when it comes to coaching up the lads? Does anyone know or can anyone sum it up for me? Is he known as a risk-taker who favours an aggressive, explosive, style of play? Or is he known as an ultra-conservative in-game coach who plays not to lose? Can anyone tell me a little bit about his basic coaching philosophy and what style of soccer he prefers to play? I would appreciate it. I know that there are a lot of knowledgeable German soccer fans on the board, and I would appreciate any info or opinions which they could offer. Thanks.
I think it's a straight-forward answer. I don't think he's a tactical master-mind. He leans more towards a conservative approach. If anything his approach has been a very direct one. It took him long enough in 2008 to switch to a modern formation and even then it took him that much longer to finally fit the pieces into that system. His 2012 side was very linear. A counter-attacking unit built on a traditional defensive unit. His fullbacks are relatively conservative. When they go up they only seem to provide width instead of cutting in and linking up. His current side is also deceptively simple. It's a more possession-based side. The fullbacks again, even more conservative. Our transitions have become slower. Our defensive line plays higher - a direct reaction to the fullbacks playing deeper. There is more emphasis on the CM's going forward. The front-four is more rigid I feel, not only because of Gomez but because Oezil's role has changed more to emphasize his off the ball movement and there is more instruction to the two drones Podolski and Mueller to play functional roles rather than creative ones. Ultimately Loew is a reactive coach. When he's experimented, it was on rare occasions such as the Ukraine match and he barely took the time to explore it out of fear that it would disrupt the side. Another element of his conservatism is the manner in which he's integrated players which has been far too slow. We are still debating Mertesacker's inclusion for instance. He is a coach who likes the approval of his players. When he picks favorites he sticks with them, sometimes for better or for worse. Mertesacker and Podolski recent examples but also Cacau, Aogo, Traesch for instance who took too long to be removed from the setup and the likes of Hummels, Reus, and Schuerrle too long to integrate. Because he is reactive he's more of a short-term solution rather than one to build for the future. We must not confuse the current generation and its ability with Loew's planning because he plans to win competitions generally around the time they happen. Judging from comments by Flick or Bierhoff, he leaves it up to his staff to note the tactical changes in world football. The idea that he doesn't much care for set pieces and chooses not to practice them is another example of his pragmatic approach.
Because it's a practical solution to someone with his tactical outlook. Why bother to cover all the bases and possibly confuse the game-plan?
his philosophy is whatever Flick tells him. I'd label his philosophy as eclectic-superstitious, (whatever the hell that is). I base this on watching the matches, and nothing else. for instance, he picks his nose 7 times per match, and picks Flick's nose only twice.
set pieces are highly structured situations outside the run of play, the tactics, and the game plan. How can not practicing them be a "solution"?
Again, because that is outsidea the realm of Loew's tactical ideology which is sustained by keeping things overly direct and simple. No greater emphasis on the nuances of football and its variables.
I think I know what you're trying to say about Loew, but I think perhaps your wording is a bit off. Reviewing marking assignments on opponents' corners doesn't complicate the tactical approach, not does it make the style more indirect. In fact, defending corners has nothing to do with tactical approaches, unless your tactical approach is to concede as many corners as possible and then try to counter off of them. I use this type of dead-ball situation as an example, for obvious reasons. Jogi has some pretty well defined roles for most of his players this tournament, and changes very little with the opponent thus far. I still feel they are much more dynamic (unpredictable) with a fit and healthy Klose up front.
Perhaps my wording was off. I'm trying to rationalize why Loew doesn't practice corners or prepare for set-pieces. The most basic of explanations is simply that he doesn't feel they are an important element in his set-up. We don't prepare for them offensively or defensively. I think the fact that he sets the team out to lose as little possession as possible and having tall players in the back is assurance enough that this isn't a big problem but as we have seen against Switzerland and against Portugal and Denmark, it certainly is. It will be even moreso against Greece who have been the most successful team on set pieces in Euro qualifying. It's also something Flick mentioned in a recent interview - if he was to take charge of the side he would practice set pieces more.
He never said that he doesn't practise corners. He did just say that he wouldn't practise them in the short and broken preparation for the tourney. Then in the first match against Portugal they have defended 12 corners or something. That's enough for sure.. The Denmark goal was just a beauty of a standard. I'm pretty sure the team would have conceded nontheless.. SM's critic of Löw is way too harsh but it seems that nobody in this forum wants to reactivate those annoying discussions.
Err? They didn't practice these early on in the training camp. No wonder with many players still not having arrived. Löw said at the time that he'd practice set-pieces later on in preparation. To be sure, Flick is on record that he'd emphasise set-pieces more than Löw. But how on earth do you construe this to mean Löw doesn't practice them at all?!? Pure hyperbole? In regards to set-pieces, one might add that Löw wants as few fouls as possible. He wants the game to flow and avoid dangerous set-pieces as best as possible.
On a more basic level, it has to be said that there's a tactical blueprint for all DFB teams. It was drafted in the Klinsmann era. I understand it's a very detailed document. But one that remains top-secret. So Germany, much as say FC Barcelona, aims to have a basic philosophy that transcends individual coaches. It is within these parameters - which Löw of course helped shape - that he operates. I trust that, for instance, the commitment to zonal marking instead of man-to-man marking at set-pieces is enshrined in this document.
On a more general note, NT coaches time and again are faulted for being too "conservative" and too "cautious" when it comes to player selections. I dare say those coaches put a far greater emphasis on the players familiarity with another. NTs already suffer from not having the time club teams have at their disposal. So whereas the wider public is highly reactive to individual players' form, coaches arguably have a more holistic approach. And yes, as a result, a more cautious one. And certainly Löw doesn't nominate the best players. He selects those who best serve his tactical approach. That may explain in part why Podolski's has a starting position despite the intense competition. I understand that for starters he provides width as a left-foot, tactical discipline and is a weapon in the penalty-box.
As for Löw's coaching-style, he doesn't seem to be as obsessed with data as say Arsène Wenger, who I've read really delves into the match data. Löw seems to delegate that number-crunching and analysis to the scouting and data analysis team and asks them to distill a few bullet-points from all of it for him to use. And after games, initial impressions are tested against the game data analysis. So while say in 2008 the coaching team first considered the game vs. Croatia something of a disaster, they somewhat adjusted that opinion after having looked at the data. Anyway, one thing Löw is especially proud of, is that the time-on-ball average for a player has decreased from IIRC 3 seconds to round 1 second (less in competitive games, IIRC) during his tenure.
And speaking of delegation, I trust that's one of Löw's strengths. He's no control freak. He wants players to operate intelligently and not be too great slaves to his orders. Similarly, he trusts his whole staff to do their job competently. Perhaps a rather banale point, but my guess is that a fair number of NT coaches operate in a more authoritarian fashion. One that encourages staff and players less to seize responsibility.
I'd suggest you check out the tactical analysis on spielverlagerung.de and similar sites. They also wrote an Ebook in advance of the EURO full of insights. Germany is nowadays a top-favourite. Teams sit far deeper against Germany than they did a mere two years ago. Just look at Portugal. They really heavily adjusted their tactical setup when facing Germany. As such, Germany will simply not get as many fast-break opportunities this time over than 2012. So the tactical emphasis has had to shift from "blitzing" the opposition to breaking down their deep defences. This has meant that a more patient ball-posession-oriented play had to emerge. Which is obviously less spectacular than what Germany could pull off in 2010 against say a tactically naive Argentina. Germany however hasn't entirely lost its "old" fast-breaking virtues, as some have claimed. See Lars Bender's fast-break goal. Germany generally aims to force their game on their opponent. (And Löw has stressed on multiple occasions since 2010 that Germany won't concede the midfield battle in a future game vs. Spain. He doesn't want to park the bus, but meet Spain on its own turf, so to speak.) Germany often also plays very aggressively early on to get that goal, thus opening up the game. No side can sustain a 100% offensive for 90 minutes. So obviously after a lead, Germany will often shift down a gear. But it's a fine line to letting the opponent back into the game. As we've seen say vs. Portugal. Not that either the players or Löw welcomed that, mind you...
*He doesn't emphasize set pieces It's quite clear that we suffered from this in various instances in qualifying as well and would have been exposed more if we didn't play our usual suffocating counter attacking football and have stronger opponents. But we have been found out now, again. It's more than enough evidence to suggest that they are not a major component of our preparation and gameplan. I disagree with Loew selecting players that suit his tactical approach best. Podolski certainly didn't when we played pure counter attacking football and he certainly doesn't now that we are a retention based side. Mertesacker also isn't suited to this yet he remains in contention. Although he largely follows this strategy he still shows signs of sticking to his favorites.
Brilliant article from Barney Ronay of The Guardian today. All about Jogi's tacitics. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2012/jun/21/euro-2012-germany-joachim-low
I like the following description: "Spain, the masters of the pass, against a Germany team built around the notion of football, in Löw's words, as a sport "defined by a succession of sprints". It is as though these teams have taken the basic bonded elements of "football" and split them in two: Spain the team of ball; Germany of the foot."