That Norwich football was great, and tbh, not really what I’m most concerned with (perhaps apart from one example). I’m not saying you only pass in the final third, but most of those Norwich plays were not the last line of defence. It’s semantics to argue whether they were playing it about at the back or more of the defensive midfield area.Literally about to post this for the dinosaurs to watch.
Norwich sure showed up City for trying to play out from the back by, err, playing out from the back.
I'm not advocating lumping the ball forward with no plan. I'm simply trying to argue that playing out from the back shouldn't be something religiously adhered to when sometimes there are benefits to not doing so. For example, like the game at Southampton where they were so committed to the press that playing upto the halfway line allowed us to get into a better attacking area with 4-5 of their players now behind the play.That makes no sense. Otherwise teams would just come out of the training ground with tactics perfected. There is nothing like a live game where stakes matter to really hone a skill set.
And with regards to that Stones quote, I refer you to the 4-0 drubbing that City received in the first season, where Guardiola doubled down on his methods, when everyone was asking him to, as you say, "be more pragmatic". They've reaped the rewards of sticking to it through the kinks.
The way its going it will get to a point where the centre backs don't know how to handle a target man. They'll be 'ball players' rather than 6ft plus defenders that can head a ball. Wingers will make a comeback at the same time.What are the chances that this style of play and the inevitable tactical reaction, brings some new form of the old targetman back into the game? Someone like Mark Hughes with his amazing ability to control longer balls under pressure from CB's could be devastating against the high press with runners going off him.
Exactly, the situation are so different. They are not close to the goal and they are all in movement which makes it easier to beat the press. Doing the same from the goalkick is very different.That Norwich football was great, and tbh, not really what I’m most concerned with (perhaps apart from one example). I’m not saying you only pass in the final third, but most of those Norwich plays were not the last line of defence. It’s semantics to argue whether they were playing it about at the back or more of the defensive midfield area.
I think last man playing the ball around on your 18 yard line is very risky.
That's not what this thread is about. It's writing off the entire tactic as unnecessary.I'm not advocating lumping the ball forward with no plan. I'm simply trying to argue that playing out from the back shouldn't be something religiously adhered to when sometimes there are benefits to not doing so. For example, like the game at Southampton where they were so committed to the press that playing upto the halfway line allowed us to get into a better attacking area with 4-5 of their players now behind the play.
Adapting tactics shouldn't be considered a weakness. I'm all for having a philosophy and general principles of playing football with the ball on the ground but you shouldn't ignore opportunities when they are presented.
Yea, basically, in all but one of those Norwich plays, them losing the ball would have meant City being in on their back four. Other teams regular do it where losing the ball means the opponent would be in on their goalkeeper. Big difference.Exactly, the situation are so different. They are not close to the goal and they are all in movement which makes it easier to beat the press. Doing the same from the goalkick is very different.
Playing it from the back isn't a problem per se, doing from goalkick is very different from open play and it invites pressure more easily
Exactly what i mean, you resort to the ways that are comfortable to you. I mean with Aymeric and Stones, City can easily play out from the back but Ota is not a player with such smarts. I'm not saying they'll stop playing out from the back nor should they but there is a time and a place.It's only 5 games into a new season. Talk of ceding the title challenge is premature. Besides, why would they abandon an approach that has aided them in winning the past 2 titles with an average point total of 100?
Regarding City and Arsenal, their midfielders and attackers are smaller sized and all. They are more likely to lose the battle of the second ball against bigger sides.
Trying to ‘build an attack’ I believe is the official response from what I’ve read.Ive just seen Cleverlys goal vs Arsenal and for the fecking life of me I cant figure out what Arsenal were thinking or trying.
You didn't see where I conceded victory to you for yesterday only?Trying to ‘build an attack’ I believe is the official response from what I’ve read.
I did, my last post had nothing to do with you sir. I’m not trying to battle with anyone either, just a friendly exchanging of theory. Appreciate your concession because I know it’s not something done easily, it just almost embarrassed me as I wasn’t really trying to ‘win’ so didn’t know what to say!You didn't see where I conceded victory to you for yesterday only?
Kick for touch like they do in rugby.I'd like to bump this thread.
What's better? Playing out from the back and accepting the occasional deadly mistake? Or hoofing the ball and resorting to claiming the second ball, or winning the header, but accepting the lack of control in where the ball lands? Plus your midgets up front getting beaten to headers by gigantic CBs (think Vidic against Aston Villa a few years ago)
I've long thought that sides that master playing out the back have a higher ceiling than sides that hoof and pray. Is there a third option I'm missing?
Go!
Explain this to me, I'm more familiar with football (handegg as ye call it)Kick for touch like they do in rugby.
the Middle ground is what everyone should be aiming at. If you are pressed by 4 attackers then bypass them with a long pass or just kick it forward. If there is space then play from the back. Using either system religiously is suicidalI'd like to bump this thread.
What's better? Playing out from the back and accepting the occasional deadly mistake? Or hoofing the ball and resorting to claiming the second ball, or winning the header, but accepting the lack of control in where the ball lands? Plus your midgets up front getting beaten to headers by gigantic CBs (think Vidic against Aston Villa a few years ago)
I've long thought that sides that master playing out the back have a higher ceiling than sides that hoof and pray. Is there a third option I'm missing?
Go!
Couldn't you make the counter argument they got knocked out cause the opposition were better at it than them.Real Madrid just got knocked out of the CL because of playing it out from the back.
It's obviously not a good way to play football at any cost(!) unless you have all 5 good ball playing players at the back. And generally half of ball playing CBs and keepers are usually shite at defending which is even worse.
Hoofball Real Madrid under Zidane won the CL twice. Liverpool just won the league by playing hoofball. They also recently won the CL by playing same brand of football.
Pep's City?There is literally not* a great example from recent years that playing it out from the back at any cost is successful way of playing football.
*except Pep's Barca, which were once in a lifetime generation of players, and their aeakest point was still their defence.
On the whole City won the tie because they won both games and were better team, but they lost today's game because they literally conceeded both goals by flaffing around in the defence with the ball and having no idea what to do with it, except having strict policy not to boot it forward when they have nothing else to do.Couldn't you make the counter argument they got knocked out cause the opposition were better at it than them.
Basically in rugby a team will play territory to get down the other end of the pitch. So if a team is deep enough inside their own half they will kick the ball over the sideline further down the pitch. This will give the other team the ball possession and a line out. You give the other team the ball but you gain territory on them. It works it rugby because a line out can be pretty well contested and territory is usually one of the most important aspects of the game.Explain this to me, I'm more familiar with football (handegg as ye call it)
It's worth nothing that they had two times better team and squad than anyone else during those years.Pep's City?
They won the league twice and once by a record points total.
The point is that they still had great success doing it.It's worth nothing that they had two times better team and squad than anyone else during those years.
They failed in Europe for three years. Pretty sure they were even knocked out one year because Stones had Varane esque night against some team(can't remember exactly who it was).
Exactly. City were better than Madrid at playing the ball out from the back. And the team that eventually wins the competition will likely be a team who is good at playing the ball out from the back.Couldn't you make the counter argument they got knocked out cause the opposition were better at it than them.
There is a reason more and more teams are abandoning booting the ball and contesting it. Look at the improvement at United, its worth far more than the occasional feck up it causes to pretty much every team who do it. We've seen it with Chelsea and United's improvement this season. The four faves for the CL Bayern, City, Barca and PSG are probably the best teams at it in the world.
True, but they have the forwards that can win second balls and such.Teams should read the game and be able to do what’s needed, sometimes you need to mix it up. Liverpool do it, they are a complete side.
Is it possible to commit entirely to being great at lumping it, and win the CL that way?Exactly. City were better than Madrid at playing the ball out from the back. And the team that eventually wins the competition will likely be a team who is good at playing the ball out from the back.
What, which team was better than Pep's City during his time in England? No squad comes even close in Premiership.The point is that they still had great success doing it.
Plenty of teams have had better players throughout the years than Pep's City.
Stones had that night vs Monaco, but they still won the game 5-3.
Their failure in Europe wasn't because they were playing out from the back.
Playing out from the back is fine but what I find infuriating with many teams including United is they keep on trying even when it is clear the opponents are reading right through it.I'd like to bump this thread.
What's better? Playing out from the back and accepting the occasional deadly mistake? Or hoofing the ball and resorting to claiming the second ball, or winning the header, but accepting the lack of control in where the ball lands? Plus your midgets up front getting beaten to headers by gigantic CBs (think Vidic against Aston Villa a few years ago)
I've long thought that sides that master playing out the back have a higher ceiling than sides that hoof and pray. Is there a third option I'm missing?
Go!
Believe it or not I think you could win it playing like that but the chances are remote. For one, you need the correct players in defence and attack and need alot of luck. But in a cup competition it's possible as long as you have the right blend of minerals.True, but they have the forwards that can win second balls and such.
Is it possible to commit entirely to being great at lumping it, and win the CL that way?
Reminds me of a couple of things vaguely similar.Basically in rugby a team will play territory to get down the other end of the pitch. So if a team is deep enough inside their own half they will kick the ball over the sideline further down the pitch. This will give the other team the ball possession and a line out. You give the other team the ball but you gain territory on them. It works it rugby because a line out can be pretty well contested and territory is usually one of the most important aspects of the game.
For us it would mean Maguire kicking intentionally kicking the ball out of play for a throw deep inside the oppositions half instead of trying to find a long ball to the forwards. For it to work in football in any way you'd have to have the team ready to stop a quick throw or else be top class at pressing.
To be honest it was more an unserious response!! I did once think though that it's a tactic that could work for Klopp's gegenpress.
What, which team was better than Pep's City during his time in England? No squad comes even close in Premiership.
And what was the reason for their failure? What was reason for Pep's failure in Europe when he was leading Bayern?
