While listening to SEN this morning, one of the pundits was talking up Australia's changes against European Champions in England, by declaring that the return of Sam Kerr to active duty and the starting XI would mean that Australia now has a False 9. I listened to this with a very high degree of incredulity as I do not think that Australia operates that way. Sam Kerr is not a False 9 but an end point operator which makes her a very strong 10. Maybe there is a case for Emily Van Egmont playing as False 9 but I think that we have to come to the conclusion that Van Egmont, Fowler and Vine have all been playing as traditional 9 and 10 positions.
But to rule out Sam Kerr as a False 9, means that we need to know just what we're talking about in the first place. Words mean things. We must not rule something out, unless we first know what that thing is.
Broadly speaking football players are traditionally numbered up the pitch, with the Goalkeeper as 1, the Backs as 2, 3, 4, and 5; the Midfield as 6, 7, 8; and the Forwards as 9, 10, and 11. Of course this assumes 4-3-3 and any other formation will shift the natural numbering out of sequence. In 3-4-3, 5 will move into the midfield. In 4-4-2, 11 will move into the midfield. This also assumes that player numbers are dependent on position; which in the age of permanent squad numbering is not necessarily the case. Still, the lustre of the traditional numbers are so strong that backs still want 2, 3, 4 and 5, the midfield 7 and 8 is in some cases iconic, and 9 and 10 have passed into legendary status. 10 is the number of Pele, Messi, Maradona.
A traditional 9 occupies the position of one of one or two or three strikers. 9 will usually hang about trying to cause madness and mayhem and whose job is unashamedly to put the ball in the back of the net. 9 usually numbers off against 2 or 3 and if the direction from management is to mark them out of the game, then 2 or 3 will ensure that 9 is ineffective and in really efficient and excellent player marking, will ensure that 9 never touches the ball.
This is the thing about football. If we assume that every one of the twenty-two players on the field touches the ball for an equal amount of time, then they are touching the ball for a mere 4.54% of the time. This means that they are NOT touching the ball for a massive 95.45% of the time. Given this, it should be obvious to everyone that football is very much a game which mostly happens off the ball; where players are trying to make and create space. While everyone's instinct is to watch a game of football by watching where the ball is, even Blind Freddy can see that the vast majority of the game is actually off the ball.
This leads me nicely to the subject of the False 9. The False 9 is a 9 who is playing not as a 9. This denotes a position, rather than a number. If we think of our traditionally numbered squad, a False 9 is they are not a dedicated striker, will move back towards the midfield. Naturally this creates even more mayhem and madness for the defenders. If a 9 who is playing not as a 9 but has moved back down the pitch, do they follow? Do they leave the space? Remember, nature abhors a vacuum; which means that any holes in the universe will absolutely be filled in by something.
If a 9 is playing not as a 9 but as a False 9, they have slid back down the pitch. This then means that their function has changed slightly. Either they act as the traffic cop to direct play around them, sending balls even more forward to 10 and 11, or they work in tandem with 10 by sliding back, passing the ball off to 10, and then receiving the ball themselves. False 9 is then more dangerous than a normal 9 because the defenders now have the problem of being confused about what to do with the space as well as having to cope with the added problems caused by dynamic difficulty of the 9 who is out of place.
The other side of this is that False 9 needs a player is either more intelligent, more creative, more aware, more spatially dominant, or simply faster, than a normal 9. When management demands more from a player, then that means that that player either has more to give or that they will suffer because more is demanded of them that they simply do not have. False 9 if played well, often leads to their teams being something quite quite brilliant.
Recently, Lionel Messi while wearing 10, played the role of False 9 on many occasions. He made use of his awareness and spatial dominance because most of the time when he was at Barcelona or Argentina, he appeared to be doing nothing at all on the pitch. His sublime brilliance is what caused mayhem and madness for defenders all over the place. Kenny Dalglish in the Liverpool team of the 1980s which won the European Cup and the Double, moved forwards into the role of False 9 often, when Liverpool playing 4-4-2 would push forwards, which would mean that he could then cause mayhem and madness for defenders who would not be expecting a midfielder to turn into a striker. In the 1950s the "Magic Magyars" of Hungary who played what is better described as either W-M or M-W because of the shape of their ten outfield players, would often collapse their front W into two strikers and Ferenc Puskas playing as False 9. They lost the 1954 3-2 to West Germany due to Teutonic stubbornness. I have reason to believe that Stan Seymour was playing as a False 9 in the 1924 FA Cup when Newcastle United beat Bolton Wanderers 2-0.
Having said all of this, what do I think of the current Matildas squad with regards the False 9? The natural strikers are Mary Fowler playing as an obvious 10, and Emily Van Egmont playing as a traditional 9. If there is a False 9, then the only player who might fit this role is Sam Kerr and she's simply not been called to play that role in this tournament. Gustavsson has been arranging the Matildas as a very strong and organised 4-4-2, with Caitlin Foord and Haley Raso playing as wingers who slide deep into the attacking corners; which means that what was 4-4-2 becomes 4-2-4 when slid forwards. Tactically it is not adventurous but it is effective.
Kerr as False 9? Yeah, nah. Rather, nah, nah.
No comments:
Post a Comment