joelsteron:


They want Barabbas

joelsteron:
Why is everyone going after Pep Gardiola's assistants. First was Arsenal Arteta, now Chelsea going after Enzo, then Bayern after Kompany.

My country had similar opportunity but threw it in the bin and went for a man who said formation is not important in soccer.

I really hope banana banana and Rohr will not stop Nigerians from seeing their favorite players at the world cup.

Odunayaw:
So this is what he said.

It looks like he's saying he is not fixated on formation rather dynamism in play

TheGoodJoe:


I have told you Amunike organized open trials and showed a place where he held a trial with over 4,000 boys and screened from them.

Unless you have another method for us screening thousands of eligible youths.

Propose a better system you suggest. I am not NFF media officer.

Mujtahida:

I was thinking Osimhen/Boni combination would work but now that you have emphatically said it will work, I am beginning to have doubts

TheGoodJoe:
His words: “My philosophy is to win. For me, formation is not that important, because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend and do it well, there won’t be problems.

“You can play 3-5-2 or 4-4-2, but if the players know they have to attack or defend, the team won’t have problems. That is what Manchester City, Arsenal, and every other team do, but the difference is when players recognise this moment.”
***
I think I get Finidi George totally. He is talking about fluid play.

He is interested in building individual awareness of players. Meaning if there is a gap in space you attack it. If a player has made a run from a position, you cover it. If the team is under pressure, you fall back.

So he will not restrict players movement but they must be guided by tactical principles.

Marjoribanks:
I'm sure you know that in that same trial, he overlooked Osimhen, right? Do you know how many other players he overlooked without anyone bringing it to his attention? Also, the number of under-17 footballers at that time was definitely more than 4,000. We have won the under 17 without wasting resources going from zone to zone.

Why do that when you can take a more effective and efficient approach that has won us the world cup in the past?

Nevertheless, I definitely agree with your proposal but that was not what Amuneke did!
No matter what you do some will still be left behind!

Mujtahida:

I was thinking Osimhen/Boni combination would work but now that you have emphatically said it will work, I am beginning to have doubts

Marjoribanks:
Exactly!!

TheGoodJoe:


Yeah. You made me go to reread to get his point.

Finidi is not saying tactics are not important. He is actually saying tactical awareness is more important. I think it was the choice of words that caused the confusion.


"My philosophy is to win. For me, formation is not that important, because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend and do it well, there won’t be problems."


He is saying My philosophy is to win. Formations are not as important as players interpreting when to attack and defend. If they get this aspect right, we won't have problems.

Meaning if they know all the formations and can't interpret their roles based on tactical awareness, we would still have problems.

Sounds interesting and I will be watching closely.

elyte89:



But but ….I am still not convinced about him not soaking up knowledge from la masia and guardiola 😀😃😄😁😁😆😆😁😄😃😄😁😆😁😄😃😃😁😁😁😆😁😃😃

TheGoodJoe:


Yeah. You made me go to reread to get his point.

Finidi is not saying tactics are not important. He is actually saying tactical awareness is more important. I think it was the choice of words that caused the confusion.


"My philosophy is to win. For me, formation is not that important, because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend and do it well, there won’t be problems."


He is saying My philosophy is to win. Formations are not as important as players interpreting when to attack and defend. If they get this aspect right, we won't have problems.

Meaning if they know all the formations and can't interpret their roles based on tactical awareness, we would still have problems.

Sounds interesting and I will be watching closely.

TheGoodJoe:


Let us adopt Amunike's system. It worked and we had open trials. Zone to zone makes it more comprehensive and gives room for more players to participate.

That is why I propose a more comprehensive system to build on it.

Marjoribanks:
Amunike system is not the only system that won us the World Cup! I prefer efficiency and effectiveness! Going zone to zone is a waste of time and resources. Look at the scouting report from around the country and invite maybe 40 to trails and select. Simple!

lovewins:


So your obvious bias for Finidi won't let you call out the nonsense he said right? What is the difference between your excuse for him and what Manu Garba said? They all more or less implied the same thing.

Don't get me wrong, Finidi is the Super Eagles coach and he 100% has my support, but that statement shouldn't be made by an u-12 coach much more a national team coach.

lovewins:


At the very least be sure you're right before disputing. There is literally a video of him saying this. This is is exact words in quote

"My philosophy is to win, for me formation is not that important because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend, and they do it well there will not be any problems".

TheGoodJoe:
His words: “My philosophy is to win. For me, formation is not that important, because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend and do it well, there won’t be problems.

“You can play 3-5-2 or 4-4-2, but if the players know they have to attack or defend, the team won’t have problems. That is what Manchester City, Arsenal, and every other team do, but the difference is when players recognise this moment.”
***
I think I get Finidi George totally. He is talking about fluid play.

He is interested in building individual awareness of players. Meaning if there is a gap in space you attack it. If a player has made a run from a position, you cover it. If the team is under pressure, you fall back.

So he will not restrict players movement but they must be guided by tactical principles.

Mujtahida:

Precisely. He's not a Guardiolan who removed Henry right after he scored just because Henry used his initiative and tweaked the formation.

You see why I detest this system coaches that have sacrificed the players to the god of system football with its rigid formations

lovewins:


At the very least be sure you're right before disputing. There is literally a video of him saying this. This is is exact words in quote

"My philosophy is to win, for me formation is not that important because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend, and they do it well there will not be any problems".

TheGoodJoe:


We had a related scenario with Manuel Pellegrini at Manchester City. To explain, he said he does not believe in multiple formations and equated them to the same thing.

However, Pellegrini was saying that he works with the 4-4-2 formation and the dynamic changes in information and play equates to formations.

Like in a 4-4-2, you have two strikers. If you ask one striker to troubling the defenders of the opposition and the second striker to drop deep and work with the midfielders, it becomes 4-5-1. Then if you ask the wingers to stay up top to attack from the flanks, it became a 4-3-3.

In a nutshell, Pellegrini broke down why he disagreed with teaching multiple formations but 1. And let the players master dynamic interpretations of one formation.

I hope Finidi is talking in such manner. Anything short is horrendous. I also hope when he gets his next interview he can bail himself. I have given expo from Pellegrini.

Meliforme:


Without football formation, a team has no structure.

Structure define roles and behaviour.

Structure is important whether you are attacking or defending, it is like a battle strategy, there could be a formation for attacking and another for defending, there could be a formation for when the team has the ball, and another when they are without the ball, else there won't be understanding and cohesion.

lovewins:


To be fair, the interviews of Finidi I've seen so far presents him as someone who isn't very articulate. So he could very well have intended differently from what he said. It is however not our place to cut him some slack just like we didn't Bosso and Manu Garba. We have to query statements like this and not assume intentions especially when there's a pattern of such statements across other national teams.

Meliforme:


Again, the decision to attack and or defend does not lie with the players, it lies entirely in the coach's instructions.

Players individually do not determine when to attack or defend and the strategies to adopt, it is a collective task and should come from the coach.

I think the problem here is a basic understanding of what it means to attack and defend

Meliforme:


Again, the decision to attack and or defend does not lie with the players, it lies entirely in the coach's instructions.

Players individually do not determine when to attack or defend and the strategies to adopt, it is a collective task and should come from the coach.

I think the problem here is a basic understanding of what it means to attack and defend

Meliforme:


Again, the decision to attack and or defend does not lie with the players, it lies entirely in the coach's instructions.

Players individually do not determine when to attack or defend and the strategies to adopt, it is a collective task and should come from the coach.

I think the problem here is a basic understanding of what it means to attack and defend

TheGoodJoe:


At the end, Finidi is breaking down his coaching philosophy. There are situations that call for different movements. As you talk of formation with the ball and without it. Now the players get to know the formation and shape. However, Finidi believes understanding the tactical principles that caused that shape to occur is more important than just teaching them how to play to a formation.

He believes the awareness and understanding is more critical for better performance and leads to wins.


but the difference is when players recognise this moment.

He wants to teach our players to recognize the movements to make in relation to the dynamics of the game and the principles that guides it.

lovewins:


In your bid to defend an indefensible statement made by Finidi you're simply being disingenuous. I didn't make the statement, he did.

What do you mean players don't determine when to defend or attack? That's just nonsense. Players very well largely determine when to defend and attack. You have possession of the ball, you attack. You lose possession of the ball, you defend.

What the coaches however determine is how they attack and how they defend. That's what formations are for. It's about coming up with the best strategy and setup that exploits the opponents weaknesses.

Meliforme:


It is not difficult to know when to attack and or defend, it is easy when the basic definition is established.

You will get me proper in my reply to lovewins