₦airaland Forum

Awaziem had no business on the bench.

Was watching the match with someone who said the S.E are not playing with a formation.

I asked him if he is aware of Finidi's statements regarding how unimportant of Formation to winning games, his retort was a no.

The best midfield combination that will see us dominating proceedings and creating goal scoring chances according analysis has Onyedika, Yusuf and Iwobi.

mrwilliams9:
I think you could actually move Dele to a RF role similar to Lookman on the other wing. Have Iwobi just in front of Yusuf and Onyedika. You get a lot of midfield control that way. Lookman, Dele and the strikers would need to shoot sha

The most insightful contribution so far.

To conclude my thoughts on Finidi statements regarding how unimportant formations are to winning, and players making the decision as when to attack or defend, reveals an intent on doing very little work, leaving his duties entirely on the players to craft out their own means of delivering results.

Is coach Finidi leaving the responsibility of winning entirely on his players?

I have not a reason to doubt Finidi until his recent statements that purports as follows: formation is not important and Players interpret when to attack and defend

You may fail to grasp the overall import of what he is saying until you read again to discern the connection between the two ideas expressed.

Coming on with a good formation is entirely the job of the coach. Formation is basic to good play and to winning. The coach decides the right setup of players

The decision to attack and to defend is also on the coach, the coach instructs his players the various situation that should lead to an attacking or a defensive stance and the strategies to involve.

Football is team sports, it is collective effort, being a collective effort requires collective actions which the coach directs, else the team is disoriented.

TheGoodJoe:
There will be tactical variables when attacking and also when defending.

It is not just attack but there will be tactical setups that go with it.

I said you are inserting words into Finidi's statement, you said you are not.

What are the tactical variables when attacking and when defending that Finidi highlighted?

You said, it is not just attack that there will be tactical setups to go with it.

TheGoodJoe, what tactical setup is possible for a coach that said football formation is not important?

The problem here again is basic football understanding, if you understand what football formation is then you will grasp that no tactical setup is possible without a structure which football formation provides.

Formation provides the basis for behaviour and role play.

TheGoodJoe, please don't forget to provide the tactical variables so that even Finidi himself can learn.

TheGoodJoe:
You are yet to give an explanation to anything.

Are you not the one with the endeavour to explaining Finidi's philosophy to everyone, including Finidi himself

TheGoodJoe:
Can you point out the words I put? I explained what he is saying? If you disagree, explain why you disagree. Show us where and why you disagree with me.

Explain what you mean by Finidi's philosophy of attacking which is deep and defending which is also deep.

Napoleon55:
Hmm, this one sound like Meliforme post.

I have never listed Joe Aribo as a midfielder, not even as an attacking midfielder because of how poorly he reads games, and because of limited passing skills. He just does his short passes and that's all.

I could recall the first time he was paired with Frank Onyeka, Frank Onyeka dominated proceedings, i was looking for Aribo.

Joe Aribo should not ply our midfield, else we can't get the best of him. He shouldn't even be in the conversation for any midfield role.

TheGoodJoe:
My philosophy is to win.....because if players interpret when to attack and when to defend, there won’t be problems...Finidi George

Finidi is a coach with a philosophy.

Coaching involves teaching players to play to your philosophy.

What is this philosophy? Deciphering moments to attack and defend.

Meaning, Finidi is going to teach (coach) the players on moments to attack and defend.

I just pointed out that these phases are deep, meaning there are multiple variables.

It is a breakdown of Finidi's quote, and not a verbatim quote.

It is very clear you are the one putting words on Finidi's lips, giving annotations to what is already clear.

TheGoodJoe:
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...Finidi George

This is Finidi George's coaching philosophy and when he coached, this is what he intense to pass to players. So I wonder what else he needs to say to highlight what he intense to coach players on.

You did not answer the question.

You said Finidi wanted to teach his players his philosophy of attacking which is deep and defending which is also deep.

I wanted to know when Finidi made those statements or whether you just made them up.

TheGoodJoe:
From what I have seen so far, it goes deeper than that. For instance, number to attack a space when pressing, depending on the shape of the opponents. Either way, Finidi wants to teach the players his philosophy of attacking (which is deep) and defending (which is also deep). The more they understand this, the better the team stands chances to win, based on his philosophy. This to him is more important to win than the formation itself.

I think it is a very brilliant take by Finidi.

For the following words in quotes "Finidi wants to teach the players his philosophy of attacking (which is deep) and defending (which is also deep)"

How did you know that those are Finidi's philosophy?

Even if they are, those words stem from confusion, because you saying it can't even explain it.

I just want to know if Finidi in any way made those insinuations.

TheGoodJoe:
That is where Finidi George's statement gets even more interesting. His philosophy is that there are moments. I wish I had more insights and I will research it further on my own.

Let me give a scenario.

If a left winger is on the attack, and he is outnumbered and isolated from passing.

Maybe at that instance, the players of the isolated players should take a defensive shape by falling back.

Finidi has a philosophy to this called moments and he believes it is the key to winning and losing.

The decision for players to fall back (defend) when they lose the ball or to press the opponent (attack them still) to recover the ball, is the coach's decision to make.

Like i have said, attacking and defending can be with or without the ball, it depends on whether the team have left their own half.

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.

I wasn't defending Finidi at all.

Players attack or defend according to the coach's instructions since they are playing as a unit.

A team can be in an attacking phase with or without the ball. When they are entirely in their own half with or without the ball they are defending, when they start making occupying the opposition's territory with or without the ball they are attacking

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.

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

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".

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

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".

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.

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

Ho ho ho.

You are free to have doubts.

lovewins:
I saw differently. The result of the combination was average at best. Also, if that is what they could come up with considering the level of opposition, how do you expect them to fair against way stronger opponents?

Their combination was a beauty to watch.

Boniface deftly played behind Osimhen and interpreted the role very well.

Are you tagging their synergy average just to prove a point.

Anyway, i respect your opinions, you know we may not see things the same way.

lovewins:
The biggest blunder any Super Eagles coach will make us forcing Boniface into a lineup that includes Osimhen. Osimhen/Boniface or Osimhen/Awoniyi doesn't work, previous trials have proven that.

Maybe it could work in the future with the right coach, but right now, one of them has to come in from the bench.

Osimhen-Boniface combination, one of the most beautiful combinations that i can envisage right now.

We saw glimpses of it in the second leg tie against Sao Tome and Principe.

komekn:
It would be helpful if you're said why

He is very good in the game of passes, short passes, long passes, and what have you.

He is not that easy to disposses of the ball, in the many cases of it, he has to be fouled in order to rid him of the ball.

He is also good at making passes that results to goal scoring opportunities. His four assists, does not tell the whole story.

His positioning is very good. He tracks back a lot to help in the various stages of build up play.

TheGoodJoe:

I hope so. Childera Ejuke's case is a frustrating one. The potential is there.

Finidi should please take a look at Ejuke, Ejuke is his kind of player.

We don't really have a forward, built for the game of ball possession like Chidera Ejuke.

I hope he is in Finidi's plans.

Zellas:
Go and rewatch that match, over 80% of Awaziem's passings are backwards which led to one of the Malian goals.

The invited defenders is simply not balanced, but let's give Finidi a benefit of doubt and pray he doesn't make a costly mistake at this point.

We need good midfielders that will help ease the pressure on the defenders to sustain possession of the ball.

Kog45:
Hmmm oga Meli,Awaziem don join dem Nwakali,Ejuke,Chuckwueze,Iheanacho......well I love Awaziem style of play though career static

Awaziem is a fine player.

Odunayaw:
He made wonderful passes to the opponent in his last game!

The team's playing style is to keep possession of the ball.

A large chunk of blame goes to the midfield for not placing themselves in good positions to receive passes of the ball.
A midfield that will lose the ball because they cannot handle themselves in tight spaces. hence the concomitant back passes in order to keep possession of the ball.

Awaziem's pass was intelligently intercepted because the opponent read us well, it doesn't make Awaziem's passes of the ball poor.

We need midfielders who can receive passes from the defenders and find a way to not only locate the forwards, but also support them as they break down the opposition.

It will be beautiful watching Awaziem and Bassey build possession from the back, if they are given the nod to start.

Finidi's invitation of Awaziem seems like he prioritises ball possession.

Awaziem is one of our bests when it comes to making good passes of the ball.

Awaziem is very good when it comes to making clearances of the ball, insomuch that his ball clearances in many instances of it look like a long pass to a team mate because he is good with long passes.

Joebie:
You need time to achieve that. Not talent

You mean the players abilities are not in consideration, just time?

I laugh in Telugu.

isan:
Are you Nwakali brother or agent ?

I am a Super Eagles fan.
I want the best for our team.

Napoleon55:
hope u will be around to battle it out with Komekn.

u guys should leave Nwakali alone.

If Finidi believe his craft is needed in his team,he will surely invite him,even Kome won't have problem with that as he trusts Finidi to b a man of integrity.

If I have the time I will.