Post by ZeroTheHero on Dec 12, 2014 11:55:01 GMT
I watched the Europa league matches last night featuring Spurs and a fairly young Everton team. Both lost 1-0.
While watching, it was fairly obvious that their way of playing was similar (although at a very different level) to that which MApp would have our lot playing.
They used overlapping fullbacks to attack, the keeper rolled the ball out more often than kicking, and retaining possession seemed to be the highest priority. That lead to players often being more willing to make the safe backward or sideways pass than the more threatening (but more likely to lose the ball) forward pass and advanced players receiving the ball with their backs to goal and pinging it straight back where it came from. Players many times rejected the chance to shoot in preference to making yet one more pass, and not necessarily to someone in a more dangerous position - there were occasions when the ball went from just outside (or even inside) the opposition penalty area back and back some more until it was with the centre backs inside their own half! It also meant that much of the game when the English team had the ball was being played at a very slow pace, making it hugely frustrating both for the team to try and pick their way through an easily reorganised defence and to watch! (Many of the same criticisms could be levelled at Liverpool a couple of nights earlier).
Spurs had two thirds of the possession - and Besiktas should probably have won by 2 or 3 goals. The Everton youngsters are obviously being coached to play the same way, they had 50% of possession and never really looked like winning.
All three teams actually gifted the ball to the other team in very dangerous positions by (IMO) overplaying it around at the back to a silly degree.
My question is: If it is completely ineffective, is there any point in retaining possession for it's own sake? All three teams lost playing this way - would it be better to coach players to receive the ball facing the opponent's goal and take men on, even if they lost the ball sometimes? Is it (far from being an attacking way of playing) actually a defensive option - if the opposition haven't got the ball they can't score? Have other teams realised that in order to counter this style of play, all you have to do is put sustained pressure on the defenders and midfield players?
While watching, it was fairly obvious that their way of playing was similar (although at a very different level) to that which MApp would have our lot playing.
They used overlapping fullbacks to attack, the keeper rolled the ball out more often than kicking, and retaining possession seemed to be the highest priority. That lead to players often being more willing to make the safe backward or sideways pass than the more threatening (but more likely to lose the ball) forward pass and advanced players receiving the ball with their backs to goal and pinging it straight back where it came from. Players many times rejected the chance to shoot in preference to making yet one more pass, and not necessarily to someone in a more dangerous position - there were occasions when the ball went from just outside (or even inside) the opposition penalty area back and back some more until it was with the centre backs inside their own half! It also meant that much of the game when the English team had the ball was being played at a very slow pace, making it hugely frustrating both for the team to try and pick their way through an easily reorganised defence and to watch! (Many of the same criticisms could be levelled at Liverpool a couple of nights earlier).
Spurs had two thirds of the possession - and Besiktas should probably have won by 2 or 3 goals. The Everton youngsters are obviously being coached to play the same way, they had 50% of possession and never really looked like winning.
All three teams actually gifted the ball to the other team in very dangerous positions by (IMO) overplaying it around at the back to a silly degree.
My question is: If it is completely ineffective, is there any point in retaining possession for it's own sake? All three teams lost playing this way - would it be better to coach players to receive the ball facing the opponent's goal and take men on, even if they lost the ball sometimes? Is it (far from being an attacking way of playing) actually a defensive option - if the opposition haven't got the ball they can't score? Have other teams realised that in order to counter this style of play, all you have to do is put sustained pressure on the defenders and midfield players?