Tactics

It's a good way to play, I used to use it as a training tool (and still do I guess) to teach people how they should play within the confines of their formation. You have to take them out of their structure before they know what they can get away with within it. Adaptability is essential within an overall structure. But if you use the tactic against a team that knows what they're doing, you'll get ripped apart, there's just a little too much chaos for gaps not to open up and a good team will punish you for that.

Also, I highly disagree with the concept of every player being an allround player. Jack of all trades is master of none. I am a crap defender. But the reason I'm so bad at it is because my reflexes and instincts as an offensive player are so well honed. If I became a better back, I'd be a worse forward.

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.
www.BentFishDesign.com

Yes in the first years we were ript apart. Thats why i did not exactly tell you the function for the 6 player. and the tacticks in the tacticks.

But as long as there is no help from the top. We rip every one appart...including some off the top sub-toppers. And that with a lazy team that plays for fun and not for winning.

And i disagree with you.(funny)
Because we learn our players to be alround with a speciality. we can leave the zone play. And a weak point the first time is away the second time.
And in position play with zones the weakpoint still is there. Because the same players are still in the same possitions. And after a few minuts you now al the weak point off the possitions from the opponent. And by our play the weakpoints are chanching all the time.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

But really this is not compleet the way we play exacly. Is a basic for training. And after that we look to the players an how they play to look how to play exacly. We dont use zones. But we use specialities. A variant from the storie i told...
But sharing? from the top down. NO that manual i told before was really the last thing.

And then it compleet normal you see different styles. I told a basic training style.
Our real tactick is different in many ways. But the basic the same.(we perfected something that workt for us)
And we now and we did play with it against top-rank teams. And they did not win very easy. but the basic stays like i told. After that if done good you/everybody can really now what its good for them. But dont tell positionplay is the only way. Its one way and not my/our way. And maybe its chanches. The play from tilburg chanches all the time. When we learn something we chanche the game to lett it fitt in the game. But zone/position play in the netherlands done like it is in the sub-top is easy to break with this form off tactick. without any sweat.(how we do that exacly i dont tell. that our tactick secret)



But now we have a discussion and everybody can learn.... :twisted:
Sorry but sometimes its the only way to start a discussion to get to now something.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

All play is positional play. The only thing that changes is who fills the position and when. The more structured you are the less likely you are to have confusion when things get tough and you're under pressure.

In every formation, no matter how zonal or static or whatever, intelligent players will perform a range of actions to perform both their strict roles within the formation and to cover their team-mates when things go wrong. How often is it a forward that clears the goal tray in a desperate act of defence? Not giving people a set 'position' simply frees them up to fill the best position on the bottom at the time. This works well against an unskilled opposition or teams that have a very predictable game pattern. Against teams with better puck skills or a formation capable of moving the puck in a range of directions at pace it tends to fall over as it's much harder to cover the open options.

That being said, any formation will work if everybody knows it and plays to the same plan.


Regards specialists versus allround players. Yes, it's nice to have people able to move around and do any job.
But if you put 6 guys in the water who know the skills of their position to 90% and all other positions 60%, versus 6 guys who know all positions 75%, you're going to get your ass kicked. When the specialists cover each other they'll do a shabby job of it, but they won't need to do a lot of covering because they're much better at the role they're specialised in than the opposition is.

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.
www.BentFishDesign.com

Yes indeed all play is positional play. But positional play don’t say that its necessary zone play. And zone play can be to structured to be effective anymore. To a point that the formation off that zone positional play is as strong as the weakest player/point from that zone positional play.( Not all players are specialist.)

When you find the weak point. Or now it already from the games you played before against that team. You can defied them to easy. The weak point does not chance in zone position play. Also because you don’t train all round players you can not place that weak point to another position.(that is really a strong point for training all round players.)

When you step away from that zone play. A weak point is never on the same spot as before in a play. That is the strong point from non zone position play. And the team is then as strong not as the weakest player but as strong as the team work together.because the weakpoint every time is on another position.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

so would you say sven that the reason your formation works (if it does) is that your team has been playing together a long time? you have no set formation as such but you all know each player very well and you can work together as a team because of that?

that is the general line teams use when they have no formation... "oh, we all know each other so well"

...is that the case for your team sven?

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

Last year we put the 2 teams togehetter. But keep the non zone style for playing. But non zone style formation dont mean that there is no formation/tactic. only a different one in style as you use. And we train our style/tactick also.

So its not the case for use liam. We have a formation/tactic. And we now our own players.
It is really a shame iff you will say that you dont now your own team players. (do you?)
in every tactic and formation in any style you must now your own players and there strong and weak points.

__________________
When you are good, then you are not bad..

i'm just trying to figure out exactly what you're describing sven... well, you're not really describing it are you, you are saying you have a different way of doing things but not really saying what it is.

personally, i think that if you have a system in uwh it must be a form of zone system to be effective. how players cycle about or whatever makes you think it's different to the "normal" way of doing things, which no-one has defined anyway, it's probably still a zone system when you boil it down.

i'm no expert on other sports but i have a vague understanding of some.

my understanding is there are basically 2 ways of arranging a group of players in a team game which is focussed on a moving object like a ball/puck...

either a ZONE formation or a MAN to MAN formation. (if theres another method, could someone else describe it?)

pretty much all team sports use a bit of both... a general zone formation for positioning theory and the big picture of the area to be covered or marked, and man-to-man sub-formations that generally come into effect in localised areas of the play

for example in football a zone formation usually lays out the basic areas of the field that each player generally covers, while in smaller context such as the area immediately around the man in possession and on a corner kick etc each player must be individually marked

ditto in rugby, where the backs cover areas of the field to return kicks, the blindside/opensides cover each side of the scrum, and when the ball is passed down the backline the players must mark up man-to-man, ditto in lineouts

hockey is pretty much the same, with a general zone formation to assign different roles and areas of a formation to different players, with the occasional man-to-man situation, for example the widest players in opposing formations marking each other, or backs taking a forward each to defend when the opposition has a break in space on attack

american sports tend to play far more man-on-man... grid-iron is often based heavily on man-on-man marking, ditto ice hockey, same with basketball, although basketball sometimes employs zone defenses and teams will occasionally switch between man-to-man and zone styles even in the same game.

in general though, the zone type formation seems far better suited to hockey for a couple of reasons. one reason is that there are no offside rules to limit players movements... there is no advantage line for players to line up on, no easy way of tracking the movements of your opposite number, plus its often difficult to make your way through the play due to the mess of bodies and actually identifying your opposite number is a nightmare at the best of times, especially if you are playing a team you've never played before.

also we can't communicate with each other, unlike every other team sport. we can't even see the guys on our own team let alone what the opposition is doing half the time.

in the end you can have two formations, both called "3-2-1" for convenience, which are both totally different because the way the players and different positions interact with and support each other is completely different... the teams might have completely different aims in the way they want to play and result in hugely different game styles.

i don't even know why we're arguing about this. i've just aggravated my RSI for nothing. blandly labelling the practice of describing a formation in the traditional manner "x-x-x" as static, old and weak just seems pretty un-informed to me. in doing so you are making assumptions and judgements about any given teams gameplan, aims, style and methods that you know absolutely nothing about.

have i just flogged a dead horse or am i completely wrong...?

__________________
it's more polite on the grating than on the subs bench

i dont know any of this stuff. if you want to score you need to attack, and if you are defendig your own goal. you need to defend. when?, how ? it depends on a situtation.

I think the best strategy is to have no strategy. in that case you are unpredictible and the oposition dont know how you are playing. of course you can play like this only if you know your teammates very well and i you know how your teammate will react in different situtations.

3-3, 2-2-2, 3-2-1, 2-3-1, 1-3-2 ? i think this is lots of crap. just becouse your play is limited by static positions.
On the other hand zone playing is more free. when attacking/defending in midfield, you focus on free, empty zones, when attacking/defending in front of a goal zones are not important, because the only zone you need to defend/attack is own/opponents goal.
as i said , i dont know any of this stuff, but i would like to hear a comment on this.

all the best Marko

__________________
kurac pička govno sisa RASMC
http://www.phljubljana.si/pictures/razno/uwh_gloves.htm
http://forum.phljubljana.si

When people say 'zones' they're referring to areas in relation to their teammates and the opposition, not areas of the pool floor. I.e. in front of your own goal, all six players are defending the goal, but each position has a semi-specific role in that defence.

Being unpredictable is all well and good, but it fails to take into consideration a major point of most teams.

They don't care how you play.

Most of them don't even consider it. They have their own formation, their own goals, their own things that they're trying to achieve. In which case your unpredictability means nothing, as they weren't trying to predict you in the first case. Then, the only people being unpredictable affects is your team-mates, who are less likely to know what is about to happen, less likely to be in a position to help you and less likely to know where the puck is going to go when the opposition stops you.

__________________
It's not whether you win or lose - but whether I win or lose.
www.BentFishDesign.com