Post history

History for The Voice of Reason

Southern Football (incl Southern United) (Part 2)

Back to topic

Current version

Posted April 05, 2016 22:05 · last edited March 18, 2021 07:43

logic wrote:
The Voice of Reason wrote:

[/quote] how is he an idiot? For pointing out bad displays of football? Or lack of football

[/quote]

Perhaps by forgetting Football's code of conduct:

  1. Play to Win

    Winning is the object of playing any game. Never set out to lose. If you do not play to win, you are cheating your opponents, deceiving those who are watching, and also fooling yourself. Never give up against stronger opponents but never relent against weaker ones. It is an insult to any opponent to play at less than full strength. Play to win, until the final whistle.

    You play to win. It's the first thing in Football, everything else comes after that.  Football isn't about playing pretty, it's about winning and there are very many strategies to do that.  If you can win and play pretty well good job.  But if you prefer to play pretty and are happy to lose, change the way you play because by putting prettiness before winning you are cheating yourself and your opposition.  And if you like to play pretty but can't deal with long-ball football then you just aren't good enough.  This is the crux of it in Dunedin I think.  Teams aren't good enough to beat certain other teams and so they take up the high-brow argument, "They only win cos they play long, but we play 'better' Football".  That's just a load of old cobblers.  The best Football approach is the one that wins.  And I'm not talking about kids playing u-5s so don't go there - I'm talking about competitive Football.

What are you even on about? No shark everyone plays to win.. 

Yes I would agree if you can't deal with the long ball you aren't good enough but at the end of the day I am certain that just having the ball at the back under no pressure what so ever and just kicking it long is just shark, don't see any decent teams outside of Dunedin doing this do you? Ever wonder why southern united playing route one got them a solid last place? How can you people even think people that just hoof it long are good players. Mosgiel play simple ball to feet and they play much better football than that, think the 4-0 win shows that, hopefully from now on teams defend better against it and show that real football wins games

Couple of things.  1) A long ball from the back when under no pressure can be extremely effective. Teams all over the world do it under no pressure plenty. Watch a certain team called Leicester City and their two CBs especially. 2)  One of the first rules of coaching regarding passing: the most effective pass in a game is (a) ......, and (b)........ Just treat it like a test and let's see if you come up with the right answers (by the way, do you coach?). 2) You have brought Southern Utd into the discussion when GI party etc were discussing Dunedin club football.  Last season there wasn't a single local midfielder in the Southern first XI who was capable of receiving well from the back four. The last time we had a good enough local was with Mike Cunningham. Kelly and Ruka (both outsiders) were pretty good at it in my mind.  If given a chance with decent game time, Cotter and O'Farrell would have struggled at first but then done OK I think because they want to run for 90 mins and they are both technical and skilful enough to keep the ball.  Couple the lack in the midfield, especially after Ruka left, with a coach who screams boot it long all day and you have the disaster that we all witnessed.  I don't blame the defenders, I think Ross, Matt, Jude, Tristan etc all wanted to play to feet, but you can't do that if there are no decent targets and/or the ball is just going to get turned over. 3) But the discussion started by GI party etc was about the FSPL. I see enough from Cavy and Roslyn (and even Uni) to show at the FSPL level that they can play long and short to good effect.  Tech need to turn it around and exorcise anything the previous coach had to say, but they have a good coach now - so let's see what happens.  Mosgiel would be more effective if they went long when it was on, because they have quite good pace to hurt a side.  And this is where it gets stupid for any side not being able to see an opportunity more than 20 metres away because it's all play to feet in a 10-20 metre zone. 4) And trust me, play Mosgiel AFC against ACFC and guess what would happen if the Plainsmen started knocking it around at the back.  De Vries and co. would be all over you like a rash, poor old Morgy wouldn't cope, Eder would do his best but fail because he'd be overwhelmed, your whole back four would freak out and yeah, the plainsmen would start booting it long.

Previous versions

1 version
Unknown editor edited March 18, 2021 07:43
logic wrote:
The Voice of Reason wrote:

[/quote] how is he an idiot? For pointing out bad displays of football? Or lack of football

[/quote]

Perhaps by forgetting Football's code of conduct:

  1. Play to Win

    Winning is the object of playing any game. Never set out to lose. If you do not play to win, you are cheating your opponents, deceiving those who are watching, and also fooling yourself. Never give up against stronger opponents but never relent against weaker ones. It is an insult to any opponent to play at less than full strength. Play to win, until the final whistle.

    You play to win. It's the first thing in Football, everything else comes after that.  Football isn't about playing pretty, it's about winning and there are very many strategies to do that.  If you can win and play pretty well good job.  But if you prefer to play pretty and are happy to lose, change the way you play because by putting prettiness before winning you are cheating yourself and your opposition.  And if you like to play pretty but can't deal with long-ball football then you just aren't good enough.  This is the crux of it in Dunedin I think.  Teams aren't good enough to beat certain other teams and so they take up the high-brow argument, "They only win cos they play long, but we play 'better' Football".  That's just a load of old cobblers.  The best Football approach is the one that wins.  And I'm not talking about kids playing u-5s so don't go there - I'm talking about competitive Football.

What are you even on about? No shark everyone plays to win.. 

Yes I would agree if you can't deal with the long ball you aren't good enough but at the end of the day I am certain that just having the ball at the back under no pressure what so ever and just kicking it long is just shark, don't see any decent teams outside of Dunedin doing this do you? Ever wonder why southern united playing route one got them a solid last place? How can you people even think people that just hoof it long are good players. Mosgiel play simple ball to feet and they play much better football than that, think the 4-0 win shows that, hopefully from now on teams defend better against it and show that real football wins games

Couple of things.  1) A long ball from the back when under no pressure can be extremely effective. Teams all over the world do it under no pressure plenty. Watch a certain team called Leicester City and their two CBs especially. 2)  One of the first rules of coaching regarding passing: the most effective pass in a game is (a) ......, and (b)........ Just treat it like a test and let's see if you come up with the right answers (by the way, do you coach?). 2) You have brought Southern Utd into the discussion when GI party etc were discussing Dunedin club football.  Last season there wasn't a single local midfielder in the Southern first XI who was capable of receiving well from the back four. The last time we had a good enough local was with Mike Cunningham. Kelly and Ruka (both outsiders) were pretty good at it in my mind.  If given a chance with decent game time, Cotter and O'Farrell would have struggled at first but then done OK I think because they want to run for 90 mins and they are both technical and skilful enough to keep the ball.  Couple the lack in the midfield, especially after Ruka left, with a coach who screams boot it long all day and you have the disaster that we all witnessed.  I don't blame the defenders, I think Ross, Matt, Jude, Tristan etc all wanted to play to feet, but you can't do that if there are no decent targets and/or the ball is just going to get turned over. 3) But the discussion started by GI party etc was about the FSPL. I see enough from Cavy and Roslyn (and even Uni) to show at the FSPL level that they can play long and short to good effect.  Tech need to turn it around and exorcise anything the previous coach had to say, but they have a good coach now - so let's see what happens.  Mosgiel would be more effective if they went long when it was on, because they have quite good pace to hurt a side.  And this is where it gets stupid for any side not being able to see an opportunity more than 20 metres away because it's all play to feet in a 10-20 metre zone. 4) And trust me, play Mosgiel AFC against ACFC and guess what would happen if the Plainsmen started knocking it around at the back.  De Vries and co. would be all over you like a rash, poor old Morgy wouldn't cope, Eder would do his best but fail because he'd be overwhelmed, your whole back four would freak out and yeah, the plainsmen would start booting it long.