Is it a myth....

wonderfullife

....that running without the ball chasing is more tiring?

2 examples: Spain v Ireland and Italy v England. Common consensus is we were chasing shadows and that is far more tiring than keeping possession. Yet the stats don't really bare this out - like-for-like the Italians covered more distance on the pitch than the English (for example, pirlo 11.5k v stevie g 11.2k) and that was reflected too in the Ireland match.

Obviously both Ireland and England parked the bus to an extent - and hoofed it long and aimlessly - meaning the opposition has to run back to get the ball to come back with it. So that might explain it, to an extent. I just wonder is it a misleading myth. Distance covered is distance covered, whether it's ball at feet or not, they ran further than us.

Of the 4 semi-finalists, all 4 countries have a domestic winter break. The Portuguese domestic league has 30 fixtures, Bundesliga 34 and Italy/Spain same as England. (On an Irish note, it's realistic to say we may rely on Championship players at times who have a domestic campaign of 46 fixtures in the league).

I'm not for one minute trying to ignore the fact that both England and Ireland have technically inferior players and the problem goes far far deeper than the structure of the English league. I just wonder though if the players can ever be as fit and fresh, pound-for-pound, with their European counterparts with the lack of a winter break. It's the same handicap every major tournament, added to the technical inferiority.

Ultimately improving our technique, passing and ball retention can only be a good thing, of course, but i just wonder if we can ever match the fitness of the other countries during major tournaments due to the structure of the English league. (and yes i know the likes of Xavi/Iniesta play a god-forsaken amount of games due to Barca's success but they do get the winter break).

Pudsy33

wonderfullife wrote: »

....that running without the ball chasing is more tiring?

2 examples: Spain v Ireland and Italy v England. Common consensus is we were chasing shadows and that is far more tiring than keeping possession. Yet the stats don't really bare this out - like-for-like the Italians covered more distance on the pitch than the English (for example, pirlo 11.5k v stevie g 11.2k) and that was reflected too in the Ireland match.

Obviously both Ireland and England parked the bus to an extent - and hoofed it long and aimlessly - meaning the opposition has to run back to get the ball to come back with it. So that might explain it, to an extent. I just wonder is it a misleading myth. Distance covered is distance covered, whether it's ball at feet or not, they ran further than us.

Of the 4 semi-finalists, all 4 countries have a domestic winter break. The Portuguese domestic league has 30 fixtures, Bundesliga 34 and Italy/Spain same as England. (On an Irish note, it's realistic to say we may rely on Championship players at times who have a domestic campaign of 46 fixtures in the league).

I'm not for one minute trying to ignore the fact that both England and Ireland have technically inferior players and the problem goes far far deeper than the structure of the English league. I just wonder though if the players can ever be as fit and fresh, pound-for-pound, with their European counterparts with the lack of a winter break. It's the same handicap every major tournament, added to the technical inferiority.

Ultimately improving our technique, passing and ball retention can only be a good thing, of course, but i just wonder if we can ever match the fitness of the other countries during major tournaments due to the structure of the English league. (and yes i know the likes of Xavi/Iniesta play a god-forsaken amount of games due to Barca's success but they do get the winter break).

Distance covered doesn't equate to energy spent or tiredness though. For example Pirlo probably floated around the field, playing passes and jogging short distances to receive the ball again. He could do this countless times, but its far less tiring then chasing a ball around a midfield all day like Gerrard or Parker .

TLDR; Lots of short, easy runs on the ball. More continuous sprinting chasing it. Distance covered really isnt hugely important.

Kirby

It's obviously less tiring when your team has the ball. Think about it. When your team has the ball most of the team can take a break. If the left wing has the ball at his feet........most of his teamates ware waiting. Both centre halves, the right back, the right wing and the right striker are usually just standing around waiting either to make a run or to recieve the ball. They jog around to get free but its a fairly sedate pace.

When the opposition have the ball however, the only person who gets a break is the striker. Everyone else is either closing down, putting a tackle in or tracking a runner. And it's constant. You always have to be concentrating and marking your man. Mentally and physically tiring.

There is also the psychological impact of constantly being on the back foot. I've played in matches where the other team had the ball for nearly 90 minutes. It's exhausting.

The ball does all the work for the team in posession. Picture that training drill where you have one guy in the middle and 5 or 6 guys passing the ball in a circle. The guy in the middle breaks his neck trying to win it back and the others just tap it about. Which do you think is more tiring?

To put it even simpler, ask Glenn Whelan how he felt after the Spanish game.