Where on the pitch do the best transition sequences start?

[clean-sheet-culkin]

tl;dr

• High turnovers are bad. Agree/disagree?
• Where is best to turn over?
• Can we do it?

Context

I was watching a FourFourTwo video about Sofyan Amrabat and a stat came up about transitions and high turn overs.

When I dug out the full table they were referencing, one of the things I found interesting is that so far in the Prem, almost 500 high turn overs have resulted in only 11 goals.

So, if you're focused on scoring by winning back the ball <40 yards from the goal, you'll have to do it 40-50 times to score 1. That's a pretty terrible return.

This matches with what I've always seen in the Prem (with maybe only 1-2 seasons as an exception); high turnovers are a waste of time because it's like attacking a turtle already in it's shell.

In my opinion, if you're going to be "the best transition team in the world", you have to let a team attack you, draw them in, allow them to get themselves out of shape, gain an unexpected advantage, then rapidly destroy them. We did that really well in the middle of Rashy's purple patch. What's happening now is that we're on the other side, committing high up the pitch, losing the ball, then being rinsed through the middle.

I would like to see us regain the ball rapidly in our final third. With our team of passers and speed, surely that's the best method for transition?

 

[Stack]

At the opposing position to where the opposition players are filling.

 

[Stack]

tl;dr

• High turnovers are bad. Agree/disagree?
• Where is best to turn over?
• Can we do it?

Context

I was watching a FourFourTwo video about Sofyan Amrabat and a stat came up about transitions and high turn overs.

When I dug out the full table they were referencing, one of the things I found interesting is that so far in the Prem, almost 500 high turn overs have resulted in only 11 goals.

So, if you're focused on scoring by winning back the ball <40 yards from the goal, you'll have to do it 40-50 times to score 1. That's a pretty terrible return.

This matches with what I've always seen in the Prem (with maybe only 1-2 seasons as an exception); high turnovers are a waste of time because it's like attacking a turtle already in it's shell.

In my opinion, if you're going to be "the best transition team in the world", you have to let a team attack you, draw them in, allow them to get themselves out of shape, gain an unexpected advantage, then rapidly destroy them. We did that really well in the middle of Rashy's purple patch. What's happening now is that we're on the other side, committing high up the pitch, losing the ball, then being rinsed through the middle.

I would like to see us regain the ball rapidly in our final third. With our team of passers and speed, surely that's the best method for transition?

You are effectively asking for counter attacking tactics. Defending with a view to counter attack is long understood system. It was the topic I had to present on my last senior coaching badge. I love it as a tactic when done well.

 

[Skills]

A lot of people miss the point of the high press. You don't see many goals from a direct turnovers in the opponents half.

The key objective is to just make the opponent panic and kick the ball long (where you should have an advantage to regain the ball with your CBs competing for the ball against a striker). You just pin the opponent in their own half, and keep attacking pressure on them until they wilt.

Most players complete over 85% of their short passes, if you cut these off and make the opponent go longer and longer - the completion percentages drop massively and that's how you regain the ball more often and further away from your own goal.

 

[Stack]

A lot of people miss the point of the high press. You don't see many goals from a direct turnovers in the opponents half.

The key objective is to just make the opponent panic and kick the ball long (where you should have an advantage to regain the ball with your CBs competing for the ball against a striker). You just pin the opponent in their own half, and keep attacking pressure on them until they wilt.

Most players complete over 85% of their short passes, if you cut these off and make the opponent go longer and longer - the completion percentages drop massively and that's how you regain the ball more often and further away from your own goal.

If we watch games where teams go long the success rate is pretty low. You are right about the objective

 

[Plastic Evra]

tl;dr

• High turnovers are bad. Agree/disagree?
• Where is best to turn over?
• Can we do it?

Context

I was watching a FourFourTwo video about Sofyan Amrabat and a stat came up about transitions and high turn overs.

When I dug out the full table they were referencing, one of the things I found interesting is that so far in the Prem, almost 500 high turn overs have resulted in only 11 goals.

So, if you're focused on scoring by winning back the ball <40 yards from the goal, you'll have to do it 40-50 times to score 1. That's a pretty terrible return.

This matches with what I've always seen in the Prem (with maybe only 1-2 seasons as an exception); high turnovers are a waste of time because it's like attacking a turtle already in it's shell.

In my opinion, if you're going to be "the best transition team in the world", you have to let a team attack you, draw them in, allow them to get themselves out of shape, gain an unexpected advantage, then rapidly destroy them. We did that really well in the middle of Rashy's purple patch. What's happening now is that we're on the other side, committing high up the pitch, losing the ball, then being rinsed through the middle.

I would like to see us regain the ball rapidly in our final third. With our team of passers and speed, surely that's the best method for transition?

We'd need stats for how many goals are scored from winning back the ball in other areas of the pitch before saying 1 goal from 40-50 turnovers is bad return.

 

[clean-sheet-culkin]

The key objective is to just make the opponent panic and kick the ball long.

That makes sense. Though based on our games so far, I've not seen that happen. Instead I've seen rapid counter attacking when our passing accuracy breaks down.

Does this tactic really work within the quality of the Prem? Not many teams and players truly panic from what I've seen. Most are capable of playing their way out of trouble, those who aren't just sit with 10 behind the ball.

It's also fine to regain the ball from a long clear, but if the opposing team don't then press up the pitch or chase the ball, you've done nothing to their shape.

It seems to me that it's a good general tactic, but that it's a very awkward and challenging way to win games in the top tier.

Or do I not know what I'm talking about?

 

[TheRedDevil'sAdvocate]

A lot of people miss the point of the high press. You don't see many goals from a direct turnovers in the opponents half.

The key objective is to just make the opponent panic and kick the ball long (where you should have an advantage to regain the ball with your CBs competing for the ball against a striker). You just pin the opponent in their own half, and keep attacking pressure on them until they wilt.

Most players complete over 85% of their short passes, if you cut these off and make the opponent go longer and longer - the completion percentages drop massively and that's how you regain the ball more often and further away from your own goal.

Agreed. It's about forcing your own rhythm on the opponent and playing the game on your own terms. City, for example, will press high to win the ball and then they will slow everything down and coup the opponent in with their positioning and passing game. Different approach. Klopp, whenever Liverpool go all the way, uses the high press to nullify the opponent when his team is a goal or two up. Another main objective is not allowing the opposition to set the tempo. Which is huge and it really boggles the mind how people (often choose to) overlook it. You see even midtable sides (or lower) that want to have the ball and have designed more than one way to attack. People are so scared of the high line, but nowadays, sitting back objectively doesn't get the job done in the long-term. Hell, even Dyche yesterday was trying to unsettle Sheffield Utd's build-up.

 

[Stack]

That makes sense. Though based on our games so far, I've not seen that happen. Instead I've seen rapid counter attacking when our passing accuracy breaks down.

Does this tactic really work within the quality of the Prem? Not many teams and players truly panic from what I've seen. Most are capable of playing their way out of trouble, those who aren't just sit with 10 behind the ball.

It's also fine to regain the ball from a long clear, but if the opposing team don't then press up the pitch or chase the ball, you've done nothing to their shape.

It seems to me that it's a good general tactic, but that it's a very awkward and challenging way to win games in the top tier.

Or do I not know what I'm talking about?

Its got some very specific aspects to it when done right, its not as sporadic or random as it may appear from the spectators point of view. there are a series of things in the set up that need t be done well for it to work. I wouldnt call it awkward, I think its far more structured than many are aware of.

 

[Lentwood]

tl;dr

• High turnovers are bad. Agree/disagree?
• Where is best to turn over?
• Can we do it?

Context

I was watching a FourFourTwo video about Sofyan Amrabat and a stat came up about transitions and high turn overs.

When I dug out the full table they were referencing, one of the things I found interesting is that so far in the Prem, almost 500 high turn overs have resulted in only 11 goals.

So, if you're focused on scoring by winning back the ball <40 yards from the goal, you'll have to do it 40-50 times to score 1. That's a pretty terrible return.

This matches with what I've always seen in the Prem (with maybe only 1-2 seasons as an exception); high turnovers are a waste of time because it's like attacking a turtle already in it's shell.

In my opinion, if you're going to be "the best transition team in the world", you have to let a team attack you, draw them in, allow them to get themselves out of shape, gain an unexpected advantage, then rapidly destroy them. We did that really well in the middle of Rashy's purple patch. What's happening now is that we're on the other side, committing high up the pitch, losing the ball, then being rinsed through the middle.

I would like to see us regain the ball rapidly in our final third. With our team of passers and speed, surely that's the best method for transition?

Nowadays I don't watch enough football in enough detail to be any sort of tactical expert but I believe our plan is not to aim for "high turnovers" but to aim for turnovers in the middle 3rd, so that we can exploit the space in-behind that this creates.

We actually did this reasonably well against Wolves for 30/35mins and again, against Spurs for 35/40mins but we seem to lose our way - which I think is probably just down to it not being "muscle memory" yet and/or not knowing how to respond to opponents tactical tweaks.

The other problem we have is that the likes of Antony, Garnacho and Rashford can be greedy/wasteful. Its a constant frustration of mine that so many attackers shoot when the pass is by far the more +EV action. A team like prime Barcelona were fantastic at playing the extra pass, turning a half-decent chance into a "big chance" for a team-mate by demonstrating some composure and playing the extra pass.

The problem with playing the counter, as you suggest, is that the majority of teams who come to Old Trafford will NEVER open up. Even teams like Newcastle or Villa won't do it, nevermind bottom half teams. This was the problem we had under Solskjaer. Brilliant away from home because teams felt under more pressure to attack us infront of their own fans. Home record against teams we should beat was dreadful, because we had no ideas when teams sat deep.