Playing out from the back...

[Rozay]

It's become a big deal in football in recent years. We've seen a leading PL goalkeeper effectively lose his job because of this, we saw the best team in the world lose a game because of it just last week.

I was wondering what people's views are overall. Do you think the net gain is outweighs the quite obvious risk of conceding goals and potential red cards by playing last men into compromising situations?

I'm of the personal view that it is one of the more overrated recent 'fads' in the game. I understand what its supposed to do, but overall, I'm not convinced the benefits are enough of a reward to offset the risk. Not sure too much other than higher possession stats come out of it for the good. Liverpool lost to Burnley this season because they tried to do this unsuccessfully,and probably wouldn't have if hey didn't bother. What would they have really gained anyway?

 

[Borden]

It's ridiculous when teams persist with it in games where it clearly causes them massive problems (like Barca vs. Celta).

 

[ivaldo]

Absolutely, players just need to know thier limits. Short passing is always more accurate than long passing, keeping possession has become an integral part of how most of the best teams in the world play, its effectively added defensive tool to teams.

 

[Keeps It tidy]

Overall I am for it just do not over do it the way they do in Dutch Football.

 

[RedDevilCanuck]

This trend is now in hockey. 'Puck moving' defensemen arw now the sought after players along with the skillfull forwards.

In football I think it's important but the deep lying playmaker from midfield is more important.

 

[Synco]

The opponent won't press less when you don't play out well from the back, probably even more. So two genuine questions to the nay-sayers:

1. How would you answer an opponent's pressing of your build up players - constantly playing long balls over the pressing line?

2. Are there any risks you see in not playing cleanly out of the back, especially for top teams?

 

[sullydnl]

I think it's great generally.

I also admire managers/players who stick to their guns and keep doing it even after mistakes that result in goals.

For example, the people last year who said Stones should start hoofing the ball long were wrong, as were those who criticised the risks the great Barca side took in defence (although that criticism died out with their success).

Certainly better than knocking the ball long repeatedly.

 

[Rozay]

The opponent won't press less when you don't play out well from the back, probably even more. So two genuine questions to the nay-sayers:

1. How would you answer an opponent's pressing of your build up players - constantly playing long balls over the pressing line?

2. Are there any risks you see in not playing cleanly out of the back, especially for top teams?

With regards to question 1, I would do whatever top teams were doing before Barcelona emerged. Perhaps that doesn't mean 'no' play at all, but not what it was. Rio, for instance, was supposed to 'bring the ball out from the back' for us. Koeman, of course, was possibly the best at launching attacks from deep, along with Der Kaizer and Matthaüs. But their teams didn't do the kind of silliness that Claudio Bravo has been doing for weeks, or Ter Stegen did last week. I mean, what have City gained really from Bravo's play? They should have had him sent off and conceded a penalty in the Derby, all because he's clearly under instruction to not clear the ball.

As for question two, I think the obvious negative is less possession, which of course seems to have become the key currency in the game since Spain became good. I still think it's more fashionable than useful. The likes of Leicester, or if you think they are too much of a one off - Spurs, don't do Barca/City style play from the back. The Belgians at Spurs are great long passers, and don't just hoof it, but they don't deliberate on the edge of their box. They have been two of the best defences of late in the PL, and don't struggle in attack either.

 

[T00lsh3d]

Surely variety is best? Being able to play from the back but also being able to knock it into the channels or up to a frontman? Is you're going to consistently do one thing the opponent will always know what's coming. Now when people mention barca, fair enough, they're so good that 95% of the time they don't need to vary their game, but how many times have we seen arsenal screw up by refusing to revert to a different style of football.

 

[Rozay]

Surely variety is best? Being able to play from the back but also being able to knock it into the channels or up to a frontman? Is you're going to consistently do one thing the opponent will always know what's coming. Now when people mention barca, fair enough, they're so good that 95% of the time they don't need to vary their game, but how many times have we seen arsenal screw up by refusing to revert to a different style of football.

I agree that variety is best. The obvious thing is before the pressure gets too much, clear the ball. If teams allow you time and space, then by all means pass the ball. United are not like City, but Blind still passes very well from the back. We are very happy to clear though, whereas City defenders and keeper seem to be fearful of a bollocking if they clear.

 

[The Stain]

Italy could use some more direct play tonight. Spain are too good at closing them down (also, Italy build their attacks so slowly).

 

[Bwuk]

It's very important. Probably the 3 best sides in the world - Bayern, Barca and Madrid all have defenders who can do it, and the benefits are obvious.

For example, John Stones and Chris Smalling are probably England's partnership. Offer either of them to the worlds top clubs and fairly certain they'd all take Stones.

In England I think Spurs have the best set of defenders between Alderweireld and Vertonghen. I was desperate for us to show interest in Alderweireld after his Southampton loan but we spent that summer chasing Vermaelen....

 

[Rozay]

Italy could use some more direct play tonight. Spain are too good at closing them down (also, Italy build their attacks so slowly).

Watching the game thinking the same.

 

[Rozay]

It's very important. Probably the 3 best sides in the world - Bayern, Barca and Madrid all have defenders who can do it, and the benefits are obvious.

For example, John Stones and Chris Smalling are probably England's partnership. Offer either of them to the worlds top clubs and fairly certain they'd all take Stones.

In England I think Spurs have the best set of defenders between Alderweireld and Vertonghen. I was desperate for us to show interest in Alderweireld after his Southampton loan but we spent that summer chasing Vermaelen....

'Having defenders who can do it' is not the same thing. So do we. We have played Blind at centre half, and Real have good footballers, but we don't play out at all costs. Our play isn't risky like Bayern or Barca.

As for Stones, he has been all aesthetics for a long period. How much has Everton benefitted in comparison to what his play has cost them?

I agree on the Spurs pair. They are also good players but not risky.

 

[The Stain]

Watching the game thinking the same.

They have some sloppy passing as well in the build-up, Spain could try and start their pressing at the half-way line, there is lots of space to attack in the middle in front of their back 3.

 

[Synco]

Italy could use some more direct play tonight. Spain are too good at closing them down (also, Italy build their attacks so slowly).

Watching the game thinking the same.

But if they play the ball long and direct, they'll have one or two attackers against several well positioned Spain defenders. The ball will come right back at them. If you pass out of the back, your team can gradually push up higher to support the otherwise isolated striker(s).

They should not refrain from playing out like that imo, they should simply aim at doing it better.

 

[Rozay]

But if they play the ball long and direct, they'll have one or two attackers against several well positioned Spain defenders. The ball will come right back at them. If you pass out of the back, your team can gradually push up higher to support the otherwise isolated striker(s).

They should not refrain from playing out like that imo, they should simply aim at doing it better.

If they hit it longer, they could move players forward and try to pick up the second ball. They can't get out, and it is obviously more dangerous for the, to have the game played on the edge of their box an to mix it up and mov the game 50 yards further.

 

[The Stain]

But if they play the ball long and direct, they'll have one or two attackers against several well positioned Spain defenders. The ball will come right back at them. If you pass out of the back, your team can gradually push up higher to support the otherwise isolated striker(s).

They should not refrain from playing out like that imo, they should simply aim at doing it better.

Playing it direct doesn't necessarily mean long. They are just playing it amongst their back 3 and central midfield. Spain can win the ball here with counterpressing. A direct ball onto a wingback higher up the pitch is one solution (i think the 352 just isn't working in this game..). Another is the central defenders, mainly Bonucci, playing quick passes behind the lines. Lots of blame should go to Italy's central midfielders as well, they aren't showing themselves well enough.

Sure they should aim to try and do it better and we'll see what happens.. I think they'll get punished if they continue doing what they're doing. Ventura needs to re-think his strategy i reckon.

 

[Synco]

If they hit it longer, they could move players forward and try to pick up the second ball. They can't get out, and it is obviously more dangerous for the, to have the game played on the edge of their box an to mix it up and mov the game 50 yards further.

I don't think they can, because they are positioned ultra-deep defensively. A long ball takes one second to arrive in that zone, while their players need several seconds, even in a full sprint. By the time they arrive, any potential second ball is gone.

Playing it direct doesn't necessarily mean long. They are just playing it amongst their back 3 and central midfield. Spain can win the ball here with counterpressing. A direct ball onto a wingback higher up the pitch is one solution (i think the 352 just isn't working in this game..). Another is the central defenders, mainly Bonucci, playing quick passes behind the lines. Lots of blame should go to Italy's central midfielders as well, they aren't showing themselves well enough.

Part of Spain's (or anyone's) pressing is to deny those direct passing options by blocking the passing lanes and/or guarding these players.

-----------------------

To sum it up: I think there is no third way - against a very good pressing team - between accurate short passing and hoofing it. The aim of high pressing is to deny the opponent exactly that third way (= directness without giving up control of the ball) and I think it has been pretty much perfected as of now.

 

[Powderfinger]

In today's game, all good teams need to be comfortable playing it out of the back, even against great pressure. I think there are two main reasons for this:

1. Even weaker teams often press aggressively up the pitch now. It used to be the case that small clubs would almost exclusively play deep lines against big teams and play on the counter. A big club could "play it out from the back" against most opponents against little pressure, which is basically trivial to do for any professional footballer. Now that other teams press so often, you actually have to be good at playing it out from the back and have real strategies for defeating the press. If you can't play it out of the back you will have trouble truly controlling matches and creating enough chances against the more aggressive low-to-mid-table clubs (like Soton, Swansea, etc) and you will basically be ceding domination of the ball in most matches against top opposition.

2. The move away from two striker formations makes playing it long more difficult. A target man will rarely be able to control a long ball himself, and will mainly be looking to head it or deflect into an area where a teammate can retrieve it. So if you don't have guys close to your CF then the long ball strategy is difficult. You will typically have a CF trying to win the ball against a CB and then another CB in the area that gives the defense an advantage in collecting the ball. The only way to counter this is to push midfield players forward so they are around to retrieve the second ball, but that can open big holes in your shape that a good team can exploit if they win that second ball and advance it quickly. The City-United match had a lot of this dynamic, with Mourinho trying to push players forward to be more competitive for long ball situations then the midfield being out of position in the aftermath.

 

[Rozay]

In today's game, all good teams need to be comfortable playing it out of the back, even against great pressure. I think there are two main reasons for this:

1. Even weaker teams often press aggressively up the pitch now. It used to be the case that small clubs would almost exclusively play deep lines against big teams and play on the counter. A big club could "play it out from the back" against most opponents against little pressure, which is basically trivial to do for any professional footballer. Now that other teams press so often, you actually have to be good at playing it out from the back and have real strategies for defeating the press. If you can't play it out of the back you will have trouble truly controlling matches and creating enough chances against the more aggressive low-to-mid-table clubs (like Soton, Swansea, etc) and you will basically be ceding domination of the ball in most matches against top opposition.

2. The move away from two striker formations makes playing it long more difficult. A target man will rarely be able to control a long ball himself, and will mainly be looking to head it or deflect into an area where a teammate can retrieve it. So if you don't have guys close to your CF then the long ball strategy is difficult. You will typically have a CF trying to win the ball against a CB and then another CB in the area that gives the defense an advantage in collecting the ball. The only way to counter this is to push midfield players forward so they are around to retrieve the second ball, but that can open big holes in your shape that a good team can exploit if they win that second ball and advance it quickly. The City-United match had a lot of this dynamic, with Mourinho trying to push players forward to be more competitive for long ball situations then the midfield being out of position in the aftermath.

There is a line, is all I think. I definitely don't agree with goalkeepers feeling hey can't clear the ball. Defenders trying to pass is one thing.

 

[Powderfinger]

There is a line, is all I think. I definitely don't agree with goalkeepers feeling hey can't clear the ball. Defenders trying to pass is one thing.

Yup, I agree with that. Having the goalkeeper involved is one thing. But I think its perfectly OK to tell your goalkeeper, "If you're under pressure and not sure what to do, kick it as far as you can away from the goal."

 

[Deleted member 101472]

Its so beautiful when it works perfectly , the other team presses high , get suckered in , quick few passes and you've got 4 or 5 pressing players out of position.

The team doing it is always thinking two things

1. Pass the ball quick
2. Move into space to receive a pass again

Versus the pressing team who are only focussing on winning the ball, so naturally if a pass gets by them , they've let their man go.

The risks outweigh the positives though , and unless you have a team that makes 100% successful passes under pressure , it's going to lead to a lot of mistakes/ goals for the other team.

 

[Raees]

For me 90% of the time you should be aiming to play out from the back, but if your keeper is having some shaky moments and the opposition is putting your team under too much pressure, you should relax the strategy a tad and kick it long to relieve the pressure. Either that or change your passing patterns from the back and aim it out wide to a player who is free.

 

[fontaine]

It depends on what kind of players you have, and the opposition.

Italy is quite obviously not suited to do it against a team like Spain.

 

[Billy Blaggs]

It's brilliant when it comes off and can make a team look like utter mugs.
When it doesn't like Barca vs Milan in the final of the European cup it can get found out quickly and with a battering.

 

[Sam M]

It's great, but can only be done through rigorous coaching in formulating angles between 'keeper and defenders. You can see with City today, that while they've upped the ante, there is still a degree of uncertainty in it's execution with the deepest midfielder and centre backs not occupying the best positions. And that is done with all of Guardiola's meticulous and cutting edge coaching, so it's not hard to figure out why lesser teams and managers appear to be so comically inept at it.

 

[Kag]

The best teams can mix it up as and when appropriate, and all teams should be able to build up from the back in the right circumstances. When done properly, it makes for some great looking football.

That said, there's nothing wrong with pumping the ball up the pitch when necessary, nor do goalkeepers ever need to be prancing around their six yard box attempting Cruyff turns like Claudio Bravo. It isn't technical, it isn't tactial, it's simply stupid.

 

[Theonas]

It's great, but can only be done through rigorous coaching in formulating angles between 'keeper and defenders. You can see with City today, that while they've upped the ante, there is still a degree of uncertainty in it's execution with the deepest midfielder and centre backs not occupying the best positions. And that is done with all of Guardiola's meticulous and cutting edge coaching, so it's not hard to figure out why lesser teams and managers appear to be so comically inept at it.

Spot on. I would apply this to passing all around the pitch actually. There is a tendency to assume it is all about the technical skill of the player which is why a large portion of fans were telling us how Pep will have to sell most of his squad. The fact is as you point out is that coaching is a massive part of it, coaching of movement and positioning. England has traditionally been reluctant to focus on this part of the job for a manager as we favoured coaching individual skills instead of collective ones.

As for the original OP, clearly the advantages outweigh the negatives if done right. It is not rocket science to understand that the more you have the ball, the less chances you have of conceding and more of scoring. The only question is do you wait until when or even IF you can become good enough at it. It takes time to coach those skills and be familiar with them and the adjustment period can cost you a lot especially in the PL. It is one of those approaches that is either brilliant or terribly flawed depending on the execution so it is about ambition and willingness to reach for the stars I suppose.

 

[Synco]

With regards to question 1, I would do whatever top teams were doing before Barcelona emerged. Perhaps that doesn't mean 'no' play at all, but not what it was. Rio, for instance, was supposed to 'bring the ball out from the back' for us. Koeman, of course, was possibly the best at launching attacks from deep, along with Der Kaizer and Matthaüs.

I think the main problem is that nowadays the pressing is not the same as pre-Barcelona, too. So the possibilities of how you can build up your game have also changed in the process.

Therefore I don't think short passing from the back (with all its difficulties and risks) is mainly a fad. It has simply become a necessity if you want to retain possession against a well coordinated high pressing. Especially for top teams that need to win every game - and are therefore forced to be constructive - it's not only worth the risk, but without alternative. Otherwise a well pressing opponent can kill off their whole possession game.

But their teams didn't do the kind of silliness that Claudio Bravo has been doing for weeks, or Ter Stegen did last week. I mean, what have City gained really from Bravo's play? They should have had him sent off and conceded a penalty in the Derby, all because he's clearly under instruction to not clear the ball.

Mistakes happen. Since possession play is under more intense scrutiny by many fans, individual mistakes are often blamed on the concept, while in a more conventional setup, they are mostly blamed on the individual player.

You make it seem like these mistakes and shaky moments are the only thing a team gets from playing out of the back; but for every spectacular blunder there are like 200+ passes that reach their man cleanly. It's just that the blunders are much more attention-grabbing than a bunch of passes, so their felt effect on the overall success of the team is disproportionally increased. And the essential benefit of those many (and mostly unspectacular) passes is overshadowed by that effect.

But the occasional mistake is the price you have to pay for getting these benefits. Avoiding them by perfecting team coordination and individual decision making is the goal of every coach, no one wants their keeper to do what ter Stegen did in that game.

 

[Theonas]

Mistakes happen. Since possession play is under more intense scrutiny by many fans, individual mistakes are often blamed on the concept, while in a more conventional setup, they are mostly blamed on the individual player.

You make it seem like these mistakes and shaky moments are the only thing a team gets from playing out of the back; but for every spectacular blunder there are like 200+ passes that reach their man cleanly. It's just that the blunders are much more attention-grabbing than a bunch of passes, so their felt effect on the overall success of the team is disproportionally increased. And the essential benefit of those many (and mostly unspectacular) passes is overshadowed by that effect.

But the occasional mistake is the price you have to pay for getting these benefits. Avoiding them by perfecting team coordination and individual decision making is the goal of every coach, no one wants their keeper to do what ter Stegen did in that game.

Couldn't have said it better myself. This is exactly what happens with a lot of things in football actually. A manager fails for whatever reason and everything he believed in is written off. As you say, there is a big difference between a system that is inherently wrong and one that is not executed well. There is also a tendency to want to eliminate every single mistake or flaw. You see fans going up in arms whenever a mistake happens trying to dissect it and "learn" from it. The fact is there is no perfect system, it has never existed and never will. It is all about the ratio of what you get out of it vs what is might cost you. Recent history has shown us that when done properly, the Valdes and Bravo of this world contribute enough to win you games that their occasional blunders are worth it.

 

[Rozay]

I think the main problem is that nowadays the pressing is not the same as pre-Barcelona, too. So the possibilities of how you can build up your game have also changed in the process.

Therefore I don't think short passing from the back (with all its difficulties and risks) is mainly a fad. It has simply become a necessity if you want to retain possession against a well coordinated high pressing. Especially for top teams that need to win every game - and are therefore forced to be constructive - it's not only worth the risk, but without alternative. Otherwise a well pressing opponent can kill off their whole possession game.


Mistakes happen. Since possession play is under more intense scrutiny by many fans, individual mistakes are often blamed on the concept, while in a more conventional setup, they are mostly blamed on the individual player.

You make it seem like these mistakes and shaky moments are the only thing a team gets from playing out of the back; but for every spectacular blunder there are like 200+ passes that reach their man cleanly. It's just that the blunders are much more attention-grabbing than a bunch of passes, so their felt effect on the overall success of the team is disproportionally increased. And the essential benefit of those many (and mostly unspectacular) passes is overshadowed by that effect.

But the occasional mistake is the price you have to pay for getting these benefits. Avoiding them by perfecting team coordination and individual decision making is the goal of every coach, no one wants their keeper to do what ter Stegen did in that game.

I understand that playing from the back gives you 'more possession' and more 'completed passes', but that's largely a wave to the stat obsessed modern football.

The risk of conceding isn't to be overlooked as a minor inconvenience. Passing the ball around on the edge of your box isn't worth that. Having your keeper refuse to clear it isn't worth that. Spurs cope fine without it, and their defence is more secure for it. Leicester won the PL with Huth and Morgan at centre half. All they would have achieved by changing their approach is higher possession stats, by and large.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying a centre half shouldn't try and find a teammate and build from the back when under limited pressure. I just feel they shouldn't be treating the first third like the final third, which John Stones does.

I like ththe Daley Blind approach of playing centre half. He's good on the ball, but he's responsible. He picks many good forward passes, but he's not constantly Cruyff turning back and forth waiting for a passing option near his own corner flag. As I said, I think the end plus from that is not worth it, just another completed pass to say he had a brilliant game and show 98% completion on his stats.

I mean we are now seeing the likes of Alexandr fecking Kolarov playing centre half, and the goalkeepers are now being compared on who is closer to Zidane than who is closer to Schmeichel.

I'd take Rio, Vidic and VDS over Stegen, Pique and Mascherano any day.

 

[bond19821982]

It's so overrated. Forget Barca as they are the best in the world and will succeed which ever way they play. defend deep with 2banks of 4 with a big forward who can lay it off to pacy striker and will be ripped apart .

Jose's 11back in 2006 time will be the best to play against these type of teams

Drogba laying it off to robben

 

[Devil may care]

It's a good string to have on your bow, the problem is when it's obsessively done even when it makes no sense to do so, sometimes you have to go route one and mixing things up always helps.

 

[CM]

It can be an effective method when done correctly but I think some people have a misguided belief that playing this way makes you a better footballing side and that's when it can get overdone and lead to mistakes.

The most ridiculous example of this last season was obviously the hype surrounding Stones. I'd regularly hear commentators and pundits on BT hailing him as a potential Barcelona or Real Madrid player when he failed to get the fundamentals right - barmy.

I think the value of traditional, no-nonsense defenders is comparatively underplayed. The Premier League last season may have been a bit of an anomaly, but for all the talk about ball playing defenders, it was the team with a defensive partnership of Huth and Morgan who won the league. Surely that has to count for something.

 

[Rozay]

It can be an effective method when done correctly but I think some people have a misguided belief that playing this way makes you a better footballing side and that's when it can get overdone and lead to mistakes.

The most ridiculous example of this last season was obviously the hype surrounding Stones. I'd regularly hear commentators and pundits on BT hailing him as a potential Barcelona or Real Madrid player when he failed to get the fundamentals right - barmy.

I think the value of traditional, no-nonsense defenders is comparatively underplayed. The Premier League last season may have been a bit of an anomaly, but for all the talk about ball playing defenders, it was the team with a defensive partnership of Huth and Morgan who won the league. Surely that has to count for something.

I mentioned your point about Huth/Morgan earlier and I think that even if you ink they are such an anomaly, then substitute them for the Belgians at Spurs. They are good on the ball, but they don't play that Barca way, and instead get it forward quickly and have an excellent defensive record. I don't think Real or Atletico bother too much about playing about deep in their own half either.

It is literally a Barcelona thing, and has rippled out to offspring of that Barca side in Bayern (Pep went there of course), and City, who are Barcelona from coach to technical director level.

 

[Synco]

there is a big difference between a system that is inherently wrong and one that is not executed well.

That's the core issue. And all posters in this thread can probably happily agree that a possession based game is the most difficult to do well consistently. The difference starts with the assessment of its advantages when done well.

One last thing:

I'm not saying a centre half shouldn't try and find a teammate and build from the back when under limited pressure.

But that means that every time the player gets under more than limited pressure (which is the standard for a well executed high pressing), you give up the initiative immediately. Once the opponent realises that, he'll force those situations and focus on collecting the uncontrolled balls, which is quite easy. I don't think it's possible to start effective offensive plays in such a scenario, except maybe for radical counter pressing approaches (which have their own deficiencies) or pure underdog concepts based on sitting deep, constantly inviting pressure, and refraining from offensive action for most of the game. That's fine for a team that doesn't have to win every game, but a real top team needs to be able to retain control under heavy pressure.

Regarding keepers, I don't think avoiding clearances at all costs is typical or necessary for a ball playing keeper. Manuel Neuer makes several (aimed!) clearances in most games, but he tries to avoid it whenever possible. It's a matter of risk management, which is not the same as a strict taboo. Ter Stegen is just not a seasoned player yet, so he tends to make more bad judgements and sometimes has to learn the hard way. Man City hasn't perfected the automatisms to support Bravo yet, so he'll get in trouble relatively often. But as others already wrote, they will only get the desired results if they take the risks now, live with the consequences and gradually get better.

Otherwise I think we have said about everything there is to say and probably won't get closer to each other's opinion. Good discussion & nice thread.

 

[CM]

I mentioned your point about Huth/Morgan earlier and I think that even if you ink they are such an anomaly, then substitute them for the Belgians at Spurs. They are good on the ball, but they don't play that Barca way, and instead get it forward quickly and have an excellent defensive record. I don't think Real or Atletico bother too much about playing about deep in their own half either.

It is literally a Barcelona thing, and has rippled out to offspring of that Barca side in Bayern (Pep went there of course), and City, who are Barcelona from coach to technical director level.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Spurs' defensive unit is head and shoulders above the rest of the league and the lack of a designated ball player in defence doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on their fluency in attack.

You need pretty specific personnel to carry it off as well and emulating the likes of Barcelona isn't the best strategy for most teams.

 

[harms]

Over the course of a season a keeper with good on the ball skills is worth using that way. In a single game it increases the chance of mistake but, at the same time, it gives the team an additional line of defence, allowing to press higher and create more goalscoring opportunities. Even Valdes, who was often questionable on the ball (and in goal) contributed massively to Barca's success.

 

[Theonas]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Spurs' defensive unit is head and shoulders above the rest of the league and the lack of a designated ball player in defence doesn't seem to have an adverse effect on their fluency in attack.

You need pretty specific personnel to carry it off as well and emulating the likes of Barcelona isn't the best strategy for most teams.

I think your argument is only relevant if somebody had suggested that playing from the back is the "only" way to build a successful team. Nobody in their right mind claims that which is why there have been plenty of good teams playing in all styles; Leicester and to a lesser degree, Spurs's defence are good examples. The argument is that theoretically, a team that can keep possession and build from the back the way Barcelona and Bayern do will always have the highest ceiling. That style of playing is the most difficult to perfect but when perfected, it is the hardest to beat. Not to mention that it is the ultimate form of dominance. When we were kids, the most talented bloke always had the ball, run with it and beat men with it. The best players want the ball, they express themselves and make you react to them. Same applies for the best teams, they keep the ball and make you react to them. For these reasons, it is a style that is considered by many, the ultimate ideal. You can argue that it is ambitious and therefore too risky which is a very good argument indeed but to argue against its potential or what it represents or why its supporters like Cruyff and co are held in such high regard is a weak argument IMO.