Jump to content

nathan jone's flock of rather nervous hampshire sheep v eddie howe's brokendollless swashbuckling semi-finalists.


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Hey, Toonpack, what's the opposite of "high"? 

 

gtfooh

 

Irrelevant, when has that particular opposite EVER previously been used to describe a situation in football, what HAS been used is "deep", why change it ?? Because it's a fucking fad. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Deep block works as it contextual to the game, Low Block is made up bollocks.

 

Low block is to football what frappemockawockachino is to coffee.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

And the point I'm making is, Low Block is a perfectly good way to describe an entrenched defensive shape low down the pitch. I can kind of understand why grumpy old men resist Mezzala and Trequartista, but Low Block? Howay man, that's just being obstinate.

It’s more pointing out its the emperor’s new clothes tbh 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

And the point I'm making is, Low Block is a perfectly good way to describe an entrenched defensive shape low down the pitch. I can kind of understand why grumpy old men resist Mezzala and Trequartista, but Low Block? Howay man, that's just being obstinate.

It's perfectly unnecessary, Deep Block would work and be in line with long established football parlance.

 

But "on no, we need to introduce some new terminology to make it sexy" why exactly?, end of the day it's about a bunch of blokes kicking a bag of air around a field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

Irrelevant, when has that particular opposite EVER previously been used to describe a situation in football, what HAS been used is "deep", why change it ?? Because it's a fucking fad. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

Deep block works as it contextual to the game, Low Block is made up bollocks.

 

Low block is to football what frappemockawockachino is to coffee.

 

 

 

Everything is made up bollocks. They use 'Low' because in the collection of terms it's more in-keeping than deep. High, Deep or Mid doesn't scan as well as High, Low or Mid. 

 

It's like the resistance to 'Transition' "Why can't you just call it counter-attack". Well, obviously, it's because not every transition happens when one team is attacking. Sometimes it's when a team is dicking about at the back, or playing possession based football in the centre. It's a better description of what is actually being described. But old men shouting at clouds will moan on and say it's overly complicating it. It's not, it's just better specificity.

 

Tell me something, if you put your cantankerous hat to one side for a moment, would you be able to work out what someone meant by Low Block? You would, wouldn't you? It makes sense, it's a short description of a more complex idea. 

 

Low Block is to football what 'parking the bus' is to football. It's what pressing is to football. It's what counter-attack is to football. Just an evolution of the simple terms used to describe a more complicated idea.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

It's perfectly unnecessary, Deep Block would work and be in line with long established football parlance.

 

But "on no, we need to introduce some new terminology to make it sexy" why exactly?, end of the day it's about a bunch of blokes kicking a bag of air around a field.

 

It's not about sexiness, (well, the foreign terms like trequartists and Mezzala... maybe), it's about clarity and accuracy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Everything is made up bollocks. They use 'Low' because in the collection of terms it's more in-keeping than deep. High, Deep or Mid doesn't scan as well as High, Low or Mid. 

 

 

 

 

Except for all the years that it did scan perfectly well, until today's brave new world needed a new "buzz".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

 

And the point I'm making is, Low Block is a perfectly good way to describe an entrenched defensive shape low down the pitch. I can kind of understand why grumpy old men resist Mezzala and Trequartista, but Low Block? Howay man, that's just being obstinate.


Grumpy old men call it “sitting deep’ or “sitting in” 

 

Why change it Dave? Is it change for change sakes? 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, aimaad22 said:

dce09fbb-e686-4aea-9182-2b04ce806a05.jpg

 

 

 

I tell you what, when better players eventually come in we need to keep Murphy just for the comedy value, even if it means putting him on when we're four nil up and deliberately creating a one v one for him to fuck up. Between him and the mackem reality denial meltdown it's hard to tell what's funnier? Not a bad night apart from the finishing and the ref's/VAR clown show. I also foolishly accepted an invitation to watch this in the clurb after little sleep coming off nightshift. I'm absolutely fucked this morning. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:


Grumpy old men call it “sitting deep’ or “sitting in” 

 

Why change it Dave? Is it change for change sakes? 🤷🏻‍♂️

 

Same reason it's not called a half back any more. As football and the reporting on it evolves, so does the terminology.

 

The casual fan is more educated on the styles of play, the formations, the systems than they've ever been. So now, when you say Howe's team plays a high press, the majority of fans immediately knows what that looks like. When someone said Aguero is a False 9, people pushed back on it, but now that role is understood as distinct and separate from an attacking midfielder or classic number 9 striker. Sweeper keepers weren't called that until fairly recently. Inverted Wingers... the list goes on. 

 

Change is inevitable, especially in language. Nobody 'googled' for shit on the internet before the late 90s, now everyone knows what that means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Same reason it's not called a half back any more. As football and the reporting on it evolves, so does the terminology.

 

The casual fan is more educated on the styles of play, the formations, the systems than they've ever been. So now, when you say Howe's team plays a high press, the majority of fans immediately knows what that looks like. When someone said Aguero is a False 9, people pushed back on it, but now that role is understood as distinct and separate from an attacking midfielder or classic number 9 striker. Sweeper keepers weren't called that until fairly recently. Inverted Wingers... the list goes on. 

 

Change is inevitable, especially in language. Nobody 'googled' for shit on the internet before the late 90s, now everyone knows what that means. 

Please don’t come for my outside half’s or I might not know what you mean

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The Fish said:

 

Same reason it's not called a half back any more. As football and the reporting on it evolves, so does the terminology.

 

The casual fan is more educated on the styles of play, the formations, the systems than they've ever been. So now, when you say Howe's team plays a high press, the majority of fans immediately knows what that looks like. When someone said Aguero is a False 9, people pushed back on it, but now that role is understood as distinct and separate from an attacking midfielder or classic number 9 striker. Sweeper keepers weren't called that until fairly recently. Inverted Wingers... the list goes on. 

 

Change is inevitable, especially in language. Nobody 'googled' for shit on the internet before the late 90s, now everyone knows what that means. 


All that is fair enough in a way, but it is all arguable as well. eg the first sweeper keeper that came to public attention  was Dave Beasant the best part of 40 years ago., long before the beck pass rule in the early 90s made every coach think differently . Jimmy Greaves was never a centre forward, never had 9 on his back, was he a false 9 or attacking midfield or a number 10 with 8 on his back? It’s all been there forever and I fuckin resent the accusation that the casual fan pre internet didn’t understand the nuances of the game . 
 

 Language does evolve, but this is rebranding for for the FIFA generation, an exercise in reinventing the wheel when the new wheel has no discernible differences as far as I can make out… 

Edited by PaddockLad
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terms like low block have come from coaches, they have learnt it on coaching courses.

 

I can tell you that as, it happened years ago when I did a couple of FA badges. It’s not a big deal.

 

This is just old man shouts at cloud tbh 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, strawb said:

Terms like low block have come from coaches, they have learnt it on coaching courses.

 

I can tell you that as, it happened years ago when I did a couple of FA badges. It’s not a big deal.

 

This is just old man shouts at cloud tbh 


It’s not, it’s people pretending something is a new idea when it’s as old as the hills :lol: 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, PaddockLad said:


All that is fair enough in a way, but it is all arguable as well. eg the first sweeper keeper that came to public attention  was Dave Beasant the best part of 40 years ago., long before the beck pass rule in the early 90s made every coach think differently . Jimmy Greaves was never a centre forward, never had 9 on his back, was he a false 9 or attacking midfield or a number 10 with 8 on his back? It’s all been there forever and I fuckin resent the accusation that the casual fan pre internet didn’t understand the nuances of the game . 
 

 Language does evolve, but this is rebranding for for the FIFA generation, an exercise in reinventing the wheel when the new I wheel has no discernible differences as far as I can make out… 

Beasant wasn't described at the time as a sweeper keeper. He was a goal keeper. But someone who never saw him play would hear that position's name and expect him to behave like every other goal keeper. It's not that the role didn't exist, just that it wasn't defined. 

 

No, it's not, it's simply evolving the terms. Just like the terms have evolved for music, for film, for everything. You can stand pushing back against the tide if you want, but it's both pointless and pointlessly ornery. 

 

There was no simple term for pressing in packs within the short timeframe after your team has lost possession. Now there is; Gegenpressing and everyone knows what that means. There was no simple description of a striker who dropped deeper into the half spaces between defence and midfield and yet was still the tip of the spear in attack, now there is; false 9.

 

The sake for this change is clarity, it's accuracy, it's accessibility. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, PaddockLad said:


It’s not, it’s people pretending something is a new idea when it’s as old as the hills :lol: 

 

 

Nobody is pretending it’s a new thing? It’s just an updated term, terms are updated regularly.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Fish said:

Beasant wasn't described at the time as a sweeper keeper. He was a goal keeper. But someone who never saw him play would hear that position's name and expect him to behave like every other goal keeper. It's not that the role didn't exist, just that it wasn't defined. 

 

No, it's not, it's simply evolving the terms. Just like the terms have evolved for music, for film, for everything. You can stand pushing back against the tide if you want, but it's both pointless and pointlessly ornery. 

 

There was no simple term for pressing in packs within the short timeframe after your team has lost possession. Now there is; Gegenpressing and everyone knows what that means. There was no simple description of a striker who dropped deeper into the half spaces between defence and midfield and yet was still the tip of the spear in attack, now there is; false 9.

 

The sake for this change is clarity, it's accuracy, it's accessibility. 


“Gengenpressing” 

 

“Git fuckin intae thum in their half, back each other up” 

 

Thats how Alex Ferguson could be taught how to play football in the 50s and still be winning champions leagues 50 years later, you still have to do the same things to win a game of football 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should have won 2-0/3-0 if it hadnt been for some terrible finishing.......which has been the same story for the Leeds/Palace/Fulham games......Wilson just doesn't look like he's firing on all cylinders

Edited by Rosco
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.