playing out from the back,not for me

[Never to the dark side]

Watching the Bulgaria v Northern Ireland game with goal keeper trying to play out from the back,oh dear.

[joe jordans teeth]

It’s not for everyone granted but then again watching Bulgaria v N Ireland isn’t for me but I didn’t start a thread about it 

Edited September 8 by joe jordans teeth

[formerly known as ivan]

4 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

It’s not for everyone granted but then again watching Bulgaria v N Ireland isn’t for me but I didn’t start a thread about it 

Who would have thought, someone starting a football discussion on a football forum, how dare they !!!

[Mendip Broadwalk]

1 minute ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Who would have thought, someone starting a football discussion on a football forum, how dare they !!!

NTTDS wont be discussing it. 

[Robbored]

15 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Who would have thought, someone starting a football discussion on a football forum, how dare they !!!

It is the international break Ivan………

[Roger Red Hat]

Whack it up to the big man, I say..

[REDOXO]

I watched Roy Keane giving his tuppence and you got to say, it’s what most of us think!

[Charlie BCFC]

It’s good when done properly, what I will say though is you can’t do it every time and you have to adapt especially if you get promoted to a new level where the intensity of pressing increases 

[marmite]

I don't mind playing out from the back. What I don't like is us playing back from the out!!

[joe jordans teeth]

1 hour ago, formerly known as ivan said:

Who would have thought, someone starting a football discussion on a football forum, how dare they !!!

Bloody cheek

[RoystonFoote'snephew]

City can give anyone kittens. This business of Dickie, now Naismith taking the goal kick with a pass to O'Leary who then either exchange passes, or worse gives it to Vyner whose diagonal is inevitably intercepted by our opponents is nuts. You can play out of the back if every one of your defenders is very comfortable and skilled on the ball but ours ain't. We're not Arsenal or Man City FFS, we're not even Manure or Dirty Leeds. 

[Never to the dark side]

Mendip Broadwalk,what do you want me to discuss?

Its my opinion that I don't like,if you disagree that's fine

Its like saying you think player A works better with B,although I may say player C works better with player D,its about opinions.

Gary Owers does not like it,and when we had a Q and A with Nigel Pearson he didn't like it.

I won't say the exact word that Pearson used.

Were you at Derby or have you seen highlights of the episode in the 33rd minute when City tried to play out from the back

we were 1-0 down and so could have been 2-0 down

[David Brent]

13 hours ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Whack it up to the big man, I say..

That will return one day, and I can’t wait 

[Slacker]

15 hours ago, Never to the dark side said:

Watching the Bulgaria v Northern Ireland game with goal keeper trying to play out from the back,oh dear.

Always gives me nightmare throwbacks to the SO'D days.

[Mendip Broadwalk]

5 hours ago, Never to the dark side said:

Mendip Broadwalk,what do you want me to discuss?

Its my opinion that I don't like,if you disagree that's fine

Its like saying you think player A works better with B,although I may say player C works better with player D,its about opinions.

Gary Owers does not like it,and when we had a Q and A with Nigel Pearson he didn't like it.

I won't say the exact word that Pearson used.

Were you at Derby or have you seen highlights of the episode in the 33rd minute when City tried to play out from the back

we were 1-0 down and so could have been 2-0 down

Ok nice mr hector what is playing out from the back and what is it thats not for you?

[chinapig]

There's a touch of confirmation bias here in that people remember when it goes wrong and ignore all the occasions it doesn't, which will be the vast majority.

[spudski]

Playing out from the back is one of the most frustrating tactics implemented by coaches that think they are Pep and have the same type of quality players to do it well. 

Exceptional ball control and precision in passing are essential for playing out from the back. Players must possess acute spatial awareness and positioning to execute this tactic successfully. Effective decision-making and communication play pivotal roles, especially in high-pressure situations. The tactical awareness of the team and individual players significantly influences the success of playing out from the back...

Do we have those players? 

In executing the tactic of playing out from the back, quick and accurate decision-making is crucial, especially under high pressure situations. Effective communication among the goalkeeper, defenders, and midfielders is essential for the smooth progression of play. Proactive information sharing and decisive actions are vital to maintain possession. Ultimately, successful decision-making and communication significantly influence the team’s performance in playing out from the back.

Are our defenders and midfielders capable of that?

Technical adeptness in manipulating the ball in tight spaces is imperative. The team’s success hinges on effective ball control and accurate passes. Especially in defence. 

Do we have those players?

To dominate the game, spatial awareness is crucial for identifying and exploiting available spaces. Effective positioning provides passing options and maintains passing lanes, requiring a deep understanding of the positioning game. Spatial intelligence helps create passing angles and receive the ball under pressure. Anticipating movements of teammates and opponents is essential for playing out from the back, adjusting positioning accordingly to dictate the flow of the game.

Do we have those players?

For the playing out from the back tactics to be at their best, the goalie needs to be considered an outfield player.

By starting the build up in your box and inviting the opposition to come to you, you eliminate one player on the other side the opposition goalkeeper.

The game, is in theory tilted in your favour as it essentially becomes a 11 v 10 battle and superiorities are guaranteed if executed properly. 

But that's only if the opposition press high. Sit back and it's a useless tactic. 

Modern football is very attacking minded and every move needs to be aesthetically pleasing and positive, so it seems. 

However, it's far from the most efficient way to play.

Sometimes, a forward passing option won’t be immediately available, especially if you’re playing against a well organised defensive block that effectively expands into a high press.

At Championship level, teams are more organised and harder to break down. Good on the counter...less so in breaking teams down. 

Teams will look to proactively punish systems that are based on playing out from the back, it’s an overall very risky approach.

One mistake often yields a great chance for the opposition to strike. Especially at this level, as players don't have the high technical ability to do it well. 

It's so easy to defend against. 

Maintain shape, screen, slide screen, don't press on your own. 

So many coaches now stroke their ego, by trying to play this system. 

It's a very basic way of playing that has moves orchestrated and drilled. 

It's like knowing moves in chess. 

You can literally watch us build up play, know exactly where the pass is going, where an opposition will move to defend. 

Back and forth, re cycle. 

Goals generally come from mistakes rather than game plans. 

Coaches know the system and exactly how to defend against it. 

It's also a system that's easily manipulated, especially down the channels. 

Imo, we don't have the players that are technically gifted enough to carry out the current system of play, to a standard that will be successful in this league. 

It's patient pretty patterns with little end product. 

Can see us being a poorer Swansea...and they're shit :laugh:

 

 

 

 

[Numero Uno]

4 minutes ago, spudski said:

Playing out from the back is one of the most frustrating tactics implemented by coaches that think they are Pep and have the same type of quality players to do it well. 

Exceptional ball control and precision in passing are essential for playing out from the back. Players must possess acute spatial awareness and positioning to execute this tactic successfully. Effective decision-making and communication play pivotal roles, especially in high-pressure situations. The tactical awareness of the team and individual players significantly influences the success of playing out from the back...

Do we have those players? 

In executing the tactic of playing out from the back, quick and accurate decision-making is crucial, especially under high pressure situations. Effective communication among the goalkeeper, defenders, and midfielders is essential for the smooth progression of play. Proactive information sharing and decisive actions are vital to maintain possession. Ultimately, successful decision-making and communication significantly influence the team’s performance in playing out from the back.

Are our defenders and midfielders capable of that?

Technical adeptness in manipulating the ball in tight spaces is imperative. The team’s success hinges on effective ball control and accurate passes. Especially in defence. 

Do we have those players?

To dominate the game, spatial awareness is crucial for identifying and exploiting available spaces. Effective positioning provides passing options and maintains passing lanes, requiring a deep understanding of the positioning game. Spatial intelligence helps create passing angles and receive the ball under pressure. Anticipating movements of teammates and opponents is essential for playing out from the back, adjusting positioning accordingly to dictate the flow of the game.

Do we have those players?

For the playing out from the back tactics to be at their best, the goalie needs to be considered an outfield player.

By starting the build up in your box and inviting the opposition to come to you, you eliminate one player on the other side the opposition goalkeeper.

The game, is in theory tilted in your favour as it essentially becomes a 11 v 10 battle and superiorities are guaranteed if executed properly. 

But that's only if the opposition press high. Sit back and it's a useless tactic. 

Modern football is very attacking minded and every move needs to be aesthetically pleasing and positive, so it seems. 

However, it's far from the most efficient way to play.

Sometimes, a forward passing option won’t be immediately available, especially if you’re playing against a well organised defensive block that effectively expands into a high press.

At Championship level, teams are more organised and harder to break down. Good on the counter...less so in breaking teams down. 

Teams will look to proactively punish systems that are based on playing out from the back, it’s an overall very risky approach.

One mistake often yields a great chance for the opposition to strike. Especially at this level, as players don't have the high technical ability to do it well. 

It's so easy to defend against. 

Maintain shape, screen, slide screen, don't press on your own. 

So many coaches now stroke their ego, by trying to play this system. 

It's a very basic way of playing that has moves orchestrated and drilled. 

It's like knowing moves in chess. 

You can literally watch us build up play, know exactly where the pass is going, where an opposition will move to defend. 

Back and forth, re cycle. 

Goals generally come from mistakes rather than game plans. 

Coaches know the system and exactly how to defend against it. 

It's also a system that's easily manipulated, especially down the channels. 

Imo, we don't have the players that are technically gifted enough to carry out the current system of play, to a standard that will be successful in this league. 

It's patient pretty patterns with little end product. 

Can see us being a poorer Swansea...and they're shit

 

 

 

 

It’s how you play from the back that determines how effective it is. Playing forward at speed, if you have the players to do it is effective, 101 passes and end up back at your keeper who gets pressed and pumps it long anyway isn’t!!

However, if teams do sit back and you want to go more direct it then leaves you with another option you don’t particularly like which is getting it out wide (the only area where there is space against a packed, compact defensive line) and loading the box with CROSSES!! A bit like Warnock football where his teams play but only in the final third.

On that subject I was watching League 2 highlights yesterday and as soon as a highlight started with the keeper you just knew what was coming……

[Cowshed]

27 minutes ago, spudski said:

Playing out from the back is one of the most frustrating tactics implemented by coaches that think they are Pep and have the same type of quality players to do it well. 

Exceptional ball control and precision in passing are essential for playing out from the back. Players must possess acute spatial awareness and positioning to execute this tactic successfully. Effective decision-making and communication play pivotal roles, especially in high-pressure situations. The tactical awareness of the team and individual players significantly influences the success of playing out from the back...

Do we have those players? 

In executing the tactic of playing out from the back, quick and accurate decision-making is crucial, especially under high pressure situations. Effective communication among the goalkeeper, defenders, and midfielders is essential for the smooth progression of play. Proactive information sharing and decisive actions are vital to maintain possession. Ultimately, successful decision-making and communication significantly influence the team’s performance in playing out from the back.

Are our defenders and midfielders capable of that?

Technical adeptness in manipulating the ball in tight spaces is imperative. The team’s success hinges on effective ball control and accurate passes. Especially in defence. 

Do we have those players?

To dominate the game, spatial awareness is crucial for identifying and exploiting available spaces. Effective positioning provides passing options and maintains passing lanes, requiring a deep understanding of the positioning game. Spatial intelligence helps create passing angles and receive the ball under pressure. Anticipating movements of teammates and opponents is essential for playing out from the back, adjusting positioning accordingly to dictate the flow of the game.

Do we have those players?

For the playing out from the back tactics to be at their best, the goalie needs to be considered an outfield player.

By starting the build up in your box and inviting the opposition to come to you, you eliminate one player on the other side the opposition goalkeeper.

The game, is in theory tilted in your favour as it essentially becomes a 11 v 10 battle and superiorities are guaranteed if executed properly. 

But that's only if the opposition press high. Sit back and it's a useless tactic. 

Modern football is very attacking minded and every move needs to be aesthetically pleasing and positive, so it seems. 

However, it's far from the most efficient way to play.

Sometimes, a forward passing option won’t be immediately available, especially if you’re playing against a well organised defensive block that effectively expands into a high press.

At Championship level, teams are more organised and harder to break down. Good on the counter...less so in breaking teams down. 

Teams will look to proactively punish systems that are based on playing out from the back, it’s an overall very risky approach.

One mistake often yields a great chance for the opposition to strike. Especially at this level, as players don't have the high technical ability to do it well. 

It's so easy to defend against. 

Maintain shape, screen, slide screen, don't press on your own. 

So many coaches now stroke their ego, by trying to play this system. 

It's a very basic way of playing that has moves orchestrated and drilled. 

It's like knowing moves in chess. 

You can literally watch us build up play, know exactly where the pass is going, where an opposition will move to defend. 

Back and forth, re cycle. 

Goals generally come from mistakes rather than game plans. 

Coaches know the system and exactly how to defend against it. 

It's also a system that's easily manipulated, especially down the channels. 

Imo, we don't have the players that are technically gifted enough to carry out the current system of play, to a standard that will be successful in this league. 

It's patient pretty patterns with little end product. 

Can see us being a poorer Swansea...and they're shit

 

 

 

 

Spudski why are you cutting and pasting text from development centres? Centres where kids and youths coaching for ages 7-18 will be based upon building play from the back.

Edited September 9 by Cowshed

[spudski]

15 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Spudski why are you cutting and pasting text from development centres? Centres where kids and youths coaching for ages 7-18 will be based upon building play from the back.

Because it explains it very well in layman's terms for everyone to understand. 

Explains it better than I could. 

That's why. 

The basics still apply. 

[A Horse With No Name]

18 hours ago, Roger Red Hat said:

Whack it up to the big man, I say..

Put it in the mixer 

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Because it explains it very well in layman's terms for everyone to understand. 

Explains it better than I could. 

That's why. 

The basics still apply. 

You could have added that the text you copied and pasted comes from development centres who will coach and encourage their players from very early ages to play out from the back. And the context of why, which is? 

[spudski]

32 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

You could have added that the text you copied and pasted comes from development centres who will coach and encourage their players from very early ages to play out from the back. And the context of why, which is? 

I've added my own questions and views to the text. 

There are theories as to why it's done of course. 

But as I pointed out...and what's quoted from the text, is all the qualities needed for it to be successful. 

High risk against reward. 

I can cut and paste the theory... But I'll leave that to you, as you seem so irked by my opinion and post.

[chinapig]

15 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

High risk against reward.

Is it high risk? I don't know the answer and no doubt Opta or whoever has done an analysis but my guess would be that the error rate is low.

As I say above, we can tend to remember the errors but not the successes, especially if we don't like teams playing out from the back as a matter of principle.

[Port Said Red]

7 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Is it high risk? I don't know the answer and no doubt Opta or whoever has done an analysis but my guess would be that the error rate is low.

As I say above, we can tend to remember the errors but not the successes, especially if we don't like teams playing out from the back as a matter of principle.

I think it's designed to create space further up the pitch by drawing strikers and some midfield players further forwards. It was most obvious to me when we played those games against Man City, with Reid playing we had a good press most of the time, but they just kept chipping the ball over the pressing players and utilising the space behind them. 

I agree with you though, it's like anything else, it looks awful when it goes wrong, but if it went wrong that often teams would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

[Cowshed]

49 minutes ago, spudski said:

I've added my own questions and views to the text. 

There are theories as to why it's done of course. 

But as I pointed out...and what's quoted from the text, is all the qualities needed for it to be successful. 

High risk against reward. 

I can cut and paste the theory... But I'll leave that to you, as you seem so irked by my opinion and post.

What you were quoting was the optimal qualities. I was not irked, I wondered why you obviously quoted text that is used to support development centres coaching philosophy. That blurb is ubiquitous across development football. I can write similar, and have. 

The reasons why development centres place such emphasis on building play from the back is because it develops more well rounded technical players in the future for a game that is requiring technical players because its nature is technical, and highly tactical. Technically limited players limit tactical flexibility.

Playing out is not high risk. Its low risk because possession is conceded less frequently. Playing out creates what can be known as the safe possession zone, the high % possession creates more opportunity in the second third and final third. This is the why so many teams play possession football, possession is prized and possession = opportunity. 

29 minutes ago, chinapig said:

Is it high risk? I don't know the answer and no doubt Opta or whoever has done an analysis but my guess would be that the error rate is low.

As I say above, we can tend to remember the errors but not the successes, especially if we don't like teams playing out from the back as a matter of principle.

Possession football via playing through the first third  is not high risk. The aim is to keep the ball. The occasional loss of the ball and its risk is rewarded by the opportunity created versus the risks of low retention of the football from being direct, long, and attempting to penetrate quickly. Some teams will change across the thirds, possession and building in the first third and low risk moving to penetrative high risk in the second.  

Edited September 9 by Cowshed

[Cowshed]

38 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

I think it's designed to create space further up the pitch by drawing strikers and some midfield players further forwards. It was most obvious to me when we played those games against Man City, with Reid playing we had a good press most of the time, but they just kept chipping the ball over the pressing players and utilising the space behind them. 

I agree with you though, it's like anything else, it looks awful when it goes wrong, but if it went wrong that often teams would have stopped doing it a long time ago.

Man City play positional possessional football. The ball is worked across the pitch in coordinated patterns between players that move in relational distances to the possession. When the opponents press the ball, the ball habitually is delivered to full backs positioned in wide receiver positions in relational distances to the possession, from Rodri and Ederson who chip and drive the ball to the wide options. This break lines and leaves Man City outnumbering very frequently their pressing opponents.   

Man City frequently become very wide, very deep and long, and quite open in possession tempting the opposition to press, and the ball is positionally driven by Ederson to Halaand., and the team move from possession football to long ball football but narrowing their formation to almost inevitably securing possession from the second ball, because they way they set then break is designed to outnumber the opposition numerically of Haland.

 

[spudski]

4 hours ago, Cowshed said:

What you were quoting was the optimal qualities. I was not irked, I wondered why you obviously quoted text that is used to support development centres coaching philosophy. That blurb is ubiquitous across development football. I can write similar, and have. 

The reasons why development centres place such emphasis on building play from the back is because it develops more well rounded technical players in the future for a game that is requiring technical players because its nature is technical, and highly tactical. Technically limited players limit tactical flexibility.

Playing out is not high risk. Its low risk because possession is conceded less frequently. Playing out creates what can be known as the safe possession zone, the high % possession creates more opportunity in the second third and final third. This is the why so many teams play possession football, possession is prized and possession = opportunity. 

Possession football via playing through the first third  is not high risk. The aim is to keep the ball. The occasional loss of the ball and its risk is rewarded by the opportunity created versus the risks of low retention of the football from being direct, long, and attempting to penetrate quickly. Some teams will change across the thirds, possession and building in the first third and low risk moving to penetrative high risk in the second.  

I disagree with how you've viewed my post.

It is considered a high risk strategy.

And the further you go down the leagues, the riskier it becomes.

In my post I said that imo, we don't have the players technically good enough, especially in Goal and defence to play this way on a successful basis.

This year's article from the excellent Athletic talks about the pros and cons to it. And it's increase in football.

There is a graph that shows that teams that play this way, get into the final third, between 32 and 45%. Premiership. 

It would be a lot less further down the leagues. 

Worth a read. An excellent article. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5295095/2024/03/04/football-teams-playing-out-from-the-back-why/

[Cowshed]

14 hours ago, spudski said:

I disagree with how you've viewed my post.

It is considered a high risk strategy.

And the further you go down the leagues, the riskier it becomes.

In my post I said that imo, we don't have the players technically good enough, especially in Goal and defence to play this way on a successful basis.

This year's article from the excellent Athletic talks about the pros and cons to it. And it's increase in football.

There is a graph that shows that teams that play this way, get into the final third, between 32 and 45%. Premiership. 

It would be a lot less further down the leagues. 

Worth a read. An excellent article. 

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5295095/2024/03/04/football-teams-playing-out-from-the-back-why/

 

I have read that article previously.

Playing out from the back is not a high risk strategy. Knocking it long and risking possession is a high risk strategy where the ball will generally be lost more than 50% of the time.

Bristol City are successful at building from the back. The team secures possession for the football the team plays. The team does not conceded numerous goals, or many at all from securing the ball. City's playing out from the first third is not risky.  

The efficiency of what the team does would improve by adding complexity. City's build up play is very functional and limited by he range of its parts in particular the distribution of O'leary, but this does not mean the team is not competent. The team secures possession for the football the team plays and the possession creates opportunity.

 

Edited September 10 by Cowshed

[Davefevs]

9 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

 

I have read that article previously.

Playing out from the back is not a high risk strategy. Knocking it long and risking possession is a high risk strategy where the ball will generally be lost more than 50% of the time.

Bristol City are successful at building from the back. The team secures possession for the football the team plays. The team does not conceded numerous goals, or many at all from securing the ball. City's playing out from the first third is not risky.  

The efficiency of what the team does would improve by adding complexity. City's build up play is very functional and limited by he range of its parts in particular the distribution of O'leary, but this does not mean the team is not competent. The team secures possession for the football the team plays and the possession creates opportunity.

 

The way City play out from the back and then build further up with Pring very high up the pitch is risky, because there are gurt big gaps when we lose it.  And we keep getting exploited in our left channel.  So we might not get caught in our own box, but the method exposes us later in the execution.

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

 

I have read that article previously.

Playing out from the back is not a high risk strategy. Knocking it long and risking possession is a high risk strategy where the ball will generally be lost more than 50% of the time.

Bristol City are successful at building from the back. The team secures possession for the football the team plays. The team does not conceded numerous goals, or many at all from securing the ball. City's playing out from the first third is not risky.  

The efficiency of what the team does would improve by adding complexity. City's build up play is very functional and limited by he range of its parts in particular the distribution of O'leary, but this does not mean the team is not competent. The team secures possession for the football the team plays and the possession creates opportunity.

 

Mate...I think you are confusing the issue.

Of course pumping the ball long risks losing possession. No one is denying that. And I've not said otherwise or mentioned it. 

And of course, having possession of the ball is better.

The point you glaringly miss, when playing out from the back, and as pretty much every article mentions, is that it is high risk to do so. 

Because if you lose possession in the first third, by or in your own 18 yard box, amongst your first line of defence, then the chances of the opposition scoring are easier. 

That's the reason it's high risk. 

And why coaches who play it,  need a GK who is proficient at playing football, not just Goalkeeping, and defenders who are technically good, spacially aware, quick of thought, and able to pass accurately and intelligently. 

Playing possession football football further up the field and losing the ball, is less of a risk, as you have players behind to defend and reshape. 

It's not rocket science to see that. 

[Numero Uno]

9 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The way City play out from the back and then build further up with Pring very high up the pitch is risky, because there are gurt big gaps when we lose it.  And we keep getting exploited in our left channel.  So we might not get caught in our own box, but the method exposes us later in the execution.

This is part of the balance that Manning needs to solve and tweak imo. He's come up with a method that "semi-works" and makes us look better on the ball whilst exposing us at times off it......that becomes a problem in this league if consistency is what you are after (and for those who think Top 6 is the mission, you won't get near it without consistency). We are nowhere near it as we stand today but do have the potential to get a lot "nearer" if Manning sorts a few teething problems out. I understand you can't have everything at our level BUT our primary weakness is so bleedin' obvious that you don't need to be a highly paid analyst or coach or manager to see it. If we can see it as fans then football professionals won't miss it.

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

Mate...I think you are confusing the issue.

Of course pumping the ball long risks losing possession. No one is denying that. And I've not said otherwise or mentioned it. 

And of course, having possession of the ball is better.

The point you glaringly miss, when playing out from the back, and as pretty much every article mentions, is that it is high risk to do so. 

Because if you lose possession in the first third, by or in your own 18 yard box, amongst your first line of defence, then the chances of the opposition scoring are easier. 

That's the reason it's high risk. 

And why coaches who play it,  need a GK who is proficient at playing football, not just Goalkeeping, and defenders who are technically good, spacially aware, quick of thought, and able to pass accurately and intelligently. 

. 

In the article you posted its notes that teams are doing differing things. Playing out from the back can be consistently low risk, its a extra man and men, its a free pass from the goal kick, its lots of varying things doing varying approaches and patterns.

In the article you posted its notes that teams with average players, players that do not have a high technical ability can be used to build play efficiently because they can play those 10 -15 metre passes, they can bounce it, they do simple well. I have posted similar on here. You do not have to be a brilliant technical player to do functional.   

Functional Bristol City's first phase of play is not risky. Bristol City do not concede many goals from conceding possession in the first third. A why here is because the approach is risk averse, the patterns are conservative, and when there is danger the ball then goes long. City don't do complex, the players cannot, and Mr Manning's football in the first phase observes this. 

20 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

Playing possession football football further up the field and losing the ball, is less of a risk, as you have players behind to defend and reshape. 

It's not rocket science to see that. 

I don't actually understand what you have posted there. How does the ball get up the field? If you are not playing football through the thirds to get there you are not playing possession football.  

[Cowshed]

34 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The way City play out from the back and then build further up with Pring very high up the pitch is risky, because there are gurt big gaps when we lose it.  And we keep getting exploited in our left channel.  So we might not get caught in our own box, but the method exposes us later in the execution.

 In the final third. Its not at the back. A separate thing. Which could occur with 4-4-2 and pushing full backs up trying to get on the seconds from a big one. 

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

In the article you posted its notes that teams are doing differing things. Playing out from the back can be consistently low risk, its a extra man and men, its a free pass from the goal kick, its lots of varying things doing varying approaches and patterns.

In the article you posted its notes that teams with average players, players that do not have a high technical ability can be used to build play efficiently because they can play those 10 -15 metre passes, they can bounce it, they do simple well. I have posted similar on here. You do not have to be a brilliant technical player to do functional.   

Functional Bristol City's first phase of play is not risky. Bristol City do not concede many goals from conceding possession in the first third. A why here is because the approach is risk averse, the patterns are conservative, and when there is danger the ball then goes long. City don't do complex, the players cannot, and Mr Manning's football in the first phase observes this. 

I don't actually understand what you have posted there. How does the ball get up the field? If you are not playing football through the thirds to get there you are not playing possession football.  

Pre the new rules where you couldn't pass inside your own 18 yard box, teams still played possession football. 

It's easy to defend against playing out from the back close to goal. You just don't press. 

Allow the team the ball, and keep a mid block. 

The article also points out that the lower down the leagues, the riskier it is. 

Especially if you don't have all the attributes needed to play against fast, physical Championship forwards. 

Look how many times Semenyo pressed and won the ball in those positions or forced a mistake. We used to press high with the likes of Semenyo, Conway and Weimann. All showed how easy it was to disrupt technically slower Championship defenders and keepers. 

It's clear you don't understand what I'm referring to, when I talk about the difference in risk of losing the ball further up the field, compared to in your own box. 

It's worth noting that only 6 teams are not playing the 4231 formation.

Hull, Watford, Sheffield Utd, Oxford, Preston and Luton. 

Everyone else is playing the same way as us. 

No wonder other teams know the system, the weaknesses and where to exploit. 

The Coventry games were like watching a game of chess. 

 

[Clutton Caveman]

On 09/09/2024 at 05:32, Never to the dark side said:

Mendip Broadwalk,what do you want me to discuss?

Its my opinion that I don't like,if you disagree that's fine

Its like saying you think player A works better with B,although I may say player C works better with player D,its about opinions.

Gary Owers does not like it,and when we had a Q and A with Nigel Pearson he didn't like it.

I won't say the exact word that Pearson used.

Were you at Derby or have you seen highlights of the episode in the 33rd minute when City tried to play out from the back

we were 1-0 down and so could have been 2-0 down

Some teams seem to base their entire attacking strategy on pinching the ball from average players messing about on the edge of their box like Real Madrid. I have always wondered what would happen if you deliberately kicked for touch close to the oppositions corner flag then get up the pitch and press from the throw in. With so many teams camped on the halfway line, there would be time to get bodies up the field by the time the throw in is taken. At least it would cut our the 8-10 goals per year caused by losing the ball close to our goal.

[Never to the dark side]

Question about

Hull, Watford, Sheffield Utd, Oxford, Preston and Luton

not playing 4-2-3-1 is this at both home and away?

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Pre the new rules where you couldn't pass inside your own 18 yard box, teams still played possession football. 

It's easy to defend against playing out from the back close to goal. You just don't press. 

Allow the team the ball, and keep a mid block. 

The article also points out that the lower down the leagues, the riskier it is. 

Especially if you don't have all the attributes needed to play against fast, physical Championship forwards. 

Look how many times Semenyo pressed and won the ball in those positions or forced a mistake. We used to press high with the likes of Semenyo, Conway and Weimann. All showed how easy it was to disrupt technically slower Championship defenders and keepers. 

It's clear you don't understand what I'm referring to, when I talk about the difference in risk of losing the ball further up the field, compared to in your own box. 

It's worth noting that only 6 teams are not playing the 4231 formation.

Hull, Watford, Sheffield Utd, Oxford, Preston and Luton. 

Everyone else is playing the same way as us. 

No wonder other teams know the system, the weaknesses and where to exploit. 

The Coventry games were like watching a game of chess. 

 

Yes its clear I do not understand your point about risk. Using BCFC as an example the team does not lose the ball in its own box. The team does not lose lots of possession in its first third. You in posts have frequently used stats in post particularly to highlight your dislike of crossing because its statistically ineffectual. So could you quantify what the risk are of team consistently keeping possession in its first third 95% of the time versus playing the ball direct and long and losing possession +50% of the time and more?

The first third is a zone of safe possession, a base of possession offering numerical superiority to progress the ball. This is how the first third and building can be used and is regularly to provide control, and possession, controlled possession. Mr Manning's team are controlled in the first third.

It's easy to defend against playing out from the back close to goal. You just don't press = The team in possession has possession. Safe controlled possession.  

The article also points out that the lower down the leagues, the riskier it is. Does the article in the athletic state this? What stats are being used? What approaches are being studied? 

Everyone else is not playing the same as Bristol City. There are wide differences in how the 4- 2 - 3 - 1 operates. Our example of Bristol City does not stay in that shape. The 3 frequently goes 1 -2/2-1.  The 4 when O 'leary has it or a CB is not a 4 and neither is the 2.  

[spudski]

49 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Yes its clear I do not understand your point about risk. Using BCFC as an example the team does not lose the ball in its own box. The team does not lose lots of possession in its first third. You in posts have frequently used stats in post particularly to highlight your dislike of crossing because its statistically ineffectual. So could you quantify what the risk are of team consistently keeping possession in its first third 95% of the time versus playing the ball direct and long and losing possession +50% of the time and more?

The first third is a zone of safe possession, a base of possession offering numerical superiority to progress the ball. This is how the first third and building can be used and is regularly to provide control, and possession, controlled possession. Mr Manning's team are controlled in the first third.

It's easy to defend against playing out from the back close to goal. You just don't press = The team in possession has possession. Safe controlled possession.  

The article also points out that the lower down the leagues, the riskier it is. Does the article in the athletic state this? What stats are being used? What approaches are being studied? 

Everyone else is not playing the same as Bristol City. There are wide differences in how the 4- 2 - 3 - 1 operates. Our example of Bristol City does not stay in that shape. The 3 frequently goes 1 -2/2-1.  The 4 when O 'leary has it or a CB is not a 4 and neither is the 2.  

Mate...no offence, but you really are difficult to discuss with. 

Do you not understand plain English? 

Others have said they often find you difficult to understand and discuss with.

I've not once said direct football is the answer and better. 

I've even highlighted that point. 

Nearly every article written about the subject mentions that it is a ' high risk' tactic. But if carried out well, it reaps rewards. 

So again...it is high risk. If you don't have the right quality players to do it well.

I've said in my posts that I don't think City have the players to do it successfully on a continued basis. 

I'm not against it perse...but only if you have the players capable.

And as others and I have pointed out, when playing it, it often leaves us exposed on the flanks. 

Regarding Stats...the Athletic use Pro Opta analytics.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Its too much like hard work having to keep explaining myself. 

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Never to the dark side said:

Question about

Hull, Watford, Sheffield Utd, Oxford, Preston and Luton

not playing 4-2-3-1 is this at both home and away?

All games so far this season mate

[Never to the dark side]

Thanks for the reply,will view the Oxford game with much more interest.

[spudski]

35 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Thanks for the reply,will view the Oxford game with much more interest.

They've played 4141 all season. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 hours ago, Never to the dark side said:

Question about

Hull, Watford, Sheffield Utd, Oxford, Preston and Luton

not playing 4-2-3-1 is this at both home and away?

Most sides are avoiding the back 3, I had a quick look at the Football League Paper pre International break.

Which shapes in particular, why those 6 sides? Sounds interesting.

[Never to the dark side]

Okay back in me box,will have to wait till away at Preston on 2nd November

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, Never to the dark side said:

Okay back in me box,will have to wait till away at Preston on 2nd November

Happy to look again, Luton and Preston seem definite but unsure about the rest. Oxford?

Think you're correct about Watford too thinking about it.

[Cityboy1954]

On 08/09/2024 at 21:25, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

City can give anyone kittens. This business of Dickie, now Naismith taking the goal kick with a pass to O'Leary who then either exchange passes, or worse gives it to Vyner whose diagonal is inevitably intercepted by our opponents is nuts. You can play out of the back if every one of your defenders is very comfortable and skilled on the ball but ours ain't. We're not Arsenal or Man City FFS, we're not even Manure or Dirty Leeds. 

Agree only Man City can play that way 

[spudski]

22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Happy to look again, Luton and Preston seem definite but unsure about the rest. Oxford?

Think you're correct about Watford too thinking about it.

Hull 4141

Watford 3421

Sheff Utd 4411

Oxford 4141

Preston 3142

Luton 3421

I went through the league this morning as I was interested in who was playing the same formation as us. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

On 08/09/2024 at 21:25, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

City can give anyone kittens. This business of Dickie, now Naismith taking the goal kick with a pass to O'Leary who then either exchange passes, or worse gives it to Vyner whose diagonal is inevitably intercepted by our opponents is nuts. You can play out of the back if every one of your defenders is very comfortable and skilled on the ball but ours ain't. We're not Arsenal or Man City FFS, we're not even Manure or Dirty Leeds. 

O'leary could lamp it up the pitch and get it intercepted faster!!

[Mendip Broadwalk]

6 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Yes its clear I do not understand your point about risk. Using BCFC as an example the team does not lose the ball in its own box. The team does not lose lots of possession in its first third. You in posts have frequently used stats in post particularly to highlight your dislike of crossing because its statistically ineffectual. So could you quantify what the risk are of team consistently keeping possession in its first third 95% of the time versus playing the ball direct and long and losing possession +50% of the time and more?

The first third is a zone of safe possession, a base of possession offering numerical superiority to progress the ball. This is how the first third and building can be used and is regularly to provide control, and possession, controlled possession. Mr Manning's team are controlled in the first third.

It's easy to defend against playing out from the back close to goal. You just don't press = The team in possession has possession. Safe controlled possession.  

The article also points out that the lower down the leagues, the riskier it is. Does the article in the athletic state this? What stats are being used? What approaches are being studied? 

Everyone else is not playing the same as Bristol City. There are wide differences in how the 4- 2 - 3 - 1 operates. Our example of Bristol City does not stay in that shape. The 3 frequently goes 1 -2/2-1.  The 4 when O 'leary has it or a CB is not a 4 and neither is the 2.  

why are teams doing this??

On 08/09/2024 at 21:25, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

City can give anyone kittens. This business of Dickie, now Naismith taking the goal kick with a pass to O'Leary who then either exchange passes, or worse gives it to Vyner whose diagonal is inevitably intercepted by our opponents is nuts. You can play out of the back if every one of your defenders is very comfortable and skilled on the ball but ours ain't. We're not Arsenal or Man City FFS, we're not even Manure or Dirty Leeds. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

53 minutes ago, spudski said:

Hull 4141

Watford 3421

Sheff Utd 4411

Oxford 4141

Preston 3142

Luton 3421

I went through the league this morning as I was interested in who was playing the same formation as us. 

Thanks that was roughly my recollection too, not the precise formations but the back 3/back 4 divide.

I can think of some Italian sides who can make it work at domestic level and higher but it's not so common atm across the board. I suppose Bayer Leverkusen are one but when I see our fans calling for it..

A) Swimming against the divisional tide big time.

B) You need to have very specific types of players to pull it off. McCrorie and Pring (Wingback), Naismith in the back 3..those 2 can also be okay as full backs and Naismith can slot between the deepest midfield and back 3.

Beyond that I think we get exposed. Either centrally, wide or both!

[Davefevs]

Just looked at Wyscout, Watford appear to be the only team regularly play a back-3 system this season.

Luton and Preston did against each other and Plymouth did one game.

[spudski]

11 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Just looked at Wyscout, Watford appear to be the only team regularly play a back-3 system this season.

Luton and Preston did against each other and Plymouth did one game.

I got my data from whoscored who used Opta for their analysis. 

[Davefevs]

6 minutes ago, spudski said:

I got my data from whoscored who used Opta for their analysis. 

Seems to concur

[spudski]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Seems to concur

I like the Whoscored analysis, especially the match centre section.

You can slide the minute bar, and it will show you in game tactical changes with players and formations. 

[Davefevs]

21 minutes ago, spudski said:

I like the Whoscored analysis, especially the match centre section.

You can slide the minute bar, and it will show you in game tactical changes with players and formations. 

Yes, don’t really use it much because I have Wyscout.

Wyscout does this kind of thing:

 

 

[spudski]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Yes, don’t really use it much because I have Wyscout.

Wyscout does this kind of thing:

 

 

Yes it's good. I guess it's just a preference to layout. 

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, spudski said:

Yes it's good. I guess it's just a preference to layout. 

They also do a table too, where they show % of game in the most used formation, e.g:

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

They also do a table too, where they show % of game in the most used formation, e.g:

That table is good info. 

From memory, I don't think City have changed formation during league games this season. Open to correction. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Just looked at Wyscout, Watford appear to be the only team regularly play a back-3 system this season.

Luton and Preston did against each other and Plymouth did one game.

That's surprising thanks.

I've always associated Luton and Preston with absolute back 3.

[spudski]

19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

That's surprising thanks.

I've always associated Luton and Preston with absolute back 3.

Just checked. Whoscored (Opta) show Luton as playing 3 at the back in all their league games this season. 

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

why are teams doing this??

 

Variety. Changing the pattern from goal kicks challenges the opponents because the team will use differing angles to play out becoming less predictable. 

3 hours ago, Cityboy1954 said:

Agree only Man City can play that way 

Blame the Italians. Numerous teams in serie A use defenders taking short goal kicks passing to the keeper.

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, spudski said:

Just checked. Whoscored (Opta) show Luton as playing 3 at the back in all their league games this season. 

They are a funny one from watching them, seems to depend how Whoscored and Wyscout treat the likes of Walters and Bell / Doughty / Chong.  But at the end of the day it’s probably a system where it pivots depending on side of pitch.

[Mr Popodopolous]

30 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Blame the Italians. Numerous teams in serie A use defenders taking short goal kicks passing to the keeper.

Italy for me is an interesting and varied League tactically or has been.

It has this reputation of being all and defensive hut it is quite a bit mote varied.

In its heyday, say late 1980s to mid 2000s or early 2000s it was quite hard to score goals but there was no shortage of technical ability, tactical know how or indeed high quality attacking players. Some of that was tactical too of course.

Some examples.. 

*Lazio and now Inter have a strong yet entertaining back 3 under Inzaghi. Inter are perhaps more counter attacking.

*Conte made the back 3 fashionable with Juventus in 2011.

*Spalletti had Napoli 2 seasons ago with a 4-3-3 playing some of the best football in Europe- they showed it at both CL and Serie A level.

*Allegri..hard to say his. He seemed to go back 3, 4-4-2 diamond, 4-3-3 and others??

*Atalanta under Gasperini, frequently high scoring yet a back 3.

Mancini also had Italy playing for 2 to 3 years a fairly high Possession, high Shots game with some good pressing.

What I'm trying to say is it is more varied tactically than it gets credit for here.

I hear Bologna were quite innovative last year.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Back on topic of playing out, Capello said a couple if years ago that Italy was trying to copy Pep without the quality.

I would argue they showed it for abour 3 years under Mancini but generally yes.

https://m.allfootballapp.com/news/EPL/Capello-Italy-has-been-imitating-Guardiola-for-15-years-without-having-enough-quality/2797282

[Mr Popodopolous]

Chiellini didn't like it either.

https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/02/09/giorgio-chiellini-blames-pep-guardiola-influence-ruining-defending-italy

In that Italian coaches without Pep's knowledge or talent tried to copy it, and it diluted some of their identity defensively.

Edited September 10 by Mr Popodopolous

[Cowshed]

9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Italy for me is an interesting and varied League tactically or has been.

It has this reputation of being all and defensive hut it is quite a bit mote varied.

In its heyday, say late 1980s to mid 2000s or early 2000s it was quite hard to score goals but there was no shortage of technical ability, tactical know how or indeed high quality attacking players. Some of that was tactical too of course.

Some examples.. 

*Lazio and now Inter have a strong yet entertaining back 3 under Inzaghi. Inter are perhaps more counter attacking.

*Conte made the back 3 fashionable with Juventus in 2011.

*Spalletti had Napoli 2 seasons ago with a 4-3-3 playing some of the best football in Europe- they showed it at both CL and Serie A level.

*Allegri..hard to say his. He seemed to go back 3, 4-4-2 diamond, 4-3-3 and others??

*Atalanta under Gasperini, frequently high scoring yet a back 3.

Mancini also had Italy playing for 2 to 3 years a fairly high Possession, high Shots game with some good pressing.

What I'm trying to say is it is more varied tactically than it gets credit for here.

I hear Bologna were quite innovative last year.

A innovative Italian coach noted for his build up play, and a coach who has done this at multiple clubs without superstar players.

 

 

[2015]

Playing out from the back is fine providing you have the players to do so. Pretty pointless whacking the ball up front to a striker who is under 6 foot really so better off playing on the deck to get the best out of your forward players.

[Clutton Caveman]

21 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Yes its clear I do not understand your point about risk. Using BCFC as an example the team does not lose the ball in its own box. The team does not lose lots of possession in its first third. You in posts have frequently used stats in post particularly to highlight your dislike of crossing because its statistically ineffectual. So could you quantify what the risk are of team consistently keeping possession in its first third 95% of the time versus playing the ball direct and long and losing possession +50% of the time and more?

The first third is a zone of safe possession, a base of possession offering numerical superiority to progress the ball. This is how the first third and building can be used and is regularly to provide control, and possession, controlled possession. Mr Manning's team are controlled in the first third.

It's easy to defend against playing out from the back close to goal. You just don't press = The team in possession has possession. Safe controlled possession.  

The article also points out that the lower down the leagues, the riskier it is. Does the article in the athletic state this? What stats are being used? What approaches are being studied? 

Everyone else is not playing the same as Bristol City. There are wide differences in how the 4- 2 - 3 - 1 operates. Our example of Bristol City does not stay in that shape. The 3 frequently goes 1 -2/2-1.  The 4 when O 'leary has it or a CB is not a 4 and neither is the 2.  

What has happened to our wonderful simple game when the number on the shirt told you where the player would play. When right footed wingers played on the right and provided a stream of crosses for big centre forwards to head or fast inside forwards to pick up the loose ball. When the referee made decisions and linesmen flagged which way for a throw in before looking at the ref. When spectators could let of some steam without being reported the the clubs thought police. When tackling was an art and winning the ball decided if the tackle was fair or not. When players would not even thinking of writhing on the floor hinting their hands on the ground in agony only to be fully revived by 30 seconds from the physio because they would have been ridiculed by the opposition, the fans, their own fans and the press. When you could pronounce most of the names on the team sheet and where youth team players where preferred to cheap imported journeymen.

I miss the simple game

[Cowshed]

14 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

What has happened to our wonderful simple game when the number on the shirt told you where the player would play. When right footed wingers played on the right and provided a stream of crosses for big centre forwards to head or fast inside forwards to pick up the loose ball. When the referee made decisions and linesmen flagged which way for a throw in before looking at the ref. When spectators could let of some steam without being reported the the clubs thought police. When tackling was an art and winning the ball decided if the tackle was fair or not. When players would not even thinking of writhing on the floor hinting their hands on the ground in agony only to be fully revived by 30 seconds from the physio because they would have been ridiculed by the opposition, the fans, their own fans and the press. When you could pronounce most of the names on the team sheet and where youth team players where preferred to cheap imported journeymen.

I miss the simple game

The game is still simple. Its an invasion game where you win by outscoring the opponent. The game progresses and reinvents itself. There are teams at the zenith of football that are playing with wingers, inside forwards (8's and 10's,) and centre forward. Teams  playing 2- 3-5 formations. Reinvention of the past. 

Other elements won't becoming back. A little topper (bonus) on your money for removing opponent players from the pitch with a fair challenge won't, football is better there now. 

[Markthehorn]

1 hour ago, 2015 said:

Playing out from the back is fine providing you have the players to do so. Pretty pointless whacking the ball up front to a striker who is under 6 foot really so better off playing on the deck to get the best out of your forward players.

Yes everyone tries to be Man City or prime Barcelona.

Seen it even at non league level !

Edited September 11 by Markthehorn