Modern Football

[John Findlay]

3 minutes ago, Le Chat said:

 

In the 1982 World Cup Argentina played Italy when Maradona was about 20.

 

Every time he got the ball he was basically assaulted by the Italians (Claudio Gentile in particular).  Nowadays, half of their team would (rightly) be sent off.

 

The fact Maradona was able to do what he did, whilst putting up with the type of treatment he got in pretty much every game he played, makes him the GOAT in my opinion.  Messi and Ronaldo didn't have to put up with a fraction of what Diego did.

Watch the official FIFA film of the 1966 World Cup and see the treatment dished out to Pele in that tournament.

[A_A wehatethehibs]

17 minutes ago, darrenold said:

Not sure.  Some terrible defending still happens.

 

 

if you look back at old video, you’ll very quickly see what I mean, defenders would fly into things constantly overcommitting themselves and leaving space behind to exploit. The defensive Delay principle changed football more than any other aspect IMHO. The objective of team is to slow down the opposition; not actually trying to take possession. And it works. It slows games down.

 

Then you have fans not understanding that, and thinking it’s our “slow pedestrian” play as if that’s our intentional tactics. That happens when the opposition has successfully delayed you.

Edited September 12, 2024 by A_A wehatethehibs

[bobskeldon]

3 hours ago, TexasAndy said:

I was the same with Barcelona during Pep era.  As good as they were I just found it all drab.  Give me fast attack and counter attack any day.

The 2009-2012 Barcelona were anything but drab! I think that side would take 3/4 off this Man City team. I have watched many great sides in my time but that Barcelona team were on a different planet.

[Bill Sikes]

Easy solution,  no points for wins and draws.

 

Points for goals only. 

 

Score 5 get 5 points,  concede 3, the other team gets 3 points. 

 

Id try it.

[Bill Sikes]

6 minutes ago, bobskeldon said:

The 2009-2012 Barcelona were anything but drab! I think that side would take 3/4 off this Man City team. I have watched many great sides in my time but that Barcelona team were on a different planet.

 

I think if you remove Pep from the equation both those sides are very different. 

[RustyRightPeg]

46 minutes ago, Ally said:

Glad it's not just me. What exactly does it mean, anyone?

Expected goals. It’s supposed to measure the quality of your chance of scoring. It’s a pile of piss. 
 

Add to that the completed passes. Shite. If my #10 has a 100% pass completion, he’s either passing it backwards all the time or playing too safe. I’d actually expect our players to be high on that list. 

[Pistol1874]

4 hours ago, Rudy T said:

Was hearing the latest stats produced on how much the game has changed even in the last 5 years. The Pep effect!

Some key things for me where:

One Striker, gone are the days of having two, especially the big man wee man combo.
Considerably less shots from outside the box and as a consequence far less goals.

Less crosses into the box.

Huge increase in the number of passes in a game.

 

Makes me wonder if a coach was to revert back to some of these seemingly outdated ideas if they’d have success with it, seems to be its very much football by numbers with any real flair coached out of the players now.

 

I’m yet to be convinced it’s better to watch for the fans.

Done properly, it probably is. I’m thinking of Pep’s Barcelona and, to a lesser extent, City. The former could be mesmerising. 
The issue arises when far lesser players try to implement anything similar. In our case, the CHs end up with far too much possession, the opposition can and does get set, we can’t (or at least largely don’t) create any space and the team loses the opportunity/ability to create chances, often losing the ball the moment they try to play a forward pass.

Teams who are more direct than us with the ball, Motherwell, Dundee and Dundee United alone this season, seem to cause us issues regularly.

In my view anyway, no doubt there will be stats to disprove what I’m actually watching.

[Tommy Brown]

1 hour ago, Luckies1874 said:

The far less goals is simply untrue. 
 

In 2 of the last 3 seasons the EPL has seen the most and 3rd most goals ever scored in a 38 game top flight season in England, averaging over 2.8 goals a game. 

And if you watch MOTD, absolute crackers are scored every week.

[RustyRightPeg]

There is 100% a place for 2 strikers, little and large. 
 

Teams “press” so high these days you’d be able to make an effective system out of a Kyle and Gino type connection. None of this #10 pish. Clips into chest and head and play off them. 

Edited September 12, 2024 by RustyRightPeg

[Tommy Brown]

28 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Easy solution,  no points for wins and draws.

 

Points for goals only. 

 

Score 5 get 5 points,  concede 3, the other team gets 3 points. 

 

Id try it.

Could be fun.

Ultimately it would lead to massive skullduggery

[Byyy The Light]

2 minutes ago, RustyRightPeg said:

There is 100% a place for 2 strikers, little and large. 
 

Teams “press” so high these days you’d be able to make an effective system out of a Kyle and Gino type connection. None of this #10 pish. Clips into chest and head and play off them. 

 

Too much football snobbery about.

 

It's like craft beer, nothing wrong with a pint of lager.  Gets the job done.

[RustyRightPeg]

Just now, Byyy The Light said:

 

Too much football snobbery about.

 

It's like craft beer, nothing wrong with a pint of lager.  Gets the job done.

Aye this whole “playing the right way”. The right way is the way that gets you 3 points.

[darrenold]

34 minutes ago, Bull's-eye said:

Easy solution,  no points for wins and draws.

 

Points for goals only. 

 

Score 5 get 5 points,  concede 3, the other team gets 3 points. 

 

Id try it.

Game may turn into basketball 

[Martin_T]

18 minutes ago, RustyRightPeg said:

There is 100% a place for 2 strikers, little and large. 
 

Teams “press” so high these days you’d be able to make an effective system out of a Kyle and Gino type connection. None of this #10 pish. Clips into chest and head and play off them. 

 

Indeed Dyche did remarkably well with Burnley for several years playing a relatively basic 4-4-2.

[Jarhead]

41 minutes ago, RustyRightPeg said:

Expected goals. It’s supposed to measure the quality of your chance of scoring. It’s a pile of piss. 
 

Add to that the completed passes. Shite. If my #10 has a 100% pass completion, he’s either passing it backwards all the time or playing too safe. I’d actually expect our players to be high on that list. 

How is xg a pile of piss? It’s a mathematical equation based on statistical analysis. The numbers are factually true!

I’m not disagreeing with anyone that percentage football can make for a dull spectacle but if winning is the prime purpose then it would be foolish to ignore the data that helps you towards that end. 

[Mr Rabbit]

5 hours ago, Le Chat said:

I rarely watch when Man City are on the telly.  Watching them bores the arse off of me.

 

Everyone trying to copy them is ludicrous when their players are infinitely inferior.  Nowt wrong with a keeper shelling a bye-kick down the park or a long ball now and again.

 

And the more shots from distance the better.  Can't beat a good 25-yard screamer.

Yeah, I remember feeling the same about Barcelona about ten years back when everyone raved about how good they were.

 

I said the same during the Euros all the bigger teams try and play the same way with all the creativity and flair trained out of them.  It showed that the best team to watch were Georgia who seemed to resort to more freedom in their play.
 

4 hours ago, Howdy Doody Jambo said:

You're only as good as your strikers, the name of the game is scoring goals 

Good player's will always beat shite players no matter what the tactics or formation is 

Nowadays it's not about natural skills and ability of player's it's all about the coach 

If good players always beat poor players then there’d be no point in going week in week out as all the results would already be determined.

 

The manager is the single most important part of any team. If it was just down to the players then we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in.

 

 

[darrenold]

I think the 00s was the best era for football 

[Horatio Caine]

A lot on here I can agree with. Yes, I think modern football is far too controlled by coaching methods etc. Trouble is, anyone who would try, as has been suggested, to turn the clock back will be immediately branded a dinosaur and their views/methods dismissed.

[darrenold]

One thing that fked up football was the offside thing that happened in about 2005 - not interfering with play.  That was a big change and not a good one as they didn't take into account the changes in behaviour it would bring.

[TexasAndy]

1 hour ago, bobskeldon said:

The 2009-2012 Barcelona were anything but drab! I think that side would take 3/4 off this Man City team. I have watched many great sides in my time but that Barcelona team were on a different planet.

Successful yes.  Exciting?  Absolutely not.  Death by passing.  Not for me.

[RustyRightPeg]

15 minutes ago, Jarhead said:

How is xg a pile of piss? It’s a mathematical equation based on statistical analysis. The numbers are factually true!

I’m not disagreeing with anyone that percentage football can make for a dull spectacle but if winning is the prime purpose then it would be foolish to ignore the data that helps you towards that end. 

 

No issue with clubs using stats behind closed doors if it helps game plans.
 

When it becomes the main talking point on super Sunday and pundits start talking about it, not for me. 

[Pasquale for King]

Yeah its not great to watch, i have it on but rarely glued to it. 
City are boring to watch, but even they go long when teams press them. 
Some of the games in Scotland are actually better to watch with all our issues and problems, especially if its 100 mph and players are all giving 100%.

[Pasquale for King]

18 minutes ago, Mr Rabbit said:

Yeah, I remember feeling the same about Barcelona about ten years back when everyone raved about how good they were.

 

I said the same during the Euros all the bigger teams try and play the same way with all the creativity and flair trained out of them.  It showed that the best team to watch were Georgia who seemed to resort to more freedom in their play.
 

If good players always beat poor players then there’d be no point in going week in week out as all the results would already be determined.

 

The manager is the single most important part of any team. If it was just down to the players then we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in.

 

 

Spot on

[Jacques de Gatineau]

1 hour ago, RustyRightPeg said:

Expected goals. It’s supposed to measure the quality of your chance of scoring. It’s a pile of piss. 
 

Add to that the completed passes. Shite. If my #10 has a 100% pass completion, he’s either passing it backwards all the time or playing too safe. I’d actually expect our players to be high on that list. 

Kye Rowles is probably, statistically, the best passer in Scotland.

 

xGoals sounds like something people who have only ever known football through their Playstation and Sky sub have dreamed up so as to flash more stats on screen during games, like they do in the US. 

 

Soon, they'll be moving to have xGoals counted as 0.5 of a real goal or something.

[Jacques de Gatineau]

1 hour ago, A_A wehatethehibs said:

expected goals. It looks at the quality of the chance in the equation. So, yes you had a shot, but was it 5 yards out or 30 yards out? You’ve got higher probablility of scoring with a shot from 5 yards. So the xg is higher. There’s a lot more complexity to it but that’s basically it. And at the end of the game it’s the number of goals you should’ve scored, or at least that’s the way it’s looked at 

Thanks. I've always been too embarrassed to ask what it actually means!

 

So would our xGoals have been quite high in the Spurs friendly given we had two or three great chances from Tagawa and Oda, or is there something about the pre-match odds factored in (i.e. we should be taking a thumping from Spurs).

[Hmfc1965]

5 hours ago, alanjambo said:

The lack of shooting from distance is the thing that really annoys me about modern football, and especially about us at the moment. If the ground is wet and a shot is on, take it; the keeper might well spill it.

 

As others have said, the Pep effect is killing the enjoyment of football and ruining the flair players and individualism. Great team as they are, Man City bore me. Grealish is one of the few flair 'old style' players left and Pep has tried to coach that out of him.

 

Feigning injury and player going down clutching their faces when they've hardly been touched is my biggest annoyance about modern football though.

But Man City score quite a few goals from long range.

 

[The Maroon Jacket]

16 minutes ago, Mr Rabbit said:

Yeah, I remember feeling the same about Barcelona about ten years back when everyone raved about how good they were.

 

I said the same during the Euros all the bigger teams try and play the same way with all the creativity and flair trained out of them.  It showed that the best team to watch were Georgia who seemed to resort to more freedom in their play.
 

If good players always beat poor players then there’d be no point in going week in week out as all the results would already be determined.

 

The manager is the single most important part of any team. If it was just down to the players then we wouldn’t be in the position we’re in.

 

 

But that's why Real Madrid win the champions league every other year and in general the cream of the crop are constant 

Good player's with football brain's take responsibility and work things out for themselves and can lead the dressing room with the manager fine tuning keeping it simple 

The shit players need told what to do, don't listen, panic under pressure,get injured easily and are just at a club for the money, you get good manager's and poor manager's also that complicate, confuse with poor people skills 

[Penrices left boot]

1 hour ago, Le Chat said:

 

In the 1982 World Cup Argentina played Italy when Maradona was about 20.

 

Every time he got the ball he was basically assaulted by the Italians (Claudio Gentile in particular).  Nowadays, half of their team would (rightly) be sent off.

 

The fact Maradona was able to do what he did, whilst putting up with the type of treatment he got in pretty much every game he played, makes him the GOAT in my opinion.  Messi and Ronaldo didn't have to put up with a fraction of what Diego did.

 

Tbf, easy to ignore pain if you're coked up oot yer tits.

 

 

[the posh bit]

1 hour ago, John Findlay said:

Watch the official FIFA film of the 1966 World Cup and see the treatment dished out to Pele in that tournament.

 

Watch England's 1986 Quarter Final against Argentina and just look at the treatment dished out to Maradona. Incredible stuff. 

[John Findlay]

1 minute ago, the posh bit said:

 

Watch England's 1986 Quarter Final against Argentina and just look at the treatment dished out to Maradona. Incredible stuff. 

I was alive for 66 and 86. I personally think Pele got harsher treatment, especially from the Portuguese at Goodison Park.

[Bongo 1874]

58 minutes ago, RustyRightPeg said:

There is 100% a place for 2 strikers, little and large. 
 

Teams “press” so high these days you’d be able to make an effective system out of a Kyle and Gino type connection. None of this #10 pish. Clips into chest and head and play off them. 

I'm thinking this too and agree,I'm not saying hoof it all the time,but playing direct and someone can take it in,and hold,with runners off the ball we really don't have that currently.

 

Like this.

[Penrices left boot]

Fitness and athleticism has made the sport almost unrecognisable from 50 years ago.

The tempo is faster.

Fitness and strength are far more important now. 

Same with most sports, especially outside the elite level, strength and fitness and the general increase in the focus on this has level the field and better fitness/ strength can be used to overcome ability/ technique/ skill.

 

Many of the Players who were great in the 50's, 60's woud be classed as unfit now.

 

This physic and lifestyle would be akin to a lower level player not a top player at a top club.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2024 by Bazzas right boot

[Bongo 1874]

Ultimately I want to see Hearts play good football,I want us to play possession football,but do agree there is no harm getting it up quick and into a targetman,the problem we have is we have become too predictable, people say city pass teams to death,but Walker and Dias ain't shy at hoofing if there is a long diagonal on.

 

Our decision making is costing us,we don't need to play out from the back all the time keep teams guessing.

 

We can still gain possession off second balls and duels,something we seriously need to improve at.

 

Most importantly we need to play a settled team.

 

 

[Ricardo Quaresma]

5 hours ago, Le Chat said:

I rarely watch when Man City are on the telly.  Watching them bores the arse off of me.

 

Everyone trying to copy them is ludicrous when their players are infinitely inferior.  Nowt wrong with a keeper shelling a bye-kick down the park or a long ball now and again.

 

And the more shots from distance the better.  Can't beat a good 25-yard screamer.

 

Had £20 on city to beat dortmund in dortmund the year before last, they clearly weren't interested in winning and I think it turned out that the draw consigned barca or other to 3rd place

 

Never more prevalent, the overpassing in that match, I was absolutely raging because it was nothing short of rigging the match; they did win my money back next round though, so I suppose that was something

 

So brutal watching them unless they're really trying hard to score

[Star Lizard]

Great read this thread . Most of what I think has already been said by various other posters

 

1 - It is the improvement in defending that is primarily to blame . Defenders are athletes now , and not the big huddies who could barely move other than to jump and head a ball

 

2 - Badges and licenses . Just call it cloning and get on with it 

[Ribble]

27 minutes ago, Jarhead said:

How is xg a pile of piss? It’s a mathematical equation based on statistical analysis. The numbers are factually true!

I’m not disagreeing with anyone that percentage football can make for a dull spectacle but if winning is the prime purpose then it would be foolish to ignore the data that helps you towards that end. 

 

Not quite a pile of piss but it only looks at the chance itself, not who the chance falls to, the xG of any chance falling to Shankland for example if much higher than a much easier chance falling to Cammy Devlin and it also doesn't account for chances when a player *boyce* either passes instead of shooting or hesitates and the defender gets to the ball before a shot is hit

[A_A wehatethehibs]

26 minutes ago, Ally said:

Thanks. I've always been too embarrassed to ask what it actually means!

 

So would our xGoals have been quite high in the Spurs friendly given we had two or three great chances from Tagawa and Oda, or is there something about the pre-match odds factored in (i.e. we should be taking a thumping from Spurs).

Afaik, it’s purely a measurement of the specific chances created during the game. So if you had tap-ins, these are much easier chances. So a tap-in is like +1.00 on your xg because you 100% definitely should score. 

 

But say it was a off balance volley, stretched at the back post from a poor ball in, that’s a harder chance to score a goal, only the top strikers will have the accuracy, and usually even they’ll miss. So would only add +0.05 on to your total xg for a wee half chance. 
 

It’s just a vague reflection of how good you’ve been at creating chances. Higher xg means you created some good easy chances where you should score. Lower xg means you didn’t create much good service for your strikers. 

 

I never really understand why folk get worked up about it  

[A_A wehatethehibs]

3 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Not quite a pile of piss but it only looks at the chance itself, not who the chance falls to, the xG of any chance falling to Shankland for example if much higher than a much easier chance falling to Cammy Devlin and it also doesn't account for chances when a player *boyce* either passes instead of shooting or hesitates and the defender gets to the ball before a shot is hit

Im pretty sure proper top level xg does take into account who a chance falls to? And that individuals conversion, accuracy, weak foot etc 

[Ribble]

42 minutes ago, Ally said:

Thanks. I've always been too embarrassed to ask what it actually means!

 

So would our xGoals have been quite high in the Spurs friendly given we had two or three great chances from Tagawa and Oda, or is there something about the pre-match odds factored in (i.e. we should be taking a thumping from Spurs).

 

Odds doesn't factor in it.

 

The factors are distance from goal, the angle, whether it's a header or not, how many defenders between ball and goal, position of the keeper, type of pass leading to the chance and whether or not the shot was inside the 6 yard box. also Penalties are automatically given 0.76 xG as 76 percent of pens are scored.

 

For the spurs game we had 3 on target, 6 off and a total xG of 1.25 

[RustyRightPeg]

1 hour ago, Ally said:

Kye Rowles is probably, statistically, the best passer in Scotland.

 

xGoals sounds like something people who have only ever known football through their Playstation and Sky sub have dreamed up so as to flash more stats on screen during games, like they do in the US. 

 

Soon, they'll be moving to have xGoals counted as 0.5 of a real goal or something.

Yeah, most likely. 
 

I think that’s part of why our 3/5 at the back system breaks down. Rowles predominantly plays that LCB role by himself, but as I’ve pointed out on several other threads a few times, he rarely takes any responsibility on the ball and his first thought is to pass it 5 yards sideways or back. Generally, sometimes the best thing to do if you see nothing in front of you is to just stand on the ball and do nothing. You are the spare man with the ball at your feet.
 

In this scenario, 9/10 times an opposing player will break out of his teams press because he sees a chance to be a hero, that’s when you move it forward, by either taking an extra stride or two into the midfield area and come out the other side, or better yet, find a forward player with a pass. It’s exactly the reason I want to see Kingsley there, if we ever do play that god forsaken formation ever again. 
 

Far too often it’s a pointless pass to our sitting midfielder who is facing our goal and all he can do in turn is go back the way too.
 

 

[RustyRightPeg]

22 minutes ago, Ribble said:

 

Odds doesn't factor in it.

 

The factors are distance from goal, the angle, whether it's a header or not, how many defenders between ball and goal, position of the keeper, type of pass leading to the chance and whether or not the shot was inside the 6 yard box. also Penalties are automatically given 0.76 xG as 76 percent of pens are scored.

 

For the spurs game we had 3 on target, 6 off and a total xG of 1.25 

90% of that would’ve been Tagawa’s sitter. 

[bobskeldon]

1 hour ago, TexasAndy said:

Successful yes.  Exciting?  Absolutely not.  Death by passing.  Not for me.

It wasn’t death by passing! They had players who went past defenders as if they weren’t there and scored many goals after 10/12 passes, most of them forward. 

[Gow Maroon]

A simple game being made complicated. The object is to score more goals than your opponent. Not to have 600 odd passes, to your opponents 200 odd and they score the only goal. What happen to the quality players,  who beat 2 or 3 men and put a lovely cross over for the centre forward.

Now we don't even have a centre forward.  It's all the talented kids being taught not to use their skill but pass,pass,pass. Same with this,we get a throw in at their penalty  box,5 seconds later our own goalkeeper, is pussy farting around with the ball. For God's sake play the game as it's ment to be played

[Morgan]

4 hours ago, FERRY HEARTS said:

an old orange dimpled Mitre battered up their arse

Which is exactly why James goes to Blooms after the clienteles sunbed sessions.

 

😍

[Bill Sikes]

2 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Could be fun.

Ultimately it would lead to massive skullduggery

 

Yes, 1 team that can win the league, 1 team capable of 2nd. Referee's that support 1 or the other above, A league format with a ludicrous unfair split designed purposely to keep the the above 2 at the top of the pile for evermore.

 

Id welcome some skulduggery tbh.

[Luckies1874]

1 hour ago, TexasAndy said:

Successful yes.  Exciting?  Absolutely not.  Death by passing.  Not for me.

 

Has to be one of the craziest and most ridiculous ever takes on JKB.

 

I've literally read it all now. The Barcelona team under Pep, arguably the greatest club side in history, weren't exciting. Jesus wept. Each to their own but your point is clearly nonsense. 

 

 

 

 

[RustyRightPeg]

2 hours ago, TexasAndy said:

Successful yes.  Exciting?  Absolutely not.  Death by passing.  Not for me.

Pep’s Barca team are night and day to his city team. 
 

Completely different styles.

Edited September 12, 2024 by RustyRightPeg

[4marsbars]

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Through the mists of time, I don't remember many long-distance goals being scored when I first went to watch Hearts in the 60s (and 70s), perhaps because the ball was heavier. The ball was even heavier in the 50s (so I am told). 

 

Here's a clip of the goals from the 1956 Cup Final - pretty scrappy (but who cares?). Hearts' first goal might have been a long-ranger, not the best camera work there.

 

 

Back to the 60s. Goals like Kingsley or Forrest scored against Hibs were few and far between.

 

Fast forward to the Skacel years, and that would be the peak long-distance goals scored by Hearts.

 

Under Robbie, we scored more by getting to the by-line and cutting back a low ball, knocked in at close-range. I enjoyed these goals because they were evidence of our domination (in certain games).

 

In the Shankland era, we've been treated to a wide repertoire of goals, tap-ins, headers, lobs, beautiful curlers from the edge of the box, occasionally even further out.

 

I'd also venture to suggest that Man City are probably not boring if you're a City fan.

 

Fashions change. What will we be watching in five years time?

 

 

 

[Star Lizard]

Just about opinions though isnt it . I find most PL games dull as well . No real interest rate in watching it at all . Would rather watch the much lower standard Scottish games 🤷‍♂️

Edited September 12, 2024 by Sooks

[Star Lizard]

13 minutes ago, 4marsbars said:

 

Interesting stuff.

 

Through the mists of time, I don't remember many long-distance goals being scored when I first went to watch Hearts in the 60s (and 70s), perhaps because the ball was heavier. The ball was even heavier in the 50s (so I am told). 

 

Here's a clip of the goals from the 1956 Cup Final - pretty scrappy (but who cares?). Hearts' first goal might have been a long-ranger, not the best camera work there.

 

 

Back to the 60s. Goals like Kingsley or Forrest scored against Hibs were few and far between.

 

Fast forward to the Skacel years, and that would be the peak long-distance goals scored by Hearts.

 

Under Robbie, we scored more by getting to the by-line and cutting back a low ball, knocked in at close-range. I enjoyed these goals because they were evidence of our domination (in certain games).

 

In the Shankland era, we've been treated to a wide repertoire of goals, tap-ins, headers, lobs, beautiful curlers from the edge of the box, occasionally even further out.

 

I'd also venture to suggest that Man City are probably not boring if you're a City fan.

 

Fashions change. What will we be watching in five years time?

 

 

 

There was a period in time when Jackson or McSwegen seemed to hit a long range effort every second week . Always seemed to be from the a diagonal at the corner of the 18 yard box  but a couple of yards back . My memory might be playing tricks on me but that is how I seem to remember it