Anyway, I'm off out for the day. So BCC, I expect some thorough research into this 'long ball' and 'Gegenpressing' that you seem to be confusing.
You keep referencing when Klopp's sides don't have the ball. What 'couldn't be more different' about Klopp's philosophy that defence should be turned into attack within no more than 6 phases?
I don't need anymore research, I've read Hughes' thesis. Good job really, I've got 36 degree heat and multiple Chang's to be getting on with.
Which of the clubs 30+ years ago would you say played in the style Hughes advocated? When you've answered that we could compare them with Klopp's sides.
It's more ''Dawsonlike'' rico - looks like young 'arry has been working with Daws - it's his stock ball from defence, he plays it (and mostly succeeds with it) at least half a dozen every time he plays, he was making the same pass years ago in his Forest days.
Well as I said several posts ago, Hughes thesis concluded that the great 1980s Liverpool side was closest to embodying the style he declared as most effective.
Liverpool would have disowned Hughes. Graham Taylor must have been one of the most ardent disciples of Hughes. The goalkeeper in Taylor's sides was the player who started half their attacks. The midfield was bypassed. Are you going to say Taylor didn't 'get' Hughes and did it all wrong?
I can't, because I've absolutely no idea if Hughes inspired Taylor. This is weird, I feel like I'm the one being criticised for being 'wrong' when all I'm doing is quoting what someone else hypothesised after studying thousands of football matches. And I'm certainly not wrong that Klopp has a distinctly similar approach to Hughes when his sides have the ball.
I think Hughes also said the Norway team of the 90's was the closest to his philosophy. They did do well playing it but it was bloody awful.
These type of quote only compound your mistake. Hughes always claimed to have been misquoted and there is very little doubt that he was, as his proclaimed doctrine, that did prove so ruinous, was for direct football. A goal in four or five passes, 50yd passes (approx half a pitch - hardly the fabled long ball); he advocated minimal contact, but never based on what is understood to be the long-ball game, although route-one might apply. Kevin Keegan understood, liked and applied his meaning, although many coaches totally misunderstood it and applied it incorrectly. They even went so far, in junior football especially, to insist on one-touch football, which for me is a terrible and backwards way to teach the basic skills that are needed to retain possession and move the ball where you want it. Hughes did a lot of harm to our grass-roots game because he (and others) allowed his tactical thoughts to be misinterpreted and that is still being addressed to this day.
Route one, long ball, 3-5 touches. It's all the same. How can he be 'misunderstood' for so many to point the finger at him for being the architect of long ball football? It is certainly not by coincidence, is it? How were his tactical thoughts misinterpreted when they were provided in the format of written coaching and training manuals? The fact that many people within the game point the finger of blame at him, whilst people need scape goats (like you have Chazz and Happy) there is no mistaking the root cause of the issue and the reason why this scourge of long ball football was prevalent in the UK, it is down to Charles Hughes. These quotes don't compound anything, they simply support the evidence that Charkes Hughes was a 'long ball' merchant. So many people can't be wrong.
It is weird, as I cannot understand how they can be so blind. You are spot on in how you explain the misunderstanding of Hughes thesis, so I suppose it should not be unsurprising that the flaw in thinking is continued. It is equally strange that they confuse direct football and long-ball (both possession tactics) with gegenpressin which is attacking the opposition who has possession in defence. I think some really do need to reconsider their argument
What, you mean like every ****er involved in football? Clearly. Yes, it's only Fez and BCC who understand the concepts of this maverick and maestro. The fact his great work is documented in FA coaching manuals and scores of world class coaches up and down the country must all be wrong then? Quick get these two ****ers into the FA, clearly they know something the rest of the FA and football in general got completely wrong. BULLSHIT.
Oh, and there is absolutely no confusion on my part about gegenpressing and long ball football. They are nothing like each other, and nor have I suggested they are. BCC actually suggested Hughes approach was similar to Klopps. Where he finds the similarity between a 'long ball' and pressing the opposition high up the pitch is beyond me. Gegenpressing at its finest when Liverpool beat Man City at the Etihad - no long ball in sight.
