Offside and attacking play
in [World Football]
|
Prev: "Lord of War" Unsophisticated Prediction Contest
Next: The Best World Cup RSS *contest* so far (bicycle kick now worth 3)
From: Huw Morris on 14 Jun 2010 08:57 Like most people, I like to watch an open, attacking game of football. Goals are nice, but they arrive naturally as the product of an attacking mindset. Up until Germany put four past the Aussies last night, one feature of the World Cup so far has been the absence of good attacking play. I know it's the first round of the Cup, and coaches are naturally cautious. This is true at every World Cup. What appears different this time (and I don't have the stats to back up this feeling) is the paucity of clear scoring chances that are being created. For the most part, goalkeepers have had very, very little to do. One possible reason could be the difference in how the offside law is being interpreted these days. FIFA have for years been trying to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt in offside decisions, yet I wonder if the current interpretation has gone too far? The crucial difference now is whether a player in an offside position is interfering with play. An attacker can loiter in a central offside position, yet offside will not be given if the ball is played down the wings. The winger can advance the ball and square it, where the previously not-offside attacker will be beyond the defence. The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered. A defence cannot push up and compress the midfield because they will be caught out be a clever pass down the wings. So the defences are having to stay back, often in a line of 4 or 5, and the defensive midfieldiers have to drop back and for a line 10-20 metres in front of the defence. Very often, when a team attacks there are 8 outfield players defending against no more than 2 or 3 attackers. There is simply no space in and around the edge of the penalty area, and no space for attackers to run into. It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances than every other team combined has created so far! Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup? Huw
From: Abubakr on 14 Jun 2010 09:32 On Jun 14, 10:57 pm, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote: What appears different this time (and I don't have the > stats to back up this feeling) is the paucity of clear scoring chances that > are being created. For the most part, goalkeepers have had very, very little > to do. > Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup? Argentina played with an ultra-offensive lineup and created lots of chances, so it wasn't just Germany that were good in attack. So far of the teams that have played these two are only one who have the vast array of talented attacking players that one would expect to make lots of goal-scoring chances and entertain. Needless to say, the other teams haven't been blessed with such talent and that's directly reflected in their game and styles.
From: Chagney Hunt on 14 Jun 2010 09:33 On Jun 14, 8:57 am, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote: > Like most people, I like to watch an open, attacking game of football. Goals > are nice, but they arrive naturally as the product of an attacking mindset. > Up until Germany put four past the Aussies last night, one feature of the > World Cup so far has been the absence of good attacking play. I know it's > the first round of the Cup, and coaches are naturally cautious. This is true > at every World Cup. What appears different this time (and I don't have the > stats to back up this feeling) is the paucity of clear scoring chances that > are being created. For the most part, goalkeepers have had very, very little > to do. > > One possible reason could be the difference in how the offside law is being > interpreted these days. FIFA have for years been trying to give the attacker > the benefit of the doubt in offside decisions, yet I wonder if the current > interpretation has gone too far? The crucial difference now is whether a > player in an offside position is interfering with play. An attacker can > loiter in a central offside position, yet offside will not be given if the > ball is played down the wings. The winger can advance the ball and square > it, where the previously not-offside attacker will be beyond the defence. > > The upshot of this is that offside has been effectively neutered. A defence > cannot push up and compress the midfield because they will be caught out be > a clever pass down the wings. So the defences are having to stay back, often > in a line of 4 or 5, and the defensive midfieldiers have to drop back and > for a line 10-20 metres in front of the defence. Very often, when a team > attacks there are 8 outfield players defending against no more than 2 or 3 > attackers. There is simply no space in and around the edge of the penalty > area, and no space for attackers to run into. > Excellent point. > It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost > them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond > the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily > have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances > than every other team combined has created so far! > > Am I wrong about this? Not at all. Great post. Talking heads kept talking how the Germans were able to get behind Australian backline with ease, not much attention brought to the antiquated offside trap they used.
From: Neil Gerace on 14 Jun 2010 09:48 Huw Morris wrote: > It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost > them. Right. It'll hopefully cost our coach, too. What a maroon.
From: Bruce D. Scott on 14 Jun 2010 11:52
Huw Morris (no(a)spam.please) wrote: [...] I hear your points on offside and mostly agree, but I would still say the game would be better if the rules got rid of passive offside and said offside is offside, period. (of course, the ball must be played forward for it to be called) : It's interesting that Australia tried a defensive pressing game and it cost : them. Germany was clever enough to exploit it with weighted passes beyond : the last defender, time after time. They scored four goals, and could easily : have had eight. In fact, I think Germany almost missed more clear chances : than every other team combined has created so far! : Am I wrong about this? Is it just normal at this stage of the Cup? Basic execution. Missing by most teams, evident with Germany before they did their subs. Time those runs. Hit the pass accurately (another example is SA's first goal). The Aussies were too slow mentally to play offside/pressing. Germany timed the runs and passes, the last Aussie was always too slow pulling up. More mental switching than actual quickness. I still think Germany will have a lot of trouble with a team that can press well. I actually think many teams are poorly prepared and the basic execution by the better teams will improve a lot in the next matches. The refs are exellent. No overreaction as in previous cups, but not letting too much go either. -- ciao, Bruce drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/ |