Reep was largely protesting against what he saw as pointless sideways passing, and to an extent he had a point. Mourinho has introduced English football to the notion of "resting with the ball", and ball retention in itself can be a way of wearing down an opponent, even if there is not a lead to be protected, but there is a danger that possession becomes an end in itself, rather than a means to opening space or running down the clock. There are times when sideways passing is simply a means of offloading responsibility, and there were spells last week when Barça's passing, usually so incisive, seemed like passing for passing's sake. As Hughes adapted Reep's ideas, and applied them at the FA's Centre of Excellence at Lilleshall, direct football became the explicit tactical philosophy of the English game, and the emphasis came increasingly to focus on long diagonals and effort.
Wilson on the Barca v Inter Game
But quite relevant when discussing the Sounders as well. They are fairly good when comparing to their own league at a possession and chance creating team. The results don't come when they play against a team that goes with bunker and counter. When they fall into punting and pinball things don't happen on offense, but when they are good at set-plays they are amongst the best.
Do the Sounders have a problem in tactics?
Later in the linked story "which led to his conclusion that the position of the ball is more important than who is in possession. Accordingly, after becoming national coach in 1990, he demanded that balls be played as often as possible into the "bakrom" – that is, the space behind the opposition's defensive line. Norway ended up being ranked second in the world"
But as Inter has recently proven by beating the best two offensive teams in the game (sure we could argue that) there is another theory. Simple precise organization that wins. Not just bunker and counter, simply bunker.
there is a clear correlation between dominating possession and winning matches. Intuitively, we know that there are sides who are successful at counter-attacking, which logically means accepting a lower percentage of possession.
What Inter showed last week, is that there are specific cases in which a radical disregard for possession can succeed
Read the whole peice, I don't know how directly it applies to the Sounders issue, but maybe they should be a bunker and counter team, rather than a team playing "pretty" possession soccer.
over 1 year ago
Dave Clark
14 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Also, if the Sounders followed the possession metrics given in the link
and assuming they have possession more than 50% in every game (I think that’s true except at RSL, and maybe at TFC) they should have 16 points.
If we drop those two matches from the math, and include the real results from those they fall to 13 points, still slightly underperforming.
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Over a 30 match season how many points should a possession team have?
47
13 wins, 8 draws
And that’s part of why judging based on performance and not results is important
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Could we play two styles?
In the end, I will admit I care most about the result and the Sounders getting points. So if that means sacrificing some “beautiful possession” so be it. That being said, could we play both styles? In different situations?
It is clear to me that every time a team comes to Qwest, they bunker in. Especially if they get a lead. Once they get a 1 – 0 lead, or even if it gets to 1 – 1 teams are happy to come away with point(s) at Qwest if they can. So at Qwest, if we were to play a bunker and counter, it would force the other team to come at us, thus spreading their “bunker” out a bit and potentially leaving them open for counter-attacks.
On the flip side, we have clearly seen (I think) that on the road teams do not play the “bunker-counter” against us and thus, our more possession play works much better. It would make sense to me to play this style when the team is not bunkering in (when away) and a more bunker counter style at home. It may not always be beautiful but the reality is, fans, players, coaches, upper management will be happy with a win either way.
I don’t know if this completely fixes our finishing problem. But perhaps it would open up our strikers to get better looks at goal and thus maybe putting the ball away.
by SounderEvertonRomaFan on May 23, 2010 2:56 PM PDT reply actions
If two sides bunker
What prevents a nil-nil?
I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart
Well that is true...
I’d rather have a nil-nil draw than a nil-1 loss however. Though not consistently of course. Don’t want all our home games to be nil-nil. That would be real bad.
So then that brings the question, would having a big target forward right now help with breaking down a team that is bunkering? By drawing multiple defenders, leaving someone else open on the attack.
Therefore, does it come back to the loss of Jaqua?
We had problems scoring last year, but it wasn’t this bad and we were still getting results. And last year we had Jaqua healthy.
by SounderEvertonRomaFan on May 23, 2010 7:09 PM PDT up reply actions
One thing to consider
I’m not sure it’s as easy as changing philosophies. This team was not built to be a bunker and counter side, I doubt they have the personnel to really play bunker defense. Look at how they’ve performed in these types of situations this year — where they are allowed to set up on defense — six goals on set pieces and three more almost directly off throw-ins. I think it would have potential to get real ugly if they went with this strategy.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
Barca not Inter
Inter may have had more success this time, but I’d rather follow a team that emulates Barca’s possession game and occasionally drops points to a bunker and counter side (emphasis on occasionally) than one as cynically defensive as Inter.
I'd rather follow a team that wins.
I don’t much care how they accomplish it.
by Aaron Campeau on May 24, 2010 1:44 AM PDT up reply actions
Inter won, but the game made me want to throw up in my mouth
I was full-on depressed with yesterday.
It's about selecting the right tactics for the opponent
Was Ali cynical when he choose to rope-a-dope against Foreman? No, he was using the right tactics to counter the opponent’s strengths. Barça and Bayern were the two top attacking teams they faced in that tournament and Inter decided to not try to beat them at their own game. So they did their own version of rope-a-dope and it worked brilliantly. In other situations, Inter is much more of a possession/attacking team, and they have the ability to back it up.
What would be really valuable would be to take video of Milito’s goals and do a Clockwork Orange setup with the Sounders, to get into their heads what real finishing looks like. Milito is the perfect textbook striker because he does everything so composedly. He doesn’t hurry or rush his shot, he takes his time and places the ball perfectly to give the keeper no chance.
defense
it needs to be said that the Sounders possession-based approach was key to their allowing a League-low 29 goals last year…
… and that actually continues into this year. We need to remember that its set pieces which have been killing us this year…
...that's MISTER Keller to you!!!
by malcontentjake on May 24, 2010 9:43 AM PDT reply actions 1 recs
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.
