An interesting thing about the formations is that they aren’t fixed. The 4-3-3 for instance often becomes 4-5-1 when a team loses posession and then transforms back to a 4-3-3 when they regain the ball.
You can also see how formations (and their perceptions)change over time. During the fifties (and before) for instance it was normal to have 5 out right attackers. In the seventies through nineties 4-3-3 was actually seen as a very attacking formation employed by the great Ajax teams and the dutch in 74-78, nowadays 4-3-3 (or 4-5-1) is actually seen as a relatively more controlling/defensive formation.
In most contemporary formations you see a shift to 4 levels. A defense of 4, 1 or 2 defensive midfielders, 2 or 3 attacking midfielders and 1 or 2 strikers. This mostly takes the form of a 4-2-3-1 formation (which is what both the Dutch and Spain used in the World Cup final). As pointed out above, if you play anything different against a good team that uses this strategy, you will inevitably lose the midfield battle and in most cases the game.
I assume if a player is under contract for four years or whatever and is transferred in the middle of that, both him and the new team are still bound by the contract (in other words, he gets the same salary as with the old team), unless they both agree to a new contract. Am I wrong?
I also assume that it’s uncommon for contracts to be re-negotiated in the middle, since the team has no incentive to agree to a higher salary, and the player has no incentive to agree to a lower one.
So are there ever essentially negative transfer fees? Say a team signs a superstar to a ridiculously overpaid contract, but circumstances change and they want to get rid of him. Other teams think he’s a good player and could benefit the new team, but he’s not worth the huge salary (especially with a transfer fee as well). Can a deal be made?
This here is what makes the game interesting for me - and is primarily the reason why I enjoy watching the game much more in the stadium (preferably high up) than on TV (besides the atmosphere etc).
It often makes me wonder whether people who are mostly into basketball would appreciate soccer on this basis? Much of what I see in basketball are strategies to create space and opportunities for others. If you’re really into basketball, I’d imagine watching the sport through this prism may help you to “get it”.
I don’t think so. AIUI, typically the player’s contract with the old club is terminated. He gets a newly-negotiated salary under the contract with the new club. But it’s really up to the particular contracts between the player and the clubs - for example, there have been cases in which, in order to get the player to agree to the transfer, the old club has continued to pay him some wages.
It is not uncommon for star players to renegotiate their contracts before they expire - they will typically agree to extend their contracts in exchange for higher wages. The incentive for the club is that otherwise when his contract expires he’s free to go anywhere, and they get nothing for him.
If you’re in Manhattan, go to Nevada Smiths* and watch the game there. Let someone there know that you’re new to the game and would like to learn more about it. You’ll meet new friends and enjoy it much more. Also check out the Free Beer Movement.
Generally a new contract is arranged, although in loan deals the original contract will normally continue and the original club will often pay some or all of the wages.
Occasionally a club gets in trouble and the players will accept a reduction in pay, more often a player is offered an increase in pay in exchange for an extension to the contract, even if the contract still has years left to run.
It’s possible, but there’s a lot of competition to buy players of any real calibre, so a decent transfer can normally be arranged. On the other hand a player can’t be forced to move, so if he is getting paid far more than he’s worth he can just sit and collect for the rest of his contract, like Winston Bogarde at Chelsea, he was there without playing for something like three years just collecting an obscene wage because no-one could be found to take him off their hands.
Just a quick update in case anyone was interested (I always hate when people don’t come back with updates)
I was almost totally joking when I posted this, but after watching about a dozen games since I first posted this thread I think it might be true. Well, not the default part, but the Liverpool fan part. I feel a little weird saying that I am a Liverpool fan, what with them being one of the top teams in the game, but I guess you really can’t help who you end up liking. I am not ready to commit yet, but I am going to follow them and Spur’s over the offseason and see who I land on when the season gets going. I did end up rooting for Liverpool in today’s game, to my own surprise (I recorded it with the intention of rooting for Spurs).
Anyway, I am sure I will have more questions, as things go on. I actually seem to understand the offside rule, which I guess is sort of abnormal, but I still don’t quite follow the on field tactics. I suppose that will come. I picked an unfortunate time of year to start following the game in some ways, but in a lot of others I think I picked a good time. There are a lot of really meaningful matches going on right now so a lot of different teams are getting air time. It has exposed me to a number of teams that I never even hear of before, like the aforementioned Spurs.
Oh and I have talked my wife into going to see a Red Bulls game with me later this summer. We just need to figure out when. Anyone have advice on where the best place to sit is? Centerfeild? One of the corners? Behind a net? I figure we are going to be fairly high up no matter what.
aha! there you go you see. There really isn’t anything you can do about this.
There isn’t any real rhyme or reason for choosing Liverpool over Spurs and it won’t be processed through your rational, decision making centres anyway. You will end up supporting what your gut tells you to, and once you feel the pull you can’t break free.
As it happens, Liverpool are a fascinating team with a rich history. They were part of one of the most incredible comebacks in sporting history. Seek out some coverage of the 2005 European Champions League Final and you’ll see what I mean.
They’ve had glory and tragedy in equal measure and are looking like they might just be in a period of ascendancy with a hero at the helm in Kenny Dalglish.
You have my congratulations and sympathies at the inevitable joys and woes to come.
Actually, Wimbledon are two good examples of this. One and a half, at least. AFC Wimbledon, formed by the bereft supporters of the original club nearly a decade ago and entered in the lowest level of English football, in the Combined Counties Premier League (by my reckoning about nine levels beneath the Premier League), will tomorrow play the first leg of their Conference National Play-off Semi-Final, should they win the play-offs (having finished in the top play-off place during the league season) they will be promoted into the fourth level of English football, back amongst the professional clubs in the League. That would also put them only one level below the original Wimbledon, now MK Dons.
[/QUOTE]
I must bump this thread to observe that the reincarnated AFC Wimbledon have indeed been promoted back to the Football League itself, having narrowly won the play-off final today. That puts them just one tier below their former incarnation, now located in Milton Keynes, who failed in their attempt to get promoted to the second tier.
Interesting to hear the AFC fan reaction - some of them can’t wait to get promoted again so that they can play MK Dons in the league and, they hope, thrash them. Others refuse to recognise the interloper club at all and feel that playing them would give them unwarranted legitimacy.
It’s all so different to US sports, where it seems that teams change city almost at the drop of a hat!
And yet also sounds much like New York Mets fans who used to be Brooklyn Dodgers fans before the Dodgers moved to Los Angeles.
Aside from the game itself, and relegation which is sort of cool in it’s own way*, it is eerie how many similarities there are between EPL and MLB. Lots of similar histories, similar minor league systems, roughly similar contract negotiation histories. It’s neat.
*I am very much looking forward to the results of the relegation matches tomorrow, though I will only be able to watch two of them.
Fair point. But Wimbledon is the only example in modern history of an English club moving to a completely different town. The newly Milton Keynes-based club is derisively nicknamed “Franchise FC” in some quarters.
So far the only things I am clearly following are the passing game and ball handling itself. It’s exciting, for example, to see a well executed cross that results in a good shot on goal, and equally disappointing to see a well executed cross that gets missed. The highs and lows like that are the most interesting part for me.
I am looking to see the other tactical stuff, but I’m not really seeing it yet. Still, I can appreciate tension on its own merits.
What do you mean, cheaper? Do you really think that the only reason duller than dirt sports like baseball haven’t taken off outside America is that the rest of the world can’t afford a bat and ball? And American football? All you need is a pig’s bladder and a few sweaters.
That’s only because soccer isn’t commonly played in America. Conversely, American Football is only played in America. Nowhere else really cares about it. There are, I think, three reasons for this. Firstly, the rest of the world has rugby, and American football is basically just a slower, less rigorous, and more tediously complicated version of rugby. Secondly, an American football game basically consists of about five minutes of actual play and about 55 minutes of players cuddling eachother line ups waiting for something to happen, which non-Americans, who weren’t subjected to any pressure to play American football in high school, find really fucking boring. Thirdly, American football players have to coddle themselves in all that faggy padding and, frankly, the rest of the world just thinks the players look eyerollingly stupid. Lycra leggings and massive shoulder pads aren’t really a good look. That’s why, in the rest of the world, the hot chicks would rather date the guy who runs the AV club before the American football quarterback.
If you watch some of the youtube clips on the 5-0 Barcelona win in their first encounter this year, you can really see how keeping the ball draws defenders in and makes space for other players. This is mainly what good teams do keep the ball until a defense is so far out of shape that they can create an opportunity to score. If you want to get to the point of noticing this, your best bet is watching barca.
Well, for American football, you really need a whole bunch of pads and helmets. That is expensive. Even baseball needs gloves, and you replace baseballs and bats more often than you replace soccer balls. So, I think there is truth that soccer is cheaper.
But, since it is relevant to the thread, I’ll say I think the other reason soccer is the worldwide sport is because it scales with ability (and number of players) so well. Ten-year olds can play a recognizable and interesting game of soccer, using nearly identical rules, tactics, and strategies as the best pro athletes in the world. And eight middle-aged semi-sedentary guys can play four-on-four soccer that’s recognizably a very close relative of a full-team pro game. So NAF1138 can watch a Champion’s League game and see the same tactics and plays as his local middle school team is using, or even a pick-up game at the park. That’s one of the reason why soccer is worldwide popular.