Webmaster

[Thracian]

Webmaster on Talking Balls has today sought to ridicule an opinion of mine and based on his lengthy experience as a football follower he is probably right. However, as he has stated his view I hope he does not begrudge me a right of reply.

Basically Webmaster slates me for a) complaining about City playing people out of position and then b) my suggesting remedies to City's predicament which suggest Levein do exactly that.

Anyway, to explain:

I have complained about Levein CONTINUALLY playing people out of position when he doesn't need to, not about his occasionally doing so out of expediency.

Before Saturday's match I said we needed a team who were all going to be up for the contest and felt we needed to take the game to Sheffield "from first to last"

I aslo asknowledged that Levein "was snookered to some extent" by the absence of Gudjonsson and Smith.

Because we needed to dictate the game I felt it would be better to pack the side with our best available players, our most positive players, and make the system fit those players.

This suggestion, as you'll see, was an emergency solution to emergency circumstances and would have avoided playing underperformers like Kisnorbo and Hamill.

I did not dwell on the fact that Maybury and Hughes were selected out of position because, although Sheffield scored a goal at our left hand post and Maybury was indifferent, neither he nor Hughes did particularly badly overall compared with others.

However we only had one natural winger to choose from (Hamill) and I felt in the circumstances that Hammond should start because (judging by Stoke at home) he would offer more on the right with his energy, stamina, fight and speed than Hamill on the left.

That would also have enabled Hughes to move inside where he is stronger.

That left a decision in my mind about who should start out of Kisnorbo or Hume and to me it was no contest. Hume should have played because he makes things happen and assists an attacking strategy.

This would have left DeVries and O'Grady up front. O'Grady scored twice in the Reserves last week but just watching him shooting in during the warm up suggested he is a far more natural finisher than Hammond (to me).

However, his goals for the Reserves and his recent record were dismissed by Webmaster (and, although I disagree with that, it does beg the question that, if he's no good, as Webmaster hints, why was he in the squad at all?)

My approach would have been to attack and keep attacking because we cannot defend safely for long enough as has been proved time and again.

What we actually did certainly didn't work and what we've done most of the season hasn't worked no matter how much Webmaster ridicules my point of view.

It was never going to be the perfect line-up for City yesterday but we didn't field enough players who might permanently unsettle the opposition. We didn't ask enough questions going forward and we lost. Again.

We conceded two goals. Again. And we were never going to score three goals with the team we played.

Whether this approach would have worked better than Levein's we'll never know. But it was an opinion. And one which asked for something different in our approach, something which utilised what I believed to be our best available players and just might have avoided the miserable performance of yesterday and a continuance of our lengthy run of miserable performances.

As I said at the beginning. Webmaster has so many thousands of posts to his name that I concede he is

probably right and that I am, as he wrote "illogical and contradictory".

I just thought I would explain exactly what I felt and exactly why I thought us mad to play people I regard as weak links like Kisnorbo and Hamill.

I am sure if I had attacked him in the same way (which I wouldn't dream of) he too would have responded.

At least you can all judge the rights and wrongs for yourself.

Certainly it would be nice if SOMEONE came up with an effective solution to our problems and it surely isn't to just carry on in the same way and hope for the best. Has Webmaster perhaps got any ideas?. What would he/she do?

[SilverFox]

Your reply on a forum he doesn't read.

[Thracian]

Your reply on a forum he doesn't read.

He's read it, but thanks anyway..

[Disillusioned]

You've come over all 'umble Mr Thracian sir. A bit of out of character if I may say. So a word in your shell-like.

I'd be very cautious if I were you on the subject of positions and systems. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, tactics is the only sanctuary of the recycled football coach. 'Talking a good game' is the one sure way of keeping your bum stuck to the hot seat (well, that and having a few too many seasons left on your contract to pay-up).

Carlos Alberto Perreira (ex manager of Azerbaijan and scorer of that wonder goal in the 1970 World Cup Final) brought out a book last year that claimed to be the last word on systems. As it turns out it was closer to the first word as it was virtually a verbatim copy of a book brought out in the 1960's. Plus ca change...

Some years back I attended a seminar organised by the London Football Coaches Association. Some software that could track players movements was launched at this event. When it came to the demo many of the delegates were taken aback by all the squiggly lines going helter skelter all over the screen. One of them asked Bob Wilson (who was hosting the event) whether the game covered by the demo was a schoolboy fixture. Wilson told us that the case study was an England game.

Many of us naively thought we would see pretty patterns of 4-4-2, 4-3-3 or whatever emerging on the monitor. Organised chaos would be a generous description of what we actually saw. Outfield players were almost always out of position when in possession and most of the time when they weren't. The joke doing the rounds was that the only time you could spot the system was just before kick-off (and occasionally after goal kicks).

My doubts about systems were confirmed when I read a piece by Phil Neal (ex Liverpool) who was waxing lyrical about the 'beauty of 4-4-2.' To paraphrase the old knobbler '...the beauty of 4-4-2 is it's flexibility. You can easily change to 5-3-2 and then back again to 4-4-2 when you need to...'

Obviously MON got it the wrong way round then. If you make the mistake of lining up with 5-3-2 (as opposed to merely reverting to it from 4-4-2 when you're 4-0 down) all the players are instantly impaled on metal rods from the first whistle and all Phil's beautiful flexibility is lost.

[C-man]

hes a twat anyway.

Most of them on there are stuck up their own arse. Take this person for example:

it's people like him that start these "rumours" and people believe him because he publishes his views in articles.

i would imagin he's about 16 years old and thought he should make the most of his GCSE english, by writing up his bonehead dad's opinions on the internet. after all, what dad says has to be right.

[Libertine]

Nothing wrong with TalkingBalls. Some very funny posters on there, but it does get annoying when every single topic gets changed into a pun-fest.

[Hullfox]

All the same Thrach, I'm not sure why your reply to him is here.

Your views are as valid as anybodies but I don't follow the reasoning for bringing an argument from another forum onto FT.

[Thracian]

You've come over all 'umble Mr Thracian sir. A bit of out of character if I may say. So a word in your shell-like.

I'd be very cautious if I were you on the subject of positions and systems. Just as patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel, tactics is the only sanctuary of the recycled football coach. 'Talking a good game' is the one sure way of keeping your bum stuck to the hot seat (well, that and having a few too many seasons left on your contract to pay-up).

Carlos Alberto Perreira (ex manager of Azerbaijan and scorer of that wonder goal in the 1970 World Cup Final) brought out a book last year that claimed to be the last word on systems. As it turns out it was closer to the first word as it was virtually a verbatim copy of a book brought out in the 1960's. Plus ca change...

Some years back I attended a seminar organised by the London Football Coaches Association. Some software that could track players movements was launched at this event. When it came to the demo many of the delegates were taken aback by all the squiggly lines going helter skelter all over the screen. One of them asked Bob Wilson (who was hosting the event) whether the game covered by the demo was a schoolboy fixture. Wilson told us that the case study was an England game.

Many of us naively thought we would see pretty patterns of 4-4-2, 4-3-3 or whatever emerging on the monitor. Organised chaos would be a generous description of what we actually saw. Outfield players were almost always out of position when in possession and most of the time when they weren't. The joke doing the rounds was that the only time you could spot the system was just before kick-off (and occasionally after goal kicks).

My doubts about systems were confirmed when I read a piece by Phil Neal (ex Liverpool) who was waxing lyrical about the 'beauty of 4-4-2.' To paraphrase the old knobbler '...the beauty of 4-4-2 is it's flexibility. You can easily change to 5-3-2 and then back again to 4-4-2 when you need to...'

Obviously MON got it the wrong way round then. If you make the mistake of lining up with 5-3-2 (as opposed to merely reverting to it from 4-4-2 when you're 4-0 down) all the players are instantly impaled on metal rods from the first whistle and all Phil's beautiful flexibility is lost.

"Ah, humility. One may inwardly acknowledge one is inconsequential without thanking your fellow man for making you feel so.

As for systems, my own philosophy is at the same time both simple and complex yet founded on freedom.

Put starkly it is to first get the ball, to treat its retention as if your very life depended on it and in so doing, use all cunning and expertise, both individually and collectively, to fashion goals.

The essence, and alas the complexity, is in the groundwork undertaken towards accomplishment of the task and the desire (existing or instilled) to effect its success.

Pure, untarnished achievement is fleeting but cameos of purity can be enjoyed if you first inspire the taskforce to feel invincible." YrsTrly....2006

Always a pleasure and I'll not mock you for refusing my bet. Indeed I would have mirrored your reaction just as there are those who come this way who wrongly believe I mirror your identity.

[Thracian]

All the same Thrach, I'm not sure why your reply to him is here.

Your views are as valid as anybodies but I don't follow the reasoning for bringing an argument from another forum onto FT.

It wasn't meant to be an argument just a reply.

But the short answer is convenience.

Any suggestions about what City should do while your around?

[Babylon]

Any suggestions about what City should do while your around?

Get a lucky rabbits foot, find a four leaf clover, cross your fingers and pray.

[Guest]

Get a lucky rabbits foot, find a four leaf clover, cross your fingers and pray.

That's just be for starters!!

[Babylon]

hes a twat anyway.

Most of them on there are stuck up their own arse. Take this person for example:

And you're no better making comments like that.

[woznotwos]

And you're no better making comments like that.

and you aswell for noting it!!.........DOH!!