German Football 22/23 | 2. Bundesliga returns | Hamburg vs Schalke 20:30 |

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
Well I disagree: Dortmund have tried to move towards possession heavy football after Klopp, by appointing Tuchel, Bosz and Favre and it hasn't really led them anywhere. If anything it has been destabilizing, because in order to accommodate desires of dominance the club had to drop their standards in terms of pressing, defensive work and athleticism.
I also think it's quite frankly a ridiculous idea to suggest going for a possession heavy approach may in any way be cheaper or more cost efficient to maintain. Dominating possession means pushing players forward, which means your (gegen)pressing has to be that much better to compensate, individual mistakes are that much more costly, because you've already exposed yourself at the back. You will want to have complete players on every single position, they need to be able to play their way out of trouble, they need to have very good positional awareness to reliably keep the ball in tight spaces and they need to be able to apply a relentless gegenpressing when a turnover happens.
A lot of good points as usually, however I think this time you miss something important: Dortmund isn't in a position to choose their style, at least not in most games. Most teams are happy sitting back against the German No 2, so Dortmund has to play dominant and can't focus on transitions. Yet for some reason the club board seems to think that the playing style that brought you back on top can keep you there. Dortmund isn't staying a top club because of it's direct style but because of money and individual quality.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
A lot of good points as usually, however I think this time you miss something important: Dortmund isn't in a position to choose their style, at least not in most games. Most teams are happy sitting back against the German No 2, so Dortmund has to play dominant and can't focus on transitions. Yet for some reason the club board seems to think that the playing style that brought you back on top can keep you there. Dortmund isn't staying a top club because of it's direct style but because of money and individual quality.
I'm not missing that fact. Tuchel, Bosz, Favre - they all tried to build for dominance. And it didn't get the club very far in the long run. There is no perfect solution for a limited budget, but trying to build an imperfect possession side has cost the club dearly in the cup competitions, with some outright pathetic finishes in several years. It has also diminished the team spirit and atmosphere at the stadium to have the squad filled with Brandt-esque fair weather players.
So now the club is trying to (re-)introduce certain standards of mentality, work ethic and athleticism, so there's always a cohesive backbone to rely on. That doesn't mean the team always has to play like a caricature - the squad for example allows Terzic to line up a fairly talented midfield of Dahoud, Bellingham and Reyna if he wants to do so - but these qualities have to be the baseline again.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
I'm not missing that fact. Tuchel, Bosz, Favre - they all tried to build for dominance. And it didn't get the club very far in the long run. There is no perfect solution for a limited budget, but trying to build an imperfect possession side has cost the club dearly in the cup competitions, with some outright pathetic finishes in several years. It has also diminished the team spirit and atmosphere at the stadium to have the squad filled with Brandt-esque fair weather players.
So now the club is trying to (re-)introduce certain standards of mentality, work ethic and athleticism, so there's always a cohesive backbone to rely on. That doesn't mean the team always has to play like a caricature - the squad for example allows Terzic to line up a fairly talented midfield of Dahoud, Bellingham and Reyna if he wants to do so - but these qualities have to be the baseline again.
While I agree that filling the squad with fair weather players as you called them is a problem, I don't get why you feel that this issue is somehow related to building a possession based system. It's just bad recruiting, it's not in any way related to your playing style.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I don't really get where the club has made bad experiences with possession football. Klopp's teams after his first title could almost be labelled possession oriented teams. Tuchel is a possession oriented coach and he was the most successful post Klopp. Favre is by my definition no possession coach - he's too cautious for that. Part of possession football is gegenpressing as you mentioned but Favre was a coach who prefers to defend deep, in his own box if possible. That leaves Bosz. Ironically, I think after Tuchel and Bosz, Terzic was actually the coach who was closest to a possession oriented style.

That aside, I give you that you need a higher quality of players to play possession oriented football but I most definitely believe that this is within the capacities of the club. You have wasted too much money on players with mentality but not enough quality in the past and I don't believe doubling down on that will solve the issues. Being comfortable on the ball and able to find solutions in dense situations is also a matter of coaching. Same goes for mentality, by the way.

Personally, I think it is more likely that the club naturally tends towards pressing and transition because it likes the image of the hard working no nonsense type of football. It fits to their fanbase so that there's a natural bias towards it. But that's not a recipe for success, IMO. As @stefan92 said, as a top club you don't get a choice. You can't transition if the opponent doesn't commit enough players to attack and if you don't know how to play through low blocks without exposing yourself and/or losing control of the game, you aren't a top team.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
You have wasted too much money on players with mentality but not enough quality in the past and I don't believe doubling down on that will solve the issues.
That's a good point I think. As a reaction to having mentally weak players Dortmund signed players who were praised for their mentality like Emre Can, but who lacked footballing ability. In a way they tried to balance talent and mentality in their squad while it probably makes more sense to look for balanced players to get a balance team.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
While I agree that filling the squad with fair weather players as you called them is a problem, I don't get why you feel that this issue is somehow related to building a possession based system. It's just bad recruiting, it's not in any way related to your playing style.
The more complete a player is the more money he costs. Dortmund are operating on a limited budget, so they have to compromise at some point. To properly implement a dominant possession system certain qualities on the ball are non-negotiable. To get those qualities into your team you have to buy players who are lacking in other departments (namely athleticism or defensive qualities), because otherwise they would be outside of your budget.

If Hummels or Witsel were quick, Dortmund would have never been able to (re-)sign them. If Guerreiro wasn't a liability defensively he'd probably be a top 3 LB in the world. If Dortmund want to buy a player who excels technically he pretty much by definition has to have some flaws elsewhere.

That's a good point I think. As a reaction to having mentally weak players Dortmund signed players who were praised for their mentality like Emre Can, but who lacked footballing ability. In a way they tried to balance talent and mentality in their squad while it probably makes more sense to look for balanced players to get a balance team.
That's the other side of the aforementioned logic: to counterbalance the fair-weather or athletically flawed players Dortmund felt the need to buy some players of the other extreme. Favre tried to balance it by swearing off pressing almost entirely and playing ultra safe with the ball. That didn't look so great either.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
If Dortmund want to buy a player who excels technically he pretty much by definition has to have some flaws elsewhere.
True. An that's what I am questioning. Maybe they should sometimes have settled for good to very good instead of excellent technical abilities, if that had meant getting a less flawed player.

By the way I feel like their signings in the current window are mostly of that kind - might not be the most excellent, but look to me quite well rounded.

So while I have some doubts about their public statements regarding their playing style, they might actually take some right decisions now.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
True. An that's what I am questioning. Maybe they should sometimes have settled for good to very good instead of excellent technical abilities, if that had meant getting a less flawed player.

By the way I feel like their signings in the current window are mostly of that kind - might not be the most excellent, but look to me quite well rounded.

So while I have some doubts about their public statements regarding their playing style, they might actually take some right decisions now.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that statement. Sure, Süle and Schlotterbeck look like all around high quality players, but Adeyemi looks to be on weak side technically to me, especially considering Dortmund already have Malen, it's seems quite a clear nod towards direct football. Maybe he's not a donkey, but Özcan's primary strength is his defensive work.
And David Raum, who may not actually end up being signed, but definitely appears to be high up the wish list, looks like he prefers direct football, too, since he's not really one for building up carefully from deep positions.

I think every single signing is clearly supposed to be strong at transitions and some of them maybe not so much at other aspects.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
While it's true that possession oriented football demands more from a player, I think you're exaggerating it. The core of this style is first and foremost positional play and you don't need any technique for it. Moreover, most possession oriented teams feature a few players who are totally different. E. g. Tuchel's BVB had Dembele who was pretty much the antithesis to a sophisticated, technically sound player who makes the correct decision 95/100 times. Generally speaking, the best possession squads in recent times may have had technically excellent players but also lots of less gifted ones (relatively speaking) to complement them - e. g. Abidal or Pedro at Barca or Walker or Zinchenko at City. Ajax is also a very good example of this.

Personally, I believe that many of Dortmund's easy turnovers in the past season came from their playing style. Because players were inctenivized to play vertically early in the build up. I remember for example Rose praising Can after he lost Dortmund a match singlehandedly with very stupid possession losses. And it is not as if this was an outlier. Whenever he played you could bet on him making a few dumb trips up front, dangling on the ball, releasing it far too late or playing a ball into nothingness. Of course players will lose possession more often and look less secure on the ball if they are coached this way.
 

kaiser1

Full Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2018
Messages
1,951
Supports
Bayern Munich
Bye Lewandowski

Kind of happy he didn't break Gerd's total goals record
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund

While it's true that possession oriented football demands more from a player, I think you're exaggerating it. The core of this style is first and foremost positional play and you don't need any technique for it. Moreover, most possession oriented teams feature a few players who are totally different. E. g. Tuchel's BVB had Dembele who was pretty much the antithesis to a sophisticated, technically sound player who makes the correct decision 95/100 times. Generally speaking, the best possession squads in recent times may have had technically excellent players but also lots of less gifted ones (relatively speaking) to complement them - e. g. Abidal or Pedro at Barca or Walker or Zinchenko at City. Ajax is also a very good example of this.

Personally, I believe that many of Dortmund's easy turnovers in the past season came from their playing style. Because players were inctenivized to play vertically early in the build up. I remember for example Rose praising Can after he lost Dortmund a match singlehandedly with very stupid possession losses. And it is not as if this was an outlier. Whenever he played you could bet on him making a few dumb trips up front, dangling on the ball, releasing it far too late or playing a ball into nothingness. Of course players will lose possession more often and look less secure on the ball if they are coached this way.
Nothing Pep ever did can be an example for cost efficiency. Especially not playing Pedro alongside Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi.

Dortmund's team in Tuchel's second season wasn't particular functional or coherent. The team was 20 minutes away from missing the minimum target of direct CL qualification, they conceded 40 goals and Tuchel was constantly whining to the press. The games looked mostly like "pass it to Dembele and hope he finds Aubameyang".

What about Ajax? They are a special case, since they play in Eredivisie and can afford to just follow their philosophy for decades, come what may. But if you look at their team sheet you'll see the compromise: playing Blind at LB, pairing a 1.75 CB with a 1.80 CB. Ten Hag deserves credit for putting it all together so well, but I think there is a real chance that his successor won't and that highlights another issue, namely that good possession coaches are a real bottle neck. Bayern experienced this, too, when they had to hire Kovac or felt the need to spend €25m on Nagelsmann. So even in Germany, who would these be? Flick, Tuchel, Nagelsmann? Fat chance of Dortmund signing any of them.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
Nothing Pep ever did can be an example for cost efficiency. Especially not playing Pedro alongside Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi.
On the other hand Baumgart turned an essentially bankrupt Köln into a dominant possession team. Of course not on the level Dortmund needs to be on, but good enough to prove that you don't need to spend like Pep.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
On the other hand Baumgart turned an essentially bankrupt Köln into a dominant possession team. Of course not on the level Dortmund needs to be on, but good enough to prove that you don't need to spend like Pep.
Köln:

1st at crosses
3rd at high balls
2nd at long balls
9th at overall pass completion
15th at short pass completion
1st at attacking third pressures
2nd at pressure success rate
3rd at successful attacking third tackles
1st at touches in (own) defensive third


They are first and foremost a very aggressive pressing side. To his credit Baumgart hasn't forgotten about the ball, but he's nothing like Pep or Ten Hag. And I assume he'd be doing the same Dortmund is doing right now if he were in charge.
 
Last edited:

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Nothing Pep ever did can be an example for cost efficiency. Especially not playing Pedro alongside Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta and Messi.

Dortmund's team in Tuchel's second season wasn't particular functional or coherent. The team was 20 minutes away from missing the minimum target of direct CL qualification, they conceded 40 goals and Tuchel was constantly whining to the press. The games looked mostly like "pass it to Dembele and hope he finds Aubameyang".

What about Ajax? They are a special case, since they play in Eredivisie and can afford to just follow their philosophy for decades, come what may. But if you look at their team sheet you'll see the compromise: playing Blind at LB, pairing a 1.75 CB with a 1.80 CB. Ten Hag deserves credit for putting it all together so well, but I think there is a real chance that his successor won't and that highlights another issue, namely that good possession coaches are a real bottle neck. Bayern experienced this, too, when they had to hire Kovac or felt the need to spend €25m on Nagelsmann. So even in Germany, who would these be? Flick, Tuchel, Nagelsmann? Fat chance of Dortmund signing any of them.
As I said, you don't need to have 11 world class players to play possession football. In it's very core, possession football is based on every player positioning himself where he is supposed to be to make it as easy as possible to find passing options - and this can even be done by somebody who has no technique or athleticism at all. Players also look much more natural on the ball and at passing in such a system.

There also have been many accounts of successful implementations of these ideas at teams with far less quality than Dortmund, like Werner with Holstein Kiel and Bremen, Marcelo Bielsa at Leeds, Bosz at Leverkusen and so forth. Napoli wasn't "richer" than Dortmund in the Sarri years.

Regarding the coach: Of course the three coaches you named aren't possible, but I believe that where's will, there's a way.
 

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
Köln:

1st at crosses
3rd at high balls
2nd at long balls
9th at overall pass completion
15th at short pass completion
1st at attacking third pressures
2nd at pressure success rate
3rd at successful attacking third tackles
1st at touches in (own) defensive third


They are first and foremost a very aggressive pressing side. To his credit Baumgart hasn't forgotten about the ball, but he's nothing like Pep or Ten Hag. And I assume he'd be doing the same Dortmund is doing right now if he were in charge.
And also 4th at possession, despite lacking quality in the squad (which they have to make up for by their aggressive pressing as you mentioned). Point is they are able to dominate their games and not to play reactive (I think they scored just one or two counter attacking goals all season or something like that).
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
As I said, you don't need to have 11 world class players to play possession football. In it's very core, possession football is based on every player positioning himself where he is supposed to be to make it as easy as possible to find passing options - and this can even be done by somebody who has no technique or athleticism at all. Players also look much more natural on the ball and at passing in such a system.

There also have been many accounts of successful implementations of these ideas at teams with far less quality than Dortmund, like Werner with Holstein Kiel and Bremen, Marcelo Bielsa at Leeds, Bosz at Leverkusen and so forth. Napoli wasn't "richer" than Dortmund in the Sarri years.

Regarding the coach: Of course the three coaches you named aren't possible, but I believe that where's will, there's a way.
I don't think Kiel ever averaged 55% or more possession under Werner. That's a pretty low bar you're setting there. I think an actual example would be Tim Walter. But what is the second division supposed to tell me. Schalke just won it playing hoofball, it's a different world.

Bielsa is primarily a pressing coach. Good luck playing his football with players that don't have the ability to run around for the full 90 minutes or who miss their pressing cues.

Sarri had a few good years at Napoli, when they had an absurdly good team by their standards: Koulibly, Jorginho, Allan, Hamsik, Insigne, Mertens, Insigne, Higuain. Even then he wasn't particularly successful in Europe with them. He then got sacked after his first season at Chelsea and Juventus.

Bosz?!? Been there, done that. Leverkusen liked his style so much, they hired a counter attacking coach after him.

What are these examples supposed to show me? That you can have a good season trying to play dominant football? I'm not denying that. But the question is about sustainability and cost efficiency.

And also 4th at possession, despite lacking quality in the squad (which they have to make up for by their aggressive pressing as you mentioned). Point is they are able to dominate their games and not to play reactive (I think they scored just one or two counter attacking goals all season or something like that).
There is little patience about Köln's football and while them being 4th is indeed something to take note of it says more about the style of the rest of the league than it says about them being a true possession side. For example your typical possession side that methodically outplays their opposition circulates the ball in the middle third. Man City for example have about 52% of their touches in that area and only 22% in their own third. For Bayern or even Dortmund it's around 50% as well.
Köln however have 42% of their touches in the mid third and 39% in their defensive third. Granted they don't just mindlessly throw away possession to go for second balls, but they are clearly looking for direct passes and much more so than the (more) dominant sides. 23% of their passes are above shoulder height versus about 14% of Bayern's and Dortmund's. 24% of their passes are long balls versus 16% for Bayern and 19% for Dortmund.
 

Acrobat7

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,179
Supports
Bayern Munich
2. Bundesliga makes the title and no one mentions the first games… :nono:
Pauli coming out of the gate nicely and 96… oh, well.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
2. Bundesliga makes the title and no one mentions the first games… :nono:
Pauli coming out of the gate nicely and 96… oh, well.
After the lineup from last season it just seems to bland: Fürth, Bielefeld, Hannover, Nürnberg, Karlsruhe.. who really gives a feck if they have a good start? Hamburg is probably the only club that aggressively demands promotion, for everyone else it's probably more like: win a few, lose a few, let's wait and see where they are in February.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I don't think Kiel ever averaged 55% or more possession under Werner. That's a pretty low bar you're setting there. I think an actual example would be Tim Walter. But what is the second division supposed to tell me. Schalke just won it playing hoofball, it's a different world.

Bielsa is primarily a pressing coach. Good luck playing his football with players that don't have the ability to run around for the full 90 minutes or who miss their pressing cues.

Sarri had a few good years at Napoli, when they had an absurdly good team by their standards: Koulibly, Jorginho, Allan, Hamsik, Insigne, Mertens, Insigne, Higuain. Even then he wasn't particularly successful in Europe with them. He then got sacked after his first season at Chelsea and Juventus.

Bosz?!? Been there, done that. Leverkusen liked his style so much, they hired a counter attacking coach after him.

What are these examples supposed to show me? That you can have a good season trying to play dominant football? I'm not denying that. But the question is about sustainability and cost efficiency.
You know what, let's dig into this ;)

As fans we like to speak about "possession football" but lots of the coaches and players standing for this approach are very hesitant to use this term since it is misleading. And that's because possession is a byproduct of this style, not the objective. When Xavi was being confronted with fans being bored by Barca/Spain, he argued that the opponent was to blame for this because he parked the bus. This meant that it is much harder to find space, leading to longer possession phases. And that's hinting at the core of this style: In the end, it is quite simply the refusal to play "dumb balls". Instead everything is about control and leaving as little to chance as possible. You don't whip a cross in hoping that somebody nicks it in or gets at the end of a second ball. You don't take low percentage long shots. Instead you move the ball around, trying to create superiority and find space. But if you encounter the opportunity to play a dangerous pass with a high enough chance of success or go into a one on one, you absolutely go for it. So the style sort of defines itself by what not to do and instead making the simple decisions. And for this, positional play is the key because it enables you to play simple. Not only by standing in the right place but also by making the correct runs with the correct timing.

Now, if you are the underdog and play this way, the relation between "searching space" and "exploiting space" naturally shifts towards the latter because the opponent is committing more players to attack, meaning that you have to recycle the ball less time before finding the space you're looking for. So possession isn't really a decent indicator to judge whether or not a team plays possession football (re: Kiel). And this also goes the other way round: If you are by far the best team in the league, you'll naturally end up with lots of possession. But the question is how you try to overcome the defense of the opponent: Head through the wall or patience? On the contrary, if you encounter an opponent on eye level, you usually don't pin him back but have a much more open game in the middle of the pitch. And again it's the question control vs. chance - do you play risk averse long passes, hoping for second balls, or do you try to outplay the pressing of the opponent? "Possession" oriented teams will always opt for control and the "reproducable" play if given the choice.

So it's essentially "control vs chance" or "circumvention vs breaking through". They'll pass around until they spot the opportunity to create a chance in a controlled fashion ("possession as a byproduct"), not by playing the probabilities ("when crosses and long shots have low success rates, this just means we have to attempt more of them"). Of course there are nuances to this - for instance, City and Liverpool behave very similarly against the ball and in the immediate transitional phase afterwards but where Guardiol's team teans to utilize these transitional moments to get back into control of the ball, Klopp's rather tends to see the attack through until the end. But one way or another, both coaches these days are quite similar to each other.

Now, the reason why "possession" oriented teams like those two are so successful in league competitions is exactly that, control and reproducability. It's by far the best approach to make qualitative disadvantages count by eliminating as much of the factor luck as possible. So if Dortmund wants to maximize their qualitative advantages over the rest of the league bar Bayern, it should be their go to approach, if you ask me.


And since you have mentioned Seoane and Leverkusen: I think the above description fits Seoane quite well. He, too, uses transitions to quickly make room and similarly to Klopp, his teams often play the attack through until the end. But this is only the case if given space. What I haven't seen under him is the typical "head through wall" approach we've seen a lot under Bosz and Herrlich. When the opponent parks the pass and leaves little space, Leverkusen occasionally has 60-70% possession, too. And this also goes in line with Rolfes, who in fact did love Bosz' football: Shortly before Seoane was signed for good, Rolfes claimed that their recruiting profile is a coach who wants to have lots of possession since this is the ideal condition for the development of young players.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
You know what, let's dig into this ;)

As fans we like to speak about "possession football" but lots of the coaches and players standing for this approach are very hesitant to use this term since it is misleading. And that's because possession is a byproduct of this style, not the objective. When Xavi was being confronted with fans being bored by Barca/Spain, he argued that the opponent was to blame for this because he parked the bus. This meant that it is much harder to find space, leading to longer possession phases. And that's hinting at the core of this style: In the end, it is quite simply the refusal to play "dumb balls". Instead everything is about control and leaving as little to chance as possible. You don't whip a cross in hoping that somebody nicks it in or gets at the end of a second ball. You don't take low percentage long shots. Instead you move the ball around, trying to create superiority and find space. But if you encounter the opportunity to play a dangerous pass with a high enough chance of success or go into a one on one, you absolutely go for it. So the style sort of defines itself by what not to do and instead making the simple decisions. And for this, positional play is the key because it enables you to play simple. Not only by standing in the right place but also by making the correct runs with the correct timing.

Now, if you are the underdog and play this way, the relation between "searching space" and "exploiting space" naturally shifts towards the latter because the opponent is committing more players to attack, meaning that you have to recycle the ball less time before finding the space you're looking for. So possession isn't really a decent indicator to judge whether or not a team plays possession football (re: Kiel). And this also goes the other way round: If you are by far the best team in the league, you'll naturally end up with lots of possession. But the question is how you try to overcome the defense of the opponent: Head through the wall or patience? On the contrary, if you encounter an opponent on eye level, you usually don't pin him back but have a much more open game in the middle of the pitch. And again it's the question control vs. chance - do you play risk averse long passes, hoping for second balls, or do you try to outplay the pressing of the opponent? "Possession" oriented teams will always opt for control and the "reproducable" play if given the choice.

So it's essentially "control vs chance" or "circumvention vs breaking through". They'll pass around until they spot the opportunity to create a chance in a controlled fashion ("possession as a byproduct"), not by playing the probabilities ("when crosses and long shots have low success rates, this just means we have to attempt more of them"). Of course there are nuances to this - for instance, City and Liverpool behave very similarly against the ball and in the immediate transitional phase afterwards but where Guardiol's team teans to utilize these transitional moments to get back into control of the ball, Klopp's rather tends to see the attack through until the end. But one way or another, both coaches these days are quite similar to each other.

Now, the reason why "possession" oriented teams like those two are so successful in league competitions is exactly that, control and reproducability. It's by far the best approach to make qualitative disadvantages count by eliminating as much of the factor luck as possible. So if Dortmund wants to maximize their qualitative advantages over the rest of the league bar Bayern, it should be their go to approach, if you ask me.
You can substitute the word possession for the word control, but that's merely semantics. "Nono sir, I don't want possession, I just want to control the ball. And I don't know why you keep bringing up Pep, if Dortmund could spend €50m per player 20 slots deep I'd clearly have a different view of the issue. The whole point is that they have to approach issues differently, because of financial constraints. Weirdly enough Klopp's control also became a lot better when they started buying a GK for €60m, a CB for €85m or one of Bayern's starting midfielders.


And since you have mentioned Seoane and Leverkusen: I think the above description fits Seoane quite well. He, too, uses transitions to quickly make room and similarly to Klopp, his teams often play the attack through until the end. But this is only the case if given space. What I haven't seen under him is the typical "head through wall" approach we've seen a lot under Bosz and Herrlich. When the opponent parks the pass and leaves little space, Leverkusen occasionally has 60-70% possession, too. And this also goes in line with Rolfes, who in fact did love Bosz' football: Shortly before Seoane was signed for good, Rolfes claimed that their recruiting profile is a coach who wants to have lots of possession since this is the ideal condition for the development of young players.
It's weird then that Leverkusen have gone from 60% average possession (2nd highest) in Bosz's last full season to 53.7% (6th highest) under Seoane.
 
Last edited:

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
You can substitute the word possession for the word control, but that's merely semantics. "Nono sir, I don't want possession, I just want to control the ball. And I don't know why you keep bringing up Pep, if Dortmund could spend €50m per player 20 slots deep I'd clearly have a different view of the issue. The whole point is that they have to approach issues differently, because of financial constraints. Weirdly enough Klopp's control also became a lot better when they started buying a GK for €60m, a CB for €85m or one of Bayern's starting midfielders.




It's weird then that Leverkusen have gone from 60% average possession (2nd highest) in Bosz's last full season to 53.7% (6th highest) under Seoane.
I don't think you got the point. Control is not the same as possession. You can have possession without controlling the game and vice versa. And there's no need for large amounts of possession if you can progress the ball and create chances with a high enoigh probability. Especially towards the end of Bosz' tenure, the possession was so high just because the ball circulation and transitioning was so slow. Pointless possession in harmless areas and no movement to create chances from static situations.

And your argument about the spending prowess is also pretty weak, IMO. Of course City and Liverpool can outspemd Dortmund, but Dortmund's spending power is much bigger compared to their domestic competitors bar Bayern. As I said, positional play is the best approach to make your qualitative advantages count. And Dortmund has significantly more spending power than Leverkusen, Leipzig and the likes.

I can guarantee you, there's zero chance of winning the league against Bayern by playing pressing and transition football only.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
I don't think you got the point. Control is not the same as possession. You can have possession without controlling the game and vice versa. And there's no need for large amounts of possession if you can progress the ball and create chances with a high enoigh probability. Especially towards the end of Bosz' tenure, the possession was so high just because the ball circulation and transitioning was so slow. Pointless possession in harmless areas and no movement to create chances from static situations.
I take it you mean controlling the game via methodically manipulating and outplaying the opposition until an opportunity that is genuinely promising has presented itself. That's certainly the kind of control that comes to my mind, when thinking about most of the names you have listed.

And your argument about the spending prowess is also pretty weak, IMO. Of course City and Liverpool can outspemd Dortmund, but Dortmund's spending power is much bigger compared to their domestic competitors bar Bayern. As I said, positional play is the best approach to make your qualitative advantages count. And Dortmund has significantly more spending power than Leverkusen, Leipzig and the likes.
Nearly every team in Bundesliga is drilled to exploit sloppiness in possession and/or transitions, even Bayern experience that at times, it's no coincidence that they just conceded 37 goals and are looking to replace their €40m CB with an €80m cb, playing with a €160m CB duo. It's not enough to be decent at this, you have to pretty damn consistent and that takes a certain individual quality and a very high level coach. I struggle to name even one suitable candidate, who would have been available this summer. Certainly none of the ones on your list.

I can guarantee you, there's zero chance of winning the league against Bayern by playing pressing and transition football only.
I don't think anyone has said that the club should dogmatically reduce its style to that. The club more or less has made being good at these things a minimum requirement for signings. Because of financial realities that will probably mean the team will have to play on the direct side of the spectrum, but that's not automatically equate hoofball. In broad terms Baumgart's approach does look interesting, going for a fairly clean build up, but trying to get as quickly as possible through the mid third. It would particularly fit Dortmund's summer transfers, since they bought two high quality CBs, Cologne's CM and a big striker, who should be able to function as an outlet for direct passes.
 
Last edited:

stefan92

Full Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2021
Messages
5,949
Supports
Hannover 96
I don't think Kiel ever averaged 55% or more possession under Werner. That's a pretty low bar you're setting there. I think an actual example would be Tim Walter. But what is the second division supposed to tell me. Schalke just won it playing hoofball, it's a different world.

Bielsa is primarily a pressing coach. Good luck playing his football with players that don't have the ability to run around for the full 90 minutes or who miss their pressing cues.

Sarri had a few good years at Napoli, when they had an absurdly good team by their standards: Koulibly, Jorginho, Allan, Hamsik, Insigne, Mertens, Insigne, Higuain. Even then he wasn't particularly successful in Europe with them. He then got sacked after his first season at Chelsea and Juventus.

Bosz?!? Been there, done that. Leverkusen liked his style so much, they hired a counter attacking coach after him.

What are these examples supposed to show me? That you can have a good season trying to play dominant football? I'm not denying that. But the question is about sustainability and cost efficiency.



There is little patience about Köln's football and while them being 4th is indeed something to take note of it says more about the style of the rest of the league than it says about them being a true possession side. For example your typical possession side that methodically outplays their opposition circulates the ball in the middle third. Man City for example have about 52% of their touches in that area and only 22% in their own third. For Bayern or even Dortmund it's around 50% as well.
Köln however have 42% of their touches in the mid third and 39% in their defensive third. Granted they don't just mindlessly throw away possession to go for second balls, but they are clearly looking for direct passes and much more so than the (more) dominant sides. 23% of their passes are above shoulder height versus about 14% of Bayern's and Dortmund's. 24% of their passes are long balls versus 16% for Bayern and 19% for Dortmund.
In short they play a dominant style that is much different to Bayern's or Dortmund's. And that's the point, you don't need to sign similar players like Bayern do.
 

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
I take it you mean controlling the game via methodically manipulating and outplaying the opposition until an opportunity that is genuinely promising has presented itself. That's certainly the kind of control that comes to my mind, when thinking about most of the names you have listed.



Nearly every team in Bundesliga is drilled to exploit sloppiness in possession and/or transitions, even Bayern experience that at times, it's no coincidence that they just conceded 37 goals and are looking to replace their €40m CB with an €80m cb, playing with a €160m CB duo. It's not enough to be decent at this, you have to pretty damn consistent and that takes a certain individual quality and a very high level coach. I struggle to name even one suitable candidate, who would have been available this summer. Certainly none of the ones on your list.



I don't think anyone has said that the club should dogmatically reduce its style to that. The club more or less has made being good at these things a minimum requirement for signings. Because of financial realities that will probably mean the team will have to play on the direct side of the spectrum, but that's not automatically equate hoofball. In broad terms Baumgart's approach does look interesting, going for a fairly clean build up, but trying to get as quickly as possible through the mid third. It would particularly fit Dortmund's summer transfers, since they bought two high quality CBs, Cologne's CM and a big striker, who should be able to function as an outlet for direct passes.
Yes, they are trained to exploit sloppiness, so you better avoid being sloppy ;) And sloppiness usually happens when you have no easy passing options (= insufficient positioning) or the easy passing options is ignored. That's not down to technique but positional play and tactical instructions. When you watch decent possession sides, the players rarely do anything tecchnically outrageous, the ball circulation relies on technically very easy things and being at the rught place at the right time.

Moreover, I have the feeling you judge coaches too much on what they have shown so far. Tuchel wasn't a possession coach before he joined you, same goes for Nagelsmann and Hoffenheim/Leipzig/Bayern. We've had a similar debate regarding Rangnick and training methodology etc. Xavi for instance said that Simeone is a top coach necause he's so good at teaching the players what he wants. I've read a very long take by Rene Maric on modern methodologies and the psychology behind it and also a few stories about how Tuchel has banished 11 v 11 matches completely from training, instead using very innovative games forms to get the tactical instructions into the subconsciousness of his players.

The system they coach is to a certain extent exchangeable in this regard since those coaching teams have usually enough expertise in positional play. That's why top coaches like Tuchel and Nagelsmann changed their style with every change of club as well.

And come on, you describe it as if it was inpossible to play this way if you can't spend 80m on CBs. Ajax dif it highly successful as an underdog in the UCL, surely Dortmund can then implement this style as a top dog Bubdesliga team.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Yes, they are trained to exploit sloppiness, so you better avoid being sloppy ;) And sloppiness usually happens when you have no easy passing options (= insufficient positioning) or the easy passing options is ignored. That's not down to technique but positional play and tactical instructions. When you watch decent possession sides, the players rarely do anything tecchnically outrageous, the ball circulation relies on technically very easy things and being at the rught place at the right time.
So Dortmund are doing everything right then? Sign a bunch of combative players, then *checks notes* get Ole Werner or Peter Bosz to teach them positional football and then they are good to go and can win the league? ;)
Bad organization of course also causes individual mistakes, but consistently avoiding mistakes is a big quality in itself and it usually costs.


Moreover, I have the feeling you judge coaches too much on what they have shown so far. Tuchel wasn't a possession coach before he joined you, same goes for Nagelsmann and Hoffenheim/Leipzig/Bayern. We've had a similar debate regarding Rangnick and training methodology etc. Xavi for instance said that Simeone is a top coach necause he's so good at teaching the players what he wants. I've read a very long take by Rene Maric on modern methodologies and the psychology behind it and also a few stories about how Tuchel has banished 11 v 11 matches completely from training, instead using very innovative games forms to get the tactical instructions into the subconsciousness of his players.

The system they coach is to a certain extent exchangeable in this regard since those coaching teams have usually enough expertise in positional play. That's why top coaches like Tuchel and Nagelsmann changed their style with every change of club as well.
What else would you judge coaches on? And having said that at the time he was breaking through Tuchel was an ultra modern coach, who let everyone know much he worshiped Pep, so you had a pretty good idea what he was going to try to do with Dortmund. With Nagelsmann you could see right from the start where his priorities were, trying to implement "clean" football after taking over for Stevens in a desperate situation as a coach in his 20s, it could have been career suicide if it didn't work out.

And come on, you describe it as if it was inpossible to play this way if you can't spend 80m on CBs. Ajax dif it highly successful as an underdog in the UCL, surely Dortmund can then implement this style as a top dog Bubdesliga team.
I firmly believe that implementing a dominant possession approach is the most ambitious thing you can try as a club, even if you are actually rich. So while it can obviously yield success it's far from any guarantee. Even Ajax - for all the credit Ten Hag deserves - they had one great season where they made the CL semi and then they failed at the group stage twice and went out to Benfica. Not to mention what happened in the years before Ten Hag. It's not some big trump card to bring them up, I could just as easily mention Frankfurt. And you still haven't even named a single realistic coaching appointment for Dortmund, when to have sustained success and a consistent implementation of this approach they would have to be able to find one every second or third year on average. Even if they had appointed Ten Hag this summer: what would it net long term to rebuild the club according to his ideas, when chances are you couldn't find a worthy successor to build on it.

In short they play a dominant style that is much different to Bayern's or Dortmund's. And that's the point, you don't need to sign similar players like Bayern do.
I wouldn't object to saying that Baumgart sort of dominates games by suffocating opponents with his pressing, but to call his possession dominant, because his team (hyperbole) passes it around the back a bunch, before they play a long ball or pump a cross and averages slightly more possession with that, is not what most would people agree with. When I hear/read interviews with him "intensity" and "attack" seems to be by far the most common word.
 
Last edited:

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
So Dortmund are doing everything right then? Sign a bunch of combative players, then *checks notes* get Ole Werner or Peter Bosz to teach them positional football and then they are good to go and can win the league? ;)
Bad organization of course also causes individual mistakes, but consistently avoiding mistakes is a big quality in itself and it usually costs.




What else would you judge coaches on? And having said that at the time he was breaking through Tuchel was an ultra modern coach, who let everyone know much he worshiped Pep, so you had a pretty good idea what he was going to try to do with Dortmund. With Nagelsmann you could see right from the start where his priorities were, trying to implement "clean" football after taking over for Stevens in a desperate situation as a coach in his 20s, it could have been career suicide if it didn't work out.



I firmly believe that implementing a dominant possession approach is the most ambitious thing you can try as a club, even if you are actually rich. So while it can obviously yield success it's far from any guarantee. Even Ajax - for all the credit Ten Hag deserves - they had one great season where they made the CL semi and then they failed at the group stage twice and went out to Benfica. Not to mention what happened in the years before Ten Hag. It's not some big trump card to bring them up, I could just as easily mention Frankfurt. And you still haven't even named a single realistic coaching appointment for Dortmund, when to have sustained success and a consistent implementation of this approach they would have to be able to find one every second or third year on average. Even if they had appointed Ten Hag this summer: what would it net long term to rebuild the club according to his ideas, when chances are you couldn't find a worthy successor to build on it.



I wouldn't object to saying that Baumgart sort of dominates games by suffocating opponents with his pressing, but to call his possession dominant, because his team (hyperbole) passes it around the back a bunch, before they play a long ball or pump a cross and averages slightly more possession with that, is not what most would people agree with. When I hear/read interviews with him "intensity" and "attack" seems to be by far the most common word.
Nah, it won't immediatel solve everything but it could in the long run. It is about installing a playing philosophy that's worthy of a top team instead of one that's more fitting to an underdog.

And it can be a process. You don't need to sign Ten Hag or Guardiola or so, you can also start with demanding your coach (whether it be Rose or Terzic) to put more emphasis on positional play and all those things. And when inevitably the next manager appointment is due, maybe a perfect candidate is available. Stuff like this can also be prepared.

Dortmund has presented itself as pretty opportunistic in this regard. Their manager appointments seemed to follow the idea of "signing the best available option" and then playing like he wishes to play. That's how you got coaches who were so different from each other and were a clear strategic break. And while you may think installing positional play as a philosophy, I find it pretty unambitious to settle for a pressing and transition style. It might go well with the fan base but that shouldn't be the criterion
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Nah, it won't immediatel solve everything but it could in the long run. It is about installing a playing philosophy that's worthy of a top team instead of one that's more fitting to an underdog.

And it can be a process. You don't need to sign Ten Hag or Guardiola or so, you can also start with demanding your coach (whether it be Rose or Terzic) to put more emphasis on positional play and all those things. And when inevitably the next manager appointment is due, maybe a perfect candidate is available. Stuff like this can also be prepared.

Dortmund has presented itself as pretty opportunistic in this regard. Their manager appointments seemed to follow the idea of "signing the best available option" and then playing like he wishes to play. That's how you got coaches who were so different from each other and were a clear strategic break. And while you may think installing positional play as a philosophy, I find it pretty unambitious to settle for a pressing and transition style. It might go well with the fan base but that shouldn't be the criterion
Tuchel -> Bosz -> Favre is a succession of Cruijff/Guardiola worshipers. It was the club's best attempt at actually doing what you're suggesting, two of those three you even brought up yourself and we all saw what that yielded.. Appointing Rose was however indeed a clear strategic break, but one that was an intentional consequence of the post Klopp era.

And supporting Leverkusen your perspective might be different on this, but having happy and enthusiastic fans is actually a very important factor for a club like Dortmund, that has to beat (some) odds to achieve success.
 
Last edited:

Zehner

Football Statistics Dork
Joined
Mar 29, 2018
Messages
7,989
Location
Germany
Supports
Bayer 04 Leverkusen
Tuchel -> Bosz -> Favre is a succession of Cruijff/Guardiola worshipers. It was the club's best attempt at actually doing what you're suggesting, two of those three you even brought up yourself and we all saw what that yielded.. Appointing Rose was however indeed a clear strategic break, but one that was an intentional consequence of the post Klopp era.

And supporting Leverkusen your perspective might be different on this, but having happy and enthusiastic fans is actually a very important factor for a club like Dortmund, that has to beat (some) odds to achieve success.
Nah, Favre is on a completely different spectrum. His style is actually very hard to compare with others, IMO. He's definitely no Guardiola worshiper. In many aspects he couldn't be more different than him.

Regarding the fan factor, I believe that's wishful thinking. If you're successful, the fans are on board anyway. And to be honest, even if they weren't the impact of this is limited. At best they improve the motivation of the players on the pitch but one way or another, effort is no substitute for quality.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Nah, Favre is on a completely different spectrum. His style is actually very hard to compare with others, IMO. He's definitely no Guardiola worshiper. In many aspects he couldn't be more different than him.

Regarding the fan factor, I believe that's wishful thinking. If you're successful, the fans are on board anyway. And to be honest, even if they weren't the impact of this is limited. At best they improve the motivation of the players on the pitch but one way or another, effort is no substitute for quality.
Favre is much older, so his main influence was Cruyff, but he's similar in the sense that he wants to control possession, that he puts great emphasis on off the ball movement. If I remember correctly he was even brought up as Guardiola's successor at Bayern. And the question remains, who else should Dortmund have hired instead? Who would have been less "opportunistic"? And before you say Nagelsmann: they tried that, but the timing didn't work out.

Under Klopp especially home games were the backbone of success. At home he had had a 3-0-0 10:2 record against Real Madrid (away 0-1-2 2:7), in the 12/13 run he won every single CL home game and only one away game.
The first thing when he joined Liverpool was to get the fans on board, he was rewarded with an 68 game unbeaten streak. He staged many a comeback at home. For some clubs the fans are probably more or less irrelevant, but at others it's an energy that can be harnessed. Not to mention the marketing benefit.
 
Last edited:

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Pre season is finally getting a little bit more serious:

After Meuselwitz vs Aue on Wednesday, we had Schalke vs Augsburg 1:1 yesterday and today Mainz vs Newcastle and Dortmund vs Valencia is coming up.

On Thursday Bayern have their next friendly against DC United, while Leipzig play Liverpool.

And then on the weekend Dortmund play Villarreal on Friday and Bayern vs Man City, Ajax vs Frankfurt, Gladbach vs San Sebastian, Stuttgart vs Valencia, Mainz vs Bilbao all happen on Saturday.
 

Acrobat7

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,179
Supports
Bayern Munich
Neuer
Mazraoui - de Ligt - Hernandez - Davies
Kimmich - Goretzka
Müller
Coman - Gnabry - Mané

I would assume that Bayern now sells Pavard.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Neuer
Mazraoui - de Ligt - Hernandez - Davies
Kimmich - Goretzka
Müller
Coman - Gnabry - Mané

I would assume that Bayern now sells Pavard.
Looks to me like a lineup that would potentially run into balance issues, I mean there's only about two out and out defensive players in there. Everyone else likes to see some of the action.
 

Acrobat7

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,179
Supports
Bayern Munich
Looks to me like a lineup that would potentially run into balance issues, I mean there's only about two out and out defensive players in there. Everyone else likes to see some of the action.
While I agree, I also think that this doesn't really matter for most of their Bundesliga games. Remember, Pep played Thiago as the lone DM in his 4141.
And I also believe that Mazraoui (while not being as much a 3rd CB as Pavard basically is) can play conservative. So expect the asymmetric shift, with Davies pushing forward, to continue.

Or Nagelsman plays 3 at the back and it is a pointless exercise anyways. :lol:

Neuer
Pavard - de Ligt - Hernandez
Mazraoui - Kimmich - Goretzka - Davies
Coman - Gnabry - Mané
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,567
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
While I agree, I also think that this doesn't really matter for most of their Bundesliga games. Remember, Pep played Thiago as the lone DM in his 4141.
And I also believe that Mazraoui (while not being as much a 3rd CB as Pavard basically is) can play conservative. So expect the asymmetric shift, with Davies pushing forward, to continue.

Or Nagelsman plays 3 at the back and it is a pointless exercise anyways. :lol:

Neuer
Pavard - de Ligt - Hernandez
Mazraoui - Kimmich - Goretzka - Davies
Coman - Gnabry - Mané
Yes, I think for most league games it'll be absolutely fine to compensate via domination or one-upping the opposition. But against esteemed wide attackers like Donyell Malen or in the CL I could see it running into problems.
 

HerrLeinad

Full Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
352
Supports
Bayern München
Neuer
Mazraoui - de Ligt - Hernandez - Davies
Kimmich - Goretzka
Müller
Coman - Gnabry - Mané

I would assume that Bayern now sells Pavard.
I see too many people that act like Mazraoui is a nailed on starter. I do rate him but Pavard is no scrub, not to mention that Mazraoui has had quite a few injuries in the last few years.
So there is really no reason to sell Pavard, we would lose a very flexible player that might even be a better option as RB if we want to play more defensive considering the rest of the team and our very attacking focused style. On top of that he is also a very good option if Nagelsmann does want to go for 3ATB.
There would need to be an extremely good offer or else it's just weakening our squad strength too much.

We will sell C. Richards and imo Nianzou is the player who needs to be sold/loaned. His (limited) performances have been so bad overall that I have no hope of him suddenly being a viable option but he obviously needs match time to develop.
 

Acrobat7

Full Member
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
5,179
Supports
Bayern Munich
I see too many people that act like Mazraoui is a nailed on starter. I do rate him but Pavard is no scrub, not to mention that Mazraoui has had quite a few injuries in the last few years.
So there is really no reason to sell Pavard, we would lose a very flexible player that might even be a better option as RB if we want to play more defensive considering the rest of the team and our very attacking focused style. On top of that he is also a very good option if Nagelsmann does want to go for 3ATB.
There would need to be an extremely good offer or else it's just weakening our squad strength too much.

We will sell C. Richards and imo Nianzou is the player who needs to be sold/loaned. His (limited) performances have been so bad overall that I have no hope of him suddenly being a viable option but he obviously needs match time to develop.
While I wholehartedly agree with what you wrote, Bayern might just need the money from a Pavard-sale.