What's wrong with counter attacking football?

[MinGin]

People want to see 100-pass goals and 87% possession....

If you've 23 hand-chosen players and/or you're far superior to the opposition then 'possession-based' progressive football is the most 'plus EV' in terms of total points...think Guardiola at Barcelona, Bayern Munich or City.

However, I have always maintained that counter-attacking is the best style for every other 'type' of team. That doesn't have to necessarily mean defending your own penalty-box but it does mean allowing your opponent some of the ball, allowing them to advance players up the field and then breaking into the space they leave when you win it back.

The fact that this is easier to do is true at every level of football, from 5-a-side through Sunday League through Semi-Pro through Football League through Champions League.

I am in the minority of no interest for the Pep football since Barca, there is so boring for watching. Ya, they execute the movement and passing so well, but before that, a tons of passing would be destroyed the ornamental value
If we play the exact way like City, i would prefer to do other stuff in game time and watch the highlight only.

 

[CM]

Nothing wrong with a counter attack. You need to have more strings to your bow, however.

I'm hopeful we are capable of playing proactive football against teams who will sit deep but there will still be some frustrating games because we're still in the early months of a spell with a new coach. Let's see how that develops.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

Get the ball into the net. I don’t care how.

It’s a game, stop trying to be clever and over-complicate things.

 

[JPRouve]

Get the ball into the net. I don’t care how.

It’s a game, stop trying to be clever and over-complicate things.

But the how is important and being clever is extremely important because the opposition's goal is to not late you put the ball into the net.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

But the how is important and being clever is extremely important because the opposition's goal is to not late you put the ball into the net.

How? Kick it in. Head it in. Get the ball in the net.

Preferably get it in the net more times that the opposition.

It’s a game.

I don’t care what the build up play is … as long as the ball gets into the net.

 

[Hal9000]

Our greatest teams under Sir Alex were among the best counter attacking teams in europe at time. We literally build a dynasty based on it. Swashbuckling quick transition from defence to attack football.. its a joy to behold when done right.

We will have ganes when we dominate possession against teams who will drop deep against us.

We will also have games where teams like arsenal will want to own the ball but we have the tools to catch them.

Give me a counter attacking 3 pointa over 0 points any day of the week!

Exactly, under Fergie we played counter attacking football alot. We were not really a tiki-taka team. Yeah there was a games we had a lot of possession but that will be the same now, some games we will have to play on the counter, some games we will have the share of possession.

Ten Hag has been here 5 minutes and expects him to turn a team that's played dross football for the best part of the last 10 years into a emulation of city. He's said himself is going to take time till we are a team that's keeping possession the way he wants. The good thing is that's he's already improved our defence, out attacking transitions are better and you can see shades of what the future holds.. the first 20 minutes against arsenal we had all the play.

It'll take time but I'd rather us be a more solid team first then progress from there.

 

[Mickeza]

One of the most iconic goals of the SAF era was the Ronaldo goal at the Emirates in the CL. Pace, power, precision, risk and pure skill to play at that speed. Transitions when done right are a thing of beauty that require exceptional skill to implement. What you also need which we never got under Ole is the ability to control games by keeping the ball and sustaining attacks against low blocks. Stopping yourself being countered and look dangerous yourselves. That was the missing piece - I have no doubt ETH will bring that. Then if teams leave space behind and come on to us we’ll destroy them - and we’ll also destroy them if they just sit back and try to ride it out. It’s what Klopp’s Liverpool developed.

 

[JPRouve]

How? Kick it in. Head it in. Get the ball in the net.

Preferably get it in the net more times that the opposition.

It’s a game.

I don’t care what the build up play is … as long as the ball gets into the net.

How do you put yourself in a position to kick or head the ball? Does it magically appear in a good scoring position?

And Football is a tactical game, tactics are a key component. It's not a kicking and heading game.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

How do you put yourself in a position to kick or head the ball? Does it magically appear in a good scoring position?

11 paid players kick it around a bit. Up and down. Left and right. Kick it towards the net. Getting it in the net is the aim of the GAME.

 

[Marwood]

You don't win leagues playing counter attacking football.

 

[VeevaVee]

It’s very refreshing to see us able to string enough quick passes together without someone tripping up, fecking a pass up, or making a stupid decision.

Viva la counter.

 

[IrishRedDevil]

You don't win leagues playing counter attacking football.

Tell that to Leicester City.

 

[The Siege]

Nothing wrong with it. Just not a very effective plan A when you're a team that gains a reputation of winning, because you can't counter against a team that won't go high up the pitch and is okay conceding possession, because they're trying to counter attack you.

 

[JPRouve]

11 paid players kick it around a bit. Up and down. Left and right. Kick it towards the net. Getting it in the net is the aim of the GAME.

So you think that tactics aren't part of Football or any game? You seem to think that the term game means that you don't have to think and formulate plans which is simply wrong.

 

[Marwood]

Tell that to Leicester City.

Was waiting for that one

 

[adexkola]

Exactly, under Fergie we played counter attacking football alot.

This is just not true.

Mourinho played counter attacking football a lot. Which is why once teams yielded the initiative in matches his teams faltered.

We played counter attacking football well, for sure. But in our vast majority of games, we were masters of possession football (not sterile but purposeful), and sustaining wave after wave of pressure on opponents until we got the lead (or died trying).

That SAF is remembered more for counters than throwing the kitchen sink at opponents, is a fecking travesty.

 

[BigDycheEnergy]

That SAF is remembered more for counters than throwing the kitchen sink at opponents, is a fecking travesty.

That's because we played counter-attacking football more frequently in the big games in the latter stage of his career. People remember the most frequent things as well as the biggest moments. Therefore it kind of makes sense that Fergie is remembered as a very pragmatic manager.

The truth is that he was a master of adapting, with an attacking philosophy at heart. He simply didn't have a weakness. He could roll over weaker opponents consistently like Pep and he could entertain like Klopp. He was as high-demanding as Mourinho while still remaining as well-liked and respected as Ancelotti. And on top of this he could pull off miracles with significantly weaker teams like no one else. The media never really got the better of him either, even though they tried.

Quite simply the perfect manager.

 

[Trophy Room]

Love counter attacking goals.

 

[Hal9000]

This is just not true.

Mourinho played counter attacking football a lot. Which is why once teams yielded the initiative in matches his teams faltered.

We played counter attacking football well, for sure. But in our vast majority of games, we were masters of possession football (not sterile but purposeful), and sustaining wave after wave of pressure on opponents until we got the lead (or died trying).

That SAF is remembered more for counters than throwing the kitchen sink at opponents, is a fecking travesty.

Because he did? People think of Fergie as all out attack, but he was very pragmatic and adaptable and certainly in the 00s and towards the end, there was a lot of times where we did play counter attacking football. He knew who we were playing against, and certainly against the bigger teams he set us up to hit them on the break. Both Rooney and Rio have given interviews on it.

Maybe you misread or you believe i said Fergie's style was only counter attack, it wasn't, but he knew how to play against certain teams and he set the team up accordingly. Nobody complained then and nobody should complain when ETH sets us up to do that, especially when he has to learn about this league, and the team has to learn about his systems.

 

[Someone]

I'm really happy with the current way we play. Heard Souness saying it's not the United way and didn't get it. Counter attacking football has always been our thing.

 

[Adnan]

I think a team with ambitions to win trophies has to be able to adapt to different situations over the course of a season. The counter attack is a very important weapon to master, but it shouldn't be the only thing to add to ones arsenal. The ability to control the game in possession is something that is also required imo and something the United teams of yesterday years also had in their locker along with being able to transition play quickly after immediately winning the ball back.

Our problem since Fergie retired has been that we don't play the game with high intensity. Too many players in our team are incapable of playing high intensity football. So it's why we've resorted to playing a reactive brand of football or a very slow and laboured version of positional play via LVG. Playing with high intensity and urgency is something I'm beginning to see right now and it's something that has been missing for far too long. And once you demand high intensity as a head coach, and bring in 5 or 6 players who are accustomed to playing that way, then it's a matter of time before we see a shift in attitude and application.

Arsenal did have the bulk of the possession yesterday and that was due to their keeper who comfortably lofted passes in between United's first line of pressure, which meant they had a extra man in midfield at times and could advance play comfortably via the fullbacks.

 

[SouthMancRed]

Possession is meaningless without context. Most statistics are.

You play the style that'll win you the current game. That's all that matters.

 

[CloneMC16]

There is nothing wrong with it, but it won't win us a PL any more. The bottom teams aren't going to come out and let us do it. They know if they leave a tonne of space in behind, we will destroy them with balls through to Rashford. Games like yesterday aren't going to be the norm. We need to be way better controlling the game in possession to consistently beat the middle and bottom table teams. City can easily hit teams on the transition, and destroy them, but they're also the best team in possession.

If we were in the CL, you could potentially win that playing a counter attacking style. The best teams are playing a more possession based style, and will leave space in behind to be exploited.

 

[honirelandboy]

For the last year we have been conceding non stop embarrassing goals and now Ten Hag has fixed the issue and people are complaining that he had to switch to counter attacking football to do it? He's had one transfer window and bought in good players. To me it looks like he is building from the back and once Anthony and Casemiro settle we should be able to start dominating lesser teams and play the football that he wants to play with a possession based style and a high press. Ten Hag can't fix all the problems overnight but he has fixed one issue with us conceding goals non stop. He will have us pressing and playing a possession based game in no time but it will take time. For the teams that sit back against us the only thing we can do is a high press and dominate the teams with the full backs overlapping to get crosses in. I think Martial though could be key against the lesser teams.

 

[George The Best]

But the how is important and being clever is extremely important because the opposition's goal is to not late you put the ball into the net.

The how is not important. Arsenal had possession and did feck all with it, tippy tapping around outside our box and produced one goal and one save from De Gea. We sliced them apart with three incisive passes and pace. Played to our strengths on the day. I agree we can’t do that every match and we need a Plan B against lower opposition. That said, we did Pool and Arsenal by being compact without the ball and breaking fast when we had it.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Barcelona being so stupidly dominant at the height of Pep's time there led to people seeing possession football as the epitome of Good Football, and teams who aim for that and fail (like Martinez at Wigan, or the latter days of Arsene at Arsenal) consequently tend get looked upon more favourably than teams who are successful playing in other ways.

 

[JPRouve]

The how is not important. Arsenal had possession and did feck all with it, tippy tapping around outside our box and produced one goal and one save from De Gea. We sliced them apart with three incisive passes and pace. Played to our strengths on the day. I agree we can’t do that every match and we need a Plan B against lower opposition. That said, we did Pool and Arsenal by being compact without the ball and breaking fast when we had it.

Of course the how is importan( and what you are saying about Arsenal is focused on the how. Everything you said in your post is about the how, yet you act as if it doesn't matter.

No elite team can exclusively rely on counter attacks or high possession, they need to understand how to be efficient in all phases.

 

[eire-red]

Had a similar discussion in another thread on this point recently. I don't see a problem with counter-attacking football, on the contrary. I think a proper counter-attacking goal is one of the most satisfying ways to score a goal.

And what's more, having a devastating counter-attack is such a weapon in big games as it means you can be a threat even when under pressure.

I don't see why it's a case of "oh, we can either be a counter-attacking team, or a posession-based team." It's nonsense to me, because we're likely to spend 40-50% of the time without the ball in most games, and even more against elite opposition.

Why can't we look to be cute and clever and try to open up the opposition when we have the ball, and be tight, compact and defend well when we don't have it? Being able to counter-punch your opposition when they are on top and attacking is literally the most morale draining and momentum shifting action in a football match you can do.

Of course, we need to do better against teams that will sit deep and give us the initiative on the ball. But we can improve that side of our game while also being a team that's good on the counter. It's just the modern fad of labelling teams into absolute playing styles now. You're either a pressing team or a tiki-taka team, or you're a plain old boring and horrible to watch defensive team who hits on the counter.

So basically Sky telling us that the only way to be successful now is to be like Liverpool or City. Actually, we just watched the greatest CL run and victory by Madrid last year, and they don't really fall into either category. In fact, they reminded me of old school tactics like we used to have under SAF: hang in there when you have to, hit on the break when you get the ball, and control games when you have the upper hand.

Pretty simple when you think about it, but it's old school in the sense that it's not like the modern coaches who will die before they sacrifice their 'style'. Arteta is case in point, thinks they should have won because they played their way throughout the game on Sunday. End of the day, he was schooled by ETH and can have the modern day fad plaudits, we'll take the win thanks.

 

[adexkola]

Because he did?

He did not, not to the level many here give him credit for. He was a very progressive manager tactics wise.

People think of Fergie as all out attack, but he was very pragmatic

All successful managers are pragmatic, the word doesn't mean much. But on the spectrum, Fergie was an attacking manager throughout. Even if in a few games (emphasis on few) he dialed it back.

and adaptable and certainly in the 00s and towards the end, there was a lot of times where we did play counter attacking football. He knew who we were playing against,

Calling bullshit on this. A lot of times? A few high profile games in the CL does not equate lot of times. In the 07/08 run, we probably played this way predominantly against Barcelona. Otherwise we were more proactive.

and certainly against the bigger teams he set us up to hit them on the break. Both Rooney and Rio have given interviews on it.

Which bigger teams did we play on the counter against in the latter part of his career? Bayern? Roma? Milan? Madrid?

The only ones that come to mind are Arsenal (08/09) and Barcelona (07/08). We certainly did not play that way against Barcelona in either CL final.

Maybe you misread or you believe i said Fergie's style was only counter attack

I'm pushing back against this idea that it was his predominant or specialist skillset. It wasn't. He knew how to do it, like any other competent manager does. His teams were better at dominating football played on the front foot, as shown by it's usage in most games played in under Fergie. If you agree with that then we are on the same page.

 

[adexkola]

Barcelona being so stupidly dominant at the height of Pep's time there led to people seeing possession football as the epitome of Good Football, and teams who aim for that and fail (like Martinez at Wigan, or the latter days of Arsene at Arsenal) consequently tend get looked upon more favourably than teams who are successful playing in other ways.

Give an example of what teams get overlooked compared to Martinez's Wigan or the latter days of Arsene at Arsenal (the ones where he won 3 FA Cups, mind).

 

[JPRouve]

Give an example of what teams get overlooked compared to Martinez's Wigan or the latter days of Arsene at Arsenal (the ones where he won 3 FA Cups, mind).

There isn't a single team out there that has been successful and not good in possession. Even a team like Atletico under Simeone have generally been way above average in possession while being arguably the best in transition. Also people make the silly mistake of overlooking the fact that Barcelona were devastating on the counter which is why teams decided that it was safer to sit back.

 

[R'hllor]

There is nothing wrong with counter attacking way but if you are playing only on counter attacking and have no idea in other ways, you are fecked, there is no future in that, how many times we watched us last 3 years being clueless when teams just give us a ball and say "come break us" and we had no clue what to do. Possession type of footbal gives you control of situations, whatever happens its on you.

 

[adexkola]

Also people make the silly mistake of overlooking the fact that Barcelona were devastating on the counter which is why teams decided that it was safer to sit back.

Spot on.

Case in point: Mourinho's Madrid following the title winning season in 2012, or Mourinho's Chelsea following his last title with them, or is with Ole. Teams will take away the option to counter from you. Then what?

That was never an issue with SAF. After blowing teams away in 2006-07, most of the time we faced parked buses but we were able to win regardless because we had a manager who was even better at attacking in such situations.

 

[Tyrion]

I find that a lot of people who started watching football post 2008 have this sort of atavistic obsession for possession football. Teams that score regularly from fast transitions are frowned upon. I'm fine with both.

Agreed. People talk about team X "dominating" the game because they spent 50 minutes passing to each others midfielders not making chances. There's good possession and bad possession and you can not have the ball and still be the better side.

 

[MuFc_1992]

There's nothing wrong with counter attacking but it can't be your Plan A if you want to win things especially as a big club.

 

[OpenIntrovert]

A counter attack is a consequence of winning the ball from the opposition when they are attacking and then converting it into your own quick attack. I underlined the attacking word because counter attacks only happen when the other team is attacking. The attacks that occur from the organized pressing technique that we see nowadays is not always a counter attack as it can happen when the opponent is yet to start a attack (e.g. defenders passing back to another defender who is successfully pressed and a attack starts). Otherwise, the principle of a counter attack and the attacks that happen from pressing high up the pitch is the same, which is to use minimal, quick passes into the final third to score the goal.

Regarding the usage of counter attack, possession based attacks or any other types of attacks, we must understand the player attributes strongly determine the style of attacks. In order to play possession based attacks, you need to have players who can retain possession very well and are very intelligent with the way they create and exploit spaces. During Ole's time, only Matic, Martial, VDB, Mata and Sancho had those attributes with only Matic, Martial and Sancho starting more prominently. Right now, we have Martinez, VDB, Martial, Eriksen and Sancho. Basically we don't have sufficient players who can support possession based attacks. However we have players who are very good with counter attacks due to their attributes supporting direct type of football (quick, tend to dribble to create scoring opportunities and prefer to attack open spaces). That is why we tend to see more counter attacks due to the players not retaining possession properly.

What ETH has done is to use a player very good with retaining and progressing possession in the central midfield, which is Eriksen. All attack and defense movements are influenced by the movement of the central midfield and with a player like Eriksen, the players have more time to position themselves for passes as well as to pass it back to Eriksen if they are unable to progress further. Even when Eriksen is not having the ball, he moves into spaces which can distract the opponents resulting in open spaces for the players to create another passing channel. As a result, we start to see attacks which are more possession based (e.g. the first goal against Arsenal).

In time to come, we will groom or buy players who are capable of retaining and progressing possession intelligently, which will give us more avenue to play possession based attacks. In my opinion, the team must be capable of different type of attacks as we will not always have a perfect squad who can dominate every team. There is nothing wrong with the type of attacks as long as it is able to win you games, as it is always dependent on the type of players who are currently playing. In other words, there is no such thing that a team can only win trophies if they use possession based attacks or they will lose because they are using counter attacks. Its all about what type of players you have and how you position them in a formation so that they can use the best type of attack to score the goals.

 

[colombianmancunian]

Some people are obsessed with “possession”, forgetting that goals are what win a game. We had possession under LVG and it was completely sterile. I prefer a good attack that results in goal in less than 5 passes, over passing the ball sideways without aim. Pep is boring, Barcelona is boring, LVG is ultra boring. Possession only matters if you can translate it into shots at target and goals. Adaptability is what matter, if a team sits low, the highly press them on attacking areas, if a team wants to keep the ball and pass it sideways press them and do in 2-3 passes what the could not in thousands.

As some said before, ETH has developed a team capable of quick transitions, and good at pressing. We have to wait how he deals with teams that sit deep, but I think he is capable of being pragmatic.

 

[World Game]

That's what's wrong.

A team of attackers conditioned to score and rely on counterattack goals.

Up against a low block? useless
Up against a team happy with 0-0? useless
Up against a team that takes the lead? useless

 

[King Azaz the Unabridged]

A team of attackers conditioned to score and rely on counterattack goals.

Not sure that's the conclusion I'd reach from a game where we started pretty much none of the attackers that have been here long enough to be "conditioned" to counter-attacking - that description doesn't apply to Antony, Ronaldo, Eriksen, probably not even Elanga.

Chances are we'll see more games like this one over the season. No big deal as long as we continue to show improvements in controlling the game and opening teams up.

 

[el3mel]

Counters as an option is fine. Being only good on counters is awful shit. I want to see Man United dominate teams and bang on 5 and 6 goals against bottom table teams. I want to see Man United a team other opponents are afraid to play against. Basically I want to see us similar to current Man City. Well, maybe Moyes wasn't wrong after all when he said we should aspire to be like them because that's exactly what I feel at the moment.

When was the last time Man United completely dominated a top opposition instead of setting back and relying on counters to win against these big guns ? That's what I hope to see us do one day.