Modern Day Tactics

[Louth]

I've been saying for years how sick I am of tippy-tappy football.

Multiple passes back and forth from GK to defenders are mind numbingly boring. A lot of the time resulting in mistakes. (Real Sociedad v Las Palmas on sunday was laughable)

Its great watching Man City, Barca and PSG, very teams can manage that standard. Most teams play for possession and play a form of 'Crab football'.

Any form of long ball is criticised by so called experts.

There's one type of football I hate is when we lose. When I hear 'Id rather see us lose, than play that style' is bullshit.

[MacAdder]

I've been saying for years how sick I am of tippy-tappy football.

Multiple passes back and forth from GK to defenders are mind numbingly boring. A lot of the time resulting in mistakes. (Real Sociedad v Las Palmas on sunday was laughable)

Its great watching Man City, Barca and PSG, very teams can manage that standard. Most teams play for possession and play a form of 'Crab football'.

Any form of long ball is criticised by so called experts.

There's one type of football I hate is when we lose. When I hear 'Id rather see us lose, than play that style' is bullshit.

I think I know where youre coming from Louth and with many people I would agree with your comments.
However, it won't wash where Keane & O'Neill are concerned. There is a line!

🇩🇰

[jamieccfc]

I think I know where youre coming from Louth and with many people I would agree with your comments.
However, it won't wash where Keane & O'Neill are concerned. There is a line!

����

you are right

[Wales-Bales]

They are not as minty as they used to be.

[MacAdder]

They are not as minty as they used to be.

Why flick a mint with one flavour when you can flick a mint with two?

[Louth]

I think I know where youre coming from Louth and with many people I would agree with your comments.
However, it won't wash where Keane & O'Neill are concerned. There is a line!

🇩🇰

That's true, but if we beat Denmark, my jeans would've been around my ankles

[thehumblegringo]

I can see where you're coming from to an extent and under Paul Trollope we saw the result of keeping the ball for possession stats with no idea or desire to break the lines.

However teams like Real Betis, Valencia this season and Bilbao, Sociedad, Villareal, Sevilla in recent seasons have shown that you don't need a huge amount of money to play possession football with a purpose.

Unfortunately in the UK the coaching and the technical ability of the players still seems to lag behind our friends on the continent.

Hopefully this is being addressed and I do think players uncomfortable on the ball like Ben Turner, Lee Peltier, Super Kev will be a thing of the past In a few years, I do hope that the hunger and enthusiasm of the above players doesn't become a thing of the past too.

[Rock_Flock_of_Five]

I can see where you're coming from to an extent and under Paul Trollope we saw the result of keeping the ball for possession stats with no idea or desire to break the lines.

However teams like Real Betis, Valencia this season and Bilbao, Sociedad, Villareal, Sevilla in recent seasons have shown that you don't need a huge amount of money to play possession football with a purpose.

Unfortunately in the UK the coaching and the technical ability of the players still seems to lag behind our friends on the continent.

Hopefully this is being addressed and I do think players uncomfortable on the ball like Ben Turner, Lee Peltier, Super Kev will be a thing of the past In a few years, I do hope that the hunger and enthusiasm of the above players doesn't become a thing of the past too.

Interesting. I also tend to agree with you on this, on both points you raise

[Rock_Flock_of_Five]

I've been saying for years how sick I am of tippy-tappy football.

Multiple passes back and forth from GK to defenders are mind numbingly boring. A lot of the time resulting in mistakes. (Real Sociedad v Las Palmas on sunday was laughable)

Its great watching Man City, Barca and PSG, very teams can manage that standard. Most teams play for possession and play a form of 'Crab football'.

Any form of long ball is criticised by so called experts.

There's one type of football I hate is when we lose. When I hear 'Id rather see us lose, than play that style' is bullshit.

The world's best teams play the ball out of defence and pass it around instinctively at the back but with a purpose. They try to pull the opposition out of shape a little and when they do they seize the opportunity by hitting an incisive pass.

I watched the Forest game on iFollow. The Forest defenders were clearly under orders to play it out that way (their 'keeper hardly kicked all game), however, what they were doing was bordering on the comical at times. They heaped pressure on themselves, it often resulted in passes going completely astray and directly into touch. They couldn't think for themselves or the read the game as it unfolded in front of them. They felt they HAD to pass it for the sake of it because ... well, "that's what our manager told us to do".
City took a free-kick, they had Bamba, Morrison and Patterson up in their box, the Forest 'keeper comfortably collects and with us exposed at the back you'd think he'd try to exploit that by kicking long or at least trying to throw it long -you could see he even thinks about it for a moment but, no ... he rolls the ball square to his area, where their player immediately gets put under pressure from City players who were up for the free-kick - that's just unintelligent football and Forest were guilty of it all afternoon. They couldn't think for themselves.

[Penarth Blues]

The world's best teams play the ball out of defence and pass it around instinctively at the back but with a purpose. They try to pull the opposition out of shape a little and when they do they seize the opportunity by hitting an incisive pass.

I watched the Forest game on iFollow. The Forest defenders were clearly under orders to play it out that way (their 'keeper hardly kicked all game), however, what they were doing was bordering on the comical at times. They heaped pressure on themselves, it often resulted in passes going completely astray and directly into touch. They couldn't think for themselves or the read the game as it unfolded in front of them. They felt they HAD to pass it for the sake of it because ... well, "that's what our manager told us to do".
City took a free-kick, they had Bamba, Morrison and Patterson up in their box, the Forest 'keeper comfortably collects and with us exposed at the back you'd think he'd try to exploit that by kicking long or at least trying to throw it long -you could see he even thinks about it for a moment but, no ... he rolls the ball square to his area, where their player immediately gets put under pressure from City players who were up for the free-kick - that's just unintelligent football and Forest were guilty of it all afternoon. They couldn't think for themselves.

That's a great bit of explanation. When Brentford came to us they played the same game but had enough about them to be able to play out of the press and then the spaces opened up for them.

Both the 'pressing game' and 'possession with purpose game' require discipline and no bit of skill and intelligence to do well. Forest didn't possess that skill or intelligence it appears.

In terms of which I prefer then I have to say I prefer our approach to the 'real football' approach, as it brings more excitement in the one-on-one attacking situations that often arise. I think both tactics have their place though.

Which is best? I'm not sure. Leicester showed that the direct approach can be real dividends even without the best players in the world. I think it is interesting that Man City are able to use both approaches really effectively and I guess that is what we all aspire to - flexibility and unpredictability in play and formation.

[the other bob wilson]

The world's best teams play the ball out of defence and pass it around instinctively at the back but with a purpose. They try to pull the opposition out of shape a little and when they do they seize the opportunity by hitting an incisive pass.

I watched the Forest game on iFollow. The Forest defenders were clearly under orders to play it out that way (their 'keeper hardly kicked all game), however, what they were doing was bordering on the comical at times. They heaped pressure on themselves, it often resulted in passes going completely astray and directly into touch. They couldn't think for themselves or the read the game as it unfolded in front of them. They felt they HAD to pass it for the sake of it because ... well, "that's what our manager told us to do".
City took a free-kick, they had Bamba, Morrison and Patterson up in their box, the Forest 'keeper comfortably collects and with us exposed at the back you'd think he'd try to exploit that by kicking long or at least trying to throw it long -you could see he even thinks about it for a moment but, no ... he rolls the ball square to his area, where their player immediately gets put under pressure from City players who were up for the free-kick - that's just unintelligent football and Forest were guilty of it all afternoon. They couldn't think for themselves.

For me, they are the important words - if the overriding motivation is to keep possession at all costs, then I'd guarantee that you wouldn't be causing your opponents many defensive problems if you succeeded in your aim. Somewhere along the line if you're a "passing side", someone is going to have to attempt what I'd call a high tariff pass which carries the opportunity of opening up a defence, but, as a consequence of that, carries the risk of handing possession to your opponents. Logically, the best thing to do for a passing side is to ensure that the ball arrives in the possession of the player(s) best equipped to complete a successful high tariff pass and I suppose it would be best if this happens as quickly as possible.

For me, that's where so many sides who place an emphasis on retaining possession go wrong, they do not pass the ball to a purpose and so end up playing an interminable number of passes between their back four and the midfield player who is supposed to be the link between them and the rest of the team - I think City could defend against them all day long and be quite happy to do so if they were in front.

Regarding other teams, I've seen the Forest game on IFollow now and would say that it rivals Villa and, possibly, Ipswich as our easiest game of the season so far - at Brentford, Warburton created a side that could play in the manner he wanted them to, but, on that evidence, he's some way off doing it yet at Forest. Speaking of Brentford, I'd say that they rival Sheffield United as the best passing side I've seen us play this season, but they weren't scared to knock the ball long at times and it struck me that Sheffield were more direct on Saturday than when I'd seen them before this season. The other Sheffield side came down here and dominated possession for long spells, but, rather like Fulham when we played there, they didn't pass with a purpose.

Finally, I'd agree with 90 per cent of what Gringo says, but I think Ben Turner's accurate long, diagonal left to right passes could have been very effective in the current City side with their emphasis on playing two wingers - I also hear an awful lot of talk among coaches and pundits these days about "diags" being an effective pass in the modern game.