more on playing d as a dmf.

honest self evaluation.
not a creative player. not a great midfielder. but i think im pretty decent on d as a dmf myself. in like a amateur league level.
anyways. just had a frustrating league game over the weekend. therefore, feel like saying something about the position and the game.

in regular leagues that ive played or was invited to drop in for a game or 2. a lot of times players expect the barbarian inside me to run around in the midfield scaring normal folks away. i cannot stress/emphasize anymore the fact that dmf DO NOT just RUN a hell of a lot more than regular midfielders. we dont. maybe just a little. just look at gattuso in a ucl game. he ends up with around 11-12km. maybe just a km or 2 more than average. not that much more in a 90 minute game considering most midfielders do around 10 km.



brief summary of how i see the position should be played:

1) d comes first. i always play better somehow when i keep that in mind and avoid too many forward runs.

2) stay behind and watch out for counter attacks and those shady bastards dwelling deep. o man. i hate these offside strikers. and how a lot of cb ignores them. pisses me off.

3) hustle the ballhogs or anyone whos slow-with/sticks-to the ball.

4) ignore the calls unless its a card

5) identify the star player and frustrate the hell out of them.

6) body check, play physical.

7) look for the dominant foot and try to do what basketball players do. give them room on their weak side.

8) convert possession and try to avoid clearance as much as possible.

9) try to hit the player with possession from a blind spot.

10) when not hustling down the ball. look for the open players to cut down the options or for fast coverage when a pass in made.

11) drop DEEPER when theres noone to hustle or when the other teams good with the ball. let them do whatever in their half. keep it packed on your own 1/3.

12) hide behind a player when manmarking. cut in if theres a pass.

p.s. a big part of defending is teamwork because of the size of the field. i gotta work on this part. sometimes gotta admit that its not easy to be on the same page with the other defenders.

lets kick off this season.

been a while since the last update. dont worry.
im still here. not dead. keeping this all alive.

havent been able to come up with anything even though we are a month into the new season. nothings really that interesting. even the kaka ronaldo buyouts. dont have much to say about those guys even as a real fan.

fortunately, the manchester derby was exciting enough.
in summary. id say.
first half: utd more chances, but city's was closer.
second half: utd dominated.
great performances from bellamy. how unlikely.
utd gave 2 away. rio as eccentric as always.
doubt adebayor's presence makes a difference.
neither is scholes.
the real difference is robinho and van der sar.
berbatov just felt like a poor man's ibrahimovic.

not saying the ref is biased.
but i felt 95 would be the right amount.
30 seconds for the goal and 30 seconds for the substitution.
this is just way lucky.
compare to what i think were consistent and temperamental buildups form teams like chelsea and liverpool last year.
however, utd could have took it easy if it wasnt for those two retarded mistakes.
props to giggs though. definitely a living legend whether you a utd fan or not.

freaks.

interesting.

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=647804&sec=global&root=global&cc=4716

the true face of football.

the picture says it all.

http://madeinbrazil.typepad.com/madeinbrazil/2009/05/sky-is-not-the-limit-for-gisele.html

the flanks.

today, im gonna bitch about side midfields, wingers, side backs and wing backs. heres what i think, correct me if im wrong.

as far as i can tell, wg and smf have "functional" differences versus sb and wb differs only in "style".

the role of wg and smf are pretty distinct. wg are usually pacy and strong on the dribble in terms of stats. they stay up and out wide stretching the defense. traditional wg plays on the side of their dominant foot, crosses in down low by the goal line. modern wg plays on the opposite flank, crosses are less common and more cuts are made inwards for open shots or perhaps into the box. wg are the keys to counter attacks. they are there to exploits 1 on 1 situations against sb. they dwell around the corner of the box lot of times waiting for these openings. wg do well when the game is fast but normally dont perform when the game is slow and when its not 1 on 1. its pretty obvious what a wg is.

smf are completely different. their individual styles vary. these days i dont think they matter as much as they used to because the traditional 442 does not perform anymore. the style of crossing in from both flanks are not particularly effective against the zonal system these days. also the rise of the sb/wb undermines the role and importance of the smf. usually an exceptionally talented player would play in the middle or move up to the wings rather than kept in the smf position to be more effective. position wise very few talent exist. the flanks are always covered by dmf and sb/wb. or wg. in my opinion, ronaldhino can somewhat be classified as a smf although he exhibits wg and amf (here i regard amf as the dead center ones or else it defeats the purpose of the discussion i.e. lamf, ldmf) qualities. raphael van der vaart is probably the closest smf we have in this generation of footballers, i.e. on the side but not a wg, but still i would consider him as a smf and amf hybrid because of his tendencies to move center at times. david beckham is what i would consider a true smf. fixed to the sideline. early crosses. no reliance on pace etc. he contributes to the team on the side with the central playmakers unlike the wg which are pretty much lone gunmen. very very few players could stay out that wide and away from the front and contribute to the plays. at one point i saw some potential in david bentley but i guess i was wrong. camoranesi, i would classify as a right leaning amf rather than a smf. so ya... a rare kind...

finally, sb and wb. we all know what a sb is. the wb, however, is relatively new. they are seen as ultra offensive sb's or even wg playing deep in their own halves. but to me i dont think there is a fundamental difference between the role of these 2 positions. i believe it is a matter of style. position wise sb and wb are essentially the same in real life i.e. not we11, pes, fifa. they are part of the d line. so called wb's like dani alves, carlos, bosingwa, cafu are said to play much more upfield; this in my opinion, is simply a temporary (but in some of these cases permanent off position. haha.) offset. it is not ideal but is definitely necessary in order to create a mismatch down the flanks: 2 v 1; sb/wb+mf/wg v sb/wb. on top of that, like i mentioned previously, the sb/wb complements the wg these days since they are placed on the opposite end of their stronger foot. if you look at the wb position functionally, it is virtually the same as the sb. they are not exempt from their duty to defend. if you look at it from the sb angle, notable sb like zambrotta, maldini, grosso, finnan, evra they all move up for crosses and support. just like any wb does. so to me there really is not a fundamental difference. the major difference lies in the balance of  defense v. offense.

these days commentators tend to over emphasize on differentiating players like they are chesses and creating new labels for formations such as 41212, 4411. its just a little extreme. there has always been supporting strikers in 442 or dedicated amf in 451. a lot of times these differences are completely unnecessary and creates only confusion. football is an art. not an exact science.

madrista.

http://www.thespoiler.co.uk/index.php/2009/05/08/manchester-city-offer-real-madrids-raul-e40m-deal

im gonna burn the city down if this happens. but i guess. at least robinho recommended.

modern times.

im not gonna go into details on those epics cl games the past week. way too much room for argument there. just some general observations.

1) arsenal pretty much choked. im not saying that they would beat utd if they didnt choke. but from what i saw. i felt they were choking. i.e. arsenal v. utd in cl and v. chelsea in bpl.

2) chelsea, liverpool, man utd (ill confirm this after the cl finals) are the best team on earth right now. especially chelsea.

3) i dont believe in offensive football anymore. not the real madrid i love nor the barca that i respect. its just not that way to go anymore. it might work when the galacticos are still around. with the kind of tactical style these days. the playmakers would be the likes of gerrard, ballack, lampard. youth team wont be able to produce players like zidane, figo anymore. unlikely...

4) you dont have to agree. but i think chelsea completely outplayed barca. both rounds. but props to barca. playing that beautifully in 2009 is really something. real played like that in the beginning of the season. lets hope la liga gives us more next season.

5) pique was good. but i think he was overrated in the second game (not saying he was bad). he shouldnt have pushed the pace that much. what he did gave him the coverage and attention from fans and media. it showed off his skills. but by playing like that, xavi was not utilized. xavi dropped back to his old dmf spot he played a few years ago to cover for pique. xavi is a better playmaker for obvious reasons. pique can help out but i dont think he should have taken over.

6) dani alves is without a question an asshole who plays good ball.

7) didier and anelka like to dive too much these days. not only is didier shooting freekicks like cristiano. now hes picking up his shitty habits.

8) newcastle... keep it up. a few more to go. i cant lose middlesborough, newcastle, espanyol in 1 season. gosh remember those teams? celta de vigo, real soceidad, leeds, parma, brescia.

9) ireland is such an overrated player. dont even get me started. hughes. you have to do better with the players you have.

rip.

the czars.

as expected, arshavin has been receiving overwhelming praises from all over for his performance at anfield. the work ethics the russian has been displaying is undeniable. combining this with his speed, stamina and mid range shots, andrei arshavin is without a doubt the biggest threat the gunners has within their splendid but rather ineffective style of play. the direct approach to the game is something that his fellow strikers/amf teammates van persie and bendtner have yet been displayed (although both alongside theo walcott appear to be more natural of a player than arshavin).

in my opinion, however, arshavin is not a great player in the sense that hes not unique. he reminds me of the korean nationals under hiddink. an effective player without enough control. players artificially created by fitness coaches. to me, players like arshavin does not last long in the amf position. breaking down his skills. the biggest assets are his mid range shots. as we can all recall from anfield, he pretty much was 4 for 4. both his mid ranges were struck at extreme angles. for that he should be praised. on the other hand, as calm observors of the game, we should remember that the best mid range takers of wide open shots in the past 5 years i.e. totti, schevchenko, gerrard etc. would not be able to pull that off at such angles consecutively. arshavin was good but he should not be overrated. otherwise, arshavin is a pretty average player in terms of skills and touches. creativity wise hes not outstanding either. on the flipside, his compatriot pavlychenko seems to me to have better killer instincts and positioning than him.



calling arshavin the czar reminds me of the old dynasty. his predecessors... the old czar mostovoi and karpin. in my eyes, until another splendid russian footballer comes by they will always be the true russian royalties. the finesse and game changing leadership they possessed was nothing this young russian generation can offer. think mostovoi when the commentator talks about czars next time.

in midst of fire and flames.

via soccernet.com

im burning in hell as we speak. but i have this urge to briefly go over the battles over the week.
ill go backwards in time.

fa cup: chelsea v. arsenal.
as expected, the smartest way and the only way arsenal can pull this one off is by attacking and they did attack. fast and endless attacks is what is needed. play the balls low and dont hit anything for headers. noone is going to pick it up except for men in blue. do not drop the pace or else all is lost. but ultimately, it did not work as much as wenger played his strengths. talking about the so called ultimate firepower in europe, arsenal and barcelona are the most quoted teams in the past few years. however, theres a big difference between the two teams. barcelona has every attribute which arsenal has and more - they can hold the ball. arsenal like any other offensive oriented teams e.g. porto is haunted by a drop back defensive stance. players have no room to run into, these gunners are too young to pick a good low cross/1-2 pass and not enough skills to hold it under pressure like their catalans counterparts. they are pretty much outplayed by chelsea man for man. a much more experienced and balanced team. a fair result. just look at some of the things diaby does i.e. poor clearances, unecessary dribbling etc. and the poor passes the defenders pick which end up in defensive breaches for man-man opportunities. worst part is when toure and silvestre decided it was a good idea to stand all the way up front with drogba right next to them when theres less than 10 minutes left to extra time. i dont know how wenger can take these heart attacks week after week. how old is he?

fa cup: manchester united v. everton
too boring of a game to be analytical. fair results with this lineup. rio's miss came as a surprise though and more than ever riley sucked. i do know why hes becoming such an important figure in football when his performances are pretty much like american college level football intramural refereeing with american football/baseball interested 18 year olds.

champions league: manchester united v. porto.
these days as much as i hate sir alex, hes improved a lot with styles modifications and substitutions. this is a perfect exmaple. tried to take porto out first leg away by going all out only to see a barca-like fluid porto on the counter. since the first minutes in the second leg, whole team dropped with porto standing there almost looking like arsenal. its true. manchester barely made any moves at all but its only reasonable when the much despised as well as loved cristiano opened the score in the first 5 minutes. well deserved win.

champions league: chelsea v. liverpool.
im not denying hiddinks mastery in any sense but as of now i still see him as a national team manager. chelsea is still playing the jose mourinho style. what hiddink does to his miraculous teams is simply fitness training. thats all i can say. its easily recognizable. especially the fact that ive been in one of these underdog teams and played exactly like that. on the other hand, the fact that a team is already working not much should be changed. maybe thats hiddinks brilliance and he came at the right time with drogba and essien back out. in a way sort of like what guardiola is doing to barcalona. i actually like the additions scolari made to the team. bosingwa and deco made the team much more dynamic. cant really blame him on the injuries. but anelka is definitely a bad buy in my opinion. the game wise, as much as i dont want to blame reina, its pretty much his fault that opened the gap. aurelio's freekicks seem to be picking up and that was one smart switch in the very end. cech, as always after hunt, is a little eccentric at times. after that one concession, liverpool was forced to play up too much and it opened up all the spaces for drogba, lampard and ballack alike. from this game alone, no wonder lampard thrived under a 433 formation back in the chelsea early days. the quick immaculate early crosses and the runs into the box... deadly. its weird to remember drogba picked up form since chelsea slowly switched to a slower 442. i guess it can only be attributed to form and improvements rather than formations.

anyways. thats all for now. will be back on soon.

thriller in manila, i mean stamford bridge.

image via soccernet.com

not a big chelsea fan but well done. that one little pass to the left was a show of class ballack. but the man i would say is either lampard or drogba. calm finishes and endless chases down the flanks. but gosh. lucas is still pretty bad even though i saw a little improvement. still rather indecisive and not looking far enough. pepe slipped up at a wrong time. sucks being you. but damn. cech, you suck!!! well i guess we can only blame hunt for that.

impossible is nothing?

impossibility 1:
jt, not justin timberlake, the goofy ass beast tying a tie for di santo?


image via kickette.com

impossibility 2:
mikel, i never knew you are this jacked from the sissy way you played.


image via kickette.com

impossibility 3:
perhaps not an impossibility, raul does look bored at this basketball game.


image via kickette.com

impossibility 4:
never knew beckham is tight with ruud.


image via popsugar.com

impossibility 5:
its plain to see whats wrong.


image via kickette.com

impossibility 6:
finishing up with a serious video. the most genuine portrayal of zinedine zidane's genius. vs utd. when becks was still in the squad. before his eye brow was trashed by ol' alex. the editor beplasse does a incredifine job with zidane. check him out:
http://www.youtube.com/user/beplasse



p.s. wonder if liverpool can get out of this 3-0 hole against chelsea. those guys dropped 3 in something like 20 minutes while up 4 playing bolton over the weekend. they did milan years ago. wonder its going to happen again. hm...

the dilemma of transfers.

when superstars make moves to different leagues, the first question that pops in our head is whether they would continue to walk the walk besides just talking the talk. while those like zidane, beckham etc. continue to thrive, theres a huge list of players whom fail to perform. yes, schevchenko, we still remember you. ballack, you, too.

ive always been hearing commentators blaming these failed transfers to the adaptation inability of these world class players. i do believe it is a factor simply because being a footballer myself, the opponents' overall style of play do affect our performances. the swarming physical defense posted up by the americans versus the out wide possession buildups of europeans. they do make a difference. but to me, i think this is not the whole picture.

the more critical factor, i believe, is the the style of play of their new TEAMS rather than the new LEAGUES. if these aces had stellar performances in the cl and uefa cup against teams from all over, "weird" opposing styles alone are not enough and are not going to choke them up. heres 3 failed examples in 3 different league transfers:

1) one of my favorite players, mendieta of valencia. not enough play time in lazio, dip i confidence, lack of runs from teammates, inability to make plays etc.



2) veron screwing up in manchester. by the end of it, he could barely do a proper corner. too much of a traditional midfielders to be in the bpl. much like what riquelme is.



3) cannavaro losing his dominance within 2 months of his worldcup/footballer of the year performances. lack of support from the midfield. renders his early tackles into dangerous defensive maneuvers.

things i want, stuff i need.

adidas adipure ii

these look way good and i prefer old school shoes/cleats over the synthetic new ones in terms of feel. not sure if i should go for the nike ones since i run so much.


nike mercurial vapor v

i also need to get myself a futsal ball. its so retarded to play a regular size 5 on a concrete pitch.

me, myself and defensive midfield.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.