egg

You're now mixing up passing lanes with other stuff. Movement, passing, players rotating and assuming new positions in the match etc, isn't new. Sure, Pep has honed it to an extent but your desperation to come across as knowledgeable is getting a bit much, and you've not persuaded me that you have much understanding. I'm off for an Indian. You enjoy your evening.

Keep posting please MB, your posts on the younger teams in particular I find really interesting. On the face of your first post it looked like we didn't field any subs, and given the shambles that our academy is, it's understandable that you queried it.

Do you honestly think that passing behind players or into channels is a new concept that never happened pre Pep? That giving it a name makes it something new? I appreciate that you're passionate about this, I respect that, but you've shown me in our exchanges that your understanding is very limited to the point that I don't see any point in carrying on an exchange with you.

Yep, passing into space for runners, and blocking off. You've convinced yourself that this stuff is something new. It isn't. Yes it has a name now, but it's happened since football was first played. Sure, the organisation of the runners and the pre planned strategy is more sophisticated than it was, but we're not seeing anything radical as a concept.

Passing lanes used to be called gaps between defenders/players. Read this. https://www.empirecityacademy.com/blog/creating-and-using-passing-lan Anyways, I'm not sure how this helps a discussion, or how it's felt to be anything new. Players have always passed into space. Other players have always ran into space to receive the ball. Defenders have always tried to cut off the space. Theres absolutely nothing new in that, regardless of how much paint Pep may have put on a pitch.

People can use terms if they understand what they mean, but have the courtesy to explain what they mean as the masses won't recognise the jargon. That said, in my experience (and its a generalisation) people who use jargon usually don't really understand the subject - real understanding means a person can avoid jargon and explain something technical in simple parlance. Anyways, unless and until anyone posts anything insightful about the evolution of tactics or similar, I'll shut up.

Coffee

Normally I'd agree, but Jota is in my fantasy team!

Haulage issues are a global problem. BAT are seeing a shortage of drivers all over Europe and beyond, and prices for hauliers has doubled. Poland, Romania and Turkey have big issues. But we're not hearing about this in the press here.

Brentford look a good side. Lots of size and pace too. Plenty of goals in this game I think.

Look at this in a different way SOG. On this thread, TWar uses phrases without explanation. Assuming there's an understanding, there's no insight given so it doesn't actually help. That said, it's obvious what the terms mean, and the point many have made is that they describe nothing new. You're no hipster (no offence), and like most people on here you'll refer to gaps between players as exactly that, not passing lanes to try to make yourself sound clever. I'm interested in the discussion but when someone seeks to suggest that a 442 never has 2 defensive midfielders (that you must refer to as a double pivot, of course), or that you can't have attacking full backs in a 442, I tend to think that they don't really have much knowledge.

Ha!! Manicured beards. Hipster. New words to describe nothing new. Hipster. And pointless.

Personally I'd rather read an opinion relevant to the topic, even if I disagree with it, than someone whingeing about those opinions but making no actual contribution. What's the issue with describing hipster phrases as hipster phrases? It's what they are.

Your contribution hasn't added much to the topic though has it.

Clubs pay analysts to understand how opponents play and coaches to coach them to deal with how opponents play, but what's the basis of your claim that clubs pay people to develop new tactics? I find it hard to accept that any top flight clubs would do that. Barca aren't, they're threatening to sack Koeman if he doesn't stop trying to be innovative!

The problem is you don't seem to understand how 442 can be played going forward. If 2 men in the middle stay deep, and 1 of the front 2 drops off, the team advance in a 4231. I get the impression that if you read a Michael Roux cookbook you'd be convinced that you're a Michelin star chef.

Dunno, but it was a shocker. I remember being at Wembley watching us play it against Norway (I think). 0-0 and the players had no idea what they were supposed to be doing.

Yep, agreed.

Your Salah point in a 442 discussion is pointless. He doesn't play as a winger, and Liverpool don't play 442. They play, usually, a 433 so Salah plays as wide forward in a 3 up top. Indeed, you've said above that TAA essentially plays as the right winger in that formation so make your mind up. As for your modern inside forward point. I'll stick on the Liverpool from the 80's point as you seem to focus on the current Liverpool. Watch back how they played. When Craig Johnston was one of the wide men in a midfield 4 he always came inside. Ditto Paul Walsh. Ditto others. 442 is not all the Burnley way, and never has been.

You're confusing yourself now mate. You said: "As for before, in a 442 you don't have a 10, you don't have a double pivot and you don't have attacking fullbacks". That's wrong on all levels. You perception of 442 seems to be a rigid concept of two full backs sitting deep. Two wingers staying wide. And 2 men up top waiting for the ball to be pumped up to them. It's more sophisticated than that in pub football, and has been much more variable than that for donkeys years. Re the "10". If one of the top 2 drop off they essentially play as a 10, ie not with their back to goal as per a 9. I've given you the Sheringham example as to how that has been happening for years. In our 2 up top in recent times, one player would always play short. You've said that there's no "double pivot" in a 442. I've given you quoted text from an article that explains that the double pivot is nothing revolutionary, and merely 2 defensive midfielders with a hipster name. I've explained that Saints played with that at times in the 80's in a 424/442. You've said that teams don't play with attacking full backs in a 442. They do and have since before you started following the game. You challenged me to name a full back with more assists than TAA (I'm not sure what that has to do with your 442 point as TAA doesn't play that formation). Regardless, and to get back to your point that full backs don't attack in a 442, I've taken you back 35 years when Mel Sterland was smashing in goals in a 442. Other full backs have been doing it and assisting - I won't do all your research for you, but if you show me a TAA assist I'll raise you 6 goals in the first 6 games of the 87/88 season from Liverpool's then right back, including a hat trick...all in a 442. I'll leave the discussion here, it's a bit pointless.

It's their job to help the country when needed in whatever capacity required. They ain't at war, so use them where there is need. The government are fecking incompetent though, and the driver situation is a complete shambles.

You've convinced yourself that you know more than you do. Here's a quote from thefootballanalysis re the double 6/pivot: "The 'double-six' is pretty simple and nothing revolutionary. It involves two defensive midfielders breaking up the play and distributing the ball well to the attackers. They have to be composed, often being in tight situations and being forced to turn and play" As above, its not revolutionary. Cockerell and Case did it in the 80's allowing our wingers and full backs to get forward. Other teams too. Notable that you mention TAA with his dead ball assists but ignore my reference to Mel Sterland. He scored 8 goals in a 38 game season in 1985-86. I watched that Sheffield Weds team lots, and the deep lying midfielders allowed him to get forward. Wiki refers to "his surges down the right flank and deliveries into the box often created goals for his teammates...". How was that possible before Pep came along eh?!

People filming stuff they should be enjoying rather than just enjoying the moment.

Here's the thing, you're set on your beliefs. Some teams have played with a striker long and another dropping off for years. In your time as a fan, think Sheringham dropping deep and playing with his face rather than back to goal. Spurs played 442 and he was one of the 2, albeit in a different role. In a 442, teams have played with 2 deep midfielders hundreds of times. You're wrong to say otherwise. In a 442 teams have been playing with attacking full backs since God was a boy. Liverpool's full backs did it in the 80's. Mel Sterland playing RB often popped up at left inside forward and scoring more goals than I suspect Adams will this season. That happened as midfielders covered. The same thing happens today. You think the evolution we see now is radical and new. It really isn't.

Thanks, good post and hard to disagree with much of it. The key part for me is that there's been evolution on the tactics, nothing radical, but getting hung up terms adds nothing to any debate for me. I read your post after I'd typed and posted what I did on sports science and physicality. We're on the same page.