re: Matchday 1/26

quote:

---

What was the change in the rule? And how did it make things more attacking?

---

The rule change changed what it meant to be offside. You could be in an offside position as long as the ball wasn't played to you while in that position. So a striker could stay offside, have a ball played over the top to the winger, and the play wouldn't be ruled offside since the player in an offside position wasn't directly involved in the play. But once the ball was played for the winger to run onto, the striker was in an onside position and was behind the CB's, thus keeping an offside trap extremely problematic.

Read this: LINK

Teams don't run the trap like they once did, and instead must defend as a unit, relying on the covering player to catch a runner offside by stepping up individually, rather than as a unit.

What this did to midfield's was interesting. Concurrently with the change, you began to see teams play a deep 4-3-3, where the team held a deep line, and relied on a player in front of the defense to pressure the ball carrier, enabling the defending team to hold the deep line, and choke out space.

What the offside rule did was forced defenders to defend, instead of relying on simply stepping up. This also created much more space on the field, as teams couldn't simply hold a high line playing the offside trap without having pressure on the ball. With more space on the field, three man midfields became the default option, with teams sacrificing a striker instead of adding a CB and removing the dedicated wingers, as the focus shifted to defending as a unit to defending from the front, as a team. Thus you see teams like Barcelona succeed, as their smaller players finally have more space, and are afforded defensive protection by a player dedicated to it. Teams like Juventus who relied on athleticism and power found this era difficult to cope with, and the shift in world football was for smaller, more fluid midfields. Generally the field became larger, so teams started to understand the field in four zones instead of three, hence you move from the 4-4-2 to the 4-2-3-1 or the 4-1-4-1.

Of course there were exceptions. Chelsea under Ancelotti seemed to combine pace, power, technique and directness in a novel way, reminiscent of the Arsenal teams of the early noughties. Munich last year seemingly made the most perfect hybrid of a technical team that was fast, powerful, and could hold possession while keeping defensive solidity. Brazil also has the potential to have the requisite technique and athleticism to absolutely demolish smaller sides, who will always compete because of their sheer ability on the ball.

This is my view, though it is in no way comprehensive.

quote:

---

If Ancelotti was at the helm of this Chelsea team, they'd be on top of the table in scoring.

---

No way we'd have more goals than City. You do realize we don't have a legit striker on the squad right?

quote:

---

No way we'd have more goals than City. You do realize we don't have a legit striker on the squad right?

---

While true, I'm assuming here that Mata and Lukaku wouldn't have left.

Ok thanks I appreciate the insights.