playing out from the back,not for me

[2015]

8 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

Yes everyone tries to be Man City or prime Barcelona.

Seen it even at non league level !

I know. I'm not a fan of it either, but if you do have a smaller striker up front it would make more sense to try and play from the back.

I often think the best managers just play to the strengths of the side. This is what Alex Ferguson did, and Neil Warnock to an extent (despite the hate he gets on here).  

At lower league level pace and physicality for me still reign supreme (Wrexham have hardly been prime Barcelona under Parkinson)

[Nogbad the Bad]

All this tactical and formations talk from the knowledgeable posters above is all very interesting, but afaic only explaining things which in practice are all too often boring to watch.

The end result of these tactics being widely implemented is, imo., a less exciting spectacle for the paying fan.

I really don't care how clever the coach is, I haven't gone to the match to sit there to study and evaluate his tactics in the minutiae.

Playing out from the back and basically passing the ball around with little attacking intent holds little interest for me. I want action on the pitch, preferably much of it in and around the penalty area, and if a game doesn't produce enough of it, then you eventually have to question whether it's a form of entertainment now so far removed from that which first attracted you to the game that you can't help but wonder if it's still worth bothering with.

I've no interest whatsoever in which team made the most passes.

Managers and coaches should never forget that professional football exists to entertain and arouse the passion of the masses - we don't turn up to admire them, and most of us want more from our post match discussions than to earnestly analyse  their often tedious tactics.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 hours ago, Cowshed said:

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

 

 

How could I forget De Zerbi  did well at Brighton. His Sassulo side iirc were good in possession but not necessarily game-killing stifling in intent of Possession. Quite attacking too.

[spudski]

On 10/09/2024 at 11:21, Cowshed said:

 

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. 

 

 

On 10/09/2024 at 12:56, 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.  

 

Can't help myself...point proven yesterday for the first goal. 

We can't do the basics, let alone play this way. 

We aren't Man City.

We have technically slow players, both mentally and physically. 

How easy was that for Blackburn. 

First third disaster. 

I'll just leave it at that. 

[Lack of Action Man]

On 11/09/2024 at 11:36, Nogbad the Bad said:

All this tactical and formations talk from the knowledgeable posters above is all very interesting, but afaic only explaining things which in practice are all too often boring to watch.

The end result of these tactics being widely implemented is, imo., a less exciting spectacle for the paying fan.

I really don't care how clever the coach is, I haven't gone to the match to sit there to study and evaluate his tactics in the minutiae.

Playing out from the back and basically passing the ball around with little attacking intent holds little interest for me. I want action on the pitch, preferably much of it in and around the penalty area, and if a game doesn't produce enough of it, then you eventually have to question whether it's a form of entertainment now so far removed from that which first attracted you to the game that you can't help but wonder if it's still worth bothering with.

I've no interest whatsoever in which team made the most passes.

Managers and coaches should never forget that professional football exists to entertain and arouse the passion of the masses - we don't turn up to admire them, and most of us want more from our post match discussions than to earnestly analyse  their often tedious tactics.

Section in bold - exactly why I cancelled my ST. I’ll pick and choose the games where we might show some attacking intent. But a whole season of Manning-ball? No thanks.

[Davefevs]

25 minutes ago, spudski said:

 

Can't help myself...point proven yesterday for the first goal. 

We can't do the basics, let alone play this way. 

We aren't Man City.

We have technically slow players, both mentally and physically. 

How easy was that for Blackburn. 

First third disaster. 

I'll just leave it at that. 

In what world is a pass attempt to Joe Williams the right option?

Having gone from the right wing in their half, back to Tanner, back to Vyner, and about to go sideways to O’Leary, what does our shape look like?

Where is our Left Back?  Again, not a criticism of Pring, it’s how he’s being instructed to play.

Yep, O’Leary makes the mistake, but (as I said to someone last night) we are now (this season) putting ourselves into positions where we are exposing players to situations where they will make mistakes.

We just need to cut out the individual errors, don’t we?  Or do we need to cut out the situations that expose our less than perfect players to making mistakes?

Risk v Reward?  Home win!

[MarcusX]

13 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

In what world is a pass attempt to Joe Williams the right option?

Having gone from the right wing in their half, back to Tanner, back to Vyner, and about to go sideways to O’Leary, what does our shape look like?

Where is our Left Back?  Again, not a criticism of Pring, it’s how he’s being instructed to play.

Yep, O’Leary makes the mistake, but (as I said to someone last night) we are now (this season) putting ourselves into positions where we are exposing players to situations where they will make mistakes.

We just need to cut out the individual errors, don’t we?  Or do we need to cut out the situations that expose our less than perfect players to making mistakes?

Risk v Reward?  Home win!

It’s clearly the pattern that’s been trained because we played that ball into Williams from Max several times yesterday. Blackburn saw it coming hence the pickpocket for the goal.

Williams has to take some blame too because if you look at the video he starts to drop into the space (which is exactly what your CDM should be doing there) then stops.

We played out through the press successfully against Millwall, Derby and Coventry (in spells) but to me it seemed Blackburn expected it and set traps for their press. They did their homework on us and we had no answer.

[Davefevs]

2 hours ago, MarcusX said:

They did their homework on us and we had no answer.

And the blueprint is there for all our opponents.

[redsquirrel]

watch who max plays it to and watch that space.

[Cowshed]

5 hours ago, spudski said:

 

 

We aren't Man City.

 

Don't say.

5 hours ago, spudski said:

 

We aren't Man City.

 

Man City dont play that shape.

Wheres the pivot? 

 

5 hours ago, spudski said:

We have technically slow players, both mentally and physically. 

 

Which normally means the build up patterns will take into consideration the keystone skills of the players.

Consideration: Max O'leary distribution is basic and he is not adept at resetting possession and hitting wide receivers. 

Edited September 15 by Cowshed

[spudski]

3 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Don't say.

Man City dont play that shape.

Wheres the pivot? 

 

Which normally means the build up patterns will take into consideration the keystone skills of the players.

Consideration: Max O'leary distribution is basic and he is not adept at resetting possession and hitting wide receivers. 

I don't want to argue with you, but at least own up to your posts that said Manning's side playing out from the back don't make mistakes.

Yesterday proved the point I made to you. 

But you don't want to accept that. 

[Cowshed]

40 minutes ago, spudski said:

I don't want to argue with you, but at least own up to your posts that said Manning's side playing out from the back don't make mistakes.

Yesterday proved the point I made to you. 

But you don't want to accept that. 

Nowhere in this thread have I stated that Bristol City do not mistakes. I stated Bristol City do not make numerous mistakes. It is in the thread and you can check  this.

Yesterday what O'leary did was remarkable, and exceptional. Remarkable because he does not make numerous errors like he did yesterday. It was exceptional because there was no pass on, no option and this again is not a theme of O'leary's play. 

 

[spudski]

17 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Nowhere in this thread have I stated that Bristol City do not mistakes. I stated Bristol City do not make numerous mistakes. It is in the thread and you can check  this.

Yesterday what O'leary did was remarkable, and exceptional. Remarkable because he does not make numerous errors like he did yesterday. It was exceptional because there was no pass on, no option and this again is not a theme of O'leary's play. 

 

Mate...when you watch us play out from the back, do you not see with your own eyes, how uneasy the players look when playing it?

It looks forced, players actually having to think about it, rather than it being natural and ingrained. 

You can see how uneasy they are playing it. 

By all means, build up from your defense, but inviting players into a press, in your own third, when it's obvious they aren't comfortable, technically quick enough is laughable.

We are doing it, because it's fashionable. 

Every coach wants to be Pep. 

If you don't play this way, you are considered ' old fashioned '.

Coaches are stroking their egos. 

When I quote Man City...it's not the method, but the fact they have the best technically gifted players, to play pretty much any way. 

We don't. 

It's obvious for all to see, that Manning's way isn't working, and the players aren't comfortable doing it, even if his coaching is understood by them. 

They aren't technically gifted enough at Championship level to be successful under his ideas. 

Edited September 15 by spudski

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, spudski said:

Mate...when you watch us play out from the back, do you not see with your own eyes, how uneasy the players look when playing it?

It looks forced, players actually having to think about it, rather than it being natural and ingrained. 

You can see how uneasy they are playing it. 

By all means, build up from your defense, but inviting players into a press, in your own third, when it's obvious they aren't comfortable, technically quick enough is laughable.

We are doing it, because it's fashionable. 

Every coach wants to be Pep. 

If you don't play this way, you are considered ' old fashioned '.

Coaches are stroking their egos. 

When I quote Man City...it's not the method, but the fact they have the best technically gifted players, to play pretty much any way. 

We don't. 

It's obvious for all to see, that Manning's way isn't working, and the players aren't comfortable doing it, even if his coaching is understood by them. 

They aren't technically gifted enough at Championship level to be successful under his ideas. 

I would query with, Brentford under Smith and Frank were high Possession, high shot. Frank they were notably a dominant side.

Going back a bit, Martinez, Sousa to an extent, Rodgers Swansea but not quite the same.

Leeds under Bielsa by Year 2 we spending big but Year 1, I'm less sure..would have to check the divisional wage bills but they were the dominant side more often than not in the division.

[spudski]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I would query with, Brentford under Smith and Frank were high Possession, high shot. Frank they were notably a dominant side.

Going back a bit, Martinez, Sousa to an extent, Rodgers Swansea but not quite the same.

Leeds under Bielsa by Year 2 we spending big but Year 1, I'm less sure..would have to check the divisional wage bills but they were the dominant side more often than not in the division.

I'd love to have Bielsa manage us, and bring in his own coaching, analytics team. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, spudski said:

I'd love to have Bielsa manage us, and bring in his own coaching, analytics team. 

Oh agreed. He was a real coup for Leeds and I wonder if them sacking him was the best call even though they were running aground...big Bielsa fan.

We'd have to remove or downgrade Tinnion however.

[Cowshed]

9 minutes ago, spudski said:

Mate...when you watch us play out from the back, do you not see with your own eyes, how uneasy the players look when playing it?

It looks forced, players actually having to think about it, rather than it being natural and ingrained. 

You can see how uneasy they are playing it. 

By all means, build up from your defense, but inviting players into a press, in your own third, when it's obvious they aren't comfortable, technically quick enough is laughable.

We are doing it, because it's fashionable. 

Every coach wants to be Pep. 

If you don't play this way, you are considered ' old fashioned '.

Coaches are stroking their egos. 

When I quote Man City...it's not the method, but the fact they have the best technically gifted players, to play pretty much any way. 

We don't. 

It's obvious for all to see, that Manning's way isn't working, and the players aren't comfortable doing it, even if his coaching is understood by them. 

They aren't technically gifted enough at Championship level to be successful under his ideas. 

Bristol City frequently can be at ease playing out. The team don't generally do complex. Its bugger all like Man City a point I have made consistently. Man City start with a number one of very high ability which feeds their tactical flexibility and play with a pivot, inversion, varying shapes including the outlandish. 

Liam Mannings Bristol City do not. City have done conservative, the non complex.

Yesterday I am not sure what it is Max O'leary is attempting, maybe he didn't know right there what he as doing, perhaps it was a aberration because I have never seen O'leary attempting a bounce pass (?) before. It was a exceptional error. O'leary has done simple successfully previously. If anything it was perhaps an attempt to be a bit Brighton like and here the team should keep way.

An exceptional error is no need to abandon approach totally. Keep it simple. Simple quick early. They can do simple.

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Bristol City frequently can be at ease playing out. The team don't generally do complex. Its bugger all like Man City a point I have made consistently. Man City start with a number one of very high ability which feeds their tactical flexibility and play with a pivot, inversion, varying shapes including the outlandish. 

Liam Mannings Bristol City do not. City have done conservative, the non complex.

Yesterday I am not sure what it is Max O'leary is attempting, maybe he didn't know right there what he as doing, perhaps it was a aberration because I have never seen O'leary attempting a bounce pass (?) before. It was a exceptional error. O'leary has done simple successfully previously. If anything it was perhaps an attempt to be a bit Brighton like and here the team should keep way.

An exceptional error is no need to abandon approach totally. Keep it simple. Simple quick early. They can do simple.

Yesterday and other days, were a prime example that City can't do ' simple'. 

As Manning said ' we can't do the basics'. 

I'll leave it there. 

You seem to think City do ' simple' well, when our own coach admits we haven't done it. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

In what world is a pass attempt to Joe Williams the right option?

Having gone from the right wing in their half, back to Tanner, back to Vyner, and about to go sideways to O’Leary, what does our shape look like?

 

Isnt it the wrong option because he surely wasnt meant to try it??? shape looks safe enough till O'leary fartbrains!!!

[Davefevs]

7 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

Isnt it the wrong option because he surely wasnt meant to try it??? shape looks safe enough till O'leary fartbrains!!!

Yeah, you could argue that.  But we are trying to control possession under Manning.  The other option is to long.

[Mendip Broadwalk]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, you could argue that.  But we are trying to control possession under Manning.  The other option is to long.

Manning wont be telling them to chuck balls at players under that amount of pressure and expecting it to stick!!   

[Davefevs]

54 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

Manning wont be telling them to chuck balls at players under that amount of pressure and expecting it to stick!!   

I agree (again).  But he’s created a playing style / system / environment where our keeper thinks it might be the right pass to attempt. That’s the issue for me.

[spudski]

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I agree (again).  But he’s created a playing style / system / environment where our keeper thinks it might be the right pass to attempt. That’s the issue for me.

And this is the problem I've been trying to point out Dave.

Even keeping it simple in patterns playing out, our players aren't quick enough mentally.

Neither are they technically gifted enough to pass quickly, accurately, with speed of thought, choosing the right options, when put under a quick press, or by one player being triggered to pressure the keeper.

We don't react quick enough when pressured. 

It's forced, slow, methodical when not pressured. 

It's painful to watch, as you can see we aren't at ease doing it. 

Watch other teams and some are very much at ease doing it. 

We aren't imo. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

10 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I agree (again).  But he’s created a playing style / system / environment where our keeper thinks it might be the right pass to attempt. That’s the issue for me.

i dont think manning has. I dont think Mannings style is to make never on passes. O'leary wasnt concentrated, didnt  scan and   ****** up big time. 110% on O'leary that. Manning isnt waltzing about during his time on the grass shouting dont bother with even looking Max your next level son your better than Ederson!! Seriously who is it that plays like whatever it was O'leary was doing? what style/ system/ environment is this were you give it to a player outside the box with no space, not some none and a player all over him? nobody is doing that?  

Edited September 16 by Mendip Broadwalk

[Davefevs]

47 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

i dont think manning has. I dont think Mannings style is to make never on passes. O'leary wasnt concentrated, didnt  scan and   ****** up big time. 110% on O'leary that. Manning isnt waltzing about during his time on the grass shouting dont bother with even looking Max your next level son your better than Ederson!! Seriously who is it that plays like whatever it was O'leary was doing? what style/ system/ environment is this were you give it to a player outside the box with no space, not some none and a player all over him? nobody is doing that?  

We agree again on the bold bit.  But if you create a way of playing that gives a false representation of what passes are on because you expect certain shapes to be there, the unconscious plays a pass that we aren’t set up to receive.

[Offside]

5 hours ago, spudski said:

And this is the problem I've been trying to point out Dave.

Even keeping it simple in patterns playing out, our players aren't quick enough mentally.

Neither are they technically gifted enough to pass quickly, accurately, with speed of thought, choosing the right options, when put under a quick press, or by one player being triggered to pressure the keeper.

We don't react quick enough when pressured. 

It's forced, slow, methodical when not pressured. 

It's painful to watch, as you can see we aren't at ease doing it. 

Watch other teams and some are very much at ease doing it. 

We aren't imo. 

I agree with this. We often don’t look comfortable, are too static and put ourselves under pressure either by making poor passes or by passing to a player who is already being pressed. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

19 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We agree again on the bold bit.  But if you create a way of playing that gives a false representation of what passes are on because you expect certain shapes to be there, the unconscious plays a pass that we aren’t set up to receive.

We agree on the bold bit. O'leary was.

Your a top poster and go in to deep analysis. You know as gospel that Manning has created this way? this way where the keeper plays first time no look brain fart passes into **** loads of pressure? when O'leary passes it first  time its straight to a Blackburn player!! theres learned on here giving it the they know whats going on so what actually is it that O'leary was doing? your details bloke whats the purpose there?? whose playing that? 

Nobody plays like that and manning didnt create that. What O'leary did was total shite O'leary failed at what is low league stuff. 

[Clutton Caveman]

On 11/09/2024 at 11:36, Nogbad the Bad said:

All this tactical and formations talk from the knowledgeable posters above is all very interesting, but afaic only explaining things which in practice are all too often boring to watch.

The end result of these tactics being widely implemented is, imo., a less exciting spectacle for the paying fan.

I really don't care how clever the coach is, I haven't gone to the match to sit there to study and evaluate his tactics in the minutiae.

Playing out from the back and basically passing the ball around with little attacking intent holds little interest for me. I want action on the pitch, preferably much of it in and around the penalty area, and if a game doesn't produce enough of it, then you eventually have to question whether it's a form of entertainment now so far removed from that which first attracted you to the game that you can't help but wonder if it's still worth bothering with.

I've no interest whatsoever in which team made the most passes.

Managers and coaches should never forget that professional football exists to entertain and arouse the passion of the masses - we don't turn up to admire them, and most of us want more from our post match discussions than to earnestly analyse  their often tedious tactics.

I see so many instances even in the in the Prem where the ball is played around the back with no good options to pass into midfield because few players can take the ball in this way. The press slowly tightens and after 30 seconds or so the ball is hit long under pressure which results normally is a long punt. The whole team is set up to play short passes so nobody is capable of taking the long ball down and bringing others into play because guess what there is only a lone striker and nobody else is up close to him. My pet hate is bring everyone back for corners. If you leave a fast player up, the opposition will never mark him with one man and so you have a numerical advantage and somebody who can pick up a clearance

[Mendip Broadwalk]

4 minutes ago, Clutton Caveman said:

I see so many instances even in the in the Prem where the ball is played around the back with no good options to pass into midfield because few players can take the ball in this way. The press slowly tightens and after 30 seconds or so the ball is hit long under pressure which results normally is a long punt. 

so what is it that championship o'leary was doing?

basic stuff this if its wearing blue its bad, blue and white really bad. its never an option!!  

[Clutton Caveman]

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

We agree again on the bold bit.  But if you create a way of playing that gives a false representation of what passes are on because you expect certain shapes to be there, the unconscious plays a pass that we aren’t set up to receive.

For years we have tried to play modern football as far back as LJ's time but always we end up with very little off the ball movement meaning that forward passing options disappear. At the beginning of the season the movement was very good BUT our set up is and was so predictable teams could set up to stop us. It is then natural that when players are monstered in midfield they lose the ball a couple of times and when they get it have few open passing options, so they hide. The back 4 and goalkeeper look terrible because they can only pass sideways or backwards and eventually punt it long.

We have been found out and our coach does not have the ability to change things to counter the counter measures of the opposition.  

Surely our manager needs to be taken to task about his arrogant "my system is right" thing and the press also have a role to play here with some intelligent questioning rather than lapping up the normal platitudes. 

[Davefevs]

22 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

We agree on the bold bit. O'leary was.

Your a top poster and go in to deep analysis. You know as gospel that Manning has created this way? this way where the keeper plays first time no look brain fart passes into **** loads of pressure? when O'leary passes it first  time its straight to a Blackburn player!! theres learned on here giving it the they know whats going on so what actually is it that O'leary was doing? your details bloke whats the purpose there?? whose playing that? 

Nobody plays like that and manning didnt create that. What O'leary did was total shite O'leary failed at what is low league stuff. 

You’re conflating one error by an individual whereas I’m saying it’s endemic of the way we are playing.  It will lead to errors, it will lead to being exploited in behind Pring.  On the flipside, it will (generally) improve our attacking.

It is clear from watching all preseason games that were available to watch and all 6 games this season, that this season’s system is Manning’s.  It is different to last season.  Why are we seeing the same things in every game.  The result changes, the performance / execution changes, the opposition changes, but it is the same method / system.  Who else created it?  Or are you suggesting this (I’m not talking about the specifics of O’Leary) is just happening without input / control from Manning?

[Topper 123]

On 11/09/2024 at 11:36, Nogbad the Bad said:

All this tactical and formations talk from the knowledgeable posters above is all very interesting, but afaic only explaining things which in practice are all too often boring to watch.

The end result of these tactics being widely implemented is, imo., a less exciting spectacle for the paying fan.

I really don't care how clever the coach is, I haven't gone to the match to sit there to study and evaluate his tactics in the minutiae.

Playing out from the back and basically passing the ball around with little attacking intent holds little interest for me. I want action on the pitch, preferably much of it in and around the penalty area, and if a game doesn't produce enough of it, then you eventually have to question whether it's a form of entertainment now so far removed from that which first attracted you to the game that you can't help but wonder if it's still worth bothering with.

I've no interest whatsoever in which team made the most passes.

Managers and coaches should never forget that professional football exists to entertain and arouse the passion of the masses - we don't turn up to admire them, and most of us want more from our post match discussions than to earnestly analyse  their often 

Edited September 16 by Topper 123

[Topper 123]

Just now, Topper 123 said:

Totally agree , 10 passes back and forward and across the box only to kick it out of play anyway is suicidal, anyone of those passes not on the button and your a goal down (sat) I want to see attacking football,in my eyes stats are bollox all this assist ffs a winger never assisted in my day , he just crossed the ball that was his job , defenders happy they made 6 blocks looks good on stats but you lost 3-0 defence had a mare fack these stats and just play football to WIN 

 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

41 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

You’re conflating one error by an individual whereas I’m saying it’s endemic of the way we are playing.  It will lead to errors, it will lead to being exploited in behind Pring.  On the flipside, it will (generally) improve our attacking.

It is clear from watching all preseason games that were available to watch and all 6 games this season, that this season’s system is Manning’s.  It is different to last season.  Why are we seeing the same things in every game.  The result changes, the performance / execution changes, the opposition changes, but it is the same method / system.  Who else created it?  Or are you suggesting this (I’m not talking about the specifics of O’Leary) is just happening without input / control from Manning?

Thats the way City are playing? your the details man what is the way we are playing there? what are they doing?  what was O'leary attempting with his first time no look pass?? we see the keeper making no look first time passes into midfield all the time?  are you saying thats what manning is asking O'leary to do? Your the one stating this is the way City are playing but you are not able to say what it is. Your all over City with stats and details and sites and its top work but you cant explain what it is O'leary is actually doing but it will be Mannings fault regardless!!! System? Method? what is it??? 

 

[bexhill reds]

4 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

Thats the way City are playing? your the details man what is the way we are playing there? what are they doing?  what was O'leary attempting with his first time no look pass?? we see the keeper making no look first time passes into midfield all the time?  are you saying thats what manning is asking O'leary to do? Your the one stating this is the way City are playing but you are not able to say what it is. Your all over City with stats and details and sites and its top work but you cant explain what it is O'leary is actually doing but it will be Mannings fault regardless!!! System? Method? what is it??? 

 

One individual mistake does not mask the trend.

Just look at goal kicks and when the keeper has his hands or foot on the ball with time, there is always some coming back in to receive the ball, likewise if there is nothing on up front then invariably the ball gets passed back to O'Leary for the process to start again. This is how Manning has set this team up to play. O'Leary clearly dropped a major bollock on Sat by not scanning what was in front of him, and it's not the first time he's done that this season either only this time it led to a goal. 

O'Leary is a fine goalkeeper, but he's definitely not a sweeper keeper or a ball playing keeper that fits in with this style of play.

Previous managers have picked a way of playing that has suited the players they've had at their disposal, Manning is trying to impose a way of playing on players who are not wholly capable of making it work, we've now had a preseason and international break and time on the grass as it were, maybe the management team need to rethink and adapt to what best suits this set of players, and not what he's learnt whilst working with starlets in the City Group.

[Coach]

Unless I've missed the posts, I'm amazed that none of the flak is directed at Joe Williams here. Whatever the merits of playing out from the back, in this situation it is 100% Williams' job to aggressively fill that space, drag his marker with him and show for O'Leary, almost certainly (given he is pressed) to then bounce it back to O'Leary or lay off to one of the central defenders.

Given he knows this he should very much be expecting a pass from O'Leary but instead he decides to check his movement and look over his shoulder twice, I think the second of which coincides exactly with O'Leary passing the ball. It's poor from Williams for me, a good midfielder would've quickly been there, in front of his marker, laying off to Zak Vyner who would then have either advanced with the ball or given it to George Tanner in space, either way we'd have been past their press and on or near the half way line in easy possession.

[Mr Popodopolous]

5 minutes ago, Coach said:

Unless I've missed the posts, I'm amazed that none of the flak is directed at Joe Williams here. Whatever the merits of playing out from the back, in this situation it is 100% Williams' job to aggressively fill that space, drag his marker with him and show for O'Leary, almost certainly (given he is pressed) to then bounce it back to O'Leary or lay off to one of the central defenders.

Given he knows this he should very much be expecting a pass from O'Leary but instead he decides to check his movement and look over his shoulder twice, I think the second of which coincides exactly with O'Leary passing the ball. It's poor from Williams for me, a good midfielder would've quickly been there, in front of his marker, laying off to Zak Vyner who would then have either advanced with the ball or given it to George Tanner in space, either way we'd have been past their press and on or near the half way line in easy possession.

I think you need a natural deeper midfielder to some extent..what about Naismith technically strong yet can also play CB.

[Davefevs]

41 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

Thats the way City are playing? your the details man what is the way we are playing there? what are they doing?  what was O'leary attempting with his first time no look pass?? we see the keeper making no look first time passes into midfield all the time?  are you saying thats what manning is asking O'leary to do? Your the one stating this is the way City are playing but you are not able to say what it is. Your all over City with stats and details and sites and its top work but you cant explain what it is O'leary is actually doing but it will be Mannings fault regardless!!! System? Method? what is it??? 

 

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).

 

 

[bearded_red]

 

[Cowshed]

Looking at the hideous first goal I thought City using their 4-2-3-1 were attempting to play out using the 2 as a double pivot to play into, bounce and play out. There was no double pivot so its not this. Its not something BCFC do. 

O'leary may have been looking to play into midfield bounce off Williams then drive the ball over the press to a wide receiver. City do not approach the game like using O'leary this so rule that out.

This leaves the conservative playing into the free HM/CDM/six. There is nothing outlandish or complex there. Rolling the ball into a dropping six, Keynsham Town can do that adeptly. O'leary failed to something utterly simplistic. He played the ball to nothing, there was no City player dropping looking to take the ball on the half turn. O'leary might have expected a player to be showing there, but if Williams is tightly marked Williams cannot expect O'leary to attempt to play the ball into him, and the pattern of play is then O'leary should be driving the ball to the 3 -1 where four players have some opportunity to win it back, or to the sides where players are part of the out ball co ordinated in training. 

Regarding the six. Stick Bird in playing off the CB's. A passer in the 4-2-3-1 adds technique = tactical flexibility BCFC do not have an abundance of. 

 

[Mr Popodopolous]

10 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Looking at the hideous first goal I thought City using their 4-2-3-1 were attempting to play out using the 2 as a double pivot to play into, bounce and play out. There was no double pivot so its not this. Its not something BCFC do. 

O'leary may have been looking to play into midfield bounce off Williams then drive the ball over the press to a wide receiver. City do not approach the game like using O'leary this so rule that out.

This leaves the conservative playing into the free HM/CDM/six. There is nothing outlandish or complex there. Rolling the ball into a dropping six, Keynsham Town can do that adeptly. O'leary failed to something utterly simplistic. He played the ball to nothing, there was no City player dropping looking to take the ball on the half turn. O'leary might have expected a player to be showing there, but if Williams is tightly marked Williams cannot expect O'leary to attempt to play the ball into him, and the pattern of play is then O'leary should be driving the ball to the 3 -1 where four players have some opportunity to win it back, or to the sides where players are part of the out ball co ordinated in training. 

Regarding the six. Stick Bird in playing off the CB's. A passer in the 4-2-3-1 adds technique = tactical flexibility BCFC do not have an abundance of. 

 

How about Bird and Naismith as a double pivot or Naismith as the '1' between the defence and Bird and Knight or would that weaken us too much elsewhere?

[Davefevs]

 

36 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Looking at the hideous first goal I thought City using their 4-2-3-1 were attempting to play out using the 2 as a double pivot to play into, bounce and play out. There was no double pivot so its not this. Its not something BCFC do. 

O'leary may have been looking to play into midfield bounce off Williams then drive the ball over the press to a wide receiver. City do not approach the game like using O'leary this so rule that out.

This leaves the conservative playing into the free HM/CDM/six. There is nothing outlandish or complex there. Rolling the ball into a dropping six, Keynsham Town can do that adeptly. O'leary failed to something utterly simplistic. He played the ball to nothing, there was no City player dropping looking to take the ball on the half turn. O'leary might have expected a player to be showing there, but if Williams is tightly marked Williams cannot expect O'leary to attempt to play the ball into him, and the pattern of play is then O'leary should be driving the ball to the 3 -1 where four players have some opportunity to win it back, or to the sides where players are part of the out ball co ordinated in training. 

Regarding the six. Stick Bird in playing off the CB's. A passer in the 4-2-3-1 adds technique = tactical flexibility BCFC do not have an abundance of. 

 

be interested in your opinion of (preseason notes) LM played Bird as Right-DM and Knight as the Left-DM.

Is that so that either making a half turn inside, would be turning onto their stronger foot?

[spudski]

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How about Bird and Naismith as a double pivot or Naismith as the '1' between the defence and Bird and Knight or would that weaken us too much elsewhere?

I don't think Naismith would work doing that. He's way too slow, needs too much time on the ball to think then release. 

Bird and Knight might work. 

However I'm more inclined to think we can't play Manning's system well enough to beat other Championship sides. 

I'm starting to think what Manning sees in training, and considers good, isn't at the level needed to win at this level. 

I think he believes our players are better than they are. 

His experience is league 1. I'm sure these players would stand out at league 1 level. 

And that's his level of experience. 

I first started to judge his view on a player's quality, when he bugged Mehmeti up so much. 

I'm also doubting his view regarding Twine being the missing link. 

As you can tell...I don't rate his judgement ( he's had no experience at knowing how to win consistently at this level ).

And I don't rate his view, that our players are capable of playing his way, at a level that wins games consistently in the Championship. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just now, spudski said:

I don't think Naismith would work doing that. He's way too slow, needs too much time on the ball to think then release. 

Bird and Knight might work. 

However I'm more inclined to think we can't play Manning's system well enough to beat other Championship sides. 

I'm starting to think what Manning sees in training, and considers good, isn't at the level needed to win at this level. 

I think he believes our players are better than they are. 

His experience is league 1. I'm sure these players would stand out at league 1 level. 

And that's his level of experience. 

I first started to judge his view on a player's quality, when he bugged Mehmeti up so much. 

I'm also doubting his view regarding Twine being the missing link. 

As you can tell...I don't rate his judgement ( he's had no experience at knowing how to win consistently at this level ).

And I don't rate his view, that our players are capable of playing his way, at a level that wins games consistently in the Championship. 

Naismith It's hard for say really, for me his best position is beyqwwn the defence and midfield. I recall a period with him there pre injury with Scott obviously and I forget who James or Williams we looked very effective. Good balance.

One of our best passers (Naismith) IMO.

                  GK

                Back 4

               Naismith

Winger Bird Knight Winger

Problem there is Knight as 10, big no and Twine...I can see how it might improve stability but at the same time..

Like you I'm doubting his expertise at this level. Naismith at least is used to a back 3 so he more than Williams could drop now and then, and allow the CBs to split a bit. Williams and the rest seem to me more like midfielders first, second and third in that sense.

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Naismith It's hard for say really, for me his best position is beyqwwn the defence and midfield. I recall a period with him there pre injury with Scott obviously and I forget who James or Williams we looked very effective. Good balance.

One of our best passers (Naismith) IMO.

                  GK

                Back 4

               Naismith

Winger Bird Knight Winger

Problem there is Knight as 10, big no and Twine...I can see how it might improve stability but at the same time..

Like you I'm doubting his expertise at this level. Naismith at least is used to a back 3 so he more than Williams could drop now and then, and allow the CBs to split a bit. Williams and the rest seem to me more like midfielders first, second and third in that sense.

He does pick a pass well, when he has the time and space to do it. 

He's very slow at delivering the pass. He's getting slower imo.

Playing him in this position, facing goal as the pivot, being pressed would also give even less time. 

I think his days are done here under Manning's system. 

[Cowshed]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

 

be interested in your opinion of (preseason notes) LM played Bird as Right-DM and Knight as the Left-DM.

Is that so that either making a half turn inside, would be turning onto their stronger foot?

I think the answer is very frequently yes. Half turn, take ball on backfoot (weaker) and play with the stronger foot = Less touches and quicker play.

Players also can have significant preferences about how they open out and scan scan e.g. scan left they open out left, but in reverse the players are less effective as they don't move as fluently, pick up the same information. 

[Cowshed]

16 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How about Bird and Naismith as a double pivot or Naismith as the '1' between the defence and Bird and Knight or would that weaken us too much elsewhere?

Bird and Naismith yes, but primarily looking at Bird and Knight. One of the two in 4-2-3-1 should have a range of passing that is a norm. A more flexible player should be played in what is a fundamental role collecting the ball from backs threes, fours and if Mr Manning wants his keeper joining in there has to be good as an option in that area to link play. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Bird and Naismith yes, but primarily looking at Bird and Knight. One of the two in 4-2-3-1 should have a range of passing that is a norm. A more flexible player should be played in what is a fundamental role collecting the ball from backs threes, fours and if Mr Manning wants his keeper joining in there has to be good as an option in that area to link play. 

I honestly think Naismith could be a missing piece in that regard, but its hard to.know who drops out.

He has played in a back 3 and albeit for several games until his injury a central 3. He is one of our best players technically and he also can switch between CB and deepest CM (IMO) better than anyone else we have.

Naismith could also slot between a back 3 and CM 3 inn game, again I'm not sure who else we have that can. Bird maybe in the medium term?

Edited September 17 by Mr Popodopolous

[Cowshed]

On 17/09/2024 at 10:41, Mr Popodopolous said:

I honestly think Naismith could be a missing piece in that regard, but its hard to.know who drops out.

He has played in a back 3 and albeit for several games until his injury a central 3. He is one of our best players technically and he also can switch between CB and deepest CM (IMO) better than anyone else we have.

Naismith could also slot between a back 3 and CM 3 inn game, again I'm not sure who else we have that can. Bird maybe in the medium term?

Remove the thought of defending one of the two in 4-2-3-1 can be doing similar in possession. Having a Naismith or a Bird dropping in as passing option to link up play from FB/CB increases City tactical flexibility versus other players.

The team is playing possession football building from the back without a player of high technical ability to build the play from the back. One and more of the six (4-2) should be better than average on the ball. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

28 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Remove the thought of defending one of the two in 4-2-3-1 can be doing similar in possession. Having a Naismith or a Bird dropping in as passing option to link up play from FB/CB increases City tactical flexibility versus other players.

The team is playing possession football building from the back without a player of high technical ability to build the play from the back. One and more of the six (4-2) should be better than average on the ball. 

Can Dickie- I know he isn fiit, play out quite well? Somewhat yes IMO. Vyner has good Passing Stats but more conservative ie shorter range, less striding forward e.g

I think Naismith can be better in the deeper between the defence and midfield than Bird IMO, a problem is what of Twine and Knight among others.

Part of me thinks something like..

           Naismith

         Bird Knight

4-1-4-1 could be worth a go. Problem is then where does Twine fit? Knight isn't a 10 but feel Naismith best deeper, Bird is he an 8 or a 6 I can't remember.

[Cowshed]

17 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Can Dickie- I know he isn fiit, play out quite well? Somewhat yes IMO. Vyner has good Passing Stats but more conservative ie shorter range, less striding forward e.g

I think Naismith can be better in the deeper between the defence and midfield than Bird IMO, a problem is what of Twine and Knight among others.

Part of me thinks something like..

           Naismith

         Bird Knight

4-1-4-1 could be worth a go. Problem is then where does Twine fit? Knight isn't a 10 but feel Naismith best deeper, Bird is he an 8 or a 6 I can't remember.

Their decent. But are they good? The team is playing 4-2-3-1 the link up players in that 4-2 are they good? A keystone ability of a possession team has to be that players in fundamental positions have to be adept on the football. 

At GK -CB/HM -CDM City have average on the ball. The team does functional, it does conservative building from the back, its predictable. Add range of passing more ability to the 4-2 or other formation and the teams football becomes less predictable more fluid.  

Edited September 20 by Cowshed

[spudski]

2 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Their decent. But are they good? The team is playing 4-2-3-1 the link up players in that 4-2 are they good? A keystone ability of a possession team has to be that players in fundamental positions have to be adept on the football. 

At GK -CB/HM -CDM City have average on the ball. The team does functional, it does conservative building from the back, its predictable. Add range of passing more ability to the 4-2 or other formation and the teams football becomes less predictable more fluid.  

You've basically agreed with everything I've previously said. 

You say we do basic and predictable, because in theory that's our level. 

So predictable that teams in this league can press and read our game at will. Because they are good quality.

You say add range of passing to become less predictable. Yet we don't have the players good enough to do that. 

Doesn't make sense.

 

 

[Davefevs]

11 minutes ago, spudski said:

You say add range of passing to become less predictable. Yet we don't have the players good enough to do that. 

Hoping Bird is that solution.  He certainly knew how to play that role at Derby.

[Mr Popodopolous]

Dickie, Naismith, Bird and possibly Vyner could (IMO) he key components to it. Don't know enough about McNally technical stats yet.

I had hoped for TGH from a creative perspective in some ways but clearly not, none of them are Scott clearly- he could pass, create, dribble, win could and was improving defensively too.

[rednotblue]

On 15/09/2024 at 08:31, Davefevs said:

In what world is a pass attempt to Joe Williams the right option?

Having gone from the right wing in their half, back to Tanner, back to Vyner, and about to go sideways to O’Leary, what does our shape look like?

Where is our Left Back?  Again, not a criticism of Pring, it’s how he’s being instructed to play.

Yep, O’Leary makes the mistake, but (as I said to someone last night) we are now (this season) putting ourselves into positions where we are exposing players to situations where they will make mistakes.

We just need to cut out the individual errors, don’t we?  Or do we need to cut out the situations that expose our less than perfect players to making mistakes?

Risk v Reward?  Home win!

The staggering part of that image is Blackburn have 5 players in our half so have gone man for man. Ball over the top to one of our players and those 5 are cut out of the attack and we are 5 on 5 on the attack.

 

 

[spudski]

12 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Hoping Bird is that solution.  He certainly knew how to play that role at Derby.

Maybe...but for it to work Dave, you need players of the same ability passing to him and receiving. One decent cog, with the rest broken  won't work. They all have to be on the same wavelength length. Playing this system, you are only as good as the worst player in the system, so to speak. 

[Davefevs]

5 minutes ago, rednotblue said:

The staggering part of that image is Blackburn have 5 players in our half so have gone man for man. Ball over the top to one of our players and those 5 are cut out of the attack and we are 5 on 5 on the attack.

 

 

O’Leary tried that several times…but it felt as if we hadn’t transitioned into a structure to exploit it.  We lost too many first balls and all the bits and pieces dropped to their players.

[Mr Popodopolous]

4 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Their decent. But are they good? The team is playing 4-2-3-1 the link up players in that 4-2 are they good? A keystone ability of a possession team has to be that players in fundamental positions have to be adept on the football. 

At GK -CB/HM -CDM City have average on the ball. The team does functional, it does conservative building from the back, its predictable. Add range of passing more ability to the 4-2 or other formation and the teams football becomes less predictable more fluid.  

Honestly think they are our best starting point if we want to play a more Possession based game. We have other technically sound or exciting players IMO but they aren't necessarily controllers if that makes sense.

You can add to that maybe, if or when fully fit the possibility of Atkinson and Earthy? Could Earthy be a game changer in respect of pass, move and carry e.g. 

Back to what we have at this second, O'Leary is our undisputed Number 1 but technically absolutely has his limitations.

In late July 2023 I wondered about a hypothetical Naismith, Scott, Knight midfield 3.

Edited September 20 by Mr Popodopolous

[rednotblue]

2 hours ago, Davefevs said:

O’Leary tried that several times…but it felt as if we hadn’t transitioned into a structure to exploit it.  We lost too many first balls and all the bits and pieces dropped to their players.

Mental.

You'd have thought on the 'grass' they would have trained to have different methods to get up the pitch

[Cowshed]

9 hours ago, spudski said:

You've basically agreed with everything I've previously said. 

You say we do basic and predictable, because in theory that's our level. 

So predictable that teams in this league can press and read our game at will. Because they are good quality.

You say add range of passing to become less predictable. Yet we don't have the players good enough to do that. 

Doesn't make sense.

 

 

Yes I have consistently stated Bristol City are doing conservative and basic. This season and last. This City have done safely and with few errors over a significant period. 

Bristol City do have players like Naismith and Bird who could be used in a six role as a pivot, or pivots and this would add flexibility in possession.
 

[ChippenhamRed]

On 10/09/2024 at 09:50, 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. 

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’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.

Edited September 20 by ChippenhamRed

[Davefevs]

@ChippenhamRed for me, it’s less about the playing from the back (versus not), but the attacking shapes we take up from attempted structured possession…and how difficult it becomes to get back into defensive shape quickly from those attacking shapes when we lose the ball (wherever on the pitch that happens).

That is evidenced by how often I see our midfielders running back towards our goal with the ball (and opponents) ahead of them.

I said in preseason that rest defence might be a term we hear a lot over the course of the season if we play this way.  The only reason we possibly haven’t so far is because we don’t appear to have one!

[spudski]

10 hours ago, 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.

I agree with your sentiments.

I've never said once that I endorse hoofing the ball long, and creating a 50/50.

I've pointed out that it is a high risk strategy if you lose the ball in front of goal, as you've agreed. 

What you haven't taken into consideration in your analysis, are the levels of ability. 

You've come to your conclusions based on both teams being equal. 

As an example...if Man City were playing say Barrow, the outcomes of playing both ways would be in favour of Man City, because of their quality overall. 

I've pointed out that City don't have the quality to play out from the back consistently well (for all the reasons given in my previous posts). 

Some teams can do it well, others can't. 

I don't disagree with the tactic. But it's only useful if you have the players to do it well, and better than the opposition you are facing. 

We do the basics of it poorly. 

And as others have agreed @Davefevs and noted, the shape and patterns used. 

Do those poorly as well....and you are asking for trouble. 

On a side note....whilst reading up on the benefits of playing out from the back, I think I mentioned it in an earlier post, playing that way, the stats showed teams (on average) got the ball into the oppositions third, by approx 32%.

Which if you go by the notion of punting it into their third, making it a 50/50... Trying to win the second ball...then 50% is far higher than 32%.

The percentages will change depending on the quality of team A against the quality of team B. 

None are equal. Some better than others. 

 

 

[Ivorguy]

Reading all the above I would draw the conclusion that the players have little confidence in LM’s tactics.  This is not a good situation for any team to be in.  Something will give, and arguably did in the last two games.

Let’s hope LM has had the sense to alter his approach, but I have my doubts.

Particularly worrying is what Max thinks, especially after last week’s mistake

[Paulton Red]

I’ve read this thread with interest, I find the tactical discussion fascinating and wish I understood it better.

But, I want to see us score goals, I want excitement and enjoyment 

I want more shots, not necessarily more possession 

I want football back

[Davefevs]

33 minutes ago, Paulton Red said:

I want more shots, not necessarily more possession 

This is the fundamental question for me…”what do you get for your method / style” whether that be possession based or not.  And “is it efficient”?

Does a 60% share of possession lead to a 60% share of shots in a match?  Theoretically it ought to, right?

Just like it ought to lead to the same:

• 60% share of passes in the opposition half
• 60% share of passes in the opposition third (“field tilt”)
• 60% share of passes into the box
• etc

But it doesn’t necessarily pan out like that.

This (let’s call it) Pep style of football is a bit of a con imho.  It’s not that it can’t be good (Pep proves it can), but it’s the view that it’s the only way to be successful, that gets me.

So I built some charts!  It’s dull as hell, but it’s just another way of looking at the “problem”…other than what I see with my eyes.  

West Brom:

They aren’t a heavy possession team, are top of the league, but are generally better than efficient with the amount of ball they get.

Swansea:

They have games where their % share of shots vs % share of possession, especially in opponents half / third is very inefficient.

Bristol City:

Aren’t too bad, but by these metrics they are inefficient offensively.  Across the 5 games, 56.88% possession share leads to 49.88% share of shots.  That means our opponents create 50.12% share of shots from just 43.12% possession.

Not a conclusion at all, but something I will continue to look at and refine over the season.

Its not for everyone though!

 

 

[spudski]

30 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

This is the fundamental question for me…”what do you get for your method / style” whether that be possession based or not.  And “is it efficient”?

Does a 60% share of possession lead to a 60% share of shots in a match?  Theoretically it ought to, right?

Just like it ought to lead to the same:

• 60% share of passes in the opposition half
• 60% share of passes in the opposition third (“field tilt”)
• 60% share of passes into the box
• etc

But it doesn’t necessarily pan out like that.

This (let’s call it) Pep style of football is a bit of a con imho.  It’s not that it can’t be good (Pep proves it can), but it’s the view that it’s the only way to be successful, that gets me.

So I built some charts!  It’s dull as hell, but it’s just another way of looking at the “problem”…other than what I see with my eyes.  

West Brom:

They aren’t a heavy possession team, are top of the league, but are generally better than efficient with the amount of ball they get.

Swansea:

They have games where their % share of shots vs % share of possession, especially in opponents half / third is very inefficient.

Bristol City:

Aren’t too bad, but by these metrics they are inefficient offensively.  Across the 5 games, 56.88% possession share leads to 49.88% share of shots.  That means our opponents create 50.12% share of shots from just 43.12% possession.

Not a conclusion at all, but something I will continue to look at and refine over the season.

Its not for everyone though!

 

 

Possession is great, as it stops the opposition having the ball...and without the ball, in theory you can't score. 

But how often do teams actually score from having possession, passing, breaking through the lines, creating a shot on target and scoring? 

Compared to say scoring on the counter, when the opposition is out of shape?

I wouldn't be surprised if stats showed that goals came from counter attacks, interceptions, mistakes, rather than a planned breakdown of the opposition. 

 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, spudski said:

Compared to say scoring on the counter, when the opposition is out of shape?

Boom

I spoke to someone in the pro-game recently and he said he’d worked with a really tidy striker (an international) who he had to work really hard with to convince that he’d get better chances to score if he worked hard for the team on the press, and got better at pinching the ball high up…before the defence got set.

[spudski]

25 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Boom

I spoke to someone in the pro-game recently and he said he’d worked with a really tidy striker (an international) who he had to work really hard with to convince that he’d get better chances to score if he worked hard for the team on the press, and got better at pinching the ball high up…before the defence got set.

It makes sense. Defences are so well drilled nowadays. 

This is why I think fast forwards, doing a high press can have a lot of success. 

Look how Semenyo used to do it. 

 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

It makes sense. Defences are so well drilled nowadays. 

This is why I think fast forwards, doing a high press can have a lot of success. 

Look how Semenyo used to do it. 

 

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.