Possession vs Counter

[WiffGiff]

Which tactic is the most useful, what is the most effective of these two?

Lets imagine a team that is made for a possession tactic vs one that has players that fit perfectly for an offensive team that exploits counter attack.

Which would win?

So far I noticed a offensive counter attacking team creates more chances and score more goals. While the other might have a bigger chance of keeping clean sheets.

 

[Carbz]

It depends on which team you are playing against, but i would go for possession..

 

[ahearnqs]

Which tactic is the most useful, what is the most effective of these two?

 

[WiffGiff]

I think your tactics is effective. This combination can be said the combination is gold.

Hmm? Who and what do you mean?

Which tactic is the most useful, what is the most effective of these two?

Yeah... that was the question, why repeat what I aldready said?

 

[Raikan007]

Counter attacking - attacking team would always win, this is against a possession team though! Look at Barca, they get taken apart when playing against a team that is good at winning the ball back (interceptions/tackles) and exploits them via the counter, they lost several times last year like that!

A team that is perfect for possession would not win against a team like mentioned above! So countering is the winner in my eyes...

after saying that, if what you meant was who would win vs another team/formation/style, then you need to indicate who or what they would play against..

 

[WiffGiff]

I was just thinking about these two playingstyles itself not any particular team or formation.

For me it seems more lethal and modern with a fast offensive football Except Barca there is no team that effectivly have been able to use possession type of football as way to win games. The german kind of football, illustrated by Bayern, Dortmund and so on are both more attractive and shown to be a very good way to win.

I wonder if Arsenal and Milan, two teams that also likes to keep the ball within the team, would become even better if they played a more fast pace football?

 

[Raikan007]

I was just thinking about these two playingstyles itself not any particular team or formation.

For me it seems more lethal and modern with a fast offensive football Except Barca there is no team that effectivly have been able to use possession type of football as way to win games. The german kind of football, illustrated by Bayern, Dortmund and so on are both more attractive and shown to be a very good way to win.

I wonder if Arsenal and Milan, two teams that also likes to keep the ball within the team, would become even better if they played a more fast pace football?

what you do is integrate both types of styles, I have a few tactics like this, its good attacking/countering and retains at least 55%-70% possession per game!

you are not going to rack up over 100 passes for each player or any player, but its quick possession attacking football!

 

[helloiamanewlow]

I would say it depends on your team, however I would say that a good team with a high pressing counter attacking style is bound to create more CCC (in game) as they are based more on creating chances (rather than controling the game).

I try to create a high pressing, quick attacking (and passing) team who will try to counter as soon as they get the ball, however several players in my team play a simple passing game as I don't want to see them give up the ball trying to create goal scoring chances from bad positions this usually leads to me having the majority of possession due to certain players keeping it simple, as soon as my attacking players get the ball though I would rather they create a chance than worrying about keeping the ball.

I would say everyone wants their attacking players to get the ball quickly and also to break with the ball when the defence is weak so that points to a counter attacking strategy but reducing the amount of time the opponeent has on the ball is always a positive. So I would say you should try to combine the best aspects of both.

I would probably say Counter Attacking but I enjoy playing that way anyway so I'm probably biased towards it.

 

[Will97]

have a combination have a counter mentatality but slow tempo and retain possesion touchline instruction

 

[helloiamanewlow]

I was just thinking about these two playingstyles itself not any particular team or formation.

For me it seems more lethal and modern with a fast offensive football Except Barca there is no team that effectivly have been able to use possession type of football as way to win games. The german kind of football, illustrated by Bayern, Dortmund and so on are both more attractive and shown to be a very good way to win.

I wonder if Arsenal and Milan, two teams that also likes to keep the ball within the team, would become even better if they played a more fast pace football?

Interesting post, Dortmund are so fast and effective they are a very exciting team to watch, their style, the high pressing and counter attacking can be very effective as it can create a lot of chances.

Arsenal and Milan have both previously played quicker attacking football and both have been more effective when playing that way. Whilst Wenger has changed Arsenal's style over many years, I would argue that Milans slower style has developed as their team has changed (although now with players such as KPB, Pato (if hes ever not injured) and Robinho they should if they want be able to create a quicker style).

Also its worth noting that Milan's diamond midfield does usually give them an advantage in midfield, so maybe without players like Pirlo playing the longer balls, Kaka driving forward so effectively and players like Shevchenko to finish they naturally look to control the game more.

This is relevent within FM as well as these are the kinds of things I would also consider in game when trying to develop my team.

Are my players quick enough?

Do we have effective enough strikers that playing an end to end game will be to our advantage?

Has our midfield got enough speed to play on the counter effectively? are they good enough technically to control a game?

Is our defence good enough to deal teams attacking us regularly or are they technically good enough to help us keep possession and not allow the opponents any opertunities?

Where is the team weak in both styles?

 

[apvmoreira]

You could also use both, like i do. Even against the same team i use both, it depends if i want to keep ball and waste time to grant the win (not 100% true), or if i want to keep scoring (also not 100% true).

If i'm winning 2-0 against Barca with my counter attack tactic, i would like to keep the ball so they have less chances to shoot. But this is just theory. Like IRL

 

[WiffGiff]

Yesterday when playing with Shakhtar i played Tottenham in the Europa League final, which I won with 1-0. I first started of with a offensive,fast counter attacking football, where i had quite direct passing, and then i changed to a more controlled tactic where I held the ball. The result was that I had something like 15 shots at goal and they just had 2, plus I had smoething like 55-60%.

So combining these two tactics where useful in this case. First i wanted to exploit their mistakes and go for quick attacks, and then i wanted to prevent them from scoring.

I currently have the passing set on default, I adjust the passing length depending on the players and it seem to work the best.

However, is it better to focus on one particular style of play, for example to perfect counter attacking. Or is it better to combine both short passing and keeping the ball and launching fast attacks with alot of players running from deep? And how would it be possible in FM to create such a tactic.

 

[Germaniac]

Depending on your opposition, if they're better than you, then counter would be better, but if you're better than them, then possession would be better, but i like to use counter more (with zonal marking)