Possession football overhyped?

[MrSwerve]

Make hoofball great again.

 

[Dr. Winston]

Totally agree.

I think some people mistook the Derby game as a tactical error on Sheehan's part because with the ball we weren't good.

But he had John Eustace by the balls that day imo. He came down here thinking Swansea are a pitter patter tippy tappy side, get in their faces and we'll win. He didn't expect us to get in their faces twice as much they did us, we were ready for a scrap and then some. He got taken by surprise.

I think Sheehan deserves a lot of credit for that setup, it was cleverer than he was given credit for.

Absolutely this.

I'll also chuck in his use of Jay Fulton as an additional physical presence as a major reason why we won that day. For all the stick that JF gets from certain quarters, Sheehan has used him regularly and wisely.

 

[bytholwyn]

Totally agree.

I think some people mistook the Derby game as a tactical error on Sheehan's part because with the ball we weren't good.

But he had John Eustace by the balls that day imo. He came down here thinking Swansea are a pitter patter tippy tappy side, get in their faces and we'll win. He didn't expect us to get in their faces twice as much they did us, we were ready for a scrap and then some. He got taken by surprise.

I think Sheehan deserves a lot of credit for that setup, it was cleverer than he was given credit for.

If it was Sheehan's cunning plan to win that game based on a single meaningful effort on goal all game (total expected goals 0.23) then we've made a big mistake appointing Sheehan. As it is we just got lucky on the day. It happens. Fortunately there have been a lot of deserved victories under Sheehan, so one flukey result is neither here nor there.

 

[DockerJack]

I would say that he set us up to play a certain way to win the game.
In my opinion we would have lost that game under Martin and Williams and lost easily trying to play their way at all costs.
As you say, there have been lots of deserved victories under Sheehan, but I like the fact that he finds different ways to win games.
How many managers in our past have we bemoaned not having a plan B or C?

 

[monmouth]

Everyone probably knows by now my contempt for ‘philosophies’.

My favourite season of Swans football was 1981/82 and I think the most exciting period of football was 1977-82 (yes, more than the fabled 2008-13). There was no ‘possession’ or ‘hoof ball’ then, just football played by talented, exciting players determined to show their best with no fear. Of course you need to have the ball to do that ffs, but that’s not ‘possession’ as it’s become under boring arseholes like Guardiola, whom I think has murdered football.

It’s all about the players for me, not the latest trendy ‘philosophy’. Put Curt, Robbie, Leighton, Jimmy, Michu, De Guz, Nath, Leon, Bony in any side and then put them in their proper positions and give them ‘licence to thrill’.

Sheehan will be a success for us if we get some good players, I think. And ship out some bad/ordinary ones so he can’t pick them!

 

[bytholwyn]

Bodo/Glimt: Norwegian side aiming to upset Ange Postecoglou again

Bodo/Glimt have risen from the Norway second division to upsetting the odds in Europe and face Tottenham on Thursday looking to take a big step towards the Europa League final.

www.bbc.co.uk

Goes to show it's still possible to overachieve in the modern game with an intense possession based philosophy.

 

[Derwydd]

Well they lost 1st leg 3-1. They slapped 6 passed Jose Mourinho's Roma a few years ago so with Spurs crap defence who knows.

Ben Ben didnt get off the bench

 

[rockinj]

There is nothing wrong with possession football. Most successful teams at the top of the game, winning things, tend to have most of the ball.

For a short while, about 10-15 years ago, teams like us cottoned on to that and made it work for us. But football has changed since. Teams have cottoned on how to counteract that style. But we've been stuck in a bit of a time warp, trying unsuccessfully to replicate that era.

These days it's about having individual matchday game plans for how you can best hurt this week's opposition. Which may or may not involve having loads of the ball.

I think there’s a bit of a myth around the golden era.

We kept the ball on the floor but also mixed it up every now and again. A long pass was not out of the question.

When the Martinez team was at its height we had around 60-65% possession. That bridge between 65-75% is key.

If you’re passing the ball simply to maintain possession that doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you’re defending a lead. To create opportunities you need to take risks and surprise the opposition.

It’s not a binary debate. Passing football should be encouraged but not for the sake of it and when the game dictates it then yes you should mix it up but only if that could create better outcomes.

 

[SwanseaJack]

I think there’s a bit of a myth around the golden era.

We kept the ball on the floor but also mixed it up every now and again. A long pass was not out of the question.

When the Martinez team was at its height we had around 60-65% possession. That bridge between 65-75% is key.

If you’re passing the ball simply to maintain possession that doesn’t make a lot of sense unless you’re defending a lead. To create opportunities you need to take risks and surprise the opposition.

It’s not a binary debate. Passing football should be encouraged but not for the sake of it and when the game dictates it then yes you should mix it up but only if that could create better outcomes.

Exactly this. How many times would we pass the ball to drag the opposition in and then Ash would knock it over their fullbacks wide to one of our wingers (mainly dyer)??

We have just started to see glimpses of that again and its refreshing.