so losing two or three goals is fine for you? getting put under pressure resulting in a wild clearance is fine for you? I would prefer us to pass safely and positively and go forward quickly
I just looked it up and this season 49% of our touches were in our penalty area or defensive third. 51% were in the midfield, attacking third, and opposition penalty area.
No one wants city to concede goals, but we're hiring a manager whose priority is to score more than what they let in, not necessarily stop them from going in.
it doesnt mean much it could be goalkicks, blocks or clearances in our penalty area or defensive third
If that's the case, then it would actually reduce the number of touches accounted to when we just passed it around at the back.
Yeah, I didn't expect it to be so split down the middle like that. But as petersaxton says, some of that will be blocks, clearances etc. when we were on the Blackfoot and defending.
Conceding 3 goals in a game? No that would be bad. I can’t recall the last time playing out the back directly did that though. conceding 3 goals in a season? Yeah I can live with that. You’re not going to go though a season conceding nothing and providing they don’t cost you too many points it’s manageable. We had far bigger issues when it came to conceding goals like being poor in transition amongst some others. in an idyllic world yeah I too would love every pass to be safe and we have 100% possession and pass completion and we win games 10-0. But let’s be realistic. Every style has risks. You named getting the ball out wide as a priority. Risk of doing that is that you sacrifice the middle of the field. Yes it’s the most dangerous to concede goals but it’s also the most dangerous in scoring goals. It’s generally why most managers nowadays set up to control the middle of the park and it’s why we’ve seen the rise of inverted full backs and centre backs stepping into midfield to create numerical advantages (something by the way Walter does) The pros of your supposed style would likely be you may concede less as the ball would be in less dangerous areas. You still could concede as many because of other factors I should add. But with good wingers and strikers you probably are a threat. On the flip side. The style Rosenior and many employ now vary in a lot of ways but at its core it’s starting with the ball in the middle of the park in order to dominate possession from that point. To break it really down Rosenior is fairly risk averse in attacking. I suspect given his lack of getting ball winners he set up to not be caught in transition too often. Pro of this is that you do control large amounts of the ball and at times are defensively solid. The risk is that without progressive play it can stagnate and we saw that. Walter will, or I hope he does, bring a more aggressive approach. When the midfielder receives the ball generally what we may see happen is a CB step into midfield to receive a pass and then get it going forward. It’s pro is that it’s a lot quicker than what we’ve seen but it’s risk is that if possession is lost in the final third there is a lot of space compared to Rosenior’s set up which still would’ve had a rigid back 3. My point is. You’re trying to make everything black and white. Most of the risks in itself come from player mistakes which any system has. It’s silly to knock any style of play for risks
Did I just see someone claim you concede more goals when the opposition has the ball? As opposed to what exactly? One of our players having a shot on our own goal because they feel like it? It's like saying you live longer when you remember to breathe.
maybe we still passed the ball around at the back but not in the defensive third after all the defensive third is only about 38 yards from goal there's still about another 20 yards to the half way line
We conceded from that situation because no one was prepared to commit a professional foul. We don't do the "dark arts" side of the game very well
I think a lot of people will be surprised by our new manager if they believe what has been said on here
If our nearest players are 30 yards from goal, then the 22 players on the pitch are compressed into a much smaller space, so no one is receiving the ball with time to do anything with it. That's just the old-fashioned method of just punting it and hoping to get something when it drops. There is a clear reason that that approach is disappearing from the game. People have realised that you can do better than that, and actually pass deliberately to a teammate with intent, providing you use the full space of the pitch, and are open to making short passes. Again though, I know I shouldn't be bothering with this because there's no way you're suddenly going to become open to the idea that the football coaching industry might be better informed than your incredibly basic view of the game.
Just had a look at big Tims stats, mostly because I was interested in the defensive slackness that seems to be peddling around, and yes it seems to be goals galore compared to us but during his time with Hamburg he had an overall goal difference of +61 with an 'average score' of 1.94 - 1.35. Not exactly 4-3 every game then
