Reply With QuoteI also think that posession style football as a tendency to make you lazy I looked at Salford players after they beat us at ML a few collapsed on the ground exhausted whereas ours looked like they could play on.
Hall Of Fame
I just saw Palace won 4-2 at home last night with 30% possession. Some lovely incisive attacking play and good goals. A bit like the way Forest play. Their fans seemed pretty happy.
Given that our club strategy is so heavily reliant on data, is there any evidence that possession-based football is more effective or even more enjoyable than playing fast and direct? I'm tired of it myself. I'd rather just get the ball forward early and put teams under real pressure rather than trying to play the "right" way, whatever that means.
I'm no footballer, but I'd imagine teams would rather come up against a high-possession side with little physical threat than a team with power and pace. I'm also fairly sure most fans would rather watch us attack with power and pace than trying patiently to forge an opening.
Are we wedded to this style forever, or can our strategy and "philosophy" adapt?
Hall Of Fame
I also think that posession style football as a tendency to make you lazy I looked at Salford players after they beat us at ML a few collapsed on the ground exhausted whereas ours looked like they could play on.
Hall Of Fame
Soooo you want evidence of whether possession based football leads to success?.Originally Posted by slack_pie
Liverpool 2nd in possession stats - premier league winners.
Leeds top on possession and won the Championship.
Birmingham top on possession and won league 1
Donny 7th in possession stats and won L2.
I?m sure if I looked at Division winners across other leagues I?m sure we?d see more of the same.
Possession is one facet of football and when played properly will lead to success. Quite simply you need the players to play it. I believe the most successful possession sides always have a player in the side that gives them the ?x factor?, that little bit of magic. You?ll also see in most successful possession based sides that they will have attacking players that take a man on, players that do cross a ball well and players that are prolific in front of goal.
As you mentioned Palace. I watched the cup final at the weekend and they defended very well. Man City dominated the ball and Palace on occasion broke on them. Palace did have a chunk of luck. A keeper making big saves who could arguably have been sent off for one.
What you also get with teams like Palace is when they play a Forest, they completely nullify each other as neither want the ball for long. That makes for very very boring football.
That said, I feel Notts could and should mix it up. I have no problem with the possession based game but would rather see players like JJ not having to defend like they have too?I?d play a 4/1/4/1 or a 4-2-3-1, this tactical tweak doesn?t impact possession but would hopefully free up our attacking players whilst also providing a solid defensive base when we lose possession.
Hall Of Fame
Just to add, the philosophy is also aimed at getting players young and on the cheap, making them better, enhancing their reputation with a view to selling.
I?d say we?ve been successful at this with more player sales than we?d seen over the last god knows how many years
Hall Of Fame
I do like the possession based type of game we are trying to play & as we saw at times under LW it can be great to watch if you have players capable of playing it, however under LW I believe that it was much more that the vast majority of teams in the NL were very poor quality rather than us being brilliant. At our current level we seem to be trapped by the system ie not high enough or rich enough to attract enough technically gifted players ( if we ever climb the leagues it should become easier the higher we get) but still trying to stick rigidly to the system. For this reason I really hope that who ever is in charge next season can find away of mixing it up & changing things when it's not working or it could become very boring & frustrating. COYP
Hall Of Fame
Let's look a bit deeper though.
L2 top 5 teams for possession:
1. Notts, finished 6th, lost in playoffs to a direct, physical side
2. Chesterfield, finished 7th, lost in playoffs to a direct, physical side
3. MKD, finished 19th with one of the biggest budgets
4. Carlisle, finished 23rd, relegated
5. Swindon, finished 12th
In L1:
1. Birmingham, finished 1st, but with by far the biggest budget
2. Bolton Wanderers, finished 8th
3. Crawley Town, finished 21st, relegated
4. Huddersfield Town, finished 10th
5. Peterborough, finished 18th
Championship:
1. Leeds, finished 1st, promoted
2. Norwich, finished 13th
3. Swansea, finished 11th
4. Burnley, finished 2nd, promoted
5. Middlesbrough, finished 10th
Prem, with one game to go:
1. Man City
2. Liverpool
3. Chelsea
4. Arsenal
5. Spurs
To me, it's not clear that possession-based football is more successful. A couple of teams got relegated with high possession stats while others massively underperformed (MKD, Carlisle). The teams with high possession that got promoted or won something were expected to and generally had great teams and massive budgets.
It looks like the higher you go up the pyramid, the more possession correlates with results. But at our level, I can't see any evidence to suggest teams that prioritize possession have better outcomes than those that don't.
Reserve
If we are keeping Jones and Jarvis as our main wing positions , we need to go 4 at the back. Neither can defend, and Jones went from most assists to a more defensive duty at times, it's not his game. Jarvis looks a player when the ball is at his feet, but he cannot defend for his life. He's wasted in wing back role. I dont mind the inverted bit, but maybe use mcdonald with Platt and strengthen the midfield with more grit, and let the wingers be wingers. Finding a good wing back at this level is hard. Don't over complicate it.
Hall Of Fame
Yeah, I'd agree with that. Our recruitment has enabled us to make steady progress despite selling our best players, although I think that strategy has backfired for the first time this season. We'd have got promoted with Macca and Crowley in the team.
Hall Of Fame
100% agree. Maynard pretty much refused to start Jarvis in our most important games because he's not a wingback and can't really defend. So we only bring him on when chasing a game. It's a complete waste of a great young talent. If we're going to sign players like Jarvis, let's play to their strengths. If we insist on playing wingbacks, why sign wide forwards?
Hall Of Fame
The downside being, If Maynard stays then it will be pretty much the same next season..
Posting Permissions