Thoughts on Attacking
by Graham MacAree on Jan 20, 2010 7:51 PM PST
Email
PrintSometimes life (or some semblance of it, in my case) prevents you watching every minute of every game in the season. It sucks, but it's really difficult to follow a team through a whole year. Thus I found myself missing the start of a game fairly early on in 2009. I think it was the Wizards home game, but I honestly couldn't tell you. Anyway, nobody cares about my Sounder watching habits, but it's important that everyone knows that I missed the start of this game or my lead-in anecdote will make no sense at all.
It's pretty easy to tell within half a second of turning on a game which side is playing in which direction. The natural ebb and flow of the game dictates that player and ball movements are more forceful towards the direction they want to be going - i.e. away from their goal and towards the opponents. When I turned this game on, I saw Osvaldo Alonso making a run across the halfway line, skipping past two tackles and nearly flattening one of the opposing players in the process. Clearly, he was making a fast attack down the left wing. Except no, he wasn't. Alonso was breaking through tackles to run the ball back to our own defensive lines, which was... odd. And it might also be symptomatic of the Sounder's larger problems; namely that they have serious issues scoring goals, despite their firepower up front. Why might this be? Let's think about it.
Putting set pieces aside, there are two main classes of attack: build up play and fast breaks. Stylistically, these are very different ways of playing. The first is like fencing, in a way. The attacking team shifts the point around in front of a massed defence, probing for an opening, trying to create a weakness in the lines to exploit. It's a technique that requires technique and creativity in order to achieve success. The second type of attack is not nearly so clever. It see less attackers against less defenders, meaning that speed and the ability to beat a marker are the vital components.
I have no numbers to back this up, but it strikes me as fairly obvious that getting the ball past eleven men and into the goal is quite a lot more difficult than getting past three defenders and the goalie. In order to beat a massed defensive line, one that simply does not give your team the space to surge in behind, you have to outclass them by a quite large amount. A team playing a game with the goal of not conceding is much harder to break down than one trying to score; attacking play corresponds to vulnerability in the defence.
It doesn't even have to be the philosophy of the defensive team that forces you to play against a massed line. A team can do it to themselves. Consider this: every time an attack breaks down but the attacking team maintains possession gives the opposition a chance to regroup behind the ball. Every single time an attack is 'reset', the next attack must be accomplished using build-up play. Which is all well and good when the attackers are much better players than the defenders, but what if they're only a little bit better? What if you don't have the sort of genius it takes to unlock a team huddling in their own half, the ability to play passes nobody else sees, to put the ball in a spot that was unreachable, etc? You're clearly have some problems living up to your talent level.
My argument, therefore, is that when you're only a little bit better than your opposition, it's better to take the opportunities to exploit breakaway attacks when you have the chance rather than pushing the ball back as soon as one encounters a modicum of resistance. The Sounders, of course, fall into this area. As a rule, they have more talent on the attack than the opposition has on defence. They have speed, technique, and the ability to score a lot more often than they actually do. Why do they not score so much? Because they play the ball backwards so much. Because they are playing conservative soccer when circumstances dictate taking a risk or losing their advantage.
Basically, from a certain situation, one expects a certain chance of scoring a goal. This is something nobody's quantified yet, but the crowd knows it, and they know how dangerous any circumstance can be (just listen to them!). Having the ball on the halfway line with a full team to beat means one has a pretty low chance of scoring, even if you're a better team than your opposition. Therefore, playing the ball backwards, 'resetting' the attack, means that you're going to lose whatever chance you have of scoring and going back to a not-very-useful square one. It's very conservative soccer, one that says you must have possession and you must not give the other team the chance to attack - and that's all well and good until you consider your other options.
Instead of giving up on a move, why not solve whatever problem you're faced with. A defender's in your way? Beat him? Shot looks like you might not hit the target? Try anyway. Teams that are naturally going to have problems with build-up/break-down play are likely to be better off trying low-mid percentage paths than trying to have everything go perfectly before pulling the trigger. Because while you might not have that good of a shot at beating that defender, or getting the ball on target, playing it safe is also a low percentage path to take, and one that comes without immediate reward (and perhaps comparable risk - screwing up a backwards pass to your defenders is a good way to give the other team a wonderful chance on goal).
Taking risks on the attack is something that the Sounders seem averse to, and I think that most people watching the team would agree. Being less conservative might disrupt our pretty possession game, and it might lead to us conceding more goals, but it certainly wouldn't hurt in terms of the team getting on the scoresheet more often. So, please take those shots that might not work out, please go one-on-one with the defenders who might make a tackle. Because unless there's nothing else you can do, moving the ball backwards cripples your attacking ability, and the Sounders are too good a team to be playing the way they have been.
At least, that's my hypothesis. What do you think?
19 comments
|
1 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kasey Keller
means that they can and should take more risks. If you have the best keeper in the league, and one of the best defensive sets of players as well, take to the risk and lose possession.
The downside is so low due to the team being so strong on defense and the upside is grand.
Also, the Sounders are in a tourney this year where Goal Differential matters just a bit more than in League play. They have to push scoring up a few notches.
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
At the beginning of the year the Sounders looked like a very attack-minded team, on paper
Yet we gave up fewer goals than any other team, and only scored more than 4 teams in the whole league.
I’m inclined to agree with Graham here. Because the talent didn’t change. Our offensive stars didn’t suddenly decline while our defenders improved. We simply played with a less risky, more defensive-minded mentality then we had anticipated.
And we should have anticipated it, despite all the FO talk about being an attacking team. Wherever Sigi has gone, he’s played a more conservative style that favored the build-up approach of offense. Even back when he was with the Galaxy he won a title basically because of the team’s defensive mentality. Of course, that then got him fired because LA wasn’t playing attractive enough soccer, despite being in first place.
Basically, with Sigi in charge, I’m not sure we can become the counter-attacking team that would be more fun to watch and that would result in more goals. That’s never been his style. But it will be interesting to see if he changes this over the offseason based on the personel we have.
Maybe we'll see more of that this year
There’s been a lot of talk of the Sounders needing to be more physical this year. If you are going to play low percentage balls in the attacking third, then you need players willing to run through walls to make something of them (also should help on the set plays).
I don’t think this would compromise things on the defensive side too much.
by PeterJH on Jan 20, 2010 10:37 PM PST via mobile reply actions
The counter to this argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0O7KkZn4rk
This is buildup done right. Serbia would definitely have loved to bunker in, especially after having given up a goal already, but they had to keep their team all over the field to try and cover because Argentina was patient and not forcing the issue and waiting for the right opportunity. At various points, the Serbs have as many as 9 or 10 players behind the ball. The Argentines passed back many times in this sequence, but at no time was the attack “reset” because the team was always repositioning itself, always looking to support the player with the ball, and keep the pressure on. Also, note that the individual actions involved are actually extremely simple for the most part. Sure, there are a couple of nice passes through the air and a couple nice dribbles, but the vast majority of the 25 (yes, really) passes are of the simple, first-day-of-practice type. The bulk of this move was trap, pass, and move. Very basic stuff.
Fast breaks, on the other hand, take real skill. Dribbling opponents is hard; long, precises passes are hard; trapping balls coming in from distance is hard. And the burden on the attackers is much higher than on the defenders. This guy wants to dribble you? Just hack the ball away or foul if you have to. Long pass coming in? No need to control it, just boot it away. Think of all the times that Fredy decided to try to dribble two opponents, or Zakuani tried to blow past an opponent, but got stopped or the defender shielded the ball out of touch. Think of all the times we booted the ball up to Jaqua, seemingly unable to understand that he just isn’t very good with headers. Those were useless moves because it just gave the ball back to the opposition and stopped us from having any chance of scoring. These are the kinds of plays that are hugely advantageous to defenses, because the odds are highly stacked in their favor.
In my opinion, the Sounders actually played too many low percentage plays. The point of building up is that your always in control, you’re always keeping the pressure on. Instead of trying to force a play, take your time and use teamwork. Ironically, although this style of play is associated with hugely talented teams like Argentina and Brazil, it’s actually perfect for teams with limited talent, because it’s so trainable. You don’t need an attacker to suddenly develop mad dribbling skills, or somehow become good at heading. You can drill them over and over on finding the right positions; on making passing decisions quickly, before the other team has the chance to collapse all over you; on always keeping options open for the guy with the ball.
The biggest problem I saw with the Sounders is that they let things get too static, which is the biggest thing that allows opposing teams to bunker. Oftentimes, someone would get the ball and sit on it for ages, because there was no outlet for them to send the ball. The defense would close them down and they’d have to try for some crazy play to try to rescue the move. Keep the ball moving, keep the team moving, and the defense will never have time to get set.
use of negative space
Tactical article here: http://www.expertfootball.com/coaching/space.php
Exactly.
And he even gives drills to do in practice.
There is a difference between playing the ball backwards with intent and playing the ball backwards without
by Graham MacAree on Jan 21, 2010 12:09 PM PST up reply actions
Yes, exactly.
I think the problem you’ve identified is that the Sounders do too much of the latter. I don’t think the solution is more high risk play, though. I think the solution is to improve our positioning and teamwork, so we can play the ball back with intent and keep our attacks going.
Well, sure
You could answer this problem with ‘get better’. You always want to be getting better at intelligent, incisive play. But until they are better, you have to consider trying something different to maximise your chances.
by Graham MacAree on Jan 21, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
OH is THAT the idea? :)
That made me think of this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuz_GfMV9-Q
Skip to to 55 second mark or so. haha
by DarthGreedo on Jan 21, 2010 12:32 PM PST up reply actions
I seem to recall Ljungberg speaking out against this in interviews
At least in terms of playing the ball in the air into the box. His basic point was we don’t have the personnel who can win those balls, so we’re better off trying to work the ball in on the ground.
So this off-season we had this chatter from the FO about being more physical, and folks were supposedly weight training. We’ll see…
But does a team need an offensive
air game in order to be successful?
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
it would have been a nice thing to have, at least coming off the bench
for that last game in Houston when the field was crap.
Being physical can help you win 50-50 balls on the ground, as well. I don’t care how much weight training Pete Vagenas does, however, he isn’t going to shoulder Shalrie Joseph off the ball. :)
We're all talking about improvement of some sort or other
And I think you’re actually asking for a lot more than I am. I’m asking for our players to support each other better. You’re asking for people to improve to the point where they can actually beat people on the dribble, where they can make and receive long passes cleanly, etc.
Like I said, our guys already try to do too much. I don’t know about you, but there were dozens of times when I was yelling “pass the ball” last season, while someone was dribbling themselves into oblivion. Even more frustrating was the hoofing it upfield in the vain hope that somehow, something positive would happen. Most of that was due to the fact that players would receive the ball and have no idea where to go next and that is a problem that can be solved with better team play.
I sort of agree
I think the big thing is that players aren’t taking the half-chances when they come up. However I do enjoy our build up and how controlled it is and I have really enjoyed watching how the Sounders play.
Do you think our lack of a dangerous free kick taker and inconsistent MLS refereeing has anything to do with this? It seems that without a major free-kick threat and perhaps being able to get away with a bit more physical play allows opponents to interrupt our flow of passing near the box without many repercussions. I am not going to say the refs rob us or anything, but it seems like a dangerous free kick taker might force opponents to foul us a little less often and allow us to open up the defense with passing a bit more.
Fascinating stuff
As a DC United fan (as well as a tactical obsessive on the internet), this kind of talk is of particular interest to me. Our attack was more or less entirely committed to build-up play rather than swift counters. I’m personally OK with that philosophy, because possession-based play requires more soccer IQ and more reliable fundamental skills. I also was a shorter, slower player in my formative years, so I could function much more effectively in that approach than one based on speed. One hesitation, one bad decision, one pass slightly behind someone, and you have to start again. It’s hard work, but getting it right is beautiful (as CarlosT’s link shows).
I do find it a little odd that Graham sees this as a conservative approach, since playing this way means committing more people forward (thus opening yourself up to counters, which as has been said require fewer attackers and less defensive risk for the countering team). I’ve always seen possession play as something of a high-wire act. Not only can one mistake allow the defense to take up a difficult-to-break shape, but a bad touch or pass means your 3-4 defenders (who are in place to support an attack, not defend a counter) are facing immediate danger. I see this as gambling everything on your belief in your ability to outsmart your opponent. The odds are long, especially when you’re talking about a league where a top club can’t go buy brilliant players.
As your Sounders repeatedly found, shutting us down was easy because our main cogs were all so physically slow. Even if, say, Emilio had outsmarted Hurtado and made a run into space, it was still going to be very difficult for us to take advantage. Hurtado would be able to close that space quickly, and guys like Moreno and Gomez were undoubtedly being harrassed by the numerous agile, strong players you guys have in defensive roles. You may disagree, but my judgement of United’s creative forces is that they could routinely outsmart the Seattle (as well as the rest of MLS’s) defense, but had a bad mix of players to execute those plans. Our thinkers lacked the athleticism to make the spaces count, and our athletes didn’t consistently make the decisions needed quickly enough.
Kevin Payne’s comments on attacking play went down like a lead balloon around MLS in part because DC’s attack was struggling mightily at the time to produce results. However, I think a lot of people missed his meaning, because many MLS fans assume “attacking play” is a perfect synonym for “scoring goals”. The logic there is that a team scores when it attacks, so if they attack often, they’ll score often. I don’t think I need to tell the author or commentors that being an efficient offense is not at all the same from having an attacking style of play.
Sorry, I’m kind of getting off topic. My point is that how Graham closes is asking the Sounders to play exactly how they played against us. I watched you guys a lot, and against most MLS teams Schmid clearly saw that his players were better by a wide enough margin in terms of technique and tactics to play a possession style. It was fun to watch as a neutral.
However, for all our problems in DC, we were still better at holding the ball for long periods than pretty much everyone in the league (especially at RFK). So, what did Sigi do? He conceded the possession advantage and focused on attacking our poor defense with speed. Zakuani’s goal at RFK was a perfect example; that attack went from about 80 yards from our goal to in the back of the net in no time. Seattle suckered us into attacking desperation. Jakovic left his position at center back in an attacking risk, we made a bad pass, and Vagenas sprung Zakuani in a footrace. Zakuani skinned Namoff, and we went from “no danger” to a goal against in about 6 seconds.
Every time we played the Sounders, the losses were massively frustrating. It wasn’t just the stakes involved for us (the Open Cup, the club’s public pride, and 3 points in a playoff race). It was the fact that Seattle was perfectly suited to expose all of our flaws, and seeing all your flaws in the open is not a pleasant experience. Schmid, more than anyone, knew how to attack us and also had the best personnel for the job. Guys like Montero, Ljungberg, and Zakuani are the worst for us, because they have the speed to get to the openings we leave, the technique to beat our defenders 1v1, and the composure to make their scoring chances count.
From a non-Seattle perspective, I think your team is at it’s best finding a balance between the two approaches. Countering at speed is something you do better than anyone else in MLS; there’s no need to waste a gift like that. However, you’re also among the best possession teams, and that can be a less physically taxing approach (with CCL games and a likely Open Cup run clogging up your schedule, you’ll need as much rest as you can get). You should produce more goals than you do, but I don’t think your team is that far from being a true contender. Teams will have a very hard time prepping for the Sounders if they have to be ready for both worrying about never touching the ball and defending with low numbers against Montero, Ljungberg, and Zakuani.
by ChestRockwell on Jan 21, 2010 10:13 AM PST reply actions 2 recs
interesting stuff
And I think you are dead on with your analysis of our matches against one another, we did match up well against DC. A lot of the talk for tweaking the Sounders has come from how we matched up against physical defensive-oriented teams like Houston, New England, and Chivas. New England is probably the best example of a team we matched up against poorly. We had no one in the midfield to counter the size and physical play of Joseph (the match up of Vagenas against Joseph in the first game at home was comical), and Zakuani’s spead was completely neutered by the pace Alston provides NE on their backline. We managed a grand total of 3 shots on goal in two games against them.
I’m curious as to how people think we should counter NE this upcoming year, as what we did against them last season obviously didn’t work.
I think one important detail that needs to be considered is the game plan of the opposing team. If the team is willing to open things up and attack a counter attacking, quick strike offense works great. We saw that in the first few games. Opposing teams thought they would be able to dictate the pace of the game going against an expansion defense and we took advantage by hitting them hard on the counter.
The first Kansas City game you allude to as your thesis was the first game the opposing team came in and showd the right way to defeat the sounders. You sit back and beat up any sounder player who gets the ball in the offensive third. You can’t counter attack a team that isn’t attacking. When the other team does this, you have to work through build up. The sounders had to learn how to do this, and i think their struggles in the mid point of the season were because they were learning how to be a possession team.
Freddy L made a comment after the Chelsea game that was along the lines that the Sounder players were great on the counter and the quick strike attack. However, their friendly against Chelsea showed the young players how effective a slow build up can work. After that game they began working on it. With another year behind them i think the sounders will be much better at breaking down a strictly defensive team because they will be better at holding possesion and slowly prodding the defense for weaknesses.
The disagreement here comes because of the distance of time
Some of us remember the Sounders as a fast-countering styles team (I called it Sigi’s Game), but over time we have created memories of how they handled it when the counter broke down.
I recall that there were times in a 6 on 4 situation that they would pull up and wait if one of those 4 offered even a bit of resistence. That they would then rather than continue with lateral passes in the attacking third sometimes reset even bypassing the central third into their own defensive end.
That is a failure of execution, whether they are a build-up team or a countering one.
Lateral passing, and the occassional back pass to open up space is not a failure. Build up has value, but if the numbers are the offenses side and they fail to even get a shot off, how are they going to be better by playing a build-up system?
There were moments of caution that interfered with the ability of the team to score goals. They could afford the risks, but failed to take them.
There are many styles of offense, none necessarily correct, but each requires proper execution. Reseting encourages a bunker mentality, and I’d rather not see it.
To borrow from 3four3
Countering requires technical ability
Build-up requires soccer iq (tactical awareness)
I am not a Supporter
I am not a Fan
I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
