What Makes a Counter Attack a Counter Attack?

[romufc]

In satisfaction terms, it's hard to beat a good counter-attacking goal. Being good on the counter is something I've always liked about us, because it means you're always dangerous in the big games, even when digging in.

I don't see any issue with being a counter-attacking team, but of course we also need to be better when playing against teams that don't set up in that way. I think we can be both.

Your Real example is a good one - they have the ability to dig in and hit teams on the counter with the likes of Vinicius, but they also can take control of games in midfield when they have the upper hand. I don't see counter-attacking and playing good, posession-based football as mutually exclusive.

Most good teams will spend 40-50% of the time without the ball anyway, so there's different ways to win football games, and times within games when you can play to your strengths. I don't buy the common trend that you have to stick to your philosophy for every single minute of the 90.

I always thought under SAF, the best thing about us was that we played great football for the most part, but we knew when a different approach was needed. We were street smart, and our great teams were built on the bedrock of a solid defence and being able to counter-punch when needed was one of the great hallmarks of all his teams.

The modern approach, epitomised by Arteta yesterday, is that coaches seem like they'd rather lose sticking to their beliefs. What has impressed me the most about ETH in his first 6 games is the opposite of that nonsense. What we're playing now is not the football he is known for, yet we're grinding results and scoring great goals in the process and building momentum. That shows me we have a great coach on our hands, not the modern day mania of 'losing a certain way'.

Exactly. I mean I want to see us play the Ten Hag way of possession based football too, I also know that it wont come overnight.

I rather us see us play this way and win games than lose games 4-2, 3-1 because we play a certain way.

You can still be defensively strong and play good football. There are times in games, we see the Ten Hag way of playing. What he is doing, is introducing it slowly without compromising on short terms results.

I agree with the coach, he is showing he is not stubborn and can adapt.

 

[cyberman]

Dont think a RB doddling on the ball and passing it out to Eriksen deep in his own half can be a counter. As I’ve argued in the post thread we really have to be countering something for it to be a counter. Otherwise it’s just playing it out from the back

 

[Phil]

Imo..

Goal 1 started with a pass from De Gea to the defender, with 11 Arsenal players. Not a counter attack.

Goal 3 started with a throw in deep in our half with 1 Arsenal player in front of the ball, not a counter.

Second one was a counter attack as we nicked the ball high and they had committed men forward.

 

[Rozay]

It's one of the lowest/easiest forms of attacking

This.

I've always wondered why they were so celebrated around these parts as 'great goals'. I mean, who wouldn't like to attack against no more than two or three opponents?!

They are exciting due to the speed and 'suddenness' of them, but I do think they are over-celebrated from a quality perspective.

 

[Nick7]

Imo..

Goal 1 started with a pass from De Gea to the defender, with 11 Arsenal players. Not a counter attack.

Goal 3 started with a throw in deep in our half with 1 Arsenal player in front of the ball, not a counter.

Second one was a counter attack as we nicked the ball high and they had committed men forward.

Our first goal started before that, it was also a throw in from our half. We went forward, then back to De Gea pulling Arsenal out of shape.

 

[rimaldo]

i think it’s when you score a penalty against the run of play.

 

[adexkola]

When done right, it can be one of the most exhilarating football to watch.

Correct. Still doesn't invalidate what I said!

 

[Steven7290]

Imo a counter attack should satisfy the following criteria

- the ball has to be won in your own half
- possession cannot br recycled back past the first 2/3 of the field on the way of the attack
- it has to be under a certain amount of time (1 minute?) from when you won the ball to the final execution of the chance created

/thread?

 

[Ole's screen]

The second goal definitely was. They're building a move well inside our half, Ronaldo gets a foot in and pressures the Arsenal player into a loose pass which Dalot intercepts a little outside the right edge of our box, he plays a quick pass to Eriksen who one touches it to Bruno, Bruno takes a touch and then his second touch puts Rashford clear. Marcus takes one touch and buries it.

Our box to the back of the net in less than 10 seconds. Them having possession in attack to us hitting them on the break. It's the textbook definition of a counterattack.

The other two goals weren't though.

Don't think they were attacking though. Isn't not like they were committing men forward and left spaces which we exploited with a quick counter attack, they just lost the ball cheaply around our RB an then we quickly went back to front and scored. I don't think any attack ofter a transition can be called a counter attack - the opponent has to be actively attacking and be caught out out of position for it to be a counter. That's just my view.

 

[diarm]

Don't think they were attacking though. Isn't not like they were committing men forward and left spaces which we exploited with a quick counter attack, they just lost the ball cheaply around our RB an then we quickly went back to front and scored. I don't think any attack ofter a transition can be called a counter attack - the opponent has to be actively attacking and be caught out out of position for it to be a counter. That's just my view.

They had 9 players in our half at the stage Ronaldo started pressing them.

 

[Ole's screen]

They had 9 players in our half at the stage Ronaldo started pressing them.

That's pretty normal though. Its not uncommon for teams to be building up with the CBs being the only players in their own half these days.

 

[Globule]

To counter an attack, you have to first be defending an attack.

Simply winning possession and scoring does not equal a counter attack.

Simply attacking with fast incisive movement/passes does not equal a counter attack.

 

[diarm]

That's pretty normal though. Its not uncommon for teams to be building up with the CBs being the only players in their own half these days.

I think if you're building with possession and 9 players in the opponents half, that's an attack in my book. What else are they doing there?

 

[Ole's screen]

I think if you're building with possession and 9 players in the opponents half, that's an attack in my book. What else are they doing there?

Sure I guess. That would make any quick transition goal as a counter attack goal.

 

[RedBanker]

As above, it is when the other team is in an attacking position, committing men forward and thus more space at the back.

When men thrust forward there's bound to be more space the back.

 

[diarm]

Sure I guess. That would make any quick transition goal as a counter attack goal.

Not necessarily. Our third goal wasn't a counterattack because it was off our own throw.

Nor was our first, even though the final transition from deep in our own half was played quickly, because we had maintained possession through several phases.

The second is a counterattack because we regained possession in our defensive third, and put Rashford in a position to score before they could reset their defence.