{"id":8247,"date":"2017-03-02T06:30:52","date_gmt":"2017-03-02T06:30:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.thehighertempopress.com\/?p=8247"},"modified":"2017-03-02T08:12:28","modified_gmt":"2017-03-02T08:12:28","slug":"cutting-edge-tactical-thinking-done-peterborough-way","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thehighertempopress.com\/2017\/03\/cutting-edge-tactical-thinking-done-peterborough-way\/","title":{"rendered":"Cutting-edge tactical thinking done the Peterborough way"},"content":{"rendered":"

I live in East Anglia. I don’t support any\u00a0teams in the region, but I often go to watch Peterborough Utd, Cambridge Utd, and Stevenage. And every now and then I make the trek to Nottingham to watch either Forest (my son’s team) or County (the cross I bear).<\/p>\n

Generally speaking, supporters are pretty much the same wherever I go: they say the same kinds of things. The only difference is which team they support.<\/p>\n

Except in the family stand (i.e. South Stand) at London Road, Peterborough. Even there, most supporters are reassuringly normal. But there’s also a minority – though by no means a small one – who have a highly distinctive way of seeing things.<\/p>\n

Their vision is primarily a tactical one. They think players should ‘go on’ (meaning constantly run at opponents) and ‘have a go’ (i.e, ‘shoot from 30 yards). If a player must pass instead of dribbling or shooting, it must be forwards. And they must do all these things without hesitation.<\/p>\n

Defenders (in which we’re not really interested) must never stand off. They must always commit themselves to full-on tackles.<\/p>\n

Here I should nip a possible misunderstanding in the bud. You might think the point about passing means something like ‘avoid the kind of tippy-tappy that Martinez imposed on Everton or the kind of possession football that LVG favoured at Man Utd’. But that isn’t what it means. No, according to the doctrine that I will call ‘the Peterborough way’, the absolute maximum number of successive non-forward passes is two. And, more often than not, one such pass is one too many.<\/p>\n

Advocacy of the Peterborough way was most vocal during yesterday’s game against Rochdale (25 Feb 2017). Unhappiness reached a crescendo during the second half when loud grumbling was supplemented by booing.<\/p>\n

(The scoring, by the way, went as follows: 1-0; 2-0; 2-1; 3-1: that’s right – Peterborough never went behind and won the game by two goals, which I’m sure you’ll agree isn’t acceptable.)<\/p>\n

Note that, if a succession of punts loses possession, this does not in any way cast doubt on the theory.<\/p>\n

If the pass forward is to Tom Nichols, the loss of possession will be his fault: he should either make better use of his 5′ 10″ frame or grow taller. Unless the pass was by Leonardo Da Silva Lopes, who at 18 should clearly have perfected his game. If the pass is to now-returned prodigal son Craig Mackail-Smith, then loss of possession will just be unlucky.<\/p>\n

If a succession of speculative long shots merely results in \u00a0goal kicks for the opposition, that too does not cast doubt on the tactics.<\/p>\n

It’s merely down the failings of the players in question, who are clearly moral degenerates. You see, there was a time, corresponding to the childhoods of these spectators, when Peterborough’s long shots never failed to go in. Which is why Peterborough in those days used to win every match 50-0.<\/p>\n

We don’t need to check that in the record books, there’s no question.<\/p>\n

We can consider the implications for training, selection, and transfer policy in a moment, but here are the tactical instructions:<\/p>\n