Possession vs Position in football

[rcoobc]

A thread to discuss the two distinct styles of football we see today. Their merits and drawbacks.

Position Football

Position football is best embodied by the English. In attack you have; counter attacking football, long ball, etc. And in defence, "If in doubt, get it out".

Position football is about the position of the ball, your players and the opposition players. You want the position of the ball to be up the field, as quickly as possible. And you want your players to be up the field with the ball. And you want your oppositions players lost in the wilderness.

The opposition can't score if the ball isn't near your goal.

Possession Football

Possession football is best embodied by the Spanish. Barcelona, in the early Pep years. The Spanish national team during their three major championships in a row.

In attack you wear the opposition down, slowly finding an opening. In defence, you win possession back quickly, then move it about quickly, preventing the opposition from getting the ball back.

The opposition can't score if they don't have the ball.

Now some notable examples, successes and failures

Man Utd vs Leicester - Possession Football Failure - FA Cup tie.

This goal simply doesn't happen in position football. Man Utd start from a goal kick, and pass the ball to the first defender, then the defensive midfielder. Leicester press high, and put the DM under pressure. The defensive midfielder passes, without too many options, tries to pass the ball back to his keeper but it's intercepted and United are on their way out of the FA Cup

The back 3

The modern back 3 seems entirely to both stop and encourage possession football. The back 3 allows the defence to keep possession. At the same time, it stops the opposition from finding the space to make a break through.

Attack the space - both Possession and Position

Boss was one of the first to see that attacking the space allows you to keep possession whilst gaining position. It's what makes Attacking the Space such a brutal tactic.

https://www.redcafe.net/threads/attacking-the-space-boss-leaving-thread.338290/

Mick McCarthy - Cardiff City - Position Football

Man City - Possession Success

https://www.skysports.com/football/...-is-the-secret-of-man-citys-defensive-success

"The reason why [our defensive record is so good] is because 67 per cent of the time we have the ball," he explains. "This is the main reason. The main reason is that we have the ball. If you have the ball as much as possible then the opponent does not have the ball.

"Of course, the opponent can score from set pieces or a counter-attack but the more that you have the ball the more chances you will have to score a goal. This is the reason why.

"Maybe one day they will change the rules but I think to score a goal you need the ball."

Leicester City title win - Position football done well

(Mid-season stats from that BBC Article)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35553082

The pendulum has swung massively in favour of possession football. Everyone seems to think that keeping possession is the best way to stop the opposition scoring a goal.

During Barcelona's tiki taka dominance many on here complained that their style of football was putting them to sleep. I didn't agree, it was something different and the players they had were amazing.

But my god I find modern football excruciating.

Of course, both possession and position are vital for any team.

Viva la counter attacking football.

 

[edcunited1878]

Appreciate the details and insight, but at the end of the day, you're only as good as your players.

So whatever you see fit for your players, that's what type of football you will deploy.

Possession and position, or however you want to call it (e.g. dominant v counter/direct) has been labeled in recent times with the advent of analytics in football and sports.

Leicester had a 442 system that was position oriented but also had a distinct direct approach when in possession coming off the flanks. To that, the idea of pressing from the front and midfield, plus closing down forward passing avenues, has forced teams to adapt their overall tactics when considering their player technical ability.

Barcelona at their peak had highly technical players at each of their positions, which allowed them to play possession, but also position when they quickly won the ball back after immediately closing down players and passing lanes/outlets when losing the ball. Their off ball players were already in position to punish the opposition when transitioning from loss possession to regaining possession to attacking up the pitch. Their positioning, or as I always refer to, their spatial awareness was second to none. They were able to dictate most matches across every section of the pitch because their positioning allowed them to do it, which translated into possession dominance but also chance creation and conversion because of their absolute talents individually and as a functioning team.

 

[PepG]

My god there will be a lot of confusion here because Pep Guardiola's style is called Juego De Posicion or Positional play..As Thiery Henry once said positioning of the players with or without the ball is the most important aspect of Guardiola's philosophy..its all about creating numerical superiorities all over the pitch..but i can see what the autor means here.

“The third man is impossible to defend, impossible … I’ll explain what it means. Imagine Piqué wanting to play with me, but I’m marked, I have a marker (defender) on me, a very aggressive guy. Well, it is clear that Piqué can not pass it to me, it is evident. If I move away, I’ll take the marker with me. Then, Messi goes down and becomes the second man. Piqué is the 1st, Messi the 2nd and I the 3rd. I have to be very alert, right?! Piqué, then plays with the 2nd man, Messi, who returns it, and at that moment I’m an option. I’m now free of my marker who has moved to defend closer to the ball. Now I’m totally unmarked and Piqué passes me the ball. If my marker is looking at the ball, cannot see that I’m unmarked and then I appear, I’m the third man. We have already achieved superiority. This is indefensible, it’s the Dutch school, it’s Cruyff. It is an evolution of the Dutch triangles. (…) To look for the third man is, for example, that the central players have the ball and one of them is always open because you always have one player more than opposing strikers. In that case, Puyol has the ball and goes up, up and up until a defender challenges him. If the defender who tries to stop him is my marker, then the third man happens to be me! If it is Iniesta’s marker who moves to challenge Puyol , then Andres is the third man. And so we seek superiority in any area of the field. You make a three against two, you win and you have the third man. We advance positions up the field” – Xavi Hernández

 

[adexkola]

The pendulum has swung massively in favour of possession football. Everyone seems to think that keeping possession is the best way to stop the opposition scoring a goal.

Simeone thinks otherwise. But yes keeping the ball well is extremely effective.

During Barcelona's tiki taka dominance many on here complained that their style of football was putting them to sleep. I didn't agree, it was something different and the players they had were amazing.

It was the opponents who made such matches boring. I challenge anyone to watch the Supercopa matches in 2011 between Barcelona and Madrid, and call them boring.

Viva la counter attacking football.

Counter attacking football has it's merits but it is very easy to counter: park the bus. You can't be a top side and solely rely on counters. And what grates me is that SAF nowadays is viewed as some sort of counter attacking spammer... Yes his best teams could do this well but they were even better at taking initiatives and tightening the vice on teams until a goal was scored. His teams were very good at both aspects (bar pressing, but that is a recent tactical development)

 

[Champ]

The examples given for the long ball tactics... Leicester winning the league and Cardiff destroying Derby both have one thing in common...shots.

If you don't shoot, you don't score.

Doesn't matter what style you play.

 

[adexkola]

The examples given for the long ball tactics... Leicester winning the league and Cardiff destroying Derby both have one thing in common...shots.

If you don't shoot, you don't score.

Doesn't matter what style you play.

Did Leicester dominate shots on target that year?

 

[Ekeke]

They are both position

 

[11101]

Barcelona was position first possession second.

Both systems are only as good as the players and coaching within them. All else being equal, i'd give it to position football. Getting all your players in the right place, both in defence and attack, is more important than keeping the ball moving around in no mans land.

 

[Champ]

Did Leicester dominate shots on target that year?

They were 7th highest, and had the 6th highest shots on target per game.
The highest were Spurs, second were Arsenal, both finished in top three... thereby showing that no matter the style, you also need to shoot.

 

[Physiocrat]

Attack the space is my favourite. You just need good dribblers who have a direct instinct.

 

[do.ob]

I still can't figure out if this thread is meant seriously.

And Possession vs Position is the worst possible way to frame this, because - as was already pointed out - Guardiola's style of football is actually referred to as positional football.

I also don't see what's left to discuss when it comes to top clubs. It's more than obvious that your coach needs to understand what OP refers to as possession football: by now most smaller clubs understand how to properly organize their defense and how to deny counter attacking opportunities. If your coach is clueless about how to properly structure his possession phase you get a team that one week beats a top team that offers space, but the next week they draw/lose vs the bottom side.