I don't know if readers often hear the words "system" and "tactics" when they read articles, commentaries or analyses of football matches. When I started to focus on writing soccer analysis, I found that many fans actually do not quite understand what the difference between these two concepts is, so I'm posting this article to give you a brief explanation.
The so-called "tactics" is actually a more detailed and specific implementation plan, such as what formation to play, who is responsible for organizing more, who is responsible for assisting in the defense, what formation to switch when attacking, what formation to switch when defending, and which part of the opponent's weak link should be attacked more, etc. In other words, the matter of "tactics" actually has different room for adjustment with different opponents. That is to say, the "tactics" can be adjusted in different ways depending on the opponents.
take
Liverpool (England)
Come on, although the main 433 formation, but the actual game will often vary with the characteristics of the opponent or their own state, for example, a while ago against Sheffield United.
Liverpool (England)
The field would then often adjust the formation to 352 in the process. and last season, when both VanDjik and Gomez were still around, the
Liverpool (England)
When the offense presses the opponent, it actually presents a 235 formation more often than not.
The concept of 'system' is the principle that the players must collectively and strictly implement, regardless of the opponent they are facing. Take the two most extreme success stories (Klopp & Guardiola), in Klopp's "high press" system, no matter who is standing opposite, as long as the opponent is organizing an attack in the backfield, the players must know how to collectively execute the press; and Guardiola, who advocates "running + passing", no matter who the opponent is, is required to Guardiola, on the other hand, regardless of the opponent, requires the players to keep possession of the ball at their feet as much as possible, and to tear apart the opponent's defense through meaningful runs and passes.
"Melon Square" (footballer)
(The system is actually quite complex, so I'll share it with you later when I have time to do my homework).
"System" and "tactics" are not exactly equal concepts. A "system" is a direction, or a unique style of play, which has its own specific principles. On the other hand, "tactics" is a kind of detailed operation, which may be adjusted in order to cope with different opponents or considerations of one's own state, but any adjustment must be based on the principle of "system".
That's why I keep emphasizing in my personal fan page (the link to the fan page is available on my home page).
Liverpool (England)
Even under the predicament of consecutive losses, it is impossible to change the 'system' rashly. Especially considering the fact that the main players in the squad have already adapted to the principles of the "system" in the past few seasons, and even made themselves into the shape of the "system" in order to maximize its effectiveness. It would be suicidal to make changes to the "system" on such a premise, and in the middle of a white-hot schedule.
What is interesting and worth discussing is that there are not so many coaches like Klopp or Guardiola who have their own "system", or who insist on creating a "system". More often than not, many coaches are the kind of coaches who set and execute different "tactics" based on the existing player configuration and the attributes of the opponents.
For one thing, this may have something to do with the fact that the average number of years coaches have been coaching is getting shorter and shorter. After all, it takes time to build a system, but nowadays it is rare to see a coach stay in the same team for more than five years; for another, the building of a system is much more difficult than the adjustment of tactics. After all, if the players have to carry out the same principles for years and years, it is a great test for the players' personal understanding and execution, the tacit understanding between players and players, and even the coach's coaching ability.
Is it better to stick to the "system" or not? This is not a simple yes or no answer. A team with a "system" can indeed produce more stable results in the long run, but when faced with a large number of injuries, the short-term performance will be relatively easier to face a greater impact. You can imagine a machine that has been operating with the same system for several years suddenly breaks down a few important parts. Whether you stick to the original system or redesign another system based on the existing parts, your short-term performance is bound to be greatly affected.
If you don't stick to a fixed "system", you can indeed make various adjustments and changes with relative flexibility, and it is also harder for the opponent to catch on. However, the disadvantage is that there are no fixed principles for the players to follow, so in the long run, the performance is also prone to fluctuations (the performance of the players is also relatively easy to fluctuate). In addition, the building of a "system" does require a long-term plan, so generally speaking, you will not see immediate performance in the short term (look at Klopp and Guardiola's performance in the early stages of the team's arrival), but once the construction is successful (to find a variety of suitable parts, and can be coordinated to operate), then it will be an unstoppable machine.
This is why the author believes that
Liverpool (England)
In fact, there is no question of the playing style of the team being understood by everyone, because the matter of "system" is not something new, and as long as a coach is professional enough, how can he or she not know the weaknesses of different "systems" only in the past few years? Whether it's Klopp's high press or Guardiola's pass and control system, the strengths and weaknesses of each is something that you know and I know, but the key lies in the fact that even if you know the weaknesses of a system once it has been successfully constructed, you don't have the ability to carry it. This also reflects the fact that the two
commander-in-chief
The teams led over the years (without major injuries) tend to leave opponents with a sense of utter helplessness and despair, because even if you know exactly what they're going to do next, you can't stop them, you can only get savaged.
