Cybereagles

The Undisputed Number One Home for All Super Eagles Fans
It is currently Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:47 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:39 am
Posts: 17487
Location: Super Eagles Homeland
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
That is EXACTLY the opposite of what happened here.

If you have a 3 goal aggregate lead, its football malpractice to be playing an open a game as they were in the 2HF...

It had ZERO to do with the delay tactics, considering they barely used that anyway....


Bros, the aggregate was 3-2 when Ajax was clearly delaying the game. You must have missed attempts to hold the ball at the corner flag and you must have missed the yellow card to Onana, should I assume? Or perhaps, those were not results of attempts to delay the game and sustain the result?


No I did not miss anything. Delay tactics, like I said was BARELY used.

Onana's card, which I knew you would cite came on 95mins!

They conceded the first goal on a counter. Then the 3rd on another counter on 96mins, following Ziyech's attempt to score, with Frankie De Jong upfield and having to recover his position...

Why do you think Mourinho criticized Ten Hag; for using delay tactics???

You've gotta be kidding me!


And when again did Spurs score the goal that sent them through?



Exactly my point!

Time wasting came so late in the game it was a non factor...

Rather, it was Ajax's continued commitment to play "their game". Note Mourinho's criticism about Ten Hag playing Spurs in 2HF like he was playing against Vitesse!!!

The goal they scored on 96mins, came off a counterattack, with Ajax caught up-field!!!

Here is a quote from Jose. Note that at no point does he cite time wasting as a factor.

Quote:
“The basic thing you do when you have an advantage is keep your balance all the time – never unbalanced.

“The balance starts exactly with the defensive line in position then after that a certain number of players always behind the ball line.


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 05961.html


Txj,

The point is that games are decided beyond tactics. Ajax was actually the team playing mostly on counters (not Spurs) late in the game and it even degenerated to time wasting very late. Unless you watched something different. BTW, I hope you noticed that Spurs FC was the team largely offensive in that SH and even had their GK move up at set pieces late. But guess what? they did not set up a huge defensive line to prevent conceding as Mourinho opines. Yet, they did not concede! Who conceded? The team that actually had a few more defensive play late and using delay tactics! An analysis should work on both sides. What Mourinho states is not compelling, if you ask me. I have seen games (including those by Mourinho) where his tactic is used and still could end in a loss. IMHO, Eriksen reveals the truth about soccer and not the coaching fairytales that make the game appear to be some scientific determined outcome which it isn't. Always remember that tactics is one of several factors that affect the game's outcome. It is NEVER the sole reason. The Spurs goal late against Ajax tells that tale because it was scored when Ajax did the right things.

_________________
The difficulties of statistical thinking describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in. We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events -- Daniel Kahneman (2011), Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 10, 2019 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29860
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
That is EXACTLY the opposite of what happened here.

If you have a 3 goal aggregate lead, its football malpractice to be playing an open a game as they were in the 2HF...

It had ZERO to do with the delay tactics, considering they barely used that anyway....


Bros, the aggregate was 3-2 when Ajax was clearly delaying the game. You must have missed attempts to hold the ball at the corner flag and you must have missed the yellow card to Onana, should I assume? Or perhaps, those were not results of attempts to delay the game and sustain the result?


No I did not miss anything. Delay tactics, like I said was BARELY used.

Onana's card, which I knew you would cite came on 95mins!

They conceded the first goal on a counter. Then the 3rd on another counter on 96mins, following Ziyech's attempt to score, with Frankie De Jong upfield and having to recover his position...

Why do you think Mourinho criticized Ten Hag; for using delay tactics???

You've gotta be kidding me!


And when again did Spurs score the goal that sent them through?



Exactly my point!

Time wasting came so late in the game it was a non factor...

Rather, it was Ajax's continued commitment to play "their game". Note Mourinho's criticism about Ten Hag playing Spurs in 2HF like he was playing against Vitesse!!!

The goal they scored on 96mins, came off a counterattack, with Ajax caught up-field!!!

Here is a quote from Jose. Note that at no point does he cite time wasting as a factor.

Quote:
“The basic thing you do when you have an advantage is keep your balance all the time – never unbalanced.

“The balance starts exactly with the defensive line in position then after that a certain number of players always behind the ball line.


https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 05961.html


Txj,

The point is that games are decided beyond tactics. Ajax was actually the team playing mostly on counters (not Spurs) late in the game and it even degenerated to time wasting very late. Unless you watched something different. BTW, I hope you noticed that Spurs FC was the team largely offensive in that SH and even had their GK move up at set pieces late. But guess what? they did not set up a huge defensive line to prevent conceding as Mourinho opines. Yet, they did not concede! Who conceded? The team that actually had a few more defensive play late and using delay tactics! An analysis should work on both sides. What Mourinho states is not compelling, if you ask me. I have seen games (including those by Mourinho) where his tactic is used and still could end in a loss. IMHO, Eriksen reveals the truth about soccer and not the coaching fairytales that make the game appear to be some scientific determined outcome which it isn't. Always remember that tactics is one of several factors that affect the game's outcome. It is NEVER the sole reason. The Spurs goal late against Ajax tells that tale because it was scored when Ajax did the right things.


The highlighted portion is the reason I say that football is an emotional sport and is first and foremost about players and their mentality. The greatest of managers I said, are the ones who best channel the emotions of players. You should pay attention to my words...

The point of Jose's critique is that only one team needed to be on the offensive as Spurs were in 2HF. But instead, Ajax was in the same offensive mode as Spurs. In two of the goals they conceded, they were caught on the counter with a high line!

Football may not be science, but it has a methodology, and at the highest levels, most occurrences are not coincidence and luck as you tend to believe.

You need to understand the game properly...

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 4:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:39 am
Posts: 17487
Location: Super Eagles Homeland
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:


Txj,

The point is that games are decided beyond tactics. Ajax was actually the team playing mostly on counters (not Spurs) late in the game and it even degenerated to time wasting very late. Unless you watched something different. BTW, I hope you noticed that Spurs FC was the team largely offensive in that SH and even had their GK move up at set pieces late. But guess what? they did not set up a huge defensive line to prevent conceding as Mourinho opines. Yet, they did not concede! Who conceded? The team that actually had a few more defensive play late and using delay tactics! An analysis should work on both sides. What Mourinho states is not compelling, if you ask me. I have seen games (including those by Mourinho) where his tactic is used and still could end in a loss. IMHO, Eriksen reveals the truth about soccer and not the coaching fairytales that make the game appear to be some scientific determined outcome which it isn't. Always remember that tactics is one of several factors that affect the game's outcome. It is NEVER the sole reason. The Spurs goal late against Ajax tells that tale because it was scored when Ajax did the right things.


The highlighted portion is the reason I say that football is an emotional sport and is first and foremost about players and their mentality. The greatest of managers I said, are the ones who best channel the emotions of players. You should pay attention to my words...

The point of Jose's critique is that only one team needed to be on the offensive as Spurs were in 2HF. But instead, Ajax was in the same offensive mode as Spurs. In two of the goals they conceded, they were caught on the counter with a high line!

Football may not be science, but it has a methodology, and at the highest levels, most occurrences are not coincidence and luck as you tend to believe.

You need to understand the game properly...


I actually understand the game properly but I am also a critique of its unwarranted hype as a science. I am glad that you have come a long way in accepting the large significance of pyschological effects on a game. That I do not disagree at all. Nevertheless, I also surely agree that there are aspects of the game that are part of tactical planning but there are also aspects that are down to luck. Make no mistake about it and I am happy that Eriksen affirms it by not hiding under the convoluted narrated hype of its scientism. The point you make about Mourinho on Spurs being the only team that should be on the offensive is the predictability of some illogic. It cuts both ways. It was Ajax refusal to do so that led to their two goal lead and to their letting in a tie but when they resorted to Mourinho's thinking they also conceded a winner. So what gives? IMHO, if you are a superior side, you do not cede advantage especially at home where you have the psychology of fan support behind you.

Take Spurs for a moment, going on the offensive you should know leaves them to possibility of being further back on the board because of exposure. I am glad that not everyone thinks like Mourinho. Everyone does not need to be behind the ball as he espouses or deep. Ajax was exactly doing that late to protect a result that was to take them through and in fact had more defenders than the attacking numbers Spurs had when Ajax was exposed to the third goal. So much for Mourinho's edict? We forget so soon, that Ajax had moments that they could have gone further ahead if the post had not denied them (luck?) or perhaps it was Pocchettino's coaching that drove Ziyech's shot to the low post?

_________________
The difficulties of statistical thinking describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in. We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events -- Daniel Kahneman (2011), Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 5:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29860
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:


Txj,

The point is that games are decided beyond tactics. Ajax was actually the team playing mostly on counters (not Spurs) late in the game and it even degenerated to time wasting very late. Unless you watched something different. BTW, I hope you noticed that Spurs FC was the team largely offensive in that SH and even had their GK move up at set pieces late. But guess what? they did not set up a huge defensive line to prevent conceding as Mourinho opines. Yet, they did not concede! Who conceded? The team that actually had a few more defensive play late and using delay tactics! An analysis should work on both sides. What Mourinho states is not compelling, if you ask me. I have seen games (including those by Mourinho) where his tactic is used and still could end in a loss. IMHO, Eriksen reveals the truth about soccer and not the coaching fairytales that make the game appear to be some scientific determined outcome which it isn't. Always remember that tactics is one of several factors that affect the game's outcome. It is NEVER the sole reason. The Spurs goal late against Ajax tells that tale because it was scored when Ajax did the right things.


The highlighted portion is the reason I say that football is an emotional sport and is first and foremost about players and their mentality. The greatest of managers I said, are the ones who best channel the emotions of players. You should pay attention to my words...

The point of Jose's critique is that only one team needed to be on the offensive as Spurs were in 2HF. But instead, Ajax was in the same offensive mode as Spurs. In two of the goals they conceded, they were caught on the counter with a high line!

Football may not be science, but it has a methodology, and at the highest levels, most occurrences are not coincidence and luck as you tend to believe.

You need to understand the game properly...


I actually understand the game properly but I am also a critique of its unwarranted hype as a science. I am glad that you have come a long way in accepting the large significance of pyschological effects on a game.

My understanding of the role of mentality in the game has not changed. It's just your failure to comprehend this!

That I do not disagree at all. Nevertheless, I also surely agree that there are aspects of the game that are part of tactical planning but there are also aspects that are down to luck. Make no mistake about it and I am happy that Eriksen affirms it by not hiding under the convoluted narrated hype of its scientism.

Luck comes from hard work and preparation. It just does not happen...

The point you make about Mourinho on Spurs being the only team that should be on the offensive is the predictability of some illogic. It cuts both ways. It was Ajax refusal to do so that led to their two goal lead and to their letting in a tie

In a different phase of the game bro...a phase in which an attacking approach is clearly justified. You need to understand the game properly! Different phases of the game require different approaches...

but when they resorted to Mourinho's thinking they also conceded a winner. So what gives? IMHO, if you are a superior side, you do not cede advantage especially at home where you have the psychology of fan support behind you.

Having established a 3-goal lead in a different phase of the game, the new phase required just what Mourinho was advocating- putting men behind the ball.

Take Spurs for a moment, going on the offensive you should know leaves them to possibility of being further back on the board because of exposure. I am glad that not everyone thinks like Mourinho. Everyone does not need to be behind the ball as he espouses or deep. Ajax was exactly doing that late to protect a result that was to take them through and in fact had more defenders than the attacking numbers Spurs had when Ajax was exposed to the third goal. So much for Mourinho's edict? We forget so soon, that Ajax had moments that they could have gone further ahead if the post had not denied them (luck?) or perhaps it was Pocchettino's coaching that drove Ziyech's shot to the low post?

The logic is that by maintaining balance, with numbers behind the ball, Ajax can pick their moments to counter, without exposing themselves unnecessarily, given their 3-goal advantage. Instead, they kept the same attacking philosophy. The 3rd Spus goal caught them on a high defensive line in the 96th min!

You need to understand the game properly...

This is Wim Kieft from De Telegraf, reaffirming all the points I made:


https://www.telegraaf.nl/sport/3571091/ ... domme-pech

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 6:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:39 am
Posts: 17487
Location: Super Eagles Homeland
Txj,

I think the problem is you eat up what you read without critically analyzing it. What you need is the ability to critically analyze situations. We saw Brighton play Mourinho ball today and took in an avalanche at home.

Football is like all human activities. Nothing is ever assured. I guarantee to you that when football results become assured, the interest in football will die. It remains a human activity and not some E-game.

In the Ajax game, Ajax (clearly the better team over two series) did what they should do but were unlucky at the end. It happens. It isn't about some great tactics by Spurs. Spurs were lucky as Eriksen acknowledges. Take a look at multiple youtube videos on that third goal. You will note that Ajax actually had several players behind the ball and in more numbers than Spurs had attacking at that moment. Yet?

The problem with your inability to critically analyze these things is that you think all games are won based on tactics. That is entirely false. Some games are won by tactics, others are won by talent, others are won by psychological status, and others by luck, and so on.

When you begin to critically analyze these things, then we would see you attribute victories to multiple possible reasons rather than the routine fixation on tactics and the myth that a particular tactic assures a certain outcome. That, Txj, is playing God and no one (even Mourinho) is remotely close to having such powers. What a team can do is its best in all areas including tactics, psychological preparation, etc but nothing can be assured. Ajax played the last minutes by the textbook and alas those teachings did not save them. It happens. Live with it rather than make a false claim that some tactics would have surely prevented them from losing.

txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:


Txj,

The point is that games are decided beyond tactics. Ajax was actually the team playing mostly on counters (not Spurs) late in the game and it even degenerated to time wasting very late. Unless you watched something different. BTW, I hope you noticed that Spurs FC was the team largely offensive in that SH and even had their GK move up at set pieces late. But guess what? they did not set up a huge defensive line to prevent conceding as Mourinho opines. Yet, they did not concede! Who conceded? The team that actually had a few more defensive play late and using delay tactics! An analysis should work on both sides. What Mourinho states is not compelling, if you ask me. I have seen games (including those by Mourinho) where his tactic is used and still could end in a loss. IMHO, Eriksen reveals the truth about soccer and not the coaching fairytales that make the game appear to be some scientific determined outcome which it isn't. Always remember that tactics is one of several factors that affect the game's outcome. It is NEVER the sole reason. The Spurs goal late against Ajax tells that tale because it was scored when Ajax did the right things.


The highlighted portion is the reason I say that football is an emotional sport and is first and foremost about players and their mentality. The greatest of managers I said, are the ones who best channel the emotions of players. You should pay attention to my words...

The point of Jose's critique is that only one team needed to be on the offensive as Spurs were in 2HF. But instead, Ajax was in the same offensive mode as Spurs. In two of the goals they conceded, they were caught on the counter with a high line!

Football may not be science, but it has a methodology, and at the highest levels, most occurrences are not coincidence and luck as you tend to believe.

You need to understand the game properly...


I actually understand the game properly but I am also a critique of its unwarranted hype as a science. I am glad that you have come a long way in accepting the large significance of pyschological effects on a game.

My understanding of the role of mentality in the game has not changed. It's just your failure to comprehend this!

That I do not disagree at all. Nevertheless, I also surely agree that there are aspects of the game that are part of tactical planning but there are also aspects that are down to luck. Make no mistake about it and I am happy that Eriksen affirms it by not hiding under the convoluted narrated hype of its scientism.

Luck comes from hard work and preparation. It just does not happen...

The point you make about Mourinho on Spurs being the only team that should be on the offensive is the predictability of some illogic. It cuts both ways. It was Ajax refusal to do so that led to their two goal lead and to their letting in a tie

In a different phase of the game bro...a phase in which an attacking approach is clearly justified. You need to understand the game properly! Different phases of the game require different approaches...

but when they resorted to Mourinho's thinking they also conceded a winner. So what gives? IMHO, if you are a superior side, you do not cede advantage especially at home where you have the psychology of fan support behind you.

Having established a 3-goal lead in a different phase of the game, the new phase required just what Mourinho was advocating- putting men behind the ball.

Take Spurs for a moment, going on the offensive you should know leaves them to possibility of being further back on the board because of exposure. I am glad that not everyone thinks like Mourinho. Everyone does not need to be behind the ball as he espouses or deep. Ajax was exactly doing that late to protect a result that was to take them through and in fact had more defenders than the attacking numbers Spurs had when Ajax was exposed to the third goal. So much for Mourinho's edict? We forget so soon, that Ajax had moments that they could have gone further ahead if the post had not denied them (luck?) or perhaps it was Pocchettino's coaching that drove Ziyech's shot to the low post?

The logic is that by maintaining balance, with numbers behind the ball, Ajax can pick their moments to counter, without exposing themselves unnecessarily, given their 3-goal advantage. Instead, they kept the same attacking philosophy. The 3rd Spus goal caught them on a high defensive line in the 96th min!

You need to understand the game properly...

This is Wim Kieft from De Telegraf, reaffirming all the points I made:


https://www.telegraaf.nl/sport/3571091/ ... domme-pech

_________________
The difficulties of statistical thinking describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in. We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events -- Daniel Kahneman (2011), Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 12, 2019 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29860
[quote="Enugu II"]Txj,

I think the problem is you eat up what you read without critically analyzing it. What you need is the ability to critically analyze situations. We saw Brighton play Mourinho ball today and took in an avalanche at home.

I criticized ETH's approach well before the comments by Jose and Wim. Your problem is an average understanding of the game outside the historical chronicalling of it....

For instance, why would you equate Brighton's position re City with Ajax's re Spurs? What that tells me is that you have very little clue!


Football is like all human activities. Nothing is ever assured. I guarantee to you that when football results become assured, the interest in football will die. It remains a human activity and not some E-game.

You have said nothing above that is has not been self evident since the game was invented!

In the Ajax game, Ajax (clearly the better team over two series) did what they should do but were unlucky at the end. It happens. It isn't about some great tactics by Spurs. Spurs were lucky as Eriksen acknowledges. Take a look at multiple youtube videos on that third goal. You will note that Ajax actually had several players behind the ball and in more numbers than Spurs had attacking at that moment. Yet?

If you had a modicum of understanding of the game you would note that Ajax was clearly unbalanced. You would note that the entry of Lorente was not simply a lucky roll of the dice. Yes, Erikson rightly points to their desire. But still, you need structure to effectuate the desire. The idea that Spurs did nothing of note in 2HF that was not a product of luck is frankly laughable!

The problem with your inability to critically analyze these things is that you think all games are won based on tactics. That is entirely false. Some games are won by tactics, others are won by talent, others are won by psychological status, and others by luck, and so on.

Again you have said nothing that was not already self evident about the game. But you still need a framework ie tactics to execute any game, no matter the other factors that do come to play in deciding outcomes.

In your understanding of the game, the LFC 4th goal was simply about luck; no?


When you begin to critically analyze these things, then we would see you attribute victories to multiple possible reasons rather than the routine fixation on tactics and the myth that a particular tactic assures a certain outcome. That, Txj, is playing God and no one (even Mourinho) is remotely close to having such powers. What a team can do is its best in all areas including tactics, psychological preparation, etc but nothing can be assured. Ajax played the last minutes by the textbook and alas those teachings did not save them. It happens. Live with it rather than make a false claim that some tactics would have surely prevented them from losing.


Again, you have said absolutely nothing above that was not already self evident. Nobody worth their salt would ever state that anything is assured in football. So mere repetition of the above is frankly worthless....

You can do everything by the book and yet lose. That is merely a reflection of the nature of the game. It however does not obviate the need to make the right decisions at the right time...
[quote="Enugu II"]

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2019 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:39 am
Posts: 17487
Location: Super Eagles Homeland
Txj,

Do not think for one moment that you understand the game better than I. I surely know that you don't because you appear to be limited to what you read in the media without the ability to critically access human situations in a match and the possibilities that are neither controlled by the coach or by tactical decisions. The moment you realize that there are things not controlled by those then I will accept that you have the ability to logically critique a game played by humans with all human foibles. These players aren't machines with predetermined motions and high level of predictability, you know.

If you do, indeed, agree that nothing is assured in football why then were you so certain that Ajax lost the game because of Mourinho's claims? Are you then in agreement that if they did what Mourinho states from the moment they were up 2-0 (That is from around 35 minutes!) that they could still have lost? If you agree that it is a possibility, then what is the need for this debate?

txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
Txj,

I think the problem is you eat up what you read without critically analyzing it. What you need is the ability to critically analyze situations. We saw Brighton play Mourinho ball today and took in an avalanche at home.

I criticized ETH's approach well before the comments by Jose and Wim. Your problem is an average understanding of the game outside the historical chronicalling of it....

For instance, why would you equate Brighton's position re City with Ajax's re Spurs? What that tells me is that you have very little clue!


Football is like all human activities. Nothing is ever assured. I guarantee to you that when football results become assured, the interest in football will die. It remains a human activity and not some E-game.

You have said nothing above that is has not been self evident since the game was invented!

In the Ajax game, Ajax (clearly the better team over two series) did what they should do but were unlucky at the end. It happens. It isn't about some great tactics by Spurs. Spurs were lucky as Eriksen acknowledges. Take a look at multiple youtube videos on that third goal. You will note that Ajax actually had several players behind the ball and in more numbers than Spurs had attacking at that moment. Yet?

If you had a modicum of understanding of the game you would note that Ajax was clearly unbalanced. You would note that the entry of Lorente was not simply a lucky roll of the dice. Yes, Erikson rightly points to their desire. But still, you need structure to effectuate the desire. The idea that Spurs did nothing of note in 2HF that was not a product of luck is frankly laughable!

The problem with your inability to critically analyze these things is that you think all games are won based on tactics. That is entirely false. Some games are won by tactics, others are won by talent, others are won by psychological status, and others by luck, and so on.

Again you have said nothing that was not already self evident about the game. But you still need a framework ie tactics to execute any game, no matter the other factors that do come to play in deciding outcomes.

In your understanding of the game, the LFC 4th goal was simply about luck; no?


When you begin to critically analyze these things, then we would see you attribute victories to multiple possible reasons rather than the routine fixation on tactics and the myth that a particular tactic assures a certain outcome. That, Txj, is playing God and no one (even Mourinho) is remotely close to having such powers. What a team can do is its best in all areas including tactics, psychological preparation, etc but nothing can be assured. Ajax played the last minutes by the textbook and alas those teachings did not save them. It happens. Live with it rather than make a false claim that some tactics would have surely prevented them from losing.


Again, you have said absolutely nothing above that was not already self evident. Nobody worth their salt would ever state that anything is assured in football. So mere repetition of the above is frankly worthless....

You can do everything by the book and yet lose. That is merely a reflection of the nature of the game. It however does not obviate the need to make the right decisions at the right time...
Enugu II wrote:

_________________
The difficulties of statistical thinking describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in. We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events -- Daniel Kahneman (2011), Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2019 12:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:35 pm
Posts: 29860
Nothing is assured in life. That is a constant that does not need repeating or affirmation.

However, that fact alone does not obviate the expectation that managers follow, at the minimum certain standard practices in managing a game. It doesn't guarantee an outcome- nothing is assured. But we follow standard practices for a reason...

At this point it is clear to me that you are impervious to knowledge on this issue....

Thanks bro...

Enugu II wrote:
Txj,

Do not think for one moment that you understand the game better than I. I surely know that you don't because you appear to be limited to what you read in the media without the ability to critically access human situations in a match and the possibilities that are neither controlled by the coach or by tactical decisions. The moment you realize that there are things not controlled by those then I will accept that you have the ability to logically critique a game played by humans with all human foibles. These players aren't machines with predetermined motions and high level of predictability, you know.

If you do, indeed, agree that nothing is assured in football why then were you so certain that Ajax lost the game because of Mourinho's claims? Are you then in agreement that if they did what Mourinho states from the moment they were up 2-0 (That is from around 35 minutes!) that they could still have lost? If you agree that it is a possibility, then what is the need for this debate?

txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
Txj,

I think the problem is you eat up what you read without critically analyzing it. What you need is the ability to critically analyze situations. We saw Brighton play Mourinho ball today and took in an avalanche at home.

I criticized ETH's approach well before the comments by Jose and Wim. Your problem is an average understanding of the game outside the historical chronicalling of it....

For instance, why would you equate Brighton's position re City with Ajax's re Spurs? What that tells me is that you have very little clue!


Football is like all human activities. Nothing is ever assured. I guarantee to you that when football results become assured, the interest in football will die. It remains a human activity and not some E-game.

You have said nothing above that is has not been self evident since the game was invented!

In the Ajax game, Ajax (clearly the better team over two series) did what they should do but were unlucky at the end. It happens. It isn't about some great tactics by Spurs. Spurs were lucky as Eriksen acknowledges. Take a look at multiple youtube videos on that third goal. You will note that Ajax actually had several players behind the ball and in more numbers than Spurs had attacking at that moment. Yet?

If you had a modicum of understanding of the game you would note that Ajax was clearly unbalanced. You would note that the entry of Lorente was not simply a lucky roll of the dice. Yes, Erikson rightly points to their desire. But still, you need structure to effectuate the desire. The idea that Spurs did nothing of note in 2HF that was not a product of luck is frankly laughable!

The problem with your inability to critically analyze these things is that you think all games are won based on tactics. That is entirely false. Some games are won by tactics, others are won by talent, others are won by psychological status, and others by luck, and so on.

Again you have said nothing that was not already self evident about the game. But you still need a framework ie tactics to execute any game, no matter the other factors that do come to play in deciding outcomes.

In your understanding of the game, the LFC 4th goal was simply about luck; no?


When you begin to critically analyze these things, then we would see you attribute victories to multiple possible reasons rather than the routine fixation on tactics and the myth that a particular tactic assures a certain outcome. That, Txj, is playing God and no one (even Mourinho) is remotely close to having such powers. What a team can do is its best in all areas including tactics, psychological preparation, etc but nothing can be assured. Ajax played the last minutes by the textbook and alas those teachings did not save them. It happens. Live with it rather than make a false claim that some tactics would have surely prevented them from losing.


Again, you have said absolutely nothing above that was not already self evident. Nobody worth their salt would ever state that anything is assured in football. So mere repetition of the above is frankly worthless....

You can do everything by the book and yet lose. That is merely a reflection of the nature of the game. It however does not obviate the need to make the right decisions at the right time...
Enugu II wrote:

_________________
Image
Form is temporary; Class is Permanent!
Liverpool, European Champions 2005.

We watched this very boring video, 500 times, of Sacchi doing defensive drills, using sticks and without the ball, with Maldini, Baresi and Albertini. We used to think before then that if the other players are better, you have to lose. After that we learned anything is possible – you can beat better teams by using tactics." Jurgen Klopp


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 13, 2019 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 2:39 am
Posts: 17487
Location: Super Eagles Homeland
txj,

I am not surprised by your thoughts on your football knowledge. You fail to see that Ajax conceded when they attacked and also conceded when they defended and delayed the game. A symptom that should demonstrate that other factors may have been at play beyond your fixation on tactical deployment. Moreover, your acknowledgment that anything can occur in football and life should logically point that not everything is controllable and, thus, the use of luck to describe those things that cannot be entirely controlled. Yet, that interpretation has not been possible for you. Of course, I understand that you stick to tactical interpretations if that is the only interpretation available and understandable to you. One would expect that deeper knowledge should indicate some variability of thought dependent on contexts rather than fixations. Well, if you are limited to just one possible interpretation, I need to stop there. It already speaks volumes. Perhaps, you will eventually arrive to that understanding in the coming years as you have demonstrated in the past. That surely will occur as I remain hopeful.

txj wrote:
Nothing is assured in life. That is a constant that does not need repeating or affirmation.

However, that fact alone does not obviate the expectation that managers follow, at the minimum certain standard practices in managing a game. It doesn't guarantee an outcome- nothing is assured. But we follow standard practices for a reason...

At this point it is clear to me that you are impervious to knowledge on this issue....

Thanks bro...

Enugu II wrote:
Txj,

Do not think for one moment that you understand the game better than I. I surely know that you don't because you appear to be limited to what you read in the media without the ability to critically access human situations in a match and the possibilities that are neither controlled by the coach or by tactical decisions. The moment you realize that there are things not controlled by those then I will accept that you have the ability to logically critique a game played by humans with all human foibles. These players aren't machines with predetermined motions and high level of predictability, you know.

If you do, indeed, agree that nothing is assured in football why then were you so certain that Ajax lost the game because of Mourinho's claims? Are you then in agreement that if they did what Mourinho states from the moment they were up 2-0 (That is from around 35 minutes!) that they could still have lost? If you agree that it is a possibility, then what is the need for this debate?

txj wrote:
Enugu II wrote:
Txj,

I think the problem is you eat up what you read without critically analyzing it. What you need is the ability to critically analyze situations. We saw Brighton play Mourinho ball today and took in an avalanche at home.

I criticized ETH's approach well before the comments by Jose and Wim. Your problem is an average understanding of the game outside the historical chronicalling of it....

For instance, why would you equate Brighton's position re City with Ajax's re Spurs? What that tells me is that you have very little clue!


Football is like all human activities. Nothing is ever assured. I guarantee to you that when football results become assured, the interest in football will die. It remains a human activity and not some E-game.

You have said nothing above that is has not been self evident since the game was invented!

In the Ajax game, Ajax (clearly the better team over two series) did what they should do but were unlucky at the end. It happens. It isn't about some great tactics by Spurs. Spurs were lucky as Eriksen acknowledges. Take a look at multiple youtube videos on that third goal. You will note that Ajax actually had several players behind the ball and in more numbers than Spurs had attacking at that moment. Yet?

If you had a modicum of understanding of the game you would note that Ajax was clearly unbalanced. You would note that the entry of Lorente was not simply a lucky roll of the dice. Yes, Erikson rightly points to their desire. But still, you need structure to effectuate the desire. The idea that Spurs did nothing of note in 2HF that was not a product of luck is frankly laughable!

The problem with your inability to critically analyze these things is that you think all games are won based on tactics. That is entirely false. Some games are won by tactics, others are won by talent, others are won by psychological status, and others by luck, and so on.

Again you have said nothing that was not already self evident about the game. But you still need a framework ie tactics to execute any game, no matter the other factors that do come to play in deciding outcomes.

In your understanding of the game, the LFC 4th goal was simply about luck; no?


When you begin to critically analyze these things, then we would see you attribute victories to multiple possible reasons rather than the routine fixation on tactics and the myth that a particular tactic assures a certain outcome. That, Txj, is playing God and no one (even Mourinho) is remotely close to having such powers. What a team can do is its best in all areas including tactics, psychological preparation, etc but nothing can be assured. Ajax played the last minutes by the textbook and alas those teachings did not save them. It happens. Live with it rather than make a false claim that some tactics would have surely prevented them from losing.


Again, you have said absolutely nothing above that was not already self evident. Nobody worth their salt would ever state that anything is assured in football. So mere repetition of the above is frankly worthless....

You can do everything by the book and yet lose. That is merely a reflection of the nature of the game. It however does not obviate the need to make the right decisions at the right time...
Enugu II wrote:

_________________
The difficulties of statistical thinking describes a puzzling limitation of our mind: our excessive confidence in what we believe we know, and our apparent inability to acknowledge the full extent of our ignorance and the uncertainty of the world we live in. We are prone to overestimate how much we understand about the world and to underestimate the role of chance in events -- Daniel Kahneman (2011), Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics
Winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: toyin133 and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group