The Importance or otherwise of possession

[Silvio Dante]

Couple of interesting points here about the perceived importance of possession.  From a City perspective, it was/is one of my initial concerns about LM, and looked to be the way we were going in the early games. I think the Blackburn second half may have been a rubicon moment there and we are now ceding more possession/not keeping possession for possession sake, and are more playing to the strengths of the personnel we have with tweaks from NP - evolution not revolution.

Both the tweet and the wider Observer article worth reading. Particularly the last line “Data has taken us through the looking glass where nothing is quite what it seems”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/dec/23/in-footballs-third-age-old-certainties-have-melted-away-and-nothing-is-as-it-seems

 

[Lack of Action Man]

It’s a great tweet, I agree.

Like many things, football is cyclical and goes through periods of tactical vogues and tactical rogues!

For the moment, possession based tactics are rife. It seems, at least in the Championship, that things are getting close to the point where too many teams are cancelling each other out with this approach.

Not saying long ball is going to come back into fashion, but something will change in the next 5 years and that will become the new normal. And so, the cycle goes on…

[spudski]

The game evolves tactically...and so have the rules evolved. 

I often wonder to myself when watching the Prem with Var, with the slightest touch in the box, and the ball just touching an arm leading to a penalty whether a Coach will go down a more direct route, fill the opposition's box with big lads, and bombard the box with the ball. 

The rules now would definitely be in your favour to implement this type of system imo.

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Couple of interesting points here about the perceived importance of possession.  From a City perspective, it was/is one of my initial concerns about LM, and looked to be the way we were going in the early games. I think the Blackburn second half may have been a rubicon moment there and we are now ceding more possession/not keeping possession for possession sake, and are more playing to the strengths of the personnel we have with tweaks from NP - evolution not revolution.

Both the tweet and the wider Observer article worth reading. Particularly the last line “Data has taken us through the looking glass where nothing is quite what it seems”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/dec/23/in-footballs-third-age-old-certainties-have-melted-away-and-nothing-is-as-it-seems

 

Terry Coopers Bristol City used that kick off with a slight difference, the ball was deliberately put out of play by the corner flag for a throw in, and City would press the throw in. This was to create a impression on the opposition of being under pressure from kick off and set a tempo to the game.    

[italian dave]

Interesting that Antoine gets a mention in relation to that Bournemouth kick off routine. He was always so so good at closing down keepers when he was here - I seem to recall that he got a couple of his early goals that way. 

[Lack of Action Man]

11 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Interesting that Antoine gets a mention in relation to that Bournemouth kick off routine. He was always so so good at closing down keepers when he was here - I seem to recall that he got a couple of his early goals that way. 

Keepers aren’t pressed enough with the ball at their feet anymore. With the advent of keepers like Ederson, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that all keepers are brilliant with their feet and that closing them down is pointless. That really isn’t true, especially in the Championship - there’s definitely a few dodgy ones. For example - Hull had two!

Edited December 24, 2023 by OddBallJim

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Silvio Dante said:

Couple of interesting points here about the perceived importance of possession.  From a City perspective, it was/is one of my initial concerns about LM, and looked to be the way we were going in the early games. I think the Blackburn second half may have been a rubicon moment there and we are now ceding more possession/not keeping possession for possession sake, and are more playing to the strengths of the personnel we have with tweaks from NP - evolution not revolution.

Both the tweet and the wider Observer article worth reading. Particularly the last line “Data has taken us through the looking glass where nothing is quite what it seems”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/dec/23/in-footballs-third-age-old-certainties-have-melted-away-and-nothing-is-as-it-seems

 

 

It's a great Tweet and it acknowledges that what gets the crowd vocal and out of their seats is attacking football - although of course, we appreciate great defending, superb saves and a pinpoint pass, nothing creates a roar in the stadium like a frontrunner making yards, beating defenders and either finishing with a decent shot or making a lovely cross to a team-mate in an even better position.  

It's clear that breakaway attacks will always yield more goals than the slow, steady build-ups, because the former catch defenders out-of-position and up-field. We saw how the introduction of the more direct Nakhi Wells allowed us to leave a ponderous and sterile passing game on Friday for something much more threatening to Hull. 

At Championship level particularly, most players are more capable of old-style centre forward heroics than they are of building up tiki-taka scoring opportinities. 

[Cowshed]

13 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

It's clear that breakaway attacks will always yield more goals than the slow, steady build-ups, because the former catch defenders out-of-position and up-field.

It really is not Robbo. Transition does not yield more goals than possession football. A team that can keep the ball for more than eight passes and play positionally is as likely to score as a team transitioning in a counter attack. 

Barcelona at their peak did both. Slow methodical build up meant that the team could keep numerous players around the ball to counter press when they lost possession and they would have numerical superiority and opposition out of shape.

Edited December 24, 2023 by Cowshed

[Red-Robbo]

1 minute ago, Cowshed said:

It really is not Robbo. Transition does not yield more goals than possession football. A team that can keep the ball for more than eight passes and play positionally is as likely to score as a team transitions in a counter attack. There are industries oy there studying this.

Barcelona did both. Slow methodical build up meant that the team could keep numerous players around the ball to counter press when they lost possession and attack. 

Depends on the team, CS. You'll have seen multiple occasions of 8-12 City passes - mostly sideways or backwards - during the period of play between Hull's penalty and the substitutions on Friday, yet that final creativity wasn't there and we inevitably eventually stuffed one up and lost the ball, often in our own half. 

I'm all for keeping possession, but if you have no attacking intent and you are just stroking the ball around for the sake of it, that'll bite you on the arse.

[Sir Geoff]

Possession is overrated. Just ask Everton. They had 28% and beat Chelsea 2-0 a few weeks ago.

[sh1t_ref_again]

I watched the Leeds Ipswich game and whilst Ipswich play some good possession football and both are top of the league so both styles work, if one of these get promoted which style is likely to succeed up against much better teams, and thats probable Leeds, try and defend and be quick on the break.

Although watching us in the past, I was starting to get a bit frustrated when we were trying to play on the break, as it just felt you were being dominated by teams all the time, with odd moments of excitement

[Silvio Dante]

4 minutes ago, Sir Geoff said:

Possession is overrated. Just ask Everton. They had 28% and beat Chelsea 2-0 a few weeks ago.

Which I think again plays to the point that you have to play to strengths. I’ve made the point quite a few times recently is that if everyone is playing the same way, then you have to have either the best players or do it better than anyone else. Neither of those are true of our squad, so you look at what we are good at and flex to that. Dyche is doing the same at Everton.

I’m absolutely minded that the reason Liam has had a stuttering start here is that he tried to enforce “the book” on a team that wasn’t suitable for it, and when other teams adapt against it, we then struggled - as we couldn’t play “the book” well. It’s to LMs credit that he’s pulled away from a way he clearly wanted to play once he realised he didn’t have the squad for it. What’ll be interesting is to see how it evolves moving forward.

[Cowshed]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

Depends on the team, CS. You'll have seen multiple occasions of 8-12 City passes - mostly sideways or backwards - during the period of play between Hull's penalty and the substitutions on Friday, yet that final creativity wasn't there and we inevitably eventually stuffed one up and lost the ball, often in our own half. 

I'm all for keeping possession, but if you have no attacking intent and you are just stroking the ball around for the sake of it, that'll bite you on the arse.

I coach so I don't see City as much as most here. The little I see so far is a team attempting to play positionally. Teams will stuff one up, its part of the process, it has to be expected, and this would also be considered about what occurs when error happens when going direct quickly, people frequently don't look at those errors in the same manner. 

Depends on the team - There are lots of variables. A Charles Hughes once put forward arguments v possession football. Yes a high number of goals are scored from less than 3 passes and counters. Using his methodology that was called the Winning formula Wimbledon were right Brazil and the Netherlands and Spain and Germany would be wrong.

Your use of intent there. All passes have sake, some sake/point than others. Liverpool 79 - 85 dominated football with sideways, lots of backwards to kill games, quieten crowds and that was the intent in much of keeping the ball, resting in and defending in possession, turned out all right! Whats in the opening post, isn't warped, or frequently new at all 

 

[italian dave]

27 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

It really is not Robbo. Transition does not yield more goals than possession football. A team that can keep the ball for more than eight passes and play positionally is as likely to score as a team transitioning in a counter attack. 

Barcelona at their peak did both. Slow methodical build up meant that the team could keep numerous players around the ball to counter press when they lost possession and they would have numerical superiority and opposition out of shape.

I agree. And for me the difference Nakhi Wells made yesterday wasn’t that he gave us an outlet to play long balls over the top too (he’s not that player) but that it gave us a player with much smarter positional sense who was able to provide our passers with more options and was able to pull defenders out of position to open up options for others (including to shoot).

Personally, I enjoy watching a possession game - much more so than the momentary thrill of a long ball for a striker to chase hopelessly after, followed by the realisation that it’s just come back again! I didn’t find our play yesterday ponderous or sterile as RR did. But I guess that’s maybe just me.

And I suppose styles are also down to personalities and players and their strengths and weaknesses. You have to say that Barcelona were able to do what they did partly off the back of having a a certain Lionel Messi in the side - a significant step up even from Nakhi Wells

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, italian dave said:

 

Personally, I enjoy watching a possession game - much more so than the momentary thrill of a long ball for a striker to chase hopelessly after, followed by the realisation that it’s just come back again! I didn’t find our play yesterday ponderous or sterile as RR did. But I guess that’s maybe just me.

 

For about 20 minutes in the second half, City were about as likely to score as I would be if I tried to chat up Laura Woods. 

My point to @Cowshed is not that football should never have progressed beyond "hit and hope" long balls - they are more boring than pass-pass-pass-pass-pass-pass-lose possession football - but that it's horses for courses.  If you have Xavi, Iniesata, Fabregas etc then a slow build-up, probing and testing the opposition until you find the devastating moment is well and good. If you have Joe Williams, Matty James and Weimann, perhaps more direct is best. Championship-standard defenders often panic when facing someone making a long direct run. PL class, they'll be more confident at robbing the attacker without conceeding a foul. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

I think Naismith as part of a CM 3 absolutely would give us that extra dimension, would he be a bit more expansive than James. That said James does an awful lot of good but James is one of our best passers.

In a parallel universe, do wonder about a fully fit CM 3 of Naismith, Scott and Knight. Quite a good mix of possession and press there?

[Davefevs]

4 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Couple of interesting points here about the perceived importance of possession.  From a City perspective, it was/is one of my initial concerns about LM, and looked to be the way we were going in the early games. I think the Blackburn second half may have been a rubicon moment there and we are now ceding more possession/not keeping possession for possession sake, and are more playing to the strengths of the personnel we have with tweaks from NP - evolution not revolution.

Both the tweet and the wider Observer article worth reading. Particularly the last line “Data has taken us through the looking glass where nothing is quite what it seems”

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2023/dec/23/in-footballs-third-age-old-certainties-have-melted-away-and-nothing-is-as-it-seems

 

It’s really interesting that the tweet refers to 600 passes and 65% possession.  A week or so back I made the point that we’ve gone from 800 pass games to 1100 pass games.  So although City’s number of passes per game has risen considerably, so has our opponents.  Possession percentage is staying pretty constant.  Both teams are having more of the ball.  My simple take is slightly less intensity when we have the ball - some possession for possession’s sake, some possession to move our opponents round…and less intensity in the press / trying to get it back.

Had we started getting 550 passes in an 800 pass game, then we’d probably say we were dominating / controlling.  But we aren’t.

Having said all that, I thought Friday was “us” playing with purpose when we had it.  I really enjoyed it.

Has the worm turned (Two Ronnies)?

No idea.

Hull played a very open game, Twine, Tufan, Delap didn’t really track back.

So, I’m still try to track trends versus one-offs, or games influenced by strengths and weaknesses of our opponents.

Another 4 games til I form my first real opinion.  Hurry up!!!

 

[Numero Uno]

3 hours ago, OddBallJim said:

Keepers aren’t pressed enough with the ball at their feet anymore. With the advent of keepers like Ederson, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that all keepers are brilliant with their feet and that closing them down is pointless. That really isn’t true, especially in the Championship - there’s definitely a few dodgy ones. For example - Hull had two!

You have to be a bit careful though. Rush in at the wrong time and a keeper has a simple 10 yard pass to a player who can travel 40 yards. The bloke near me thinks you should just charge keepers and sod the consequences,

[Numero Uno]

3 hours ago, Silvio Dante said:

Which I think again plays to the point that you have to play to strengths. I’ve made the point quite a few times recently is that if everyone is playing the same way, then you have to have either the best players or do it better than anyone else. Neither of those are true of our squad, so you look at what we are good at and flex to that. Dyche is doing the same at Everton.

I’m absolutely minded that the reason Liam has had a stuttering start here is that he tried to enforce “the book” on a team that wasn’t suitable for it, and when other teams adapt against it, we then struggled - as we couldn’t play “the book” well. It’s to LMs credit that he’s pulled away from a way he clearly wanted to play once he realised he didn’t have the squad for it. What’ll be interesting is to see how it evolves moving forward.

You can see patches of what Manning wants to do and for it to evolve as you put it we need more quality on the ball at the back (Dickie is our only real consistent quality distributor atm) and that elusive midfield player who can get between the lines and do real damage. There are “times” when we are breaking lines and getting players on the ball in space but nowhere near enough for what Manning is looking to produce.

Manning needs backing then it evolves properly, that simple imo.

[italian dave]

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

For about 20 minutes in the second half, City were about as likely to score as I would be if I tried to chat up Laura Woods. 

My point to @Cowshed is not that football should never have progressed beyond "hit and hope" long balls - they are more boring than pass-pass-pass-pass-pass-pass-lose possession football - but that it's horses for courses.  If you have Xavi, Iniesata, Fabregas etc then a slow build-up, probing and testing the opposition until you find the devastating moment is well and good. If you have Joe Williams, Matty James and Weimann, perhaps more direct is best. Championship-standard defenders often panic when facing someone making a long direct run. PL class, they'll be more confident at robbing the attacker without conceeding a foul. 

I take your point…..up to a point!

of course you can’t compare our three with the Barcelona three, but Joe Williams and Matty James both have it in them to play that style. Weimann is a bit of a law unto himself whatever style you play!

And whilst those players may have the ability to play that more direct ball forward, I just don’t think we have the players who’ll cause panic to any half decent Championship defender when they make a long direct run. Sykes occasionally, maybe.

But yes agree it’s horses for courses - I just think we have it in us, that it’s potentially as well suited to many of our current players, and that there are signs of that. 

[Red-Robbo]

2 minutes ago, italian dave said:

 

And whilst those players may have the ability to play that more direct ball forward, I just don’t think we have the players who’ll cause panic to any half decent Championship defender when they make a long direct run. Sykes occasionally, maybe.

 

 

It's exactly what Mehmeti did to Hull defenders - when given the freedom to do so.  Wells's better positional sense than TC, meant Anis had an out ball more frequently, when he didn't want to have a crack himself. 

[italian dave]

4 hours ago, OddBallJim said:

Keepers aren’t pressed enough with the ball at their feet anymore. With the advent of keepers like Ederson, there seems to be an unspoken assumption that all keepers are brilliant with their feet and that closing them down is pointless. That really isn’t true, especially in the Championship - there’s definitely a few dodgy ones. For example - Hull had two!

Antoine has that really deceptive burst of speed that makes him dangerous in that situation.

But, yes, agree. And it always strikes me as odd that some teams insist on playing that way even when it’s obvious that it’s been identified as a weakness and their opponents are exploiting it.

I watched a Fiorentina game last season (v Roma I think) and they insisted on playing it out that way, even though Roma had two rows pushing up really high to press them into mistakes, even when they conceded a goal as a direct result they still carried on doing it! Just give up and get it down the pitch! 

[italian dave]

7 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

It's exactly what Mehmeti did to Hull defenders - when given the freedom to do so.  Wells's better positional sense than TC, meant Anis had an out ball more frequently, when he didn't want to have a crack himself. 

Absolutely, but because the ball is played to his feet, and he’s then got options of those out balls to feet too. (I think Bell can benefit from that too).

Maybe we’re saying the same thing. The ‘long direct’ style I am unconvinced by are those long balls out to an unsupported Anis who hugs the touchline and is expected to make a run forward and then put a long hopeful cross in. Or the long ball over the top for Tommy to chase - and in all honesty he doesn’t worry even a lone championship defender in that situation.

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Absolutely, but because the ball is played to his feet, and he’s then got options of those out balls to feet too. (I think Bell can benefit from that too).

Maybe we’re saying the same thing. The ‘long direct’ style I am unconvinced by are those long balls out to an unsupported Anis who hugs the touchline and is expected to make a run forward and then put a long hopeful cross in. Or the long ball over the top for Tommy to chase - and in all honesty he doesn’t worry even a lone championship defender in that situation.

Quite. A run from the start of their final third or longer is what unsettles defenders. Requires close control as well as speed and we've only got two or three players who have that dribbling magic. 

You can overstate this "you don't need possession" football thing, obviously all goals (apart from the odd OG) come from you having possession and as CS says you need well-drilled passing to set up the forward runners. In the case of Mehmeti's goal, a nicely weighted attack-minded pass from Cam Pring set him up. 

[Lack of Action Man]

6 hours ago, italian dave said:

Antoine has that really deceptive burst of speed that makes him dangerous in that situation.

But, yes, agree. And it always strikes me as odd that some teams insist on playing that way even when it’s obvious that it’s been identified as a weakness and their opponents are exploiting it.

I watched a Fiorentina game last season (v Roma I think) and they insisted on playing it out that way, even though Roma had two rows pushing up really high to press them into mistakes, even when they conceded a goal as a direct result they still carried on doing it! Just give up and get it down the pitch! 

Absolutely agree - trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results is madness!

[Lack of Action Man]

7 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

You have to be a bit careful though. Rush in at the wrong time and a keeper has a simple 10 yard pass to a player who can travel 40 yards. The bloke near me thinks you should just charge keepers and sod the consequences,

Modern coaching speak would refer to “triggers” for a press. In the example you’ve described here, the attacker pressing the keeper needs a partner to press the short pass outlet. Force the keeper to play it first time in the championship and mistakes will happen (or at the very least, it’ll become a long kick 50:50 ball).