On Twitter, I saw comments about a Portugal player, Enzo Fernandez, who was just signed by Chelsea. This is from the men's game, but, being a fan of the women's game, it made me think about the women In Portugal, Enzo averaged a division-high 10.4 accurate long passes per 90.In UCL group stage, he was 2nd only to Kroos for successful long passes.At the base of Potter’s midfield, he will look to provide a stream of long diagonal passes towards the flanks.{Premier League} pic.twitter.com/OY7mnzYftL— Vince™ (@Blue_Footy) February 2, 2023 "But what about Tiki-Taka?" was my thought. How far we've come from when tiki-taka was the be-all, end-all, in soccer tactics. The big diagonal switch was also, I believe, one of the key features in the US women's style of play, one which went unappreciated by most people commenting on the game. It's "kick and run" to all those people who think it should take 5 to 10 passes to cover 50 yards and switch sides of the field. We all love neat, short, intricate passing attacks; and we love nifty ball-handling skills in tight places. It's a beautiful part of the game, but it's dogma to too many people. It limits what they define as "technical" ability in players. I don't know exactly where this thread is supposed to lead (probably nowhere) but maybe my rants will provoke a little thought about tactics in the women's game... and even in soccer in general, including the men's game
There was a chess "style" that was popularized a long time ago. At the time it was called "modern." The modern style was designed to allow opponents to make a mistake and then it was supposed to exploit that mistake. Many of the older masters at the time condemned it and said that it was not "chess" it was simply "waiting". I feel a lot like that is true for "Tiki-Taka" the way most teams play it. Of course the great masters could play either attacking chess or modern chess as the need presented itself. But the masters that played only modern did not seem able to consistently beat others that played to older style. Chess evolved from that and most masters have been able and willing to play either style and switch as needed. I feel a lot about "Tiki-Taka" like the older chess masters did about modern chess. It is not soccer, it is waiting. A truly good team can use both Tiki-Taka and traditional soccer as needed and the best can switch whenever needed. I also feel that, all else being equal, traditional soccer beats Tiki-Taka most of the time. That is, I believe, mainly true because traditional soccer puts the ball in the attacking third more often that Tiki-Taka does. But teams that can play Tiki-Taka well are much better at protecting leads that teams that play only traditional soccer. Neither "style" is vastly superior to the other but any team that only plays one style is doomed to fail. Even the Spanish have shown that Tiki-Taka will only take you so far if the other team plays anything close to decent defense. Also Tiki-Taka just does not work well in congested areas. I think the USA men's team should not even attempt to play Tiki-Taka as the skills of the back line and the mids are just not good enough. However the USA women do have enough skill but it makes little since for them to limit their attacking chances by making the slow plodding attacks that Tiki-Taka pretty much forces. While possession is not, in itself, bad at all. In fact the old saying "if we have the ball they cannot score." is mostly true. I think the USA needs, badly, to be able to switch styles in the middle of a match and even in the middle of a given sequence. Every time I see a short pass to a mid that is returned straight back to a back I think they might have just killed a decent attack. There are times that a team needs to "let the air out of the ball" but most teams playing Tiki-Taka do it much too often. The USA should be multi-dementianal and every time they get the ball they need to make the other team(s) have to guess what comes next. That is the problem with the USA teams of both sexes. The other teams pretty much always know what is coming next.
I agree on tactics. My observation is that this variability is something Andonovski has been trying to implement for quite some time. There have been varying degrees of success, but I think the team is getting better at it. Thus I am really interested to see how things develop through the World Cup -- will they be able to do it or not?
I do not think Vlatko Andonovski is a good enough coach or tactician to implement the kind of play the US needs to progress and keep teams guessing. But his players are so good, mostly, that it is nearly impossible for him to screw things up too bad. We may well win the WWC but I think it will be in spite of Vlatko not because of him.
At first I thought one tactical dimension Vlatko was adding was the switching and interplay of his 3 forwards, with left and right switching sides and switching roles with the center forward. Alex Morgan was out pregnant at the time, Sophia Smith was in college, and maybe Tobin Heath was out injured (as she's been most of the last 4 years). So between Carli Lloyd, Christen Press, and Lynn Williams (and maybe this was last time we saw Jess McDonald on the team), you had players who had some ability and experience in playing both left and right and also more centrally, so Vlatko seemed to make use of it, but it's less noticeable now. I had really mixed feelings about Jill Ellis as US coach (even though I'm a UCLA guy), but she said something once about working on angles with the US which I think I saw in practice and made sense. One of those things was using longer, sharper triangles than tiki-taka in the offensive half of the field. Instead of roughly equilateral triangles of 5 to 10 yards, these would be sharper triangles where the long sides involved passes of 10 to 20 yards or so. I realize visual illustrations, video clips and demonstrations, are really called for here, but maybe, impressionistically, it'll ring a bell for some people because I think one player in particular exemplified this approach at the sharp point of the triangle. That player is Lindsey Horan. Horan had the ability to receive harder, longer passes of 15-20 yards threaded between defenders and one-touch re-thread them at a sharp angle 15-20 yards , between defenders to a 3rd teammate. The ability to switch the point of attack is one of the key tactical challenges of a team facing a good opponent. It isn't the most noticeable thing (and, since I'm no expert, maybe I'm talking about something which doesn't exist at all) but the US is currently diminished in two tactical motifs in how to switch the point of attack. First, what Dahlkemper and Tierna Davidson brought, offensively to the team, were those booming accurate long balls from the backline, not over-the-top , Route One, which usually wound up going sraight to the opposing 'keeper, but diagonals to a winger with technical ability to take the ball out of the air. Second, these longer triangles which tried to ge the ball from being pinned towards the touchline and penentrate the offensive third at anew point of attack coser to the middle of the 18-yard line. **** The discussion of these tactics is also, indirectly, a discussion worth having of individual technical skills because I think too many fans have too limited an idea on what constitutes technical ability, mainly centered on fancy ball-handling skills, nutmegs, other delightful ball-tricks. But right now, in the men's game, people are able to talk about this player from Portugal, Enzo Fenandez, and his ability to make the accurate long diagonal pass from a deep-lying position — the kind of thing Dahlkemper and Davidson used to give the US women — and no one on the men's side seems to have a problem accepting that as a valuable technical skill. They're not saying, "but what about Tiki-Taka" or does he look like Lavelle or Tobin Heath — and not just because these guys don't know Lavelle and Heath because they're women. *** Very nice and intriguing post. I've been thinking of chess analogies as well and this is an interesting one. I'll try to get around to some of my chess analogies later
I feel like the default whenever they play games that matter is to go back to just attempting to overpower the opponent. I am curious to see if this changes as players who featured in the 2010s move away from the National Team.
Kolabear; good thread & hopefully keeps focus on tactics instead of the usual individual players like ‘she’s too slow’ or she’s too old’ type posts(found on every other thread, lol) got to ask; are you saying that Vlatko uses the Tiki Taka?(which I thought was more about midfield domination through short, disciplined passing) What I like about Vlatko is the ‘false #9’ method that he uses which with it’s bait & switch operation, can often confuse the jeepers out of opposing defenses as to who to mark centrally as the original striker makes way to another running into the middle of the penalty box. So particularly good use of the several quality target players that Vlatko got at his disposal(Swanson, Smith Lavelle Macario eccedra). Yet you’ll be surprised how many of the other top ranked coaches/teams still insist on just getting the ball to just final targeted player—usually the central striker. But what could deter the effectiveness of either the false #9 or Tiki Taka is if the opponent switches to a rectangular, zone defense of closely knit, 2 lines of 4 or even 5 players. This could shut down the passing lanes no matter who’s making the runs through the middle’) If you noticed, the Czech’s were really good at this, bunker type defense at last SBC, but then the higher ranked Iceland looked terrible choosing 1v1 marking instead
Being 'too slow' has a significant impact on the game. Defending is a part of the game, too, you know? Being able to get up and down the pitch is part of the game. Ball possession does not win games. Out scoring your opponents does. So why take away the significant strenght (speed) of the US forwards by playing slow?
Really good post. Interesting observation about Vlatko using false #9 tactics, which of course is exactly what many of Catarina Macario's fans say is the best way to employ her, so the US is set up to just plug her in when she recovers from injury. As for Tiki-Taka, no the US is definitely not a tiki-taka type team and as far as I know never has been. With the result, fairly or unfairly, of having the reputation of an "athletic" team, a technically unsophisticated team, a kick-and-run team, which, whatever criticisms they may deserve, is too simplistic a view of the team at least since it abandoned "Abby-Ball" in 2015-2016
Has anyone else noticed that the press is becoming less and less of a tactic in the US toolkit? Of course some fans always thought it was a cheap-o way to play, taking advantage of weaker teams' inability to play out of the back. But there's no doubt it was a tool the US employed to bring about scoring chances, even against teams with some good players on offense. What I'm suggesting is a way to look at US games to see what's not there, to see a negative, to see an absence. We'll see the giveaways, the loss of possession, but why is it happening, why is the ball getting hemmed into tight spaces and along the touchline? One way, perhaps, to help understand the game is to see what's not there, what the US is no longer doing. I started this thread with the quoted tweet about a player, Enzo Fernandez, who just signed with Chelsea, who gets praised for doing what I think we took for granted with the US women — their ability to connect long diagonal passes, connecting with a speedy winger now isolated on a defender. That isn't common in the women's game; and we see one guy getting singled out and praised for it (and paid millions of dollars) even in the men's game. If our offense seems to stagnate in upcoming games and the World Cup, we might notice the disappearance of certain tactical motifs that featured centrally in the US game, such as the long diagonal pass the press the "JJ effect" or "JJ counter" the longer triangles I've mentioned, which I realize may seem a vague and fuzzy concept to other fans By JJ effect, I'm referring to the dominating presence Julie (Johnston/) Ertz had, her ability to break up the opponent's attack AND KNOCK THE BALL UPFIELD TO HER TEAMMATES, triggering a quick US counter-attack. My impression of JJ was that she didn't simply break up the opponent's play, but remarkably often she blocked the ball forward to where one of our attackers could get it. Well, we don't have JJ now and it seems fairly certain we're not going to have her back for the World Cup, so this is going to be another tactical dimension we won't be able to rely on as much. The US, of course, is not toothless; it still has many attacking personalities. The question is, Does the US have enough tactical strengths to make up for the loss of some of those it took for granted for years? @hotjam2 mentioned the element of a False 9 We still have the players for a rapid, 2 or 3 pass counter-attack (most recent example was in game 2 vs New Zealand, with Rodman providing the assist to Ashley Hatch) We have what I'll call the Gnome-Underpants Lavelle Theory Gnomes Steal Underpants ??? Lavelle turns in midfield and drives towards 18-yard area = PROFIT! The question is, If the offense stagnates against good teams, do we have enough tactical weapons or have we lost too many and not replaced them with others. *** I can easily be wrong in my evaluation on some or all of this, but I think it might give us a slightly different framework for how many of us fans can think and talk about where the US team is at — and maybe where it has to go
felt like Vlatko did high press vs England, aided by Wiegman playing an cat n mouse game of having her team back passing dangerously deep into her own side—-into baiting the US defense upfield so her squad had more room to counterattack.Turned out to be mixed results, cuz the US got one goal through its press—England got theirs via the quick counter. Final winning goal came by Bronze—an ardent graduate of England’s famed school of DIVING (an area we’ve fallen way way behind, LOL) next game vs Spain B, Vlatko had the high press at the start as well, probably trying to stop the heralded Tiki Taka from getting established, but then something went miserably wrong as Spain’s B squad took over after the about 15 minutes. This is the one game that’s complex the jeepers out of everyone/or what exactly happened on why a squad of Spanish scabs(who were previously non existent the week before)able to win with relative ease?—-yet needs to be answered as we’re projected to face them in the WC quarters I’ll skip analysis the two game set of US/GER as their coach is sort of a demented genius(someone who promptly forgets what worked in the first place). 1st game/1st half NZ , Vlatko decides to switch a more conservative, deliberate passing style against an opponent we’ve blown apart several times before. Was he trying to simulate this friendly like he’s pacing like an 6-7 game tournament? Next match he’s got them playing 5th gear almost immediately, yet we know a team can’t play 6-7 straight games at ‘full throttle’ at the WC, otherwise the squad will completely exhaust itself by the time it reaches the final(if that not, earlier). In similar vein, at late 2021 two game set with Korea, the scoreline was 0-0, and then 6-0. So how could you have such opposite scores with pretty much the same lineup? So my view would be rather that tactics, Vlatko’s PACE(or lack of it) will pretty much determine the success in the WC. And yeah, hopefully he’s learned something from the Olympics—where he tried a more slower deliberate approach(as to not immediately tired squad), only to find out the Swedes weren’t on the same page!
I can easily be wrong about the US and their current level of determination to press — and I wouldn't blame them for not using it against New Zealand in these friendlies — what would they prove? what would they learn? It'll be interesting to see if the press will remain a dangerous weapon for the US this year. *** There's another tweet from the men's game today hammering on the point of the original post. It's a comment on Manchester United's Marcel Sabitzer in their match against Leeds United Marcel Sabitzer’s first half by numbers vs. Leeds United:100% long balls completed87% pass accuracy39 touches3 shots2 key passes1/1 aerial duel wonSwitching the play. 💫 pic.twitter.com/r4XvNKvzi2— Statman Dave (@StatmanDave) February 8, 2023 100% long balls completed Was this even a stat that people kept track of in the long years of Tiki-Taka and its aftermath?!! Quite possibly I just don't remember but I'm only saying this half in jest! If anything I could see them keeping as a stat the number of long balls attempted, as some sort of damning statistic, like turnovers or fouls committed! *** If the US no longer has the players on the team to make the long diagonal pass consistently, then of course we have to turn to different tactics. It may even come to pass that our best option is to play the kind of possession football that many fans have always preached. Possession soccer is certainly an important facet of the game, but (if it's up to me) one direction I'd take a conversation like this is to show the limits of that way of thinking, as popular as it is among fans. It shows a lack of appreciation for alternatives which have served the US very well and which are taken for granted as valuable tactics NOW in the men's game.
General, and basically ignorant, comments about T-T style of play. I don't think that back line needs to be able to play it, and imo, it's not "waiting" - not the way Spain played it in their glory days. My impression of what Spain did was a) get the ball to their extremely talented mids. b) the mids ping the ball around, moving up the field. Initially there is a lot of space, and it's easy for those talented guys to progress through the middle third (roughly). As they get forward, the other team panics a bit and collapses on the guys moving up the field. That free's up a guy our two who are outside the ring formed by the Spanish tiki-takkers and the opponents (with an extra opposing player or two) defending them. Free guy makes a run into all that vacated space, has tons of time, and makes the killer pass. It's a process of sucking the D in, to create space elsewhere that's attacked. I don't see that as "waiting" at all. The key to T-T was sucking in the D and attacking the resulting empty space with speed. To me, the demise of Spain came when one of the speedy attackers or two, aged out. They could still build up the pressure, with deft passing, but their release valve(s) was/were gone.
The evolution of tactics in the mens game reflects the desire to find ways to score. As the competition becomes better technically, physically and tactically, coaches are forced to look for ways they can create physical and/or numerical advantages to create space/scoring opportunities. sticking to international soccer, which is very different from Club soccer, Spain, Brazil, Germany etc have all different methods based on the type of player they develop and the culture. The womens game is far less mature. the level of the competition in the international game is very variable. Tactics evolve as quality improves by necessity. If the USA have a physical advantage then they should use it until it disappears. If they have technical advantages, they should exploit those. you need to look at your player pool and figure out what strategies will work best. Looking at the type of player the USA are selecting should tell you a lot.
Yep their finishing sucked in the Euros especially against England. Sometimes not being aggressive enough to shoot but kept on passing.
This is where there are analogies with warfare, isn't it? The (very) rough idea is that the attacking army needs a numerical superiority of 3-1; or 5-1, or maybe even 10-1... AT THE POINT OF ATTACK. You don't need it along the entire front, just where you're trying to attack. Obviously if the opposing army knows where you're going to attack, they'll beef up their defenses there, so deception is an important element in the attack; and superior mobility — the ability to transfer more units to the point of attack more quickly than the enemy. Switching the point of attack is one of the key tactical elements in soccer — that last tweet I mentioned about Manchester United's Marcel Sabitzer said "Switch the play." Switch the field. Switch the play. Switch the point of attack. It's interesting to compare a few different tactical styles — including Tiki-Taka and the standard possession style — in terms of Switching the Play or Switching the Point of Attack. Tiki-Taka says you only need to switch the point of attack within a very small, concentrated area. OK, of course the first attacker can't just waltz in but with short, sharp passes, his or her teammate just behind or alongside them can break through. With highly skilled attackers working in very precise ways, we can breach the wall like special ops teams, SEALS or Delta Force type guys. In a sense it almost looks like not changing the point of attack at all, in the ordinary sense or at ordinary scale. Tiki-Taka says an effective unit can breach one small part of the defensive line, by switching the point of attack on a much smaller tactical scale. *** Then you have a slower and more conventional idea of switching the point of attack, of probing along one wing and, having no success there, recycling the ball back into midfield and probing the other wing. Naturally it makes sense to test different match-ups between your attackers and their defenders on different wings, but it doesn't fulfill the usual objective of "switching the point of attack" to gain sudden numerical advantage — by moving the play so slowly and deliberately, of course, the defense can simply shift along with the ball from one side to the other. Of course, keeping possession can have its advantages, but often, against solid opponents, neither does it guarantee a lot of excellent scoring chances. This is why "sterile possession" is a saying in the game In contrast to both Tiki-Taka and the standard possession game, the US women (I believe) have for several years managed to find alternative ways to "switch the play." Can they continue to do so? Or find new ways? *** (By the way, I agree with @RalleeMonkey that calling Tiki-Taka a "waiting" strategy isn't especially accurate, but I understand how some people find it eventually monotonous. And if properly done it has the features of a "safe style" to play. Since the team using Tiki-Taka accepts playing in a clogged, congested part of the field, if you lose possession, there's a good chance of getting it back immediately or at least interfering with the opposing side's attempt to spring a counter-attack. Comparing to chess, it does have a safe "positional" aspect to it
@kolabear All true, but different player profiles will impact how efficient different strategies will be. Soccer is a game where the result may not reflect the expected result, so judging what worked "best" is not as easy as looking at the score or who scored.
Certainly. Personnel can dictate what strategy & tactics are options for a coach. And since neither Dahlkemper or Davidson are available, it's possible we can't employ the long diagonal as a regular tactical motif in switching the point of attack. I doubt we should bring back Morgan (Brian/) Gautrat and build our midfield play around her, but I could be wrong. Brian/Gautrat is more of a Keira Walsh type of midfielder, yes? England's midfielder who seems to be excelling for England and someone (to borrow the chess analogy again) who plays a slower positional style, but finds a way to make constructive connections The irony is that those fans who advocate the Morgan Brian-Gautrat style of play might again dominate discussions of the US women's team at a time when tactical motifs which have been features of the US women now become "state-of-the-art" in the men's game. All without ever acknowledging as a valid tactical approach by the "possession soccer" fans in WoSo. (Yes, I'm taking a bit of a dig at those fans, tee-hee!)
Youth soccer does not value all profiles the same. The most valued traits at a young ages have a big impact in shaping what profiles survive. I don't advocate any style of play, but with the volume of young women we have playing, I would hope that whatever it is looks polished and makes the whole look and perform greater than the sum of the parts. Tiki Taka has this romantic association built on watching Xavi,Iniesta, Busquets dictate games. Some of it is how they played, but also part of it is they all looked like everyman. None of them were particularly physically gifted and they made the ball do the work. Those teams also had physically gifted players as well. That era gave fuel to the whole technical vs athlete argument. Great teams are made up of great profiles that bring different things to the unit. Tactics evolve in the mens game because it is very efficient. I dont think the womens game is yet. There has been far less investment.
Yeah I figure the trainers and coaches are not teaching the players about team tactics at young age. Mostly individual skills and learning to work as a team but not complex tactics. It’s definitely hurting them and they have to learn it the hard way at later age.
Since when are we having difficulty scoring on long diagonal passes? Seems to me we have created chances that way in every recent game, and scored in the last one, and I think others?
Maybe, but I think there's a big decrease in the number of long diagonals and big switches in recent US games. Maybe they got it working in the 2nd half of the 2nd New Zealand game. I didn't see much of it, but I watched the 1st half of both games twice and I noticed its absence. In 1st half of 1st game, 'Broon had an unusual number of her passes intercepted; it seemed like she was trying to force the ball through the center rather than safely dump off the ball to the side. Girma, by contrast, when she was in seemed to have more success, but it looked like the US was trying to find an alternative way to play the ball to the attacking third since they didn't have Dahlkemper or Davidson around to make those long diagonal balls from the back. The big switch in the attacking half of the field was something Megan Rapinoe could be counted on to do a couple times a game. Now that she's playing limited minutes, it seems this tactical motif is disappearing from the US playbook. The US 2nd goal in game two came on a long ball from Sofia Huerta into the box which Rose Lavelle, towering under everybody, got her foot on to poke it into the net. That's not the long diagonal tactic I'm talking about. Before the match, elsewhere, I said the US could even play Abby-Ball against New Zealand, with Ali Riley (!) drafted into the center-back position with the Kiwis' Abby (Abby Erceg) retired from international play. When things work,we're happy. But it's exactly the kind of simple, extremely direct tactic which gets boring and annoying really fast when it doesn't work against teams better matched up against us.
Kristie Mewis can hit a brilliant long ball. She was dropping dimes at Concacaf. I would like to see him use her more.
Good discussion here. Something that does not get enough discussion is tactics as related to stage of the game. Using the long diagonal pass as an example, this can be especially effective later in a game when defenders are tired and leave the player receiving the ball more space and time in which to operate. More and more when I watch games, I pay attention to the stage of the game and how the tactics relate to the stage.
Seems like it needs to be the 6 or a CB making those passes. But, I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Also, is Sam ever coming back?