I was reading something recently that mentioned Manchester United under Alex Ferguson. The writer, who was a player in that era, said Man U had three types of presses. They saved the total press for the last fifteen minutes and used the first two depending on what the other team was showing them. The point seemed to be that you didn't want to press constantly because it became too predictable and left you without the energy to shock a tired team late in a game. Maybe times have changed to where you can't still do that, but the way it was explained made sense.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Tactics What Does No Plan B Even Mean?
- Thread starter Dudski
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
There it is this is common knowledge. Tactical periodisation where you prep the squad throughout the season to peak physically and work in game strategies so the team can adapt to the demands of the Christmas schedule or whatever is part of modern soccer. How you press, for how long, at what intesitity, and in what third is utterly variable.
This is the game management I've been wanting for months. Not constantly charging like the fucking light Brigade! Then some halfwit says "well we sat back against Wolves didn't we. What about ya game management NOW Ah Ah?!" These people are so stupid it's painful. They suit Postecoglou's to a tee
Last edited:
And a very good "plan A"
Plan B is to do plan A better
Plan B is to do plan A better
With a few variations
In Ange defence the shitty media pundits are trying to convince us that the new United manager needs to stick to his principles regardless of the results
They are fully culpable. Seriously mate gi on blue sky abd simply say...Ange has made errors and we could replace him with little problem. See what happens. These people are mad.
I will not be going anywhere near that cesspool.
The problem with Ange is not that he's not making dozens of small, barely observable changes during matches. In that sense him and his advocates do have a point. Problem is that his general approach, and understanding of the game, have glaring holes. It's not solely about underlapping fullbacks or wingers hugging touchlines, it's way deeper than that.
When I look at him, I see a manager who emphasizes the value of concepts such as creating overloads in certain mini areas on the pitch, narrowing the pitch as much as possible through a very high defensive line and intense pressing, playing out from the back at all costs, creating as many cutback opportunities as possible, and focusing on actually outscoring the opposition instead of simply trying to concede less than them. All good, nothing outrageous or inapplicable.
Problem is his refusal to acknowledge the trade-offs that are inherent and unavoidable in each of these, and possibly some more that I failed to mention, principles.
It seems like he thinks that you can never create too many overloads, have too narrow of a pitch to use in possession, try too hard to play out from the back, or chase goals too vigorously. Yet all of these are possible due to aforementioned trade-offs. To the extent that you're creating overloads in possession, you're sacrificing your team shape out of possession. To the extent that you're narrowing space out of possession, it becomes narrower for you in possession as well. To the extent that you're chasing cutbacks/low crosses, you're missing out on opportunities to deliver more traditional high crosses for your striker. To the extent that you're allowing players to take more risks with their off-ball movement and passing, you're leaving yourself more vulnerable at the back. You get the point.
In the sense outlined above, I can agree with the criticism about this no plan B, no adjustment, no changes stuff. As soon as it turns into "You're not winning mate, just do something" , it loses most of its credibility.
When I look at him, I see a manager who emphasizes the value of concepts such as creating overloads in certain mini areas on the pitch, narrowing the pitch as much as possible through a very high defensive line and intense pressing, playing out from the back at all costs, creating as many cutback opportunities as possible, and focusing on actually outscoring the opposition instead of simply trying to concede less than them. All good, nothing outrageous or inapplicable.
Problem is his refusal to acknowledge the trade-offs that are inherent and unavoidable in each of these, and possibly some more that I failed to mention, principles.
It seems like he thinks that you can never create too many overloads, have too narrow of a pitch to use in possession, try too hard to play out from the back, or chase goals too vigorously. Yet all of these are possible due to aforementioned trade-offs. To the extent that you're creating overloads in possession, you're sacrificing your team shape out of possession. To the extent that you're narrowing space out of possession, it becomes narrower for you in possession as well. To the extent that you're chasing cutbacks/low crosses, you're missing out on opportunities to deliver more traditional high crosses for your striker. To the extent that you're allowing players to take more risks with their off-ball movement and passing, you're leaving yourself more vulnerable at the back. You get the point.
In the sense outlined above, I can agree with the criticism about this no plan B, no adjustment, no changes stuff. As soon as it turns into "You're not winning mate, just do something" , it loses most of its credibility.
Last edited:
For me it's the single biggest problem. Our fanbase. Particularly the ones who go to the games and do stupid shit like supporting the team - chanting and singing. Fucking losers. Happy clapping seals.
If we could somehow become a better fanbase like, say, City's where they are properly booing Pep and his band of fraudsters off the park. That's how you drive standards
Here is where I fault the press to an extent. They have covered Postecoglou as a personality much better than they cover him as a coach. Journalists obviously aren't expected to be experts on every phase of football, but they should have been asking follow up questions to "No Plan B" that would clarify what that means in practical terms.
He also seems to have very surface level ideas about risk-reward matrices, and how these change based on various factors. Someone else in this thread already mentioned this briefly.
One of the core tenets of classical game theory is that different strategies a player can use will have different rewards (payouts) attached to them, these being contingent on what the other player does. This applies to football as well. Let's assume that going all-out attack and parking the bus are two extreme ends of a spectrum of possible strategies a manager can use. In that case, all possible strategies will yield different payouts (and entail different risks) depending on the circumstances of a given match. These include what the opposing manager chooses as his strategy at a given point, balance of power between two squads, scoreline, time left, and many potential others. If you're taking a risk, it needs to be a calculated one that can be justified by some of those aforementioned circumstances. Same goes for avoiding a risk.
Not sure if I'm doing him injustice, but it seems like he thinks that all these calculations are beneath him. He can't be bothered about all these variables and how they can possibly affect the validity of different strategies. Using game theoretical language, he just believes in a dominant strategy of attacking, front-foot,risk prone football (closer to 'all-out attack' end mentioned above) that is guaranteed to yield the best possible payout in any given situation.
If the game in question involves such a lopsided balance of power that one player is guaranteed to win no matter what, he can indeed get away with a dominant, uncompromising strategy. That's what Ange sounds like when he talks about how he'll play the same way regardless of score, opponent, time, weather or anything else. He's advocating for a dominant strategy that he thinks is also applicable to this league and this club.
This premise of his is highly questionable though. To the extent that the game in question is not as lopsided, you need to take many other factors into account in deciding what you're going to do. All that aforementioned bravado won't cut it. Hence the criticism of "He can only do it with Celtic in SPL!!"
One of the core tenets of classical game theory is that different strategies a player can use will have different rewards (payouts) attached to them, these being contingent on what the other player does. This applies to football as well. Let's assume that going all-out attack and parking the bus are two extreme ends of a spectrum of possible strategies a manager can use. In that case, all possible strategies will yield different payouts (and entail different risks) depending on the circumstances of a given match. These include what the opposing manager chooses as his strategy at a given point, balance of power between two squads, scoreline, time left, and many potential others. If you're taking a risk, it needs to be a calculated one that can be justified by some of those aforementioned circumstances. Same goes for avoiding a risk.
Not sure if I'm doing him injustice, but it seems like he thinks that all these calculations are beneath him. He can't be bothered about all these variables and how they can possibly affect the validity of different strategies. Using game theoretical language, he just believes in a dominant strategy of attacking, front-foot,risk prone football (closer to 'all-out attack' end mentioned above) that is guaranteed to yield the best possible payout in any given situation.
If the game in question involves such a lopsided balance of power that one player is guaranteed to win no matter what, he can indeed get away with a dominant, uncompromising strategy. That's what Ange sounds like when he talks about how he'll play the same way regardless of score, opponent, time, weather or anything else. He's advocating for a dominant strategy that he thinks is also applicable to this league and this club.
This premise of his is highly questionable though. To the extent that the game in question is not as lopsided, you need to take many other factors into account in deciding what you're going to do. All that aforementioned bravado won't cut it. Hence the criticism of "He can only do it with Celtic in SPL!!"
I think you've summarized his approach well. It's like someone thinking gravity doesn't exist. The football version of gravity is that game state matters, opposition strengths and weakness matters, and the abilities of your own players matter. If you say the answer is simply that we'll do more of what we do and better that ignores football's version of gravity.
Posted this in another thread.
Is this just winning/winner's bias speaking? Would we still have been satisfied with how we played if it ended in a 0-0 draw? Or in a 0-1 loss, which would probably have been the case if not for Dragusin's vital clearance? Valid questions to ask, and I'm not going to speak on behalf of anybody else, but I know I would have been fine with how we played regardless of the outcome. Odds were stacked against us, and we did what we were supposed to do. A draw/loss would not have invalidated our approach to the match.
Paradoxically, sometimes your only hope of winning a match is to not go all-in for a win. Sometimes the best way to increase your lead is to let your opponent play a little bit. There shouldn't be anything controversial about these, no matter how Conte/Mourinho-esque they sound. Relationship between intentions and outcomes is far from straightforward in general, and football is no exception.
Last edited:
I think Ange has shown parts of a plan B at times.
He put Biss in at CDM against Everton and won 4-0. He changed from two CAMs to one in Kulu against West Ham and won 4-1. He dropped Johnson against Man City and protected the back 4 and won 4-0. He did something similar against Liverpool and won 1-0.
I don't have a problem when Ange changes his philosophy or goes to plan B. Ths problem is not sticking to plan B consistently when it works.
He put Biss in at CDM against Everton and won 4-0. He changed from two CAMs to one in Kulu against West Ham and won 4-1. He dropped Johnson against Man City and protected the back 4 and won 4-0. He did something similar against Liverpool and won 1-0.
I don't have a problem when Ange changes his philosophy or goes to plan B. Ths problem is not sticking to plan B consistently when it works.
Great post.
I think part of it is that the more you play Plan A, the better you get at it. So there's a long-game payoff over a 1 to 3 year arc for sticking with Plan A, even if the short term risk-reward is sometimes sub-optimal.
Then there's obviously a threshold at which changing to Plan B offers enough improvement in short-term risk-reward to justify the change-ups that you've listed above. Thinks like key injuries, significantly superior opposition, and going top of the next-manager-to leave odds table.
A Plan = 2 center Bacs and 2 wing Bacs Plan b = playing/starting with 3 center backs and the ability to switch between them at will ..i'de lay odds that is what the pundits are on about. the simpleton football pundits are either yesterday footballers or pundits that are paid to make news .And from what I've taken from the quality of comment made by the pundits, they certainly watch plenty of football but sadly learn little of the games subtleties.
It will be interesting to see how things change when the injured players comeback and transfers shore up depth. If he makes adjustments it doesn't mean he's abandoning his principles, it just means he's doing what every other manager does. The question is whether that's something he can allow himself to do.