I think its fine for our strength to be quick attacks while opponent is out of position. just got told it wasn't okay and wasn't 'modern' for years on the forum under managers the fans hated.
What's wrong with counter attacking football?
- Thread starter UpWithRivers
- Start date
Proactive > Reactive.
Also this.
If a team doesn't create a volume of chances they will be found out soon enough, as will we if we don't pick up on this. 3/4 shots on targets per game won't take us very far.
Also this.
If a team doesn't create a volume of chances they will be found out soon enough, as will we if we don't pick up on this. 3/4 shots on targets per game won't take us very far.
Last edited:
Don’t care what label is attached to the brand of football. I thought all 3 of our goals were beautifully constructed.
The first goal was a thing of ETH beauty, the other two were from a player making a beautiful incisive pass. They were not hoofing the ball forward and hoping for the best. There was method in all the goals.
We started the game on the front foot, we got the goal from our throw in, they pushed us all the way till our keeper and 5 we built and scored, it was the opposite of counter attack actually.
Then, it would be naive from the manager to just keep playing out the back, which is where their goal came from btw.
If the opponent decides that they need to play their CB's on the half way line, it is called tactics that our manager decided to put Ronaldo up top and Rashford to the wing, exploit it and that's exactly what we did.
People need to realise the difference between counter attack and transitional play. Counter attack is when you sit in a low block and spring.
Transitional play is when you win the ball back and construct an attack. People are calling it counter attack because we used speed to score the goal.
Its Arteta's dumb decision to play a high line, we exploited it.
Then, it would be naive from the manager to just keep playing out the back, which is where their goal came from btw.
If the opponent decides that they need to play their CB's on the half way line, it is called tactics that our manager decided to put Ronaldo up top and Rashford to the wing, exploit it and that's exactly what we did.
People need to realise the difference between counter attack and transitional play. Counter attack is when you sit in a low block and spring.
Transitional play is when you win the ball back and construct an attack. People are calling it counter attack because we used speed to score the goal.
Its Arteta's dumb decision to play a high line, we exploited it.
Couldn't give a feck how we get a one off result but I've always said that we don't become a top team until we can play possession football. All great teams can hit you on the counter attack and dominate / control the ball as if they were able to do one they would be easily found out. We've been bang average in attack this past decade because all we excel at is hitting teams on the break which is easier to pull with quick players. Building a team that can do both is the difficult job.
The thing that is wrong with counter attacking football is that it doesn't really scale. You can't win the league playing counter-attacking football every game. Even Leicester didn't do that when they won the league and they only won the league because everyone else was shit.
You can't counter attack a team that is sitting deep all game and leaving no space behind.
There is nothing wrong with counter-attacking, its just not something you can always do.
When you are a big team, fans expect you to dominate games most weeks as well. They don't want to see Man Utd counter attacking against the minnows of the league. Its partly an ego thing. The better team usually isn't counter attacking.
You can't counter attack a team that is sitting deep all game and leaving no space behind.
There is nothing wrong with counter-attacking, its just not something you can always do.
When you are a big team, fans expect you to dominate games most weeks as well. They don't want to see Man Utd counter attacking against the minnows of the league. Its partly an ego thing. The better team usually isn't counter attacking.
All top teams can play devastating counterattacking football. But that is only one dimension. You need to have different dimensions to be the very best. Teams can just play in a low block against counterattacking teams and get a result.
I would imagine the best players don’t want to be chasing the ball for 70% of the game and would rather have possession themselves to showcase their talent.
I would imagine the best players don’t want to be chasing the ball for 70% of the game and would rather have possession themselves to showcase their talent.
Its hard to use it against most teams in the league when they realise that sitting back means you cant counter attack. Its easier to do against the bigger teams
It is a negative thing, if the case is that this is how you depend on getting your goals. Because it's predictable and one-dimensional, and relatively easy to counteract for any team choosing to adapt to their opponent and happy enough to draw (which for a club like United is most teams). Great teams utilize counterattacks, but they don't depend on them.
Counter attacks are one of the most thrilling aspects of football. Those moments of sheer ruthlessness are what football are all about, see the famous Rooney/Ronaldo counter as an example where you punish the opponents for overcommitting or being sloppy.
However, counter attacking has unfairly become associated with parking the bus. It’s not something a team can rely on in every game and just because you can hammer opponents on the counter does not make you a ‘counter attacking team’.
However, counter attacking has unfairly become associated with parking the bus. It’s not something a team can rely on in every game and just because you can hammer opponents on the counter does not make you a ‘counter attacking team’.
We just got behind Arsenal's high line.
First goal was a proper recycled ball before Eriksen's pass.
The third one was from our throw in, it wasn't even a quick throw in.
First goal was a proper recycled ball before Eriksen's pass.
The third one was from our throw in, it wasn't even a quick throw in.
Absolutely nothing. Just go ask madrid how its worked for them in the last 10 years.
The problem isn't really with counter attacking football, it's when you're only good at counter attacking football it's an issue. Too many teams aren't going to play high up the pitch or commit enough bodies forward for counter attack to be relied upon to win you games.
We were effective on the counter under Ole but against teams that sat behind the ball we couldn't break them down. Our goals scored tally under Ole (or Mourinho) was never anywhere near the likes of City or Liverpool over the last few years.
We were effective on the counter under Ole but against teams that sat behind the ball we couldn't break them down. Our goals scored tally under Ole (or Mourinho) was never anywhere near the likes of City or Liverpool over the last few years.
Counter attacking is the new "long ball" ... just need LVG to come out with his dossier showing how many teams do it
Our greatest teams under Sir Alex were among the best counter attacking teams in europe at time. We literally build a dynasty based on it. Swashbuckling quick transition from defence to attack football.. its a joy to behold when done right.
We will have ganes when we dominate possession against teams who will drop deep against us.
We will also have games where teams like arsenal will want to own the ball but we have the tools to catch them.
Give me a counter attacking 3 pointa over 0 points any day of the week!
We will have ganes when we dominate possession against teams who will drop deep against us.
We will also have games where teams like arsenal will want to own the ball but we have the tools to catch them.
Give me a counter attacking 3 pointa over 0 points any day of the week!
Best teams do both IMO.
Pep's teams have been anomalous exceptions, in that they are so highly possession focused. Personally I don't find that as entertaining or satisfying as a side who can mix it up. It's also not as pure as it's made out to be, they do a lot of tactical fouls to prevent counter attacks, so they can get off any kind of moral high horse. You can't complain about counter attacks when you camp your CBs on the halfway line - how dare the opposition attack our weak spot, can't they see we are attempting to play beautiful passing football!!
Pep's teams have been anomalous exceptions, in that they are so highly possession focused. Personally I don't find that as entertaining or satisfying as a side who can mix it up. It's also not as pure as it's made out to be, they do a lot of tactical fouls to prevent counter attacks, so they can get off any kind of moral high horse. You can't complain about counter attacks when you camp your CBs on the halfway line - how dare the opposition attack our weak spot, can't they see we are attempting to play beautiful passing football!!
This.
We haven't really been playing counter-attacking football at all. Once you go a goal up opportunities to counter will arise and a good team will capitalise. It's a lazy narrative and at odds with the facts.
It's pretty funny for me. Arsenal was not nearly as much of an attacking side as people like to remember, especially away from home. They were very strong on the counter, moreso than we were at the time, yet people always seem to talk about how great thier football was.
I agree with you completely. In home games, when we are the stronger more dominant team and some away games, I do expect us to break teams down with ease ( which is what I'd consider good football). However, that differs in most away games and big games against top sides. The bigger thing for me is to control games and have the ability to win them quite easily. This can come in the way of nullifying the opposition completely through strong defensive actions, being clinical, preventing them from getting near your box or possession. If you can consistently ensure that you control the majority of games ( with or without possession), you are a top side. If you can create chances at will, regardless of what you do in possession, you are a top attacking team. That's the way it was pre 2008 and the way it should be looked at imo.
There a few seasons we had of truly fantastic football imo. 06/07 is up there.
The irony with ETH, watching his Ajax sides in the Champions League and watching him with us. There is a touch of similarity in attack to the early 90's United sides, pre-Beckham.
The bolded is very true. I remember some member of the invincibles (possibly Vieira?) saying that one thing that they focused on in training was countering quickly- he said they had a drill where the ball would be in the hands of the keeper and would have to progress from there to the edge of the oppo box in something like 8-10 secs.
Apparently we're Burnley now
Pep's Barca is a funny case study.
His 08/09 team was brilliant to watch. They weren't as obsessed with holding on to possession and Xavi was picking out passes from deep quite easily. His assist totals that season were crazy. I think they got very possession focused when Busquets replaced Yaya Toure in the no.6 role. Where he used to carry the ball at times, letting Xavi and Iniesta push up further an open spaces; Busquets sitting deep gave and having such a fantastic first touch provided Barca with both defensive assurance in and out of possession, but also forced Xavi and Iniesta slightly deeper.
Even though the 08/09 team was more attractive, the 2010 to 2012 teams were so much harder to beat; and way harder to win the ball back from ( which is a lot more of a defensive tactic than people seem to realize).
Whatever they think we play, I don't care. We start to play great football, whether it is possession based or counter or whatever. The fact that people start talking about United that way shows we're doing something right
I don't think the end product of this United team will look like Ten Haag's team at Ajax.
The intensity of the league alone means that he will have to adapt tactically.
I think we will look very similar to the first 15 minutes of that Arsenal game at the end of this, with the ability to recycle possession passively at certain lull moments ( once Casemiro gets settled) and the additional threat of the counter attack.
ETH has never been afraid of long switches or over the top balls either. I don't think we will push as high as those Ajax teams in possession, but will score a bit more on the counter than those teams. In attack, we seem to have a bit more similarity to Liverpool than City, in the sense that he likes to have a lot of the quick combinations coming from out wide rather than the centre, constantly looking for the overlap, whether from a midfielder or a winger. The press also seems to be quite narrow in possession, a tad bit similar to what Rangnick wanted.
The intensity of the league alone means that he will have to adapt tactically.
I think we will look very similar to the first 15 minutes of that Arsenal game at the end of this, with the ability to recycle possession passively at certain lull moments ( once Casemiro gets settled) and the additional threat of the counter attack.
ETH has never been afraid of long switches or over the top balls either. I don't think we will push as high as those Ajax teams in possession, but will score a bit more on the counter than those teams. In attack, we seem to have a bit more similarity to Liverpool than City, in the sense that he likes to have a lot of the quick combinations coming from out wide rather than the centre, constantly looking for the overlap, whether from a midfielder or a winger. The press also seems to be quite narrow in possession, a tad bit similar to what Rangnick wanted.
Trends come and go. Pep-ball has been in vogue for, what, 15 years now, originating because other sides at that time couldn't play against it. Our current style is very effective against possession-based sides. So there's every chance that if we win a few things over the next couple of seasons, Ten-Hag-Counter-Ball will become the new vogue.
I find a certain amount of satisfaction in having a team of hard-cases kicking lumps out of fancy teams and winning in the style we have been recently. I'm all for it.
I find a certain amount of satisfaction in having a team of hard-cases kicking lumps out of fancy teams and winning in the style we have been recently. I'm all for it.
I never minded it. There’s a difference between parking the bus and what we did yesterday. The line arsenal were playing was kamikaze like, we’d have been mad not to.
That's something that isn't being talked about enough.
Arsenal spent the whole game trying to push us back. Zinchenko was literally in midfield and their two centre backs were isolated with a lot of spaces available to exploit. They essentially through the kitchen sink at us and left themselves vulnerable to be countered. Outside of the beginning of the first half ( 45 - 60), we were consistently able to bypass their press and create attacks. They took the risk of pushing 9 players in our half, we exploited it.
I don't think we were counter attacking yesterday.
The issue under other managers is that when we had possession we could barely string two passes together. Even when we had the ball in the opposition half in the past, we were barely able to do anything.
In this game, we broke down their press and exploited the spaces they left open. When we had possession, we were even more of a threat than they were. We knew how to use the ball and were therefore always dangerous, both in our half and in theirs.
Horses for courses.
As long as its effective, keeps the opposition out and creates chances I don't care.
As long as its effective, keeps the opposition out and creates chances I don't care.
To be fair unless I'm completely mistaken, the goal for United and ten Hag is to be an elite team.
Nothing wrong with it, but none of the goals yesterday were strictly speaking counter attcking goals. The first was lovely football, 2 and 3 were great passes that completely took Arsenals highline out of the game.
Just like every thing else it has it's time and place. I quite enjoy watching teams suck the opponents in breaking quickly and hitting them on the counter.
Just like every thing else it has it's time and place. I quite enjoy watching teams suck the opponents in breaking quickly and hitting them on the counter.
Ha, I meant it as people thinking the only right way to play football is a Pep system and putting down all othersTo be fair unless I'm completely mistaken, the goal for United and ten Hag is to be an elite team.
17 passes before Antony scores, dont think that was counter attacking football
Its another lazy pundit/media narrative.
Some of the best football I ever saw was the counter attacking from the Arsenal team back in the Invincible days. Some of the utter worst football I ever saw was LVG's United possession style.
But in reality nobody pays any attention to the ex-pro ranting on youtube, we only watch to fill the gap between actual games.
Nowt to get worked up about.
Some of the best football I ever saw was the counter attacking from the Arsenal team back in the Invincible days. Some of the utter worst football I ever saw was LVG's United possession style.
But in reality nobody pays any attention to the ex-pro ranting on youtube, we only watch to fill the gap between actual games.
Nowt to get worked up about.
I prefer to have several tactics rather than one tactic to play all different style matches. Possession doesn't mean everything when you create less chance, lost the matches, barely play into the box etc.
We all knew Arsenal way is going to act like City and play a extremely high line, then the most efficiency method to beat them is making a run behind and break them with speed.
We knew that before and we won most of them with counter attack against Arsenal.
Use the most efficiency methods to win the matches would be preferable.
We all knew Arsenal way is going to act like City and play a extremely high line, then the most efficiency method to beat them is making a run behind and break them with speed.
We knew that before and we won most of them with counter attack against Arsenal.
Use the most efficiency methods to win the matches would be preferable.
When a team regains possession, the goal of the defending team is to transition as quickly and as efficiently into their defensive shape and from that point they will use different type of schemes in order to regain possession and teams of all levels are generally good during that phase. The goal of the attacking team is to initially exploit the fact that the opposition isn't in shape which in theory should allow better and easier chances, that's a counter attack and it's the first thing that all teams do and want to do.
Now the point of that obnoxiously obvious description is that counter attacking football isn't really a thing, people tend to use that term without mentioning or maybe thinking about the fact that they apply that description to teams that are too limited technically, physically or tactically to regularly fully transition from defense to attack, these teams often lose the ball during the transition without having the opportunity to play a possession phases against a set defense. And that's the majority of teams.
That brings us to the quesiton of the OP, for a team that wants to reach elite Football it's not a good thing to be described as one that plays counter attacking football. Not due to the counter attacking component but because it implies that too often you do not complete your transition properly and lose possession within that transition which will have consequences when it comes to the amount of opportunities that you give to the opposition. An other thing that is sometimes overlooked is that teams that are able to complete transitions smoothly concede less goals.
Now the point of that obnoxiously obvious description is that counter attacking football isn't really a thing, people tend to use that term without mentioning or maybe thinking about the fact that they apply that description to teams that are too limited technically, physically or tactically to regularly fully transition from defense to attack, these teams often lose the ball during the transition without having the opportunity to play a possession phases against a set defense. And that's the majority of teams.
That brings us to the quesiton of the OP, for a team that wants to reach elite Football it's not a good thing to be described as one that plays counter attacking football. Not due to the counter attacking component but because it implies that too often you do not complete your transition properly and lose possession within that transition which will have consequences when it comes to the amount of opportunities that you give to the opposition. An other thing that is sometimes overlooked is that teams that are able to complete transitions smoothly concede less goals.
People want to see 100-pass goals and 87% possession....
If you've 23 hand-chosen players and/or you're far superior to the opposition then 'possession-based' progressive football is the most 'plus EV' in terms of total points...think Guardiola at Barcelona, Bayern Munich or City.
However, I have always maintained that counter-attacking is the best style for every other 'type' of team. That doesn't have to necessarily mean defending your own penalty-box but it does mean allowing your opponent some of the ball, allowing them to advance players up the field and then breaking into the space they leave when you win it back.
The fact that this is easier to do is true at every level of football, from 5-a-side through Sunday League through Semi-Pro through Football League through Champions League.