What's wrong with counter attacking football?

UpWithRivers

Full Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
4,524
The way people speak its a dirty thing.

'Oh you were lucky. We had 70 percent possession. We were the better team.' No you weren't. Yeah if the keeper made 20 saves and was man of the match then ok you were unlucky. But if you created very few chances on goal and conceded more than you scored so what's the point of your 70 percent possession if you didn't do anything with it.

'It's not the Man Utd way' Of course it is. Yes not all the time. But Sir Alex did it plenty of times against the top teams and we were devastating at it. Merson was saying on commentary that it feels like games of old where we played well but we lost. Yes that was how it was planned.

Are you not entertained? Lots of people say that the City way is boring same as Barca but then on the flip side say we should have 70 percent possession. Which one is it? I for one found the Liverpool and Arsenal games very entertaining.

Yes ok we need to improve and get hold of the game. More possession will obviously help because at some point a team dominating possession will turn that possession into goals. I agree. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't play counter attacking. Just be better at it. I think we are the best in the league at it and should play like that against the top teams always. We already have seen us turn over the likes of City, Liverpool, PSG etc doing it. We are good at it. It will take years for us to go toe to toe with City playing their game. And that's not to say we should play it always. Yes against the bottom teams, especially a team that low blocks us the roles will be reversed and we need to break them down.

So what say you? Do you never want to see counter attacking football again or do you appreciate how good we are at it.
 
All teams counter attack, after they get the break through. It's the easiest way to get goals after you're already a goal or 2 up against a stretch opponent.

However, the question is can we regularly get the breakthrough against an opponent who's happy with a draw or god forbid they get the breakthrough first?
 
We do not play counter attacking style. We play Hag ball, and use the quick transition when the opportunity presents itself.

Watch our first goal against Arse.
 
UpWithRivers said:
The way people speak its a dirty thing.

'Oh you were lucky. We had 70 percent possession. We were the better team.' No you weren't. Yeah if the keeper made 20 saves and was man of the match then ok you were unlucky. But if you created very few chances on goal and conceded more than you scored so what's the point of your 70 percent possession if you didn't do anything with it.

'It's not the Man Utd way' Of course it is. Yes not all the time. But Sir Alex did it plenty of times against the top teams and we were devastating at it. Merson was saying on commentary that it feels like games of old where we played well but we lost. Yes that was how it was planned.

Are you not entertained? Lots of people say that the City way is boring same as Barca but then on the flip side say we should have 70 percent possession. Which one is it? I for one found the Liverpool and Arsenal games very entertaining.

Yes ok we need to improve and get hold of the game. More possession will obviously help because at some point a team dominating possession will turn that possession into goals. I agree. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't play counter attacking. Just be better at it. I think we are the best in the league at it and should play like that against the top teams always. We already have seen us turn over the likes of City, Liverpool, PSG etc doing it. We are good at it. It will take years for us to go toe to toe with City playing their game. And that's not to say we should play it always. Yes against the bottom teams, especially a team that low blocks us the roles will be reversed and we need to break them down.

So what say you? Do you never want to see counter attacking football again or do you appreciate how good we are at it.
Click to expand...

Prefacing this with the fact I loved the last few games and am buzzing. My problem with “counter attacking” football is that it surrenders the initiative and requires the opposition to commit players forward, it won’t work against teams who sit deep or are defensively astute (Brighton).

It is 100% a good thing that we can play this way, but we need to add more strings to our bow.

I am loving that ETH is pragmatic and demonstrating that he is not afraid to play in a way that does not epitomise his philosophy
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12OunceEpilogue
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.
 
I have always preferred dominant attacking football over counter attacking football, because I simply enjoy watching a carfully constructed attack turn into a goal rather since it seems more intricate than disposessing the opponent and quickly hoofing it to the other side (simplistic much?). Obviously as a Dutch person this is probably a genetic defect I can't really help (even if I don't support the correct club for it).

If there is anything the Dutch (or Pep's City) have taught it's that the most dominant side doesn't always win in a tournament and I will concede that a masterfully executed counter attack can be almost as pleasing to the eye as an attack set up over 40 passes.

In the end though, counterattacking football is only wrong when your team concedes a goal on the counter innit.
 
United regularly played counter attacking football under Fergie when we had the best team in the league and perhaps world

People just gotta moan
 
The new gen fans think football should be played in one way. Unfortunately they are the ones nowadays became majority. Defend well when not in possession attack well when in possession. That's football i knew.

Nothing wrong with counter attack football as long as when you are in possession you should try to score.
 
We counter attack plenty but there's nothing wrong with that. People are so elitest these days. There is plenty of evidence of what Ten Hag wants to do throughout, we are just doing it in a counter attacking way as we aren't good enough to dominate the ball like city yet. But we are getting our pressing in, we are getting there with the build up, we have our attacking patterns, overloads on the wings and switching it effectively etc. Without a good hold up striker and a ball playing keeper, and a lot more training in the patterns and positioning to dominate the ball effectively, we won't really dominate the ball.

It's very different to Ole ball anyway. It's not reliant on individuals, it's a lot more team play focused counter attacking which is way more sustainable and something you can build on more.
 
Nothing wrong with winning a big game by any means necessary.

If Arsenal had that goal allowed by literally pushing someone over, a punted ball over the top and a transitional goal, before closing up shop and hitting us on the break everyone would be saying it was a perfect away day game.

Being more expansive against the middling and weaker teams is important too because they will play deeper and it's a risk of not getting a result. Plus we've got expectations of playing good football as a big club.
 
There's nothing wrong with it at all, as long as we have more than one string to our bow. It can't be relied on all the time, as there are a lot of teams that simply won't allow you to play that way. I got no problem with it though, as it's often a very exciting way of playing.
 
RoyH1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This. The snobbery seems to come from those football fans who grew up with the dominance of Guardiola's teams.
 
Nothing wrong. In fact, it is more entertaining than some of the boring possession based game that some teams trying to play. I LOVED 2006-2007 season and we had some of the best counter attacking goals that I can remember.
 
Skills said:
However, the question is can we regularly get the breakthrough against an opponent who's happy with a draw or god forbid they get the breakthrough first?
Click to expand...

This is what remains to be seen. In the 4 wins in a row we've had now, we've scored first in each one. I'm a bit wary of what will happen when the opponent scores first. That's when the real test of mental strength comes.
 
Some of the most successful teams of all time have played counter attacking football, it was the main stay of Leciester's title winning season and Chelsea's first CL win. People only remember the name on the trophy, there's no 'right' way to play football.
 
RoyH1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'd rather watch counter attacking football over Spain or Barcelona circa 2006 any day. Some of the worst football I've ever seen.
 
BusbyMalone said:
There's nothing wrong with it at all, as long as we have more than one string to our bow. It can't be relied on all the time, as there are a lot of teams that simply won't allow you to play that way. I got no problem with it though, as it's often a very exciting way of playing.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how you think it is our style. We started differently against Arsenal. Dominating them and not allowing them to play their game was clearly the goal. Our first goal was built up from the back.

Let’s not sell ourselves short. We would have started sitting back if that was our preferred tactic/style. It clearly is not.
 
Every team plays counter attacking football. Every team wants to break fast to exploit the space. Man City/Pool do it all the time, but they aren't a counter attacking team in people's heads.

There's a difference between being a team that plays purely on the counter attack, and being capable of playing counter attacking football when the opportunity presents itself. We are the latter.

The difference between the two is the first will sit on the edge of the box the entire game soaking up pressure to hit the opponent on the counter. And they will do this every single time. That is a counter attacking team. The second will counter attack as one of many avenues of attack. A team capable of effective counter attacks but by no means their only way of playing. With the exception of Pep's barcelona, all of the great teams of recent years played counter attacking football. Jose's Madrid with Ronaldo, Heynckes Bayern, Klopp's pool etc.

We have been a purely counter attacking team in certain games under Fergie. For example, United at home to madrid when Nani got sent off, even before the card we were looking to soak up pressure with Jones as the destroyer and hit them on the counter with the pace of Welbeck and Nani etc. Likewise Jose's famous Inter vs Barca victory is the definition of a team being a counter attacking team for the entire game.

On a personal note I love it. Give me Heynckes' Bayern over Pep's barca to watch any day of the week.
 
Nothing wrong with counter attacking. But if as a team your primary strength remains counter attacking, you'll rarely be able to beat sides like the City and Liverpool teams of recent years to league titles.

But the point is to get better in possession, not to give up being good at counter attacking.
 
NLunited said:
I fail to see how you think it is our style. We started differently against Arsenal. Dominating them and not allowing them to play their game was clearly the goal. Our first goal was built up from the back.

Let’s not sell ourselves short. We would have started sitting back if that was our preferred tactic/style. It clearly is not.
Click to expand...

Where did I say that?

We're currently still in the progress of working on a style.
 
It's only wrong if it's the only tool you have in your locker, what has been the case on too many occasions in the last years for us. I always admire teams that can play possession based football, basically you can't play possession football very well without very good coaching. I think it's possible to have average coach but the right players to play counter attacking football.

If you can't play possession based football it's easier to push you early on to get a goal and then sit back and defend. I think we will see that issue shortly if some teams we face will be happy to sit deep and let us have the ball, but I'm excited to see if we improved on that aspect of the game because the progress is quite obvious under Ten Hag already.

sullydnl said:
Nothing wrong with counter attacking. But if as a team your primary strength remains counter attacking, you'll rarely be able to beat sides like the City and Liverpool teams of recent years to league titles.

But the point is to get better in possession, not to give up being good at counter attacking.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
Nothing is wrong with it but there has to be a fine balance.

If you try to counter attack and can't (see 45-60 minutes) then you're going to be boxed in and in big trouble.

If you manage to win the ball back and have a goal scoring threat (60-90) then it works perfectly well.

It's all about the end result/product. Sit back and counter and win 3-1? great. sit back and counter and lose 2-0? not so great.
 
iHicksy said:
Every team plays counter attacking football. Every team wants to break fast to exploit the space. Man City/Pool do it all the time, but they aren't a counter attacking team in people's heads.

There's a difference between being a team that plays purely on the counter attack, and being capable of playing counter attacking football when the opportunity presents itself. We are the latter.

The difference between the two is the first will sit on the edge of the box the entire game soaking up pressure to hit the opponent on the counter. And they will do this every single time. That is a counter attacking team. The second will counter attack as one of many avenues of attack. A team capable of effective counter attacks but by no means their only way of playing. With the exception of Pep's barcelona, all of the great teams of recent years played counter attacking football. Jose's Madrid with Ronaldo, Heynckes Bayern, Klopp's pool etc.

We have been a purely counter attacking team in certain games under Fergie. For example, United at home to madrid when Nani got sent off, even before the card we were looking to soak up pressure with Jones as the destroyer and hit them on the counter with the pace of Welbeck and Nani etc. Likewise Jose's famous Inter vs Barca victory is the definition of a team being a counter attacking team for the entire game.

On a personal note I love it. Give me Heynckes' Bayern over Pep's barca to watch any day of the week.
Click to expand...
Pep's Barca and Spain were actually not playing quick transition, and instead tried to hypnotize opponent with endless passing. It turned out to be very effective at the time for them but I do not think there are teams like that anymore, quick transition is key and we're learning that right now.
 
Nothing wrong with it but we won’t win anything major without adding more to our game. I think we could probably hire any half decent manager, play defensive football focused around counter attacking, spend what we’ve spent and be in contention for top four because a) it’s simple to coach and b)the league isn’t that good outside of 1, maybe 2, teams.

If the goal is top four and win an occasional trophy, we could have just given Mou what he wanted and be content with that. It’s very clear looking at the last CL and league winners though that more is required, particularly in possession and managing games to win the big prizes. Every team counter attacks, pressing is built around creating counter attacking opportunities but the old school, sit in and counter for 90mins won’t work against the best teams often enough to be a valid strategy.
 
Is Counter attacking even a tactic? It seems like an inevitability that when the opposition lose the ball and are short on numbers, the logical thing is to go forward. What’s the alternative to a counter attack once you win the ball back?
 
the problem with relying on it to score, is that we won't get to play counter attacking football against the majority of teams in the league. we need to be able to create for ourselves.
 
I personally think counter attacking is poetry when done properly and United seem to be at our best when we are marauding forward in sweeping one touch high speed football slicing a team (usually Arsenal) wide open.

If you can do that but also break down the 10 men in the box cnuts then its perfectly fine. Oles United could counter as good as anyone but it couldnt break down defensive teams.
 
FriedClams said:
Is Counter attacking even a tactic? It seems like an inevitability that when the opposition lose the ball and are short on numbers, the logical thing is to go forward. What’s the alternative to a counter attack once you win the ball back?
Click to expand...

Pass it back to our own keeper? :lol: just because DeGea doesn't pass it inside his own box, people are saying we are counter attacking.

Actually when Souness is complaining the United fans are not going to accept the way we play now, showed me this is how exactly we should play.
 
Why do people get so touchy over counter attacking football? It's not some holy grail of the sport

FYI, SAF's teams were great at counter attacking, because they were great teams. But they were great teams because they were even better at taking the attacking initiative in a match and dominating the opposition instead of waiting for a mistake to score a goal.
 
There is nothing wrong with it. The problem is rather that it turns out not to work so great against very defensive opponents, where you all of a sudden have to build the attacks more deliberate. We need to be aware of the fact that at some time teams will start to sit very deep against us to avoid getting countered and I hope by that time we are prepared for it and able to create chances against an opponent that sits back.
 
I love counter attacking football. One of my favourite memories as a kid was Schmikes plucking corners out of the air then immediately hurling the ball over the halfway line for Kanchelskis or Giggs to bomb on to. Devastating

I wouldn't call any of our goals yesterday strictly counter attacking though. They pretty much all came from turnovers in the middle of the park
Arsenal were playing high and got done in behind
 
No manager is 100% possession-based or 100% counter-attacking. Mourinho is often considered the quintessential counter-attacking coach, but he only has a counter-attacking formation when faced with strong(er) teams or when in the lead with 20-30 minutes to go. And Pep, the quintessential possession-based coach, will of course have his team counter-attack if they intercept the ball and see big openings up front.


I think the difference between a counter-attacking style and a possesssion-based style can be summarized in two questions:


1. How high is your defensive line?
2. What do you primarily do with the ball when you intercept it?

A counter-attacking style is pretty much dependent on a low defensive line, so the first point is easy enough to grasp. Number 2 is where it gets more tricky. Both styles will mix things up, but it goes without saying that counter-attacking teams will try to counter or go for the long ball more often, even when it's the suboptimal option. I think this is one of the reasons for why people dislike counter-attacking. It seems more desperate and lacking in elegance.

Another reason for why people don't like counter-attacking is because of the message it sends. You sort of admit that the other team is "better at football"(overly simplified, but you get my point). It comes across as less brave, basically. Both teams can't counter attack. The stronger team on paper will almost always be on the front foot.

Personally I have no issue with counter-attacking football. I think it can be quite entertaining and I don't think it symbolizes weakness. I also don't think counter-attacking is easy. It's an art form just like good possession-based football. I can understand the appeal of both styles. I do prefer to be on the front foot rather than reactive, but I also like it when coaches are able to adjust and not just stick to one style. That's why I enjoyed watching Real in the CL last season. To me that was beautiful, and I would have loved to see us win the CL in a similar manner.
 
I think there's a couple of issues here.

Firstly, Ole used to rely on mid- or low-block counter attack in big games for a long time, rather than develop the team to play good possession football, so its become synonymous with his limited football.

Secondly, a lot of fans are wrongly calling some of our goals counter attacks simply because we move from one end of the pitch to the other very quickly, even if we had a spell of possession before the move started. The first goal yesterday looks like a counter attack when you watch the short replay, but when you see the full goal you realise we were pinging it around for a while before we went through the gears.

This is annoying because it implies that the manager is still playing the limited counter attacking that Ole used to do, despite the fact that he really isn't. In fact, progressing the ball effectively from defence to attack was one of Ole's biggest weaknesses - hence lots of arguments about Patterns of Play and zombie passing. So people are looking at ETH fixing something, and arguing that it proves he's failed to fix it. Which is ironic, but irritating if you're feeling defensive of the new manager, which many are.

I think the penny will drop if we keep scoring the kinds of goals we've been scoring and the arguments about counter attacks will go away. We'll always bag goals on the counter, all teams with pace do. It just won't define the team.
 
To give an analogy, this is like asking what's wrong with a country making money from oil?
Nothing except when you are over-reliant on it and it makes up basically all your export earnings.

In same way we need to diversify the way we score. Counterattacks should be a bonus, not the bread and butter of our goals. Our overreliance on counters made us clueless against low blocks under Ole.

The majority of teams in the league will be set up in a low block against us. Goals like our first against Arsenal is what we should be aiming for.
 
This is not really an issue, we are not a counter attacking side.

Watch our first 12 minutes against Arsenal. Watch the first goal. That’s who we are.

We have a lot of work to do, but the goal is clearly total football. Here is a diagram of the touches leading up to the first goal. All the players are involved.



Now quit it with the counter attack bs.
 
I think nowadays it’s a lot harder to counter attack because a lot of teams set up to defend or defend deep. If there’s a team that’s playing an high line and they lose the ball in the middle of the pitch then there gonna get counter attacked on. Every single team in the league will counter attack if the opportunity arises. Teams need to have a plan b though incase they come up against deep teams… this is where ten hags and guardiola style is good. Quick passing and interchanging around the oppositions box to create space and having full backs push forward.
 
It's a shit tactics for a team wanting to win the league. We've been here in very recent memory, with Ole's first few months - once teams realised we were just going to try and sit back and counter they gave United the initiative and said "play then". And we couldn't.

You might win an occasional game against a good team with it, but it's always a passive setup based on the opposition making mistakes. I think for many that's small team thinking.
 
A counter attack is one of the weapons that any successful team should have, rather than necessarily being a fixed style of play in itself. Folks automatically equate counter attacking with parking the bus and that's were they get it wrong. It's a baseless assumption.

Granted, teams who park the bus rely on counters, route one football, and set pieces a lot more than anything else, but that's not to say only teams that park the bus play on the counter.

Liverpool and City particularly are devastating on the counter attack, and probably more effective on the counter than most other teams. The disallowed goal from Arsenal was in fact a perfectly executed counter attack (bar the blatant foul that everyone likes to pretend didn't happen), and even the goal they scored came from dispossessing us and quickly exploiting the spaces before we could get back in shape.

There are many dominant teams who play on the counter as one of their many offensive weapons, and I hope we develop into one such team that can hurt opponents in a variety of ways as we take ETH's tactics on board.

I'm not a huge fan of parking the bus, but I do love a good counter attack, and both things are mutually exclusive
 
For me, over a big sample of games, like a whole season, a team that consistently has less possession cannot win the league. It’s simple really, the probability of the other team scoring goes up the more they have the ball on average. There are exceptions so don’t bother pointing one off games and one off league titles even.

But it doesn’t have to be either or. City are the best at possessional play, but Pep has also made them deadly on quick transitions. That’s the ideal.
 
Counter attacking football is easy. Playing attractive possession football, wherein the possession is in dangerous areas and tight spaces is infinitely more difficult. That's why we don't have many Guardiolas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.