Playing out from the back...

[Rozay]

TBH I think I'd have been better calling the thread 'playing it around at the back'. I'm good with trying to play OUT from the back. As in playing it FORWARD. Even if the pass doesn't connect, this is part of the game. You try and play it into a winger or a wide full-back rather than just hoofing - that is fine. I see no benefit at all in playing it around between centre halves and goalkeepers. The risk is obvious, and a completed pass is still 'so what?'.

The likes of Blind and Bailley, or Alderweireld and Vertonghen always try to play forward. If it works great, if not, possession is turned over, but so what? This possession obsession in the game now is too much. The likes of Blind play forward, but can't recall him putting his team in trouble with his passing.

 

[Rozay]

3 years on from making this thread, I’m still struggling to see the net gain of this. At least to justify the emphasis that is placed on it in the modern game.

I just don’t think the benefits of it justify the risks to the extent that it is promoted. I think a very small number of teams who do it at an unbelievable level like City or Barca see real positives. Most of the rest cost themselves goals and pressure as much as any obvious benefit that I see.

I mentioned in another thread yesterday, but a case study of our situation with Smalling and Lindelöf is a great example. 10-15 years ago, Lindelöf never gets into a PL team ahead of Smalling. Today, he replaces him in the team and Smalling is shipped out. He quite obviously passes the ball better. Smalling would have us about 4 points better off already this season based on the two key headers Lindelöf has lost and cost us goals and games.

 

[RooneyLegend]

Its overdone at this point. Even when a team is man marked they strangely insist on doing it. Its basically football suicide.

 

[Leftback99]

3 years on from making this thread, I’m still struggling to see the net gain of this. At least to justify the emphasis that is placed on it in the modern game.

I just don’t think the benefits of it justify the risks to the extent that it is promoted. I think a very small number of teams who do it at an unbelievable level like City or Barca see real positives. Most of the rest cost themselves goals and pressure as much as any obvious benefit that I see.

I mentioned in another thread yesterday, but a case study of our situation with Smalling and Lindelöf is a great example. 10-15 years ago, Lindelöf never gets into a PL team ahead of Smalling. Today, he replaces him in the team and Smalling is shipped out. He quite obviously passes the ball better. Smalling would have us about 4 points better off already this season based on the two key headers Lindelöf has lost and cost us goals and games.

I would be interested to see analysis to say that it's worth it. Football is a low scoring game usually decided by one goal either way, the centre back being slightly more comfortable in passing to the right back surely has a minimal impact on results compared to actually being able to defend.

 

[Rozay]

I would be interested to see analysis to say that it's worth it. Football is a low scoring game usually decided by one goal either way, the centre back being slightly more comfortable in passing to the right back surely has a minimal impact on results compared to actually being able to defend.

Not only so I not think the net gain is much, but you have to also consider the fact that you will always be robbed of possession and concede goals trying to pass it around at the back.

 

[LuisNaniencia]

3 years on from making this thread, I’m still struggling to see the net gain of this. At least to justify the emphasis that is placed on it in the modern game.

I just don’t think the benefits of it justify the risks to the extent that it is promoted. I think a very small number of teams who do it at an unbelievable level like City or Barca see real positives. Most of the rest cost themselves goals and pressure as much as any obvious benefit that I see.

I mentioned in another thread yesterday, but a case study of our situation with Smalling and Lindelöf is a great example. 10-15 years ago, Lindelöf never gets into a PL team ahead of Smalling. Today, he replaces him in the team and Smalling is shipped out. He quite obviously passes the ball better. Smalling would have us about 4 points better off already this season based on the two key headers Lindelöf has lost and cost us goals and games.

Could not agree more on this. It's not like we pass out from the back and go on and score beautiful team goals; we normally end up getting pressured and winning a throw at best, giving the ball away at worst.

 

[kouroux]

3 years on from making this thread, I’m still struggling to see the net gain of this. At least to justify the emphasis that is placed on it in the modern game.

I just don’t think the benefits of it justify the risks to the extent that it is promoted. I think a very small number of teams who do it at an unbelievable level like City or Barca see real positives. Most of the rest cost themselves goals and pressure as much as any obvious benefit that I see.

I mentioned in another thread yesterday, but a case study of our situation with Smalling and Lindelöf is a great example. 10-15 years ago, Lindelöf never gets into a PL team ahead of Smalling. Today, he replaces him in the team and Smalling is shipped out. He quite obviously passes the ball better. Smalling would have us about 4 points better off already this season based on the two key headers Lindelöf has lost and cost us goals and games.

I generally agree with the sentiment of your post but I just cannot understand how you can so certain of that (as in Smalling not fecking up directly or indirectly in other ways). You can imagine how Smalling would have been better in the air than Lindelof but you also need to extend that to the whole game and then we get into real unknown territory. I wanna precise that I rate Smalling higher than Lindelof and consider it madness to loan him

 

[Rozay]

I generally agree with the sentiment of your post but I just cannot understand how you can so certain of that (as in Smalling not fecking up directly or indirectly in other ways). You can imagine how Smalling would have been better in the air than Lindelof but you also need to extend that to the whole game and then we get into real unknown territory. I wanna precise that I rate Smalling higher than Lindelof and consider it madness to loan him

Yea that’s fair. I’m looking at the two lost aerial duels in isolation admittedly, so it’s not simple mathematics I agree.

 

[noodlehair]

It makes sense if you're good at it. Encourages the opposition to push up and gives you loads more space to play into. If you play through the press you basically have a counter attqck opportunity in a situation where otherwise you are punting the ball 80 yards aimlessly against a team already set up to defend.

It also wears down the energy levels of the opposition as their forwards are pressing 10 yards from your goal, then having to turn and run back as soon as you play it past them.

Some teams in the PL seem to insist on doing it despite not being very good at it though. By which I mean, Tottenham seem to insist on doing it despite not being very good at it. Chelsea aren't much better and only slightly less stubborn with it. The only PL team you see do it effectively enough to say it's a tactical advantage is City.

 

[welshwingwizard]

I would be interested to see analysis to say that it's worth it. Football is a low scoring game usually decided by one goal either way, the centre back being slightly more comfortable in passing to the right back surely has a minimal impact on results compared to actually being able to defend.

I guess the idea is that the defender can add more going forward/play forward passes thus releasing a midfielder to push on/making other midfield choose between closing down or getting tight to midfielder. Same reason sweeper keepers have become a trend because it frees up a defender to move forward.

However, as others have said it does require you to play that way as opposed to just use your great passing for left and right. I certainly don't think you need two experts. Just one competent and one ball playing (like vidic and ferdinand).

If we stick to two in midfield with defensive full backs we should look at moving one of lindelof/maguire into midfield when we have possesion with the full backs pulling into a back three.

 

[adexkola]

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?

I've seen City and Liverpool and Tottenham rubbish this notion enough times over the past few seasons.

It's worth the initial pain learning to add this skill to a team's repoitore, without it there is a ceiling you won't be able to crack.

 

[Rozay]

It makes sense if you're good at it. Encourages the opposition to push up and gives you loads more space to play into. If you play through the press you basically have a counter attqck opportunity in a situation where otherwise you are punting the ball 80 yards aimlessly against a team already set up to defend.

It also wears down the energy levels of the opposition as their forwards are pressing 10 yards from your goal, then having to turn and run back as soon as you play it past them.

Some teams in the PL seem to insist on doing it despite not being very good at it though. By which I mean, Tottenham seem to insist on doing it despite not being very good at it. Chelsea aren't much better and only slightly less stubborn with it. The only PL team you see do it effectively enough to say it's a tactical advantage is City.

I agree, it only really works well enough for City in the PL.

I don’t have stats, but I’m confident far more goals are conceded by a defender getting robbed in possession than from passing moves from back to front.

 

[Synco]

If the aim is to build a top team, becoming good at this is a must, imo.

 

[adexkola]

I agree, it only really works well enough for City in the PL.

I don’t have stats, but I’m confident far more goals are conceded by a defender getting robbed in possession than from passing moves from back to front.

Not true, Liverpool use their CBs intelligently beyond the hoof and pray approach, but let's assume only City have seen the benefits of this tactic. Your OP criticized it's use at City 3 years ago, but there is no way they become able to use it to devastating effect today without working out the kinks in real time fashion, during which they were mocked.

Now if your CBs are useless with the ball then no point playing out the back. But I do think that in the long run, you do need your CBs to be able to defend as well as they are good on the ball, as part of building a WC team. It gives you more control of your fate over the course of the game and over a season.

Not touching the second point... Bring stats

 

[Rozay]

I've seen City and Liverpool and Tottenham rubbish this notion enough times over the past few seasons.

It's worth the initial pain learning to add this skill to a team's repoitore, without it there is a ceiling you won't be able to crack.

Not sure about that. City maybe. The other two are nothing special in this respect.

I would suspect that more goals are scored from a long kick up field than centre halves passing the ball from the back in the PL. just like Eriksen’s goal today. In fact, this will happen even more so in an era where teams prioritise Lindelöfs over Smallings.

 

[OT1214]

Spurs was shit at it today. Lloris to defender.. Defender to Lloris.. Launch. Might have done it at the first time.

 

[Treble]

3 years on from making this thread, I’m still struggling to see the net gain of this. At least to justify the emphasis that is placed on it in the modern game.

I just don’t think the benefits of it justify the risks to the extent that it is promoted. I think a very small number of teams who do it at an unbelievable level like City or Barca see real positives. Most of the rest cost themselves goals and pressure as much as any obvious benefit that I see.

I mentioned in another thread yesterday, but a case study of our situation with Smalling and Lindelöf is a great example. 10-15 years ago, Lindelöf never gets into a PL team ahead of Smalling. Today, he replaces him in the team and Smalling is shipped out. He quite obviously passes the ball better. Smalling would have us about 4 points better off already this season based on the two key headers Lindelöf has lost and cost us goals and games.

City and Liverpool play from the back and hold the 3 best records for most points in the PL history: 100, 98 and 97. And yes, Liverpool also play from the back and do not hoof the ball forward when pressed, not with Alisson anyway.

 

[Spiersey]

Pretty sure this will be dead in a couple years bar the elite sides. Why the likes of Burnley etc are trying to pass around the press against Liverpool and City I will never know. These teams need to accept their limitations and just go long. The good sides will eventually force an error from you and score. Seems to be all the rage currently even amongst poor teams, it’s suicidal.

 

[adexkola]

Not sure about that. City maybe. The other two are nothing special in this respect.

I would suspect that more goals are scored from a long kick up field than centre halves passing the ball from the back in the PL. just like Eriksen’s goal today. In fact, this will happen even more so in an era where teams prioritise Lindelöfs over Smallings.

City have mastered it. The other 2 teams have it in their toolbox though. VVD, Gomez, Vert and Toby are all good on the ball.

How many keepers/CBs last season registered more than 1 assist? I get that long balls can lead to second ball opportunities, but if the long ball was a high quality chance generator, surely we'd see direct goal chances being generated from such players.

 

[Rozay]

City have mastered it. The other 2 teams have it in their toolbox though. VVD, Gomez, Vert and Toby are all good on the ball.

How many keepers/CBs last season registered more than 1 assist? I get that long balls can lead to second ball opportunities, but if the long ball was a high quality chance generator, surely we'd see direct goal chances being generated from such players.

I was mainly referencing the second ball opportunity tbh. The assist may we’ll be registered by the #10, but the ball arrived at his feet following the aftermath of a clearance.

How about the number of goals teams concede from losing possession in their own defensive third?

 

[RedSky]

You know what I find interesting. If you look at Goalkeeper stats you get the following:

Tim Krul - 34.3 passes
Jordan Pickford - 30.8 passes
Mat Ryan - 30.8 passes
Kasper Schmeichel - 30.5 passes
Adrián - 29.7 passes
Nick Pope - 29.3 passes
Tom Heaton - 29 passes
Vicente Guaita - 28.5 passes
Kepa Arrizabalaga - 28.3 passes
Ben Foster - 28 passes
Aaron Ramsdale - 27.3 passes
Lukasz Fabianski - 27.3 passes
Dean Henderson - 26.5 passes
Hugo Lloris - 26 passes
Alisson - 25.4 passes
Ederson - 24.8 passes
Angus Gunn - 24 passes
Rui Patrício - 21.5 passes
Bernd Leno - 21.3 passes
Martin Dubravka - 21 passes
De Gea - 18 passes

*I switched the stats to per 90mins

Now is this because we've been dominating games this season and so De Gea simply hasn't had much of the ball. Or are we deliberately not getting him involved? He's got the lowest number of passes in the Premier League so far this season (obviously for keepers). It's curious either way and worth keeping an eye on long term.

 

[adexkola]

I was mainly referencing the second ball opportunity tbh. The assist may we’ll be registered by the #10, but the ball arrived at his feet following the aftermath of a clearance.

How about the number of goals teams concede from losing possession in their own defensive third?

Its rare that you see those opportunities nowadays. Top teams are more cognizant of the dangers of second balls (Pep has spoken of them multiple times), and position themselves effectively such that opportunities to score from the second ball are rare. I don't think a top team can afford to rely on second balls, especially when they face opposition that decide to sit deep

But the stats would be great to see. Ditto for the amount of goals conceded from possession in their own third.

 

[Rozay]

Its rare that you see those opportunities nowadays. Top teams are more cognizant of the dangers of second balls (Pep has spoken of them multiple times), and position themselves effectively such that opportunities to score from the second ball are rare. I don't think a top team can afford to rely on second balls, especially when they face opposition that decide to sit deep

But the stats would be great to see. Ditto for the amount of goals conceded from possession in their own third.

Perhaps we aren’t on the same page regarding what we mean by second ball. I mean, even if a long ball is headed clear, it will likely land in opposition territory. 50/50 who gets it, but there’s a good chance the ball falls to you in the opponents final third. Nobody knows where the ball will drop so anything can happen.

 

[SambaBoy]

Essentially playing out from the back can give you two options if teams are good at it.

Teams will play it around the back, CB to CB back to CB, back to goalkeeper which invites the opposition to push up, eventually the CF will press one of the CB's or GK. The aim here is to try to commit the opposing teams striker's, no10 or ss, and their wingers to be within 35 yards of your goal. This is why the top teams insist on having a GK good with his feet if this is their tactic as the GK will then be the main catalyst for the attack. The new modern era GK can beat a line or two depending on how far the opposition have pushed up and drop it onto the LB/RB's, CM's, wingers toe which allows a quick transition where they out number the opponents going forward. We even seen this with DDG under LVG, we would play it round the back quite frequently in the big games. Once the opposition started their press, Fellaini would push up to join our attacking third and De Gea would punt it up to him to start an attack. Obviously their is more success to it when your GK is top class with his feet, and their CB's can play it round more successfully hoping to force the opposition to press.

If opposition teams play in a compact, high block but allow the ball to move from CB to CB without any pressure until the ball is moved forward then this is where having a good playing CB is a major weapon. As they are granted more time on the ball, they can pick a switch over the top of the full-backs head for the winger to run onto or they can hit the 10/ most advanced midfielder with a ground ball and the team is now in the attacking transition.

There are many factors as to why it fails. Firstly it takes a huge amount of coaching as to when to initiate the attack, and where the players should position themselves and not something that happens overnight as seen by City failing in their first year under Pep. It also takes good personnel for it to be an effective tactic, essentially you are asking your two CB's and GK to be able to keep the ball between themselves for sometimes 6-7 passes in a small area whilst getting closed down. You need your defenders and GK to be good on the ball and have the confidence to do it.

 

[Rozay]

Essentially playing out from the back can give you two options if teams are good at it.

Teams will play it around the back, CB to CB back to CB, back to goalkeeper which invites the opposition to push up, eventually the CF will press one of the CB's or GK. The aim here is to try to commit the opposing teams striker's, no10 or ss, and their wingers to be within 35 yards of your goal. This is why the top teams insist on having a GK good with his feet if this is their tactic as the GK will then be the main catalyst for the attack. The new modern era GK can beat a line or two depending on how far the opposition have pushed up and drop it onto the LB/RB's, CM's, wingers toe which allows a quick transition where they out number the opponents going forward. We even seen this with DDG under LVG, we would play it round the back quite frequently in the big games. Once the opposition started their press, Fellaini would push up to join our attacking third and De Gea would punt it up to him to start an attack. Obviously their is more success to it when your GK is top class with his feet, and their CB's can play it round more successfully hoping to force the opposition to press.

If opposition teams play in a compact, high block but allow the ball to move from CB to CB without any pressure until the ball is moved forward then this is where having a good playing CB is a major weapon. As they are granted more time on the ball, they can pick a switch over the top of the full-backs head for the winger to run onto or they can hit the 10/ most advanced midfielder with a ground ball and the team is now in the attacking transition.

There are many factors as to why it fails. Firstly it takes a huge amount of coaching as to when to initiate the attack, and where the players should position themselves and not something that happens overnight as seen by City failing in their first year under Pep. It also takes good personnel for it to be an effective tactic, essentially you are asking your two CB's and GK to be able to keep the ball between themselves for sometimes 6-7 passes in a small area whilst getting closed down. You need your defenders and GK to be good on the ball and have the confidence to do it.

Our central midfielders, and that is at one of the workd’s top clubs, are not even good enough to play around and resist the press. Asking centre halves to be good enough on the ball to resist press, right in front of their own goal, is a dangerous game to me. It is a game that puts you at direct risk of conceding a goal of it fails, and does not put you with a direct opportunity of scoring a goal of it succeeds.

I appreciate its benefits if done to the right level, which is possible for very few teams. If central defenders were good enough to do this, they would probably be midfielders. There needs to be balance too. I don’t suggest just knocking it long all the time under no pressure, but often teams don’t balance the risk. They pass around and get pressed into mistakes in tough away games and get the crowd up and it all seems very unnecessary to me.

 

[doriandun]

It's a treat for teams like Man City and Liverpool, , but in actual fact it's is nothing but stupidity, to take such a risk so close to your own goal and then wonder why your one or two nil down within 20 minutes. loosing the ball in midifeld you stand a better chance of rectfying the situation, by either conceding a free kick or intercepting a pass, why put yourself under so much pressure, and cause a panic.

A fulll back or centre back tries to be cute and in a panic hurries their pass, the hurries pass is collected by the opposing team as they are face on in the direction the pass is being made.

A team can not hurt you the further away they are from your goal.

 

[SambaBoy]

Our central midfielders, and that is at one of the workd’s top clubs, are not even good enough to play around and resist the press. Asking centre halves to be good enough on the ball to resist press, right in front of their own goal, is a dangerous game to me. It is a game that puts you at direct risk of conceding a goal of it fails, and does not put you with a direct opportunity of scoring a goal of it succeeds.

I appreciate its benefits if done to the right level, which is possible for very few teams. If central defenders were good enough to do this, they would probably be midfielders. There needs to be balance too. I don’t suggest just knocking it long all the time under no pressure, but often teams don’t balance the risk. They pass around and get pressed into mistakes in tough away games and get the crowd up and it all seems very unnecessary to me.

Yeah when I say the top players and teams, I don't include United in that or 90% of teams/players. I agree with you that the risk is too great especially when you see teams lower down the leagues trying to do it. Teams have got much better at pressing as well, knowing when to do it and recognising the triggers to go full press to gain possession high up the pitch.

 

[DWelbz19]

Its overdone at this point. Even when a team is man marked they strangely insist on doing it. Its basically football suicide.

Agreed. It's like teams are doing it for the sake of doing it now.

 

[Rozay]

England 1 up as a result of this now.

 

[Dancfc]

It's a treat for teams like Man City and Liverpool, , but in actual fact it's is nothing but stupidity, to take such a risk so close to your own goal and then wonder why your one or two nil down within 20 minutes. loosing the ball in midifeld you stand a better chance of rectfying the situation, by either conceding a free kick or intercepting a pass, why put yourself under so much pressure, and cause a panic.

A fulll back or centre back tries to be cute and in a panic hurries their pass, the hurries pass is collected by the opposing team as they are face on in the direction the pass is being made.

A team can not hurt you the further away they are from your goal.

The problem is vs City or Liverpool their press is so well structured that if you hoof it and take no risks 9 times out of 10 they sweep up and start another attacking wave immediately, especially City.

Given most teams play out these days the huge mistakes aren't really that frequent.

 

[Rozay]

New example every week almost. Admittedly, City do this very well in general, and I guess you can concede goals in different ways, but this fecked City again last night. Norwich has been pressing heavy, and a high risk low reward pass screwed them.

 

[Rozay]

And another.

 

[kouroux]

This stupidity needs to stop. It's like teams just copy trends for the sake of it without tje players for it

 

[Leftback99]

It's ridiculous. Has there been any goals for the attacking team started from one of these new 'goal kicks'?

 

[Amar__]

It's pointless. But football gurus like Pep convinced people that's it's everything that's good with modern football despite being one of the main flaws about modern football. It's always good to have defenders who have decent technique, but whenever team relies on them to create attacks it's the sign of struggling to break teams and that that team has attacking problems in general.

We have Lindelof and Maguire this season, and considering how much our former defenders have been criticised for lack of technique and how it ruined our attacking play, you would think our attacking play has gone two levels up this year by having two defenders who are actually very good with the ball, but in reality it means feck all so far. If anything, we have conceeded at least two goals so far because we now have a defender now who is struggling to win headers - absolute basic attribute of a decent defender, but by the looks of it he is in the team becauze he is good with his feet. Comic stuff.

 

[simonhch]

Smalling would have us about 4 points better off already this season based on the two key headers Lindelöf has lost and cost us goals and games.

Completely flawed logic. Your supposition assumes Smalling would’ve done everything Lindelof did plus win those two headers. Whereas even if he did win those headers it’s equally probable he would’ve made different mistakes. So it can never be seriously argued we’d be 4 points better off at all. Smalling was here for what? 7 years or more? And was more often than not deemed not good enough. Lewis Dunk May have won those headers, but I’d still rather have Lindelof at the back.

Its overdone at this point. Even when a team is man marked they strangely insist on doing it. Its basically football suicide.

I agree with this. The pursuit of it has become dogmatic to the point of suicidal. Surely teams have to mix it up. Chipping the high press into wide areas or midfield will have the effect of making teams sit off a little more, and thus make playing out from the back more comfortable. Have to keep teams guessing.

 

[GlasgowCeltic]

Only works if you have better players than the opposition

 

[haram]

To be fair, even if Arsenal hit it long the ball is going straight to the opposition.

 

[adexkola]

New example every week almost. Admittedly, City do this very well in general, and I guess you can concede goals in different ways, but this fecked City again last night. Norwich has been pressing heavy, and a high risk low reward pass screwed them.

I want to know what it is about having footballers play the ball out the back that rubs you the wrong way.

 

[RooneyLegend]

To be fair, even if Arsenal hit it long the ball is going straight to the opposition.

Thats because the whole arsenal team prepares to pass out from the back. If they pushed everyone forward, gone with a long wide pass and then contested the second ball they wouldnt have lost every ball. Instead they foolishly invited pressure.