Explanation requested

[lplaksina]

Hello,

I'm not a soccer coach but have followed the game for a number of years.
3 things really have me stumped and I'm looking for some clarification from those of you who "know" the game.

Scenario #1: Goal kicks. Why does the keeper kick the ball down field 80% of the time with a 50/50 chance of our team retaining possession? Would it not make more sense to kick the ball to one of our players, who can then start a buildup on offense. It seems that the team with possession has the best chance of scoring.

Scenario #2: Many time in a flurry around the goal, our keeper (Howard) will get the ball and then fake either kicking the ball or throwing the ball and then wait for 20 seconds and THEN put the ball in play. Would it not make more sense to get the ball up to one of our players as quickly as possible to start a counter, especially when 3 or 4 of the opposing team is deep in our end.

Scenario #3. On a team with limited skills, doesn't it make more sense to give the ball to the more skilled players? So many times I see our offense break down because our midfield make bad decisions and don't "LOOK" for our more talented ball handlers.

Most sports I watch and play involves getting the ball to the most talented players. The same does not hold true in soccer. Why?

Thanks.

[rca2]

1. The objective of the goal kick IS to maintain possession. The best soccer players only do something effective with the ball 50% of the time. Having possession of the ball in the middle third of the field gives you much more space to work with than if you kicked it to a full back near the touch line in your own defensive third. There its just too easy for the opponents to close down your options. (Kicking to a back immediately in front of your own goal is obviously dangerous.) In the middle of the field your options are much greater and thus harder for the opponents to shut down. A turnover in the middle third on a goal kick is not immediately dangerous as your team should have a good defensive shape. A turnover in your defensive third is immediately dangerous. Professional keepers are amazingly accurate with their goal kicks and other distributions.

2. This reflects that the team is playing a possession style of play. If he sees an advantage for direct play, I am sure he will distribute early. But at the professional level the opposing fullbacks should not be making any mistakes like that. By waiting he is giving time for the team to move into attacking positions and also letting people make runs to create better opportunities. By waiting he is also letting the opponents withdraw up the field, which may give him a short distribution option to maintain possession. Watching games on TV is different than watching live. You don't get to see the off-the-ball running that is going on. So you don't get to see what the keeper is seeing.

3. Soccer is a team sport. One superstar and any other ten players is not a formula for success. The team that wins usually is the team that has the most options for the player with the ball. That means the team that involves the most players in the attack usually wins. You do want to get the ball to the feet of your most skilled players, but not to the exclusion of the rest of your team. That would be too predictable and easy to defend. To keep good plays working, the team must keep doing many plays that don't work in order to keep their opponents honest in their defense. If they triple team your star, someone else is open.

To compare to American football, what good is having a star quarterback or running back with a line that can't block.

[lplaksina]

Thank you, I appreciate your feedback.

I understand the logic of your reply but as a proponent of the "best defense is a good offense", I differ a bit in your overall assessment of the keeper kicking the ball down field.
I'll concede that it's necessary to distribute the ball to all attacking players and not rely on your "star(s)", although I feel that our (US national team) has far too many guys who don't have good field vision and tend to hurry their play due to limited skills and lack of confidence. And if in fact our opponents are double and triple teaming our best players, then that should open up scoring opps for our other attacking players. I don't see this happening.
I have seen many many national team games in person, and I understand that off the ball runs are critical, however, outside of 3 or 4 guys we never seem to execute. Again, I believe we suffer from talent depth and this dictates our "long ball" and bunkering philosophies.
But, after following this team for the past 10 years, I must say we're making progress. Now, if we can get only get some depth at each position.

regards

[Monkey Boy]

IMHO:
1) Safety - keepers could kick it short, but that typically leaves the least skilled players with the ball (defenders) in a dangerous situation. I truly believe this will change as the game continues to evolve and defenders are almost as skilled with the ball as midfielders.
2) We've been playing a lot of bunker where our midfielders are drawn back into defensive positions. They are not ready to get the ball immediately and turn it into an attack going the other way. So Howard waits for players to re-adjust and get into a better position -- thus also relieving pressure around the defensive 1/3 of the field.
3) this only makes sense if the more skilled players are available to receive the ball. I don't believe BB has directed play to go through certain players and therefore these guys aren't showing for the ball. Also our offensive style is very direct, we don't slow the ball down to pick out certain players.

The USNT is progressing, but not yet ready to play the controlled game you are suggesting by your questions. Possession is not a goal of the NT's style and therefore giving it up not as much of a concern.

[snolly g]

Scenario #1: Goal kicks. Why does the keeper kick the ball down field 80% of the time with a 50/50 chance of our team retaining possession? Would it not make more sense to kick the ball to one of our players, who can then start a buildup on offense. It seems that the team with possession has the best chance of scoring.

it depends on the circumstances. sometimes, it's the smart play. however... 1. by the time the defender receives the ball, there may be pressure on him. the defender now has to kick away under pressure (compare with keeper kicking away with no pressure). 2. playing the ball "short" can be very risky--if you lose the ball, it's just the forward vs. keeper.

Scenario #2: Many time in a flurry around the goal, our keeper (Howard) will get the ball and then fake either kicking the ball or throwing the ball and then wait for 20 seconds and THEN put the ball in play. Would it not make more sense to get the ball up to one of our players as quickly as possible to start a counter, especially when 3 or 4 of the opposing team is deep in our end.

you may not be seeing what he's seeing. certainly, if there's an opportunity for a fast break or breakaway, the keeper should release the ball right away. the problem is that good defenses can cover the ground or hold up the offense long enough to squash fast breaks. if/when howard hesitates, it's because he's seeing that the opposing defense is shutting down his options.

Scenario #3. On a team with limited skills, doesn't it make more sense to give the ball to the more skilled players? So many times I see our offense break down because our midfield make bad decisions and don't "LOOK" for our more talented ball handlers. Most sports I watch and play involves getting the ball to the most talented players. The same does not hold true in soccer. Why?

1. it's too much ground to cover. 2. it won't work against teams with good defenders. (1v1 defending is actually relatively easy in soccer.)

The USNT is progressing, but not yet ready to play the controlled game you are suggesting by your questions. Possession is not a goal of the NT's style and therefore giving it up not as much of a concern.

hi monkeyboy, i find that to be a weird comment. unless we're keeping the same players every year (so that the players themselves are developing), aren't we really talking about a coaching problem? isn't the real problem that the coaches don't know how to teach the players? (or worse, isn't the real problem that the coaches don't know what to teach the players?)

[rca2]

...But, after following this team for the past 10 years, I must say we're making progress. Now, if we can get only get some depth at each position. regards

If you had been following them 20 years (consider the 1990 team was primarily a group of college players playing part time) you would see that the progress between '90 and '02 was unbelieveable. We have made huge strides just in one generation.

[rca2]

...hi monkeyboy, i find that to be a weird comment. unless we're keeping the same players every year (so that the players themselves are developing), aren't we really talking about a coaching problem? isn't the real problem that the coaches don't know how to teach the players? (or worse, isn't the real problem that the coaches don't know what to teach the players?)

Its a coaching problem only in the largest sense. The MNT team coach must take the players as he finds them. There is no time for training individuals and very little time for training the individuals as a team. You have to strike a balance between trying out someone new in a match and giving existing players a chance to play together more. At this point we are facing our last competitive matches before the finals. It would be best if we could use the team we will take to the finals for these last matches. Friendlies next winter and spring are nice but not the same as a competitive match.

[Monkey Boy]

Its a coaching problem only in the largest sense. The MNT team coach must take the players as he finds them. There is no time for training individuals and very little time for training the individuals as a team. You have to strike a balance between trying out someone new in a match and giving existing players a chance to play together more. At this point we are facing our last competitive matches before the finals. It would be best if we could use the team we will take to the finals for these last matches. Friendlies next winter and spring are nice but not the same as a competitive match.

rca2 got it on the head. NT coaches will never have enough time with professional, experienced players to teach them new things. If these players are going to progress through training, it must happen at the club level.

As mentioned, the NT coach's job is to bring the best players from several different clubs together with a system that gives them the best chance to win. If you are arguing that our coaches aren't good enough, then it needs to be based on an evaluation their job.

[comme]

IMHO:
1) Safety - keepers could kick it short, but that typically leaves the least skilled players with the ball (defenders) in a dangerous situation. I truly believe this will change as the game continues to evolve and defenders are almost as skilled with the ball as midfielders.


This actually was the case prior to the introduction of the pass-back rule in 1992. It's not really due to the skill of the players, but merely due to the danger of a player losing the ball in or around his box.

We used to have a lot of extremely skillful central defenders in the game, like Beckenbauer, Scirea and Baresi, but this rule killed their art.

[wyly]

Hello,


Scenario #1: Goal kicks. Why does the keeper kick the ball down field 80% of the time with a 50/50 chance of our team retaining possession? Would it not make more sense to kick the ball to one of our players, who can then start a buildup on offense. It seems that the team with possession has the best chance of scoring.

Scenario #2: Many time in a flurry around the goal, our keeper (Howard) will get the ball and then fake either kicking the ball or throwing the ball and then wait for 20 seconds and THEN put the ball in play. Would it not make more sense to get the ball up to one of our players as quickly as possible to start a counter, especially when 3 or 4 of the opposing team is deep in our end.

Scenario #3. On a team with limited skills, doesn't it make more sense to give the ball to the more skilled players? So many times I see our offense break down because our midfield make bad decisions and don't "LOOK" for our more talented ball handlers.

Most sports I watch and play involves getting the ball to the most talented players. The same does not hold true in soccer. Why?.

1-when your side is under relentless pressure there is a need to regroup, launching the ball 80m up field gives you a breather and obviously if your side is doing this then that would indicate the defenders are not able to keep possession and move it forward on the ground.. ...it's also a very quick counter the ball being able to move 3 times as fast as any player...on a balanced side with equal opposition a mixture of the two is recommended...

2-sometimes the keeper needs to wait for supporting players to get up field, a long ball to a single attacker vs 2-3 defenders is conceding the possession and the ball is coming right back into your end...

3-logical and true but the other side knows who the better players are and will focus on eliminating them as passing options, they will force you to play to the weaker players...

[GKbenji]

This actually was the case prior to the introduction of the pass-back rule in 1992. It's not really due to the skill of the players, but merely due to the danger of a player losing the ball in or around his box.

We used to have a lot of extremely skillful central defenders in the game, like Beckenbauer, Scirea and Baresi, but this rule killed their art.

What does the back-pass rule have to do with distribution on goal kicks?

If anything, the back-pass rule should have made defenders MORE skillful, since they could no longer just knock it safely back for the keeper to pick up.

[Twenty26Six]

What does the back-pass rule have to do with distribution on goal kicks?

If anything, the back-pass rule should have made defenders MORE skillful, since they could no longer just knock it safely back for the keeper to pick up.

The backpass rule made coaches less comfortable with their players possessing the ball near the goal. Before, they could just kick it to the keeper. Now, they couldn't. So, coaches stopped playing playmakers near the keeper in an attempt to move the "playmaking" further away from what was now a "dangerous area".

Classic "Safety v. Risk". Before the backpass rule, there was no real risk.

[ranova]

What does the back-pass rule have to do with distribution on goal kicks?

If anything, the back-pass rule should have made defenders MORE skillful, since they could no longer just knock it safely back for the keeper to pick up.

I will answer the question. First I want to point out that I agree with your point about the change to the rules. It did result in an emphasis on foot skills in the back. Obviously.

As to your question, the essential impact of the change is due to the rule on challenging keepers. Of course the rule does not apply to goal kicks, but the rule influences decisions indirectly. The difference is not a skill thing, but an immunity thing. In simplest terms an opponent may challenge a keeper who is playing the ball with his feet, but not when the keeper is using his hands. In a passback situation after the rule change the keeper became just another defender with no immunity from tackles (unless the keeper was foolishly willing to handle the ball hoping that the referee was asleep). Before the rule change the ball was safe from tackles as soon as the keeper was in possession. Therefore the change in the rule eliminated a safe haven for the ball and made it riskier to maintain possession in your own defensive third and, to that extent, made short distibutions riskier.

But I think I see where you are coming from in questioning goal kicks specifically rather than distributions in general. Normally teams use a low pressure defense on goal kicks, i.e., defend the middle third, not their attacking third. (We can ignore exceptions like young kids whose distributions cannot reach the middle third.) Against a low pressure defense you still see good opportunities for short distributions on a goal kick.

[comme]

What does the back-pass rule have to do with distribution on goal kicks?

If anything, the back-pass rule should have made defenders MORE skillful, since they could no longer just knock it safely back for the keeper to pick up.

I agree that is what should have happened. But TwentySix points out why it didn't happen.

Almost every change that has ever been implemented in order to encourage attacking play, has actually had the reverse effect.

For instance the introduction of the "golden goal" was meant to encourage attacking play because teams could win a game with a single kick. In fact it made them afraid of losing.

So what the backpass rule did was encourage safefty first defending, where players would rather kick it out for a throw in than try to control the ball and bring it up field.