Intensity

Where Eagles dare! Discuss Nigerian related football (soccer) topics here.

Moderators: Moderator Team, phpBB2 - Administrators

Post Reply
donadoni
Egg
Egg
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:18 pm
Intensity

Post by donadoni »

This is something I have noticed during Rohrs time and also with the match yesterday. For whatever reason the same 11 players can sometimes play with intensity, focus and high tempo and then suddenly the revert back to low tempo. In the modern game the margins are so small that you can’t afford to be playing serious games (Eg a knockout match at an international competition) at anything but high intensity. We used to have the old “fire brigade” approach where we wait until we are 1-0 down and then suddenly come back strong and win. But that doesn’t work. Look at how the Burkina vs Gabon game was played - both sides playing like their lives depended on it. For us we went back to passing the ball 10 times between defenders before even moving it forward. Why? The intensity we played with against Egypt kept them so busy they had no time to think of their out game plan. Egu told them to play their heart out and if they are tired they can signal for a change. It’s that extra little effort that wins the second ball, that gets you past a player etc. We can keep complaining about coaches and systems but we have seen that the same 11 players can look like world beaters one day and mediocre the next. I’m not sure it’s all down to tactics etc. If these players want to win something they have to play every game like a final from the time the whistle blows - and that is down to them, nobody else.
User avatar
metalalloy
Eaglet
Eaglet
Posts: 49691
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:22 pm
Re: Intensity

Post by metalalloy »

Teams tend to be more cautious/conservative in the knockout stages of tournaments.
We have been brainwashed by the Premier League that it's the best in the world. Nonsense. It's the best brand
Roy Keane: ITV 02/25/14

He says that we are currently "brainwashed" into believing that the Premier League is the best competition in the world, and that we are now a long way off dominating the Champions League again.
Gary Neville: Mirror: 12/23/14

I think Spain’s by far the best league.
Scholes. UK Guardian 9/6/16
donadoni
Egg
Egg
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:18 pm
Re: Intensity

Post by donadoni »

metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:47 pm Teams tend to be more cautious/conservative in the knockout stages of tournaments.
In general yes this is correct. But against a team like Tunisia whose only hope is to score against the run of play and then lockup shop, not playing with intensity is playing into their hands
User avatar
Silver-Shadow
Egg
Egg
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 12:49 am
Location: Alcatraz
Re: Intensity

Post by Silver-Shadow »

Sometimes when the players sense the coach's strategy isn't and wouldn't work it can have that same effect.
No Escape
User avatar
metalalloy
Eaglet
Eaglet
Posts: 49691
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:22 pm
Re: Intensity

Post by metalalloy »

donadoni wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:05 pm
metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:47 pm Teams tend to be more cautious/conservative in the knockout stages of tournaments.
In general yes this is correct. But against a team like Tunisia whose only hope is to score against the run of play and then lockup shop, not playing with intensity is playing into their hands
I suppose you saw that as a "lack of intensity" to me, it looked like not overcommitting against a team with a low block with 10 men in their box. If they attacked recklessly and then conceded and Tunisia scored and locked shop, they would have been criticized as well
We have been brainwashed by the Premier League that it's the best in the world. Nonsense. It's the best brand
Roy Keane: ITV 02/25/14

He says that we are currently "brainwashed" into believing that the Premier League is the best competition in the world, and that we are now a long way off dominating the Champions League again.
Gary Neville: Mirror: 12/23/14

I think Spain’s by far the best league.
Scholes. UK Guardian 9/6/16
donadoni
Egg
Egg
Posts: 321
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:18 pm
Re: Intensity

Post by donadoni »

metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:21 pm
donadoni wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:05 pm
metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:47 pm Teams tend to be more cautious/conservative in the knockout stages of tournaments.
In general yes this is correct. But against a team like Tunisia whose only hope is to score against the run of play and then lockup shop, not playing with intensity is playing into their hands
I suppose you saw that as a "lack of intensity" to me, it looked like not overcommitting against a team with a low block with 10 men in their box. If they attacked recklessly and then conceded and Tunisia scored and locked shop, they would have been criticized as well
What I am saying is that in recent times I have seen many SE games where on paper we should win, but instead of going hard to force the issue we operate at a modest tempo. When you do that it may still work out that you get a chance and score or it may be that the other team gets a break - penalty, fluke chance, red card etc. You are basically making it more of a 50:50 type of game. When you go hard, yes there is still a chance you could concede, but you put the other team in a defensive mindset and psychologically they will have doubts because they are under pressure constantly - it’s like what they feared might happen is actually happening. You cannot do what I’m saying if you don’t have talented and physically fit players - but we do. So I don’t know why we enter games with this modest tempo approach. Against Argentina in the last World Cup, those guys were psychologically down, issues in camp, Messi even doubting himself etc and instead of going hard to finish them off we didn’t and then ended up losing.
visieC
Egg
Egg
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:49 pm
Re: Intensity

Post by visieC »

metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:21 pm
donadoni wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:05 pm
metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:47 pm Teams tend to be more cautious/conservative in the knockout stages of tournaments.
In general yes this is correct. But against a team like Tunisia whose only hope is to score against the run of play and then lockup shop, not playing with intensity is playing into their hands
I suppose you saw that as a "lack of intensity" to me, it looked like not overcommitting against a team with a low block with 10 men in their box. If they attacked recklessly and then conceded and Tunisia scored and locked shop, they would have been criticized as well
When a team loses, there always plenty of blame to go around.
C'est la vie.
deanotito
Eaglet
Eaglet
Posts: 15581
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: USA
Re: Intensity

Post by deanotito »

In all honesty, I think it has more to do with the other teams tactics than ours.

For instance, I'll give an anecdotal observation and compare the Egypt and Tunisia matches. Against Egypt, it was almost as if every long ball Ekong and Omeruo played found its target, every 50:50 contest, Nigeria won. Against Tunisia, all the long balls were going awry. 50:50 challenges were truly 50:50. As a result, the eagles found it hard to get into an attacking flow, and it affected their intensity.

When that kinda thing happens, you either patiently keep trying and trying (which would have been my preference in a qualifier/group game/friendly) or you throw on a few game changers immediately (in a knockout game) to break down the opposition. Nigeria was handicapped by Chukwueze, who wasn't pressing, and Aribo, who was not taking control of the attacking third. So it needed game changers. A player who would keep the Tunisians honest on the right wing would have taken their pressure off Simon, and stretched their defense enough for Awoniyi and Iheanacho.

Egu opted for patience, and when he did make changes, he made the wrong ones. If that game were to be played 1,000 times, Olayinka should have had no part of it. He was not what we needed at all. Neither was Sadiq. If Awoniyi was really tired (and I doubt he was), Musa was a better option. His speed alone would have stretched the defense. My choices would have been Iwobi (but he must be on the right, and not center) and Nwakali...and I would have started the 2nd half with them.If I wasn't confident Iwobi would/could stay on the right, then its either Ejuke or Musa.

In conclusion, I would say it wasn't that the eagles did not want to be intense. They were stifled by Tunisia's tactics.
If purge dey worry you, you no dey select toilet
deanotito
Eaglet
Eaglet
Posts: 15581
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: USA
Re: Intensity

Post by deanotito »

donadoni wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:39 pm
metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:21 pm
donadoni wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 7:05 pm
metalalloy wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:47 pm Teams tend to be more cautious/conservative in the knockout stages of tournaments.
In general yes this is correct. But against a team like Tunisia whose only hope is to score against the run of play and then lockup shop, not playing with intensity is playing into their hands
I suppose you saw that as a "lack of intensity" to me, it looked like not overcommitting against a team with a low block with 10 men in their box. If they attacked recklessly and then conceded and Tunisia scored and locked shop, they would have been criticized as well
What I am saying is that in recent times I have seen many SE games where on paper we should win, but instead of going hard to force the issue we operate at a modest tempo. When you do that it may still work out that you get a chance and score or it may be that the other team gets a break - penalty, fluke chance, red card etc. You are basically making it more of a 50:50 type of game. When you go hard, yes there is still a chance you could concede, but you put the other team in a defensive mindset and psychologically they will have doubts because they are under pressure constantly - it’s like what they feared might happen is actually happening. You cannot do what I’m saying if you don’t have talented and physically fit players - but we do. So I don’t know why we enter games with this modest tempo approach. Against Argentina in the last World Cup, those guys were psychologically down, issues in camp, Messi even doubting himself etc and instead of going hard to finish them off we didn’t and then ended up losing.
Under Rohr, this was certainly the case, but I saw enough of Eguavoen to know this was not his intention.

In my opinion, there is some benefit to letting your team patiently try to break down an opposition that is trying to stiffle them. But you must know when to do this and when not to.

Also, I think intense games require players with good ball control. We don't have many of those...so if you try to play too fast, you'll just be giving the ball away
If purge dey worry you, you no dey select toilet
User avatar
Igugu
Egg
Egg
Posts: 7370
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2003 1:39 am
Location: USA
Re: Intensity

Post by Igugu »

deanotito wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 8:38 pm In all honesty, I think it has more to do with the other teams tactics than ours.

For instance, I'll give an anecdotal observation and compare the Egypt and Tunisia matches. Against Egypt, it was almost as if every long ball Ekong and Omeruo played found its target, every 50:50 contest, Nigeria won.
Against Tunisia, all the long balls were going awry. 50:50 challenges were truly 50:50. As a result, the eagles found it hard to get into an attacking flow, and it affected their intensity.
When that kinda thing happens, you either patiently keep trying and trying (which would have been my preference in a qualifier/group game/friendly) or you throw on a few game changers immediately (in a knockout game) to break down the opposition. Nigeria was handicapped by Chukwueze, who wasn't pressing, and Aribo, who was not taking control of the attacking third. So it needed game changers. A player who would keep the Tunisians honest on the right wing would have taken their pressure off Simon, and stretched their defense enough for Awoniyi and Iheanacho.

Egu opted for patience, and when he did make changes, he made the wrong ones. If that game were to be played 1,000 times, Olayinka should have had no part of it. He was not what we needed at all. Neither was Sadiq. If Awoniyi was really tired (and I doubt he was), Musa was a better option. His speed alone would have stretched the defense. My choices would have been Iwobi (but he must be on the right, and not center) and Nwakali...and I would have started the 2nd half with them.If I wasn't confident Iwobi would/could stay on the right, then its either Ejuke or Musa.

In conclusion, I would say it wasn't that the eagles did not want to be intense. They were stifled by Tunisia's tactics.
My question and observation were why our players were not marking closely or getting close to the Tunisians when they lose the ball or lose possession. I am talking about not giving the opponents a breathing space; which the Eagles gave the Tunisians plenty, resulting in the Eagles making late challenges for the ball when the opponents have the ball. Giving an opponent 10 yards of space when you don't have the ball gives the opponent all the space in the world to do whatever the opponent wants with the ball. And they (the Tunisians) did.
User avatar
Tbite
Eaglet
Eaglet
Posts: 27952
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2006 2:51 am
Re: Intensity

Post by Tbite »

One of the significant issues I noticed is that our build up play in the final third is far too predictable. Leicester by the way have been struggling with this same problem for at least 12 months (interestingly two of our key players are from there).

In the modern game, no matter how conservative you want to play, when CONSTRUCTING goals, you have to be precise AND be able to INCREASE the tempo very quickly. The chemistry of the lads is actually very bad. Only in the most obvious situations do they click, such as when a player has gone to the by-line or when they have crowded the box and a winger is near the by-line etc.

Others mentioned that the issue was that our midfield was crowded and the wings were ineffective. I am not so sure the Tunisians were that successful to be honest. The SE were able to progress deep into the Tunisian half. We were not playing in our own half, which is what really happens when you have truly been crowded out.

If we increased the tempo in the final third and were more precise, I guarantee you, we would have won that match. Guaranteed. But increasing tempo in the final third is not that easy, it may be a tactical issue (as I think is the case in Leicester), but in Nigeria, I think it is actually also a chemistry issue.

The team needed more tune up matches to get it right. We did not have many successful through balls in the tournament. That is a deeply worrying sign. When Olayinka came on, we saw some, and that was with 10 men. So the issue is not about Tunisia's defense being so impregnable or their midfield. It was our offensive predictability.

Leicester tend to play laterally. They rely on the movement of the ball across the flanks, without creating enough movement in-between the flanks. Nigeria tend to play with depth, but across the channels, also not enough movement in-between the flanks. Players should not remain in their positions, but should be switching. If you cannot do that with a two-man midfield, then a two-man midfield is insufficient.

I think yes Rohr had a hand in this failure as well, because the things that I have mention should ALREADY exist in the team. Why should the team chemistry be this bad?
Buhari, whose two terms thankfully ground to a constitutional halt in May. (One thing both democracies have going for them is that their leaders, however bad, have only two terms to swing the wrecking ball.) Under Buhari, growth per head also plunged to 0. An economic agenda drawn from the dusty pages of a 1970s protectionist handbook failed to do the trick. Despite Buhari’s promise to tame terrorism and criminality, violence flourished. Despite his reputation for probity, corruption swirled. FT

Post Reply