Ultimate Football (Soccer) Thread (2012-2013)

[I V Stalin]

Perhaps in Anglophone countries, but I'd be very surprised if they felt the same in Kazakhstan.

Agreed, but given that Ph. isn't from Kazakhstan...

As an aside - does anyone know why Kazakhstan is in UEFA when the other former Soviet Central Asian states aren't?

There was a really interesting* piece in issue 4 of The Blizzard** about that...

Basically, the Kazakh FA thought that it would improve football in Kazakhstan to be part of UEFA and thus playing teams like Spain, Italy, Germany, Netherlands, etc. rather than in the Asian confederation playing the likes of (with no disrespect) Japan, S Korea, Iran, etc. There were also some sort of economic reasons - being part of UEFA rather than the AFC could possibly lead to closer economic ties with the US and EU. Anyway, whereas before they were continuously improving and getting close to qualifying for major tournaments - generally easily getting through to the final qualification stages for the World Cup - now they're stagnating at best and not getting anywhere near qualifying, and usually only beat teams like Armenia.

*Well...if you're interested in that sort of thing
**See the link in my sig if you don't know what that is

[Miasto Lodz]

But jeez, why don't we just make Feyenoord our national team

From 0-10 against PSV to core of the national team in less than two years. Pretty impressive.

[The Blaatschapen]

But jeez, why don't we just make Feyenoord our national team

From 0-10 against PSV to core of the national team in less than two years. Pretty impressive.

A combination of lack of money (to buy expensive outsiders) + good youth system + good main coach.

[Osarius]

From 0-10 against PSV to core of the national team in less than two years. Pretty impressive.

A combination of lack of money (to buy expensive outsiders) + good youth system + good main coach.

The way it should be. /oldschool

I was talking about this to one of the parents of my team today. He was talking about how he's noticed most professional clubs' youth systems here seem to be lacking. The amount of players who are picked up at 8 or 9 and dropped a year or two later, or players who aren't quite at the level the club wants them to be at by age 17 or 18, so they cut them loose. It's nuts. Then he remarked on how many youth clubs in the local area seem to focus on pushing just their best players into those same academy systems, rather than developing the entire team, and how it damages the majority of players, and the knock-on effect etc etc.

Though I thought he went off on a tangent a bit, and was making some questionable assessments of academy coaching systems, his overall point was that it seems wrong for academies to sign very young players, though it seems necessary because the quality of grass-roots coaching is so poor. It was interesting, since I said the same thing not too long ago. But then again, I'm probably biased because I have a problem with the idea that I can spend two or three years developing a team, only to have an academy swoop in and take away my best players, only to drop them a year later.

On a positive note, my boys won 7-3 today. Good times. Who needs professional football when you have the drama and tension of the WJYL U14s Division Two, eh?

[DesAnges]

A combination of lack of money (to buy expensive outsiders) + good youth system + good main coach.

The way it should be. /oldschool

I was talking about this to one of the parents of my team today. He was talking about how he's noticed most professional clubs' youth systems here seem to be lacking. The amount of players who are picked up at 8 or 9 and dropped a year or two later, or players who aren't quite at the level the club wants them to be at by age 17 or 18, so they cut them loose. It's nuts. Then he remarked on how many youth clubs in the local area seem to focus on pushing just their best players into those same academy systems, rather than developing the entire team, and how it damages the majority of players, and the knock-on effect etc etc.

Though I thought he went off on a tangent a bit, and was making some questionable assessments of academy coaching systems, his overall point was that it seems wrong for academies to sign very young players, though it seems necessary because the quality of grass-roots coaching is so poor. It was interesting, since I said the same thing not too long ago. But then again, I'm probably biased because I have a problem with the idea that I can spend two or three years developing a team, only to have an academy swoop in and take away my best players, only to drop them a year later.

On a positive note, my boys won 7-3 today. Good times. Who needs professional football when you have the drama and tension of the WJYL U14s Division Two, eh?

7-3? That's not bad, as results go.

My lads won 5-1 in the Gloucestershire County Cup

[Osarius]

7-3? That's not bad, as results go.

My lads won 5-1 in the Gloucestershire County Cup

Dodgy defending again. Been working on fixing that.
They always seem to concede three goals, its really weird.

Is it just me or are cup matches way more exciting, too? Even at youth level?

[DesAnges]

7-3? That's not bad, as results go.

My lads won 5-1 in the Gloucestershire County Cup

Dodgy defending again. Been working on fixing that.
They always seem to concede three goals, its really weird.

Is it just me or are cup matches way more exciting, too? Even at youth level?

Defending is easy. Get your fullbacks and centre midfield right, and everything sorts itself out.

They are indeed, cup games are just excellent overall. I reffed one that ended 4-3, all 7 goals coming in the last 20 minutes or so.

My team won their league cup 2 years ago from 3-1 down, 10 minutes to go. 4-3 AET. That was a special day.

Pity we've only got about 4 players who played that day still with the team

[Kinitaria]

I happened to ref a Durham County U12s cup game just yesterday - not so much a goal fest as both teams (one Second Division, one Premier Division) doing their level best to kick the other lot off the field. Plenty of action, more exciting, maybe so, but in rather unorthodox ways.

[DesAnges]

I happened to ref a Durham County U12s cup game just yesterday - not so much a goal fest as both teams (one Second Division, one Premier Division) doing their level best to kick the other lot off the field. Plenty of action, more exciting, maybe so, but in rather unorthodox ways.

u12s? Bit early for that sort of game play isn't it?

Mind you, some of the teams round here...you wear body armour.

[Osarius]

Defending is easy. Get your fullbacks and centre midfield right, and everything sorts itself out.

Ehh... I don't think that's their problem. We have two pretty solid fullbacks and the centre of midfield is where they usually take charge of the game. I think their main problem is all in their heads to be honest. They tend to ease off against lesser teams, and get lazy... or they play too cautiously against good teams and give them too much space.

While my insistence on playing an attacking 4-3-3 system with a high defensive line probably doesn't help, because of the long balls coming over... they seem to enjoy it more this way. And they play better football when I give them license to attack more. It's also kind of a necessary system because if we need to get more bodies forward quickly and basically swamp defences (yesterday my boys were 3-0 up after about 25 minutes and the opposition changed to a 5-4-1, haha) because we don't have a guy who can dominate defences by himself anymore.

My team won their league cup 2 years ago from 3-1 down, 10 minutes to go. 4-3 AET. That was a special day.

Pity we've only got about 4 players who played that day still with the team

Sucks, don't it?

Last season I thought I'd built a team who were ready to really kick on to another level, and I was in the process of trying to get friendlies with a West Bromwich Albion "feeder team", and a couple of local league champions. Then I lost two of my best players, and three more were considering leaving. It's hard to keep a youth team together, I've found. But if you can keep the core of the squad, you're probably okay.

I happened to ref a Durham County U12s cup game just yesterday - not so much a goal fest as both teams (one Second Division, one Premier Division) doing their level best to kick the other lot off the field. Plenty of action, more exciting, maybe so, but in rather unorthodox ways.

If there's one thing that really bothers me about youth football, it's when coaches pack their team with physical players and just play kick and rush. Especially at really young ages (I can kinda understand it at say u16 and above). Or when they encourage overly aggressive play ("Get stuck in lad!" when he's just gone through the opponent? Really?).

I mean... There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo. And then there's the coaches who defend their players or don't correct them when they commit blatant fouls, go in too hard, or over the ball, or from behind etc etc. I had one of my players get stamped on a couple seasons ago. The opposition coach saw it, and just looked away. Didn't say a word. I was furious.

[Kinitaria]

I happened to ref a Durham County U12s cup game just yesterday - not so much a goal fest as both teams (one Second Division, one Premier Division) doing their level best to kick the other lot off the field. Plenty of action, more exciting, maybe so, but in rather unorthodox ways.

u12s? Bit early for that sort of game play isn't it?

Mind you, some of the teams round here...you wear body armour.

You'd think so, but with the underdogs 2-1 down at half time they started having a go at their opponents, who responded in kind. The game finished 2-1.

And there's a few teams up here that are the same. Admittedly, it's not the U12s.

If there's one thing that really bothers me about youth football, it's when coaches pack their team with physical players and just play kick and rush. Especially at really young ages (I can kinda understand it at say u16 and above). Or when they encourage overly aggressive play ("Get stuck in lad!" when he's just gone through the opponent? Really?).

I mean... There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo. And then there's the coaches who defend their players or don't correct them when they commit blatant fouls, go in too hard, or over the ball, or from behind etc etc. I had one of my players get stamped on a couple seasons ago. The opposition coach saw it, and just looked away. Didn't say a word. I was furious.

The thing about football below, say, U15 level is that a team full of strong, physical players have a very good chance of winning any game against smaller opponents, I've seen it a lot myself. But after they get older than 15-16, they can't rely on brute force any more because opponents have generally become skilful enough to pass it around a team that just focuses on pure strength.

I should add that the U12s match I referenced wasn't like that - they were two fairly normal sides and the home coach subbed a couple of players off when tempers were threatening to boil over.

[DesAnges]

Defending is easy. Get your fullbacks and centre midfield right, and everything sorts itself out.

Ehh... I don't think that's their problem. We have two pretty solid fullbacks and the centre of midfield is where they usually take charge of the game. I think their main problem is all in their heads to be honest. They tend to ease off against lesser teams, and get lazy... or they play too cautiously against good teams and give them too much space.

While my insistence on playing an attacking 4-3-3 system with a high defensive line probably doesn't help, because of the long balls coming over... they seem to enjoy it more this way. And they play better football when I give them license to attack more. It's also kind of a necessary system because if we need to get more bodies forward quickly and basically swamp defences (yesterday my boys were 3-0 up after about 25 minutes and the opposition changed to a 5-4-1, haha) because we don't have a guy who can dominate defences by himself anymore.

My dad is the manager, I just assist him. He always concentrates on the defensive side of things. He's not a defensive manager per se, but he thinks the game is easier to understand if you can get the kids to grasp the idea that not conceding is a better starting point for victory than flooding forwards for the goals. So he sets his team up in a 4-5-1.

Problem is, our super excellent striker from a few years ago hasn't grown at all, whilst everyone else has shot up, so he no longer has the physical presence. That's why the team struggled for goals last year.

One thing that could help - do you have a man marker? We used to have an excellent little Brazilian-Italian kid playing for us who was superb at this. He just followed the opposition's best team around the park for the whole game. Managers would get fed up, take the star man off to re-organise - and I'd let the kid off his leash. That was fun, because he was technically superb and very intelligent. So the manager would have to put his star man back on to counteract our player, who would then shadow him around the pitch. Was hilarious to watch.

It's not something a lot of managers think of, but if you can find a really good one it can give your team a lot of license to express themselves without having to worry about this one guy launching a devastating attack.

My team won their league cup 2 years ago from 3-1 down, 10 minutes to go. 4-3 AET. That was a special day.

Pity we've only got about 4 players who played that day still with the team

Sucks, don't it?

Last season I thought I'd built a team who were ready to really kick on to another level, and I was in the process of trying to get friendlies with a West Bromwich Albion "feeder team", and a couple of local league champions. Then I lost two of my best players, and three more were considering leaving. It's hard to keep a youth team together, I've found. But if you can keep the core of the squad, you're probably okay.

We have only the keeper, the striker, the LB and a utility man from that team now, everyone else has gone. Luckily they didn't go all in one go, so replacing them has been easier, but still.

I shudder to think how they'll do this year without the captain and VC. The captain especially, he'll be a pro some day, fantastic CB.

[Inter de Milano]

Ah, coaching. I guess I was kinda lucky to get the posistion for the U14 boys at my club. Their manager was banned for poaching (which is contacting specific players/teams from other clubs asking them to join your club) and my dad is a board member in the club, so I was appointed as the interim manager (I was previously an assistant to the 18 boys and coached the younger kids). It started pretty rough, losing games 3-0 and 5-3 in the beginning of the season. And these are talented kids, they play State Cup in Florida. With hindsight, I kinda blame myself because I radically changed the whole system they played. I refused to play the standard 4-4-2 and alternated between a 4-3-1-2 and 4-2-3-1. I had to retrain the left and right midfielders as well as the strikers to play as wingers and get the fullbacks over their fear of crossing the halfway line. I absolutely detested the offside trap and asked the defense to play somewhat deeper and apply zonal marking and lighter pressure.

My biggest pet peeve of all was their insistence to play the long ball and a poacher run 30 yards after it. Sure, they had a fast striker up top, but 9 times out of 10 it didn't work. In training I prohibited the defense and center midfielders from clearing or "booting" the ball up the field when pressured. Instead, I valued a possession game which slowed the game down. The fullbacks were expected to be extra men in the midfield while our trequartista probed the defensive line for gaps to pass a through ball. The defensive midfielders were mainly tasked with winning the ball and giving it to our creative midfielder, but I encouraged them to make forays forward to flood the final third. My speedsters were placed as the inside forwards/wingers, where they used their speed to latch onto a through ball and cut inside. My favorite player (don't tell) was our forward though. He didn't score bags and bags of goals, but he was excellent in finding gaps and moving off the ball, and was exceptional in holding the ball and giving it to nearby teammates.

All in all, we managed to get out of the group stage of state cup but lost in the second round. We may have won an occasional tournament or so, but it was a memorable and learning experience for me. Their manager returned and I don't believe I was missed when I left. I am currently managing my son's U10 boys team, and although they aren't where I want them to be, I'm sure its going to be a fun 8 or so years with them.

[Osarius]

The thing about football below, say, U15 level is that a team full of strong, physical players have a very good chance of winning any game against smaller opponents, I've seen it a lot myself. But after they get older than 15-16, they can't rely on brute force any more because opponents have generally become skilful enough to pass it around a team that just focuses on pure strength.

This is the point I'm getting at. If you develop the technique at the younger age -- where you should be developing it, for maximum realisation of potential -- then when those same players mature physically, they have the best of both worlds. But that's not how the game is played and coached, because those kind of coaches only seem to care about winning. How does that benefit the players, you know?

our super excellent striker from a few years ago hasn't grown at all, whilst everyone else has shot up, so he no longer has the physical presence. That's why the team struggled for goals last year

This is why I changed my team's system to 4-3-3 this year. Last season we could play with a lone striker and not worry too much, because he was tall and quick, and was a decent hold-up player when he needed to be. This season we have a guy of a similar build, but he doesn't have the technique (yet), and four small guys who can play as forwards. I figured if I mimicked Swansea and put a bigger guy in with a couple of pacy guys nearby, he'll have the support he needs, and we'll have options. 14 goals in two games so far this season

One thing that could help - do you have a man marker?

We do. But I noticed that only works sometimes. I save that for teams who focus on one player, not much point otherwise, decent teams just play around him. Also, if said man marker isn't faster than the guy he's marking, a long ball over the top renders him useless... and most teams in this league like to play that way (especially since they can't usually play through the midfield).

I know I could sit the team back deeper to limit the long ball... but then we're weaker offensively, and I know my players will get bored too easily and lose focus. This is why I try to stress the importance of keeping possession rather than defending ("What can they do if you have the ball?" ... "Nothing" ... "Exactly! So if we keep the ball, we control the game." -- typical exchange in training, lol). They seem more comfortable that way.

I can help them to a limited extent when it comes to defending (i.e. explain how to close off the channels, force players wide etc) but it's all mental stuff, tactics and whatnot, that they need to understand better before it will work properly. So that's what I'm working on. I try to give examples (referencing match of the day when possible) and just build up that tactical knowledge. It worked with the attacking side of things (even though it took them a whole season plus two summers) so I have faith. Just depends on whether they have the patience to keep at it.

The captain especially, he'll be a pro some day, fantastic CB.

Ah see, I'd say if you have a really good CB at this age, you're lucky. In six years of coaching youth football, I can honestly say I've only ever seen two centre backs that I've thought "oh, he's brilliant".

We had a really good centre mid who left us halfway through last season, he could make it perhaps. Our striker left at the end of last season, got picked up by Walsall, he'll be okay if he learns to block out the negativity and doubts and just focus on his game. I won't be surprised if I hear about him turning pro in 4-5 years.

[Serrland]

I happened to ref a Durham County U12s cup game just yesterday - not so much a goal fest as both teams (one Second Division, one Premier Division) doing their level best to kick the other lot off the field. Plenty of action, more exciting, maybe so, but in rather unorthodox ways.

If there's one thing that really bothers me about youth football, it's when coaches pack their team with physical players and just play kick and rush. Especially at really young ages (I can kinda understand it at say u16 and above). Or when they encourage overly aggressive play ("Get stuck in lad!" when he's just gone through the opponent? Really?).

I mean... There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo. And then there's the coaches who defend their players or don't correct them when they commit blatant fouls, go in too hard, or over the ball, or from behind etc etc. I had one of my players get stamped on a couple seasons ago. The opposition coach saw it, and just looked away. Didn't say a word. I was furious.

I ref little guys, and it absolutely breaks my heart when I see some of the stuff they do as young as 8, 9 years old. It might just be the area I'm in, but Mexican teams tend to be the worst for this sort of thing. On the ball stuff is almost more okay (not okay, but more okay) - someone shouldering someone to the ground is bad, yes, but it's not stomping on toes off the ball or clipping someone's ankles with your heel as you run by off the ball.

It bothers me because a lot of the coaches are doing their best with these kids, but it's the stuff they learn outside of training, stuff from their brothers, sisters, parents, etc. that worry me. Especially because so much of what happens is off the ball - and you can't reasonably expect to see everything that happens off the ball.

At that age it should just be about having fun, learning the game, and being active. Hell, winning and losing doesn't matter. I just don't get how some parents in particular, but sometimes coaches, can take it too seriously when the kids are so young.

[The Blaatschapen]

If there's one thing that really bothers me about youth football, it's when coaches pack their team with physical players and just play kick and rush. Especially at really young ages (I can kinda understand it at say u16 and above). Or when they encourage overly aggressive play ("Get stuck in lad!" when he's just gone through the opponent? Really?).

I mean... There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo. And then there's the coaches who defend their players or don't correct them when they commit blatant fouls, go in too hard, or over the ball, or from behind etc etc. I had one of my players get stamped on a couple seasons ago. The opposition coach saw it, and just looked away. Didn't say a word. I was furious.

I ref little guys, and it absolutely breaks my heart when I see some of the stuff they do as young as 8, 9 years old. It might just be the area I'm in, but Mexican teams tend to be the worst for this sort of thing. On the ball stuff is almost more okay (not okay, but more okay) - someone shouldering someone to the ground is bad, yes, but it's not stomping on toes off the ball or clipping someone's ankles with your heel as you run by off the ball.

It bothers me because a lot of the coaches are doing their best with these kids, but it's the stuff they learn outside of training, stuff from their brothers, sisters, parents, etc. that worry me. Especially because so much of what happens is off the ball - and you can't reasonably expect to see everything that happens off the ball.

At that age it should just be about having fun, learning the game, and being active. Hell, winning and losing doesn't matter. I just don't get how some parents in particular, but sometimes coaches, can take it too seriously when the kids are so young.

Projecting, in the hopes that their kid will make it to the top leagues, the dreams that the parent always had himself.

[Osarius]

Projecting, in the hopes that their kid will make it to the top leagues, the dreams that the parent always had himself.

As much as I understand that, I don't see how these parents think that a failure of coaches to develop these kids tactically and technically will see them achieve those lofty ideals. It's like... do they really think Man Utd will sign their son because he's a foot taller than the other kids at his age, and his team just won Wherevershire Youth League Division Two with a perfect record, even though he can't trap a ball to save his life? Surely you'd think they're more likely to go for that little kid at Division Five's bottom team, who has exhibited excellent technique.

/ranty mcrantenstein

[DesAnges]

Projecting, in the hopes that their kid will make it to the top leagues, the dreams that the parent always had himself.

As much as I understand that, I don't see how these parents think that a failure of coaches to develop these kids tactically and technically will see them achieve those lofty ideals. It's like... do they really think Man Utd will sign their son because he's a foot taller than the other kids at his age, and his team just won Wherevershire Youth League Division Two with a perfect record, even though he can't trap a ball to save his life? Surely you'd think they're more likely to go for that little kid at Division Five's bottom team, who has exhibited excellent technique.

/ranty mcrantenstein

Unfortunately they won't see the kid with the good technique because they'll think "Oh it's Division 5, no one of any calibre will be down there."

[Super Bwitain]

England losing? Why am I not suprised?

[DesAnges]

Lies. Fucking lies for 23 years. Twenty three.

Justice for the 96 is coming. I can feel it.

[DesAnges]

41 of the 96 could have been fucking well saved.

[Republic of Liberty and Freedom]

If there's one thing that really bothers me about youth football, it's when coaches pack their team with physical players and just play kick and rush. Especially at really young ages (I can kinda understand it at say u16 and above). Or when they encourage overly aggressive play ("Get stuck in lad!" when he's just gone through the opponent? Really?).

I mean... There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo. And then there's the coaches who defend their players or don't correct them when they commit blatant fouls, go in too hard, or over the ball, or from behind etc etc. I had one of my players get stamped on a couple seasons ago. The opposition coach saw it, and just looked away. Didn't say a word. I was furious.

I ref little guys, and it absolutely breaks my heart when I see some of the stuff they do as young as 8, 9 years old. It might just be the area I'm in, but Mexican teams tend to be the worst for this sort of thing. On the ball stuff is almost more okay (not okay, but more okay) - someone shouldering someone to the ground is bad, yes, but it's not stomping on toes off the ball or clipping someone's ankles with your heel as you run by off the ball.

It bothers me because a lot of the coaches are doing their best with these kids, but it's the stuff they learn outside of training, stuff from their brothers, sisters, parents, etc. that worry me. Especially because so much of what happens is off the ball - and you can't reasonably expect to see everything that happens off the ball.

At that age it should just be about having fun, learning the game, and being active. Hell, winning and losing doesn't matter. I just don't get how some parents in particular, but sometimes coaches, can take it too seriously when the kids are so young.

As a muscular and energetic left back whose stock in trade has always been going through the man over the top of the ball and winning 50/50's I resent your negative portrayal of the heroic water carrier,intimidating the opposition,winning the ball back and breaking up the fancy Dan's.We have a right to play the game too,dammit!!

[Osarius]

As a muscular and energetic left back whose stock in trade has always been going through the man over the top of the ball and winning 50/50's I resent your negative portrayal of the heroic water carrier,intimidating the opposition,winning the ball back and breaking up the fancy Dan's.We have a right to play the game too,dammit!!

There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo.

There's nothing wrong with being an enforcer, or a water carrier.
It's like the difference between being a bouncer and a thug. Or between a workhorse and an aimlessly running twat.

[Republic of Liberty and Freedom]

As a muscular and energetic left back whose stock in trade has always been going through the man over the top of the ball and winning 50/50's I resent your negative portrayal of the heroic water carrier,intimidating the opposition,winning the ball back and breaking up the fancy Dan's.We have a right to play the game too,dammit!!

There's nothing wrong with having a couple of "enforcers" -- I have them, they're necessary sometimes, especially when you have a lot of smaller, skilful players; hell, even Barcelona have a couple, when you think about it -- but if all they're doing is clattering opponents and hoofing the ball away, you're doing something wrong, imo.

There's nothing wrong with being an enforcer, or a water carrier.
It's like the difference between being a bouncer and a thug. Or between a workhorse and an aimlessly running twat.

Clattering opponents-guilty as charged
hoofing the ball away?-no pass to my midfield
Aimless running? I find right winger mark him out of the game,everytime he gets ball crunch him.Being bigger stronger an faster then pretty much everyone I play against helps though.
Our team man marks when we dont have the ball and smash the opposition when they have it.
As for thuggery? If your opponents are afraid or cant take you on physically you have already won the game

[Osarius]

There's nothing wrong with being an enforcer, or a water carrier.
It's like the difference between being a bouncer and a thug. Or between a workhorse and an aimlessly running twat.

Clattering opponents-guilty as charged
hoofing the ball away?-no pass to my midfield
Aimless running? I find right winger mark him out of the game,everytime he gets ball crunch him.Being bigger stronger an faster then pretty much everyone I play against helps though.
Our team man marks when we dont have the ball and smash the opposition when they have it.
As for thuggery? If your opponents are afraid or cant take you on physically you have already won the game

I think you may have misinterpreted my post. I don't think anyone was actually accusing you of being any of these things. I definitely wasn't.
In fact, the part of my post that I quoted justifies your selection in a team from my perspective... providing you are doing more than just being a physically intimidating presence.

Don't get it twisted. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with being physical; I know I can be. But I want to actually play football too. And I can. And when I'm being physical, I rarely go outside the laws of the game. That's the difference between a physical football player, and a thug.

If you are, as you put it "going through the man over the top of the ball", you should be sent off. You shouldn't be on the pitch. And your coach (if you have one) should be trying to correct that behaviour. That's not sport, that's bullying, ffs!

If every time I stepped on the pitch I knew I was just gonna get kicked and pushed/thrown around, why would I bother playing? I could just go and do martial arts instead and get the same outcome. I'm not afraid of a bit of a physical struggle, but if I know I can outplay you and your entire gameplan is simply "kick the flash bastard until he gives up", where is the fun in that for me? In fact, this is why I don't play sunday league football. Too many hatchet men in pub teams with no technical ability, who will basically just kick me for ninety minutes instead of trying to actually play the game.

When that same kind of thing happens at youth level, it pisses. Me. Off.