Sweden changes from Janne Andersson’s pacifier blanket 4–4–2 to a more forward-leaning 4–3–3. So it is said. I’ve seen and played football all my life, the sports pages taught me to read, the sports park became a bit of my university, football and my club are in my DNA (no cliché) – but today’s way of talking game system actually does not tell me a damn bit anymore .
Before the national team’s four Nation League matches in 11 days (so stupid that you can no longer even care), the national team captain decided to imprint a new way of playing in the national team players. It got shaky from the start. In an interview after one of the matches, Emil Forsberg said that “some players may feel insecure about whether they can do this or that, but things are getting better”.
I admit: I do not understand. I do not even know if I want to understand. Or if there is anything to understand at all.
I understand when they show the team line-ups and point to players with a few arrows and in different starting positions and possible work areas – but when Lagerbäck and Åslund, Kåmark and Larsson, Lundh and Bojan and Dojjan and everything they are called (seven-eight experts and commentators to make En (1) match) starts with hour-long (yes, actually!) Discussions about 4–4–2, 4–3–3, 3–5–2 and 5–3–2 and “a classic nine” hit and one ” false nia ”there, and grandmother and her aunt, well then they have long since lost me – and when I subsequently fast-forward through the broadcast to listen to certain selected parts, it does not make me a bit wiser.
And the analysis bitch is spreading. People around me have started talking in the same way. When did “football theory” become a school subject? Are there even theories? Do they not just say a little about how many defenders, midfielders and strikers you line up with?
I’m right many times pointed out that it seems to be the wet dream of many TV experts and football podcasts to completely dedicate their lives to football theory, or perhaps rather “football theory” – my wet dream would probably be to be able to sit at a bar counter with Pep, Klopp, Mourinho and Ancelotti and ask them how they really think about modern football philosophizing, how they really want to play football, out there on the pitch.
Give me no shit about numbers, just tell me how you want it to go, and above all: How do you differ from each other in that thinking ?! What should it look like when Liverpool and Real Madrid play, and how should the players behave on the pitch – and the crucial question: How is it different from how they played in the Mexico World Cup 1970, Spain World Cup 1982 or in the Premier League 2002 from how to play today?
Is football “smarter” these days? Are the players more “well-educated”? How important are the “theories”?
When a new player enters the field today, he receives quick instructions from the side, it is flipped through binders, it is pointed at notepads for a quarter of an hour. I had probably just had a silly stupid order written down to my attacker: “In and score a fucking goal now !!”
You see, of course, immediately if a team is low in their defensive game, or if the opponents are pushing, but where does that strong desire come from to intellectualize football in particular? Is it a way to raise its status? Do football theories make matches more exciting?
English coaching legend Harry Redknapp was considered for a period a kind of successful genius when he succeeded with team after team for a period – until I heard Anders Svensson say that the only thing he ever heard him say in the locker room (Southampton) was about: “Now go we fuck me out and drive over them. ”
Maybe you have a champion team if you cut the shackles and game theories and reintroduce a little play and a little joy? I believe more in psychologists in law than in quasi-intellectual coaches.
Read more sports-in-TV chronicles by Johan Croneman:
Do it right – give Jennifer Kücükaslan the Crystal
There must be a special place in hell for plan storms
–
