Is long ball always bad?

[Ghost of Clough]

19 minutes ago, maxjam said:

It depends whether you are judging Man City tendency to hoof it long or play it short. For sheer number of long balls they rank 15th in the PL this season and were 18th last season.  Over 1800 long balls last season suggests it not something they ever do.

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_long_balls?se=489

https://www.premierleague.com/stats/top/clubs/total_long_balls?se=418

I'm not saying they lump it forwards at every opportunity, of course they don't - but they do have the players to tap it around ad infinitum so their overall percentage is going to be lower than other teams.  Crucially however, all teams in the PL last season were within around 1000 long balls of each other, whereas Man City (1st) had 14k more overall passes than the teams with the fewest passes...

As you said, its about picking your time to play the long ball and having the skill to execute it.  

You can't really compare Man City's 33 long passes per game to Crystal Palace's 25 and say Man City play more long balls. The fairest way is looking at it as a proportion of their total passes.

[FindernRam]

25 minutes ago, RodleyRam said:

Play to your strengths. We are not set up to play percentages or traditional long balls to a big striker and feeding off second balls. Not saying it can't be effective for some clubs but there are limitations to hire successful you will be if you sacrifice possession through too many aimless long balls.

The key thing for us is dictating tempo and controlling games according to circumstance. 

I personally felt we did this reasonably well under LR but didn't convert control into results.

The reason was too many sideways and backwards passes mainly in our half. Time we got to shooting range they had all players back and had had time for a cuppa before we got there. I think this was why DC dropped LR.

[maxjam]

17 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You can't really compare Man City's 33 long passes per game to Crystal Palace's 25 and say Man City play more long balls.

I can ?

17 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

The fairest way is looking at it as a proportion of their total passes.

TBF I'd entirely agree with this.

I'm not saying Man City use the long ball frequently, they obviously don't but the OPs question was 'is the long ball always bad' to which my answer would be absolutely not - the best teams hit more-or-less as many long balls as the lesser teams, they just compliment it with far more short passing. 

If you've got the players or the skill to play it long its an effective tactic and arguably, when done right, just as enjoyable to watch as tiki taka. 

Edited October 12, 2022 by maxjam

[Comrade 86]

19 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

You can't really compare Man City's 33 long passes per game to Crystal Palace's 25 and say Man City play more long balls. The fairest way is looking at it as a proportion of their total passes.

Yeah, but it's good to know we play like City, right? ?

[RodleyRam]

1 minute ago, FindernRam said:

The reason was too many sideways and backwards passes mainly in our half. Time we got to shooting range they had all players back and had had time for a cuppa before we got there. I think this was why DC dropped LR.

Not sure I agree. We didn't lack good goalscoring opportunities, we just didn't take our chances. Anyway, it's an issue that has been done to death!

I think we will ultimately benefit from moving the ball more quickly and increasing our tempo but I don't think 'long balls' are the way to do that.

When we went forwards on Saturday with the ball on the deck and down the flanks, we looked dangerous but we needlessly gifted possession to them too often by by passing our midfield. This caused us to come under pressure and look vulnerable. Didn't need to be the case and PW said so himself!

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, angieram said:

We were short of less players to suit Rosenior's system, than we are to suit Warne's system. 

This is what happens when you let a manager recruit for one system and then change to a manager with a different system after a handful of games.

I agree. But I was hoping that Warne was flexible as to system played. We shall see no doubt. But I'd much rather we played the teams played by Rosenior but with a proper fullback and Warnes emphasis on getting forward.

[May Contain Nuts]

44 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

The reason was too many sideways and backwards passes mainly in our half. Time we got to shooting range they had all players back and had had time for a cuppa before we got there. I think this was why DC dropped LR.

"Slow side to side possession football in our own half, gifting the opposition opportunities" has become a bit of a catchphrase rather than what was happening in reality a fair amount of the time.

That's not to say we couldn't have been more direct at times, made fewer risks passing it out from the back, but it's definitely been overstated; a convenient excuse for lack of goals away and a reason to change things so drastically.

37 minutes ago, RodleyRam said:

Not sure I agree. We didn't lack good goalscoring opportunities, we just didn't take our chances. Anyway, it's an issue that has been done to death!

I think we will ultimately benefit from moving the ball more quickly and increasing our tempo but I don't think 'long balls' are the way to do that.

When we went forwards on Saturday with the ball on the deck and down the flanks, we looked dangerous but we needlessly gifted possession to them too often by by passing our midfield. This caused us to come under pressure and look vulnerable. Didn't need to be the case and PW said so himself!

It's a bit of both really.

After the Lincoln game their manager said something along the lines of them winning the match mainly because their players running stats were off the charts, highest of the season - but they wouldn't need to do all that running if we were as slow as some make out, if we never ventured out of our half etc. We don't have Mendes-Laing & Barkhuizen in the team to stand still passing it about, and they weren't doing that.

Sometimes you simply meet a team who aren't interested in venturing out of their half and no matter how you try to play there will always be a wall of players facing you, no amount of going direct / playing quicker is going to make much difference really, and if you don't have a physical presence up front all you can do is keep trying to pass it round them.

There were games where we struggled to beat teams like that even in our best spell under McClaren, but that was rarely put down to having too much possession or passing it around in our own half (we did do plenty of that, but we had a much better midfield & striker in front of them), gifting the opposition possession through poor passes (Keogh anyone?). That said there were some calls for a Plan B even back then, there always are.

Your post is spot on IMO.

As ever, there's a balance to be achieved.

No need to rubbish one approach and exaggerate its faults just to praise another, equally with its own faults.

Edited October 12, 2022 by Kokosnuss

[jono]

3 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

Yep. We're short a right fullback when playing a four. When playing a 3/5 we're short centre-halves comfortable on the ball and two wingbacks! Bloody annoying.

I’m hoping that the manager remembers his own words about not being able playing the wing back / back 3  system repeatedly, because we simply can’t from a physical resources point of view. I get a good vibe from Warne. He isn’t daft, he’s learning about his players.   Collins missing is a blow though…. , it’s going to interesting to see how he adapts. Everything I’ve heard so far tells me he can. Just praying it’s not all talk. 

[minesahartington]

Use both long and short. Be unpredictable rather than simply string 15 passes along the back four/five and then panic and the goalie hoofs it

[DavesaRam]

On 12/10/2022 at 16:16, Kokosnuss said:

"Slow side to side possession football in our own half, gifting the opposition opportunities" has become a bit of a catchphrase rather than what was happening in reality a fair amount of the time.

That's not to say we couldn't have been more direct at times, made fewer risks passing it out from the back, but it's definitely been overstated; a convenient excuse for lack of goals away and a reason to change things so drastically.

It's a bit of both really.

After the Lincoln game their manager said something along the lines of them winning the match mainly because their players running stats were off the charts, highest of the season - but they wouldn't need to do all that running if we were as slow as some make out, if we never ventured out of our half etc. We don't have Mendes-Laing & Barkhuizen in the team to stand still passing it about, and they weren't doing that.

Sometimes you simply meet a team who aren't interested in venturing out of their half and no matter how you try to play there will always be a wall of players facing you, no amount of going direct / playing quicker is going to make much difference really, and if you don't have a physical presence up front all you can do is keep trying to pass it round them.

There were games where we struggled to beat teams like that even in our best spell under McClaren, but that was rarely put down to having too much possession or passing it around in our own half (we did do plenty of that, but we had a much better midfield & striker in front of them), gifting the opposition possession through poor passes (Keogh anyone?). That said there were some calls for a Plan B even back then, there always are.

Your post is spot on IMO.

As ever, there's a balance to be achieved.

No need to rubbish one approach and exaggerate its faults just to praise another, equally with its own faults.

Precisely. I remember away at Ipswich a few seasons ago, under Stevie Mac - we outplayed McCarthy’s mob all match long but kept coming up against a wall of blue who, to be fair, defended well. Until our right back (I can’t remember whether it was Christie or “he parks where he wants”) controlled the ball on his chest on the edge of our box, let the ball bounce then hoofed it. Chris Martin knew where the ball was going, and that the defender would try and head it back to the keeper, so he intercepted the attempted back header, nodding it over the keeper. 
 

And in a match where we played the football, just one bit if agricultural hoofball won the match, and stated to Ipswich “that’s how to do the ling ball game”!!!

Edited October 16, 2022 by DavesaRam

[Mucker1884]

3 minutes ago, DavesaRam said:

Precisely. I remember away at Ipswich a few seasons ago, under Stevie Mac - we outplayed McCarthy’s mob all match long but kept coming up against a wall of blue who, to be fair, defended well. Until our right back (I can’t remember whether it was Christie or “he parks where he wants”) c

#tenterhooks... 

 

?

[kevinhectoring]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:24, jono said:

Midfielders moving to receive the ball forward of the defenders

This is why under Rooney and LR we played lots of sideways and backwards football. Midfielders were not energetic enough and did not offer a forward pass option. It’s still a problem for us. Hourihane does not look for the ball as he should. And it’s not Max Bird’s strength.  
 

As for the long ball, if it’s all long-ball-down-the-middle then you need a Shearer or at least a Chris Martin. Which we don’t have.  We’ve been quite effective with the crossfield long ball (eg to NML, Barks also looks for it) which is less likely to lose possession. 
 
If you’ve got a balanced squad, surely mixing it up is hardest to play against 
 

 

[hintonsboots]

A long ball decided the biggest game in the Prem this season so far. I think @FindernRamis on to something here.

[Elwood P Dowd]

If opposition teams know that you’re not going to play the long ball then the threat goes away and they know they do not have to  provide a contingency for it.

The long ball does have a place in the teams “play book” if an opportunity presents its self then play the long ball, keep the opposition guessing. 

[jono]

2 hours ago, kevinhectoring said:

This is why under Rooney and LR we played lots of sideways and backwards football. Midfielders were not energetic enough and did not offer a forward pass option. It’s still a problem for us. Hourihane does not look for the ball as he should. And it’s not Max Bird’s strength.  
 

As for the long ball, if it’s all long-ball-down-the-middle then you need a Shearer or at least a Chris Martin. Which we don’t have.  We’ve been quite effective with the crossfield long ball (eg to NML, Barks also looks for it) which is less likely to lose possession. 
 
If you’ve got a balanced squad, surely mixing it up is hardest to play against 
 

 

Yes ! That whole make yourself available ethos. Put yourself in a position to receive a pass. We didn’t do enough of that .. it was more like “here I am, now make a once in 10 games raking defence splitter, avoiding the 3 players covering me” 

[kevinhectoring]

On 12/10/2022 at 12:01, Ghost of Clough said:

1. Most comments tend to relate to having control of the game (or not as the case may be). Long balls, to forwards to don't win the ball in the air very much is pointless as the ball ends up coming straight back and having to defend against another wave of attack, often without resetting in time.

2. The occasional long ball behind the defence is useful, but it has to be with purpose, not aimless into the corner with little chance of getting something from it.

3. A quick glance at the stats will show teams towards the bottom tend to have less of the ball than those at the top. This is shown by actually looking at the stats in more detail, where only 3 sides in the top half of the table are in the bottom 12 possession stats. Ipswich are the leaders in possession and are 2nd, whereas Morecombe are 24th in the table and 24th in the possession ranking. 
The other thing is, having possession doesn't mean you can't go long very often, just like having little of the ball doesn't mean you go long all the time. Yet, we see a similar trend. 5 out of the current top 6 are in the bottom 12 for long balls per pass attempt (Portsmouth are 13th lowest), whilst only 3 of the top 12 are in the top 12 for successful long passes per pass attempt.
You also have the belief that possession means fewer goals. However, there's a general trend of more possession = more goals. Ipswich are the obvious example, leading the charts in both, whereas Morecombe are bottom in both. Only 3 sides with less than 50% possession have scored more than 15 goals, whereas 6 with more than 50% have.

4. Since you're asking people if they want to stay in L1 for a long time or having a better chance of going up, the answer would be choosing the option which involves playing a possession based side with shorter passing.

A weak team’s main threat may be a couple of lumpy forwards. They’ll choose hoofball because it plays to their strengths. They’re not losing because hoofball is a losing strategy. They’re losing because they’re a weak team. 

 

 

[maxjam]