Cowshed

Hazard is being a Hazard. He is seeking to impede/trip an opponent/draw a foul. I think there is foul play on Hazards behalf, I don't know it is. I was enquiring if a ref can provide an answer.

Man City are constantly evolving. Haaland being incorporated led to more than a tweak, Haaland led to City front to back covering far more pitch, and in the space this stretches Man City included extra players like Stones moving from CB to CDM and higher, Walker leaving any traditional role and inverting and over lapping, and a team that won three trophies. This season in comes Doku to the high, wide and deep shape. Two years ago .. All day long. Kane now at City? There are things Haaland does Kane can't. The above gets turned back without Haaland.

He does not in this side. Kane would be occupying spaces occupied by Foden and Du Druyne and Silva. Man City are not playing with a false nine. This sides nine is pushed right up to create width x depth (front to back) in the extreme. This sides shape has altered to include more attacking players behind the CF. This side does not want a Centre forward that comes off the line and away from the oppositions box.

Is Hazard committing any fouls? I am going yes he is deliberately tripping (impeding) opponents.

Foul or no foul?

You put Harry Kane in that Man City team and? He would have to play entirely differently. Haaland is pushed up very high. Haaland does not take much part in link up play. Haaland does not drop off into the zone where Foden and Du Bruyne are playing centrally, and the half spaces Bernardo Silva uses. Haaland plays up top on the last man for Man City and can run in behind with pace, he is properly quick and gives Man City extra options with an ability to utilise Edersons exceptional ability to distribute the ball at distances and accuracy that are remarkable. Now do Harry Kane.

You Dave? That was not answer to the question. Not every individual relishes change, not every individual instantly adopts challenge and growth states. Change does require a change in mindset. Players appear to have struggled with change, the performance levels, the intensity of their sorry sorry behaviours has not been on a consistent level, and that is from observation of some games, not all. This does not make players soft as shite.

If a new coach came to a side you played in and significantly altered how the side played would this require a change in mentality?

Are you a coach?

I would say looking at the top five of the EPL. Arsenal down to Spurs there are teams playing there in clearly differing approaches x several formations. If I continue down the league to tenth there is more variety and more formations. This is a world away from England being a former footballing nation of long ball and 4-4-2.

This may be what you are stating but high possession teams generally do not defend with a low block, its the low possession counter attacking teams. Football is always evolving. England was once the Country of 4-4-2 and pomo. We are not now.

You have just agreed with me. I didn't state defacing a flag is a hate crime, I stated it can be because while we do not have not law that make desecrating a flag a crime, we have law that prohibit hostility aimed towards groups. Hence in my post I added this ? No this does not fall under the above. Was it insulting? Yes. This act caused insult. A response that was predictable. What was the point of Nike and the FA knowingly doing something that they must have known would have not been wildly welcomed? I don't see the point. Your post featuring a laughing emoji about this flag.

The two are linked. England are very good defensively, amongst the best when they play cautiously. Mr Southgate is attempting to be more offensive, playing higher and this has quickly led to the team conceding big chances. Versus Brazil England playing higher led to Brazil creating numerous chances in behind the advanced line. England also fared badly when they pressed up the pitch and Brazil counter pressed with Rice and Gallagher being caught frequently in advanced positions.

I posted that defacing a flag can be a hate crime. I also posted this? You ignored the this?. Could this, an American sportswear brand rebranding of our the St George be perceived as insensitive? The action has been unpopular. A reaction that should have been predicted. Yes I posted pictures of England and Bristol City fans St George flags because they are significant. The St George is clearly a significant part of fan culture and traditions. They are part of BCFC fan culture. You then posted a laughing emoji regarding the St George that required a lot of effort from City fans to purchase. I with my family and a friends took a small part in that fundraising. Here's that picture again of that flag/surfer twenty years on at recent game. I do think its cool. Of course it is you stupid bugger. You were metres away from me in the ground.

Tradition and part of fan culture.

Lovely.

That is not the flag of England.

Yes defacing a flag can be a hate crime. This?

Defacing a flag is a hate crime.

Malmo don't play with seven players on side. They have a back four and two deep lying central midfielders. Its not an unusual shape. The six players in front of the back four move across the pitch creating large overloads in attempt to progress the ball up the pitch. Any better?

Building from the back Malmo don't do anything exceptional, its quite structured, its a four two shape with splitting CB's wide FB's. 7-8 players are not specifically played down one side. They play from a back four and a double pivot. The pivot moves with the ball and so do the attacking central midfielders to the forward/forwards creating ladders. The ladders are the overload and this can be either side of the pitch or down the centre. The ball goes right the team flows (tilting) right, and if the ball goes left the team tilts left. In the second and final third is where Malmo look different.

A parallel. A driving licence proves a individual is proficient to pass a exam and a test, they can drive. this does not mean in future the individual does not drive badly, dangerously, recklessly etc. We don't allow people to drive cars without proof of a standard and knowledge. Football at each level has certifiable standards from grass roots up to the pro game to achieve. Football doesn't allow people to coach without proof of a standard and knowledge, standards that are not easy to achieve, taking years to reach pro licence level and through evaluation of candidates are not widely available.

Pep Guardiloa has not played the same type football from Barcelona to Bayern Munich to Man City. Bayern played a 4-1-4-1 and played with wingers who crossed to Muller and the Polish/German whose name I cant spell. Barcelona to Man City is more similar but Man Citys build up play due to having Ederson and changes in laws (post 2020) see the team having a wide variation, Man Citys formations in possession due to Ederson, Stones, Walker are very different to Barcelona and Bayern, they are playing a times with eleven outfield players with Ederson as a centre back. So. Mr Guardiola adapts and evolves his football to environments x personnel, its not the same club to club. Licences do not teach modern coaching modern coaching methods. Tutors across education will teach coaching methodologies, It is the coach who has to prove across modules that they can demonstrate proficiency in coaching. Motivation, man management is part of modules, but this is again a demonstration of knowledge and proficiency, this does not mean the individual is an expert and at the zenith of psychology. Modern coaching methods. Erik Ten Hag, De Zerbi have pro licences, so does Gareth Ainsworth. Hopefully you see where that goes.

Is this what the UEFA courses do, facilitate a manager to choose a formation and pattern of play and then validate it via assessment? In parts yes. The pro licence is proof of proficiency. It consists of modules that cover things like game related training, tactics, scouting, match analysis to contracts and agents. To gain a A, B and the non pro C licence you have to create a project which covers your football your philosophy, how you will coach, what your mission and vision is. That project and all its elements of training, its game approach and model of play could be 4-4-2 and playing like Dave Bassetts Wimbledon. During the project assessment will be made leading up to a game, during a match by FA assessors. They don't tell the individual how to play the game, they assess efficiency and competency. Is it pure coincidence that so many of the so called young, modern managers have similar possession heavy philosophies and playing styles? No. Its where the game has been heading for decades. England has absorbed influence from wider football as we have brought in foreign coaches and their excellence is mimicked, copied, plagiarised etc. The FA and Howard Wilkinson created blue print for the national game, the future game two decades ago. This saw a move towards more possession based football to create more technical players. England's U teams to the XI are competing at levels they did not previously. Its been adapt to succeed. Pep is a maverick. He is a free thinker. His football clearly has a lineage to Rinus Michels, Cruyff, but aspects are unique and remarkable in their unorthodoxy.

Rapid. Direct. Got a bit of skill about him. Good, very good 1v1.