TPL
Big Bang Chula Utd 1-1 Chonburi
Nonthaburi Youth Centre Stadium
Attendance: 1,593
Saturday 18th June, 2016
Match report
by Peter Reeves
I am usually amazed when I watch Thai football. Not because of the quality of what I’m watching but in the vast majority of cases that the clubs are even playing at all. The TV cameras pan round tiny, ramshackle grounds that are really athletics venues, virtually empty. How do these clubs survive? It certainly isn’t by their own creativity, football know-how and means.
So I settle back with a cup of tea as always with Chonburi, not knowing exactly what to expect. 4-3-3 formation we are told by the TV. In their dreams is my immediate reaction. Just because players stand there at kick off that doesn’t mean you can play it. So poor BBCU rooted to the bottom with hardly a point at the half way stage of the season against Chonburi. Shouldn’t really be much of a contest. I hadn’t even finished putting sugar in the cup and stirring my ‘brew’ when I just stared at my TV in disbelief. I had to wait until the replays to convince myself of what I had just seen.
A harmless ball down the left side of the box. Dos Santos shepherding it out of play, the BBCU striker making a nuisance of himself but not really doing anything. Out comes the goalkeeper, Dos Santos touches it neatly round him and the striker strolls on and rolls the ball into the empty net. Thanks very much. If there was a problem Dos Santos could have found row Z and what was he thinking passing back to the goalkeeper in that situation in the first place? He is the stalwart of this team so I will let him off any undue criticism and funny comments. He has earned the team points on his own at times, he’s allowed one almighty howler, but the goalkeeper didn’t exactly cover himself with glory either.
Oh well only 2 minutes gone, plenty of time to make amends. It took 6 minutes to get a strike on goal at the other end. Rodrigo from 25 yards. A scuffed shot that the goalkeeper wondered if it would ever reach him. Why? Why is he 25 yards out and shooting, not that he can, when there are other players he can bring into the attack? So ten minutes have passed. Is the formation stable and working? Nope. Full backs, especially down the right, missing, central striker all over the place.
At one point there was a brief BBCU attack down the middle and there were 5 Chonburi players round the player with the ball. No one wider, no defensive shape, all just bunched in the middle. 4-3-3? Course it is. More like the junior school playground with a tennis ball. After half an hour you could see why BBCU are in trouble. They offer no threat at all and rely on hopeful balls up to a lone striker looking for scraps who is usually all by himself. Still Chonburi were making heavy weather of it. Lots of possession. 90% of it pointless.
On 25 minutes it could have been 2-0 as the Sharks goalkeeper touched a goal bound header on to the bar. There was nothing to suggest that Chonburi had the faintest idea of how to score. Yes, they had the ball most of the time but they might as well have just sat on it. As half time approached it was noticeable that frustration was creeping in. Silly challenges being made that allowed an at times over zealous ref to give BBCU a free kick and a rest as the usual play acting played out. Surely during the break the ‘happy’ Therdsak would sort them out.
Second half commenced the same, but after 56 minutes Sharks got lucky. A hopeful ball into the box was neatly laid back by a defender straight into the path of Leandro 4 yards out. Couldn’t really miss. That was about it. They were never going to get another one, despite having the ball most of the time, not with that strike force, lack of creativity and approach play. And all the time Therdsak sits in his dugout with that bemused expression on his face that says “I haven’t got a clue”.
Maybe he has, maybe he hasn’t, I don’t know him, but he could at least show a bit of bloody enthusiasm and encouragement to a team clearly just not doing it. But as I have said here before, the ‘atmosphere’ of a club is usually generated by its management. If the management are disinterested and don’t know how to solve problems that permeates down the club through coaches, players and finally supporters. The end result a total feeling of doom and gloom which is about where we are.
I think Sharks fans, loyal and vociferous as they are, have to recognize that there once proud team and club are fast disappearing into becoming a non-entity and also-rans. Are the fans, the customers, remember them- they are the ones paying the wages- happy with 11th in the table? I doubt it. Someone is responsible. Who? What will it take to change it? I suspect someone with a steamer trunk full of cash and some know-how, to rip it all down and start again. That is another article. It could start on the pitch though if you had a coach brave and enthusiastic enough to take it on, that fires up the crowd and his players, lays down the playing discipline law, gets rid of the players more concerned with their haircuts and those that are just poor or can’t or won’t hold position, who gets a settled playing style and formation and ‘coaches’ his team not just picks it, and starts to get a few performances.
So as a closing remark let’s just have a look at formations. I would like someone with more knowledge than I to explain why we get all these formation changes from one match to the next. I try to watch 2 or 3 games every week here and have now started keeping notes on what formation teams start with. It is rarely the same as the previous time I watch them. Of course in some cases there are no formations at all and it resembles not much more than a playground kickabout, but you would think the coach knows his players strengths and plays a settled system to make the best use of what he has available. Excuse my naivety, but in the absence of world class players in every position I thought that’s what good coaches did. Played a settled formation and a system suited to what he has to work with. Chonburi are notorious for this, but most are guilty.
Without mentioning names I watched a top team a couple of weeks ago line up in a very attacking formation away from home. Did very well. I saw them play in the cup during the week, different formation. Not so good. If you have a settled formation then every player, every match is learning his job. Players become aware of what is going on, they become familiar with it, confident, know what team mates are going to do, where they are likely to be if needed. If it is constantly changing then how can players really learn and apply that knowledge in match situations?
A great (not good) coach once said that “no I don’t change the basic formation of the team. I let the opposition worry about us.” Maybe some coaches see a potential threat and change the formation to deal with it, but in Thailand there is no Messi or Robben. No one capable of that level of influence. Maybe occasionally there is a striker or midfield player you need to keep a close eye on but that hardly justifies a complete formation change.
A few of the world’s great clubs have a ‘set in stone’ approach where from 8 years to the first team they are schooled in a particular formation and taught to apply it. That is the club’s playing style and identity. To give an example I am very familiar with, at Ajax 4-3-3 has become a Dutch ‘responsibility’. Yes, the midfield will rotate, even defenders and midfielders or midfielders and attackers rotate positions, adopt different shapes of 3 in the middle of the field, yes the wingers might come inside a little at times, yes they close up when they are not in possession and make the distances between the players greater when they have the ball but there is always 4 at the back, 3 in midfield and 3 up top.
The learning process starts very young and carries on. If a player steps up to a higher level team or from A1 to the first team due to injury, suspension or whatever, he know his job and just slots into a system he already knows. That hasn’t happened here, mainly because those that could make an attempt won’t be here long enough to see it through, and the Thai’s have never seen it and don’t know how, despite their claims of ‘we know what we are doing’. Maybe coaches in Thailand feel they haven’t got the quality of player to play the system they want. But that still doesn’t explain the formation changes from one match to the next.
It seems every time Chonburi take the field they line up with a different formation. A formation that has usually disintegrated after 10 minutes. That will not provide continuity, develop a settled team who are ‘aware’, provide a consistent performance level. A couple of months ago I watched them play a midweek match against Suphanburi. They played a good formation, played well, but lost. But the performance was good and solid and they were unlucky to lose. Three days later another home match, totally different formation. A poor performance and a 2-2 draw. Surely, if the team has performed well, even though they have lost on the night, there is no reason whatsoever to change the formation. It just worked well. Why change it?
I’d like Therdsak to explain to me why. I would be interested to learn.
No comments:
Post a Comment