Not great at keeping the ball

[Thracian]

Any idiot can retain possession when there's no point to the passes and next-to no pressure from the opposition at certain times and for certain reasons.

 

But maybe our own possession levels are better than the statistics suggest because for a huge part of Saturday's game we were trying to do something with the ball and make things happen.

 

The result - quite apart from four goals our way and two against - was that we created eight or nine truly clearcut chances and I don't remember Sunderland creating very much at all apart from their goals and they'll hardly linger in the memory either.

 

Passes to people running flat out to escape the last line of defence are uite likely to go astray just like a single pass in a rumble of one-touch passes to create a gaping gap down one of the wings.

 

Shooting's no different really. A team might have more shots than  the opposition if they let fire from anywhere. But another team might wait for a clear sight of goal and score more times but from fewer attempts.

 

Statistics can offer pointers but they rarely tell the full story - or even point in any way to the truth when it comes to worthwhile analysis.  

[Clever Fox]

Possession is important but at the end of the Match it's results that count. We are playing a quick tempo attacking approach at the minute which suits our players well because we have the pace. This approach will trouble any team. But the better teams will hold on to possession longer to try and frustrate us. That will be the big test for us because you have to be prepared to run and chase for longer periods while also retaining our discipline. This is hard to do for long periods.

[conLAD logan]

Our style of football is something I feel we should hold onto and be proud of. It makes us unique compared to other teams.

Keeping the ball is overrated and there's no proof it would work for us as a plan B, I only agree that we should keep the ball better when taking the lead later in a game like the Italians, however Id imagine this is part of the "Italian tatics" ranieri mentioned he'd introduce.

So to sum it up, no, i don't think we should play games trying to keep possession throughout, only at the end when energy is low and we've got something to hold onto.

[adam95581]

This is just so wrong on every level.

 

I never said we need to be passing it around the back 4 for 5 minutes. Grow up.

 

Cant see how keeping hold of the ball can lead to a negative mindset. surly not having the ball would lead to that.

 

No team in the world other than maybe Barcelona can be all out attack all the time.

 

For matches like man u, Chelsea, arsenal , man city than we need to use this tactic. Against teams like Aston villa, West brom, Norwich we need to be able to break them down, how can counter attacking football work against a team that's hardly going to attack? 

 

Such a touchy response...I don't think that message was attacking you (correct me if I'm wrong) - I happen to agree with Molly - I'd much rather us have 40% good possession showing attacking intent than have a majority share of possession and passing the ball backwards and sidewards all the time.

 

For what it's worth I don't think we necessarily need to change our approach depending on the opposition too much, I'd class Sunderland in the same bracket as Norwich/West Brom etc and yet we spanked 4 goals past them with less than 50% possession - they certainly weren't set up to attack us and yet we didn't struggle to break them down. 

[CORNFOX68]

Possibly repeating part of other posts but on Saturday sunderland may have had better possession but  is that because when they had possession in there half we let them pass it around to  themselves, same as a few games last season where we beat teams seemingly 

comfortably then found out after they had better possession. I also agree with previous poster i think we have definitely improved against teams that come and sit back it seems to be since we went three at the back, on Saturday sunderland only came back into it when we

eased off and didnt pick up as tight but before that we hammered them for 50 mins  

[fleckneymike]

BBC today

 

Myth: Possession equals success

When a team that had the majority of possession loses, they are often called unlucky.

But while it is true that over a whole Premier League season the top sides enjoy more possession than those lower down the table, in individual games last season the side with more of the ball won only slightly more often than they lost.

In fact, if you looked at all 380 top-flight games last season, the team that had more possession won 155, drew 93 and lost 132. Divide that by 10 to get a 38-game season and Possession FC would have won 57 points - leaving them eighth in the table.

 

 

Crystal Palace have had the lowest possession level of any top-flight team in each of the last two seasons and yet finished comfortably in mid-table both times, while West Brom won 1-0 at Old Trafford last term with only 20% of the ball.

Possession is an indicator of a side's style and strategy rather than its success.

[Clever Fox]

Our style of football is something I feel we should hold onto and be proud of. It makes us unique compared to other teams.

Keeping the ball is overrated and there's no proof it would work for us as a plan B, I only agree that we should keep the ball better when taking the lead later in a game like the Italians, however Id imagine this is part of the "Italian tatics" ranieri mentioned he'd introduce.

So to sum it up, no, i don't think we should play games trying to keep possession throughout, only at the end when energy is low and we've got something to hold onto.

Yes I think our style is unique in the prem which is why I think it will prove successful. as Width and Pace always troubles defenders.

Possession is important but not all important. When you have possession some opposition  teams drop there heads and which can make the game easier for us. It's also tiring chasing after the ball all of the time with no success. the good teams are able to apply both when needed which is what I think CR is trying to instil into our players.

[Stadt]

A 442 isn't a formation that is based on keeping the ball

[Clever Fox]

A 442 isn't a formation that is based on keeping the ball

You can keep the ball in any formation it still doesn't guarantee you will win the match.

I once witnessed a match where at the tip off the ball was swung out to the winger. He slipped the full back and crossed into the centre of the goal where it was met with a thumping header from the CF. One Nil up. Well I witnessed for the next 89 minutes The match taking place in and around the winning teams penalty area. They hit everything but the back of the net and the game ended one nil. So no possession isn't everything, But it can make the game easier. 

[cjslcfc]

The thing about our team when we are on form and playing well is that we don't just pass the ball for the sake of it. We pass it with a purpose: fast, direct and decisively to unnerve the opposition. It's a very effective tactic but I do agree we need to be able to successfully implement other styles at times. However, I wouldn't be desperately worried should we not try to play other ways, simply because empirical evidence over the past few seasons shows we are best when we play at such a high tempo.