Cowshed

17 minutes ago, Roe said:

He quite clearly has possession of the ball in all of those clips. Not sure how that's a comparison to deliberately putting your foot in front of another player with the only intention of getting hit and then claiming a foul

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.

20 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Maybe I should have been clearer - Kane is a better fit for Man City then Haaland.

This current Man C team and the way it plays has of course been tweaked to fit Haaland in. It could very easily be tweaked to accommodate Kane.

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. 

56 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Kane fits much better into that Man City side, which is probably why Man City tried to sign him before they signed 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. 

1 minute ago, Roe said:

What?

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

1 hour ago, Three Lions said:

The contact was initiated. It doesnt matter. it immaterial here how Gordons leg got there under the lotg Phillips cant smack the players leg away from him there. its careless play and a penalty is the correct decision. 

No pop the offence you would be looking at would be impeding. If Gordon has made no attempt to play the ball and that is subjective Phillips still cant give him a whack. The picture on here shows Gordon isnt in a position to block his opponent slow him down and hes a right to that position under the laws of the game. Both payers are in a playable distance of the ball and for impeding to be an offence one has to block the other or slow them down, one player has to be away from a playable distance and that cant happen when both players are there in that playable distance. You might say Gordons leg is in the way doesnt matter its in a legal position as per lotg close to the ball Phillips cant whack it and he does!! 

I rarely post  this much so will be off till early next week if you have a ?? i will give it a go then. 

Foul or no foul?

4 hours ago, George Rs said:

My point was Kane is a better player, which he is. Haaland might beat him in raw finishing and positional awareness but nothing else. You put Harry Kane in that Man city team he does just as well, if not better imo.

 

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.  

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

 

I was more erring to their mental strength, ability to battle, not be soft as shite.

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.

8 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

He didn’t need to.  Mentality of the players is one thing imho that’s saved his arse!

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? 

30 minutes ago, The Coach said:

If we go at Plymouth in the same way we have in recent games. Then we’re back at square one and today’s result means nothing. 
 

It is one game. It’s now a big challenge for Manning to prepare the team for Monday and build upon today’s performance and result.

Are you a coach? 

48 minutes ago, Glyn Rileys Mullet said:

It was more the fact that teams either adopt one or the other depending on the quality of players at their disposal.  There doesn’t seem to be a third or forth way that is successful.  Luton maybe buck that trend but it remains to be seen whether they can make that work.      

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. 

19 hours ago, Glyn Rileys Mullet said:

I went to Wembley yesterday….first time I have been there since the Hull game.  It is a very difficult stadium to build an affinity with.  It is a horrible place to get to, dire atmosphere and an area of London that seems to resent its focal point.

I’m used to the football at City being less than inspiring but it wasn’t until I saw England first hand that I fully understood that Football is becoming deathly boring.  The game is crying out for someone to innovate away from the low block/monsters of possession.  Things need to change!

On the flip side, it’s great for the kids to see our best talent, given how hard it is to get tickets at places like Arsenal, Liverpool or Man United.   Foden is a beautiful player to watch, Bellingham’s will to win is probably more impressive than his skills on the ball (which are also incredible) and Mainoo could develop into something special.  Doku was great to watch to be fair.  Belgian seemed to be more in tune with each other positionally and didn’t need to think before passing.

i know we have had a rough year but I don’t think we are a million miles away from the top of the game.  Be great if we could be the team that offers a different style of football.  Could get behind that.

 

 

 

 

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.

4 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

There is no case law where defacing a flag is a hate crime in the UK. However, under certain circumstances, say burning a union flag on the Cenotaph, such actions could be considered incitement to a breach of the peace and therefore be illegal.

Putting different colours on a football shirt would not fall under this definition.

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.

6 hours ago, MarcusX said:

Sorry, this is probably boring to everyone else but I wont have you or three lions re-write history and twist this into something it isn't.

At no point have I laughed at the specific flag or it's background or efforts towards it. It's totally dishonest of both of you to suggest I have, as others have also supported.

 

On 23/03/2024 at 10:43, MarcusX said:

 

Even @Cowshedwading in talking about defacing flags, then shared a defaced flag celebrating it 

 

Your post featuring a laughing emoji about this flag. 

2 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

England are good going forward when Southgate allows the handbrake to be realeased and ropey defensively. There were enough chances created last night to put Belgium to bed, they profited from two League 2 standard mistakes and created one clear chance when we committed bodies forward at the end. Sels had a very good game. Kane and Saka to come in too. However this England team always leaves the back door unlocked and that will continue to cost us at the business end of any tournament. We don’t have a Bellingham, Saka or Kane equivalent at the back. All decent, no more.

There is no comparison with Bristol City who sit in a low block and create the square root of **** all. It’s nonsense to compare the two as we are so bad.

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. 

On 25/03/2024 at 13:27, MarcusX said:

Well firstly, I'll say no disrespect towards the origins of the flag was intended, although I think you're bwrong to suggest anyone was laughing at the source of the flag.

But quite obviously as Rich says:

It was Cowshed posting one minute that "defacing flags is illegal" then posting his delight at a customised England flag 2 posts later that was amusing. The complete hypocrisy of "you cant touch our flags unless it's something I approve of on the flag"

Read what again? Cowshed didn't say any of that?

3 posts:
1. "Defacing flags is illegal"
2. "Yes defacing a flag can be a hate crime."
3. Post saying "lovely" with a picture of a flag that has writing on it, which some may describe as defaced.

No post about culture or tradition there at the point I responded.

 

 

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. 

On 25/03/2024 at 05:57, sticks 1969 said:

Malmo 92?

Of course it is you stupid bugger. You were metres away from me in the ground.

On 22/03/2024 at 18:51, MarcusX said:

That’s a 

Tradition and part of fan culture.  

Lovely.

4 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

But nobody has defaced a flag. Are you just looking for something to be upset about?

That is not the flag of England. 

4 minutes ago, Redinthehead said:

Jesus Christ 

Absolutely pathetic.

Yes defacing a flag can be a hate crime.

This?  

Defacing a flag is a hate crime. 

10 minutes ago, Midlands Robin said:

And for those of us who don't have a UEFA coaching badge, I think I can safely say....

Pardon?

 

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?

32 minutes ago, Cole Not Gas said:

I love the clip from Brazil and cant imagine Liam nor other coaches in England playing 7 or 8 players down one side. It does seem truly weird but what a great post to bring something so different tot he forum. Excellent

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. 

39 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I don’t think education or accreditation is to blame for how people apply it.

The problem isn’t giving coaches a standard of knowledge and testing it - which is in itself a good thing - but that prospective employers of managers need to assess who has learned the basics by rote and who can apply them practically.

I think, in any walk of life, you get the same conflict within vocational training and learning. Some people learn instinctively and need no formal training at all but, without any training or accreditation, you have no measure of recourse for people who are appalling at their jobs. At the other end of the scale some people take training, combine their learning with practical experience and are incredible at their jobs but others learn all the theory but lack the flexibility to apply it well with practice. Ultimately this should be picked up in any effective recruitment process. 

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. 

2 hours ago, Fpcity said:

I don't even bother watching Man city games as they're so boring. The Premier league was pretty much always exciting to watch certainly if it involved the top clubs, can't stand Pep and would love to see him manage an average team to see if he play the same type of football. 

 

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.

2 hours ago, tin said:

I don’t think so, no. Would you think Pep or Klopp tell their players to be emotionless? Absolutely no chance IMO. 

I suspect the licences teach the modern coaching methods, but on top of that you need to be able to motivate, man-manage and be tactically astute to be successful.

Klopp once said of his and Pep’s teams that they match their own personalities. Manning could say the same.

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.  

1 hour ago, Dolman Exile said:

(Hopefully someone with direct experience can shed some light here…?)

At professional levels of the game, it’s mandatory to hold a minimum level of UEFA Coaching License.

LM is one of a raft of new managers who are all linked by holding the top UEFA Pro License at a relatively young age. He’s not alone in struggling within this cohort. How many of us know what the license entails and could its influence explain some of his recent difficulties?

Is it pure coincidence that so many of the so called young, modern managers have similar possession heavy philosophies and playing styles? Is this solely down to growing up in the Guardiola era or are UEFA courses encouraging it?

Whether he has or he hasn’t or whether he’s capable of implementing it or not, LM certainly believes that he has a detailed blueprint in his head. Is this what the UEFA courses do, facilitate a manager to choose a formation and pattern of play and then validate it via assessment? Do they leave the programme with a fully assessed and approved Plan A which they are then scared to deviate from? Does it explain why so many supporters of so many clubs lament the lack of a Plan B?

I want to believe that LM has a coherent plan that he will quickly find a way to execute but I fear he might be one of a generation of Pep-ball Pro License academics when what we really need is a free thinker or maverick who happens to hold a license?

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. 

42 minutes ago, Hamdon Mart said:

Like the sound of Fin Maddern although I've never seen him play. 

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