Thread 150100314

As in does someone playing the left side of the field have the same general physique and skills as someone playing the right? I was pondering baseball and how it's not the case for that sport with the tilt towards right handedness and the counterclockwise base running path.

>>150100314 (OP)
Usually the left side players like fullbacks and wingers would be left footed but it's not exactly necessary. You have to understand everyone has a degree of ambidexterity it's a spectrum

>>150100314 (OP)
>As in does someone playing the left side of the field have the same general physique and skills as someone playing the right?

Can you explain this?

I mean, from what I understood from your question:
>Are players from left side of the field as good as the ones from the right?

I'd say it depends, and that it is indeed asymmetrical, depending on the players a a coach has available and what he wants to do in tactical terms.

You can have an offensive left back, and a defensive right back. An attack midfielder who attacks from the right, and a defensive one on the left.

You can also make these choices based on their strong foot (left or right).

Does this answer your question?

>>150100370
Was asking more like if playing on a particular comes with a certain archetype as opposed to an individual coach's tactical decisions. Like if one side trends towards faster players but the other towards larger and stronger ones.

>>150100314 (OP)
Yes, two players with the same physique could play left wing or right wing. The main thing would be if they were left footed or right footed, with right wingers normally being left footed and left wingers being right footed. In terms of physique they can both be the same. This goes for all left and right positions.

>>150100314 (OP)
No, one full-back may be more prone to attacking, while the other may not push up the wing. Or both may go on the attack.

>>150100314 (OP)
Not necessity, it really depends on the players on the team and most of the time it's asymmetrical since having players who excel in the same skills on both sides of the pitch is rare. For example there's typically a side which is more attacking and a side that's more defensive. Like Trent on the right at Liverpool and Robertson on the left, similarly in Utd back in the day Evra on the left was more attacking than Neville/Brown on the right.

There are thought of as playing centrally who like to drift wide. Henry who was a striker (typically in a 442) was famous for picking up the ball on the left side and running towards goal rather than playing centrally like his position would typically dictate.

Players also don't typically keep a perfect formation, It's not really possible with the presence of the other team's players and besides its more natural to play with your teammates a bit staggered.

The real shape of a team isn't always the formation they line up in too. Like City typically line in a 433 but, they actually play with the midfielders forward and the fullbacks pushed up. 2008 united used to lineup in a flat 442 but, in practice they played this lopsided hybrid 433, 4231 with Ronaldo Swapping wings, Rooney dropping deep and the Gigges (if he was playing) tucking into central midfield. 2007 Ac milan would also lineup in a flat 442 (which was actually their defensive shape) but, in practice they played with a midfield diamond instead. So, most of the time, the formations you see on the internet and that the broadcaster puts up on the screen before the game isn't necessarily what the team will play

Players on the left are usually left footed, left footed/handed men are proven to have lower testosterone so left sided players are usually scrawny

>>150100503
>Like if one side trends towards faster players but the other towards larger and stronger ones.

Hmm, idk. Again, it depends on the position. Strikers are usually strong and tall. Wingers are quick and skillful. Midfielders have a good passing skill... But it can vary on tactics and what kind of player you have.

I'm confused with your question, I don't know what you want to know precisely. All I can say is that one side doesn't perfectly "mirror" the other.

>>150100314 (OP)
The typical rightback isn't different from the typical leftback and so on as far as stature and strengths are concerned, though there can of course be big differences within teams based on tactical approaches and team cohesion. But most leftbacks are left-footed while most rightbacks are right-footed, though that isn't a 100% fit. And it increasingly loses value since players are supposed to be good with both feet today. But it's still usually a factor, and it can make a big difference in various situations, the most obvious being scoring opportunities

>>150100314 (OP)
You could say so. There isn't anything innate to football that makes it asymmetrical like baseball. But asymmetrical team compositions do exist for the sake of tactics. You could have a more physical right-back and a more technical left-back because your team defends in a 4-5-1 but the left-back joins the midfield to form a 3-5-2 in possession or something like that. Or a faster right-winger with a more skilled inverted left-winger (ie a left-winger who's right-footed and tends to cut inside).

So football could be considered symmetrical by default but there isn't anything stopping managers from building asymmetrical teams. In fact, those are very common for a multitude of reasons.

>>150100505
Sure but you have right footed left backs who can tackle and pass with both feet or prefer blocking crosses with the outside of their strong foot or else are very good backwards runners. There's not rules only conventions