Has the tiki-taka ‘tiny turbo player’ era come to an end? | Nope!
- Thread starter Fortitude
- Start date
It's not either a question of size, it's a question of characteristics and a quote of strength no matter size (this last aspect specially important if they are hunted and want to avoid too many injuries, like for instance happened to Aimar and Pastore, skillfull as hell, one tall the other a midget, both lightweight).
Following with little skillful fellas: Aimar, Banega, Silva, Verratti, De la Peña, etc etc even fecking Ibagaza or players that acted like enganches or mediapuntas, were stocky yet small: Messi, Tevez, Rooney, Aguero, etc...at the same time, Busquets, Valeron, Zidane, Redondo, Riquelme, Rikjaard, Kross, Xabi Alonso, all tall or mid size yet strong BUT MOSTLY like the "midgets", very intelligent and skillful. In fact one of the biggest midfielders ever was Lothar, just 1.72 of pure talent and power and also in these last years, regarding players more focus in the defensive side, have examples in midgets hunting entire midfields with no pause like Kante, Mascherano and Gatusso.
Messi used to eat pizzas all the time and was best in the world, Usain Bolt ate chicken nuggets and was fastest. Zidane used to smoke, whereas Stanley Matthews in the 1940s and 1950s was a tee-totaller. Paul McGrath once marked Alan Shearer out of a game when he was drunk apparently, this was in the mid-1990s.
In athletics, Bob Beamon jumped longer in 1968 than people do now and if you look at a lot of athletics records, the top 5 and top 10 will feature runs from the 1980s and 1990s. Pele could run 100m in under 11 seconds, which would probably make him among the fastest in the United squad today, never mind technique. So yeah people wildly overrate constant progression imo, it varies considerably. The 1980s and 90s were full of steroids and EPO too, if you put a team from today against 90s Juventus, they may well be outrun or least matched because one team isn't playing fair.
I also have a theory that footballers play less football today than they did 50 years ago because they just go to regimented training for a few hours and go home, whereas players from 50 years ago would do it for fun all day every day, especially in poor neighbourhoods, there was nothing else to do - no video games or other distractions.
There will always be exceptions, but by-and-large players today are fitter, stronger and faster, the game is much quicker and more physically demanding, there were plenty of things to do in days gone by, they were just different, snooker halls were a favourite in the old days for example, nowadays players have the table in their house!
Possibly. I knew fans of the EPL as well but I found English football in the 00s difficult to watch because it was spectacle over effectiveness. Long shots when other players were better positioned, tackles when it would have been more intelligent to contain your opponent and stay on your feed, etc. It reminded me of that one team mate who always shot from bad positions and when he finally scored a screamer, you cheered but there as always that second thought "oh feck, now he's going to attempt these shots even more often than before"
Absolutely but I wanted to see Alonso style football for a very long time in Leverkusen. Already was a huge fan of Peter Bosz when he was our coach because he tried something similar. I can also watch hours of Barcelona's tiki taka play on YouTube. Positional play, simple passes and timing are the essence of football and it's by far the best watch if a team executes these things on a high level. Especially since it brings them into more situation in which the magicians can show what they're capable of.
Another thing that's changed since the 00s, just looking at the game vs Everton just now, It's completely normal for all our outfield players to be camped in their half.
15 years ago, that was still something mainly associated with Dutch total football.
15 years ago, that was still something mainly associated with Dutch total football.
Perhaps but that's one of the reasons why the PL became the behmoth it is, people wanted the spectacle, they wanted the excitement
It all started to fall apart when men were forced to wear those digital blue tooth enabled sports bras. All because players couldn't cope with hobbit football.
Yeah, also the vast majority of games seemed to have close to 50-50 possession with 60+ being seen as overly possession-based or extremely dominant. In recent years you get a lot more 70+ possession games, even 80%, where one team just camps and the other team constantly has the ball, which isn't really a great spectacle outside of say an important knockout game.
Define "tiny"
Pedri and Gavi are like 5'8
Vitinha the same, Joao Neves, Mainoo...
Pedri and Gavi are like 5'8
Vitinha the same, Joao Neves, Mainoo...
The irony here is that tiki-taka worked at a time when European football had been dominated by compact, physical, counter-attacking football. The midfielders of the 2000s were mostly big athletic machines who were excellent pressers, ball-winners and thrived off the ball and in transitions. The top English clubs mostly played the same game model of a compact, counter-based 4-3-3 / 4-5-1 with a hard-working attack and a hard-working midfield. Yet tiki-taka came in and cut it right open because the technical quality was so high. And it only succeeded in its purest form because there was such a unique concentration of ball-retaining talent - all hitting their peaks at broadly the same time - in one club and in one country.
Since then the two big shifts in the game have been little to do with physical evolution and more to do with tactical principles. The first was possession, because tiki-taka was so successful and changed the game in an almost unprecedented way. The second was moving the defensive line higher. What drove both changes was the recognition that the 2000s game model was no longer effective at reaching the golden 90+ point mark needed to win the major leagues. It was the appreciation that more attacking football was the most efficient way to win domestic games.
Forgive my ignorance, but couldn't this largely be attributed to the rampant doping that took place during this time period (especially in track and field)?
I like to think that players were shorter back in the day because their feet kept getting into these pesky mole holes during the measurements.
Some of it yes, particularly on the women's side. Others no.
For athletics there is no linear improvement in performance. It largely levelled out about 30 years ago. Anything since then has been more to do with technology - faster spikes and faster tracks - than anything else.
Different sports have progressed at different rates. Athletics chewed off most of the fat in the 1950s to the 1970s. Football for me was a bit behind that but the improvement curve varied in different clubs and countries.
Well not really. Which teams had really athletic midfields? Some had powerful ones, but athletic? I cannot think of any.
Alright Tony Pulis, you've had your days. Time to sit back, relax and enjoy your retirement.
I wouldn't attribute that to the playstyle. The EPL simply was the most successful in commercializing itself due to the ownership structure, the willingness to pay by its domestic audience (pay TV was always much cheaper in Europe if I'm not mistaken), the language and the very good marketing. Most people find entertaining what they grew up with.
I think you're massively underestimating the importance of 'data driven' training regimes. The GPS vests that measure player performance means that we're not having a 'players probably run more' discussion in the pub. The data (and it's only since 2015 that players have been allowed to wear the vests that track the data) shows this to be the case.
Mainoo is 6ft with shoes on.
It's also a lot easier to put together a strong athletic midfield than a midfield comprised of Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Busquets.
Only if he borrowed them from Ron DeSanctimonious
Considering how much La Liga teams have beaten English teams in European competition, its seemingly nuts not to 'rate' La Liga legends. England's inability to develop technical midfielders is probably why they haven't won anything in the last 30 years.
This is what I'm talking about.
England's inability to develop technical midfielders comes as a result of the teams of the league they play twice every week.
The C Ronaldo who grew up at United playing against Newcastle wouldnt have developed the same as a young C Ronaldo who developed at Barcelona playing against Real Betis.
Ronaldo's game turned much more physical than technical because he played in a much more physical league and he had to incorporate things like strength and aerial ability to his game than focusing purely on technical ability in La Liga. Barcelona would have made Ronaldo focus much more on technical ability.
We see it with Garnacho now. The guy is tripping all over the place because he is half the size of every fullback or CB in the league. What does he have to add? Some people will say Technicality or some people will say firmness and physicality to stop tripping up every time the opposition touches the back of his shirt. Garnacho at Barca wouldnt need to focus on bulking up as much and purely focus on improving his technical ability.
Another example is C Ronaldo & Bale Vs Neymar & Messi.
Who were the more direct and physical pair? Where did they grow up and what league did they play in? Whilst on the other side Neymar and Messi came from South America in to Barcelona and focused purely on their technical game only.
You’re just going round in circles to deflect from the actual initial discussion. You implied space is restricted now more than ever.
That’s not true. Simple as that. For me it’s not even debatable.
Out of the the five best defensive records in the prem history only one team (Liverpool 18/19) make the top five in recent time since United in 08/09.
And the following season United kept 14 (yes fourteen clean sheets in a row) but that wasn’t down to any defensive organisation right?
Defensive lines were far deeper amongst the top clubs in that era than they are now. Full backs were also a lot more streetwise defensively than they are now.
You also had better individual centre halves due to defending being less about ball playing and more about defending. How many goals do we see now from errors from passing out from the back compared to ten-fifteen years ago?
You had managers like Rafa and Mourinho who obsessed over compactness in defence and not giving up space behind. Something as you’ve attested to Queiroz implemented at United.
So how you’re faced with all these facts and make the argument you’re making is completely illogical. I dunno maybe you’re confusing a high press and restricting space in a teams half as opposed to space in behind?
As for the bolded, are you aware football exists outside two/three clubs?
Ask any Liverpool fan about when they look their best and they’ll tell you it’s still hitting the counter press and playing direct.
Two of the best performing sides in the league this season are Forest and Bournemouth who haven’t followed suit in the Pep disciple possession craving. Pure direct counter football.
Inter are the best team in Italy and got to a cl final. They are less possession and more counter based.
Last edited:
The opponents have nothing to do with it. Spanish teams beat English teams in international competitions more often than not. Technicality and football IQ beat athleticism pretty consistently in football. English teams decided to go with athleticism anyway out of idealism not pragmatism. It's nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy that players have to adapt to the physicality of the league and not the other way round.
If you set up in a way that doesn't send your players in one on one duels with physically stronger opponents all the time, small technical players with a low center of gravity and high football IQ will work wonders in the EPL just like everywhere else, see Bernardo Silva, David Silva and Gündogan for instance.
Yeah it’s definitely very overstated. I doubt much has changed in twenty years except teams probably now have larger ‘teams’ behind them for dietary and nutrition etc. And also data collection.
I said on this forum a few months back it doesn’t matter if Rashford has 25 fitness coaches and sports science staff behind him, it won’t make him run anymore than he does.
Footballers also still drink despite what people pretend. It’s obviously not what it was in the 80’s, early 90’s but as far back as Wenger in the late 90’s drinking culture left the Prem rather abruptly in the following decade . Players, coaches of that era have said that as much.
It’s also not a one fits all approach, take Rooney who you mentioned for example.
It’s widely recognised he wasn’t the best at looking after himself off the pitch, yet his workrate and fitness levels piss all over everyone in our squad bar Bruno and Dalot.
Players run more than they did ten years ago, but is that down to food, diet, or them wearing a fancy vest? No.
It’s predominantly down to tactical changes. With coaches like Pep, Klopp, Simeone, Conte influencing everything below. The systems these guys used required exceptional running ability.
But it will still always boil down to a players natural athleticism, mentality, workrate etc. these things don’t get affected by fancy vests or you giving them their data everyday in training.
A better diet and training regime will maximise the running ability of players who have that in them. I’m not sure what it’ll do for players like Rashford, Casemiro etc.
Tiki crappa is boring, non entertaining, and dull. And if you like it purely because of Pep imagine relying your whole football life on someone who's clearly unstable.
Yes partly so but also that’s why when people say that football was easier back in the day, imagine being a number 10 in 1980s or 90s Serie A against potentially roided up centre backs kicking you every few minutes. The stereotype of football from the past is everyone drinking and smoking and in terrible shape, whereas the other side of it is that you could be coming up against an opposition that artificially juiced up to an illegal extent - that’s harder rather than easier.
Pre 2010 I saw only occasional Premier League, Estonian League & like World Cups/Euros. So I don't have this child era naivety of football being somehow better then.
After 2010 when I got to see everything and started religiously watch it and got into Football Manager & all the tactical analysis - I fell in love with it.
So prime Barcelona/Spain or Bayern/Dortmund or Mourinho/Counter attacks all had it's place for me.
I love the playing out from the back and using Goalkeeper as playmakers etc. I absolutely adore tactically outplaying your opponent.
After 2010 when I got to see everything and started religiously watch it and got into Football Manager & all the tactical analysis - I fell in love with it.
So prime Barcelona/Spain or Bayern/Dortmund or Mourinho/Counter attacks all had it's place for me.
I love the playing out from the back and using Goalkeeper as playmakers etc. I absolutely adore tactically outplaying your opponent.
They drew at us 2-2 and then lost 2-1 at the Emirates in 2 years under Pep. The away game they needed an insane red card vs RVP to go through and even then Bendtner missed a tap in the 88th minute. In Europe I still feel they underachieved. Their away record everywhere not Madrid in the CL was pretty poor.
But generally yes these are one off games and over a season we'd have no chance against them. I totally agree with the rest of your post.
Good theory, though I would imagine this is counter balanced by the amount of organized under age football that in place now. Someone can join United at 6 years old and be playing weekly competitive organized football for 10/15 years before touching the first team. One might say that has contributed to the robots we see on the pitch now Vs the artists we used to see before.
In one game, yes, and if I recall - the game they drew 2-2 was the one Ibrahimovic scored twice in (the ‘Jack Wilshere game’) which instantly tells me that that is not the iteration of Barcelona I am referring to, I don’t think that was them at their perfect best. But there were games where they would put 4 past you, and I’m sure Messi bagger at least one hat-trick against you guys, if not 4 goals even in one game.
I remember Bayern going to the Nou Camp and I think being 4 or 5 down by half time ine year. Real Madrid getting thrashed on a few occasions. And a United team that is still so fabled by our fans (I frequently see reference to that team online as our best ever) and they were levels above us, particularly in the 2011 final.
I agree with you though that given how much better than everyone else they obviously were, they probably should have gone on a Madrid-like CL winning run. But what a team though. There is no way other top teams are going down the physicality road because they prefer it, in my opinion. Barcelona’s approach was a beautiful gamble as it literally only works if the team is perfect, which it was. A team like Liverpool doesn’t require perfection in the same way.
I don't really get the notion that it only work with the perfect players for the system. Pep's Barca is clearly the standout team in the last two decades for me as well but there were many great teams that had similarly physically weak midfields. Barca's is probably unique in the sense that they had no athleticism in there at all but there are many examples of teams pairing up two very technical midfielders with a physically strong one:
Real Madrid: Kroos, Modric, Casemiro
Bayern: Usually played two slow and technical midfielders (Kroos/Schweinsiger/Thiago/Alonso/Kimmich) with somebody that brought a physical component to the game (Martinez, Vidal, Goretzka)
Barcelona: During MSN times, they usuall played declining Iniesta and Rakitic before Busquets
City: Fernandinho behind David Silva and de Bruyne. Bernardo Silva and Gündogan, too.
Liverpool is probably the only great team since Pep's Barca that didn't field a predominantly technical midfield. Maybe Juve in the early 10s as well with Pirlo, Marchisio/Vidal and Pogba but a) they were also very technical and b) the team reached many UCL finals but wasn't really as good as the other mentions, IMO.
The 2-2 should’ve finished about 2-7, was one of the most one sided draws I’ve ever seen
We came down from 2-0 with a pretty average team. And then beat them the following year.
My point is they were poor away from home and other results proved this. While they'd dominate against any team over 38 games, they were still 'off' playing away against the top clubs at the time in the CL. Aside from, again, Madrid.
No it isn't. Ice Hockey.
Who cares about their away record when they did enough at home most times to go through? They won 2 CLs in 4 years
That side got stopped only by a brilliant performance from Inter, and the jammiest of performances from Chelsea.
Granted the RVP red card was a bad decision, but it seems to have developed a mythology of its own because Messi had a clear penalty denied and a goal wrongly chalked off for offside in the same tie.
Who are the best la liga goalkeepers over the last 20 years?
I can't think of many that would get in to an all time XI of goalkeepers
Wheb we compare them to the best PL, Bundesliga and Serie A GK's there seems to be a night and day difference.
I can't think of many that would get in to an all time XI of goalkeepers
Wheb we compare them to the best PL, Bundesliga and Serie A GK's there seems to be a night and day difference.
.........
.....the starting gk at Madrid, Barcelona and Atletico, right now, are Courtois, Ter Stegen and Oblak...