- Print Topic - Archive

Okay, I'll keep this short and sweet — this is based on some comments I saw online (or on social media, I forget) that put a different spin on it.

In summary, it said that football culture only seems to measure the merits of passing out from the back on goals.

How many you score from doing it; how many you concede from doing it.

In reality, it needs to be looked at differently.

For example, Town mess around with it at the back, and end up losing control of the ball and kick it out for a throw-in 10 yards inside their own half. No goal resulted from it, but it gives the opposition encouragement. They see a weakness, and attain possession of the ball in a part of the pitch they didn't earn in the traditional sense.

If a team continues to do this time and time again, they hand the initiative — and the confidence — to the other team.

So, the opposition score goal. It didn't come "directly" from a mistake while passing out from the back.

BUT — it could've resulted from increased confidence in the opposition gained by our inability to pass the ball out from the back effectively.

Artell said the goal we conceded against Stockport was the first we'd conceded directly from passing out from the back. But how many of the other 20+ goals have resulted from giving the opposition needless possession/confidence?

Just thought it was an interesting take on it. Not sure if it holds weight but it's certainly different from other comments I've read.

Any game, you have to vary things, so that your opponents don't know what to expect.No single tactic is so good that you can or should use it every time.

If the opposition is high pressing then hoof it, if they're sitting back then play it out. It's the goalkeeper's/defender's decision to make based on what's happening at the time. I'm pretty sure it always used to be this way. For some reason in the past few years it's become trendy to play out from the back no matter the situation. Probably because managers want their team to play like Barcelona did 10 years ago. Unfortunately most teams aren't that Barcelona team.

Quoted from RichMariner

Okay, I'll keep this short and sweet — this is based on some comments I saw online (or on social media, I forget) that put a different spin on it.

In summary, it said that football culture only seems to measure the merits of passing out from the back on goals.

How many you score from doing it; how many you concede from doing it.

In reality, it needs to be looked at differently.

For example, Town mess around with it at the back, and end up losing control of the ball and kick it out for a throw-in 10 yards inside their own half. No goal resulted from it, but it gives the opposition encouragement. They see a weakness, and attain possession of the ball in a part of the pitch they didn't earn in the traditional sense.

If a team continues to do this time and time again, they hand the initiative — and the confidence — to the other team.

So, the opposition score goal. It didn't come "directly" from a mistake while passing out from the back.

BUT — it could've resulted from increased confidence in the opposition gained by our inability to pass the ball out from the back effectively.

Artell said the goal we conceded against Stockport was the first we'd conceded directly from passing out from the back. But how many of the other 20+ goals have resulted from giving the opposition needless possession/confidence?

Just thought it was an interesting take on it. Not sure if it holds weight but it's certainly different from other comments I've read.

Every goal comes from giving the opposition possession. Lumping it forwards results in defenders winning more often than the attacker, then you're battling for the 2nd ball.

The philosophy of playing out from the back makes sense. Whether Grimsby Town can attract players good enough to do it well is the question

Quoted from pen penfras

Every goal comes from giving the opposition possession. Lumping it forwards results in defenders winning more often than the attacker, then you're battling for the 2nd ball.

The philosophy of playing out from the back makes sense. Whether Grimsby Town can attract players good enough to do it well is the question

This.

Artell is not going to change his philosophy either way so we might aswell embrace until next weeks defeat to Forest Green when he will be down the road

Quoted from RichMariner

Okay, I'll keep this short and sweet — this is based on some comments I saw online (or on social media, I forget) that put a different spin on it.

In summary, it said that football culture only seems to measure the merits of passing out from the back on goals.

How many you score from doing it; how many you concede from doing it.

In reality, it needs to be looked at differently.

For example, Town mess around with it at the back, and end up losing control of the ball and kick it out for a throw-in 10 yards inside their own half. No goal resulted from it, but it gives the opposition encouragement. They see a weakness, and attain possession of the ball in a part of the pitch they didn't earn in the traditional sense.

If a team continues to do this time and time again, they hand the initiative — and the confidence — to the other team.

So, the opposition score goal. It didn't come "directly" from a mistake while passing out from the back.

BUT — it could've resulted from increased confidence in the opposition gained by our inability to pass the ball out from the back effectively.

Artell said the goal we conceded against Stockport was the first we'd conceded directly from passing out from the back. But how many of the other 20+ goals have resulted from giving the opposition needless possession/confidence?

Just thought it was an interesting take on it. Not sure if it holds weight but it's certainly different from other comments I've read.

The passing out I’m ok with the p1ssing about on the edge of the 6 yard box I’m not.

Like most competitive sports, it comes down to who is better. if you are better at playing it out than the opposition is at pressing, it works. Sadly the opposite is the case with us.

Perhaps they will learn how to do it better when we are back in the NL.

But todays goal against came from us giving the ball away in their half and they just broke away.

I would simply just not give the ball to the opposition under any circumstances.

Quoted from ska face

I would simply just not give the ball to the opposition under any circumstances.

It's a solid plan.

Rolling the ball to a full back making a run down the wing is playing from the back .
Attempting a long ball to a winger in space is playing it from the back .
Religiously getting the keeper to pass it to one of the two defenders stood next to him when everyone in the entire ground knows what he’s going to do is likely to get countered by the opposition.
Mix it up and let them second guess

There’s an art to it though, when Pep was at Barcelona and his goalie had the ball, both fullbacks would run down the line towards the halfway line, this took any opposition wide men also back to the halfway line, then the 2 centre backs would split, one left one right to the fullbacks position, again as most teams only play with one attacker he had to decide which one to follow,obviously leaving one free to receive the ball, but also the centre midfielders, Busquets, Xavi or Innesta, would then drop back to also be free to receive the ball, thus giving the goalkeeper various options as to who to pass to, now obviously if it’s one of the midfielders they are 99% of the time a better controller and passer of the ball so hopefully less chance of giving it away, but if they do by now the centre backs are back in a defensive position to voter any mistakes. Pretty simple really, cannot understand why town don’t do it this way!!!

Quoted from Gaffer58

There’s an art to it though, when Pep was at Barcelona and his goalie had the ball, both fullbacks would run down the line towards the halfway line, this took any opposition wide men also back to the halfway line, then the 2 centre backs would split, one left one right to the fullbacks position, again as most teams only play with one attacker he had to decide which one to follow,obviously leaving one free to receive the ball, but also the centre midfielders, Busquets, Xavi or Innesta, would then drop back to also be free to receive the ball, thus giving the goalkeeper various options as to who to pass to, now obviously if it’s one of the midfielders they are 99% of the time a better controller and passer of the ball so hopefully less chance of giving it away, but if they do by now the centre backs are back in a defensive position to voter any mistakes. Pretty simple really, cannot understand why town don’t do it this way!!!

Yeah guess what, we aren't Barcelona, so its completely irrelevant