[Football] Are negative tactics killing the Premier League?

[Dave the OAP]

"As Carragher said, the sides at the top are now so far ahead of those at the bottom that increasingly teams feel their only option is radical non-possession"

I was saying this earlier in the week.

the only top team we really had a go at, that I have seen, is the liverpool game and we ended up losing 5-1....I was talking to a couple of Liverpool fans on the P&R bus and they were saying that it was refreshing to see a side at least have a go...for them, so many teams are so afraid of getting thumped ( and hitting the goal difference) that teams just sit back and try not to lose by too much, whereas the top 6 sides all have a go at each other)

I suppose the attitude of managers at the bottom end of the table is " we know we will lose, but we must keep the GD to a minimum"

Which brings me back to the argument about the point of being in the Prem if the only point being there is a battle for survival with 14 other clubs and not getting thumped by the top 6.

 

[Stat Brother]

Manchester City won the league in 2011/12 after drawing 5 and losing 5 games.

Currently Arsenal have already exceeded those figures, and City aside the other four are comfortably on course to do so as well.
So it would seem there's potential more points available from the 'top 6' than 5 years ago.

Teams don't get into Europe by losing a double digit amount of games and yet 3 of the big 6 are on course to do so, while Liverpool are drawing their way out of contention.

Just because City are all conquering, for various reasons, (predominantly financial) it doesn't mean the game has fundamentally changed


I'm not disputing the prevalence of negative tactics, just the assumption it's some kind of new thing.

 

[Bakero]

What more so than:-

2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15

2016/17 seasons?
(I couldn't be bothered to check further back)

5 of the top 6 places have been taken by the 'big 6'.
There's some amazing outliers in that, Newcastle Southampton & Everton, but the point still stands, nothing's changed.
It's up to 'us' to be there to pick off the weak one, I reckon that's soon to be Arsenal, or in the 2015/16 perfect storm season, weak 2.

From the Jonathan Wilson article posted above:

In the first three seasons that Opta collected data, between 2003-04 and 2005-06, there were only three games in which one team had 70% or more of the ball. That figure rose gradually to 36 in 2016-17.

This season there have already been 37 instances. The number of games in which one team had 65% or more of possession has risen from 11 in 2003-04 to 94 last season (and 64 so far this); 60% or more is up from 63 in 2003-04 to 181 last season (and 100 so far this).

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

*********************************

It might hurt their brand, but I don't care about their brand.

Your opening post is doing what every other pundit is doing at the moment, putting all the blame on teams like us. WRONG. We're not here just to make up the numbers, to be the fodder served up for the big teams to hammer, for fans in China to drool over these super teams smashing six past us, for their plans for ever more global domination and ever more money falling into their laps. No, we are a club in our own right, with a history of our own, with ambitions of our own and fans of our own, and we'll do what it takes to stifle the other teams, stop them playing, win points and consolidate our position. We';ll do this for us, and if it upsets the journos and pundits and foreign viewers who only care about the big clubs, well I couldn't care less.

If it hurts their brand, then all the better for it. Their brand has created a situation where all the top talent is concentrated in a select few teams. There have always been better teams, there have always been richer clubs, but we haven't had a situation like this where all the top talent is concentrated in a handful of clubs.


********************************

 

[Gritt23]

I think it runs wider than is being discussed, and has been going on for longer than people care to admit. Jose has always loved to park the bus, kill the game, avoid the defeat and try to nick it. Go back to his days in Porto and they were dire to watch; who remembers the Final vs Celtic? But when he's had better teams, he still does it. When he won his last title with Chelsea they switched to "avoid defeat" mode for most of the second half of the season, including a lesson in bus parking when they played Arsenal, I seem to remember.

Can you be such a good manager that you get Samuel Eto'o to work harder and tackle back? That was deemed success, and NOT a case of restricting a supremely talented player. According to every media outlet that was showing how great he was, whereas I watched it, and thought it was sad to see such an exciting player having to spend so much of his time in areas of the field I didn't enjoy seeing him.

He's doing it at Man Utd now; how many games against the top 6 will you see him open up the game and really go for it?

I'm not picking on Jose, he's not alone, but this is the man that the media hold up as the most successful of managers, as a true "great" of the modern game. Sadly, that shows everyone else what it takes to be great. It's not just parking the bus against teams that are vastly superior to you, it's advocating a cautious approach against your peers as well, only being prepared to open up against teams you are confident that you are superior to.

 

[Berty23]

The problem with our tactics is that each game could be explained away as bad luck BUT it overlooks the fact that if you invite pressure then eventually there will be a perfect cross or bad bounce.

E.g.

Vs city we parked the bus and were a whisker away from scoring in the second half and then conceded an own goal that killed it - unlucky

Vs Spurs we parked the bus and conceded a freak goal then hemed missed a sitter before another deflected goal. Unlucky

Vs Arsenal we defended and solly almost scored - unlucky.

Probably more examples. The fact is you are VERY lucky if you don't get bad luck at least once when parking the bus (if that makes sense). West Ham didn't deserve a point last night but it will inspire teams like us to carry on.

 

[Stat Brother]

From the Jonathan Wilson article posted above:

In the first three seasons that Opta collected data, between 2003-04 and 2005-06, there were only three games in which one team had 70% or more of the ball. That figure rose gradually to 36 in 2016-17.

This season there have already been 37 instances. The number of games in which one team had 65% or more of possession has risen from 11 in 2003-04 to 94 last season (and 64 so far this); 60% or more is up from 63 in 2003-04 to 181 last season (and 100 so far this).

I'm no number cruncher but it's a shame those figures don't go back to Arsenal's 'invincibles' season.

I wonder if/how City's dominance this year affects the numbers.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

True, yet they would be better off playing a normal game and backing their team to perform and picking up a single point from those games rather than taking 12 narrow losses.

I'm sure all the examples of teams getting points off the big 6, like last night at Wembley, is by defending in banks and working incredibly hard. It won't have been by playing their normal game.

 

[Dave the OAP]

True, yet they would be better off playing a normal game and backing their team to perform and picking up a single point from those games rather than taking 12 narrow losses.

yep 100% agree

 

[father_and_son]

Inspired by last night's West Ham game and a chat on Twitter with my Man City mate, do people think that the PL brand is now being harmed by the number of teams in the bottom half setting out purely to stifle the top 6?

Last night's game was AWFUL and we did similar up at Wembley, just to lesser effect. Has so much money been poured in to this league that teams will now do anything to stay in it, including ruining the very product the money pays for?

I think YES. I'm not going to put a POLL though, because I know it annoys @Harry Wilson's Tackle

On so many levels, why would clubs play any different?

Owners... The disparity in TV income between divisions is so huge being a bottom 14 PL club, even if no-one turned up to watch or bought a shirt or anything, is still infinitely preferable to being a superb, well-supported, entertaining top-level championship club.

Managers... The above Owners are demanding instant results from their managers. It has become the norm that no manager can be allowed a 10-game slump. If you fail to produce results for a quarter of a season, you are out of a job. Equate that to "real world" jobs. Its not unusual to start a job and have a "probation period" built into your contract these days. If, after 3 months, its clear you can't do the job, they will let you go with no notice and no comeback. For football managers, that is a continuous "probation period"... under-perform for 3 months and you are out. However, in a league of 20 clubs, 3 are in trouble, all the time.

Players... A well-paid player with a relegation clause knows that they MUST stay up to preserve their salary, those without a relegation-clause might expect to be transferred if the club goes down... etc etc. They are as tied in to the gravy train as the owners and managers.

Fans... It only takes a brief glance at this board to see that many (maybe even most) of the fans are equally demanding of a club staying up, seemingly, at all costs. I'm personally not in this category so I struggle to explain the psychology, but it is clearly felt by many that we HAVE to stay up.


The issue for me is that the top championship clubs are 'better' (by any reasonable measure except Income!) than the worst PL clubs and yet the financial disparity (especially for a club like us who weren't promoted while receiving parachute payments) is unbelievable. The FL can't do anything.... the PL won't do anything.... clubs on the gravy train don't want to rock the boat.... why would it change.

 

[Normal Rob]

i agree with most of the comments made previously, the defensive nature is killing the game and managers are terrified of conceding buckets and therefore just put 10 men behind the ball. This won't change as far as i can see unless there is an incentive to score. I can't see it being like rugby where a team is awarded a bonus point for scoring 3 (or 4?) tries in a game, but possibly 1 bonus point for every 10 goals over a season scored or similar?

Radical, but something needs to be.

 

[Renegade]

The Neymar transfer means this will get worse.Now not just the top players will go for the kind of money smaller teams could never afford but also the mid-range players.100-150m buys you world class.40m-60m buys a top player but not guaranteed world class.Under that is what teams like us can afford.As there seems to be no limit to what these top teams can spend then increased prices are only relevant to teams like us.

 

[scamander]

In recent seasons it seems we have moved from a big 3 of Arsenal, Utd and Chelsea to a big 6 of Arsenal, Chelsea, Utd, City, Spurs and Liverpool. The current big 6 are capable of handing out a drubbing, so any team outside this group has 12 games a season where they play one of these (either home and away).

I think this has squeezed the middle, many teams might see the match against the Big 6 as a free hit, perhaps grab a point but go out and attack? You’ll hear fans after a 1-0 defeat to them says that “we should have had a go” but I’ve yet to hear a fan happy with a 4-0 beating because ‘we had a go’.

It also means fewer points are up for grabs, it’s even more important to beat the teams outside the Big 6 or take points off them. Getting stuffed 4-0 isn’t just about dropping points, it can lead to a rot where players lose confidence. No wonder managers will happily stifle a game and try to keep any scoreline low.

 

[Renegade]

Big 6 could become Big 8 when Newcastle get bought and maybe if Villa ever were.The reality is we could never be in that club because big money spenders would never buy out a team like us.A few other teams yes but us no.

 

[MattBackHome]

I'm no number cruncher but it's a shame those figures don't go back to Arsenal's 'invincibles' season.

I wonder if/how City's dominance this year affects the numbers.

Nah you WONG I'm afraid.

Thus far this season the top 6 have accumulated 279 points between them. This is a full 17 points more than the previous best at this stage.

But isn't that all due to Man City being superlative? No.

If you discount the top team and just count the points from places 2 to 6 at this stage, then they have accumulated 217 points so far this season - again a record amount since we've had a 20 team top flight.

Arsenal's invincibles weren't even top at this stage in 03/04 and both the 'Top 6' and '2nd to 6th' points totals at this stage in 2004 (217 & 171) are lower than any of the years since.

 

[Couldn't Be Hyypia]

The problem with our tactics is that each game could be explained away as bad luck BUT it overlooks the fact that if you invite pressure then eventually there will be a perfect cross or bad bounce.

E.g.

Vs city we parked the bus and were a whisker away from scoring in the second half and then conceded an own goal that killed it - unlucky

Vs Spurs we parked the bus and conceded a freak goal then hemed missed a sitter before another deflected goal. Unlucky

Vs Arsenal we defended and solly almost scored - unlucky.

Probably more examples. The fact is you are VERY lucky if you don't get bad luck at least once when parking the bus (if that makes sense). West Ham didn't deserve a point last night but it will inspire teams like us to carry on.

Man United away?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk