Playing out from the back

Nobby style

Full Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2009
Messages
6,373
Location
Tooting Colombia to Tooting Bec and back again
Supports
Junior de Barranquilla
Anyone else notice against Liverpool we weren't really playing out from the back? Onana seemed to be hoofing all the goal kicks. Was there a reason for this? Did Amorim not want to deal with Liverpool's press. Not really a fan of hoof ball, but I have to admit it was rather nice having to not watch us laboriously playing out from the back all the time, one pass away from disaster. Boring guff, really. Did this make for a better match without all the boring back play? Seemed like Allison was doing the same. Seemed refreshing.

By the way, when did this methodical playing out from the back begin? First time I really recall seeing it in today's form was in the late 80s with Colombian manager Pacho Maturana with those excellent (Pablo Escobar owned) Atletico Nacional de Medellin sides and the Colombian national side as well. Pep seemed to have mastered it with Barsa.
 
Didn`t think of it during the game but you are probably right. I guess Ruben is starting to sweat a bit and felt he needed to play it more safe to increase our chances at Anfield.

Since Pep mastered it with with Barsa everyone and their dog seems to have it as their main goal.
I have no problem with us playing a more simple and straight game. At all.
You can play fun, enjoyable and succesful football without boring your opponents to death with 400 passes in your own half.
 
Teams shouldn't play out from the back if they don't have the players for it, and we don't. It just results in you being destroyed by the opposition press.

When every player in our back line is as comfortable as Martinez on the ball then we can go back to doing it.
 
Nobby style said:
Anyone else notice against Liverpool we weren't really playing out from the back? Onana seemed to be hoofing all the goal kicks. Was there a reason for this? Did Amorim not want to deal with Liverpool's press. Not really a fan of hoof ball, but I have to admit it was rather nice having to not watch us laboriously playing out from the back all the time, one pass away from disaster. Boring guff, really. Did this make for a better match without all the boring back play? Seemed like Allison was doing the same. Seemed refreshing.

By the way, when did this methodical playing out from the back begin? First time I really recall seeing it in today's form was in the late 80s with Colombian manager Pacho Maturana with those excellent (Pablo Escobar owned) Atletico Nacional de Medellin sides and the Colombian national side as well. Pep seemed to have mastered it with Barsa.
Click to expand...
Some teams playing it long is necessary to beat there press. Liverpool is one of them teams… it would help if we had a better ST to hold the ball up though. Inter played it long against city in the CL final and it worked a treat. They’ll be a lot more games where we do play it out from the back smoothly.
 
Even against Arsenal on Sunday expect the same.
 
Playing out of the back is slowly but noticeably going out of fashion. You still want your squad to be able to play it out methodically but it was being forced too often by too many clubs. Some Route One ball here, long side to side passes there plus some short ball out of the back, but not short ball out of the back all the time.
 
Blood Mage said:
Teams shouldn't play out from the back if they don't have the players for it, and we don't. It just results in you being destroyed by the opposition press.

When every player in our back line is as comfortable as Martinez on the ball then we can go back to doing it.
Click to expand...
Wholeheartedly agree with this.
 
Granted i've been skipping parts of our games because they've been a hard watch, but from what I've seen, it feels like I'm the only one on here who actually thinks we've been playing out from the back pretty well. Most certainly a far cry from the past 15 years. It's what we do in the opponent's half especially that is our biggest problem.
 
Playing out from the back is fine if all of your players are comfortable on the ball, and receiving the ball it tight spaces. You see lower league teams trying it, which very often results in the first touch being heavy and the second touch being a tackle.
 
We weren't hoofing it constantly at all.

We had sequences where we played out from the back pretty well.

We've improved a good amount under Amorim in this regard.
 
lex talionis said:
Playing out of the back is slowly but noticeably going out of fashion. You still want your squad to be able to play it out methodically but it was being forced too often by too many clubs. Some Route One ball here, long side to side passes there plus some short ball out of the back, but not short ball out of the back all the time.
Click to expand...

Southampton this season have been a hilarious example of this. They kept conceding goals from it, and as if it is some sort of dare, wouldn’t stop, they’d do it again and concede again! :lol:
 
I think it was tactical

their manager was moaning about it which is always a good sign
 
Tarrou said:
I think it was tactical

their manager was moaning about it which is always a good sign
Click to expand...

Yeah, big Arne wanted us to play out from the back like good little boys so they could score some more soft goals on us like they did in Old Trafford! He's been bitching about it all week!
 
Has there been a statistical analysis done of the success rate of playing out from the back (ie leading to a goal or goal chance for the team doing it) versus the failure rate (the other team creating a goal chance and scoring)?

From a purely anecdotal point of view, from watching countless games of football, I'm not sure I can recall any instances where a team has taken a short goal kick, passed it right through to the other end of the pitch, and scored a goal. At best, I've seen teams maybe beat the first press and work their way into the opponent's half into a decent attacking position, but that's about it.

In contrast, I've lost count of the amount of times teams have lost possession trying to play it out from the back, leading to goals being scored against them.

Now, maybe my anecdotal observations are completely off the wall and form no basis in reality..... but I doubt it!
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
Has there been a statistical analysis done of the success rate of playing out from the back (ie leading to a goal or goal chance for the team doing it) versus the failure rate (the other team creating a goal chance and scoring)?

From a purely anecdotal point of view, from watching countless games of football, I'm not sure I can recall any instances where a team has taken a short goal kick, passed it right through to the other end of the pitch, and scored a goal. At best, I've seen teams maybe beat the first press and work their way into the opponent's half into a decent attacking position, but that's about it.

In contrast, I've lost count of the amount of times teams have lost possession trying to play it out from the back, leading to goals being scored against them.

Now, maybe my anecdotal observations are completely off the wall and form no basis in reality..... but I doubt it!
Click to expand...

Not a large sample size but this was from the end of September.

"In the Premier League this season, there have been just two shots for a team within 30 seconds of them taking a goal-kick short, neither of which resulted in a goal, but eight shots have been conceded following a short goal-kick. Two of those have resulted in goals being conceded.

This follows a similar pattern to last season, when short goal-kicks led to 63 shots and nine goals for the teams taking them, but 86 shots and 12 goals conceded."

https://theanalyst.com/2024/09/premier-league-pressing-stats-too-good


So it appears to make a case slightly against playing out from the back. But of course better teams and those with the right players and coaching will do better in this regard.

I'd say in general it's worth it if you're good at it, but still mix it up. Even if you're great at playing out from the back, it's probably better to play it long sometimes otherwise the opponent can focus most of their pressing high up the pitch, which has become especially dangerous with teams becoming increasingly good at pressing in the past several years, probably in response to all the short goal kicks.

Interestly United had the joint highest short goal kicks percentage when the article was written. I prefer our current approach which appears to mix it up a bit more using a lot more crossfield balls to the wings to keep opponents on their toes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 711
I'm a simple person. If my GK hoofs it every time and that win us the Champions League, I'd be happy with it. I'm not a football purist like Pep where possession, ball playing GK, and triangles are seen as a win. I enjoy beautiful pass sequences but I'm not that much of a purist to require the GK to start/be part of that as well. The Neuer, Alisson kinda crap where they try to dribble past a player who presses them in fact would make me sweat. And you can see Alison fecked it up against Spurs, only saved by luck. Sometimes these keepers do it because theyre trying to look cool when a simple pass to a defender and back to GK would be a much better option. "Oohh I'm the last man in front of the goal, Ooohh look at me I beat the striker with my dribbling skill, Oohh if I want to I can do rabona" feck off. There are times when they HAD to do it but when they do it to look cool... it's so stupid.

I love Onana but remember when people said De Gea was outdated and a GK with better ball playing skill will improve us a lot? well Onana is here and I'm not really seeing it. There are positives but also negatives, in the end they even out each other.
 
Last edited:
Nobby style said:
Anyone else notice against Liverpool we weren't really playing out from the back? Onana seemed to be hoofing all the goal kicks. Was there a reason for this? Did Amorim not want to deal with Liverpool's press. Not really a fan of hoof ball, but I have to admit it was rather nice having to not watch us laboriously playing out from the back all the time, one pass away from disaster. Boring guff, really. Did this make for a better match without all the boring back play? Seemed like Allison was doing the same. Seemed refreshing.

By the way, when did this methodical playing out from the back begin? First time I really recall seeing it in today's form was in the late 80s with Colombian manager Pacho Maturana with those excellent (Pablo Escobar owned) Atletico Nacional de Medellin sides and the Colombian national side as well. Pep seemed to have mastered it with Barsa.
Click to expand...

A balanced approach is more favourable. Personally I think in the first season the manager needs to ensure that the team plays out from the back at all cost. Once the players have become extremely comfortable with playing out from the back then you can mix things up. As a cricket youngster you should first learn how to attack (playing out from the back) then you can later add defensive element ( hoofing the ball up field).
 
Oscar Bonavena said:
Has there been a statistical analysis done of the success rate of playing out from the back (ie leading to a goal or goal chance for the team doing it) versus the failure rate (the other team creating a goal chance and scoring)?

From a purely anecdotal point of view, from watching countless games of football, I'm not sure I can recall any instances where a team has taken a short goal kick, passed it right through to the other end of the pitch, and scored a goal. At best, I've seen teams maybe beat the first press and work their way into the opponent's half into a decent attacking position, but that's about it.

In contrast, I've lost count of the amount of times teams have lost possession trying to play it out from the back, leading to goals being scored against them.

Now, maybe my anecdotal observations are completely off the wall and form no basis in reality..... but I doubt it!
Click to expand...
I don't think it's about playing out from the back leading to goals directly, necessarily. It really is tool that allows you to control games in possession. Statistically the team with more possession tend to win more often (they are also generally the better team). It's noticeable when an error from playing out from the back leads to an opportunity. However what isn't as noticeable are the opportunities you deny your opponent by being more in possession or the additional chances you gain from it. Also the more you possess the ball, the more your opponent chases and tires.

Like all tools though it needs to be applied correctly. If you're facing the team with the best high pressing stats, perhaps playing out from the back isn't always going to be the option you choose.
What's ironic is that we still ended up what 47 percent possession, even with all the "hoof ball".
 
Bright_Eyes said:
Not a large sample size but this was from the end of September.

"In the Premier League this season, there have been just two shots for a team within 30 seconds of them taking a goal-kick short, neither of which resulted in a goal, but eight shots have been conceded following a short goal-kick. Two of those have resulted in goals being conceded.

This follows a similar pattern to last season, when short goal-kicks led to 63 shots and nine goals for the teams taking them, but 86 shots and 12 goals conceded."

https://theanalyst.com/2024/09/premier-league-pressing-stats-too-good


So it appears to make a case slightly against playing out from the back. But of course better teams and those with the right players and coaching will do better in this regard.

I'd say in general it's worth it if you're good at it, but still mix it up. Even if you're great at playing out from the back, it's probably better to play it long sometimes otherwise the opponent can focus most of their pressing high up the pitch, which has become especially dangerous with teams becoming increasingly good at pressing in the past several years, probably in response to all the short goal kicks.

Interestly United had the joint highest short goal kicks percentage when the article was written. I prefer our current approach which appears to mix it up a bit more using a lot more crossfield balls to the wings to keep opponents on their toes.
Click to expand...
Isn't the argument for playing out more that with a long goal kick, it's 50/50 whether your outfield will retain posession or not? Playing out keeps your team in control, as long as you have the players for it of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 711
I would like to see the stats on how many times teams give the ball away in their own half when attempting this during a game.

Personally would prefer a longer ball to a target man, who if he doesn't win the ball, at least he loses the ball in the opposition half and the team are in their positions to defend / win the ball back.

Mental that teams such as Southampton try to play like City.


Edit - See someone posted some stats above
 
wormdoktor said:
Isn't the argument for playing out more that with a long goal kick, it's 50/50 whether your outfield will retain posession or not? Playing out keeps your team in control, as long as you have the players for it of course.
Click to expand...

That's true. And also the chances that come from going short that take longer than 30 seconds aren't counted.

Guess we want to answer:

When going short, do you keep possession enough for it to be worth the risk of being dispossessed and conceding?

You'd have to measure something like how many times teams keep possession for 30 seconds after going short vs how often they concede during that period. But then how do you quantify what that 30 seconds of possession is worth. Does conceding 1 goal in 10/50/100 short GK plays make it worth it? When you could be hoofing it up, getting a few random chances and losing it in safer areas instead? That's why they compared goals and shots I guess. But yeah not ideal.
 
Last edited:
Seeing how things tend to be cyclic at times irlt would be amusing to see hoof the ball in the middle make a comeback, in fact i could see it happening, have your backline drilled in precision hoofing and fill the midfield and the front line with players physically suited and adept at winning the aerial ball and just like that you've bypassed oppositions first two lines of press and are free to have a go at their defense.

It won't happen yet as while the best teams have gotten pretty lightweight upfront they do still possess physical players in the middle but the take the current formula to the extreme and try to be too cute with it and suddenly it'll be the 80s all over again.
 
We need to be able to do both - play out of back and go long depending on whether the opposition is pressing high or holding back. But at the moment we aren't very good at either. When playing out of the back, we severely lack players who can progress ahead with ball (missing in-form Shaw so much) or players who can pass between the lines (we haven't had a player like this since Matic). And when playing long, we lack a good target man or players who are good at winning second balls. Lots of work for Amorim to do.
 
I'd love to see Southampton's playing out from the back stats for this season under Russell Martin, it looked like they were conceding at least a goal every other game from doing it! Madness!
 
We weren't hoofing it most of the time. Only really when a player was under pressure or too hurried. It was mainly longer aimed passes put to the advanced wing back or whoever was most free, and it was to take Liverpool's front press out of the equation.

Was also partly what gave Arnold such a mare as it meant Dalot kept being the one the other side of the Liverpool press as he always seemed to be the spare man.

Don't think it was anything genius at all but for whatever reason a lot of managers/teams won't make simple adjustments like this. It's a plus point for Amorim that he has that practicality in hum rather than being too stubborn.

It clearly worked. Slot even said as much in his post match interview
 
There's absolutely no point hoofing it up to Hojlund, Zirkzee, Rashford, Garnacho as I've never seen them hold a ball up or win a flick on to someone in this way. We also don't want to be seen to be playing it out all the time as it will become predictable so best is probably to mix it up like we did with the safest ball the one out wide to Dalot or Mazraoui if its on which probably cuts out the first line of a press and isn't the last line of your defence if you lose the duel.
 
Eddy_JukeZ said:
We weren't hoofing it constantly at all.

We had sequences where we played out from the back pretty well.

We've improved a good amount under Amorim in this regard.
Click to expand...
I agree. I also noticed that Onana tried to lob the ball over Pool's first line of press (mainly to Dalot), which worked out nicely actually. Imo it was rather a tactical plan that worked rather well
 
I think we will mix it up at different times, at least I hope so. We have looked better at playing through the press at times which is good but going a bit longer is also valid.

It should really be down to the keeper to assess each time rather than some rigid rule.

I also have a bit of a random feeling that we have been quite good at winding up in possession when we go long for a few years now. Even when we don't have a striker who is great at winning it or bringing it down.
 
Nothing wrong with it as long as you’re still competitive in ball possession. We frequently went long against Liverpool and the possession was very close (53-47).
 
Bright_Eyes said:
That's true. And also the chances that come from going short that take longer than 30 seconds aren't counted.

Guess we want to answer:

When going short, do you keep possession enough for it to be worth the risk of being dispossessed and conceding?

You'd have to measure something like how many times teams keep possession for 30 seconds after going short vs how often they concede during that period. But then how do you quantify what that 30 seconds of possession is worth. Does conceding 1 goal in 10/50/100 short GK plays make it worth it? When you could be hoofing it up, getting a few random chances and losing it in safer areas instead? That's why they compared goals and shots I guess. But yeah not ideal.
Click to expand...
Right now I don't feel comfortable when Onana and the CBs are passing it amongst themselves, so I'm perfectly happy with some hoof ball now and then!
 
You have to play from the back because sometimes you have to rest a little.

Also, you have to control the tempo of the game, and create a bit of frustration on the other team.

Sometimes you need to stretch the other team and be able to do fast play without 2 lines of 4 defenders sitting deep.

Just dont do it like Southampton.
 
cirilus said:
You have to play from the back because sometimes you have to rest a little.

Also, you have to control the tempo of the game, and create a bit of frustration on the other team.

Sometimes you need to stretch the other team and be able to do fast play without 2 lines of 4 defenders sitting deep.

Just dont do it like Southampton.
Click to expand...

I think doing both is good too. If you play short a bunch and lure the opponent towards you it can create space for you up top that can be exploited by defenders who have a good pass on them, or directly from long goal kicks. It looks like we've been buying players in order to head in a direction that uses defenders and keepers passing and ball retention skills.
 
Football has increasingly become a possession game. The tactics may differ, but the general tendencies have been shifting towards a more ball-dominant approach for quite a while. The backbone of a possession-based style still lies in playing out from the back. It works at the highest level (with exceptions to the rule, as always). But abandoning it all together as a concept or not bothering to make it work simply because we can't get it to work is so post-SAF United mentality.
 
It sounds like you took Slots post match interview as fact.

He wasn't hoofing it and certainly not aimlessly. He was going longer a fair bit to Dalot to negate their press which worked quite well.

But as always you have to mix it up and play it out from the back a bit to invite the press. If you're playing it long constantly they'll sit back and there won't be any space further up the pitch.
 
It isn't an either or. We are witnessing how teams adapt to trending tactics by new trending tactics. If you are good at playing out from the back, it will drag the opposition team away from their own goal, creating more space for your own attackers to work in. Hoofball has gone out of favor because strong, fast and physical CBs are more often found than strong, fast and physical STs. If hoofing it doesn't work in your favor, you do something differently.

Our current problem is that for way too long we played too vertical, meaning that it seemed as if every player was encouraged to play it long as soon as they were a glimpse of chance. Playing so vertical is a very viable way, Klopps teams in the past showed that but even he adapted in Dortmund and at Liverpool as more and more teams reacted to their strength. Same has to happen for us, we have to add more capabilities into our arsenal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.