Retain possesion, shorter passing, work ball into box
- Thread starter m160k
- Start date
- Replies 11
- Views 4K
Retain possession tells the players to play safer passes and keep hold of the ball, shorter passing tells players to stop playing longer passes but play shorter ones and work ball into box reduces the amount of long shots players take in favour of a patient approach. They all work well together but they're not the same thing 
rocheyb
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 63
What LouisCFC said, but also...
When you're chasing a game or trying to exploit the other team being down to 10 men, one option is to remove the Retain possession option, go to Higher tempo and Look for overlap and tell the players to Be more expressive. In that situation, I also set my full-backs to attack and get them to Cross more often.
Leeds went down to 10 men against me yesterday and switched to a defensive formation, so I made these changes and pulled them all around the pitch - I always use the Exploit the flanks and Play wider options, anyway - and we got the crucial goal to win the match 1-0. I've done this successfully a number of times.
When you're chasing a game or trying to exploit the other team being down to 10 men, one option is to remove the Retain possession option, go to Higher tempo and Look for overlap and tell the players to Be more expressive. In that situation, I also set my full-backs to attack and get them to Cross more often.
Leeds went down to 10 men against me yesterday and switched to a defensive formation, so I made these changes and pulled them all around the pitch - I always use the Exploit the flanks and Play wider options, anyway - and we got the crucial goal to win the match 1-0. I've done this successfully a number of times.
Great post. Very helpful.
I fail to see how these arent the same thing. Safer passess == short passes. If you instruct your players to stop playing long passess, this effectively means that you are instructing them to play safer ones.
I dont like higher tempo and removing of "retian possession", because my forwards start recieving the ball early in the buildup, when they are still isolated, and they just dont have a passing option and loose the ball. I play in a V formation (3 at the middle, 2 AM wings).
It would have been great, if I was able to instruct them to play safer until all my attacking players get into position, and all my forwards get into the box and then they can play more risky passes. The closest representation of this instruction is when you have possession unchecked, but lower tempo checked and the 3 forwards are instructed to hold the ball, so the midfield runners can get into box on time.
Last edited:
To an extent, the longer passes are, the more risky they are as there is more chance of the pass being intercepted or missing it's target completely. But short passes can still be risky. An attacking player near the opposition box (with work the ball into the box active, otherwise he may shoot) can try a killer ball into the box which has a high chance of failure due to a compact defence. With retain possession active, the players are less inclined to play the risky killer balls no matter how short or long and pass sideways or backwards instead where the chance of interception or missing the target is far reduced. I hope my interpretation helps.
Last edited:
rocheyb
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 63
That's why I prefer the 4-4-1-1 formation. In general attacking play, the whole team moves up together and the man in possession always has options on either flank, whether from the wingers or the full-backs. A Shadow Striker in the No.10 role takes part in the build-up play and then joins the forward to make two up-front. Or a Trequartista with good dribbling skills can run at the opposition defence and create opportunities for the front man, the wingers or himself.
Central midfielders who are skilled at direct passing and switching the play are crucial to High tempo attacks, enabling your team to seek new paths to goal when the original attempts are blocked-off, without conceding possession.
I completely agree with you, but there are 2 major flows with 4411 formation:
1) when you face a team, that defends deep, you have very hard time creating chances, because you basically have only 2 players who try to get themselves into dangerous areas. You cannot instruct your LCM and RCM to get in the box. You can assign B2B role to your CMs, but then suddenly you are really vulnarable against counter attacks.
2) There is a huge defficit of quality players, that are natural at LCM and RCM. Most star players are LAM and RAM.
rocheyb
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 63
I play the central midfielders as Ball-Winning Midfielder_Defend and Deep-Lying Playmaker_Support. Quality BWMs are possibly easier to come by than DLPs, but I haven't really found it to be a problem, though I do still have James Ward-Prowse in my Southampton 2021/22 squad who was obviously there at the beginning.
Against teams who defend deep, you are reliant on quality deliveries from your wingers. Occasionally, a combination of aerially dominant centre-backs and closely marking full-backs will force you into a re-think. But it wouldn't be called a "tactic" if it worked in any-and-all circumstances, would it? It would just be "the way you do this".
Stoke City - with their 4-4-2, two defensive midfielders and Ryan Shawcross putting his head on everything - did encourage me to experiment with a 5-3-2 formation that employs wing-backs and an Advanced Playmaker tucked in behind the front two, specifically to attack the channels rather than the flanks. I won the match but the performance wasn't great. That tactic needs a bit more work.
Against teams who defend deep, you are reliant on quality deliveries from your wingers. Occasionally, a combination of aerially dominant centre-backs and closely marking full-backs will force you into a re-think. But it wouldn't be called a "tactic" if it worked in any-and-all circumstances, would it? It would just be "the way you do this".
Stoke City - with their 4-4-2, two defensive midfielders and Ryan Shawcross putting his head on everything - did encourage me to experiment with a 5-3-2 formation that employs wing-backs and an Advanced Playmaker tucked in behind the front two, specifically to attack the channels rather than the flanks. I won the match but the performance wasn't great. That tactic needs a bit more work.
rocheyb
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 110
- Points
- 63
Sorry - I missed this one when I was here before.
Your assertion, Sir, is incorrect, Sir. Incorrect, I say!
- A player told to play short passes will play short passes
- A player told to play more direct passes will play more direct passes
- A player told to play risky passes will play risky passes - presumably whether they be either short or direct
- And a player who is given no instruction either way will just suit himself as-and-when situations arise
So, while removing the instruction to play direct passes should make him less likely to go direct, it doesn't necessarily follow that he will adopt a short-passing game, unless specifically instructed to do so. Similarly, removing all short passing instructions doesn't mean that your team will suddenly go Route One - unless you tell them to (which you can, if you like, in the Team Instructions). Likewise, somewhere in that hinterland between safe and risky passes lies the implied instruction to "suit yourself".
It's like my old boss, to whom I tried to explain the fallacy of expecting 13 other people to adhere with his idea of "common sense" in any given situation; to manage, I told him, is to communicate what you want people to do and how you want them do it - not to sit back and just expect that they'll do it your way, as if by telepathy or something. Needless to say, I don't work there anymore.
Last edited: