advantage of the counter attack if the counter is not wasted by slowly setting up the play giving the opponent time to reset and shut down space valuable in the attack. Again the question, does a boxer practice the response to an opponents overcommittment on attack, you bet, so a missed exuberant right cross can be met with a short right handed uppercut, same in ball, that an overcommittment and loss on the right flank by the wing back of the opposing side creates a potential space and time gap for about 3-4 seconds, that really will require passing ability out of all players in the back in order to exploit this opportunity. Can't do it right 100 percent of time but a 10 percent conversion rate meaning a goal from that opportunity would be fantastic.





If getting the counter-attack right at all-times is just about achieved...then would it not suggest the incredible hard to develop has been developed to just about '100% degree' of perfection?



The defense was great...but so were the attacks!!! None of those you mentioned depended solely on defense. Each had potent attacks. The proof of the pudding in each case...the attack, counter-attack if you will, won the day.

Nobody is totally attack or defense, but those that can defend well and attack well will win more consistently. I believe defense is really only truly a time buyer especially when your opponent is superior, so could Tahiti have gained three draws, yes they could but someone fooled them into believing that playing wide open ball is a good thing, and they conceded 24 goals, they knew that they were inferior yet chose to play a style that gave them no chance to compete, what s the point of playing if you don't try to compete, f you can't take your eleven players and stand and defend against superior opposition then don't bother playing. The maroons knew they would die with frontal assault, so they used inferior numbers, terrain, spy systems, camouflage to effectively fight and beat a superior opponent. The Russians knew they could not attack Napoleon or hitler straight up on first engagement, wear then down, let them use their energy and resources, draw them to the terrain which best suits the inferior opponent then you counter, same with ball.