Majiball Posted September 4, 2008 Share Posted September 4, 2008 Just to add to the poster above, I noticed against Grimsby, Breda and Hull we are catching people offside a lot, lot more nowadays. The only problem is when someone gets through they tend to score, but we have improved a huge deal without our "playing offside" play. Personally, playing the offside game is a very dangerous tactic in my book unless all your defenders are on the same wavelength - which ours are definitely not. Think there was an element of this in the Hull and Wet Spam game. It's a very negative and boring tactic too. I hate it in opposition teams so I can't endorse it for Rovers. The kind of telepathy you are talking about will never come in a couple of months, time and patience are required. Why is it negative? If you get it working with success we always gain a free kick, instant possession, is that not a good thing? One thing Rovers really lack at the back is pace Samba is not that quick. So how else do we counter it, do we sit deep creating a huge gulf between our defence and Midfield. This in turn means our full backs have more ground to cover when supporting the wingers. Sitting deeper will also allow quick strikers to run at our defence. And on top would create huge space for the opposition to exploit. GG's back four where hardly blessed with pace a bit like ours aren't and even in todays game they where second to none especially even when they where all late 30's. If you can get it working its a potent weapon. I've been on about this since I first came on here I want to see a sitter just in front of Samba and Nelsen we need one. We are prone to making some rash decisions at the back they need help and protection. Because it breaks up play like an over fussy referee giving masses of free kicks. It spoils the game as a spectacle for the spectators. The rule was introduced to stop forwards from sitting on the baby line and having the ball pumped forward to them, however in the modern game it is used as a deliberate spoiling tactic and it stops the natural flow of the game. I appreciate that everybody does it and you miss out if you dont but I hate it. I have long said that the half way line is the wrong place to enforce it from. There should be another line, further up the pitch, probably the edge of the penalty area, only behond which you could be offside. That might discourage defences from using it as a spoiling tactic and the forward caught offside would only have himself to blame. Just my personal thoughts. Is it worth a topic of it's own for discussion? Might be interesting to hear other poster's views. I think the edge of the penalty area might be too far back. The amount of teams who drop further and further back when defending a 1 - 0 lead against a 'better' club would just sit on that line and defend. That would make for boring football. Fair enough if that's what you think. Trouble is its part of the game, so we should exploit it. Can I also ask are you against tactical fouls? Breaking up the oppositions attacking rhythm is great from my point of view, they never get going and frustration sets in. They will also start to play more in front of our back four and this is much easier to defend against. The idea of having another line is fair enough but you give another headache to the defence watch the ball, watch the player, watch for the line, watch your team mates. Its hard enough defending as it is, you need more than two eyes at present. I would argue that it is a art form in football four players working seamlessly as one unit, one entity. It may take away from the excitement or flow of the game as you have said but what would happen with out it. In youth football U8's or so they now play small sided games with no offside to encourage skills. Now in these games there is always the one player who just stands out side the box waiting, he will never be off side and all you need to be able to do is hit him when you get possession. There are lots of goals scored thats the point of it, is it exciting I suppose, is it good to watch no I don't like hit and hope. Does it require less skill yes. The same would happen if the line was moved back, our defence would rarely cross the line especially if the opposition tell there point man to just stay there, welcome to the long ball game. The space between the defence and midfield would be massive again more long balls. Defending half a pitch is hard enough let alone almost all of it. Imagine this we have the ball in the oppositions box, we have all pushed up. There striker stays on our off-side line and we leave a centre back with him. Our attack breaks down there keeper hoofs it up field they get possession and score. Is that more exciting, I would say no. It would encourage a return to hit and hope football, the skill factor involved in that style is not very high. Its food for thought. I appreciate your point of view but I'll place a small bet that when you play/played football you were a defender. I am in favour of open attacking football with as few breaks to open play as possible. There has to be an offside rule but I think that the current one unfairly favours defenders. The separate line is the only one I can think of. Maybe further back than the penalty area. I also believe that the current rule is far too complicated. If you are offside you are offside. As the great Brian Clough once said 'If one of my players is not interfering with play I want to see him in my office first thing in the morning'. Anyway I am diverting this topic. If we need to continue this discussion we need another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.