Silvaball vs Parkerball

[humussapiens]

Is the difference exclusively tactical or there is more to it?

Isn't Silvaball also possession-based football? We have similar stats in the championship under both managers – we dominate possession. Obviously Silvaball is more efficient in exploiting the possession or...?

Is the difference in players Silva has, and Parker had not? Wilson (greatly supports Mitro), Seri (Parker didn't want him), Williams (instead Odoi), Carvalho (his best season)? Maybe these were the missing pieces in Parkerball?

Or players are simply given more freedom in making own decisions?

What is so drastically different? I remember few first player interviews after Silva came. They said "the training methods are now different".

Any thoughts?

[bobby01]

For me,
Parkerball is possession for possession sake, and a not to lose attitude
Silvaball is possession to attack and score to win games..


Interesting on Twitter today that Parker has been nominated for manager of the month and was announced on Bournemouth official, full of replies from boscombe fans slating him for his style of football.

[H4usuallysitting]

For me,
Parkerball is possession for possession sake, and a not to lose attitude
Silvaball is possession to attack and score to win games..


Interesting on Twitter today that Parker has been nominated for manager of the month and was announced on Bournemouth official, full of replies from boscombe fans slating him for his style of football.

For me,
Parkerball is possession for possession sake, and a not to lose attitude
Silvaball is possession to attack and score to win games..


Interesting on Twitter today that Parker has been nominated for manager of the month and was announced on Bournemouth official, full of replies from boscombe fans slating him for his style of football.

Nominated by George at ASDA

[Sting of the North]

I believe there are huge differences. The forward runs we see now is something that was very much lacking with Parker, where we instead slowly and methodically crept forward (and then backwards because of the lack of attacking opportunities). We do have a lot of possession now, but rarely do we keep the ball just for the sake of it. We take every opportunity to attack, often very quickly, whereas under Parker the first instinct (clearly instructed) was to keep the ball safely.

The running is all different, the player in possession almost always have several options and they all seem to understand the runs of others. It is something that is difficult to achieve even with good players. Under parker the option was almost always to pass it back and recycle through the back four. Under Silva when we do that it is much quicker and always with an eye on the quick diagonal pass.

Also, Parker had mostly the same players. He could have played attacking football with one (if not the) best squads in the league, but decided not to. Just as with Bournemouth now. It's tactical.

[Deeping_white]

I believe there are huge differences. The forward runs we see now is something that was very much lacking with Parker, where we instead slowly and methodically crept forward (and then backwards because of the lack of attacking opportunities). We do have a lot of possession now, but rarely do we keep the ball just for the sake of it. We take every opportunity to attack, often very quickly, whereas under Parker the first instinct (clearly instructed) was to keep the ball safely.

The running is all different, the player in possession almost always have several options and they all seem to understand the runs of others. It is something that is difficult to achieve even with good players. Under parker the option was almost always to pass it back and recycle through the back four. Under Silva when we do that it is much quicker and always with an eye on the quick diagonal pass.

Also, Parker had mostly the same players. He could have played attacking football with one (if not the) best squads in the league, but decided not to. Just as with Bournemouth now. It's tactical.

There are also patterns of play under Silva that you can clearly tell are drilled into the team, whereas with Parker it was just the case of passing it backward to whoever was in the most space. With Silva we have patterns such as where we quickly shift the ball from side to side and then play a ball into Mitro who knocks it round the corner to a winger who's made a run in behind having sucked the opposition onto us to create space.

[Andy S]

It's all about angles and people looking for the ball and want it. It is also about the speed of the passing. Parker is not completely wrong. But he didn't get the timings right all the time. Finally it's about getting the players to continue to attack after going a goal up

[Ludlow Richard]

seems to me the players are also fitter and they now have a manager who speaks good English.

[humussapiens]

Finally it's about getting the players to continue to attack after going a goal up

I think under Parker, we were wildly successful when score first (in the Championship). Can't remember the actual stats now but it was like 18 in 20 games or so we won in the end. But it was nervy to try to save the lead instead to try to kill the game.

[ALG01]

I believe there are huge differences. The forward runs we see now is something that was very much lacking with Parker, where we instead slowly and methodically crept forward (and then backwards because of the lack of attacking opportunities). We do have a lot of possession now, but rarely do we keep the ball just for the sake of it. We take every opportunity to attack, often very quickly, whereas under Parker the first instinct (clearly instructed) was to keep the ball safely.

The running is all different, the player in possession almost always have several options and they all seem to understand the runs of others. It is something that is difficult to achieve even with good players. Under parker the option was almost always to pass it back and recycle through the back four. Under Silva when we do that it is much quicker and always with an eye on the quick diagonal pass.

Also, Parker had mostly the same players. He could have played attacking football with one (if not the) best squads in the league, but decided not to. Just as with Bournemouth now. It's tactical.

I think you have pretty much hit the nail squarely on the head.
This is possesion football with an adventurous purpose and Parker ball was negative possesion for its own sake.

[Finnans Right Peg]

Also with Silva alour subs make a big difference, the one that sticks out is when Wilson got sent off at Huddersfield and he brought on cav instead of a defender .

Where as with Parker even with 11 he would take off an attacker for defender which invites pressure .

Its a mindset which the players have obviously bought into and one I think gives us a better chance of staying up under Marco we wo t be there to make up the numbers

[cookieg]

For me,
Parkerball is possession for possession sake, and a not to lose attitude
Silvaball is possession to attack and score to win games..


Interesting on Twitter today that Parker has been nominated for manager of the month and was announced on Bournemouth official, full of replies from boscombe fans slating him for his style of football.

Lets hope that the manager of the month curse strikes really hard.

[ALG01]

i also think with parker when we got one up his approach was to shut up shop and hold on to what we have.

With silva if we are one up the approach is to get a second and then third.

The mind set is different.

[toshes mate]

Marco Silva's style is all about players knowing each other and playing for each other within a game plan.  There is freedom at its heart but a lot of hard work obviously takes place on skill sets for individuals.

As for the guy who behaved so egregiously before he left, his style was all about him ...     

[wback]

The difference is 14 points and a load of goals.

I genuinely think Bournemouth have a great squad. Solid defenders, nippy and technical players, most at peak age. When they played us, they matched us.

They should be right up there with us. But they're not, they're fading and fixture congestion is going to hurt them. If they don't get automatic, I don't think they're going up (too much momentum elsewhere).

Silva vs. Parker is the difference.

[Blawarmy]

For me,
Parkerball is possession for possession sake, and a not to lose attitude
Silvaball is possession to attack and score to win games..


Interesting on Twitter today that Parker has been nominated for manager of the month and was announced on Bournemouth official, full of replies from boscombe fans slating him for his style of football.

Nominated by who? They lost to a non league side at home in the cup [emoji23][emoji23]

[Bronaldinho]

I've had this conversation with so many people, and there's more to just 2 managers playing the same formation.

Silva's side want to move in transition at a higher tempo, they also take a lot more risks playing the ball earlier.

Parker's side, while at times a 433/4231 were informed to be patient, take their time and wait for a gap. Rather than creating the space, which is why Parker's sides normally have the most amount of passes between their two centrebacks.

One thing is having possession, the other is what you do with it.

Parker, just like his playing days doesn't take risks, and doesn't want his team to do so.

He'd rather the team move the ball backwards, to retain the ball. Which is often why we won 1-0 due to a wonder goal, because we couldn't cut teams open.

Watching Silva's side, the players movement off the ball is completely different, you also see more willing runners to stretch the side and make those runs off the ball. Parker's team is like watching subuteo.

[Nero]

Players are getting the ball on the move instead of being stood still, that and Silva is a far better manager and more tactically astute

[humussapiens]

Reading this, I assume that the manager style depends on manager's personal psychology, mindset (aversion to risk in this case) and it's more-less visible and known to clubs. How than clubs hire managers that are proven to bring dire style of football, risking relations with fans etc?

Slav was saying that he changes the style depending on the players he has. But that was obviously not the case with him in Sheff Utd where he wanted to impose a certain style to the players (that didn't buy it) and not vice versa.

Obviously, a manager must be ready to change the philosophy (completely) when in PL.

[70sPimlico]

In broad terms, Parker's team moves the ball, Silva's team moves the opposition.

Possession football (apart from when you are holding a lead) was always meant to be about moving the opposition. As I understand it, some key faces at FA training have implemented possession based football in the badges but simply, do not have the expertise to exploit the spaces it is supposed to create.

As fans, we've had a few scapegoats in recent seasons who we think give the ball away a lot (I'm not talking about Robinson. Thats a whole different subject) but actually, these players just take risks with key passes. If 1 out 4 comes off, it creates overloads and space. when it doesnt, the team must be drilled to react really quickly. And that has been a major issue. I saw that with Parkers team briefly but then he just seemed to get ultra careful and nobody took risks, so any flair player losing the ball was left looking really bad as the poor guy was taking risks as he'd probably been taught ever since he started playing as a toddler.

Parker needs to take a year off and head overseas and get a different perspective by sitting in on different coaching sessions rather than the pretty staid FA stuff.

And what's more frustrating is the players coming through now have all been playing small sided stuff, so their touch and movenmet is fair better than the generations before them

[JimOG]

seems to me the players are also fitter and they now have a manager who speaks good English.

:012: :005: Woosh