Playing the ball from the goalkeeper

[The9]

We've had this discussion before, and my location indicates pretty much how I feel about our kamikaze Kelv short passes to midfielders facing the wrong way...

 

But here's a bit of analysis, with stats : http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/11/25/goalkeeper-short-passing-distribution/#more-7578

 

You'll note that Chelsea's goal kick line up is almost identical to Saints' and they have the highest pass completion rate in the Prem.

 

The argument basically goes that giving the ball away by playing it short in defence occasionally might concede a goal, but whacking it up the pitch concedes possession numerous times and puts a team under pressure.

 

But is that the case for Saints ? When we whack it, Lambert usually wins it, so where's the risk of conceding possession ? The stats in the article show that Blackburn's keeper has the worst possession stat, because they don't have a target man who wins the ball, but he always kicks long - whilst Stoke have a low pass completion rate overall, but their keeper's is high, because Crouch wins everything !

 

Clearly passing the ball from the back is the way we're going, but as Saints fans would we rather risk passing it short around the back 5 enabling ourselves to build, or just put it where we're not going to concede and try building from there ? Or is the problem not with the short goal kick, just Kelvin's passing skill ?

Edited 26 November, 2011 by The9

[Katalinic]

I have kind of accepted that we will probably concede a couple of horrible goals this season from playing it short but given how comfortable our players are with the ball it is the right way to go - building from the back, patient, possession football has been so effective for us so far this season.

[The Cat]

I'm all for it. Yes sometimes we get in a flap and lose the ball but it makes total sense to pass it out short.

 

To be fair we don't always do it though. There have been games when we've abandoned it completely or cut back on it if it hasn't been working.

[The9]

I'm all for it. Yes sometimes we get in a flap and lose the ball but it makes total sense to pass it out short.

 

To be fair we don't always do it though. There have been games when we've abandoned it completely or cut back on it if it hasn't been working.

 

I think much of it depends on how good the opposition are at closing down the defence, or whether Lambert's getting any joy.

 

This look familiar ? If anything Saints pull the midfield wider and isolate the short pass recipient and/or Lambert even more.

 

 

The questions really are "do we HAVE to play the short goal kicks to keep possession when our target man can do the same thing at far less risk in an attacking position" and "is there any proof that conceding the ball from a long kick puts a side under pressure when they have 10 men goalside ?".

Edited 26 November, 2011 by The9

[Big_Bald_Si]

It does my nut, because usually it does put us under pressure. We've already conceded a horrible goal from it, a goal which actually caused one of our losses at Cardiff.

 

I admire our philosophy of doing as much as we can to keep possession, but I do wish we'd just welly it more (in general) sometimes.

[The9]

It does my nut, because usually it does put us under pressure. We've already conceded a horrible goal from it, a goal which actually caused one of our losses at Cardiff.

 

I admire our philosophy of doing as much as we can to keep possession, but I do wish we'd just welly it more (in general) sometimes.

 

I don't have a problem with us passing it (especially as well as we do), and appreciate that we need it to be on the deck to do that, plus playing it short early on gives us the chance to stretch the opposition - IF they press using their attack / midfield - but it's still a risk.

 

I'd say the goal at Cardiff was more just a poor pass out of defence when not under pressure which can happen at any point, but its passing short when the option isn't there that's the risk with the short goal kicks.

 

I'm not a fan of hoofing for the sake of it (especially not what West Ham were doing at St Mary's); there is a place for mixing up long passes to retain unpredictability, but it can be done at minimal risk. It's no better to be always tappy-tapping than it is always wanging it.

[Saint_clark]

I think the league table speaks for itself.

[Big_Bald_Si]

I don't have a problem with us passing it (especially as well as we do), and appreciate that we need it to be on the deck to do that, plus playing it short early on gives us the chance to stretch the opposition - IF they press using their attack / midfield - but it's still a risk.

 

I'd say the goal at Cardiff was more just a poor pass out of defence when not under pressure which can happen at any point, but its passing short when the option isn't there that's the risk with the short goal kicks.

 

I'm not a fan of hoofing for the sake of it (especially not what West Ham were doing at St Mary's); there is a place for mixing up long passes to retain unpredictability, but it can be done at minimal risk. It's no better to be always tappy-tapping than it is always wanging it.

 

I agree, I don't want to see us hoof it for the sake of it either. However, sometimes a good hoof out of the defence reduces pressure immeasurably. Sometimes we actually try and pass it for the sake of it too.

 

But, we're top for a reason, so perhaps I should stop bloody moaning

[pressingon]

Even the "big boys" get it wrong occasionally, witness Liverpool's first v Chelsea last w/e

[Turkish]

We shouldn't f*ck about with it, just get it forward to that lazy c*nt Lambert or that useless c*nt Guly FFS

[saintant]

Hoofing from the back is for the dinosaurs. England do it an awful lot hence they'll never win anything or compete with the likes of Spain. Our style of football is the way forward and whilst it may cost a few goals Nigel Adkins and the coaches will rightly stick to their principals. I think the majority would rather see pass and move than the continual hoof down the middle - have seen enough of that and it's boring.

[Ohio Saint]

A big part of our play (Only judged from live streams) is to keep the opposition chasing the ball and chasing shadows. Building from the back is the perfect way to get in some more pointless chasing from the other team. It seems to be working for us.

[The9]

A big part of our play (Only judged from live streams) is to keep the opposition chasing the ball and chasing shadows. Building from the back is the perfect way to get in some more pointless chasing from the other team. It seems to be working for us.

 

Given our preference to pass, I'm not sure why the oppo is telling their strikers to press, without midfielders supporting the pressing it's futile anyway, there are always at least 2 free defenders to pass to. Sides would be better off dropping off and only defending from half way. Amazed at how many don't.

[Toadhall Saint]

Play it from the back - short pass when its on when its not give it to Sir Ricky. Personally I feel that we get it right 90% - 95% of the time. I have always loved to watch teams that play keep ball and we have certainly looked our best when we have - 25 passes anyone? If we have the ball the other team can do nothing but defend and if you have pulled them up the pitch because you have played it across the back four then all the better - just gives more room in behind. I do however concede that on occasion Kelvin gets a little shall we say flustered but I'll put up with that while its not costing us points. More concerned with the seemingly lack of communication between Kelvin and Jose tbh especially when the ball is played over the top between the pair of them.

[VectisSaint]

Playing it out from the back most of the time is far and away the best way. Continually hoofing it in the hope that RL will not only win the ball but also be able to hold it up is a crazy idea, and when we do it invariably the opposition win the ball and they come back at us. It stands to reason that it is not a good idea to welly it, one striker against at least 4 defenders, just consider the odds. On top of that I'm afraid accurate kicking is not one of KD's strengths. BUT, from what I have seen, the problem I have is that it becomes too predictable, it is almost as if KD is scared to occassionally go with the long ball and will play short whether it is the best option at the time or not. My main gripe with the way we play it short at the moment is that too often we play it short to the CBs, whereas I would prefer to see it played to the full backs. This is not new, playing it out to Dave Peach or Ivan Golac or others was always a well worn path for Saints historically. Belting it down the middle every time and hoping Ricky gets it is straight from the Wimbledon coaching manual. We are better than that, but we can still improve by introducing variety.

[farawaysaint]

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/11/25/goalkeeper-short-passing-distribution/ Just for interests sake, here's an article fulled with stats describing this very idea.

[The9]

Hoofing from the back is for the dinosaurs. England do it an awful lot hence they'll never win anything or compete with the likes of Spain. Our style of football is the way forward and whilst it may cost a few goals Nigel Adkins and the coaches will rightly stick to their principles. I think the majority would rather see pass and move than the continual hoof down the middle - have seen enough of that and it's boring.

 

I generally agree, but in domestic football these things move in cycles as a reaction to tactical innovation.

 

Internationally it's a different story as teams are thrown together and are generally over-reliant on basic systems in which ball retention is key - so England won't get anywhere trying to wang it, but West Ham might - especially as they have the proponents of the tech which supports their high percentage guff.

[Toadhall Saint]

Given our preference to pass, I'm not sure why the oppo is telling their strikers to press, without midfielders supporting the pressing it's futile anyway, there are always at least 2 free defenders to pass to. Sides would be better off dropping off and only defending from half way. Amazed at how many don't.

 

Think thats called parking the bus - either two lines of four or 5 in def and 3 mf. Not my kind of footie tbh but understand why.

[The9]

http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/11/25/goalkeeper-short-passing-distribution/ Just for interests sake, here's an article fulled with stats describing this very idea.

 

Really ? If only I'd thought to link to that in the opening post.

[farawaysaint]

Really ? If only I'd thought to link to that in the opening post.

 

Damnit all to heck

[The9]

Think thats called parking the bus - either two lines of four or 5 in def and 3 mf. Not my kind of footie tbh but understand why.

 

I'd say parking the bus was more the over-reliance on defending at the expense of attacking, rather than just organised defending.

[TheCholulaKid]

Can't believe there's any debate about this. Our two best (and most attractive) teams of the past 30-35 years played keep ball (early 80s and Nicholl's team). I've been waiting since 90/91 to see us playing the kind of football we are at the moment. Long may it continue. I'd happily give up one or two silly goals for that.

[dubai_phil]

Germany played like this against England at the WC last summer. Made our lot look like Donkeys.

 

It isn't JUSt about the short ball, unlike England, all our players are currently comfortable on the ball and possession is retained all over the park with short passes. Yet against Germany, everytime England actually GOT possession they just hoofed it away in the general direction of Rooney. If England TRIED to retain possession they did not have the patience to play 10 or 15 passes until an opening occured.

 

You simply cannot play the quality of football with the players we now have by having half of your tactic as hoofball and half as short and neat.

 

ALSO the fact is that we do NOT do this every time KD has the ball. In the warm ups he was practising 40 yard passes to the halway line. In the 1st half against Brighton he played the ball into the feet/chest of Lambert.

 

It is the confidence to play like that MOST of the time BUT still mix it up which causes so much trouble for the opposition. It needs skill but it also needs intelligence from the players.

 

Long may it continue. Barca seem to make it work quite well

[simondo]

I think the league table speaks for itself.

 

this

[The9]

Why do people try to complicate it? It's fairly obvious keeping the ball is a good thing, and long goal kicks leave a 50/50 ball. The only point people had pointed out, and the only criticism, is Kelvin trying to do it EVERY time. If the pass is on, brilliant. It should always be the strategy, and usually it works well. But if a team is keeping a high line and there are no passes open, then take a long goal kick.

 

It's called common sense. Kelvin and defenders have been guilty of lacking it at times. Same rule applies, defenders should keep possession and look for a pass, but never be afraid to go long or boot it out of play if necessary.

 

It's nothing to do with "common sense", it's everything to do with tactics. If it was "common sense" it wouldn't be a new and much-criticised technique that most teams don't use.

[up and away]

We've had this discussion before, and my location indicates pretty much how I feel about our kamikaze Kelv short passes to midfielders facing the wrong way...

 

But here's a bit of analysis, with stats : http://www.zonalmarking.net/2011/11/25/goalkeeper-short-passing-distribution/#more-7578

 

You'll note that Chelsea's goal kick line up is almost identical to Saints' and they have the highest pass completion rate in the Prem.

 

The argument basically goes that giving the ball away by playing it short in defence occasionally might concede a goal, but whacking it up the pitch concedes possession numerous times and puts a team under pressure.

 

But is that the case for Saints ? When we whack it, Lambert usually wins it, so where's the risk of conceding possession ? The stats in the article show that Blackburn's keeper has the worst possession stat, because they don't have a target man who wins the ball, but he always kicks long - whilst Stoke have a low pass completion rate overall, but their keeper's is high, because Crouch wins everything !

 

Clearly passing the ball from the back is the way we're going, but as Saints fans would we rather risk passing it short around the back 5 enabling ourselves to build, or just put it where we're not going to concede and try building from there ? Or is the problem not with the short goal kick, just Kelvin's passing skill ?

 

There are a couple of aspects to how the goalie delivers the ball back into open play with the object to score or keep possession. I am struggling to remember when we have scored from the goalie without the opposition having some contact in the intervening period. We just do not play like that so the punt up to Ricky is just part of the variation between possession without giving the ball away in a dangerous area. With punting up to Ricky giving the lowest return of all for possession, where being able to control and have possession of the ball after 1st to 3rd phase is low. It's only the first step in winning the header, but means little until you have the ball fully under control and in possession.

 

I would put most of our distributional problems from Kelvin down to his own inadequacies. One in particular, being able to throw the ball out under pressure. Most of the time in a congested penalty area you cannot kick the ball out immediately and retain possession, all the top goalies throw it out in those circumstances. Additionally most of the space to deliver and retain possession diminishes rapidly with time, giving you no where but the punt after a period. If allowed to we would regularly pass the ball short from kelvin and develop our attacks from the back, but the opposition do not allow us to do this. So the hoof to Ricky is just to mix it up, get better value from our short passing and don't feed the opposition easy chances from our delivery. The hoof up to Ricky puts a dent into our possession figures, but overall by mixing it up we gain as teams have demonstrated how easily it is to put us under massive pressure when we play it short all the time.

 

When you consider West Ham for example it is completely different, where I would estimate that 1/4 of their goals come from the goalies hoof. I can't believe their fans accept this after some of the football ****** they have previously spouted and something that won't help them should they return to the Premier. The Saints forwards have this bad habit of turning their back on the opposition goalie, allowing the immediate punt up field with often most of the defence up for the attack.

 

Unlike West Ham, Saints play football and the hoof is just part of the delivery from the goal keeper to keep our retention figures high without giving up silly goals when the short pass is blocked. We do not score enough from the hoof to justify it as a sound tactic, just a method of mixing it up so we don't become too predictable. Give Kelvin the skill to throw the ball out under pressure and our possession stats would increase significantly.

[The9]

Can't believe there's any debate about this. Our two best (and most attractive) teams of the past 30-35 years played keep ball (early 80s and Nicholl's team). I've been waiting since 90/91 to see us playing the kind of football we are at the moment. Long may it continue. I'd happily give up one or two silly goals for that.

 

Oh come on, we've all seen footage of that 80s team, "possession football" wasn't in the equation. It was all quick short balls hacked on out to the wingers and crosses into the area, nothing like the considered quick passing game of the current side, and all about pace and putting the ball into dangerous areas. Apart from anything, most early 80s pitches wouldn't allow the kind of passing game we've currently got.

[Mowgli]

We've had this discussion before, and my location indicates pretty much how I feel about our kamikaze Kelv short passes to midfielders facing the wrong way...

 

Bit unfair to call him kamikaze Kelv in his best season. It's hardly his decision on team tactics. He is doing exactly what he is told to do. Rarely does he pass it to a midfielder. Nearly alsway one of the back four. Apart from keeping possession you will also notice how the opposition get impatient and start to come forward as a group creating more of an opportunity for a long ball break.

 

But is that the case for Saints ? When we whack it, Lambert usually wins it, so where's the risk of conceding possession ? QUOTE]

 

I think you need to back that up with stats otherwise its just an opinion. My view is that Kelvs kicking can be a bit wayward anyway so only 50% or so find their target. Of those Lambert admittedly wins the vast majority but with the intention of laying it off for someone else. Of those only 50% get picked up for us to retain possession.

 

So clearly passing it out from the back is better for us - and makes us the 2nd most successful passing team in Europe behind Barcelona.

[trousers]

Solent said in their first half commentary that the Bristol players were snuffing out Saints attempts to play out from the back by marking higher up the field

[up and away]

Bit unfair to call him kamikaze Kelv in his best season. It's hardly his decision on team tactics. He is doing exactly what he is told to do. Rarely does he pass it to a midfielder. Nearly alsway one of the back four. Apart from keeping possession you will also notice how the opposition get impatient and start to come forward as a group creating more of an opportunity for a long ball break.

 

But is that the case for Saints ? When we whack it, Lambert usually wins it, so where's the risk of conceding possession ?

 

I think you need to back that up with stats otherwise its just an opinion. My view is that Kelvs kicking can be a bit wayward anyway so only 50% or so find their target. Of those Lambert admittedly wins the vast majority but with the intention of laying it off for someone else. Of those only 50% get picked up for us to retain possession.

 

So clearly passing it out from the back is better for us - and makes us the 2nd most successful passing team in Europe behind Barcelona.

 

For goal kicks I believe you have just about nailed that, but there has to be some onus on Kelvin when kicking short. He has to have safety as paramount in the equation, something he has not done.

 

The major problem is that Saints do not carry much of a threat for scoring from goal kicks. We make it far too easy for the opposition forwards / midfield to press high without any real punishment for doing so. To change that around we need pace and a marginally different set up. Something that crops up again when the opposition defence pushes up and condense us into our own half.

 

Kelvin is not the best kicker, but for any goalie the odds are not that great when kicking long unless you have a monster covered in pine resin. Going long occasionally just improves the overall possession figures because it makes things less predictable. Goal kicks are just one aspect of Kelvins delivery, I have more concern over the other aspects.

[scotty]

Solent said in their first half commentary that the Bristol players were snuffing out Saints attempts to play out from the back by marking higher up the field

 

 

I heard that comment as well. While I agree with the general ethos of playing out from the back, in all the games ive seen this season the most common pressure we've been under has been Kelvin passing short to a defender with oppo attackers loitering nearby and ready to pounce. As a rule, professional strikers are quicker than professional defenders, hence the problem. Kelvin did recently start passing it to a wide player rather than a defender directly ahead of the box, that seemed to reduce the immediate pressure our back line was put under.

[Sour Mash]

Can't believe there's any debate about this. Our two best (and most attractive) teams of the past 30-35 years played keep ball (early 80s and Nicholl's team). I've been waiting since 90/91 to see us playing the kind of football we are at the moment. Long may it continue. I'd happily give up one or two silly goals for that.

Wouldn't say Nicholl's team played 'keep ball' at all.

[doddisalegend]

Why does it have to be one way or the other? If teams give us the time and space to play out from the back then we should. Some teams, like todays, don't in which case we go long and win the ball higher up the field. Generally we are good passers of the ball but I'd rather see us knocking it about like barca in the oppositions half of the field than ****ing around with it in front of our own goal where f uck ups prove costly.

[The9]

So after yesterday we've established that if you mark our defenders at goal kicks we're completely impotent as an attacking threat ?

 

The "passing to full backs" thing isn't new, I did a coaching course in 1994 where the ethos was to push the full backs to the touchlines and pass to whichever defenders weren't marked - if they split their front 2 and mark the gaps between CB and FB one of the CBs goes wide to create space, if they just mark the FBs you pass to the CBs and if they mark the middle you use the FB. If they play 4-3-3 there's generally room for a pass into the centre midfield.

 

The only "new" element of this is Saints pulling both CBs wide of the area as well for the CM (usually Cork) to drop deep and collect, and that's the one which causes problems as a CM facing his own goal in that position isn't going to be comfortable The very fact he's there and being used means the other defenders are marked, and if he's pressed the only pass then is back to the GK who is probably going to whack it, so why not just whack it without the risk of that 1-2 going awry ?

[Chez]

this idea that Lambert wins everything in the air is rubbish. He bullies small centre backs whenever they are his opponent, but whenever he comes up against anyone big/solid he is in trouble (like yesterday) and tends to move out wide to get some rest bite. He be comes effective when we provide very accurate balls that he can control and work with, not when we smack it high and he has to challenge tooth and nail to have any chance of getting something on it. IMO hoofing it is the worst thing we can do.

 

Returning to the Kelvin issue, some of his shirt and middle range passing is top notch, this just goes unnoticed because as with all keeping duties you remember the mistakes much more than the successes. We're not going to change and in this league we may struggle to find a better keeper. Go up a league and we may need to look at our options as personally I don't think he is good enough for the Prem. Happy right now though.

[Chez]

The only "new" element of this is Saints pulling both CBs wide of the area as well for the CM (usually Cork) to drop deep and collect, and that's the one which causes problems as a CM facing his own goal in that position isn't going to be comfortable The very fact he's there and being used means the other defenders are marked, and if he's pressed the only pass then is back to the GK who is probably going to whack it, so why not just whack it without the risk of that 1-2 going awry ?

this is a very good question especially if it is anyone other than Morgan doing the receiving - who I feel is good enough to do this.However in some games the opponents have been sloppy and not followed Cork or Hammond and this has allowed them to receive the ball (all be it with their back to goal) and we have been able to start attacks very successfully. It's all about Kelvin's decision making. If the CM has lots of time, fine do it, if not then don't. Davis sometimes makes poor decisions and that's where we come unstuck.

[Wes Tender]

Surely there is no correct answer. We should play to our strengths and also take account of what the opposition game plan is. Yesterday they employed the tactics of packing the midfield narrow, so it was difficult to play the ball through them. Therefore the occasional hoof over the top would have kept them guessing. But then to do that, we need a striker capable of running on to the ball, or somebody like De Ridder with pace. Perhaps that is where we are lacking; we are too one-dimensional and clever managers are sussing out how to handle us.

[shurlock]

this idea that Lambert wins everything in the air is rubbish. He bullies small centre backs whenever they are his opponent, but whenever he comes up against anyone big/solid he is in trouble (like yesterday) and tends to move out wide to get some rest bite. He be comes effective when we provide very accurate balls that he can control and work with, not when we smack it high and he has to challenge tooth and nail to have any chance of getting something on it. IMO hoofing it is the worst thing we can do.

 

Returning to the Kelvin issue, some of his shirt and middle range passing is top notch, this just goes unnoticed because as with all keeping duties you remember the mistakes much more than the successes. We're not going to change and in this league we may struggle to find a better keeper. Go up a league and we may need to look at our options as personally I don't think he is good enough for the Prem. Happy right now though.

 

Agree, when it comes to a straight contest with a good, strong CB, Lambert loses far more than he wins - he hardly seems to get off the ground TBH. Not surprisingly he has more luck against the fullbacks; but Kelvin cant hit those kind of balls on a regular basis (TBF most outfield players couldn't from Kelvin's kicking position).

 

I'm quite happy to play from the back, especially if it creates space in midfield by sucking players in (that doesn't when Kelvin kicks as the opposition tends to stand off). Still I prefer the ball being played to a fullback than passed downthe middle.

[The9]

Happy enough to just have a debate about it - when the centre mid is packed with 3 opponents the preferred route has to be down the flanks - there shouldn't be much to stop a low ball from the full back, most likely up the wing. It can also depend on the height of the opposing midfielders - Brighton's were very short and we'd have had no problems kicking in the air even to the midfielders there.

[stcappy]

I have to say I thought Bristol approached the game with us in a brilliant way, and in a way that was different to how others have done. What I noticed most was that actually they let us have it at the back quite often, but they marked the spaces and areas we wanted to play in, almost more than they marked individual players. This meant when were trying to inject some pace going forward the link play of guly, rickie, and Adam didnt come off as the flicks and lay offs went to their men. We created less on saturday than we have done for a very longtime - probably rochdale and tranmere away are the two similar performances under adkins. We resorted to route one and rickie won very little as described. I think the style we are adopting is the right one, but when we get in trouble it's poor decision making by kD more than anything.

[supersonic]

I definately prefer it as, let's be honest, Davis isn't the best kicker of the ball so we retain possession a lot more

[The9]

I definately prefer it as, let's be honest, Davis isn't the best kicker of the ball so we retain possession a lot more

 

Er, wouldn't him being a poor kicker be a much bigger problem with short passing too ?

[shurlock]

I have to say I thought Bristol approached the game with us in a brilliant way, and in a way that was different to how others have done. What I noticed most was that actually they let us have it at the back quite often, but they marked the spaces and areas we wanted to play in, almost more than they marked individual players. This meant when were trying to inject some pace going forward the link play of guly, rickie, and Adam didnt come off as the flicks and lay offs went to their men. We created less on saturday than we have done for a very longtime - probably rochdale and tranmere away are the two similar performances under adkins. We resorted to route one and rickie won very little as described. I think the style we are adopting is the right one, but when we get in trouble it's poor decision making by kD more than anything.

 

Agree, they didn't go chasing and were happy to let us try and play through midfield where they knew they had a numerical advantage.

[channonball]

I don't mind it. We can be far to slow to do it though which allows all the defense to settle into their positions. Wash Jos pass it out he always does it so slowly the midfielder has to run to get it turn and by the time he has done this, most of his options have reduced, so he has to put it back to the centre backs.