playing out from the back,not for me

[spudski]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

I watched the Stoke Hull game last night and first half Stoke pressed really well.  Two CMs played high behind their “front 4” to squeeze Hull back and consistently pinched the ball high.  But wasteful, h-t 1-0 (from a set-piece).

Second half, those 2 CMs were much more conservative and the gaps grew between Attack and Midfield, especially, but also defence as Hull really stretched the game.  It also meant they had no “connections” when they had the ball, and Hull ran out deserved winners.

It's definitely a game plan that's been on the rise. 

It's coached in the same way as say possession football. 

Many think Counter attacks happen by accident...but it's coached on how to force errors in the opposition. Planned. 

It's very effective. 

You often get a numerical advantage in front of goal, and a better quality chance to shoot. 

I read that in the pro game  approx 70% of goals scored by counter attacks are done down the middle. 

As soon as you put it out wide, your chances of scoring diminish by two thirds. 

Again a reason not to rely on wide play to score goals. 

[spudski]

Another fine example yesterday, of how high risk it is, if you lose the ball. Wolves goal at Villa. 

[Never to the dark side]

Not mention Fulham's 3rd against Newcastle and

Spurs first against Brentford

and this is supposed to be the intelligent league

[spudski]

8 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Not mention Fulham's 3rd against Newcastle and

Spurs first against Brentford

and this is supposed to be the intelligent league

This is the best from yesterday :laugh:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DAML5Rho61_/?igsh=d3Eyd2V6YzdkaXNp

 

[Cowshed]

On 20/09/2024 at 21:38, ChippenhamRed said:

I’m late to this party but it’s a very reductive take simply to conclude that playing it out from the back is “high risk”  whereas “playing possession football further up the field is less of a risk”.

Risk is a function of both probability and severity.

Lets consider “probability” to be the likelihood of losing possession of the ball by the halfway line. And “severity” the likelihood of then conceding a goal having lost possession.

Playing the ball out from the back makes it more likely that you are in possession of the ball at the half way line than simply booting the ball up the pitch, when it becomes a 50:50. So the probability of losing the ball is lower.

However, if you do lose the ball when playing out from the back, because the opposition are in an advanced position on the pitch, they are more likely to create a chance that results in a goal. So the severity of the outcome is higher.

So:

Playing out = lower probability of losing the ball x higher severity if you do

Goal kick = higher probability of losing the ball x lower severity if you do

Overall, this would make the risk broadly the same.

The modern game is analysed to within an inch of life. There are endless amounts of data available and clubs employ people to analyse it. If it was as simple as “playing it out is more dangerous”, clubs wouldn’t do it.

Plus of course, if you’re more likely to have the ball in your possession in the middle of the pitch, you’re also more likely to score a goal yourself.

Knocking it there is not 50:50. First contact might and that is a might be 50:50. First contact is not gaining possession of the ball. There are a lot of variables to consider but the easiest ball to defend is long and straight, the risk of playing aerially and vertically is that possession will constantly be lost, norms are frequently the ball is lost the overwhelming majority of the time, and second balls after first contact also favours the defending team. Playing diagonally long across the pitch again significantly favours the team defending the ball.  

Risk also should be assessed versus how much possession is handed over to the opponent. More possession for opponent = More opportunity x expectation = Risk. Lots of possession being conceded =  High risk.

Your goal kick. Goal kick = higher probability of losing the ball x lower severity if you do. Is more, Goal kick = Probability of losing the football being frequently as high as 90%. Your low severity alters over games and the season because of what we know occurs in football. If we guarantee possession to the opposition we can reasonably expect and predict that the opponent will create opportunity. 

 

[Never to the dark side]

Thanks Spudski for the comment about the EFL game,I think there might be more than the one you mentioned.

By the way are you at Tunbridge Wells?

[spudski]

9 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Thanks Spudski for the comment about the EFL game,I think there might be more than the one you mentioned.

By the way are you at Tunbridge Wells?

No worries fella. 

Not at Tunbridge Wells. Haven't got time for that anymore

[Never to the dark side]

Fair enough.

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Cowshed said:

Knocking it there is not 50:50. First contact might and that is a might be 50:50. First contact is not gaining possession of the ball. There are a lot of variables to consider but the easiest ball to defend is long and straight, the risk of playing aerially and vertically is that possession will constantly be lost, norms are frequently the ball is lost the overwhelming majority of the time, and second balls after first contact also favours the defending team. Playing diagonally long across the pitch again significantly favours the team defending the ball.  

Risk also should be assessed versus how much possession is handed over to the opponent. More possession for opponent = More opportunity x expectation = Risk. Lots of possession being conceded =  High risk.

Your goal kick. Goal kick = higher probability of losing the ball x lower severity if you do. Is more, Goal kick = Probability of losing the football being frequently as high as 90%. Your low severity alters over games and the season because of what we know occurs in football. If we guarantee possession to the opposition we can reasonably expect and predict that the opponent will create opportunity. 

 

Footballs a funny old game, especially how it's analysed.

A goal kick into the oppositions half creating a '50/50' and then having to win the second ball and create with the third, is seen as a prehistoric tactic.

Yet...playing out from the back with possession, to work the ball through the thirds against an organised opposition, to then put it wide...for what outcome! A cross into the box which is a 50/50 and needs a second and third ball winning. 

A corner...the same scenario. 

An indirect free kick...the same scenario.

A long throw in, into the box...the same scenario. 

 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

On 16/09/2024 at 14:24, Davefevs said:

I’ve explained plenty of times what i see as his system / approach.  I didn’t realise you wanted my explanation in this thread!!!

And it’s also perfectly acceptable for an individual to make one mistake is isolation, but it also be part of an overall problem, where decision making is being put under pressure and regularly too.

Manning wants us to play out from the back, he wants us to control possession (which doesn’t necessarily mean we control the match).  He wants various combos of buildup.  Our CBs to split to either allow one of the 2 DMs to come in short and make an extra man, or to play out through our full backs if we get covered centrally.  Or he wants our 2DMs to split wide to allow a CB to pass straight centrally between the lines, or angled for them to receive.  On the left side when that happens, it allows an already high positioned Pring to play like a winger and allow Twine to stay inverted.  I don’t think I understand the plan on the right with Tanner and Sykes, unless it’s just to then go back, central and out the left again?

Maybe you can articulate that for me?

But that is all very focussed on what WE do when we have the ball, and doesn’t feel like it has enough thought to what we do without the ball, especially in transition defence, where we might have two DMs split exposing the middle of the pitch, nor down our left where Pring is now regularly  30-50 yards beyond the ball.  Even with his great recovery runs he isn’t superman.

Nor does it appear to be able to deal with a style of press like Blackburn’s, which took the short passing option out of the equation, but then left us without a structure / shape to go with something different, eg play off of a longer ball, and either hold it up, or be there ready to pounce on bits and pieces.  Just watched all of Max’s 37 “Distributions” on Saturday and our shape for when he goes long (because he can’t go short) is just a bunch of big spaces for Blackburn to regain possession.

You can keep bringing it back to an O’Leary mistake, but why did he attempt that “brain fart” pass?  He’d tried it as early as the 5th minute, forcing a ball into Williams who then had a difficult pass running towards towards the ball, trying to open his foot out to McNally, but only succeeding in playing it behind him…and putting us under pressure.

Too much focus on individuals and individual goals, not why other chances are conceded, and where they come from, why they came about.  We gloss over them if they don’t result in a goal.  They don’t matter.  But actually they are a building trend in a low scoring sport, where some end up going into our net.

We've played 3 LCBs this season, and if you wanna focus on goals conceded alone (I don’t), we’ve conceded 3 with Dickie, 3 with Naismith and 3 with McNally.  Now I don’t think that is down to individuals.  Do you?  I’d suggest there’s an underlying weakness in our defensive system.

O’Leary’s error for the goal is his to own.

But it’s also our head-coach’s to identify why…and why when O’Leary does go long because he can’t play short, the ball keeps coming back.  What was Manning’s “coping strategy” for dealing with a press like Blackburn’s?

I think the current system is pretty poor defensively, especially coming from where it has been.  And I put that on the head-coach - why wouldn’t I?  and why would you absolve him from it, and try to make out that’s all I do.  You’ll note that I’ve been consistent in saying his system is a bit better attacking-wise.

All of us can each decide whether that improvement in attack (as a team), is outweighing the weakness defensively (as a team).

 

 

Missed your post originally. I was expecting a explanation in this thread because its featuring all on playing from the back reading the thread there are posts about different things playing from the back clearly isn't just one way there are lots of different sketches instead of everybody is trying to be Man City!!!  

I think O'leary has made a error in isolation and one I dont think he has made before, Its not crystal what O'leary was doing as there was no pass on at all. Thats not O'leary he doesnt take risks. O'leary goes long when theres no options 99.9 and this was that .1. 

Manning wants our CB's to split think i with that but he also wants the CM's to split to play through??? Not having that I think he wants the CM's to come short and that was where O'leary went wrong didnt check midfield and ****** up big time. Players drop a bollock now and then there it is and O'leary will learn from it. Like you say his to own. No option knock it  long like he does over seasons. When O'leary knocks it with Citys formation and numbers (i think anyway) in midfield they should be getting on some second balls.  

Without the ball thats getting a bit complex for me but im not having the CM's are not meant to be covering when full backs push on Theres four behind the ball a lot and four in that coach speak word transition should become fives and sixes and sevens when attack breaks down in the opps half?? I think thats a problem not with the back but the players up top not putting their yards in. Yeah Manning has work to do there -  and why would you absolve him from it, and try to make out that’s all I do. Didn't think I had!!

I don't think City have much of a problem at the back its in front of them. Thanks for the time and detailed answer.

[Davefevs]

More weight to the argument?

For those of you that watch the PL, do Arsenal buck the trend (as per the pitch graphic - only 15%) in not using their own area for goal-kick build-up?

[spudski]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

More weight to the argument?

For those of you that watch the PL, do Arsenal buck the trend (as per the pitch graphic - only 15%) in not using their own area for goal-kick build-up?

For me it's simple...

It's far easier to press, tackle or intercept, than it is to shape, move, think, receive, make decisions on who to pass to, make pass correctly, whilst under pressure. 

It's a no brainer for me.

And the less skillful you are at all those qualities, the harder it becomes, and easier for the opposition. 

[Cowshed]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

More weight to the argument?

For those of you that watch the PL, do Arsenal buck the trend (as per the pitch graphic - only 15%) in not using their own area for goal-kick build-up?

If you look at solely goal kicks then you could say yes, however Raya does use his box in build up for goal kicks normally to Gabriel, but Raya also frequently steps in as an extra man in the back line and invites the press then nips it to wide receivers. Raya will also drive the ball over the press, it should be noted Arsenal are quite inefficient at this. 

Arsenals build up play has also altered minus Odegaard, Odegaard in they play far shorter. 

[spudski]

On 26/09/2024 at 09:02, Davefevs said:

More weight to the argument?

For those of you that watch the PL, do Arsenal buck the trend (as per the pitch graphic - only 15%) in not using their own area for goal-kick build-up?

If anyone has clicked on that link and opened and read it, it's really worth reading. 

Again more mistakes leading to goals throughout the leagues playing this way. 

Brighton who use it a lot, caught big time by Chelsea. 

[Bristol Oil Services]

It's just comedy now, watching MoTD or EFL highlights show, seeing all these sides slavishly adhering to the "we're going to pass it around and through you starting from our keeper" ideology, and tying themselves in knots doing so. Laughable.

[Markthehorn]

1 minute ago, Bristol Oil Services said:

It's just comedy now, watching MoTD or EFL highlights show, seeing all these sides slavishly adhering to the "we're going to pass it around and through you starting from our keeper" ideology, and tying themselves in knots doing so. Laughable.

Then get praised for being brave or trying to play the right way .

[Lanterne Rouge]

Just now, Markthehorn said:

Then get praised for being brave or trying to play the right way .

Until the `right way` changes with the fashion again. 

Back to hoof ball anyone?

[bearded_red]

Last nights Match of the Day it was off the charts for how many goals and chances came from teams trying to play around at the back and losing the ball.

Some comedy from Brighton as well who seemed to refuse to ever drop their backline from the halfway line and Chelsea just repeatedly chipped the ball into space and had people run through on goal. Could genuinely have scored 8 in the first half rather than just their paltry 4.

Edited September 29 by bearded_red

[ashton_fan]

Gary Neville was scathing of Wolves against Liverpool yesterday, trailing by a goal with a minute left they were still passing the ball around in their own half. I remember when GJ was manager and if we were losing he'd bring on all the forward players and make the team punt long balls up to the penalty box in the last 5 minutes, it did rescue a lot of points for us.

[Markthehorn]

1 hour ago, Lanterne Rouge said:

Until the `right way` changes with the fashion again. 

Back to hoof ball anyone?

I just like seeing players run at opponents with the ball going forward at pace.

[fly in the air]

it's OK playing out from the back if you have the right players.  sadly we don't have them.

[The turtle]

I posted this elsewhere today 

The theory is great. The problem is more and more teams stick to this religiously (which is curious as man city will go long and often, the greatest trick they've pulled so far) , so defensive units are now entering risk on mode. More and more goals are being scored/conceded from winning the ball high up the pitch. It will eventually get to the point where the reward is no longer worth the risk.  We are currently at the point where not enough goals are scored from breaking the press, but too many goals are conceded from  the ball being stolen.  The reality is teams now WANT you to play out like this, because for many there is no plan B. And predictability is your enemy in football. The next evolution step is creating the bluff which forces defences to be stuck between dropping back and not, thus creating holes in the lines.

.......

Plus (in Swansea)

You need clarity with your goal keeper, or you get the issues like today.

Confused thinking= poor decisions. When short is off, go long and be encouraged to do it

 

[Fpcity]

9 hours ago, bearded_red said:

Last nights Match of the Day it was off the charts for how many goals and chances came from teams trying to play around at the back and losing the ball.

Some comedy from Brighton as well who seemed to refuse to ever drop their backline from the halfway line and Chelsea just repeatedly chipped the ball into space and had people run through on goal. Could genuinely have scored 8 in the first half rather than just their paltry 4.

I remember hearing big Sam on talksport a few years ago saying that we'll see so many mistakes and goals being conceded from teams trying to play out from the back. It's so frustrating to watch modern football sometimes. 

[Markthehorn]

9 hours ago, fly in the air said:

it's OK playing out from the back if you have the right players.  sadly we don't have them.

I think that is one thing all fans of many clubs would agree with !

[Cowshed]

On 29/09/2024 at 17:57, The turtle said:

I posted this elsewhere today 

The theory is great. The problem is more and more teams stick to this religiously (which is curious as man city will go long and often, the greatest trick they've pulled so far) , so defensive units are now entering risk on mode. More and more goals are being scored/conceded from winning the ball high up the pitch. It will eventually get to the point where the reward is no longer worth the risk.  We are currently at the point where not enough goals are scored from breaking the press, but too many goals are conceded from  the ball being stolen.  The reality is teams now WANT you to play out like this, because for many there is no plan B. And predictability is your enemy in football. The next evolution step is creating the bluff which forces defences to be stuck between dropping back and not, thus creating holes in the lines.

.......

Plus (in Swansea)

You need clarity with your goal keeper, or you get the issues like today.

Confused thinking= poor decisions. When short is off, go long and be encouraged to do it

 

Playing longer as teams press high up the pitch going man for man the ball is then knocked over over the press to players who are 1v1. This is already happening. 

[Never to the dark side]

Watching the Sunderland v Leeds United match,never take it for granted your goal keeper has a safe pair of hands,just like playing out from the back.

Don't have sky so have not seen all the different angles.

It looks like a Sunderland player has aimed a tepid shot towards goal,is that not the reason the goal keeper was about to try a collect shot.

Its gone down as an own goal by Leeds player Firpo

Could it have been a tepid shot from the Sunderland player that took a deflection off Firpo which took  a very slight deflection

and the goaly was in two minds whether to collect the ball or just trap the ball

[Davefevs]

55 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Watching the Sunderland v Leeds United match,never take it for granted your goal keeper has a safe pair of hands,just like playing out from the back.

Don't have sky so have not seen all the different angles.

It looks like a Sunderland player has aimed a tepid shot towards goal,is that not the reason the goal keeper was about to try a collect shot.

Its gone down as an own goal by Leeds player Firpo

Could it have been a tepid shot from the Sunderland player that took a deflection off Firpo which took  a very slight deflection

and the goaly was in two minds whether to collect the ball or just trap the ball

I don’t even think it was a shot, just Browne trying to “help” it into the box on the half-volley.  It looks like it may have bounced on a divot from where either keeper might’ve taken a goalkick from.  Looked like a good leg-spinner into the rough.

[Never to the dark side]

Davefevs

I  think you could be right about a divot

But why has been classed as an own goal?

[Davefevs]

36 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Davefevs

I  think you could be right about a divot

But why has been classed as an own goal?

 Cause the “pass” from Browne wasn’t on target, it was deflected onto target by Firpo. 

[The Original OTIB]

On 21/09/2024 at 13:19, spudski said:

It's definitely a game plan that's been on the rise. 

It's coached in the same way as say possession football. 

Many think Counter attacks happen by accident...but it's coached on how to force errors in the opposition. Planned. 

It's very effective. 

You often get a numerical advantage in front of goal, and a better quality chance to shoot. 

I read that in the pro game  approx 70% of goals scored by counter attacks are done down the middle. 

As soon as you put it out wide, your chances of scoring diminish by two thirds. 

Again a reason not to rely on wide play to score goals. 

Which is why if you are going with one up top, as most now do, better that they are very fast indeed, in the main.

Just now, The Original OTIB said:

Which is why if you are going with one up top, as most now do, better that they are very fast indeed, in the main.

Also, leave one up, which we almost never do when defending.

[Never to the dark side]

Davefevs

Thanks again for the input,maybe the goaly could have been in two minds

not sure if he would be penalised for collecting the ball as opposed to not handling the ball.

[Davefevs]

40 minutes ago, Never to the dark side said:

Davefevs

Thanks again for the input,maybe the goaly could have been in two minds

not sure if he would be penalised for collecting the ball as opposed to not handling the ball.

Nah, he just misjudged the spinning bounce.

[Never to the dark side]

Saturdays games from the Prem

and this is the intelligent league

Brentford 5th

Arsenals 1st

West Ham 3rd

[Davefevs]

The astute Mike Holden:

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Isn't that where the Pressing and Intensity elements- but also the timing and intelligence of it, kick in too?

I'm fine with Possession football but without the Press, the Intensity- plus the timing, intelligence and yeah the Transition it is pointless.

You're racking up 500-600 passes or your centre back is getting 70-100 with a 90% Accuracy..great but to what ends. It can be a platform but it's only a platform.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Pass sure, pass all you like but you've got to run yourself into the ground when you don't have it, get the opposition to cough it up- if you have 55-60% of the ball, you can or should be able to get that mix of resting yourselves with it and swarming the Opposition when you don't.

Are we a bit passive without, have we got the balance correct?

[Mendip Broadwalk]

Anyone see Northern Ireland Bulgaria?? Northern Ireland had Pirlo pinging passes about in goal.

[Never to the dark side]

Just watched the ten minutes of the Leeds v Sheff Utd game,three occasions where Sheff Utd were playing out from the back and the pass back,where a goals could have been scored

Leeds also had one incident where playing out from the back could have lead to a goal.

[Garland-sweden]

Its laughabel, even in the Swedish four division they try play Barcelona in defence.

[RedRock]

51 minutes ago, Garland-sweden said:

Its laughabel, even in the Swedish four division they try play Barcelona in defence.

Strange isn’t it? While Spain have moved on and play aggressive, attacking purposeful football the rest of the World (particularly England, due to the Pep influence) still attempt to play the perfect possession stuff.

Was hoping we would move from Nige’s counter-attacking style to a new innovative approach under our young coaches …. but not to be. We, amongst many, are trying to be 80’s Barcelona. An out-dated, boring and - with players of very average ability - ultimately, a failed pursuit of success. Infact, with our inability to put the ball in the net, a recipe for disaster. 

 

[Garland-sweden]

2 hours ago, RedRock said:

Strange isn’t it? While Spain have moved on and play aggressive, attacking purposeful football the rest of the World (particularly England, due to the Pep influence) still attempt to play the perfect possession stuff.

Was hoping we would move from Nige’s counter-attacking style to a new innovative approach under our young coaches …. but not to be. We, amongst many, are trying to be 80’s Barcelona. An out-dated, boring and - with players of very average ability - ultimately, a failed pursuit of success. Infact, with our inability to put the ball in the net, a recipe for disaster. 

 

Amen

[Cowshed]

3 hours ago, RedRock said:

Strange isn’t it? While Spain have moved on and play aggressive, attacking purposeful football the rest of the World (particularly England, due to the Pep influence) still attempt to play the perfect possession stuff.

Was hoping we would move from Nige’s counter-attacking style to a new innovative approach under our young coaches …. but not to be. We, amongst many, are trying to be 80’s Barcelona. An out-dated, boring and - with players of very average ability - ultimately, a failed pursuit of success. Infact, with our inability to put the ball in the net, a recipe for disaster. 

 

The Spain that play possession football building consistently from the keeper, the back four, into the six, through the thirds in a  1-4-3-3 shape. 

For most of the eighties Barcelona played a quite direct style of football, using 4-4-2 and players like Archibald, Hughes and Lineker up front. 

[Middlesbrough Robin]

More examples of how this tactic can go badly wrong today, both from us and Boro.

Fortunately we made the most of their errors and their terrible shooting didn't make the most of ours.

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 hours ago, Cowshed said:

The Spain that play possession football building consistently from the keeper, the back four, into the six, through the thirds in a  1-4-3-3 shape. 

For most of the eighties Barcelona played a quite direct style of football, using 4-4-2 and players like Archibald, Hughes and Lineker up front. 

They (Spain) prior to the Possession Play were known as "La furia Espanola". Could be quite ferocious and dare I say direct.

Aragones was the first to bring in a form of tiki taka arguably although Pep took it to a whole new level but I don't think they've always been lovely Pass Pass Pass by any stretch. There was a defender named Butcher of Bilbao..that says a lot.

[Davefevs]

Mods - can we change the title please?

“Other teams playing out from the back, is for me”

[REDOXO]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Mods - can we change the title please?

“Other teams playing out from the back, is for me”

Definitely worked today.  

[Garland-sweden]

Playing out from the back gave us two goals today. Boro tryied beeing Barca. Good that Max kicked the ball out.