Teams formerly matched up as they played the same formations. English football was 4-4-2 v 4-4-2. Teams playing 4-4-2 v 3-5-2 obviously cannot go man for man due to the overload. With nines and tens now dropping off into midfield that 4 can be faced by 6. Tracking the player dropping off pulls the defence out of shape so it is more efficient to sit and pick up what comes into their zone, or the team as a whole moves into positions (zones) defined by the ball squeezing the space.
When one thinks it's all down to science, they think they all have to do it in case they miss out......most of it is a load of old tosh. It's just a different approach to a very simple game......I of course understand the need for the right diet etc.....but I think most of us know that to stay healthy nowadays. Staying fit, bleep tests, data analysis boxes, etc etc.....Yes, using technology, formations, tactics, creating space, marking, guessing what your appointments tactics are, I get it.......But it's is not a bloody science. The only science part I get, example: what part of the ball to kick to make it dip, swerve & bend. The boots, the ball itself
Playing football in my opinion is not a science. I agree the technology used is.... So to round it up......Football uses science (like most things in life) to enhance the sport, but football itself is not a science..
Technology is the appliance of science (said the advert once or something). you should have left it way back before saying Allardyce and Pulis don’t use science then getting mullered by examples of how science is part of their football. there is no science in football whatsoever you said clearly there is fella. you sound like a grumpy oap shouting down with science all you needed in my day was crap boots a ball that didn’t bounce in the wet and smoking a cadet at half time. games moved on from that.
You talking bollocks must also be a science then as your using technology to express it..... I'm saying, playing the game of football itself is not a science.....that's it....you find that hard to understand. I never said there is no science in football, I said football is not a science.......what do they teach you at school nowadays?
It should have said "in playing football"....my mistake.......If you look back, that is what I have been saying..
Perhaps posters should accuse you of posting bollocks and asking what you what you were taught at school. your posts are all over the place. did think one of your posts was unintentionally quite funny.
I'm sure to some I do post bollocks...that's fine, but it's my bollocks and I'm entitled to it! Funny enough when I was taught science, football wasn't specified!!
the thread confirms it. you got caught out talking bollocks and didn't even realise it, denied it, but there it was in your own posts.
My day was back in the sixties, if you remember England won the World Cup, not much science around in those days, just a bloody great team, and by the way, for all this mumbo jumbo when are we going to repeat this feat, never, ahh, I know why, to much science, to many tactics, and not enough quality players.
Maybe if England was as progressive as Germany and Spain the national team would be better? too much time looking at the past and not enough looking at the future.
you appear to have along with not remembering what is in your own posts a weird form of internet tourettes. No like Spain and Germany. top clubs and top international sides for decades.
I agree with Germany, Bit over the top with Spain, yes excellent club sides but national side won world cup in 2010 (first time) & Won Euros in 2012. Were dreadful in 2014 World Cup (got as far as we did) and not much better in 2016 Euros, booted out in first knockout stage.....Top International side for 2 years not decades.
The Germans have been consistently good performers for as long as I can remember. Efficiency seems to run through all their sides. Englands performances during the same period can be best described as erratic.
