Playing out from the back

[RonnieBird]

What is the logical point in risking losing possession in front of your own goal if you don't have to ?
It's as simple as that really

[Wales-Bales]

What is the logical point in risking losing possession in front of your own goal if you don't have to ?
It's as simple as that really

The teams in the other European leagues are further down the road with regards to possession based football, and people like Gary Neville are actually a bit late to the game. You need the right coaches and playing staff to make it work, and they need to be well drilled. It's actually easier than it looks to keep possession when all of the opposition players are in front of you, and a well drilled side will have no problems keeping hold of the ball until a transition in play occurs. If a mistake is made, it doesn't mean the other team will definitely score, and a lot of situations are recoverable. However, it's not easy to adopt to this way of playing, so it's not a tactic that you could spring on a team at short notice, and sometimes it is impossible due to the shortcomings of the player who are available.

[Tuerto]

What is the logical point in risking losing possession in front of your own goal if you don't have to ?
It's as simple as that really

There is no logical reason to pumping the ball up to players with their back to goal and effectively making the chances of possession 50-50 all of the time. Nobody can control the ball on their head, all we are relying on is anticipating second balls. That's just shit.

[Wales-Bales]

There is no logical reason to pumping the ball up to players with their back to goal and effectively making the chances of possession 50-50 all of the time. Nobody can control the ball on their head, all we are relying on is anticipating second balls. That's just shit.

It's the only option if Sam Vokes is playing up front!

[RonnieBird]

There is no logical reason to pumping the ball up to players with their back to goal and effectively making the chances of possession 50-50 all of the time. Nobody can control the ball on their head, all we are relying on is anticipating second balls. That's just shit.

Well first of all it needn't be 50/50 if you've got a good target man and wingers , but here's the logic - if you lose a long ball that's unfortunate but not immediately dangerous. On the other hand, if you lose it whilst buggering about with the ball in your own half or in front of your own goal , you've got no time to react and it can be in your net a few seconds later.
It's a matter of reducing risks where that's possible and if you're trying to win matches you've got to do that. It depends where your priority is though, and if you think it's worth taking risks you could avoid for the sake of artistic content then so be it.
Someone there said I "haven't got a clue", but that's not so. It's certainly not so for various coaches such as our manager , Sam Allerdyce or Ron Atkinson in recent times or many many others who got the best out of limited players by loading the dice in this and other ways.

[Divine Wright]

Well first of all it needn't be 50/50 if you've got a good target man and wingers , but here's the logic - if you lose a long ball that's unfortunate but not immediately dangerous. On the other hand, if you lose it whilst buggering about with the ball in your own half or in front of your own goal , you've got no time to react and it can be in your net a few seconds later.
It's a matter of reducing risks where that's possible and if you're trying to win matches you've got to do that. It depends where your priority is though, and if you think it's worth taking risks you could avoid for the sake of artistic content then so be it.
Someone there said I "haven't got a clue", but that's not so. It's certainly not so for various coaches such as our manager , Sam Allerdyce or Ron Atkinson in recent times or many many others who got the best out of limited players by loading the dice in this and other ways.

Recent times ? Atkinson?

Atkinson is also shit and a racist.

Jesus wept.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Well first of all it needn't be 50/50 if you've got a good target man and wingers , but here's the logic - if you lose a long ball that's unfortunate but not immediately dangerous. On the other hand, if you lose it whilst buggering about with the ball in your own half or in front of your own goal , you've got no time to react and it can be in your net a few seconds later.
It's a matter of reducing risks where that's possible and if you're trying to win matches you've got to do that. It depends where your priority is though, and if you think it's worth taking risks you could avoid for the sake of artistic content then so be it.
Someone there said I "haven't got a clue", but that's not so. It's certainly not so for various coaches such as our manager , Sam Allerdyce or Ron Atkinson in recent times or many many others who got the best out of limited players by loading the dice in this and other ways.

I remember watching Atkinson's Villa a number of times in the 90s and to even consider the football that side played as similar as Warnockball shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, your comment, which I have highlighted, shows that your lack of understanding of the game has attained new heights. If you really think that passing the ball about the back is merely for show, I'd consider following something simpler, like the card game, Snap.

[RonnieBird]

I remember watching Atkinson's Villa a number of times in the 90s and to even consider the football that side played as similar as Warnockball shows you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, your comment, which I have highlighted, shows that your lack of understanding of the game has attained new heights. If you really think that passing the ball about the back is merely for show, I'd consider following something simpler, like the card game, Snap.

I may be many things Eric, but simple isn't one of them. Your comment is interesting , since football is - on the face of it -one of the simplest games on earth. That's why some of the people here think they understand it. Compared to lots of other stuff it actually is fairly simple of course , but like anything else it's capable of improvement by intelligent thought.
I have admiration for those who can apply such intelligent thought to improve the performance of a football team, and it's possible to understand to some extent how they're achieving that . Observing the performance of a more expensive and to be fair more skilful team them concluding that we should do that isn't a very intelligent view.

You mention one of the many teams Ron Atkinson has managed as if he's always done it that way, but of course he's done it many ways and always played to the strengths of the players he has available, whilst avoiding the stuff they can't do. I might mention the extreme route one football he used at Peterborough.

Tell you what's definitely NOT intelligent.... Calling people names and acting like a spoilt child whilst discussing alternative tactics. In the real world of big boys activities where we have to make important decisions, people who act like that don't get to take part. It's not going to help anything and it's childishly rude.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I may be many things Eric, but simple isn't one of them. Your comment is interesting , since football is - on the face of it -one of the simplest games on earth. That's why some of the people here think they understand it. Compared to lots of other stuff it actually is fairly simple of course , but like anything else it's capable of improvement by intelligent thought.
I have admiration for those who can apply such intelligent thought to improve the performance of a football team, and it's possible to understand to some extent how they're achieving that . Observing the performance of a more expensive and to be fair more skilful team them concluding that we should do that isn't a very intelligent view.

You mention one of the many teams Ron Atkinson has managed as if he's always done it that way, but of course he's done it many ways and always played to the strengths of the players he has available, whilst avoiding the stuff they can't do. I might mention the extreme route one football he used at Peterborough.

Tell you what's definitely NOT intelligent.... Calling people names and acting like a spoilt child whilst discussing alternative tactics. In the real world of big boys activities where we have to make important decisions, people who act like that don't get to take part. It's not going to help anything and it's childishly rude.

Hilarious, trying to gain some sort of moral highground. Spoilt child? Pot, kettle etc. You're the tosser that rubs people up the wrong way then cries when you get it back. Only one of us gets it reguarly in the neck from other posters on here, which says something.

Try growing up and being the supposedly intellectual and intelligent mature adult you claim to be. You're not impressing anyone. Quite the opposite.

[RonnieBird]

Hilarious, trying to gain some sort of moral highground. Spoilt child? Pot, kettle etc. You're the tosser that rubs people up the wrong way then cries when you get it back. Only one of us gets it reguarly in the neck from other posters on here, which says something.

Try growing up and being the supposedly intellectual and intelligent mature adult you claim to be. You're not impressing anyone. Quite the opposite.

I don't want to impress anyone here , I can assure you. Your comment is rubbish though, because I don't call people names, especially in response to a post they've made.
It's heartbreaking to see some of the stuff written here, but not for me, for the sake of those who will self inflict failure upon themselves with their lack of manners and insistence upon opinions which don't stand examination.