ACL brings up painful memories of AC2011!

[Babak agha]

Double post

[Hajagha]

I really apprecite Haji's feedback on this as well, .

Honestly, I think these are just numbers. 4-3-3 or 4-5-1? What's the difference if you fill the same players and ask them the same thing?

Usually, if you fill a more offensive player than a defensive player, you call it 4-3-3, if you fill a player with more midfielder ability, you call it 4-5-1.

besides, you gotta watch the game and see how they form in the game. For example, I was watching Barca-Zaragoza the other day. Zar was playing 5-3-1-1. That's it. They were 5 sitting on their penalty edge, 5-10 yards in front of them, 3 DMs, in front the them (10 yards) another M. and on the half line there was a lonely striker. As a matter of fact the guy had 2 one on one, and Barca didn't score until 42 minutes. I watched it until 75 and it was still 1-0. Javier Aguirre, the coach, is a very respectable coach, he knows his stuff and he admits Barca are unstoppable. He came with a plan to stop them. He bought my respect. He was the Mexican Manager in 2010.

So, he can come up and call his formation whatever he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that there were 5 players in a line in the back, 3 front of them, 1 farther, and 1 forward.

Back to Inter-Barca: First, we arguably talk about the best coach of the world verses the best team of the world. I exactly don’t remember how he played in the first leg, I remember they were not defending much and Snider played his life game. They had the best game they could get. So, to tell you it was 4-5-1 or 4-3-3, I don’t remember. But, in the second leg, they played exactly with 5 defenders and 3 DMs. They closed all the spaces and times. They sat on their field and waited for the counter. It worked. That’s why now many teams play this formation against Barca.

If you ask me, we should learn more than teach. The whole post started from the wrong foot, claiming that the offensive startegy is a better approach regardless when/where/who/how...

Cheers,

[Hajagha]

I got a few minutes to waste:

Back to the topic, the title stays:

ACL brings up painful memories of AC2011!

By reading, it pictures a painful DEFENSIVE strategy which failed before and repeated again. I could see the obvious over-confidence from the author by mentioning mediocre, strong, weak, and so on. Without exactly says who's the real weak, or mediocre in this story?

It's like you always picture yourself as the hero in the movie and not the "bad guy" who is the punch bag or the clown who has no idea what he is doing.

Bring you an example, in WC 2010, one of the closest teams to Spain, on paper, was Argentina with the best player in the world in the squad and handful of decorated players lined up.

They, both played against Germany, and they both played offensive. We all know what happened to Argentina, however Spain could dominate the same opponent.

Every body loves to see his team plays like Spain. But, the question is "do we have the capacity to play offensive?" or we become a clown with too many balls in his A$$? They thought they can trash Germany. What was the result? They were trashed instead.

So, do you see the relation of Argentina to Spain like Iran to Japan? I say, not even close. We went to a game in AC2011, that almost every prediction had their odds against us. We "resisted" until minute 110. We could become "lucky" and pull out a win out off game in penalty. Now, what do we get? A PAINFUL MEMORY. if you ask me, the painful memory is becoming laughable object in front of world. Again, we put another team which last time couldn't even come out from their group. They tied against a team with two players 15,000,000 Euro. What did we get? The same pain. It's like we are Barca and the other team is googool magoogli najaf-abad. When I state even Barca plays conservative time to time. I should prove which player is defensive, which not. Without saying, who said we are the hero in this movie and not the clown?

We can stay in our denial and say we are the top of Asia, we lost/tie because we were defensive, or we can be humble, accept the reality of ourselves, put our head down and start building what has been damaged over the years because of this arrogant behavior. This reminds me the funny slogan of “honar nazd-e Iranian ast o bas”. Yah right.

Check, the offensive, but ridicules strategy by PP in last week. In minute 12 our a$$ got busted in offside line in half-line. The second goal again was another offside blunder, and become lucky to have only 3 goals in our bag. Why? Because we tried to act like superman when we dress like bonny-hooker. A real clown.

The first thing we should know, is to see ourselves in a real mirror without showing us blow-up. Like EsES should have trash the mediocre team and Iran should have taught a good lesson to the Korean that never forget. Well, Daei, I guess, read too many of these kinds of post.

Cheers,

[Doctor DOOM]

Payman jaan
I am really getting frustrated since we aren't getting anywhere? Can you answer my two questions please?
If a coach wants to play defensive does he play 4-5-1 or 4-3-3?................. etc etc etc etc

no need to get frustrated, ali jan.
you seem to be too hung on the numbers. let me show why it is useless to limit everything to just a set of numbers.

according to you, 4-3-3 is the most offensive formation. but you fail to recognize the possibility of using the wrong players or wrong tactics & strategy while using 4-3-3.
you can have a team with 3 def-mids, totally devoid of creativity while doing what comes natural to them which is play defensively, close to the defenders, which will transform the team into a defensive one.

or you could have proper midfielders in the middle, but a defensive strategy where they dont venture too far away from the rest of the team and merely play a packed midfield. pretty much how mourinho liked his games against offensive teams like barca or arsenal or ... .

so instead of being too hung on the numbers, you must see which players are used and what duties are asked of them.
but why am I repeating this? I have said this on many occasions. and I cant add to it anymore.
this merry-go-round is just tiresome

[Babak agha]

I couldn't rep, but I fully agree.

[Doctor DOOM]

The whole post started from the wrong foot, claiming that the offensive startegy is a better approach regardless when/where/who/how...
Cheers,

actually the thread is quite apt.
here's why: becoz if you want to win (with an iranian team having iranian players), you've got better chances if you played offensive football than defensive.
what you all forget is when you quote teams like inter or barca or ... you forget we dont have such players in iran.
those of you who are the proponents of defensive football and usually bring examples of Italy and Italian teams, either conveniently or unwittingly forget IN IRAN WE DONT HAVE SUCH DEFENDERS & DEFENSIVE DISCIPLINE.
so it's pretty much useless using italians as examples of how this can be done and that shdnt be done.

when we dont have such defensive players, it is foolish to rely on defensive strategies TO GET US THE WINS.
however, if you merely want a goalless result, ... then, yes. you can park the bus in front of the goal (or at least try. but I doubt you'd be successful in majority if cases) hoping that our defense would hold. but even then, we, iranians, have hardly got what we wanted. how many times have you seen our teams retreat trying to protect a goal only to concede under MOUNTING immense pressure to either draw or even lose the match? the first million times ought to have been enough

unfortunately most of us think just becoz the italians (or the french or brazilians ... depending on what we want to promote) can do it, then our iranian players also shd be able to do and achieve the same!!!!!! it just doesnt work that way.

when you know you have a weak left, you dont try to take your shots with that left foot.


again, this has been repeated ad nauseum. so I dont think repeating it would make much of a difference

[Hajagha]

^ Before you wanna win a game, you have to check if you can win that game.

You gotta know which team you play. What's their strength. How they play, whether the game is winnable or not. Then you gotta make a strategy to get the best result possible.

By mentioning "halva, halva", you don't feel sweet in your mouth. What's your claim that Iranians play offensive football? What is your proof that we dominate in attacking game? Do you know any forward players? Do you have even one offensive midfielder at Asian level?

Instead, for example in TM, you have 4 DMs, P Nouri, Neko, Ando and Hadadifar whom are at the same level and can start a game in an Asian level game. If you ask me, it is a challenge to make the best team and bench one of the mentioned players as they are one head and shoulder above the offensive players in national level.

Your best center OM is Karimi who is 33 or so and is banned to be in TM. Your best F is Majidi who is 34 or so. Your best outside OM is Khalatbari who is 5 feet and has temper like hell and so inconsistent and the best game he played came from the bench. You still have to decide who your offensive players are before you claim your strong hold is them.

Saying all of these, we are talking about a country that if a coach loses, he is sacked. So, what would be my strategy? Not losing my job by not losing a game if you ask me.

So, you still have to explain PP game based on your claim, how come PP got trashed with his offensive strategy?

Cheers,

[Doctor DOOM]

^ the reason for your insistence and high opinion on the value of those def-mids (I dont doubt their talent, btw) is becoz lately our coaches have rested too much significance and importance on defensive mids than the offensive ones. especially the latest one, our dear californian analyst chap.

at times, the roster getting overwhelmed by defensive players and def-mids (like putting in 3 def-mids at a time!) while the lack of a creative midfielder never bothered the coach. so I feel the few offensive spots in the team took the least amount of the coach's thoughts!
so obviously you'd feel that way and recognize with the importance and significance of the more defensive elements.

but that doesnt mean we dont have as good, if not better offensive elements.
we do and in abundance. in fact the nature of our football is more of an offensive than a defensive one.

********************
on pp game.
first you must tell me based on what you have picked that as an example of "attacking football"?
lol. you've just picked that game becoz they lost, so it is convenient and useful to push.
just becoz a team loses a game doesnt mean they have played "offensive" and have paid the price for this "atrocious choice of strategy"!!! who made this rule?

PP lost, not becoz they played offensive (which they didnt really. they were too muddled and uncoordinated to do anything of the like). they lost becoz they played a weak & deimi game, in front and especially in the back.
maybe they thought their defenders were capable of handling the pressure. but knowing the nature of iranian football, and the quality of our defenders, it was a bad tactic to rely on the defenders to take care of the business.

in fact, the pp game could be used as an example of how low quality most of our defenders are and generally how our defensive strategies are unreliable.

I know you want to prove "playing offensive football is bad and results in losses" to get your point across. but at least pick on the right games that do qualify all the criteria. not just becoz the scoreline "suits our argument"
so, feeling benevolent & magnanimous, let me help you and give you an example you shd have used instead : arsenal-barca game in London. when barac became so c0cky that by mid second half they forgot they are playing a very skillful, technical team, having very similar philosophy as them (not to mention pique's & valdez's shit-day did take its toll on barca).

but then, I can come back and bring the other 95% of times where such teams reap the benefits of their offensive style. so 5% vs. 95% isnt much of a contest anyway


*****************
while on the subject, let me say something about the "nature" of a team's football.
as much as Italy's azzuris and their general clubs' nature is a defensive or defense-oriented nature, teams like barca belong to the other end of the spectrum.
now, imagine a team whose nature is offensive, tries to play defensive football.
this way, they not only deny themselves of their own strengths, they also expose their weak spots by displaying it.

lets suppose if barca decided to defend, how would the game turn out.
knowing their weakness (all is relative here) is their defending in front of their goal (lol. we saw an example of it in the return leg with busquets fumbling his "defensive" header into his own goal!! ), it will be no time before they concede. and they have ... almost in majority of occasions they have pulled back to defend.
BECOZ IT DOESNT SUIT THEIR NATURE. and they know it. that's why they attack. aside from the need to score goals, they do it to keep their weakness in defending under covers and under exposed as much as possible.

[Hajagha]

^ You just amaze me with your persistence on arguing. If I had these many reasons for Pope, he would think twice about Jesus.

1, How come playing forwards in Ali's example (Inter) is not counted as they play defensive role but DMs can not play offensive and "the lack of a creative midfielder" bothers you? Are you trying to tell me forwards can defend but defenders can not attack? Be consistent on your debate jigar.

2, Since when PP game and score-line suit me and SS game and score-line do not remind the whole PAIN of yours to initiate this post? I mentioned PP game as the last game we have played, so, I didn’t bring an example from two decade ago to suit my argument, It is just the elephant in the room. You can not ignore it as much as you love too.

3, Again, I don‘t advocate the defensive game as you love to label me. I see the reality and this give me the conclusion that “we don’t have the right constructive materials to build an attack. We may, however, be able pulling a destructive team and defend.“

4, Using words such as "weak & deimi" won't get you out of this corner you put yourself in. If your team is weak and deimi, you gotta stay back and cover your a$$. That's what I am telling you all year long. We don't have quality players and then we should not expose our A$$ or is being raped.

5, asal, if you wanna coach a team, you gotta tell them where to put the offside line, where to send the ball, short balls or long, diagonal or strait, double defend or single, press in their field or ours, delay game or direct ball,...

6, dude, forget about Barca and Azzuri, bring up Maldives and India. Why do you insist in day-dreaming? We don't have good forwards to attack, now you tell me our defenders are neither good. THANK YOU. If they don’t know how to coordinate and don’t know how to do single defending, the only way to protect is to put more number of players in less area which means park a bus in front of the goal as you love to put it this way.


7, Tell me how SS played? What was their strategy to manage the game? You can not just come here and say “hey they scored because we were defending. What is your proof? You started the whole post because of SS game, but you failed to tell us how the opponent scored? They took the ball from their left side where neither of our right mid and right D were presence. Their forward took the ball from left and beat our center D, remember? This is lack of defending and discipline specially when you are one goal up and it’s minute 80. They gave up too much space in the "world of coaching", I encourage you to watch the goal again and criticize the coach in the right way.

FINALLY, I feel your frustration. You wanna win, you wanna feel good, but you are beating the wrong horse. By attacking with these quality of players, we will be looked more DON QUI CHOTTE than SUPER MAN.

Cheers,

[Ali Chicago]

Honestly, I think these are just numbers. 4-3-3 or 4-5-1? What's the difference if you fill the same players and ask them the same thing?
Usually, if you fill a more offensive player than a defensive player, you call it 4-3-3, if you fill a player with more midfielder ability, you call it 4-5-1.
besides, you gotta watch the game and see how they form in the game. For example, I was watching Barca-Zaragoza the other day. Zar was playing 5-3-1-1. That's it. They were 5 sitting on their penalty edge, 5-10 yards in front of them, 3 DMs, in front the them (10 yards) another M. and on the half line there was a lonely striker. As a matter of fact the guy had 2 one on one, and Barca didn't score until 42 minutes. I watched it until 75 and it was still 1-0. Javier Aguirre, the coach, is a very respectable coach, he knows his stuff and he admits Barca are unstoppable. He came with a plan to stop them. He bought my respect. He was the Mexican Manager in 2010.
So, he can come up and call his formation whatever he wants, but it doesn't change the fact that there were 5 players in a line in the back, 3 front of them, 1 farther, and 1 forward.
Back to Inter-Barca: First, we arguably talk about the best coach of the world verses the best team of the world. I exactly don’t remember how he played in the first leg, I remember they were not defending much and Snider played his life game. They had the best game they could get. So, to tell you it was 4-5-1 or 4-3-3, I don’t remember. But, in the second leg, they played exactly with 5 defenders and 3 DMs. They closed all the spaces and times. They sat on their field and waited for the counter. It worked. That’s why now many teams play this formation against Barca.
If you ask me, we should learn more than teach. The whole post started from the wrong foot, claiming that the offensive startegy is a better approach regardless when/where/who/how...
Cheers,

Well Haji jaan, I am baffled to be honest. In 4-3-3 each player's role is defined differently, their range of movement in the field is defined differently as well (compared to 4-4-2 or 4-5-1). In 4-3-3 for example, probably you don't want your midfielders enter the box as much since you already have 3 forwards, so their range of movement is different.
No one will choose the same players and tell them play 4-3-3 and play with same players 4-5-1. If a coach wants to play 4-3-3 he needs to change certain type of players vs. 4-5-1.

This whole argument started since Payman Jaan, claimed that SS strategy was defensive and compared it Sepahan. All I was trying to say that Mazloomi didn't' seem to chose to go for a defensive strategy otherwise he would have played Rahmati Ashoobi, Alvez plus say Majid and Sayed Salehi. Mazloomi started with three forwards, how can one claim SS strategy was defensive minded is beyond my comprehension. Mazloomi played 4-3-3 so this indicated in his mind he wanted to play offensive. Had he wanted to play a defensive game, he could have more defensive formations.

To reiterate, I disagree that 4-3-3; 4-5-1 are just numbers. A coach has a plan, he chooses the system in order to achieve his plan, he chooses the formation that suits better (defensive or offensive) and finally chooses players who fits the game plan (again either defensive or offensive). In addition a coach defines duties for each player (for example for a midfielder, range of motion, focus on offense or defense).

Let me give you an example. Let say Pezhman Noori is playing in 4-3-3 vs. same player is playing in 4-5-1. The same player in 4-3-3 definitely has to participate in offense while tracking back and helps defense. In 4-5-1 same player will probably will have more focus on his defensive duties. His range of movement in the field probably is much more limited, etc.

So I contend, formation are much more than mere numbers. At least in today's professional football in Europe and South America (maybe Iran is a special case, where players don't listen to the coach and do their things).

[Hajagha]

Well Haji jaan, I am baffled to be honest. In 4-3-3 each player's role is defined differently, their range of motion is defined differently as well compared to 4-4-2 or 4-5-1. In 4-3-3 for example, probably you don't want your midfielders enter the box as much since you already have 3 forwards, so their range of motion is different.
No one will choose the same players and tell them play 4-3-3 and with same palyers play 4-5-1. If a caoch wants to play 4-3-3 he needs to change certain type of players vs. 4-5-1.
This whole argument started since Payman Jaan, claimed that SS starategy was defenisve and compared it Sepahan. All I was trying to say that Mazloomi didnt' seem to chose to go for a defensive strategy otherwise he would have played Rahmati Ashoobi, Alvez plus say Majid and Sayed Salehi. Mazloomi started with three forwards, how can one claim SS strategy was defensive minded is beyond my comprehension. Mazloomi played 4-3-3 so this indicated in his mind he wanted to play offensive. Had he wanted to play a defensive game, he could have more defensive formations.
To reiterate, I disagree that 4-3-3 4-5-1 are just numbers. A coach has a plan he chooses the system in order to acheive his plan, finaly he chooses the formation that suits better (defensive or offensive) and finally chooses players who fits the game plan (again either defensive or offensive). Furthermore coach definse duties for each player for example for a midfielder, range of motion, focus on offense or defense.
Let me give you an example. Let say Pezhman Noori is playing in 4-3-3 vs. same players in 4-5-1. The same player in 4-3-3 definitly has to participate in offense while tracking back and helps defense. In 4-5-1 same player will probably will have more focus on his defensive duties. His range of motion probably much more limited, etc.
So I would like to differ with you on this, formation are much more than mere numbers. At least in today's professional football in Europe and South America (maybe Iran is a special case, where players don't listen to the coach and do their things).

I didn't mean SS game. I meant what coaches claim versus what you see on the ground. I brought Barca-Zaragoza game as an example.

In SS game, you are definitely right, seyed Salehi was not there to play any role in mid, same thing as Borhani.

Again, what you tell to the players and what they do or they can do, is another story.

Cheers,

[Ali Chicago]

I didn't mean SS game. I meant what coaches claim versus what you see on the ground. I brought Barca-Zaragoza game as an example.
In SS game, you are definitely right, seyed Salehi was not there to play any role in mid, same thing as Borhani.
Again, what you tell to the players and what they do or they can do, is another story.
Cheers,

Merci for the response. I really like your sentence. Coach has a plan in his mind and set the team up, what happens in the field is combination of several things:

1. Player's emotional/mental state and strength (i.e. playerd dont' chock under pressure, Iranian players typically aren't good in this department)
2. Team Chemistery
3. How suited the formation and game reading by the coach is!!!.
4. Are right players and right formation was chosen?
5. Same elements can be repeated for the opposing team as well. Add to this referee or individual player's mistakes and Luck.

So from all of this we see the game. Overlooking all of this and say Coach was gutless despite playing with three forwards, I think isn't the whole story.

[Doctor DOOM]

hmm....
I guess you all must be ecstatic with the brave mazloomi's brilliant and supreme tactics in tashkent also
move over guardiola and wenger .. here comes the gutsy iranian.

[Keano]

Oh man, almost 90% of Iranian coaches suffer from paranoia while lacking courage and offensive-minded mentality. Most of our domestic coaches choose to play cautious and boring football, score a goal retreat and go all-defense trying to protect your one goal lead or the desired draw scoreline.

How farcical is it for Mr. Mazloomi to accuse his players of opting to play defensive upon scoring a goal! as if his never-ending defensive lineup in all his matches (Regardless of who the opponent is) was also dictated by his players!

Playing 2 sloppy and over-aged midfielders (Ashoubi and Rahmati) who in their best days may be at best just mediocre players is total mind-boggling!

[Doctor DOOM]

wow!
mazloomi did it again!!
throw away a perfect lead by sitting on the bench like a dead stick!!!
from the beginning of the 2nd half he shd have been standing next to the line and screaming and shouting at the players.
and if they dont listen, then for f*cks sake, you're the freaking coach. sub a couple of them. what happened to him. did his brains hang?

but time and time again football has reminded us of this rule: if you're a wimp, you WILL lose.
TM has quite a few personal experiences of these wimpy examples under a few gutless coaches.


**************

and while we're on the subject of ACL, I'd like to add this little bit about sepahan's game yesterday;
I simply LOVED how they played in the first half.
the quick passing, the change of zones, the long & short passes, the movement, ... it reminded me of european football (even if they had a few hic ups ... which happens in european football too). and had it not been for some loose play by toure, they'd have been ahead by a couple.
the first half was a joy to watch. I dont know what happened in the break, but the sepahan that came out was a few notches below this.

so if our coaches & trainers can somehow get their teams to MAINTAIN this level of pace & accuracy in passing for 90 minutes, then we can seriously reclaim our spot among the best of asia's elite.