Friday, 9 July 2010
Technique
Long, long ago in the tournament - when England were still in, that long ago - Giovanni and I had a little disagreement about "technique". I was arguing that the problem with the England team is not technique - that the issues are "psychological" in some sense. Partly my evidence for this would be that England players seem perfectly capable of trapping and passing a ball when they play for their clubs, but these basic competences desert them when they play for the national team. (As we saw most spectacularly with Rooney in this World Cup.) But, to ask an apparently naive question, is technique as straightforward a concept as it appears to be? After all, conceived of as a purely physical act (is that what technique means?), then passing isn't that difficult. Surely any international footballer has the "skill" necessary to play short passes to team-mates (and my impression is that there hasn't been much long passing in this tournament - Gerrard apart, but you can hardly class his wild punts as "passes" really). Don't misunderstand me. I'm not seeing keeping possession is easy - one thing I can unequivocally agree with Zone about is that the way Spain play is intensely difficult and demanding. What I'm saying is that the difficulties are more to do with the speed of thought, anticipation and awareness of team-mates' and opponents' positioning that a passing game entails - which is why Zone rightly invokes precognition when writing about Spain's passing. Is this still technique or is it something else?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
well in Spain's case it's also partly the result of 7(?) playing for Barcelona... the technique is amplified because you don't have to look too hard to guess where someone might be... that split second allows you to see the pass a fraction quicker than the defender can block it... the pass itself is routine but if you're concentrating on WHERE to pass it, the automated skill becomes de-automated, and the ball bounces back off your knees (Rooney, again and again and again).
ReplyDeleteIt's technique+...
PreCog of a sort but more a system of endless repetition and schema-formation: Xavi knows Iniesta will be there because he's always there. And if he ISN'T there this time for some reason, he will be the next time...
Doesn't anyone remember the call back in the 80s just to play the whole English part of the Liverpool team plus a few others? Even if they weren't the best technical players?
What I'm saying is that the difficulties are more to do with the speed of thought, anticipation and awareness of team-mates' and opponents' positioning that a passing game entails
ReplyDeleteThat's the point I was nebulously trying to make in that conversation. And Loki's excellent point notwithstanding, to me it's still technique. So long as you buy the argument that the world cup is a step up, which is debatable. You could say that the premiership and the champions league are as competitive as it gets anyway, but to me the world cup brings up even more speed and more pressure and more desperation on the ball, which then has to be matched by the speed at which you can think and pass and do the other things. Btu then of course team organisation and psychological pressures contribute as well. Still, I lean towards thinking that your technical skills can be exposed in the tournament along with the rest.
(So, yes, I think Rooney has been exposed to a degree. And so has Messi. We now know he can't at this stage of his career carry the team on his back the way Maradona did in 86. Maybe he's more like the Maradona of 82. Maybe.)
ReplyDeleteI think the World Cup is a step in pressure, if not quality. The fact it's only every four years, the fact it's so difficult to win (and there have been so few winners) makes it a different proposition to either the premiership or the champions league. Terry Venables used to say that the last thing you learn is the first thing to go under pressure, and perhaps that's the case with England players and 'technique'.
ReplyDeleteBut I still do wonder whether 'technique' is the best name for these dynamic team intelligence qualities.
'Technique+' is a good label, because that 'dynamic intelligence' (an ingrained knowledge of how best to deploy a skill?) requires the basic skill in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBut you can quite easily have the skill without the intelligence.
Concrete example: Gerrard has the ability to deliver a thumping long range shot, and he's scored a few amazing goals for England and Liverpool that way.
ReplyDeleteBut we remember him more for all the times he attempts it and misses by a mile. He has the skill, but seems to lack understanding of when it's favourable to deploy it and when it's better to use something else. Some kind of perception shortfall?
Either that or Gerrard has a hilariously mistaken view of his own capabilities - ie he genuinely believes he can score from anywhere at any time.
ReplyDeleteNot discounting either possibility.
The only time when it's a good idea to shoot from long range is when you're going to score, though, isn't it? I mean if you're talking percentages or being well placed and within a sensible range, or without passing options, what business did my Dutch namesake have to make *that* attempt on goal versus Uruguay?
ReplyDeleteDoes a lack of complimentary skills come into it?
ReplyDeleteEnglish players play well in their club shirts, when playing with a mix of their countrymen and players from other countries.
I am not sure about the English, but I do think that Australia (my country) produces a certain type of player, and putting them all together in the one team leaves you with a team that lacks something. Ummm, Tim Cahill would look better in a Socceroos jersey if we could borrow Mikel Arteta for a bit ...
Clayton
technique implies some reductive, purely technical, issue to do with being able to judge the weight and geometry of the pass, which is obviously a massive part of it, but doesn't include the dynamic factors of movements through space, anticipation of how other players move and play...all the things you mention. The reductiveness reminds me of the reasons given in the past for Beckham's dead ball ability, something to do with a unique disposition of bones in his foot, which didn't take in his positional sense, ability to anticipate runs or the movement of the wall etc. In a sense, isn't this football; a continuously flowing set of movements that are both direct and simple and highly complex. Cultural (in the sense of how different teams play), spatial, tactical etc.?
ReplyDeleteI don't think the GvB example undermines the point. It wasn't as speculative as it initially looked. The guy took his time, saw a gap in the defence, saw that the keeper was badly placed - it's not blind luck that it went in.
ReplyDeleteA guy who's had a long career and spent time at all the classic 'technique' clubs will be able to perceive his options in situations like that.
GvB isn't renowned for peppering the goalmouth and environs with speculative punts - he saves it.
Some players can think faster than we do (and we sit up and shout 'where the f*ck did that come from?') and some... not so much. You can practically see Steven Gerrard's thought processes.
What annoys me - albeit in a slightly post-hoc fashion - about those speculative low percentage shots from 35 metres out that go nowhere is precisely how safe they are, how unimaginative. Perhaps in the grip of the post-mortems it would be worth asking when was the last time that an English player chose did something at least a little bit outrageous in a World Cup fixture. I'm sure you all can think of lots of examples, I'd personally have to go back to Platt versus Cameroon.
ReplyDeleteI think we're zeroing in on something here.
ReplyDeleteLoki posted a week or so ago about how a stage like the World Cup can dissuade players from sticking to the simple things (being afraid to be seen to do nothing). Now CH is arguing that English players' training leaves them short of options - maybe, as you're saying, unwilling to try anything outrageous.
The awful predictability - the pull-string-toy one-action quality of them - could be accounted for by a narrowing of their options from both of these directions...
Good observation, though - those efforts are hopeless and speculative while *at the same time* being banal and unimaginative - no mean feat.
ReplyDeleteYou can't possible be faulted for taking a shot and missing unless there was somebody open, can you?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, you can take the shot that Quagliarella took against Slovakia. That's something else.
@ digitalben, I agree with your second point on Gerrard, to me it looked like he really believes he has a good chance of scoring every time he shoots from 30 yards out. I'm sure a statistical analysis of Gerrard's long range shooting throughout his career would show a very low conversion rate, but unfortunately I doubt Mr Gerrard understandings the meanings behind simple statistics.
ReplyDeleteI suppose there's another issue about Gerrard's (England) team-mates failing to move into space and give him options.
ReplyDelete