1. We are delighted to have been nominated for Best Forum in The Football Blogging Awards. You can vote for us on their website here and via twitter here. You can read the caf thread here. Thanks to anyone who votes for us.
    Dismiss Notice

Is attacking the best form of defense?

Discussion in 'Football Forum' started by Dir Wangem, Nov 27, 2017.

  1. Nov 27, 2017
    #1

    Dir Wangem Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,527
    Location:
    Norway
    If you were to ask someone who the two best managers in the game who's currently active are, then there's a high chance they'd answer Pep and Mourinho. There is no secret that these two are very different, both in terms of personality and playstyle. Mourinho may have his teams play attacking and entertaining football for the majority of the season, but it's in the tough games that a coach shows his true colors. And when he's faced with a tough game, Mourinho will always have his teams sit deep and counter, preferably with very physical players in midfield. There is of course nothing wrong with that, and when it works it can be beautiful to watch.

    Pep on the other hand, is utterly uncompromising. Whether the opponent is Crystal Palace or Real Madrid, he will always go for an attacking approach. He'll stifle his opponents with high pressure and attack after attack. You'd think that this would have a clear defensive downside, especially seeing as City's defense on paper is 4th best in the league at best(in my opinion). But this has not been the case at all. His team has only conceded 2 more goals than defensive mastermind Mourinho, and no other team has given their opponents less shots/chances.

    It is clear that if you attack with high quality, then you ultimately push your opponent back which in return makes it very hard for them to counter properly. But what if you lack the quality? Klopp is another example of an uncompromising coach who will attack no matter who the opponent is. Because of this, he has suffered. Against teams that park the bus, he lacks the top players to create something out of thin air, and against equally strong(or stronger) opponents his teams will concede many goals.

    For an uncompromising attack to work out well defensively, you need top quality players and a top quality coach. But does it ultimately work better than a careful approach?

    Right now the answer seems to be 'yes', but Mourinho has been pretty damn successful with his philosophy too. Fergie is the best manager of all time so perhaps it would be wise to look at his football, but honestly, he was just special. Just out of this world. And besides: his style was somewhere between Mourinho and Pep, so we're not gonna get the answer there.

    If you had the best or second best team in the league on paper, which approach do you think you would have gone for if you were the manager?
  2. Nov 27, 2017
    #2

    Manchester Dan Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Messages:
    2,375
    Supports:
    Man City
    Well you’ve conceded less than City, so the argument is there for no. But if you can get the balance right with more offensive play then it’s far more enjoyable to watch. This is probably just another way of discussing Pep vs Jose at the moment.
  3. Nov 27, 2017
    #3

    Womp idiot

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,961
    Location:
    chillin' on top of the Opera House
    Bingo, we don't have enough of those threads tbh.
  4. Nov 27, 2017
    #4

    Dir Wangem Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,527
    Location:
    Norway
    There's not a mountain of difference between two goals though. And like I said: City concedes the fewest shots too.

    I don't care to discuss Pep vs Mourinho as much as I care to discuss whether or not attacking might be the best form of defending(provided that you have the players).
  5. Nov 27, 2017
    #5

    Womp idiot

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    6,961
    Location:
    chillin' on top of the Opera House
    The best form of defence is to defend. Attacking leaves teams open to counter attacks etc. so of course attacking is more dangerous. In an ideal scenario you'd find the proper balance of the two.
  6. Nov 27, 2017
    #6

    breakout67 Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2017
    Messages:
    8,860
    Supports:
    Man City
    The last 3 league winners all played conservatively in high pressure situations and you are asking this question. The best form of defense is defense and the same for attack.

    As for the question of how I would approach it, I have no idea because I have no experience or knowledge regarding management.
  7. Nov 27, 2017
    #7

    Keeps It tidy Hates Messi

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    16,626
    Location:
    New York
    Keeping possession can be the best form of defense. And when you defend deep often you are weakening yourself defensively since you are closer to the goal.
  8. Nov 28, 2017
    #8

    Keeps It tidy Hates Messi

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    16,626
    Location:
    New York
    But, not always the season before Chelsea's last win with Mourinho a high scoring City and Liverpool battled for the title. And Ferguson's last title squad was not great defensively.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2017
  9. Nov 28, 2017
    #9

    Dir Wangem Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,527
    Location:
    Norway
    It's not that simple.

    Scoring from a counter-attack is just as hard(if not harder) as scoring against a team that parks the bus. Attacking is only more dangerous if you consistently lose possession or is unable to tire the opponent with your passing and off-the-ball movement. This is the case for most teams, and thus they don't dare to attack all the time, simply because they lack the quality. And then we have Van Gaal, would play a high defensive line and constantly try to find openings, much like Pep. But he lacked the players for this kind of football, so ultimately we got countered to death. But this is generally not happening to Pep's teams(when he has the players he needs), so it's hard to say that his method is defensively more dangerous.
  10. Nov 28, 2017
    #10

    do.ob Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    5,981
    Location:
    Germany
    I think in theory attack is clearly the best form of defense (you're the one in control, your opponent can only react, gets worn out by chasing the ball over and over and once they actually get it they are far far away from your goal etc), however in reality you need a level of quality from your coach and players which the vast majority of teams simply can't afford. So the answer very much depends on what type of team you're talking about.
  11. Nov 28, 2017
    #11

    Cheesy Bread with dipping sauce Scout

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2011
    Messages:
    35,167
    Location:
    Scotland
    I think it changes depending on current footballing philosophies, ideals etc and how the game is played, and obviously also depends on what players you have.

    Looking back the 90s and parts of the 2000s probably thrived massively on defensive football; Italian teams were obviously revered for their defensive ability, with AC Milan sides often winning Serie A with remarkably low goals tallies. Similarly, in the 2000s Mourinho built up his reputation as a pragmatic and often defensive coach. His Chelsea side, for example, were capable of scoring goals but their strength lay in defence. In 04-05 they produced the most successful ever PL season points wise, but were comfortably outscored by Arsenal. Where they benefited was in the fact they only conceded 15. And again, later in the same decade Fergie's United, while filled with an array of attacking talent, was often very pragmatic when away in Europe and could boast to having one of the world's best defensive partnerships.

    I'd say that's partly changed now. Since Chelsea's fluke win in 11/12, the CL's exclusively been won by teams who either thrived on counter-attacking football, possession-based football, or a mixture of the two insofar as they were simply much better than their opponents and able to blow them away due to their superior quality. Real, Barca and Bayern all won the CL simply because they had some phenomenal talents, many of whom are obviously incredibly adept on the ball or who can be very direct when attacking. Atletico under Simeone have been the antithesis to this, but a common theme has been that despite their defensive brilliance they often just fall short.

    In the PL, you can notice similar trends with title winners. Chelsea last season had an array of attacking talents. Leicester were eventually pragmatic but initially very direct and expansive. United in 12-13 conceded a ton of goals but scored a lot too. The top two in 13-14 scored massively but weren't always reliable at the back. Even Mourinho's 14-15 side was quite entertaining for a while.
  12. Nov 28, 2017
    #12

    Billy Blaggs Flacco of the Blaggs tribe

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2000
    Messages:
    22,629
    Location:
    Accidental founder of Blaggstianity.
    The Barcelona team was a phenomenal attacking side with Romario et al. But Milan destroyed them in that champions league final by having the balance of defence and attack.
  13. Nov 28, 2017
    #13

    dichinero Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2013
    Messages:
    7,153
    Attack is the new defence. If we have the ball, you don't and are constantly worried about your defence than mine. In recent years, the better attacking teams almost always have solid defensive stats and win things, it's hardly ever the other way around.
  14. Nov 28, 2017
    #14

    Ibi Dreams Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    Messages:
    4,263
    Having a great attack and an okay defence is more likely to win you things than a great defence and an okay attack. Ultimately an okay defence can still get the job done a lot of the time, particularly if you're able to consistently score 2, 3 or 4 goals. Even if your attack has an off day, you might be up against a team that just isn't that good at attacking or is having an off day too. An attack that is just okay will struggle consistently, because defending is ultimately easier than attacking and even the weakest teams can make it very difficult for you.
  15. Nov 28, 2017
    #15

    B20 HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,954
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    Regardless, the hardest thing in football is scoring goals. Cracking that should be top of anyone's list in football. From there, you weigh up how costly it is to score your goals vs needing men to defend. If you can combine the two

    As Guardiola does, you're pretty well set. Klopp wants to do the same, but feck me - Should have fecked off Mignolet, Lovren, Moreno and Klavan in the summer if so. We simply don't have the players for that atm.
  16. Nov 28, 2017
    #16

    Sky1981 Fending off the urge

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,062
    Location:
    Under the bright neon lights of sincity
    It's about efficiency, you defend just enough not to concede and you attack good enough to net you +1 GD in a match.
    It's about point, you don't get point if you lose, you won't get 3pts if you don't win.
    A super attacking teams would have to work extra not to concede, a super defending team would have to work extra to score goals, it's about chosing your poison

    All and all it's abit of both, the rest is cliche. No team would flourishes with a heavy attack/defense oriented. Gotta have a bit of both.

    At the end of the day you only get 3pts for a 10-0 win or a 1-0 win (although GD plays a part but it's too rare to have to rely on GD)
  17. Nov 28, 2017
    #17

    K2K Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    17,968
    Location:
    "Can Manchester United score? They always score"
    Nail on the heard.

    Pep v Jose is the new "Wayne Rooney" on here. Countless threads all saying the same thing. Leading to the same posters having the same arguments on the different threads.
  18. Nov 28, 2017
    #18

    B20 HEY EVERYONE I IGNORE SOMEONE LOOK AT ME

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    22,954
    Location:
    Disney Land
    Supports:
    Liverpool
    There are other managers to bring in as well. Wenger and Klopp are obvious picks as proponents of attack > defence. COnte, Benitez, Pocchetino the obvious counterpoints for clean sheets.
  19. Nov 28, 2017
    #19

    Treble Full Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2008
    Messages:
    9,643
    Balance between attack and defence is key. If your defence is great at the expense of the attack, it is is not, well, great.

    Real have a very leaky defence, yet they have been the most succssful club the last years. Because they score more than the opposition. At the same time defensively astute teams like Juve and Atleti reached the CL final twice. .
  20. Nov 28, 2017
    #20

    SqualorVictoria New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2013
    Messages:
    396
    Supports:
    City
    To be fair this thread in itself has the potential to be interesting without the need of comparing the two, so that's definitely not on the OP.
  21. Nov 28, 2017
    #21

    K2K Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    17,968
    Location:
    "Can Manchester United score? They always score"
    Even the OP itself leads to Mou v Pep comparison.

    Unsurprising that the thread will descend to that.
  22. Nov 28, 2017
    #22

    Mcking Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    3,128
    Location:
    Nigeria
    It's not just attacking, keeping possession and only taking risks when there's at least a 50% chance of it coming off is the key.
    Just look at Guardiola's city for example, they have conceded the least shot and second least goals in the league doesn't mean they have they best defenders, just that the defenders doesn't always have to defend due to their playing style.(consider LVG too)
    Liverpool do play attacking football too, but on the other hand, takes risks after risks in attack putting their defence at high risk of conceding on the counter and being caught high up the pitch.
    Defending is obviously the easiest way of defence, attacking is the hard way and simply not the best way - unless you are pretty good at keeping the ball -, as you'd need top decision making in attack and ability to keep possession without wilting under pressure.
  23. Nov 28, 2017
    #23

    Dir Wangem Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,527
    Location:
    Norway
    I only used them to illustrate my point as they are the two best coaches in the game right now.

    It's funny that the only people trying to derail the thread are the ones whining about the thread being about something it's not. The majority has stayed on topic. You are free to join us :)
  24. Nov 28, 2017
    #24

    SqualorVictoria New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2013
    Messages:
    396
    Supports:
    City
    Pep's teams sort of maximize the impact of that 'attack is the best form of defence' model and Mourinho is almost the exact opposite, so of course they'll be given as examples. It shouldn't <i>necessarily</i> evolve into a dick swinging contest, though I'm aware it possibly will. :)
  25. Nov 28, 2017
    #25

    Fortitude TV/Monitor Expert Scout

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    Inside right
    There should be a claim made that the best form of defence is neither attack nor defence - it is ball retention and exorbitant possession stats.

    Spain's Euro '12 epitomises this. They conceded 1 goal throughout the entire tournament - and that was in the very first game - not because they had the best defence or the best attack, but because nobody could get the ball off them and thus any notion of mounting an offensive was made redundant. Even when they lost the ball, they won it back in the same area, which was usually midfield - generally deemed the neutral area of the pitch.

    It's probably the hardest feat to achieve and thus the most unlikely to be replicated until another set of players with a Xavi-level retainer leading them comes to the fore.

    Having said that, great defences seem to be the just as good a form of defence as shown by France in '98 and '00 as well as Italy in '06 conceding so few goals (all equal on 2 conceded with Spain in World Cups).

    Club football has more variables and reasons why stats can be skewed so it's harder to say what is best there. Teams go out there to win in club football, and will throw a lot more caution to the wind or focus more on a bigger picture, which introduces rotation etc and more chances to concede, as opposed to international tournaments where the stakes are so high that conceding goals can be a fatality as far as progression is concerned.
  26. Nov 28, 2017
    #26

    Fortitude TV/Monitor Expert Scout

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Messages:
    9,908
    Location:
    Inside right
    Thread has no need whatsoever to concern either of them. See my post, wasn't thinking a jot about either when I made it, and I'm sure it's not the first thing that comes to mind for others, either.
  27. Nov 28, 2017
    #27

    Antonedwin Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2017
    Messages:
    371
    Jose Mourinho Philosophy is team who has the ball , has bigger chance to do error ,
  28. Nov 28, 2017
    #28

    K2K Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Messages:
    17,968
    Location:
    "Can Manchester United score? They always score"
    Simeone would actually be a better example of a defensive style.

    Probably one of the most defensive teams in Europe. Sometimes even against the smaller sides.
  29. Nov 28, 2017
    #29

    Dir Wangem Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2015
    Messages:
    1,527
    Location:
    Norway
    Different league, less successful coach. But if switching the name 'Mourinho' with 'Simeone' will make you go on topic, then just pretend that that the names have been switched. The Mourinho vs Pep discussion is incredibly boring. The styles they represent is much more interesting to me.
  30. Nov 28, 2017
    #30

    giorno Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2016
    Messages:
    11,691
    Supports:
    Real Madrid
    It's sn ideological question. The simple answer is no. The broader answer is depends.

    Keeping a clean sheet is the surest way to win, but the goal is to win, not keeping a clean sheet. Altetico madrid have conceded 1 more league goal than barcelona, but they're 8 points behind. Barcelona themselves keep the ball a lot but do very little actual attacking with it, and then if you look at their games you'll notice that atletico's record reflect their defensive strength far more than barcelona, who's defensive record is better than their actual defence thanks to luck and Ter Stegen being the best goalkeeper in the world atm
  31. Nov 28, 2017
    #31

    Dancfc Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Messages:
    828
    Supports:
    Chelsea
    It is on occasion's, but having that mindset week in week out won't get you anywhere, look at Dortmund this season as case in point.Peter Bozs makes Brendan Rodgers look like Jose in terms of defense strategy, it's actually embarrassing to watch.
  32. Nov 28, 2017
    #32

    Cloud7 Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2016
    Messages:
    3,951
    Reached the final and been beaten by the same Real Madrid.

    Attack > defense for me. Goals win you games, even a clean sheet on its own can’t win you a game. As has been said before, the best teams in the world over the last few years have been teams where their strong point was their attack, not their defensive astuteness.
  33. Nov 28, 2017
    #33

    Snow Somewhere down the lane, a licky boom boom down

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    29,752
    Location:
    Reykjavík
    In principle the answer is yes because bar the dubious own goal you won't concede when you have the ball.

    Another way to look at it is that you won't lose if you don't concede and if you don't concede you only need to score the 1 goal and scoring 1 goal is a lot easier than to score 2 goals.

    Defending isn't fundamentally hard. If you manage the basics of keeping shape and don't lose an opponent into the box then it's really hard to concede.

    Look at the goals we've conceded this season. Stoke scored twice. Once because Bailly was very stupid and once because the marking was poor on a corner. If you concede from a corner you've only got yourself to blame.
    Against both Burton and CSKA the players just drifted off after being 4-0 and simply weren't ass keen on defending in the 90th minute with the game already won.
    Against Huddersfield we lose the ball after a sideways pass in our own half and a CB lets a goal kick fly over him. Two gifts.
    Chelsea score by a simple cross from the middle, through the middle to an unmarked man in the box.

    It's not realistic to expect your team to never concede goals because it relies on a lot of individuals to keep focus and not make mistakes but that's all the more reason you don't want to rotate your defense and keeper at all or defensive midfielder. The last two champions have that in common, few rotations in a solid defense and thus not many goals conceded.

    City do defend, they just do it differently. Mostly with the ball. There have however been at least 5 occasions this season where they have lost possession inside or near their own box and were lucky to have not conceded a goal. All because of how they like to retain the ball. It's a high risk, high reward tactic that requires even less mistakes than a defensive setup. In the form they are in now the risk isn't great but last season we saw that form dip quite a bit when they suddenly didn't manage results. Let's not forget that they were lucky to get the points that they did against Everton, Bournemouth, Huddersfield and Feyenoord. Not that others team haven't been lucky either, just saying that their run hasn't been one without faults.
    I don't think they'd handle an injury to De Bruyne any better than we handle an injury to Pogba.
  34. Nov 28, 2017
    #34

    Bestietom Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2013
    Messages:
    2,426
    Location:
    Ireland
    Fergie always said it was as long as you stay concentrated. By that he probably meant, get back when you lose the ball, and win it back.
  35. Nov 28, 2017
    #35

    Keeps It tidy Hates Messi

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2013
    Messages:
    16,626
    Location:
    New York
    While Liverpool's defenders are not great I think midfield is also a major issue for them. I think they want to defend with the ball like City does but, they are going to struggle to do that with that midfield.
  36. Nov 28, 2017
    #36

    11101 Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2014
    Messages:
    8,547
    Every legendary coach i can think of has based their tactics around a solid defence first and foremost.

    Its a myth that Pep is an attacking coach. He doesnt attack recklessly like a Klopp does. He just follows the philosophy that the best way to defend is to keep the ball.
  37. Nov 28, 2017
    #37

    TheOrgazoid Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2015
    Messages:
    394
    Attack is the best form of attack.

    We should attack, so the best way to do that is to attack.

    :devil:
  38. Nov 28, 2017
    #38

    redIndianDevil Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,212
    Attack is always the best defence in my opinion especially for a big team that is expected to win titles.

    Defending is rather easy that's why every average manager and smaller clubs do that in a short period of time.
  39. Nov 28, 2017
    #39

    redIndianDevil Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,212
    This, a Guardiola team will never defend like Mourinho does.
  40. Nov 28, 2017
    #40

    ijc Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    Messages:
    294
    Location:
    Malta
    I do think that attack is the best form of defence. However, you need your defense to be extremely good at what it does. When we had Berba, Ronaldo, Rooney, Tevez, Giggs and Nani they rarely worried about their defensive responsibilities because they knew there was a mammoth defence of Rio, Vida, Evra and VDS covering for them.

    I think it's what Jose is doing now - making sure that the defence is top notch until he can unleash the forwards (that's what I personally hope at least!). It's useless having the best attack or the most free flowing football, example Liverpool, and then draw a game because your defence is unreliable.

    Balance is key, in everything.