Teams used to play with two strikers: one tall and one fast The tall one would head the ball on to the fast striker if the header by either the striker or defender fell to an attacker they would pass the ball forward to build an attack if a team chooses to take risks a few yards from goal it is the team without the ball who has the better chance of scoring because of errors from a few yards out even if a goal isnt scored there is usually several changes of possession before there's another attack it's only the teams with a lot of quality players who can keep possession for long periods
What's the expression - better to keep quiet and maybe thought a fool than speak and have the doubt confirmed. Roooooooney after the game today: "We knew Sheffield Wednesday were one of the best teams in the league last season at crosses and cutbacks and it was four goals from crosses and cutbacks, which we worked a lot on throughout the week..." Next Saturday it may be: "Injuries are a big problem in this league so I worked on this with the squad throughout the week - we've had to call off the game with Hull City as we have so many players in hospital we can't field a side".
But everything you have written is if's and buts. 50/50 chances of success, eg 'if the big lanky striker can beat the big lanky defender'. The new style people are playing allows coaches to try and contorl possession and in time the amount of chances they create. Controlling the amount of chances you create instead of punting it up to two giants and hoping your giant wins. I didnt rate Rosenior as our manager but there was a reason he was so proud of our possesison stats and why we topped the controlling the passes in our own third stats or whatever it was. He wanted to do that and he got it right. What we couldnt do is transition fast enough into attack a lot of the time which meant we ended up very bored. When we faced teams that didnt stop us for whatever reason we looked wonderful, Boro, Leicester and Leeds games spring to mind.
Football is a game of ifs and buts. You cant scientifically know what will happen. If a striker heads the ball it doesnt necessarily go to a team mate. If a defender heads the ball it doesnt necessarily go to a team mate. If a defender receives the ball from a goalkeeper when he's three yards from the goal line and an attacker closes him down then the defender might lose the ball, he might pass to another player, he might decide to kick the ball into touch, he might decide to kick the ball upfield and he might try to dribble past the attacker. There's risks in every situation. I would rather pass the ball a lot further forward than three yards when the risk of conceding a goal is less. What is the point of even passing the ball sidewards from player to player and then back again? It increases the statistics but to no advantage. The disadvantage is the opponents have time to prepare their defence.
Exactly, you've answered it yourself. It doesn't guarantee anything but it hugely increases the chances of you keeping the ball and getting more chances. The big IF is can you get high enough up the field playing out to create chances. Man City find it fairly easy but they have players on 200k a week for they very reason.
What? "Exactly, you've answered it yourself. It doesn't guarantee anything but it hugely increases the chances of you keeping the ball and getting more chances." Why does it hugely increase the chances of keeping the ball? Teams at our level lose possession all the time. I dont want my team to lose possession a few yards from our goal.
This is what our manager had to say on the matter in an interview from a while ago: "If I play a long ball that does not serve as a relocation but is only knocked forward, then I have no control. The ball can land with me or not, the chance is 50%. But if I play a short pass, I keep the ball 80 or 90%. That's why I made it my goal to move the ball from the back to front."
Nobody is saying we should play long balls. So, playing a short pass near our goal with 80% success would mean we only have 41% success if we do 4 short passes. Frightening!
Watching live yesterday I thought we got nowhere with our playing out and only played ourselves into trouble with no sign of any reward for all the risk. But on the highlights I noticed that the chance where Jarvis shot tamely at the keeper actually came from us cutting right through the middle of them from our playing out. We'll need to do more of that and less of the playing ourselves into trouble as we get better at it, but it's just interesting how you can be watching the game and not notice what you've seen until you see it again.
Given our match on Wednesday against Wednesday is only our second competitive match, wouldnt it make more sense to play our first team rather than putting a different side out and then change it again for the next match?
I would think players like Millar and Burns would get starts exactly because they would be expecting to start on the weekend.
100%. I've got a Hudl camera for my u10s side so film every game and some training sessions. It's very unusual at that age especially as they cost £2000 a year, but its mental how much you miss when the game is going on. I've gone home with a real downer on players in my mind and then watched the game back only to realise they did about 10 very good things I'd asked of them but only the 2 or 3 mistakes stuck in my head.
Think that's the way at almost any level though, mistakes will stick in the mind and people will forget the multiple great or very good things players have done because when those good things are done generally they seamlessly blend in. Mistakes stand out.
Something that never gets mentioned when people are parroting the "everyone's copying Pep" line is that there was a major rule change a few years ago which led to all these short goal kicks. Where previously you had to pass the ball out of the area and no one could be inside it, now the defenders can be inside the area, meaning you get a free pass to a teammate who no one is allowed to be within 12 yards of. That change is the biggest reason that everyone takes short goal kicks now.
I watched the full match replay on Tigers+ and what I noticed the most is how many aimless long balls we made. Most of them were made by Jacob and McLoughlin. I’m going to put it down to nerves on the opening day and still adjusting to the new coach’s tactics but there was a distinct lack of composure in possession. The two outfield players who stood out to me for having composure with the ball were Jones and Simons. I do get where Walter is coming from in his post-match interview about us lacking bravery on the ball. Players were taking one too many touches when their teammates rotated into space instead of having the confidence to make that quick pass and by that point the Brizzle players had pressed them into an awkward angle and they had little choice but to hoof it down the line. Jones was decent at the give-and-go rotations that Walter wants from his centre-halves but McLoughlin dawdled too much. Simons’ first or second touch was usually a pass or he took the ball in his stride and carried the ball forward. On second viewing with a TV angle, it’s quite obvious that old habits die hard and a lot of the players are still stuck in Rosenior’s style of passing to feet and having the ball for long periods at a time in our own third. The new coach wants the players to receive the ball on the half-turn and move through the thirds quickly. I actually thought our general play in possession was a lot better in some of the pre-season games against stronger opposition than against Bristol City. I’m hoping we play with a lot more bravery against Plymouth as we seem to play with less pressure away than at home.
I think those aimless long balls will transition into ones with purpose when we start to establish the side Walter wants. That type of ball for me purposely targets the full back who more often then not heads the ball into the vacated space, Mehlem, Giles and Omur picked the ball up from the defensive header a number of times so it did have positive effect at points too
A fair assessment, in some defence of Jacob's they clearly saw him as a weak link, and pressed him hard, and on occasions took the safe route and hit it long.
