Opposites Attract
Danny McGrain won many of his 62 caps for Scotland playing left back, mainly because he was such a proficient full back that playing on the opposite from his natural side still allowed him to play at a very good standard. However, there are too many flaws in moving a great player, when weighed against the benefits that are gained. I am sure Sandy Jardine was a steady and decent right sided full back, however to include him in a very average side ahead of McGrain, who was contending for the greatest right back in the world at that point, and infact several opponents would have put him in that bracket alone, was not in the best interests of the Scotland squad. Shifting Danny to left back surely decreased the teams accumulative effectiveness.
Games are won - particularly at the top level of football, by a team's best players. The margin between winning and not, can be so small than any decrease in effectiveness of your best players could be such a major disadvantage. I am an avid believer that you play your best players in your best position and not just to fit in as many of your top or favoured player as possible. Play your best at your best and figure the rest out from what’s left.
This is often seen with teams creative players being pushed out wide just to keep them in the team, while allowing the central midfield to remain physically and positionally strong and disciplined. But anyone who has watched the likes of Shunsuke Nakamura playing both positions, (central and out wide) would tell you that he is more comfortable and at his best centrally.
Unfortunately with modern formations and team playing systems that are all about not showing weakness and not allowing your opponents a chance to get at you, rather than showing ability and being better than them, players are now shifted around the pitch to fill spaces that wont necessarily get the best out the players, but indeed get the best system for the managers desired tactic.
The first time I really became aware of players playing on the opposite natural side (in particularly wingers) was when Gordon Strachan was in charge of Southampton. The naturally left sided Fabrice Fernandes played right midfield and anytime he was involved, cracked shot after shot at goal, to the bemusement of the opposition left back. This was done as an attacking system by the studious tactician Strachan. In that circumstance, I think the decision was made on the available players, who would offer most attacking threat. And I think both players who played wide that day cut in and let fly whenever they could. I remember it becoming an obvious ploy during the game and Strachan even mentioned it in his post match interview. If no players in their squad were particularly adept at 'hitting the by-line' or even that Strachan thought the opposition fullbacks were good enough to stop that, then surely their surprise tactic was worth a go.
If a manager is solely based their decision on a certain player who is better at; shooting once cutting in (on their opposite natural side), linking up with a deep lying forward or the general play in the middle of the park, hanging up crosses using their weaker foot (which more depends on who is the striker) - than they would be at getting to the by-line on their natural side, then it is probably best for the players they have at their disposal. Shaun Maloney naturally right footed, is a better left midfield player than he is on the right due to his footballing assets.
But if it is a decision on who to buy - a guy who can do that, or a guy who can do that - then I personally would rather a guy who can get to the byeline, though I am not sure I would strictly keep that to players playing on their natural side as Aiden McGeady get to the by-line on the left and delivers a variety of crosses which seem to cause centre halves infinite problems, though when delivery from your natural side you are probably inclined to cross it with your stronger foot. Although Aiden is not a normal case as most players on opposite wings will try and cut back to their natural foot to cross if they possible can.
Part of this dilemma is based on positional development as wingers are rarely used as by-line wingers, even in a 4-3-3 the two wingers are better described as wide midfielders who hold a wing berth until the team loses possession. Even on their natural side wide midfielders keep the midfield compact never straying to far from the line held be the central pairing. Those on their opposite natural side are used effectively to keep the compact unit as they generally don’t dribble forward as much and along with cutting inside and staying close to their teammates they are being naturally drawn to their favoured side (so become slightly more central). This works at its best with overlapping fullbacks who are often used as the 'real' width in the team providing more deep crosses than any other crosses the striker will receive.
Another feature of this is the introduction of the 4-5-1 - but playing the personnel of a 4-4-2 (playing a hard working striker wide midfield to allow him to support the striker when the 451 breaks forward). This again discounts the wide midfielder from providing the wealth of crosses one might expect from that position and a fullback like Alan Hutton is again the service that the main striker will rely upon.
Being able to vary with players swapping sides and roles (of who crosses and who cuts in) is also surely a bonus rather than a straight switch of right footed to left side and vice versa. However too often it is not about that, it is about keeping things tight and or/having as many of the teams best players in the team.
It’s not as simple as having a player who can cut in and shoot -versus- a player who can get to the by-line and cross and how that effects and or helps the team. As I have mentioned, given that in the modern games most (even) natural wide players don’t get to the by-line anything as often as the wing wizards of days past, so whether or not it would be best to play a player who can do that might not give the best answer unto who should play on which side.
Games are won - particularly at the top level of football, by a team's best players. The margin between winning and not, can be so small than any decrease in effectiveness of your best players could be such a major disadvantage. I am an avid believer that you play your best players in your best position and not just to fit in as many of your top or favoured player as possible. Play your best at your best and figure the rest out from what’s left.
This is often seen with teams creative players being pushed out wide just to keep them in the team, while allowing the central midfield to remain physically and positionally strong and disciplined. But anyone who has watched the likes of Shunsuke Nakamura playing both positions, (central and out wide) would tell you that he is more comfortable and at his best centrally.
Unfortunately with modern formations and team playing systems that are all about not showing weakness and not allowing your opponents a chance to get at you, rather than showing ability and being better than them, players are now shifted around the pitch to fill spaces that wont necessarily get the best out the players, but indeed get the best system for the managers desired tactic.
The first time I really became aware of players playing on the opposite natural side (in particularly wingers) was when Gordon Strachan was in charge of Southampton. The naturally left sided Fabrice Fernandes played right midfield and anytime he was involved, cracked shot after shot at goal, to the bemusement of the opposition left back. This was done as an attacking system by the studious tactician Strachan. In that circumstance, I think the decision was made on the available players, who would offer most attacking threat. And I think both players who played wide that day cut in and let fly whenever they could. I remember it becoming an obvious ploy during the game and Strachan even mentioned it in his post match interview. If no players in their squad were particularly adept at 'hitting the by-line' or even that Strachan thought the opposition fullbacks were good enough to stop that, then surely their surprise tactic was worth a go.
If a manager is solely based their decision on a certain player who is better at; shooting once cutting in (on their opposite natural side), linking up with a deep lying forward or the general play in the middle of the park, hanging up crosses using their weaker foot (which more depends on who is the striker) - than they would be at getting to the by-line on their natural side, then it is probably best for the players they have at their disposal. Shaun Maloney naturally right footed, is a better left midfield player than he is on the right due to his footballing assets.
But if it is a decision on who to buy - a guy who can do that, or a guy who can do that - then I personally would rather a guy who can get to the byeline, though I am not sure I would strictly keep that to players playing on their natural side as Aiden McGeady get to the by-line on the left and delivers a variety of crosses which seem to cause centre halves infinite problems, though when delivery from your natural side you are probably inclined to cross it with your stronger foot. Although Aiden is not a normal case as most players on opposite wings will try and cut back to their natural foot to cross if they possible can.
Part of this dilemma is based on positional development as wingers are rarely used as by-line wingers, even in a 4-3-3 the two wingers are better described as wide midfielders who hold a wing berth until the team loses possession. Even on their natural side wide midfielders keep the midfield compact never straying to far from the line held be the central pairing. Those on their opposite natural side are used effectively to keep the compact unit as they generally don’t dribble forward as much and along with cutting inside and staying close to their teammates they are being naturally drawn to their favoured side (so become slightly more central). This works at its best with overlapping fullbacks who are often used as the 'real' width in the team providing more deep crosses than any other crosses the striker will receive.
Another feature of this is the introduction of the 4-5-1 - but playing the personnel of a 4-4-2 (playing a hard working striker wide midfield to allow him to support the striker when the 451 breaks forward). This again discounts the wide midfielder from providing the wealth of crosses one might expect from that position and a fullback like Alan Hutton is again the service that the main striker will rely upon.
Being able to vary with players swapping sides and roles (of who crosses and who cuts in) is also surely a bonus rather than a straight switch of right footed to left side and vice versa. However too often it is not about that, it is about keeping things tight and or/having as many of the teams best players in the team.
It’s not as simple as having a player who can cut in and shoot -versus- a player who can get to the by-line and cross and how that effects and or helps the team. As I have mentioned, given that in the modern games most (even) natural wide players don’t get to the by-line anything as often as the wing wizards of days past, so whether or not it would be best to play a player who can do that might not give the best answer unto who should play on which side.
posted by Michael__67 at 5:06 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home