What Makes a Counter Attack a Counter Attack?

Charlie Foley

Full Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
19,942
Inspired by the Post Match vs Arsenal thread discussion.

What are the necessary elements for a counter attack to be considered a counter attack?

I think pitch location and where the opposition players are important. I think it probably has to start in your own half; I don’t think you really “counter” a team if you win the ball really high up the pitch.

Likewise, if a team sits everyone back, you can’t counter that, even if you steal the ball off their one or two forwards.

once you recycle possession, it’s no longer a counter, even if you keep the ball, similar to Eriksen in the buildup to Sancho’s goal against Liverpool.
 
Great question. Let’s start by acknowledging that there can ever be a perfect objective, quantifiable answer.

For me, a proper counterattack begins with a change in possession in your own half. The opponent had to have to had control over the ball for 3 or 4 passes. So stripping the ball off the keeper is not a counterattack, nor would winning the ball off an opponent throw in. Or if an opponent wins an aerial duel but then you win the second ball, not a counterattack. So what a counterattack is may be a bit tricky to pin down, but simply winning the ball and pushing forward is not by itself a counterattack.

I’m looking forward to other posts to flush out this point.
 
I think it’s straight forward, if a team is in your offensive third making progressive action, then the other team wins the ball/the attack breaks down and IMMEDIATELY the other team heads for the offensive third, it’s a counter attack.
 
Winning the ball and quickly converting to a chance.
 
Well it's a counter attack. Yano when you counter an attack
 
The other team must have had the ball in an advanced area or the other team has more players ahead of the ball when you win it.
Our goals weren't counter attacks. We drew Arsenal out with our passing and passed through them quickly.
 
They attack, give the ball away then you quickly run down the other end and have one of your own
 
For me its how a team is set up defensively.
Teams set up defensively with a view to counter attack. They try to draw teams forward and then press once the opposition is in a restricted or contained area. Once the ball is won back its quickly switched out and pushed forward to exploit spaces left by the opposition. Counter attacking is not a reaction to winning the ball back, its a carefully constructed tactic built upon a tactical defensive trap.
 
Attacking against a defence that isn't organised because their team has recently lost the ball during an attacking play.
 
Stack said:
No its not, its a tactic that requires a high level of coordination and tactical setup to be effective. Its not easy at all to do well.
Click to expand...

Sure. It it is still one of the easiest, relative to others. Which is why for most teams, they default to this mode of attacking.
 
FriedClams said:
I think it’s straight forward, if a team is in your offensive third making progressive action, then the other team wins the ball/the attack breaks down and IMMEDIATELY the other team heads for the offensive third, it’s a counter attack.
Click to expand...
Bookmark this, close the thread.
 
Pretty essential to be good at if you want to be a top team, Yes, they should also be skilled at breaking down low blocks and possession based play but a counter attack is an A1 opportunity to exploit. Pressing is all about creating swift transitions, is it not a counter if the ball is won high?
 
What I don't get is why people keep saying we hit them on the counter... Only our second goal can be considered a counter. For the other two we had possession and Arsenal had ages to set up proper defensive shape, they just left huge holes in there and we cut thought them in a couple passes. That's just bad defensive shape, it's not the same as when you lose possession after overcommitting and getting countered.
 
A counter attack is a counter attack.

There are several types of counter attacks. But they are all counter attacks.
 
A good fecking through ball goes a long way..

See Bruno for our second today.

Surgical.
 
Why does it matter if we are a counter attacking team or not? Does it upset the purists?
 
DRJosh said:
Why does it matter if we are a counter attacking team or not? Does it upset the purists?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. Its a weird obsession from fans.

I actually like it, it shows that this team is capable of playing differently. It is also exploiting the opponents weakness, that is what a good manager does. If its that easy, why cant other teams beat Arsenal?

Also, last CL was won by Real who played on the counter, one before Chelsea won on the counter.
 
DRJosh said:
Why does it matter if we are a counter attacking team or not? Does it upset the purists?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean something which is factually incorrect should not be called out. A large proportion of the goals we have scored this season have not been on the counter
 
This has annoyed me for the last few seasons the way that “counter-attacking” is often thrown around as a bit of a jibe.

Solskjaer’s United were always labelled as a counter-attacking side and it was usually intended as a bit of an insult to our style of play. For me, I would associate a counter-attacking side with being pragmatic, playing with a relatively low block, taking few risks on or off the ball and going back to front really quickly with pace in behind when you do have possession. Often nicking a 1-0.

Solskjaer’s United was not pragmatic or low risk by any stretch. Our games were so open, often chaotically so. Yes we went back to front very quickly but we weren’t compact and gave plenty of opportunity for the opposition to counter us also. It was a regular occurrence that we would go behind and come back to win rather than keeping it tight and executing a smash and grab.

I don’t understand why scoring a goal on a counter-attack seems to be seen as unfashionable by some. How is it less desirable or impressive to go from one end to the other in just a few, fast vertical passes beating the opposition press rather than building up slowly, taking more touches and allowing the opposition to reset?

Obviously if that’s the only type of goal you score it could indicate that you’re a team that struggles to dominate the ball and break a team down but any coach would favour a fast, vertical “transition” from their team when they win the ball back. Even the almighty Guardiolas and Klopps that people fawn over.

United are, at the moment, a team that is focused on being organised and disciplined off the ball against the big sides and overly reliant on counter attacks to hurt the opposition. But it’s early days for Ten Hag and he had to react accordingly to what he saw at Brentford. We know from watching his Ajax teams this is not how he will want to play long-term
 
Opponent is in your own half playing the ball forward when you win it back, and you move it quickly forward before they can recover their shape.
 
Winning the ball while an opponent is on the attack and quickly setting up an attack of your own while they're still far up the pitch.

Like a counter to their attack innit.
 
Arsenal fans seem to equate it to being one pass and in. It’s not our fault they were so open. Why do many pass when one pass do trick.
 
adexkola said:
It's one of the lowest/easiest forms of attacking
Click to expand...

Yeah it's why the poorest teams will score most of their goals like this or through set pieces. Co-ordinating an attack against an organised back line is much harder because you have less space, and more players to beat before you get a shot
 
IMO three criteria need to be met to qualify as a counter attack.
1. It starts from your own half of the pitch.
2. It is quick.
3. It results in a chance.
 
Ole's screen said:
None of our goals last night were counter attacks. Change my mind.
Click to expand...

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.
 
“Counter attacking” is attacking the team who is in transition or attacking shape, i.e. not in defensive or possession formation.

As Keano said a big team interested in points and should be able to play any style needed for victory.
 
Counter attacking is comprised of speed and directness. That's it.
 
romufc said:
It doesn't. Its a weird obsession from fans.

I actually like it, it shows that this team is capable of playing differently. It is also exploiting the opponents weakness, that is what a good manager does. If its that easy, why cant other teams beat Arsenal?

Also, last CL was won by Real who played on the counter, one before Chelsea won on the counter.
Click to expand...
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'.
 
eire-red said:
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'.
Click to expand...

Good post. Agree with every word.
 
Winning the ball back from the opposition and then quickly attacking the other team to exploit their defence whilst they are not in their typical defensive shape.

I think the question that some people seem to be asking to try and define this is slightly wrong, seems that people are talking about it as if there is a set time. It does have to be quick but it's much simpler to look at whether it exploits a lack of defensive shape due to the opposition being on the attack.
 
If a shot comes before the now-defending team gets back into defensive/out of possession shape, it's a counter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.