Yeah but nobody dies by it, they thrive from it. all the top teams in all the top leagues in Europe play out of the back. Man city, Lester, Liverpool, Spurs?, Arsenal, Everton, Bayer, Leipzig, atleti, Barca, Madrid, Ajax, PSV. Conceding a goal like that is losing a battle, but winning the war. Need to see the aggregate benefit.
The teams vary in degree of how much they adhere to potb. Some do it more staunchly than others probably because they are more comfortable with it and therefore it is less risky. But I have seen nearly every one of those teams blast a long ball to avoid risk. It is only a smart decision. I would not categorize Bayern as a POTB team the way Barcelona is. Big difference in philosophies due to the phsycial atttributes of the players; Barca clearly values possession in and of itself more than Bayern, who are more about winning and they play more physical and they spread more to score since they have taller strikers. Spurs def are not a potb team either. Sure they'll do it but it depends on who they play. They usually do control possession against weaker teams, but against stronger teams they don't focus on possession. Arsenal are possession team but they aren't doing so well.
No team potb 100% of the time. Some will take on more risk than others. Here is a simple example. Real Madrid vs Bayern. At 16:34 Madrid keeper blasts the ball away to avoid risk. It sounds like you think they should not do that and instead try to potb. But that would just be too risky in the circumstances. Perhaps only one or two teams in the world would try to potb in that situation. Anyways, this proves my point. When risk is too high most teams will clear the ball to avoid danger.
Except what you constantly fail to understand (or just flat out trolling) is that in the aggregate, playing out of the back wins more games in the long run. The short term gain does not equal more points, more trophies in the long run.Coaches like you tell their players to boot it if it's in their own half and a defender. Wasn't that the same match that Allison made a mistake playing short, then also made a mistake by trying to clear it long? So by your logic, since a long clearance led to a goal, that players shouldn't clear the ball either? If you're in the game long enough and watch closely enough, you'll eventually notice that long clearances lead to goals against more frequently than the opposite. Facile observation doesn't tease out this fact. Coaching via highlights doesn't show this fact.
I never said to not potb. Everyone does it. Just in varying degrees. I said to be careful when doing it in risky situations, like right in front of your goal. Some people who staunchly adhere to "potb" think that means they have to do it 100% of the time. It removes proper decision making because they stop assessing risk properly and just think "i have to potb" and that's a lack of proper risk assessment. I see it trickle down into younger leagues. Kid's are not learning how to think and make decisions. Coaches yell at them for dribbling. So for ex, I saw a defender kid (on a staunch potb team) have lots of space in front of him, but for fear of being yelled at, or prob the coach wants them to only pass, he instead passed it sideways in front of his own goal into a riskier situation which resulted in a goal against. Instead he should have dribbled forward into space. It's a mentality thing. Should you always potb, no you shouldn't. It depends on the situation and you should make good decisions based on the situation. Not just blindly potb. The top teams generally actually aren't potb to the degree that you wish. Bayern who is tops in bundesliga and won Champions league and easily smashed Barca last year, are more of a total football mentality. Liverpool who won PL title last year whith German coach Klopp is also of that mind set. Real Madrid when they were winning CL weren't exactly a potb team like barca, RM is more balanced and plays a style dictated by the strenghts of the players. And that comes back to my point - you get players that aren't great at potb attempting to play tiki taka in their 1/3rd and they get exposed. Sure, do it if you are great at it, but if you are not then it will only cause problems. What I'm saying is - you should play to the players strengths, not force a "style of play" that they are not great at.
This may seem like silly sematics, but I think it allows better understanding of the senior game. It isn't potb that wins games, it is maintaining possession that wins matches, which potb promotes. Losing the ball while trying to force an impossible play does not maintain possession. I think substituting the word "patient" for "possession" gives a clearer understanding of the concept. A "patient attack" is not merely holding onto the ball, but implies possession with a purpose. A patient attack should resemble water flowing around rocks. I found it really easy to teach U10s to play out of the back. I just told them to use their own judgment on what was the best option, and that knocking the ball over the end line was an acceptable option if they could not see a better one. Sometimes giving up a corner is the best choice. It is surprising how quickly they learn to read the field and make good decisions, if the adults just let them. Small sided keep away games (rondos) are the foundation of possession style play. Just like for technical everything builds off the dribble. For tactics everything builds off the rondo.
As young as possible, we teach 'em they're not allowed to just kick the ball away. It's funny because now it's codified. There's some U-little program called KINS (Kickball is Not Soccer) that state directors are promoting. As they get older, the gauge gets finer. Many of the teams we play, they consider being under pressure when they have the ball in their defensive penalty area and a defender is nearby. Even with defender's within less than an arm's length shouldn't be a problem because they know how to shield and others know how to support. One of my mentors, he never let his players kick it out even if they were facing their own goal with defenders on their back. The catastrophe everyone envisions rarely materialized. His feeling was that he had to expose them to dangerous situations otherwise they'd never develop their chops. But that isn't to say he just let his players loose—YEARS of ball mastery, YEARS of 1v1 play allowed them to do that. But even Year 1 players are indoctrinated into this mindset. I cut my teeth on that methodology but I'm more of a rondo guy now, even at younger ages. The "understanding what they are seeing" part is so valuable and it gets lost with an early fixation on 1,000 touches in ever practice. Like we've talked about before, and you can't get away from it, but 95% of the time you don't have the ball, yet 95% of youth training is about what to do when you have the ball. My latest project/group is interesting because they are not the early developer/early specialization types. They picked up positional play pretty well though, not because I'm a good teacher, but it's a much more simpler/enjoyable way to play. Everyone knows they're going to get the ball at some point. Everyone loves this "hive mind" thinking—we have a clear picture of what we are trying to accomplish and how we achieve it. Everyone understands the things that are most likely to happen and how the collective should react to it. The whole approach builds more of a team than my previous efforts. If I coached a senior level team, it would be different though. Not so much Barca with Xavi and Pep but more like Klopp's prime in Dortmund: "Direct possession" as I coined it. Short, passing on the ground but always moving forward toward goal. Less conservative in the final third than say Pep or Wenger's teams, because counterpressing would be the key feature. We'd create chances a la Klinsmann's (the player) German teams when he would run combos with Rudi Voller all day.
Another disastrous forced potb. This time by Juventus in a Champions League match. At 0:45. Too much pressure. Just dumb. Go wide, go long, go out. Don't go straight back to keeper when opponents are within arms reach. I don't even see how anyone can possibly think this is a good idea and coach kids to try this. Only if you are coaching a kid to go pro then sure, do this as he/she will need to gain that high level skill. But most kids won't even play in college. Stanford won 3 nattys in a row without potb. So if you aspire for Standford then teach actual good decision making rather than forced potb. Juve loses 2-1 vs Porto
Just a nasty nasty fail: The lesson to be learned here? The commentator says "I think the keeper is partly culpable because I don't he should be playing this to Xhaka, knowing that he's coming under pressure and he's got to release it quickly" Keeper def should have went long here. If you look at the camera view from behind keeper you seen good spread of space downfield and high defensive press. Not a idea to direct pass long or just try to lob behind their line to feed striker.
I guess if you consider "thriving" not qualifying for the Olympics? @0:33 You're really gonna hold the ball in front of your goal as the striker presses? I maintain that the problem is that we are not teaching decision making, we are just teaching you must potb. Every team at that level needs to assess the risk/reward of a situation and know their limitations. But hey, I'm sure the US Men will be remembered in this game for playing beautiful football /s
Think it through - what is the real soccer problem? There's a 7v4 US numbers up situation around the ball when the clip starts. The ball is played to a 1v1 situation, which becomes a 1v1 w the keeper. By my count, that's 9 US players in their ownhalf - 7 of them on the left side of the field. 5 Hondurans. Ochoa blasts it, what are the chances our 2 remaining players get the ball from the 5 Honduran field players? It's a fundamental problem with US coaching in my opinion - assuming a player with "technical skills" can be dropped into any tactical situation. You'd hear it in coaching courses - "no tactics before u14". Other cultures don't see the distinction that way. It's compounded by our decisions that "we're goig to play this way" but then lacking the ability or not being allowed to select players that could actually play that way, came through programs that played that way, etc. Again, because of the belief that if they have footskills they can drop into any system.. That kinda works at the clb level when you have months and seasons to drill it but how many MLS teams do you see successfully playing posession soccer? So taking the wrong guys for the system,and insisting on a system the guys arent suited for - I can make more predictions.... You drop almost any other team into the US place, that first pass isn't a hard pass to a guy in a 1v1 closer to his own goal, the simply knock it back to one of the 3 guys facing forward that were 10-15 yards away, other guys are moving to give supporting angles, and the ball is progressed into the Honduran half of the field. Even with the pass, had the LCB and LB moved on the first pass Ochoa has support to play to them, instead they stand and watch. The US had a lot of problems - leaving competent MLS based players out, picking a coach who has failed in his last 2 MLS stints - hanging this on Ochoa is like blaming the dog for the crap you stepped in while evacuating a burning building....
@CoachP365 When I say no tactics before U14, I mean no team tactics. That is very old conventional wisdom. Perhaps what is missing is an understanding of the old way of looking at tactics. In my old school view of development, there are individual tactics, small group tactics, and team tactics. Individual tactics are related to technical training. Small group tactics are related to Principles of Play. Mastery of those first two are what is needed before dealing with 11 v 11 team tactics. In my view, if a player masters individual tactics and small group tactics, there isn't much left to learn about team tactics. Team tactics are actually dealing with specific 11 a side systems of play and game plans. They don't deal with general principles.
USA #10 just boots it, maybe because he saw a bunch of dark jerseys in that direction? I don't get it. Anyways it lands at #17. #17 should have passed it to one of his several teammates who were nearby. But he probably felt the #13 Honduran striker was too close so ok he goes back to keeper. To his credit #17 does immediately start running right (from keeper's view) to support and keeper should have one or two touched it into that space (for the right back to run to); ie basically a give and go with the RB. Ochoa was already facing right, would have been a super easy pass. But keeper holds it, and that's the fail point. Keeper also could have just chipped it over the approaching striker and right to his CBs, lots of space there. Oh well. "these guys are young and learning" is the excuse. Ok. I guess. If this is pickup soccer at the park then I would buy it. But a lot of these guys are paid professionals in the MLS and should know what to do in these situations and not be screwing around right in front of goal. This highlight gives more context than the English one
Sure, that's a useful interpretation. Once you introduce opposition there are some tactical choices involved. I get that what they meant was "no bad tactics. stop working on free kick routines with your u6s, teaching the offside trap to u8s etc. winning doesn't matter at these ages". But it became a game of telephone....