Playing Out from the Back without Quality

It frustrates the hell out of me, but, we all need to accept that this is the style of football that is going to be more successful in the long run.

Yes, there will be silly mistakes and daft goals given away from time to time, but on the whole, the positives far outweigh the negatives.

Even though my wife and adult daughter were "shocked and appalled" with the profanity I used when lasts nights incident occurred. In my defence, they should have lower expectations, as maybe should I.
 
Having just rewatched last nights highlights are we ignoring the fact that our first goal came from us playing it out from the back.. Dieng drew the attacker in and then played a ball to O'Brien who was running towards him.. so a near identical play to the one that went wrong in the second half. We win some, we lose some.. a definite mistake from Dieng but when we get it right it can be very effective.
 
newusername said:
My personal peeve is we play it short all over the pitch except corners, sick of us lumping the ball aimlessly into the box & it leading to nothing.
We should do short corners, try & create an overload at the corner if they only send 1 if they send 2 then that is 2 less bodies in the box to head away the aimless punt.
Click to expand...
we tried this earlier in the season and changed after our fans constantly booed/groaned at it during matches :D
 
newusername said:
My personal peeve is we play it short all over the pitch except corners, sick of us lumping the ball aimlessly into the box & it leading to nothing.
We should do short corners, try & create an overload at the corner if they only send 1 if they send 2 then that is 2 less bodies in the box to head away the aimless punt.
Click to expand...
I would completely agree about our set pieces. They’ve been very bad for years and years. Probably since Christian Ziege.
 
I think MC has learnt, and we now play out from the back a lot less (certainly after the Chelsea game!)

But it has to be an option. Most teams do it. Generally Dieng is very good at it, but mistakes will be made
 
I agree with OP.

Most teams do it because it’s flavour of the month and the numbers must suggest it’s the best way to play football.

But so many goals now are absolute gifts caused by the technically worst players on the pitch being caught out with the ball in areas where it’s near enough a guaranteed goal.

It’s a great way to play if your centre halves and keeper are as good on the ball and at making decisions under pressure as John Stones and Ederson. Most of them aren’t.

I don’t mind that we play that way because it’s obviously Carrick’s philosophy, it’s easy on the eye and we’ve tried to recruit players who can play it. But half the teams who do it (especially at our level, with more cloggers around) I think they’re just following the fashion and would be far better served by getting their players who are good on the ball, on the ball. Same at international level. Gifts everywhere.
 
Billy69_uk said:
It frustrates the hell out of me, but, we all need to accept that this is the style of football that is going to be more successful in the long run.

Yes, there will be silly mistakes and daft goals given away from time to time, but on the whole, the positives far outweigh the negatives.
Click to expand...
Is that really true though? I'm not totally convinced.

A statistical analysis from The Athletic looking at the Premier League, indicates that playing out from the back succeeds in reaching the final third more than 50% of the time only for the most skillful teams.

Playing out from the back: Why teams do it and is it worth the risk?

IMG_20240412_110949.jpg

For teams that I'd estimate are closer to us in level, say for instance last year's promoted 3, it only gets them into the final third about 30 - 40% of the time. So more often than not, it seems that teams similar to us, don't really gain much benefit from it.
 
Liamo said:
Is that really true though? I'm not totally convinced.

A statistical analysis from The Athletic looking at the Premier League, indicates that playing out from the back succeeds in reaching the final third more than 50% of the time only for the most skillful teams.

Playing out from the back: Why teams do it and is it worth the risk?

View attachment 75054

For teams that I'd estimate are closer to us in level, say for instance last year's promoted 3, it only gets them into the final third about 30 - 40% of the time. So more often than not, it seems that teams similar to us, don't really gain much benefit from it.
Click to expand...
Interesting but be careful in comparing the three promoted teams with championship teams - their opponents are much superior in pressing. Chelsea a case in point with us.
 
Nano said:
Any tactic is only effective if it's part of an overall strategy. If you play out from the back every single time then the defenders will be able to predict what you are going to do and will press higher. If you always go long then the defenders will not press. If you do a mixture of the two then defenders can't press high because it leaves gaps if you go long so defenders have to be more cautious which allows you more room to play out from the back.

Playing out from the back wasn't the problem. Dieng played a ball when he shouldn't have done. If the Hull defenders were all pressing high it means there was more space further up the pitch so Dieng made the wrong decision. It was an individual error.
Click to expand...
Playing out from the back was the problem in this instance because in Seny’s mind he wanted to persist in feeding his defenders short and not as you suggest send it long. The bad pass was directly related to the tactic.
 
newusername said:
My personal peeve is we play it short all over the pitch except corners, sick of us lumping the ball aimlessly into the box & it leading to nothing.
We should do short corners, try & create an overload at the corner if they only send 1 if they send 2 then that is 2 less bodies in the box to head away the aimless punt.
Click to expand...
We did start trying to do this in pre season and early on and the fans weren’t best pleased. I expect it to be something we see next season.
 
Liamo said:
Is that really true though? I'm not totally convinced.

A statistical analysis from The Athletic looking at the Premier League, indicates that playing out from the back succeeds in reaching the final third more than 50% of the time only for the most skillful teams.

Playing out from the back: Why teams do it and is it worth the risk?

View attachment 75054

For teams that I'd estimate are closer to us in level, say for instance last year's promoted 3, it only gets them into the final third about 30 - 40% of the time. So more often than not, it seems that teams similar to us, don't really gain much benefit from it.
Click to expand...
You are using the analysis incorrectly I think.

First up is the quality of the team using the tactic relative to the teams they are playing against. Using the promoted teams from last year is a poor comparison. You should be looking at the teams in the top 3rd of the table because, comparatively, that's where we are.

The second thing you are missing is the way the team defends playing out from the back is important. If the team sits of you and doesn't press the tactic looses it's edge.

Finally, it's not how often the ball gets into attacking areas but how often it leads to a goal scoring chance, or more importantly an actual goal.

This is one of the problems with statistics, how the are intetpreted.
 
Abel Tasman said:
Playing out from the back was the problem in this instance because in Seny’s mind he wanted to persist in feeding his defenders short and not as you suggest send it long. The bad pass was directly related to the tactic.
Click to expand...
It was just a bad pass.

He can either draw one of the attackers in to create a spare man (as he did for the Latte Lath's goal) or he could pass it somewhere that O'Brien would be favourite to get it.

If he passes towards the ref O'Brien is getting there first & he'd be on the half turn.
Passing it slowly to O'Brien's feet, while O'Brien is static & being closed down is just a poor decision.

1712906674279.png
 
Last edited:
Laughing said:
The second thing you are missing is the way the team defends playing out from the back is important. If the team sits of you and doesn't press the tactic looses it's edge.
Click to expand...
This is key and been very noticeable. Teams that have pressed us in our own half have the most success against us. Plymouth, Bristol and Hull all pressed us very hard in our own half.

When teams sit off us like Preston and Sheff Wed and we have time to get on the ball we are much more dangerous. Barlaser is a prime example of this where he has had very good games when teams have sat in their own half. If he is allowed to turn and get two or three touches forward with minimal pressure he is excellent at finding those through balls. Preston, Sheff Wed and Cardiff are three matches that stand out where this has happened. But as soon as teams press him hard he's not good at protecting the ball and turning out of tight areas and that's when he starts getting caught out.

It really surprises me when teams play us and don't press us hard... It's so obvious. It's as if their managers have never bothered watching us.
 
B_G said:
It really surprises me when teams play us and don't press us hard... It's so obvious. It's as if their managers have never bothered watching us.
Click to expand...

Think you need players capable of doing it though and be well drilled in it (much like playing out from the back).

It's one thing to press high and another to do it well and not leave massive gaps that can be exploited (just ask Woodgate!).

If you get it wrong it's pretty risky. I've no doubt we can beat a bad press, in fact it's probably the ideal scenario for us.

So yes we've struggled against it, but I think you have to give the opposition some credit. Those who have caused us the most problems have actually done the pressing really well on the day.
 
newusername said:
It was just a bad pass.

He can either draw one of the attackers in to create a spare man (as he did for the Latte Lath's goal) or he could pass it somewhere that O'Brien would be favourite to get it.

If he passes towards the ref O'Brien is getting there first & he'd be on the half turn.
Passing it slowly to O'Brien's feet, while O'Brien is static & being closed down is just a poor decision.

View attachment 75055
Click to expand...
I could be wrong but I think he was trying a wall pass off O'Brien? LOB bringing their man creates the angle for a ball further up the pitch/into midfield if he just plays it back to Seny?
 
festa5 said:
Think you need players capable of doing it though and be well drilled in it (much like playing out from the back).

It's one thing to press high and another to do it well and not leave massive gaps that can be exploited (just ask Woodgate!).

If you get it wrong it's pretty risky. I've no doubt we can beat a bad press, in fact it's probably the ideal scenario for us.

So yes we've struggled against it, but I think you have to give the opposition some credit. Those who have caused us the most problems have actually done the pressing really well on the day.
Click to expand...
If we have Hackney and howson playing then I'm much more confident of beating anything but the best of presses.

The ultimate was when we had Chuba who we could just fire the ball into on half way and most of the time he could hold it, spin and get us on the attack out wide. It would be amazing if we could get him back in the summer either perm or on loan.

Teams in the championship don't tend to change the way the play from game to game. I imagine it's because it is not realistic to change a playing style in 3 days and it would leave you under-prepared. Your best chance is just being great at plan A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top