The ‘system’ is too conditional. Tactics require observations whilst strategy requires thought; there’s not enough observation and too much emphasis on theory.
Even if you had the most perfect Amorim CF it would not provide sustainable success. The ceiling is too low.
Frank’s features: early patterns in Spurs’ set-play routines
⤷ 1st phase = aim for first-contacts at near post, CF hangs at the back
⤷ 2nd phase = lefty & righty on edge for in-swinging re-deliveries
⤷ 3rd phase (def pov) = 3 underneath for emergency defending, even
Formations are the stage whilst the intentions are the script
Player placement on the stage (formation) will provoke two natural consequences;
1) start positions
2) distances
In football, if your opponents are exploiting these two factors, then there is certainly a structural
🎙️| Thomas Frank on what went wrong in the Bournemouth match:
”I didn’t think I helped the players well enough in that game.
I took the wrong decision in terms of the planning - not that we didn’t have a plan for phase one and phase two, but that was the bit where we should have
Aside from any technical inconsistencies, feels like the issue is that the decision of what he’s going to + wants to do is already pre-determined, which means he doesn’t leave room to percieve opportunities for any other solutions. Instinctually, this isn’t his bag. Like
This is why encourage dribbling / attacking towards the hips
Central reference point that either puts the defender on the back-foot or provokes them to engage forward, either way you increase the probability of being able to access an angle to either side of the defender
So much talk nowadays about maximsing fine margins & 1%s, and that takes people to thinking about set-plays & intricacies of methods
But them 1%s are also there to be maximised in the most decisive component of football : the footballers