Is Passing From the Back Worth the Risk?

[Dave]

Arsenal and Liverpool have both made high-profile errors in attempts to pass from the back this season - so is it worth the risk?

[Stan]

Man City do it to great effect. Getting opposition players out of position is a good trait of theirs when they get their game going passing from the back. Sometimes you'll have the back 4 (and keeper) involved in passing moves and then all of a sudden you'd have players like De Bruyne or Sane or Fernandinho free as a bird to start an attack when 3/4 opposition players are all over the place.

As long as you have the right players with confidence on the ball and confidence under pressure when the other team presses high, I don't see why not. 

It's a risk worth taking if you have players that can be effective with it. It shouldn't always be relied upon though - if you gotta go long then why not? Passing may be easier on the eye but sometimes knocking the ball long away from your goal can relieve pressure just as much. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

10 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

Arsenal and Liverpool have both made high-profile errors in attempts to pass from the back this season - so is it worth the risk?

We've also conceded just 3 goals all season. I think if you've got a good enough defense and a good enough keeper, the pros outweigh the cons.

[6666]

Our mistakes from passing from the back thankfully hasn't led to a goal being conceded but even though we started off being shit at it by being too stubborn with it, I think we implemented it better after 3 or 4 games. 

Saying that though, I don't think it's worth the risk. It's only really beneficial to teams that dominate games with the opposition standing off. If you're under pressure and need to pass it long or clear it then that should override the plan to pass it short from the back.

[Rick]

City look as shit as anybody at times, especially against us where they look scatty as fuck.

[Inverted]

It's absolutely worth it if you're good at it. If you are a technical team that's not got any particular physical advantage, then the safest thing to do is to play out with the ball on the deck. Look at Leicester's first goal - Kolarov is forced into clearing it long, Iheanacho has no chance at winning it, and within a few passes Leicester have scored.

The quicker the ball goes forward, the quicker it comes back.

[Danny]

Award for most stereotypical English question goes to...

[The Artful Dodger]

There is no right or wrong, we can all be snobs and say 'we like to see footy like this or that' but you play to your strengths. 

However, the bald man himself was spot in saying, playing short passes out from the back is far less risky than playing a ball in the air. It's nothing to do with purity/glamour, as much as bellends like that wannabe barca/arsenal fan on here makes out it is, it's about success. If you have confident players then short passing football is the safest option. 

[Guest]

Peru often plays from the back. A few years ago we weren't gifted enough to do so. Now that we have a proper team we are able to do it and since all our defenders are technically gifted it works wonders for us. That's the key, technique. Without that, it's not worth it.

[Cicero]

Football is evolving to a point where sides are opting for technical players in every position. Having defenders that are comfortable in possession and under pressure. Having midfielders that are technical and attackers that contribute to the build up of play. 

[Spike]

2 hours ago, Stan said:

Man City do it to great effect. Getting opposition players out of position is a good trait of theirs when they get their game going passing from the back. Sometimes you'll have the back 4 (and keeper) involved in passing moves and then all of a sudden you'd have players like De Bruyne or Sane or Fernandinho free as a bird to start an attack when 3/4 opposition players are all over the place.

As long as you have the right players with confidence on the ball and confidence under pressure when the other team presses high, I don't see why not. 

It's a risk worth taking if you have players that can be effective with it. It shouldn't always be relied upon though - if you gotta go long then why not? Passing may be easier on the eye but sometimes knocking the ball long away from your goal can relieve pressure just as much. 

Curry-dick Stan coming through with the big tactics!

[Dan+]

It's as much about the midfield as the defence. Yes it's worth the risk but only if you're actually comfortable doing it - which at this level teams should be.

[Happy Blue]

The current Champions of England pass from the back so if you have the right goal keeper and ball playing defenders it works. the first season we played that way we got caught out a number of times but it's very rare we lose the ball now

[Stan]

1 hour ago, Spike said:

Curry-dick Stan coming through with the big tactics!

 

[Dan+]

7 hours ago, Inverted said:

It's absolutely worth it if you're good at it. If you are a technical team that's not got any particular physical advantage, then the safest thing to do is to play out with the ball on the deck. Look at Leicester's first goal - Kolarov is forced into clearing it long, Iheanacho has no chance at winning it, and within a few passes Leicester have scored.

The quicker the ball goes forward, the quicker it comes back.

Still find this one of the most baffling games I've been to. We were an absolute wreck of a side at that point, Man City turned up and we gave them an absolute shoeing

In fairness if that game went on for another 10 minutes I reckon we'd have drawn, possibly even lost. They were killing us by the end.

[Smiley Culture]

Fans get hung up on the style of play in this country and it often doesn’t make much sense. 

Whether you have 30 shots on goal and win or one shot on goal and win, it counts for exactly the same and ultimately, that’s what really matters, winning, not how you win. After all, we’re led to believe “Football is a results based business” by Managers the length and breadth of the country. 

Obviously some styles of Football are more pleasing on the eye than others but that’s a big part of Football, teams playing to their strengths. Stoke coming into the Premier League and almost being a throwback to a side from the 80’s was refreshing in some ways, rather than seeing them go away from what they were good at in the hope that a perceived brand of “good football” would keep them up.

Leicester’s style of play at times when they won the Premier League wasn’t always the most aesthetically pleasing in comparison to other recent winners of the Premier League but who cares? Their title win is worth just as much as other title winners and their name will be forever listed as champions regardless of how “good” or “badly” they played.

And I tell what, it’s great coming away from a game of football where your team has re-defined the term “smash and grab”. 

When managers get sacked, I often see fans on social media, forums or hear them on the radio blaming “long ball rubbish” or words to that effect on why that manager should go, but really, is it long ball football that’s getting a manager the sack? Definitely not. It’s not winning Football games. If said manager was playing long ball football week in, week out, the side were knicking 1-0’s away from Home and winning home games 2-0 or 2-1 on a regular basis, he’d be a hero. It just turns out we blame a perceived negative style of Football rather than the team’s inability to score goals. 

[Spike]

If anything it is kinda like slipping your fingers in the back. It could be fantastic or your fingers could get quite dirty.

[Pig on the Wing]

As long as you don't do what Mark Beevers does 30 times a game and toe-bung it over everyone's head and invite yet more pressure, there's nothing wrong with going long.