John Barnes on football philosophy

I don't know if it should have its own thread so please move if approprate.

I think John Barnes makes alot of good points regarding philosophies in football and I've been saying the same in the last few weeks/months.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/barnes-on-lfc-barca-future

It's really a long interview but he spoke alot about how Barcelona (and to a point Ajax) carriers the same philosophy from top to bottom, manager to player, first team to under 8.

"You have constant change and if you have constant change, there's no continuity and no stability."

Both the club and the supporters are going to need to be patient while things develop - because if it was an easy quick fix, everyone would be doing it, wouldn't they?

There needs to be a lot of patience - both in the boardrooms and in the stands. How long will it take? It will take a long time but it won't take as long as Liverpool fans have been waiting to see the team win the Premier League. So, yes it could take a long time to develop it and start reaping the benefits from it but maybe if a system was put in place 20 years ago, we wouldn't still be waiting to win our first title since 1990. If we keep changing the manager, the players or the system every one, two, three or four years, we could be waiting another 20 years to win the title too.

And I 100% agree with him everything he says.

Fantastic from Digger, again,he talks so much sense, everything he says was constructive, positive and easy to comprehend, alot of things seem so simple and that is how it should be, football is not a complicated game, it's how you implement the tools you have at your disposal,

i particularly liked his opinion on what is deemed as a success, Roberto Martinez and his Wigan side escaping relegation or Spuds finishing below their expected position,

there were many things i agreed with, i don't see many disagreeing tbh, so lets all take a leaf out of John's book and lets all support the new manager,whoever that may be, YNWA

I don't know if it should have its own thread so please move if approprate.

I think John Barnes makes alot of good points regarding philosophies in football and I've been saying the same in the last few weeks/months.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/latest-news/barnes-on-lfc-barca-future

It's really a long interview but he spoke alot about how Barcelona (and to a point Ajax) carriers the same philosophy from top to bottom, manager to player, first team to under 8.

"You have constant change and if you have constant change, there's no continuity and no stability."

Both the club and the supporters are going to need to be patient while things develop - because if it was an easy quick fix, everyone would be doing it, wouldn't they?

There needs to be a lot of patience - both in the boardrooms and in the stands. How long will it take? It will take a long time but it won't take as long as Liverpool fans have been waiting to see the team win the Premier League. So, yes it could take a long time to develop it and start reaping the benefits from it but maybe if a system was put in place 20 years ago, we wouldn't still be waiting to win our first title since 1990. If we keep changing the manager, the players or the system every one, two, three or four years, we could be waiting another 20 years to win the title too.

And I 100% agree with him everything he says.

Brilliant read that,cheers for the link mate.

Fantastic from Digger, again,he talks so much sense, everything he says was constructive, positive and easy to comprehend, alot of things seem so simple and that is how it should be, football is not a complicated game, it's how you implement the tools you have at your disposal,

i particularly liked his opinion on what is deemed as a success, Roberto Martinez and his Wigan side escaping relegation or Spuds finishing below their expected position,

there were many things i agreed with, i don't see many disagreeing tbh, so lets all take a leaf out of John's book and lets all support the new manager,whoever that may be, YNWA

Yes football is an easy game complicated by idiots 

John Barnes oozes common sense as per usual. FSG should be looking to get him more involved at the club.

Digger has always talked with a good footballing brain. if only he could manage as good as he can talk. Or even better as good as he could play
We would have our perfect man, sadly his management times have been a bit sh**e, what a shame.

He'd be a good assistant manager or coach because he's intelligent and would encourage creative football.

Barnes talking moneyball/coach v. manager style, this guy gets it.

Have Liverpool been guilty of doing just that in the past?

Well, first of all, I don't think Liverpool have had a philosophy of how we want to play. They've seen which players have done well at other clubs and then gone out and bought them and then hoped that it works. A lot of the time, it hasn't. With Ajax and Barcelona, because they know how they want to play, they can go and get the right player for their system. It might be an unfashionable player at another club, but he may fit into your system perfectly. Seydou Keita, at Barcelona for example, could move to a Premier League club and not do anything but he fits into how Barcelona play.

With your own philosophy, you don't need to necessarily look at the best players in the world - players Liverpool might not be able to afford - but rather you can go out and buy a player who will do a better job in your team than they do in their current side but it may not cost you a lot of money.

Now Liverpool are at a stage where they can't get all the best players in the world - so what do you do? You better come up with a system and a vision of how you want your team to play. Swansea are a good example, I suppose. They may not have the best players in the country because they've had players who've played with them in the lower divisions but they are still there because they understand that system they play. They don't need the best players but they are still competitive. But make no mistake; Liverpool can still attract very, very, very good players. They may not be able to get [Lionel] Messi but they can get very, very good players and with a proper system, which I'm sure the new manager will introduce, they can be successful.

The whole point of a system is that you don't change it. You don't change the philosophy. Ajax had it and lost it as well. New men come in with their own ideas and change the entire philosophy of the club and then what happens is that you're reliant on that manager being there forever to continue that. That can't happen so you have constant change and if you have constant change, there's no continuity and no stability. It's very expensive too as you waste money on players. On top of all that, it's rarely successful.

A club needs a thread running right through it; Barcelona has that. It's like the whole concept of a technical director in Spain. Because it's not common in England, we don't tend to understand it but in Spain, the technical director will know the long-term plan for the club and regardless of which manager comes in - yes, he can bring his own ideas, but he can't alter the philosophy and football identity of that club - he has to buy into that identity of the club which is shaped culturally and socially by the region and by the fans and also by the way that they want to play.

It's so important, not just because managers will invariably come and go, but because players will also come and go. You don't see many players at clubs for 10 years anymore so you can't just keep getting different types of players every two years and expect any type of consistency. Whereas if you know the kind of player you want in every position at your club, if your superstar player leaves, you can simply get someone else to fill that role.

ask Tranmere fans.

ask Tranmere fans.

Walton your the one that brought up Barca when it came to supporters owning the club.

I am going to toss it right back to you and say what Barnes talks about and is referring to where we are going is the Barcelona model.

So if that is the case I suppose we could have chosen a worse way to go.

Barnes may not of had the greatest success as a manager on the pitch but its pretty hard to read that article and not come away with an appreciation that he knows what he is talking about.

Fantastic article I thought. Think he's bang on with some points - can clearly tell he's pro Martinez too which is fair enough.

If I were FSG, I'd certainly look to get him some sort of role at the club.

Fantastic article I thought. Think he's bang on with some points - can clearly tell he's pro Martinez too which is fair enough.

If I were FSG, I'd certainly look to get him some sort of role at the club.

Thought him and Fowler were defacto ambassadors?

You don't have to go as far as Barca to see the successfull model club. The Liverpool way, started by Shanks and continued by Sir Bob, etc etc. It only came to fall apart when Kenny left for Personal reasons without a succesor firmly in place. Souness, as great a player as he was, and the epitomy of what we are talking about, in as much as he was an ordinary player at Middlesborough, and Bob brought him and made him into one of the best CM players of all time, yet as a manager, he done away with the bootroom philosophy, tried to do things HIS way, and low and behold, everything started to fall into dissaray and the continuity was lost. How much longer, and at what cost, before we get that back again. I hope in my lifetime.

You don't have to go as far as Barca to see the successfull model club. The Liverpool way, started by Shanks and continued by Sir Bob, etc etc. It only came to fall apart when Kenny left for Personal reasons without a succesor firmly in place. Souness, as great a player as he was, and the epitomy of what we are talking about, in as much as he was an ordinary player at Middlesborough, and Bob brought him and made him into one of the best CM players of all time, yet as a manager, he done away with the bootroom philosophy, tried to do things HIS way, and low and behold, everything started to fall into dissaray and the continuity was lost. How much longer, and at what cost, before we get that back again. I hope in my lifetime.

Doesn't Barnes say the opposite though? Saying that tactics weren't a major part of our game, or at other English clubs. At least he doesn't see pass and move as an actual comprehensive tactic. Gives the idea that it was more people managing than anything. And that we haven't properly transitioned onto the use of a modern philosophy and tactics when proper tactics were introduced into English football.

That's the idea I get from that article anyway. Anyone else agree?

Doesn't Barnes say the opposite though? Saying that tactics weren't a major part of our game, or at other English clubs. At least he doesn't see pass and move as an actual comprehensive tactic. Gives the idea that it was more people managing than anything. And that we haven't properly transitioned onto the use of a modern philosophy and tactics when proper tactics were introduced into English football.

That's the idea I get from that article anyway. Anyone else agree?

I don't think he's correct to say there was no tactics at Liverpool.  Maybe there wasn't under Dalglish when Barnes arrived in 1987, but Liverpool under Paisley, Fagan  couldn't have won four European Cups against the best in Europe without a pretty decent tactical understanding of the game.

I don't think he's correct to say there was no tactics at Liverpool.  Maybe there wasn't under Dalglish when Barnes arrived in 1987, but Liverpool under Paisley, Fagan  couldn't have won four European Cups against the best in Europe without a pretty decent tactical understanding of the game.

Kenny played under Paisley and Fagan though. It's hard for me to believe that he then in the years after wins the league as a manager with a far lesser tactical approach.

This is all before my time. So it's hard for me to not trust Barnes when he says things like these.

Kenny played under Paisley and Fagan though. It's hard for me to believe that he then in the years after wins the league as a manager with lesser to none tactical approach.

This is all before my time. So it's hard for me to not trust Barnes when he says things like these.

Yes but Barnes played at his peak for a Liverpool team, and in an English league, that was banned from Europe because of Heysel. So there was no doubt tactically during that period English football fell behind. Kenny as manager wasn't tested against the best in Europe to keep him tactically challenged. In England the pass and move was usually all Liverpool needed to win.

Yes but Barnes played at his peak for a Liverpool team, and in an English league, that was banned from Europe because of Heysel. So there was no doubt tactically during that period English football fell behind. Kenny as manager wasn't tested against the best in Europe to keep him tactically challenged. In England the pass and move was usually all Liverpool needed to win.

I guess that could be it. I was just surprised to read about it. I've seen people mention this pass and move football we used to play back in the day before and I always envisioned something far more complicated than Barnes suggests, so was a bit dissapointed.

I guess that could be it. I was just surprised to read about it. I've seen people mention this pass and move football we used to play back in the day before and I always envisioned something far more complicated than Barnes suggests, so was a bit dissapointed.

That's my point, Bier. I think John Barnes is being far too simplistic about Liverpool's tactical history. Pass and move looked simple like all great football. But it looks simple because there is great thought gone into planning it. Barcelona's football often looks simple until other teams try and do it and realise it's not so simple.

If Liverpool were tactically naive under Paisley or Fagan they couldn't have got to 5 European Cup finals in 8 years between 1977 and 1985. They would have been badly exposed.

I don't think he's correct to say there was no tactics at Liverpool.  Maybe there wasn't under Dalglish when Barnes arrived in 1987, but Liverpool under Paisley, Fagan  couldn't have won four European Cups against the best in Europe without a pretty decent tactical understanding of the game.

You are contradicting yourself, Mr. Barnes.

Honestly, the fact that we won doesn't mean we had "tactical understanding of the game", at least not in an academical manner. You always have a little of it simply by watching football, and I guess a lot more by playing it at a competitive level, like some kind of instinct . But that doesn't necessarily mean they had it taught and trained like any modern team.

You are contradicting yourself, Mr. Barnes.

Honestly, the fact that we won doesn't mean we had "tactical understanding of the game", at least not in an academical manner. You always have a little of it simply by watching football, and I guess a lot more by playing it at a competitive level, like some kind of instinct . But that doesn't necessarily mean they had it taught and trained like any modern team.

Jabv, Liverpool were as tactically aware as any other top team in Europe of their time or they wouldn't have dominated Europe. You can call it academic or not, they understood top level tactics or they wouldn't have beaten teams like Real Madrid in the 1981 European Cup final.

Comparing tactics in the 1980s to 2012 is pointless anyway because the game has evolved. But to say they had only a little understanding of tactics yet were dominating European football is naive.

That's my point, Bier. I think John Barnes is being far too simplistic about Liverpool's tactical history. Pass and move looked simple like all great football. But it looks simple because there is great thought gone into planning it.

I have to agree Barnes10 - John Barnes seems to contradict himself when he talks about a lack of philosophy and tactical nous. He says:

Well, first of all, I don't think Liverpool have had a philosophy of how we want to play.

... then:

Well, Liverpool had a philosophy of sorts but that was before comprehensive tactics came into the game in England.

.
The latter would suggest that the advent of "tactics" killed off or at least hindered Liverpool's "philosophy of sorts" but that doesn't really bear scrutiny when he later says:

There's always been tactics in European and South American football

The fact is; we dominated Europe (and all their tactical know how) for years. Which brings me on to this...

Jabv, Liverpool were as tactically aware as any other top team in Europe of their time or they wouldn't have dominated Europe. You can call it academic or not, they understood top level tactics or they wouldn't have beaten teams like Real Madrid in the 1981 European Cup final.

Again you're on the money Barnes10. Liverpool drew up the template of how English teams should play in Europe. It wasn't luck and it sure as sh*t wasn't through any lack of tactical awareness. We played a different, more patient, counter attacking style, with a solid defensive set up away from home. Often frustrating the, so called, more tactically aware Europeans. We outmaneuvered them tactically time after time - the four European Cups bear witness to that fact. 

I also think sometimes, fans take the formation too literally.

If we're playing pass and move or the Barcelona tiki-taka, the formation doesn't exactly matter when you're attacking because you're supposed to be passing, moving and finding space, regardless who you are.

But without the ball, you obviously need a set shape.