Possession Football Tactics are King

rcoobc

Not as crap as eferyone thinks
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
41,868
Location
C-137
Not sure what to call the thread really but talking about this:

Italy: No proper wingers, lots of midfielders. Two strikers as they don't have a complete striker.
england-italy.jpg
Spain: No proper wingers, lots of midfielders. No striker but they would like one.
france-spain-tactics.jpg
Athletic Club: No proper wingers, lots of midfielders, complete striker?
el1.jpg
Barcelona: No proper wingers, no defenders, loads of midfielders, no strikers but they would like one.
ppp1.jpg
Dortmund: No proper wingers, ball playing defenders, lots of midfielders, one proper striker.
bvb1.jpg
Man City: No proper wingers, lots of midfielders,
avm.jpg
Barcelona against us in the Champions League final: No wingers, two strikers.
barca1-1.jpg
Wingers, playing more than one striker and defenders that can't play possession football are all liabilities in the modern game. Old style tackling is dead, and with it possession football has become the new defence.

Original Post: https://www.redcafe.net/f7/england-we-head-into-2014-qualifiers-355532/#post11855094
 
Has someone hacked your account recently? You're saying our best player last season, is a liability? That the Champions League, Bundesliga, and Premier League runners up were liabilities?

United play the most traditional formation in football. Two hard working wingers, two hard working strikers, midfielders to link up play. We lost the title by a goal.

Bayern play with two out and out wingers, two midfielders, a striker and Muller in behind, and lost the UCL by a penalty.
 
I can see where rcoobc is coming from, 4-4-2 is becoming less and less popular on the continent.
 
Bayern are the second best possession team in Europe. Much more than Dortmund who aren't much of a possession team at all.
 
And the problem is, no team playing a 4-4-2 have really mastered beating these midfield heavy, possession based, teams. Other than parking the bus.
 
Liam147 said:
Has someone hacked your account recently? You're saying our best player last season, is a liability? That the Champions League, Bundesliga, and Premier League runners up were liabilities?

United play the most traditional formation in football. Two hard working wingers, two hard working strikers, midfielders to link up play. We lost the title by a goal.

Bayern play with two out and out wingers, two midfielders, a striker and Muller in behind, and lost the UCL by a penalty.
Click to expand...

Look at our 4 games against Barcelona and Athletic Club. I'm talking about the change in tactics over time, not calling any single player a liability. Chelsea won the Champions League by playing defensively and holding on for dear life. Bayern Munich are a throwback with two wingers, but lost the Bundesliga title for the second season running. Juventus also play possession tactics and won Serie A.

Probably only 50% of the top teams are playing such tactics, United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich perhaps don't fit the description. Neither do Chelsea (sometimes).

But in general; wingers are fast becoming inside forwards or simple attacking midfielders. Defenders are becoming possession orientated instead of tackling orientated. Full backs are becoming wing backs because of the space left by the lack of wingers, and as it allows you to have more midfielders. Teams are playing with a single striker if possible, to allow them to have more midfielders.
 
rcoobc said:
Look at our 4 games against Barcelona and Athletic Club. I'm talking about the change in tactics over time, not calling any single player a liability. Chelsea won the Champions League by playing defensively and holding on for dear life. Bayern Munich are a throwback with two wingers, but lost the Bundesliga title for the second season running. Juventus also play possession tactics and one Serie A.

Probably only 50% of the top teams are playing such tactics, United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich perhaps don't fit the description. Neither do Chelsea (sometimes).

But in general; wingers are fast becoming inside forwards or simple attacking midfielders. Defenders are becoming possession orientated instead of tackling orientated. Full backs are becoming wing backs because of the space left by the lack of wingers, and as it allows you to have more midfielders. Teams are playing with a single striker if possible, to allow them to have more midfielders.
Click to expand...

100% agree with everything.
 
rcoobc said:
Look at our 4 games against Barcelona and Athletic Club. I'm talking about the change in tactics over time, not calling any single player a liability. Chelsea won the Champions League by playing defensively and holding on for dear life. Bayern Munich are a throwback with two wingers, but lost the Bundesliga title for the second season running. Juventus also play possession tactics and won Serie A.

Probably only 50% of the top teams are playing such tactics, United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich perhaps don't fit the description. Neither do Chelsea (sometimes).

But in general; wingers are fast becoming inside forwards or simple attacking midfielders. Defenders are becoming possession orientated instead of tackling orientated. Full backs are becoming wing backs because of the space left by the lack of wingers, and as it allows you to have more midfielders. Teams are playing with a single striker if possible, to allow them to have more midfielders.
Click to expand...

I principal I do agree, but there's simply no need to pack the midfield at home to Reading. For big games, yes. It damn near worked against City, but they got a corner, and scored from it. But against Blackburn we had an odd formation, but the tactics were the same - get the ball to Valencia, and hammer in cross after cross.

Possession football only works if you have the players capable of pulling it off. You need to be able to handle playing against a pressing team, which we're evidently not. It works for Spain, but it'll be interesting to see how they go on against the best team they've played so far.

I foresee them doing their stuff, with Ronaldo and Nani breaking down the wings, and exploiting their full backs. Keep it tight in the centre, force it out wide, win it, and break in numbers.

The use of width shouldn't be underestimated either. Barca had no width at all, so Chelsea forced them to using an unfamiliar tactic. They really did park the bus. Nothing could get through. If Barca had wide players, they could've offered something different. But there was no plan b. It really was a case of running into a bus enough times for it to fall over, but in the end they ran out of time.
 
Liam147 said:
The use of width shouldn't be underestimated either. Barca had no width at all, so Chelsea forced them to using an unfamiliar tactic. They really did park the bus. Nothing could get through. If Barca had wide players, they could've offered something different. But there was no plan b. It really was a case of running into a bus enough times for it to fall over, but in the end they ran out of time.
Click to expand...

Chelsea's bus conceded 2 goals within 45 minutes. Problem wasn't the attack. Problem was Valdes running out of his goal like a headless chicken to get chipped by Ramires who was actually well covered by a defender. If he stayed on his line, Ramires had no one to pass the ball to, neither would he have scored with a conventional shot from that angle.

Barca caused Chelsea's famous bus more problems than Bayern with their conventional wingers and targetman. This "plan B" talk is bollocks to be brutaly honest. Barca created like 10 clear cut chances in both legs, including 2 shots against the woodwork and a missed penalty. Chelsea weren't even defending well like in 2009. They were simply lucky. Defending well = preventing chances. Chelsea conceded 80+ shots in the semi-finals and finals. They had this Liverpool aura since they played Napoli. The cnuts.
 
Homeomorphic said:
Chelsea's bus conceded 2 goals within 45 minutes. Problem wasn't the attack. Problem was Valdes running out of his goal like a headless chicken to get chipped by Ramires who was actually well covered by a defender. If he stayed on his line, Ramires had no one to pass the ball to, neither would he have scored with a conventional shot from that angle.

Barca caused Chelsea's famous bus more problems than Bayern with their conventional wingers and targetman. This "plan B" talk is bollocks to be brutaly honest. Barca created like 10 clear cut chances in both legs, including 2 shots against the woodwork and a missed penalty. Chelsea weren't even defending well like in 2009. They were simply lucky.
Click to expand...

My point was that they kept trying the same thing. Yes, you can argue that had the game lasted five more minutes, they'd have scored the goal, but the fact is, they weren't scoring the decisive goal. They had no other option other than to keep doing the same thing over and over again, and it played into Chelsea's hands. Yes, they were so lucky, but they made their luck.
 
Liam147 said:
My point was that they kept trying the same thing. Yes, you can argue that had the game lasted five more minutes, they'd have scored the goal, but the fact is, they weren't scoring the decisive goal. They had no other option other than to keep doing the same thing over and over again, and it played into Chelsea's hands. Yes, they were so lucky, but they made their luck.
Click to expand...

Yep. Everyone was screaming for Barcelona to cross it from out wide, but they would move it out wide, then bring it back to the center :wenger:

Wingers will remain an integral part of the game. How many teams have the tiki-taka technique mastered, and the creative playmakers required to open up tight spaces in the middle?
 
It's a good post Roob.

The front 3/4 are now mobile ball players as well as wingers. It's taken the art of 'wingplay' to a different level when you can penetrate up the line then come back inside and take on players central as well. I think you physically have to raise your technical game. Be it hold up play, pace, thinking, passing. Physical and discipline is not always going to cut it anymore.

I think there is a huge issue with fitness and that the base levels of fitness over the last 20 years have increased and pretty much made the playing field nearly level. Where bigger stronger fitter nations ruled with play in behind or taking people on we aren't seeing that anymore. We're seeing people technically on the ball drawing player sand being hard to get off it and creating space that way.

The fact remains that until England teaches their youngsters to be ball-players from a young age regardless of their physical attributes size strength etc they won't develop as a nation.
 
adexkola said:
Yep. Everyone was screaming for Barcelona to cross it from out wide, but they would move it out wide, then bring it back to the center :wenger:
Click to expand...

I'm repeating myself, but Bayern were doing exactly that. Utilising wingplay and crossing the ball to Gomez. Until they figured out that crossing the ball into the box where 10 tall blue shirts are camping is as effective as herpes. Robben, Kroos, Ribery and Lahm whiped 34 balls into the Chelsea box. And they had 20 corners. Nothing came out of it until the 86th minute. Barca scored 2 goals within 43 minutes through the middle. Then tiredness kicked in in the second half, having played a Clasico 3 days prior.

If teams park the bus as extremely as Chelsea do, then repeatedly whiping blind crosses into the box isn't any more effective as trying to go through the middle. The former will only result in wasting more energy after losing every ball after a cross and trying to get it back. Bayern couldn't break Chelsea's bus and Italy couldn't break England's bus with different approaches. If Spain had played against England yesterday and not scored, people would be bragging about them being 1-dimensional and England putting in a heroic defensive performance.
 
Homeomorphic said:
I'm repeating myself, but Bayern were doing exactly that. Utilising wingplay and crossing the ball to Gomez. Until they figured out that crossing the ball into the box where 10 tall blue shirts are camping is as effective as herpes. Robben, Kroos, Ribery and Lahm whiped 34 balls into the Chelsea box. And they had 20 corners. Nothing came out of it until the 86th minute. Barca scored 2 goals within 43 minutes through the middle. Then tiredness kicked in in the second half, having played a Clasico 3 days prior.

If teams park the bus as extremely as Chelsea do, then repeatedly whiping blind crosses into the box isn't any more effective as trying to go through the middle. Bayern couldn't break Chelsea's bus and Italy couldn't break England's bus with different approaches. If Spain had played against England yesterday and not scored, people would be bragging about them being 1-dimensional and England putting in a heroic defensive performance.
Click to expand...

:o My bad, didn't see that

I don't know, I think Bayern created more clear cut chances, but Gomez was just profligate in front of goal. Then again, Barcelona were too. Renders my point invalid eh?

I do think if Pedro played, and Alves was on form, Barcelona would have gone through. They have this annoying yet effective effect of drawing the fullback away from central areas due to their pace, opening up the middle for Messi and Iniesta.
 
rcoobc said:
Look at our 4 games against Barcelona and Athletic Club. I'm talking about the change in tactics over time, not calling any single player a liability. Chelsea won the Champions League by playing defensively and holding on for dear life. Bayern Munich are a throwback with two wingers, but lost the Bundesliga title for the second season running. Juventus also play possession tactics and won Serie A.

Probably only 50% of the top teams are playing such tactics, United, Arsenal, Tottenham, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich perhaps don't fit the description. Neither do Chelsea (sometimes).

But in general; wingers are fast becoming inside forwards or simple attacking midfielders. Defenders are becoming possession orientated instead of tackling orientated. Full backs are becoming wing backs because of the space left by the lack of wingers, and as it allows you to have more midfielders. Teams are playing with a single striker if possible, to allow them to have more midfielders.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with you

I have being saying this for the past couple of years but have come to accept that England are not going to go 'continental' for a good while yet.

United could adopt this style by way of a 4-3-3 and perhaps we will, going after Kagawa and Hazard but not a new striker certainly indicates this.

Hodgson will not change his ways for anyone and it is a shame because with Wilshire and Carrick in the squad we could really start to play some possession football.
 
I admit Dortmund certainly don't fit into the "possession" football class, their swashbuckling style is anything but. However they have certain characteristics which would come under this gradual change in philosophy so I thought I would include them. Ball playing defenders, 1 proper striker.
 
If our success in recent years has been down to playing 433 in europe and big games, why do we continue playing 442? The obvious answer is our players are more suited to the formation, with two wide men and two up front. As long as we have SAF as a manager, I can't see that changing too much, we will use 433 in big games and 442 for the majority of other games. As long as we have the players capable of playing that formation, it will be still be fine. Unfortunately last season, we didn't have the players available for one reason or another to play 433 effectively.
 
Yet I see City fans drooling over the width options we had, and wanting just a single classy wide player to add width to the play.

The reason why they struggled with breaking down teams late last season; QPR among others just defender VERY narrow and central, allowing Clichy and Zabaleta to go to the by-line to cross, because they were confident of dealing with those crosses from the full backs. Silva and Nasri don't provide those sorts of quality crosses!

Chelsea did that to Barca too, as well as to an extent to Bayern. Bayern have quality wide players (and Iniesta is a boss wherever he is!), but they also play VERY narrow (selfish robben etc), who shoot lots, but don't provide crosses too much.

Wingers are a constant source of chances, and over 90 minutes, generally you'll get a goal from them. You'll also force the other team to defend 'widely' and free up more room for your own central players.

Each formation has its pros and cons; i for one think that a 4231 with a more creative Kagawa (than Rooney), and a better striker up front (Rooney rather than Welbeck), will be monumental for us. Nani can provide both width, as well as playing central, as can Young. Valencia can do so as well, although his biggest strength is that he can really stretch the left back, and often take 2 to 3 players with him (2 if he's by himself, 3 if Rafael is there), leaving more room for our more central players. Also, with a CAM rather than a CF, we'd have better defensive solidity; a big improvement on our current 442; because we have players that on paper will be even stronger 4231.

It varies. But it seems 442 is getting harder to justify with 4231 being a good way to create a 3v2 in midfield, and really make it hard for the 442 team. 4411 helps but not that much.
 
A marquee player would certainly add to most teams. Lets face it, Barcelona don't need to keep possession better or fill their team with more central midfielders. A player like Nani, even off the bench would unlock defences fantastically for them.

But possession comes first, its the new form of defence and as the saying goes a great team is built on a great defence.
 
It works well enough for Barcelona, Man City, Spain, Italy, etc.

Wingers either have to be midfielders, or inside forwards or preferably both. Wing backs are the new wingers.
 
It's mental. Us English are stuck in this philosophy that a 3 man midfield is so damned controversial that it might just work. The rest of the world have moved on from 3 man midfields as not giving enough possession.

Italy set up against England with 4 in midfield, and how often did Cassano play off the front man? Spain are happy to play 6 midfielders with no striker. Barcelona made the controversial move of playing a striker against Chelsea... when Chelsea where playing 11 defenders. Athletic Club like setting up with 5.

But no Gerrard and Parker in midfield, that will fix it.
 
Bump: Going off something Suedesi said.

Suedesi said:
Still, the better team won. Fckn tiki takas are destroying football.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is, Spain played some beautiful stuff yesterday. What destroys football is playing two banks of five to combat it. Obviously the diving isn't nice to watch, nor is watching United getting destroyed.

Play an in-prime Drogba or Ruud Van Nistelrooy alongside 7 Spanish midfielder and two wing backs, and that would be a hell of a team to watch. As would sticking a player like Nani in that team.

The problem is it's 5 years after 2009 and the world still hasnt reacted to it in my opinion.
 
There is no right way to play Football but winning is the most agreeable for the masses. Possession football is great, it's the most sensible way to play football, it takes time to instill that mentality within a group of players though. There's a lot of average defenders out there, I do think attacking teams could really prosper with the right foundations. I think people focus far too much on formations though, people seem to be under the illusion that the positions are regimented and players can't move. I can have Welbeck, Rooney, Nani and Valencia in the same team and it doesn't mean I am playing a traditional 4-4-2.

In fact this whole no out and out striker thing isn't as new and revolutionary as the pundits make it out to be Spalletti's Roma used to do it IIRC, then I think we did it somewhat with Ronaldo. Anyways possession is king, it always will be I don't think there is anything about possession based Football that says you can't play two forwards. Football tactics goes in cycles, 4-4-2 will be back in at some point but for now it seems managers are growing more aware about manipulating space and exploring unfashionable areas of the pitch, there's not much out there formation wise left to do, teams are now perfecting every little possible avenue and there are more specialised positions. Also I think people are still yet to understand the importance of ball retention.

Tactics in Football for me is about playing to the strengths of the players you have at your disposal, you can't take a whole squad and overnight say, 'Right we're going to work triangles and keep all passes on the deck.' It takes time and time isn't something managers have now.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
There is no right way to play Football but winning is the most agreeable for the masses. Possession football is great, it's the most sensible way to play football, it takes time to instill that mentality within a group of players though. There's a lot of average defenders out there, I do think attacking teams could really prosper with the right foundations. I think people focus far too much on formations though, people seem to be under the illusion that the positions are regimented and players can't move. I can have Welbeck, Rooney, Nani and Valencia in the same team and it doesn't mean I am playing a traditional 4-4-2.

In fact this whole no out and out striker thing isn't as new and revolutionary as the pundits make it out to be Spalletti's Roma used to do it IIRC, then I think we did it somewhat with Ronaldo. Anyways possession is king, it always will be I don't think there is anything about possession based Football that says you can't play two forwards. Football tactics goes in cycles, 4-4-2 will be back in at some point but for now it seems managers are growing more aware about manipulating space and exploring unfashionable areas of the pitch, there's not much out there formation wise left to do, teams are now perfecting every little possible avenue and there are more specialised positions. Also I think people are still yet to understand the importance of ball retention.

Tactics in Football for me is about playing to the strengths of the players you have at your disposal, you can't take a whole squad and overnight say, 'Right we're going to work triangles and keep all passes on the deck.' It takes time and time isn't something managers have now.
Click to expand...

tactics go in cycles, but formations, eh.
i don't see teams lining up with 2-3-5 anymore unless it is 5 mins left in a knock out competition and they are down.
 
ArmchairCritic said:
There is no right way to play Football but winning is the most agreeable for the masses. Possession football is great, it's the most sensible way to play football, it takes time to instill that mentality within a group of players though. There's a lot of average defenders out there, I do think attacking teams could really prosper with the right foundations. I think people focus far too much on formations though, people seem to be under the illusion that the positions are regimented and players can't move. I can have Welbeck, Rooney, Nani and Valencia in the same team and it doesn't mean I am playing a traditional 4-4-2.

In fact this whole no out and out striker thing isn't as new and revolutionary as the pundits make it out to be Spalletti's Roma used to do it IIRC, then I think we did it somewhat with Ronaldo. Anyways possession is king, it always will be I don't think there is anything about possession based Football that says you can't play two forwards. Football tactics goes in cycles, 4-4-2 will be back in at some point but for now it seems managers are growing more aware about manipulating space and exploring unfashionable areas of the pitch, there's not much out there formation wise left to do, teams are now perfecting every little possible avenue and there are more specialised positions. Also I think people are still yet to understand the importance of ball retention.

Tactics in Football for me is about playing to the strengths of the players you have at your disposal, you can't take a whole squad and overnight say, 'Right we're going to work triangles and keep all passes on the deck.' It takes time and time isn't something managers have now.
Click to expand...

I think people/managers understand. It is also a style that requires technicians all over the gaff. It is a style very much dependent on 'your weakest link'.
 
VoetbalWizard said:
tactics go in cycles, but formations, eh.
i don't see teams lining up with 2-3-5 anymore unless it is 5 mins left in a knock out competition and they are down.
Click to expand...

Well obviously not such a vicious cycle but there will always be 3/4 at the back and a GK, whatever happens in front we will have to see.
 
Sir Alex said:
“In the modern day game, you don't need tacklers the same way you used to,” Ferguson said. “There's no call for it. It's about anticipation and reading the game.

“The refereeing is also of such a standard now that you can hardly tackle anyone, so that sort of thing isn't the same issue as it used to be.
Click to expand...

Completely agree with him, the death of tackling is what has made possession football so important.
 
You neglect the part where he mentions anticipation and reading the game being more important, taking the place of a lot of the tackling
 
Ekeke said:
You neglect the part where he mentions anticipation and reading the game being more important, taking the place of a lot of the tackling
Click to expand...

I agree that an interception is the new tackle, but the best defence is a good 45 minute spell of possession these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.