I'm not arguing against its potential, I already said it can be an effective way of playing in my previous post.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.
That's a good point actually. I perfectly agree with you that it is not a traditional English feature. However, football is continuously changing and I would say German football today is significantly different to how it was a decade ago. Even Barcelona are two different entities pre and post Cruyff. England and English fans have always been insular in their approach. There is that attitude of "us, our game and what works here vs how can we deal with those Europeans". It is probably one of the charming things about English footballs and what still gives it an identity despite the huge influx of foreign players and managers but it is also a handicap when it comes to competing tactically and technically when the rest of the world is consistently moving and developing those aspects of the game.I'm not arguing against its potential, I already said it can be an effective way of playing in my previous post.
I just think too many English teams try to play in this way when they don't have the right systems or personnel to do it. It's not really something that's been a typical feature of successful Premier League teams in years gone by either so why the fawning over it now?
Granted I don't watch them often, but has playing out from the back ever been their problem? They've always been criticized for their lack of purpose in the final third or their mentality over the years (at least that's what the narrative seems to be among the media and fans). That goes with what you're saying about lack of variety in the playing style but the playing out from the back portion of their play probably isn't a problem. It's the "tippy tappy" (or whatever Souness called it) football higher up the field which might be.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.
Im not sure thats true. Ive been coaching for a long time now and when I first started every coaching course i attended, every course from overseas I got material for was teaching the same principles and this was a long time before Barcelona was dominating the way they do.That's a good point actually. I perfectly agree with you that it is not a traditional English feature. However, football is continuously changing and I would say German football today is significantly different to how it was a decade ago. Even Barcelona are two different entities pre and post Cruyff. England and English fans have always been insular in their approach. There is that attitude of "us, our game and what works here vs how can we deal with those Europeans". It is probably one of the charming things about English footballs and what still gives it an identity despite the huge influx of foreign players and managers but it is also a handicap when it comes to competing tactically and technically when the rest of the world is consistently moving and developing those aspects of the game.
The fawning over it is simply due to the way Barcelona dominated. Plenty of teams have won and been successful but no team has dominated during games to the extent of that team. And it wasn't like they had a an one off generation of players like Brazil 1970 when it was largely a triumph of brilliant players expressing themselves. It was a great generation of players playing a very strict and well defined tactical regime that has been coached and practised over and over. This has influenced managers the same way Michels, Sacchi and Cruyff did and it is only natural that success and style attracts followers. For me personally, I have no idea whether the time and coaching it takes to develop that game is a luxury afforded to teams in England. LvG was working towards similar ideals and we all know how that ended. The question for me then was whether he was not good enough or if England is a country that is too unique, not better or worse, just different to the rest for that to work. Pep's time in the PL will go a long way in answering that.
Did Bayern or Real lose over it?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.
1. LVG countered this perfectly against Liverpool in *that* 4 game run of wins. Liverpool did the high press, so for the first time ever we passed the ball slowly backwards until it got to DDG who then played it long to Fellaini with Young winning the second ball, bypassing their front 6. We smashed them. Playing hoofball isn't the only way to counter the high press though, playing direct is. Against spurs one of City's best chances came from (I think) Otamendi playing a ball straight through the middle of the park towards (I think) Silva. The trick is to bypass the press in as few passes as possible whether in the air or on the ground doesn't matter. We used the air because of DDG's excellent distribution and Fellaini.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?
More like 70-30 in favour of the opposition team, since they are usually always/already facing towards the incoming ball and usually have more time to get themselves set.1. LVG countered this perfectly against Liverpool in *that* 4 game run of wins. Liverpool did the high press, so for the first time ever we passed the ball slowly backwards until it got to DDG who then played it long to Fellaini with Young winning the second ball, bypassing their front 6. We smashed them. Playing hoofball isn't the only way to counter the high press though, playing direct is. Against spurs one of City's best chances came from (I think) Otamendi playing a ball straight through the middle of the park towards (I think) Silva. The trick is to bypass the press in as few passes as possible whether in the air or on the ground doesn't matter. We used the air because of DDG's excellent distribution and Fellaini.
Of course this is a lot easier said than done - the entire point of the high press is to give players no time to get there head up and choose the best pass. If you watch spurs or liverpool carefully you will see that the players don't simply sprint at whoever has the ball. They are always working as a team. Pressing from one side to dictate the direction the opposition has to pass which will be towards a player which can be closed down quickly and will absolutely NOT be allowing them to play the ball up the pitch.
2. The top teams play out from the back to maximise possession. Playing long essential turns the game into a series of 50-50 duels which is why teams go to this tactic when against superior opposition. Playing statistics instead of football. As such, if you know you are the better team, you want to try and keep the ball on the ground as much as possible to allow your quality to show as much as possible.
Liverpool have created more than anyone bar City this season. Their attacking play has been very impressive. Obviously they press well and high, and they are very fluid going forward, but typically that starts from the back to get into a position where the attack is better placed to cut open the opposition defence.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?
The game's changed though. That line of argument is a bit like saying 4-2-3-1 or 4-3-3 wasn't a typical feature of successful PL teams back in the day so why should we all embrace it now.I'm not arguing against its potential, I already said it can be an effective way of playing in my previous post.
I just think too many English teams try to play in this way when they don't have the right systems or personnel to do it. It's not really something that's been a typical feature of successful Premier League teams in years gone by either so why the fawning over it now?
LVG failed because he was too risk averse and only wanted to play forward if it was a safe option to do so.To make an obvious statement, the team needs to be set up to play this way. Obvious I know. But more important than ball playing centre backs and goal keepers is genuine threat up front.
Barca are the obvious reference point when building from the back. Their centre halves get so much time on the ball because opposition are absolutely terrified of leaving themselves exposed 1 vs 1 against Messi, Neymar and Suerez. Previously Henry and Et’to.
The reason why LVG struggled to implement it at United was because teams where happy to go 1vs1 against RVP, Falcao, Rooney etc. So they ended up playing a higher line and pressing us higher up the fireld, Rooney (don’t mean to bash him again) dropping deeper and deeper all the time only made us easer to play against.
The second half against City when we marked their back 4 man for man and forced them long, they struggles to cope with. I mentioned in another thread that City actually set up almost in a 5-5 formation. They leave masses of space between the 5 front pressing players and the back 4 with fernandinho sat no more than 10 yards in front of them.
I think playing out from the back and the high press (teams who usually do one do both) will get inconsistent results in the Premier League. In spain and Germany playing our from the back is standard. Therefore the press is an obvious tactic. Even when pressed on the continant, most teams refuse to go a bit more direct. We are less pretentious about that in England. Against City and Liverpool more teams will go direct, play the percentages and simply by-pass the press. If they have the balls to get enough men forward, they’l get success.
I think Fergie and Mourinho have the same “philosophy”. Defend deep and compact, attack quick and expansive. If the initial counter is unsuccessful, patience is required for the “second phase” of any attack and ball retention becomes important. However, by always looking to play forward first, you’ll end up playing more of the game higher up the field.
Swings and round-abouts, horses for courses though. Depends on the quality of each team on the day.
Playing out from the back is done for more than just possession stats. In fact, enticing the opponent to move up to press is a big part of possession football. Just like enticing the opponent to attack is a big part of counter attacking football. If the team who has the ball is better at passing than their opponent is at pressing, the defending team's midfield line can be bypassed very quickly.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.
Lumping the ball forward also has it's pitfalls. The ball might be back in your own half within minutes if you can't connect a long pass and the chances to connect with a long pass are much smaller than with a short one. The reason you lot got beat was due to individual errors and not the system that wasn't working.I know this method of play has its pitfalls but i'm prepared to take the good with the bad when it comes to playing out from the back.
And we have the players to make it work as well. For instance any manager trying to coach Phil Jones into doing it is wasting their time.Lumping the ball forward also has it's pitfalls. The ball might be back in your own half within minutes if you can't connect a long pass and the chances to connect with a long pass are much smaller than with a short one. The reason you lot got beat was due to individual errors and not the system that wasn't working.
Yeah he will be crucial in the Liverpool game. Imo we'd be mad to overplay at the back against them.It works against certain teams but when the tempo needs to be increased or when there is a high press, there needs to be the long option. In these circumstances its great we have Zlatan as a target man.
Any manager trying to coach Phil Jones anything needs to spend a lot of time in rehab.And we have the players to make it work as well. For instance any manager trying to coach Phil Jones into doing it is wasting their time.
Very good post indeed. Refreshing to hear from someone with experience like that. You seem to mistake me however for someone who suggested that Barcelona started this style of football, I didn't. My point was that coaches at the highest level are more inclined now to play like that because of the success of Barcelona. Whereas I agree with you that this is nothing new, I think that it had more cynics than supporters among the top coaches at the top clubs because of a reluctance to be patient through the inevitably bumpy learning road. Maybe that is mostly in Britain but it is easy to see that more PL coaches now try to play that way than they did pre Barcelona 2009.Im not sure thats true. Ive been coaching for a long time now and when I first started every coaching course i attended, every course from overseas I got material for was teaching the same principles and this was a long time before Barcelona was dominating the way they do.
Playing out from the back is something thats being taught at grass roots level to the kids and has been for a long time now. Many of the worlds football associations have in their coaching guidelines for kids a thing called a retreating line. So for kids from about age 7-12 the football pitch has a thing called a retreating line thats about 20m to 30m away from the goal depending on age and playing level. When the goalkeeper has the ball all opposition attackers have to drop back to this retreating line to enable the first pass from the goalkeeper to a defender to be done without pressure and to encourage playing out from the back. As the players get older and more skilful the retreating line is removed.
The reason coaches want the kids to learn to play out from the back is because of a couple of things. Firstly in the last 30 years the development of fitness and sport science has led to fitter, stronger and faster players. Because player stamina has increased players are able to play at a higher tempo for a longer period of a game. That has in turn meant that the players with the best chance of progressing from talented junior through to a senior and the players who's technical abilities can handle the increased pressure from fitter, stronger and faster players. Now more than any time in footballs history technical proficiency is something players simply cant be without at senior level.
So while they are young we are doing things that mean kids are touching the ball more often in games and at training. Without the retreating line junior players playing as defenders will more often than not be hoofing the ball clear rather than learning how to pass and move whilst retaining possession.
So the point of the above is to indicate that playing out from the back is now and has been for a while a part of the methodology and ethos of learning to play for the very young and going forward to youth etc.
Long balls forward that are part of a tactic or a safety mechanism more often than not end up in being lost possession. This hasnt come about because of fawning over Barcelona and their way of playing, its function of whats required to get to the top and be successful for players all over the world playing at all levels. Its a basic fundamental of football taught to players from a young age not a fad.
Very true.LVG failed because he was too risk averse and only wanted to play forward if it was a safe option to do so.
That is a problem in Dutch Football in general right now. The obsession with keeping possession is why the Eredivisie is the only league where defenders are tops in touches and passes completed.LVG failed because he was too risk averse and only wanted to play forward if it was a safe option to do so.
The rewards outweigh the risks if you have the players to do it. It's all about the players' confidence and by extension the team's abilities to know they can pass the ball around their penalty area without losing it. It's also something that's worked on during training and most managers would tell the team that NO MATTER what's happening in front of you, YOU PLAY THE BALL out and KEEP POSSESSION.It's ridiculous when teams persist with it in games where it clearly causes them massive problems (like Barca vs. Celta).
You may be right, but it still looks ridiculous when teams needlessly play themselves into trouble everyone can see coming a mile away instead of opting for a long ball.The rewards outweigh the risks if you have the players to do it. It's all about the players' confidence and by extension the team's abilities to know they can pass the ball around their penalty area without losing it. It's also something that's worked on during training and most managers would tell the team that NO MATTER what's happening in front of you, YOU PLAY THE BALL out and KEEP POSSESSION.
But do people think that the fact long balls are seldom successfully completed passes as being equally ridiculous?You may be right, but it still looks ridiculous when teams needlessly play themselves into trouble everyone can see coming a mile away instead of opting for a long ball.
What do you think it's supposed to do?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?
Sometimes it's not so much about completing a pass as clearing the ball.But do people think that the fact long balls are seldom successfully completed passes as being equally ridiculous?
Ultimately, minimise the turnover of possession to your opponent.What do you think it's supposed to do?
I don't think it needs to be a 'completed pass' though. I think that's a bit tied to modern stat obsession. A clearance, which is invariably headed by the oppose centre half will probably drop somewhere in midfield. The battle can begin there, and nothing wrong with a team then knocking it around as much as they can in a safer area. Clearing the ball doesn't mean your opponent ends up mounting an attack against you by any stretch.But do people think that the fact long balls are seldom successfully completed passes as being equally ridiculous?
See I disagree. I think the playing out from the back thing is about trying to open teams up and create space to play through them. They're encouraging the press so they can catch people out of position and play through them.Ultimately, minimise the turnover of possession to your opponent.
When looking at 'it' anyway, there are many variations and levels I guess. I disapprove of more of the stuff John Stones does than I do of what Blind does or Koeman did. All are good on the ball, nothing wrong with a defender being comfortable and able to pass, but there are times when you see a team being pressed at the edge of their own box and they are passing it around as if they are in the final third. I don't think it's necessary, and on the whole, you can win many a game with less risk without doing it. Many teams do.
Clearing the ball is entirely different to long balls forward. So my question stands.I don't think it needs to be a 'completed pass' though. I think that's a bit tied to modern stat obsession. A clearance, which is invariably headed by the oppose centre half will probably drop somewhere in midfield. The battle can begin there, and nothing wrong with a team then knocking it around as much as they can in a safer area. Clearing the ball doesn't mean your opponent ends up mounting an attack against you by any stretch.
What you said makes sense. I still think many teams don't find the right balance. Some of the infamous moments from the John Stones highlight reel at Everton for example - multiple Cruyff turns on the edge of his 6 yard line under pressure, or Claudio Bravo doing the same against us, likewise Ter Stegen against Celta can't possibly be seen as 'offensive'. Again, you have to ask what possible net gain could come out of successfully dribbling/passing round a striker on your own 6 yard line that outweighs the very obvious risk of conceding. Bravo, Stegen and Stones were so far from being able to fashion a goal scoring chance for their teams, and a far bigger chance they would be contributing to a scoring chance against themselves than for their team.See I disagree. I think the playing out from the back thing is about trying to open teams up and create space to play through them. They're encouraging the press so they can catch people out of position and play through them.
Possession play has taken on a negative tone in recent years and I agree that in a lot of cases it is defensive in nature. I think it's different to this which is offensive in nature. It's a risky tactic that requires skill and vision across the whole team.
So in that sense I disagree entirely because I think it's admirable. Although I don't disagree that it's poorly implemented by some. Comparisons to Koeman and co. don't really ring true for me though because they never faced teams as compact as modern teams on a regular basis. Modern football is so compact. Overly so in my opinion. The only way around that is exploiting the press effectively.
It's like any tactic, done well, it works, this is an example of when it goes wrong and Bravo seems to have a lot of times he messes upBravo at it again this week, costing his team. Let's just say he completed the pass over Suarez' head. So what? Not enough to take the obvious risk of trying to chip a ball over Suarez' head, from outside the box with an unguarded goal behind him.
Again, I don't disagree with building from the back, but some of the stuff in the game today is negative in the risk/reward assessment.
It's the first time Guardiola coaches a team unfamiliar with the basics of his approach. It will be interesting to see how he adapts to that, at the moment City is definitely in trouble.I firmly believe in the benefits of it being implemented effectively and rigidly, but the one thing I don't agree with is trying to play that way with any player.
When it was Skrtel, Toure and Mignolet as the trio playing out from the back it was plainly obvious it would create more problems than it's worth. More to the point, it was abundantly clear no amount of "teaching" would fix that.
I admire Guardiola rigidly sticking to his principles but I think he dramatically overestimates his ability as a "teacher". This is the direct result of that arrogance. City aren't yet good enough to play the way he wants.
