I think he'd have had a decision to make about Allsop for boxing day, had he not got injured. It would have been interesting to see what he'd have done. I'm not trying to say Rosenior is the finished article and won't become a better coach with greater experience, but the way you wrote implied naivety. We wouldn't be where we are if he was overly naive.
This will catch on Bournemouth actively giving the ball to the opposition for a goal kicks as they fancy their chances of pushing the opposition into mistakes Other teams will do it In football’s third age, old certainties have melted away and nothing is as it seems | Football tactics | The Guardian Bournemouth kicked off. They had gained a certain notoriety for their kick-offs last season, scoring, for instance, in the 10th second at Arsenal following a bluff in which they loaded the left side and then attacked down the right. This time, at Old Trafford, the kick‑off was far more straightforward, knocked back and, as two men charged down the right, the ball was swept out to that flank. It was overhit. Neither of the chasers had any real chance of getting there and Sergio Reguilón, the Manchester United left-back, let it go out for a goal-kick. The instinct was to think it a waste, to wonder why Bournemouth had given the ball away so cheaply. Given the care they had taken over their kick-offs last season, why so careless? It seemed an odd omission for a coach as respected and apparently meticulous as Andoni Iraola to have abandoned a ploy worked on by Gary O’Neil. Then United took the goal-kick, faffed with a short touch to André Onana followed by mild panic (that was not a timewasting tactic against Liverpoollast week; that’s just what they always do), and wandered into the Bournemouth press, immediately coming under pressure. And that’s when the truth dawned: giving away the goal‑kick was a deliberate tactic – or at least was factored in; had Antoine Semenyo beaten Reguilón to the ball to set up a crossing opportunity, that was also good – because an opposition goal-kick has come to represent a chance, at least when the opposition is as uneasy at playing out from the back as United. This is football’s third age, in which the old certainties have melted away and nothing is quite as it seems. For more than a century, football was a game of territory. Goalkeepers kicked it long. When a defender won the ball, their first thought was to belt it clear. Kick-offs tended to involve the ball being punted into the corner for a winger to chase, with the strong possibility of forcing the opposition to take a throw-in in a dangerous area. You didn’t have to be a long-ball fundamentalist in the manner of Charles Reep or Charles Hughes to reason that the further the ball was from your own goal, the safer you were. The mindset was so ingrained that it was only in 2019 that the stipulation a goal-kick must leave the area before being touched by another player was lifted. Hardly anybody played out from the back, so the fact that it made it far easier to press if the team taking the kick had to wait for the ball to leave the box to touch it for a second time hadn’t occurred to anybody. The language of football reflects that, much of the terminology drawn from older forms of warfare: teams are “camped” in their opponents’ half, they “lay siege” to their goal, while defenders “dig in’, often in “rearguard actions”. The Sky commentator Gary Weaver is obsessed by castles. Everything is couched in the terms of defending or seizing territory. There were exceptions, but they were rare and controversial. Herbert Chapman was experimenting with counterattacking from being appointed player-manager of Northampton in 1907. When he won the FA Cup with Huddersfield in 1922, he was censured by the FA in a vague letter that expressed a hope that “there will not be any similar conduct in any future final tie”. Karl Rappan developed a form of sweeper system with Servette in the 40s then, in the 50s and 60s, came the golden age of catenaccioin Italy. But from the mid-60s, two other types of football were emerging. Valeriy Lobanovskyi developed pressing in Kyiv. In West Germany possession football took hold. And in the Netherlands the two were combined in Total Football. This was a classic case of dialectical development: the elite Italian sides liked to play without the ball so their challengers had to work out how to play better with the ball. please log in to view this image André Onana, who struggles with playing out from the back with this Manchester United defence, comes under pressure from Solanke. Photograph: Ash Donelon/Manchester United/Getty Images As pitches and equipment improved so that first touches could be taken for granted, and as the increasingly stratified economics of the game concentrated talent, the best possession sides, such as Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona, would regularly have 75% of the ball. This was the Cruyffian variation on “if the ball’s in their half they can’t hurt us”; “if we have the ball, they can’t score”. Football had become a game not of territory but of possession. Short goal-kicks are now the default because having the ball 100 yards from the opposition goal is deemed more valuable than not having it 30 yards from the opposition goal. The past decade has largely been a reaction to the extreme domination of possession prompted by the Guardiola model, and has largely involved pressing harder or more efficiently. If they want the ball, we have to work out better ways of winning it back. The clashes between Guardiola and Jürgen Klopp have been regular manifestations of that dynamic. Both have themselves evolved, Guardiola becoming more direct, and Klopp turning down the heavy‑metal football to something a little more possession-based. What is happening now feels harder to categorise (which may just be to say that it is new). The old divide of territory versus possession is no longer adequate. Evolution is never purely cyclical: it’s not the case that each revolution brings us back to where we were because there is knowledge of what went before – the model is not circular but helical. We are familiar with pressing, and that becomes a new field of conflict, especially as data analysis increases its sophistication. Roberto De Zerbi’s Brighton try to provoke the press to draw opponents forward to hit the space that leaves. On Monday, Enzo Maresca’s Leicester scored a goal that is becoming increasingly familiar, with a counterattack from a Birmingham corner. Bournemouth’s Iraola recognises that giving the opposition a goal‑kick is an opportunity to recover possession and spring a transition. Teams taking set plays now find themselves in possession, and yet somehow vulnerable as a result. Strength is weakness and weakness strength. After territory and possession, football’s third age is a confusing, topsy-turvy place. Data has taken us through the looking glass, where nothing is quite what it seems.
Was intended as a flippant comment in relation to what he always does. Expect he'll go in the window. That's what I was trying to imply. Thought I was replying on the transfer thread tbh. My bad. Was a bit hasty.
So you’re blaming Rosenior for him not being spectacular? (some ****er probably will on the other thread)
Thing is some mistakes we see on the repeat I dont think are coachable. It seems Allsop's shot stopping has always been a question mark and we are seeing that now. I personally didn't expect to see it so badly but he does seem to have an issue with it. (For the record I do get that it may also fall on LR given it is likely that he was a recommendation Some mistakes such as decision making when playing out the back we have seen rectified. Until Ingram's mistake yesterday we had learned to play it safer since QPR. We have also seen some of the attacking decision making improving when we used to criticise them for never shooting.
LR has a real decision to make re allsop, he's just not up to being #1 in a top 6 chasing club, he's costing us points and unfortunately will probably cost us more with his shot stopping. We need to go back in to the market for a proper #1 and not just panic buy if we lose out on a couple as we did with allsop.
Remember the top Liverpool sides always being improved Shankly onwards often brought in a ‘better’ player to replace one we all thought was ok - they were never ‘satisfied’
Out of interest, who were the keepers we missed out on in summer before Allsop became our last resort?
Not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence - are you saying if we don't get our first or second choice - or however many we identify - we just stick with Allsop?
In Jan, absolutely. We need not get ahead of ourselves IMO, we would be in danger of going up too soon if we did this season too much turnover would be needed. Would love us to add a few quality players in Jan to keep us in the top 6 mix, but we don’t need to rush for me at the expense of next summer likely in this league.
2/3 years time it will come into fashion that you smash it long and get the 2nd ball when the keeper smashes it up field.
I think Watford will end up nipping the “possession” sides to top 6 as they play that kind of style. Too many teams are going down the route we are currently going for. A well drilled, fit and strong side will have a field day.
Darlow was one. We were linked with the kid who went to middlesboro - Dieng? - and Tom Heaton was a persistent name also liked in summer. The only point in playing out is to draw the press and create space behind. If they try to ****house you and give you a goal kick to employ their press. Knock it long where the space is ffs. The longer we play the style, the better we'll know when to play it long or short. We play well drilled, fit and strong sides every week. It's the championship, that's why it's unpredictable.
A lot of them play similar styles to us though. Think the league is missing, well Watford I think fit the mould, a direct side, everyone is going down the ultra possession route.
A lot have seen what we're doing (amongst others) and starting to copy too. Maybe they're doing it for a reason?
Err - I didn't claim that and no, we didn't. A couple of clubs with realistic development and sustainability plans did though, and have since established themselves in the premier league. But the simple truth is, it's improved what we have since we adopted it. And it's still relatively early days for this core squad.
So basically, the future is for all teams to pass around the back and have as much of the ball as possible? Likely leading to less shots on goal and more nervy (rather than exciting) times for all fans. Combined with players falling over even more regularly and conning the ref, along with constant stoppages due to VAR - where fans will never truly be able to celebrate a goal until all aspects of it are checked. Will football ever be as good again? These are my 3:30am thoughts. I’m off back to sleep now to pretend I haven’t read that article. I’m going to think of the rise of this wonderful football club from which I’ve supported since 1995 as a young boy. I’ll hopefully drift off around 2013 where another horrible idea was thought up…
