LM vs LJ

[RedRock]

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

The game plan post Man City for Lee Johnson morphed from a short passing game to a long ball game and from a high press to a medium block. 

What sort of player have the FA helped produce. Looking at the current England XI and the FA's influence is there (future game) some highly highly skilled players. 

Movement is not intuitive. Players make split decisions based upon the internalisation of their training. The ball entering a zone is the trigger to move in relation to the players training. Players will take up positions in a split second displaying unconscious competence because they understand where the ball is, or most likely going because they recognise the patterns before them and the neuro process follows of pre frontal cortex, cerebellum coordinating instructions to the motor cortex to move muscles etc. That intuition is trained in during intense deliberate integrated practice, over years, and months. 

Now do a player who has not trained in responses, makes the game up? Will the player be more efficient? Will his reactions be split-second? 

OK, I think we’ll have to agree to differ as I would maintain that movement is most definitely intuitive. Human reaction times are proven to be amazing in a variety of situations. I don’t see why a footballer needs ‘process training’ to react to a situation. I suppose it’s a difference between instinctive footballers and others. I look at Rashford who was an instinctive, intuitive, ‘natural’ footballer and see what ‘process’ has done to him, as well as many others. 

[Cowshed]

31 minutes ago, RedRock said:

OK, I think we’ll have to agree to differ as I would maintain that movement is most definitely intuitive. Human reaction times are proven to be amazing in a variety of situations. I don’t see why a footballer needs ‘process training’ to react to a situation. I suppose it’s a difference between instinctive footballers and others. I look at Rashford who was an instinctive, intuitive, ‘natural’ footballer and see what ‘process’ has done to him, as well as many others. 

A footballer needs training to react to a game that has many differing situations. From early ages we work on kids abc's , and forming technical abilities that will help the player meet the challenges of the game.

There is no intuitive football gene. Humans do not leave the womb with football movement and intelligence. That is a result of hundreds and thousands of hours of play and practice. 

Human reaction times improve with practice. That is our response not our innate instinctive reaction. What we can see is very different reaction times in the trained, and untrained. The players with quickest reaction times, scan more frequently ( its a fact) and they thus react to the picture their mind sees, reaction drops by milliseconds as scanning drops. Scanning again is a skill learned in training and its created by repetition and going through a continuum of scan, move, play or not, scan to move again so the individual knows what they will do in advance frequently before the variables occur. Processes.    

A scenario. Two players of equal athleticism, skill level. Player A does one session training session and player B does months of intense training with a team playing possession based football, playing positionally, looking to create numerical superiority, and looking to switch play off triggers to isolate opponents.

Which player in that team would play more intuitively and efficiently? Which player would react more quickly to the teams football? Its player B.

In regards to your last line. I could answer with Lionel Messi. See what La Masia's and Barcelona's process did?  

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Cowshed

[RedRock]

21 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

A footballer needs training to react to a game that has many differing situations. From early ages we work on kids abc's , and forming technical abilities that will help the player meet the challenges of the game.

There is no intuitive football gene. Humans do not leave the womb with football movement and intelligence. That is a result of hundreds and thousands of hours of play and practice. 

Human reaction times improve with practice. That is our response not our innate instinctive reaction. What we can see is very different reaction times in the trained, and untrained. The players with quickest reaction times, scan more frequently ( its a fact) and they thus react to the picture their mind sees, reaction drops by milliseconds as scanning drops. Scanning again is a skill learned in training and its created by repetition and going through a continuum of scan, move, play or not, scan to move again so the individual knows what they will do in advance frequently before the variables occur. Processes.    

A scenario. Two players of equal athleticism, skill level. Player A does one session training session and player B does months of intense training with a team playing possession based football, playing positionally, looking to create numerical superiority, and looking to switch play off triggers to isolate opponents.

Which player in that team would play more intuitively and efficiently? Which player would react more quickly to the teams football? Its player B.

In regards to your last line. I could answer with Lionel Messi. See what La Masia's and Barcelona's process did?  

 

Well, if it were someone like Matt Le Tiss, George Best, Stan Bowles et al, who were renown bad trainers but absolute geniuses and match winners on the pitch, then probably Player A. 

Genuine thanks though for explaining your view. I do get some of it, but I still fear ‘over-coaching and over-thinking things’ of which process-led play is an indicator - at least for me -  has an adverse, not beneficial, impact on player and team performance. 

Anyhows, let’s pray whatever approach LM uses it provides us with entertaining, attractive and winning football. 

Onwards and, hopefully, upwards. COYRs.

[Spud21]

59 minutes ago, RedRock said:

OK, I think we’ll have to agree to differ as I would maintain that movement is most definitely intuitive. Human reaction times are proven to be amazing in a variety of situations. I don’t see why a footballer needs ‘process training’ to react to a situation. I suppose it’s a difference between instinctive footballers and others. I look at Rashford who was an instinctive, intuitive, ‘natural’ footballer and see what ‘process’ has done to him, as well as many others.

I would argue the exact opposite, it's because, Rashford (for whatever reason) is not receptive to the process is why he plays only on instinct and thus is comparatively awful when given the time to have to make a decision. Give him to Pep and he would either be bombed out as he wouldn't put the work in or be transformed into the player his ability means he could be. 

[RedRock]

2 minutes ago, Spud21 said:

I would argue the exact opposite, it's because, Rashford (for whatever reason) is not receptive to the process is why he plays only on instinct and thus is comparatively awful when given the time to have to make a decision. Give him to Pep and he would either be bombed out as he wouldn't put the work in or be transformed into the player his ability means he could be. 

Ummm….. so he was great as a raw teenager but declined to pretty average in his twenties because he’s not receptive to processes. 

I think a contrary view might be (as I, indeed, argued at the time) keep the coaches as far away as possible from him so they don’t fill his head with ‘processes’ and just allow his natural flair and ability to develop. 
 
Anyhows, done to death.  There is a clear majority on here in favour of processes, so I’ll wish LM all the best and just hope he delivers the sort of attractive, entertaining, winning football we all want. A top half finish will do me this Season as long as I see tangible progress.

[W-S-M Seagull]

3 hours ago, cityfan1958 said:

The difference is football is a competitive sport. There is an opposition. You can’t control outcomes relating to the opposition, the goalkeeper who pulls off a worldly save, or a defender get a toe in as a shot is being made. What you can control is the processes, positions pass rates, movement off the ball etc that create passing opportunities which create goal scoring opportunities. The better the processes the more scoring opportunities, and therefore the more goals. The same also applies to defensive processes preventing scoring opportunities.

You can have the best processes in the world and execute them perfectly and still lose. 

Football is passion filled emotional game. Whilst processes have its place, there are also times where players need to be able to play their natural game. Having all these processes risks coaching the natural ability out of players. 

Real beat Man City in the semis because of passion. I suspect all their processes went out of the window that night. Man Citys processes went out of the window at that point and they had no response.

You could also say Man City won the Champions league because their passion took over from the processes. 

As football is a unpredictable game, relying on processes isn't going to bring success. You need to be unpredictable and if you're following a process, that's predictable. 

[Cityboy1954]

If L.M starts blaming or slagging the tea lady or ball boys youl know hes a lee johnson.

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

You can have the best processes in the world and execute them perfectly and still lose. 

Football is passion filled emotional game. Whilst processes have its place, there are also times where players need to be able to play their natural game. Having all these processes risks coaching the natural ability out of players. 

Real beat Man City in the semis because of passion. I suspect all their processes went out of the window that night. Man Citys processes went out of the window at that point and they had no response.

You could also say Man City won the Champions league because their passion took over from the processes. 

As football is a unpredictable game, relying on processes isn't going to bring success. You need to be unpredictable and if you're following a process, that's predictable. 

Is making the game up as it happens going to bring success? Man City do not. The best club team ever is arguably Barcelona. The two teams here are Coached by the same person obviously. Both teams embody how principles are used to govern a game that is unpredictable and chaotic by breaking the game down into elements. This football has been successful.