the answer is in the system
ignoring the playmaker, the attacking mid, i think basically there are two kinds of attack. one is a one-man attack, look at 4-3-3, 3-4-3, 4-5-1, and then there is the strike partnership 4-4-2, 4-2-4. you either play with one in the centre or two in the centre.
my preferred system is always the lone man in the centre.
people always tell me they dun believe i "have no club", or that i "have never had a club". i dunno why they believe this way. but i have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to them. but maybe now i can.
you see, my preferred formations are 4-3-3 and 3-4-3. and these formations are about the lone striker, never mind tt there are two support wingers. but the striker is alone. the mentality to play in it, the mentality required to believe in it is different.
of course i always stress the importance of understanding within a team, but i think the difference with the strike partnership is that alot is actually dependent on the understanding between the two strikers. it is perhaps more important than the understanding between the other members of the team. with a lone striker, anyone can link up with him to score, but when you field two strikers, how they work together will be the crucial factor.
maybe it's because i have yet to come across such a fearsome strike partnership that i just don't believe it can be better than a lone striker, like how sometimes we need to be shown it in order to be able to believe in it. maybe it's because i believe in maximising your potential sources of goals, read: flexibility, any style, anyhow. and even if there is some form of understanding, for example wif hq, i still believe it's more like the attacking mid with the striker, not two strikers.
so maybe that's why i find it hard to relate to an understanding between two people side by side, close together, because the systems which i favour are not like this.
the mentality is jsut different, i guess. or maybe to be more precise, it's the degree of necessity. i believe one can do the job; you dont really have to need two. i think i need to be shown that you need two. or maybe because i am still looking for that strike partner to convince me that two is better than one. but seriously, i think even if that's the case, i will still believe in 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 on the real pitch/court.
it's abstract, but i think it reflects the mentality. the kind of you-can-go-alone attitude.
i have yet to be humbled by my solitude. ironically, maybe it is because of the ball.
so now you have got your answer.
my preferred system is always the lone man in the centre.
people always tell me they dun believe i "have no club", or that i "have never had a club". i dunno why they believe this way. but i have never been able to give a satisfactory answer to them. but maybe now i can.
you see, my preferred formations are 4-3-3 and 3-4-3. and these formations are about the lone striker, never mind tt there are two support wingers. but the striker is alone. the mentality to play in it, the mentality required to believe in it is different.
of course i always stress the importance of understanding within a team, but i think the difference with the strike partnership is that alot is actually dependent on the understanding between the two strikers. it is perhaps more important than the understanding between the other members of the team. with a lone striker, anyone can link up with him to score, but when you field two strikers, how they work together will be the crucial factor.
maybe it's because i have yet to come across such a fearsome strike partnership that i just don't believe it can be better than a lone striker, like how sometimes we need to be shown it in order to be able to believe in it. maybe it's because i believe in maximising your potential sources of goals, read: flexibility, any style, anyhow. and even if there is some form of understanding, for example wif hq, i still believe it's more like the attacking mid with the striker, not two strikers.
so maybe that's why i find it hard to relate to an understanding between two people side by side, close together, because the systems which i favour are not like this.
the mentality is jsut different, i guess. or maybe to be more precise, it's the degree of necessity. i believe one can do the job; you dont really have to need two. i think i need to be shown that you need two. or maybe because i am still looking for that strike partner to convince me that two is better than one. but seriously, i think even if that's the case, i will still believe in 4-3-3 or 3-4-3 on the real pitch/court.
it's abstract, but i think it reflects the mentality. the kind of you-can-go-alone attitude.
i have yet to be humbled by my solitude. ironically, maybe it is because of the ball.
so now you have got your answer.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home