Topic: Relentless attack?

[Hunts Cross]

Really? See Arsenal.

Do you think their fan base has increased much since they last won a trophy 6-7 years ago? I don't.

[Johnny Foreigner]

why did you stop coaching mate?

Just taking on an unders sevens next season, i get them chanting "control, pass and move" over and over before the training, i think the other parents think i'm mental. Start my FA coaching badge on Satdee, am dreading it, 3 full sats and 2 tuesdays.

Really want them to try and pass the fucking thing but its very difficult, any tips mate?

I'm no expert mate but have been coaching for 3-4 years now, so maybe a couple of pointers..

I guess the most natural for the kids are to either dribble it or just hoofing it as far as they can up the pitch. In order to make them trying to pass the ball, you need to be very clear on how you want them to play; to actually look up and trying to see if there is anyone available - also to work on their basic skills - if then can stop the ball, pass the ball etc..

Unless you have a very natural, talented group - your results will suffer short term if you want to play that way - and thats probably the hardest aspect to deal with.. The kids don't like to lose, the parents don't like to lose and most coaches don't like to lose..

If you want quick results, you let the big lads play the most- one at the back and one up front and just hoof it..

You don't get results short term by encouraging your players in the defense to play it around a little and trying to keep the ball on floor..

I guess what I am saying is that keep working on the basic skills; sod the results in the beginning and treating a good pass, some good vision etc as your goals..

Maybe also realising that they advance differently; I've had a bunch of lads a couple of years now - basically getting the same coaching.. The most talented and most advanced are the ones that practices the most - organised and unorganized. These lads I can challenge in terms of why they made the different moves etc. Others have been eager to train while develops slower and basic passing is more or less the target now..

[exiledinyorkshire]

Best thing you can do for that age group is not to focus on passing and moving, but to make sure every player has a ball and that they are getting comfortable with the ball at their feet. They need to be learning how to use the different surfaces of the feet to control the ball, and they also need to master the dragback, the stepover and the scissors moves. Give them 2 years at that, and they'll be very much ready for pass and move (although you'll lose a lot of hair in the meantime )

Yeah all our drills are for that kind of thing, i'm hoping the Fa Coaching thing is worth the money, i'm sure it will be. The older age groups seem to suggest that if we can get them passing it we will fly, its noticeable if they have been coached that way. Easier said then done. Experimenting with the idea of keeping a good distance from the player with the ball, and providing help to them as a starting point, some of them are ready and capable of playing a good pass, but they are hampered a wee bit by the ones that steam in and take it off the foot of their own player. Its all good fun though, if a little frustrating.

Dont think they are quite ready for a POP chalk board just yet, but i'll let you know mate when they are. You can come and do a master class for me. Didnt really want to be involved, but nobody else could be arsed so i said i would, then they tell me i need a coaching badge the bastards. Still it will be fun next year, its our first friendly sunday morning.

[PhaseofPlay]

Yeah all our drills are for that kind of thing, i'm hoping the Fa Coaching thing is worth the money, i'm sure it will be. The older age groups seem to suggest that if we can get them passing it we will fly, its noticeable if they have been coached that way. Easier said then done. Experimenting with the idea of keeping a good distance from the player with the ball, and providing help to them as a starting point, some of them are ready and capable of playing a good pass, but they are hampered a wee bit by the ones that steam in and take it off the foot of their own player. Its all good fun though, if a little frustrating.

Dont think they are quite ready for a POP chalk board just yet, but i'll let you know mate when they are. You can come and do a master class for me. Didnt really want to be involved, but nobody else could be arsed so i said i would, then they tell me i need a coaching badge the bastards. Still it will be fun next year, its our first friendly sunday morning.

Stick with it - they'll be getting the right education from you, but as with all things kid-related, it's all baby steps. The bee swarm around the ball will happen for a while, but definitely keep pointing out how getting away from the ball helps the player with it. I like to tell stories rather than make coaching points at this age - they respond better. If they've seen Shrek, they might know the "onion layers" line. That's how I explain it - the ball is the middle of the onion, and everyone else should be the layers. Works with some kids, doesn't work with others. That's why i have very little hair left

[exiledinyorkshire]

I'm no expert mate but have been coaching for 3-4 years now, so maybe a couple of pointers..

I guess the most natural for the kids are to either dribble it or just hoofing it as far as they can up the pitch. In order to make them trying to pass the ball, you need to be very clear on how you want them to play; to actually look up and trying to see if there is anyone available - also to work on their basic skills - if then can stop the ball, pass the ball etc..

Unless you have a very natural, talented group - your results will suffer short term if you want to play that way - and thats probably the hardest aspect to deal with.. The kids don't like to lose, the parents don't like to lose and most coaches don't like to lose..

If you want quick results, you let the big lads play the most- one at the back and one up front and just hoof it..

You don't get results short term by encouraging your players in the defense to play it around a little and trying to keep the ball on floor..

I guess what I am saying is that keep working on the basic skills; sod the results in the beginning and treating a good pass, some good vision etc as your goals..

Maybe also realising that they advance differently; I've had a bunch of lads a couple of years now - basically getting the same coaching.. The most talented and most advanced are the ones that practices the most - organised and unorganized. These lads I can challenge in terms of why they made the different moves etc. Others have been eager to train while develops slower and basic passing is more or less the target now..

Yeah we changed the player of the week, to pass of the week trophy, that kind of worked. I've got very clear ideas of how i think football should be played, and the things i try and get into them are "head up" "control pass and move". I know its going to be difficult short term, but i could have this lot for 10 years!!!!!! fucking hell! may as well start as we mean to go on eh!.

I've been told by the other coaches that i'm lucky, as i have two very very good players. One of them is exceptional, i mean doing step overs dummies, has a lovely balance and can dribble and what a finisher even at six he's got better technique than i have. We'll see how they get on with the Beautiful game against some of the pit villages, i'm told that they are beasts.

[exiledinyorkshire]

Stick with it - they'll be getting the right education from you, but as with all things kid-related, it's all baby steps. The bee swarm around the ball will happen for a while, but definitely keep pointing out how getting away from the ball helps the player with it. I like to tell stories rather than make coaching points at this age - they respond better. If they've seen Shrek, they might know the "onion layers" line. That's how I explain it - the ball is the middle of the onion, and everyone else should be the layers. Works with some kids, doesn't work with others. That's why i have very little hair left

I didnt start with much in the first place. I like the story idea, i think i'll try that. Still trying to get past the bit where when i'm talking one of the little darling larraps a ball at my head. All our dads actually join in training, i think we are lucky in that respect 10 kids and 7 dads helping most weeks, so we should be able to do some really good work with them. I only said i would take them next year 2 weeks b4 the end of season, we ummed and arrd about keeping them at it through the summer, but my lad really wants to do cricket as well. Shame cause i'd really only just started finding my feet when we stopped.

Chatting about it in the pub the other night, the old pass and move, i said that its actually"control pass and move", we got round in the end to "look,control, Head up look again, pass, move.......repeat" like i say its a bit much for littleuns, but its funny where thinking about things takes you.

[jason23]

why did you stop coaching mate?

Just taking on an unders sevens next season, i get them chanting "control, pass and move" over and over before the training, i think the other parents think i'm mental. Start my FA coaching badge on Satdee, am dreading it, 3 full sats and 2 tuesdays.

Really want them to try and pass the fucking thing but its very difficult, any tips mate?

I started the team at U6s (incidentally against much hassle from the Club but from then on the Mini sides have flourished) but as we became one of the very best teams around and began to win things, the parents became harder and harder to deal with. I had parents with stopwatches timing how long each kid had and one mum wanted her son to play in goals as well as playing out so he would get more game time.
I have replied as well by PM mate but it is very rewarding to see stuff you have worked on in Training used on the pitch at game time. Keep your philosophy simple and do not compromise. Make your sessions fun but have the kids learning all the time. Often we would play football bowling - set up a row of cones - 1, 2, 3 and so on and place a ball on each one - then have the kids pass the ball at the cones and get them to try and knock off the balls. They won't realise that they are practising their passing accuracy. I have loads of drills I can send you if you like....

[scatman]

i remember 2008-2009 when we would relentlessly attack teams all game at Anfield, a lot of those draws saw us have upwards of 60% possession and more than 30 shots but just not putting that ball in the net, even in the season after, games like the 2-2 against Birmingham where they scored 2 wonder goals and Johnson absolutely terrorised Ridgewell and their left winger that one of them got replaced at half time by another left back and they still couldnt handle him.

Ahh memories.

[exiledinyorkshire]

I started the team at U6s (incidentally against much hassle from the Club but from then on the Mini sides have flourished) but as we became one of the very best teams around and began to win things, the parents became harder and harder to deal with. I had parents with stopwatches timing how long each kid had and one mum wanted her son to play in goals as well as playing out so he would get more game time.
I have replied as well by PM mate but it is very rewarding to see stuff you have worked on in Training used on the pitch at game time. Keep your philosophy simple and do not compromise. Make your sessions fun but have the kids learning all the time. Often we would play football bowling - set up a row of cones - 1, 2, 3 and so on and place a ball on each one - then have the kids pass the ball at the cones and get them to try and knock off the balls. They won't realise that they are practising their passing accuracy. I have loads of drills I can send you if you like....

Just stated a new topic in General football for coaching kids lads. Phase of play and Jason please post anything that you think would help me and others in there. Hopefully it can be a good resource for young(or old in my case Brendan rodgers types). Thanks for the tips and advice guys keep them coming.

[tellusajoke]

I think we created enough chances to win most of our games last season bar a few.
Our problem was(is):
a) we don't have enough goalscoring players in the first team compared to other top premiership teams and wasted most of our chances. Henderson, Downing, Lucas, Adam, Carroll tended to be the culprits last year. We desperately need more from these next year.
b) although teams didn't create that many chances against us, they tended to score with the chances they did create.
c) we also don't have that player who can beat a player (leaving flat on his arse) that most top teams have too, thereby creating more space/extra man.

[stockdam]

Relentless attack? I don't think we have enough skillful players who are comfortable on the ball and who keep possession. We need about three players who can ping the ball around and who maintain possession.........we aren't good enough to hold the ball long enough when pressurised.

[Jack Slater]

My first topic, please go easy.. 

With the unveiling of Brendan Rodgers as our new manager, a one point Tom Warner pointed – not for the first time – towards what he sees as our playing philosophy, demanding ‘relentless attack’ from the team. It got me thinking about reasons why.

Maybe one reason why is that to me there has always seemed to be disproportional reward in the points given for a win in football. 0 points for a loss, 1 point for a draw, but then a jump to 3 points for win? To me it seems obvious therefore that this points structure rewards attacking play and especially wins. For example, if a team were to play 38 League games and draw all 38 games they’d end up on 38 points. However, if over the same 38 games a team instead won 19 games and lost 19 games, they’d end up on vastly improved 57 points, or 19 points better off. In fact, if a team only won 13 games and lost all other remaining 25 games all season, they’d still end up with more points than a team that had drawn all 38 games.

Is it worth therefore taking risks in say the last 20 minutes of what is at that point a drawn game? In the past perhaps, it has appeared sometimes that we were more concerned with protecting the point we had towards the end of drawn games, rather than risking the loss of one point to potentially gain three. True, throwing a number of extra players forward gives the opposition increased opportunity to score, but it also increases your chances markedly too – and favourably so if your team has more goal scoring ‘threats’ in the team to score than the opposition. And given the risk that it only has to come off once in 3 games to at least match in points what could otherwise be gained in points by 3 drawn games – isn’t it worth it? In terms of the points allocated for a draw versus a win, 'is a bird in the hand really worth three in the bush?’

I wonder with the appointment of Rodgers and FSG starting to get to grips with the statistical part of the game, whether we will see more of an emphasis on attack, and especially more calculated risks progressively towards the end of ‘drawing’ games – hence ‘relentless attack’?

This issue comes up regularly, with people always going on gut instinct.  The problem is that gut instinct is probably wrong in two respects.

Firstly, the difference between 3 points for a win and 2 points for a win instinctively seems important.  However, the league winner is almost always the same regardless of which system is used.  I think Blackburn/MU in 95 is the only time since the inception of 3 points for a win that the new system affected the identity of the champions.  I think there were also none, or one, champion pre 1981 that would have been different if 3 points had been in place then.


Secondly, the idea that simply playing "more attacking" leads to more wins is a false one.  A team which plays  "more attacking" is likey to have been in games with a higher goals aggregate (when adding GS to GA) than a "less attacking" one.  But that doesnt necessarily lead to more wins.  If playing "more attacking" led to more wins, then have all the coaches in the history of football got it wrong?  There was a time that a standard formation had 2 backs and 5 forwards.  You'll never see that any more, but 5 (or 6) defensive minded players with just 2 or 1 (or even 0!) out and out forwards is far from uncommon.

There are not more draws these days, afaik.  ie these apparently "less attacking" formations do not lead to every game being 0-0.  However, it is true that there are likely to be more 1-0s these days than previously, and fewer 5-3s than they once had.

But this is because coaches have realised that it is better to have back to back 1-0 wins than to have a 5-3 win followed by a 3-2 defeat.  The "more attacking" style may have led to 7 goals, at an average of 3.5 per game, but it is the clean sheets that are the decisive factor.  It is the two clean sheets that lead to 2 wins (6 points), rather than one win and one loss (3 points).


The basic principle is that a team which is good in all departments will win more games per 100 than a team which places too much emphasis on attack and not enough on defence.

Because there is another side to the 3 point issue.  Yes, it is absolutely true that when a game is level in the late stages, a team which has aspirations to be champions needs to have the ability to turn that 1 point into 3 by getting a late winner.  But for a team to be champions, they also need to have the ability to do the mirror image of that.  ie when they already have the notional 3 points going into the last 15 minutes, they need to make sure those 3 points dont become 1 due to a late equaliser.  That loss of 2 points (eg 1-0 lead being converted to a 1-1 draw) is just as real, in fact much realer, than the other scenario (a 0-0 or 1-1 not being converted to a victory).

[Jack Slater]

From what I have read of BR's philosophy, systematic holding of the ball, in our half or theirs, is how we will close out games. We will recover in possession, and when appropriate, we will attack.

For "relentless attacking footbal" I think we should read "relentless possession football".

Exactly.  A game is 90 minutes long.  Even the highly trained athletes who play today cannot relentlessly be sprinting around up front to try an find themselves is space for an instant killer pass to be made to them.

Moving the ball around looking for an opponent to make a mistake might not look as though it is "attacking" but actually it is.  I know the OP isnt suggesting Route 1, but Route 1 can make it appear as if a team is attack minded because they are always trying to get to oppo penalty area as fast as possible.  Whereas in reality it is the team which tries to be clever in its use of possession, and is willing to spend a minute or so of possession trying to craft an opening, that is (imho) more attack-minded, because they are spending  large percentage of their time thinking about how to score.  A large part of the Route 1 thinking was based on the fact that (if you hoof it up there, then sometimes you will get possession and score BUT) there was a strategic advantage in making sure the ball got far away from your own goal as quickly as possible.  ie even Route 1 was just as much about preventing concession as it was about increasing your own goal tally.

[redk84]

Its an interesting point...

Maybe we dont have the players to relentlessly attack for the whole game.

But in patches yes.....as we saw last season...

The mentality of our team has to change....say if we do go for it in the last 20 minutes or so....we may get the win a couple of times, but not all the time. But teams will start to naturally fall back against us in the last 20 mins and be prepared for our onslaught...who knows might make them more nervous at the back? which could then lead to more wins, even when they arent deserved....

Its what United have done for years....teams just roll over in the last part of the game because the fear of United's attack makes them crumble even if the actual attacking football being served up by United doesn't deserve the goal...if u know what i mean.
They didn't invent the concept, but im just saying they have done well at it for the majority of a decade......City did the same last season at times, we did in 08/09, Chelsea under Mourinho too...(however they often got the lead early and killed the game off...)

[The Dark Knight]

This issue comes up regularly, with people always going on gut instinct.  The problem is that gut instinct is probably wrong in two respects.

Firstly, the difference between 3 points for a win and 2 points for a win instinctively seems important.  However, the league winner is almost always the same regardless of which system is used.  I think Blackburn/MU in 95 is the only time since the inception of 3 points for a win that the new system affected the identity of the champions.  I think there were also none, or one, champion pre 1981 that would have been different if 3 points had been in place then.


Secondly, the idea that simply playing "more attacking" leads to more wins is a false one.  A team which plays  "more attacking" is likey to have been in games with a higher goals aggregate (when adding GS to GA) than a "less attacking" one.  But that doesnt necessarily lead to more wins.  If playing "more attacking" led to more wins, then have all the coaches in the history of football got it wrong?  There was a time that a standard formation had 2 backs and 5 forwards.  You'll never see that any more, but 5 (or 6) defensive minded players with just 2 or 1 (or even 0!) out and out forwards is far from uncommon.

There are not more draws these days, afaik.  ie these apparently "less attacking" formations do not lead to every game being 0-0.  However, it is true that there are likely to be more 1-0s these days than previously, and fewer 5-3s than they once had.

But this is because coaches have realised that it is better to have back to back 1-0 wins than to have a 5-3 win followed by a 3-2 defeat.  The "more attacking" style may have led to 7 goals, at an average of 3.5 per game, but it is the clean sheets that are the decisive factor.  It is the two clean sheets that lead to 2 wins (6 points), rather than one win and one loss (3 points).


The basic principle is that a team which is good in all departments will win more games per 100 than a team which places too much emphasis on attack and not enough on defence.

Because there is another side to the 3 point issue.  Yes, it is absolutely true that when a game is level in the late stages, a team which has aspirations to be champions needs to have the ability to turn that 1 point into 3 by getting a late winner.  But for a team to be champions, they also need to have the ability to do the mirror image of that.  ie when they already have the notional 3 points going into the last 15 minutes, they need to make sure those 3 points dont become 1 due to a late equaliser.  That loss of 2 points (eg 1-0 lead being converted to a 1-1 draw) is just as real, in fact much realer, than the other scenario (a 0-0 or 1-1 not being converted to a victory).

I have a query Jack. I do believe that '3 points for a win' concept has led to more result yielding positions ( as u said).  I also think though league winners may not have changed, the CL 4 positions have changed due to 3 points format.

[Garstonite]

I used to ask the kids I coached some questions before every game they played.....

1) Can we score if we have the ball? YES
2) Can they score if we have the ball? NO
3) Can we score if they have the ball? NO
4) Can they score if they have the ball? YES
5) So what do we need to do? KEEP THE BALL

It is a very simple philosophy. Took me about 12-18 months to get a gang of 6/7 year olds to start playing the way I wanted them to and by the time I finished with them at U10 they were one of THE best teams in the area and every player was comfortable with the ball and the team could pass the ball around and keep possession.

I look forward to seeing us keep possession and passing other teams off the park.

Were you one of FSG's 12 candidates?

[socrates the sophist]

Yeah we changed the player of the week, to pass of the week trophy, that kind of worked. I've got very clear ideas of how i think football should be played, and the things i try and get into them are "head up" "control pass and move". I know its going to be difficult short term, but i could have this lot for 10 years!!!!!! fucking hell! may as well start as we mean to go on eh!.

I've been told by the other coaches that i'm lucky, as i have two very very good players. One of them is exceptional, i mean doing step overs dummies, has a lovely balance and can dribble and what a finisher even at six he's got better technique than i have. We'll see how they get on with the Beautiful game against some of the pit villages, i'm told that they are beasts.

I'm no coach but I used to play for a team since I was young, so may be I could help you get inside your players' minds. I remember I was 9 and we were playing against some big guys, two years older than us and we struggled the first half. We were trying to get past the players but they were simply stronger than us and won the ball with no problems. I remember the coach told us a story about Holland 74. He just said that in Holland there was this amazing group of players, but who struggled against mean older boys as well. He then told us that they managed to beat them when they made a triangle out of each player in their tem and passed it around the big players. Obviously he didn't just tell us that theoretically, he just positioned two players horizontally and said that when you do this, a third should come at this place, the vertix of the triancle. I remember we just went onto the pitch not focusing on winning, we just wanted to make a triangle shape and passed it to one another. The other team did not really understand what was going on, they weren't able to get near us since we didn't have the ball for long. we ended up drawing the game. I think this was the beginning of my fascination with total football.

I'm sure a similar technique can work with your players as well. Our drills before that had just focused on controlling the ball, passing it and shooting. Not much work on dribbling.
Hope this helped

[Cybertom]

I don't think your style of football increases your fanbase, but winning trophies etc does,

I really think it does. We haven't won the league for 20 years yet we've always had a large fan base. Granted we've won many trophies and have some very famous and memorable moments under our belt (2001, 2005, 2006) but style of football and the players largely increase fanbase.
Torres + Gerrard massively increased our support and recognition worldwide, hugely.

[Nessy76]

I don't think "relentless attack" is necessarily the best way to win football matches.

Before I continue that thought, a couple of things about "3 points for a win" - the idea behind awarding 3 points for a win rather than 2 as it used to be, was to encourage attacking play, but mainly to reduce the number of draws.

While "attacking play" is subjective, the number of draws didn't dramatically drop in the long-term as a consequence. I read something about this somewhere that said various things had been tried in different leagues to reduce the number of draws, none of which had been particularly successful. (Think there was even one league in the USSR where only the official state club got a point for a draw!)

But those two thing "attacking play" and "reducing draws" don't always go together. Both sides going hell for leather can end up in a 3-3, while two cagey teams can still easily end up with a 1-0 scoreline.

So "relentless attack" - it sounds good, doesn't it? Wave after wave charging forwards at the opposition goal. Problem is, well-drilled defensive sides, such as we've struggled against for donkey's years, can sit back and take that sort of thing all day. They don't need to move as much as the attacking team, so they tire less quickly, and come the end of the game, they can skip out of their own half and nick it with one down the far end. We've seen it happen far too many times.

So we don't need to constantly attack, it puts the other team on alert, simplifies the game for them and generally means relying on a piece of exceptional individual skill or an accidental mix up by the defence.

What about possession, then? Again, sounds good. Keep the ball and they can't score. True. But if we're in possession, they are freer to pick out runners, organise marking, and generally go about the business of defending their goal without having to worry about all that ball-control and technique and skill stuff that you pay so much for.

What you really need to win games of football is not all-out attacking for 90 minutes, or 80% possession. What you need is to have a simple, effective way of moving the ball when you do have it, and when the opportunity is there. And if the opportunity isn't there, you build for it.

That means sometimes you play the ball around on the half-way line and let your wide men lose their full-backs so you can release them with a quick diagonal ball. It means sometimes, you give it back to the keeper to stretch their midfield and forward line and create a bit of space. It means you tease them into your half, even let them have a bit of a run at you, so when you take the ball away from them, they are still moving towards your goal-line, even though you, and the ball, are now going the other way.

[Not A Scouser]

I have commented about winning being rewarded at a different rate than drawing in league play.  It isn't in knockout cup play.  The point I have made before is that because of the disproportionate rewards it is better to score a lot and give up a lot than score few goals than score few goals and give up few.  The more goals in a game the less the chance of a draw happening, more wins and losses.  Last year we scored few and gave up few and got a ton of draws.  Playing the game in the opposition's half gives you more chances to score but also is more risky.

[Nessy76]

I have commented about winning being rewarded at a different rate than drawing in league play.  It isn't in knockout cup play.  The point I have made before is that because of the disproportionate rewards it is better to score a lot and give up a lot than score few goals than score few goals and give up few.  The more goals in a game the less the chance of a draw happening, more wins and losses.  Last year we scored few and gave up few and got a ton of draws.  Playing the game in the opposition's half gives you more chances to score but also is more risky.

Interesting idea, but I doubt if it stands up to analysis. Any game in which there is only 1 goal cannot end in a draw.

[Not A Scouser]

Interesting idea, but I doubt if it stands up to analysis. Any game in which there is only 1 goal cannot end in a draw.

For a team that averages 1 goal for and 1 against the most likely number of goals to be scored are 0,1,2,3 one being the most likely, 0 and 1 being the next most likely and rapidly downhill from there.  If we throw out very unlikely scores (if you score 5 in one game then you need four no score games to make that average 1).  For averages of ten goals for and against the number of likely scores goes up by a lot (8 or 12 goals are pretty likely) but the number of draws per goals only goes up by one (the same number of goals) but the number of wins and losses goals up much more (if you score 8 goals you can only draw when 8 are scored against you but you can win or lose with several more probable goals scored. For every increase in goal you average the number of possible draws goes up by one (that score by you and the opposition) but the number of possible wins and losses goes up by the number of goals multiplied by all the other possibilities.

If you want real life examples, basketball has much higher number of scores for and against, and the number of ties at the end of regulation in the NBA is about 1 in 30.  The Premier League has draws in about a quarter of the games.  If you want an example, in last year's League Newcastle had a similar goal difference to Liverpool, but scored more and gave up more, and finished 13 points higher.  If you look through the final standings in the League last year and match-up all the teams with similar goal difference, the ones that scored the most and gave up the most are mostly above the ones that scored and gave up less.

It works mathematically and in the real world.

[Nessy76]

For a team that averages 1 goal for and 1 against the most likely number of goals to be scored are 0,1,2,3 one being the most likely, 0 and 1 being the next most likely and rapidly downhill from there.  If we throw out very unlikely scores (if you score 5 in one game then you need four no score games to make that average 1).  For averages of ten goals for and against the number of likely scores goes up by a lot (8 or 12 goals are pretty likely) but the number of draws per goals only goes up by one (the same number of goals) but the number of wins and losses goals up much more (if you score 8 goals you can only draw when 8 are scored against you but you can win or lose with several more probable goals scored. For every increase in goal you average the number of possible draws goes up by one (that score by you and the opposition) but the number of possible wins and losses goes up by the number of goals multiplied by all the other possibilities.

If you want real life examples, basketball has much higher number of scores for and against, and the number of ties at the end of regulation in the NBA is about 1 in 30.  The Premier League has draws in about a quarter of the games.  If you want an example, in last year's League Newcastle had a similar goal difference to Liverpool, but scored more and gave up more, and finished 13 points higher.  If you look through the final standings in the League last year and match-up all the teams with similar goal difference, the ones that scored the most and gave up the most are mostly above the ones that scored and gave up less.

It works mathematically and in the real world.

Interesting.

I don't think basketball really translates here, there's never a 0-0 in basketball.

If we take last season's table and add goals scored and conceded for each team:

Team           Goals draws
      
Man City   122   5
Man United   122   5
Arsenal   123   7
Spurs   107   9
Newcastle   107   8
Chelsea   111   10
Everton   90   11
Liverpool   87   10
Fulham   99   10
West Brm  97   8
Swansea   95   11
Norwich   118   11
Sunderlnd   91   12
Stoke    89   12
Wigan   104   10
Aston Villa   90   17
QPR           109   7
Bolton   123   6
Blackburn   126   7
Wolves   122   10

Of the 8 teams who scored and conceded a total of less than 100 goals, 7 recorded 10 or more draws.
Of the 12 who scored and conceded more than 100 goals, 8 recorded less than 10 draws.

[Toshack_Keegan_One_Nil]

In terms of draws v losses, it's a no-brainer. Take a five-game spell - two wins and three defeats is better than five draws. Teams have a stigma against losing and settle for a draw too easily. Going for it when the game's level will see you pick up more wins at the expense of a few inevitable sucker-punches.

I hate to use them as a reference, but Man United have been doing it for 20 years. If you look at the tables over that period (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League_records_and_statistics#All-Time_FA_Premier_League_Table), United generally have far fewer draws than most teams because they are prepared to risk one point to get three.

In 2006-07, United lost 5 to Chelsea's 3 but Chelsea drew 11 to United's 5 and the scumbags won it by 6 points. Similar situation in 2008-09 with us but too painful to look at the stats. It's also the reason they haven't been as successful in Europe as they might have - Mr Ferguson plays a much more negative game and they end up drawing more.

[Not A Scouser]

Interesting.

I don't think basketball really translates here, there's never a 0-0 in basketball.

Of the 8 teams who scored and conceded a total of less than 100 goals, 7 recorded 10 or more draws.
Of the 12 who scored and conceded more than 100 goals, 8 recorded less than 10 draws.

There isn't a 0-0, but there are 88-88, 89-89,90-90 and so on.  Many more possibilities of ties because there are more scores.  It shows that in a sport with higher scoring there are fewer ties.

Your information supports what I am saying if what you are saying is correct.  Of those under 100 goals 7 of 8, 88% got more than 10 draws.  Of those over 100 goals 4 of 12, 33% got more than 10 draws.

So, we have an extreme example of sports with very different scores having very different numbers of ties.  We have teams with similar goal difference in the League doing better if they score and give up more goals, and teams that score more and give up more overall having fewer draws.  This is what we would expect from the maths.

[Red Reign]

I really think it does. We haven't won the league for 20 years yet we've always had a large fan base. Granted we've won many trophies and have some very famous and memorable moments under our belt (2001, 2005, 2006) but style of football and the players largely increase fanbase.
Torres + Gerrard massively increased our support and recognition worldwide, hugely.

The reason I follow Liverpool. Happen to stumble on some highlight videos and said, "These two guys? On the same team? Nice!".

I must say though, I don't wake up at 5am after four hours sleep because of any particular player. I started following because of those two players but I became passionate about the team because of the history and fan base.

[G1 Jockey 4(betfair)]

its harder to score 2 when you go a goal down than it is to score one when you play a less riskier game.

[jwlantz]

I don't think "relentless attack" is necessarily the best way to win football matches.

Attacking play can lose you games if you are not organized in your attack and protect against a counter.

[jsl2000]

Attacking play can lose you games if you are not organized in your attack and protect against a counter.

again look at arsenal

[gandalf50]

Interesting article about Swansea attempting shots versus conceding shots:

http://www.eplindex.com/15199/brendan-rodgers-resting-with-the-ball-top-european-league-opta-stats-analysis.html

[El_Pistolero]

Relentless control, not relentless attack, my dear Tom.

[Mr_Shane]

I dont know about relentless attack. I think it does not win games alone. Rather regardless of the tactics, I think we need players who know what they are doing. As pointed out, you don't just need to know what to do when you have the ball, but also what to do when you don't. We also need mental toughness and confidence to continue doing what they are doing in the belief that it will get you results rather than lose confidence and stop trying - This we do not have at the moment.

I also think its impossible to play this way for the entire season, before fatigue, injury etc seeps in unless you have the whole squad prepared to play this way and not rely on ten or eleven players. 

[Nessy76]

Interesting article about Swansea attempting shots versus conceding shots:

http://www.eplindex.com/15199/brendan-rodgers-resting-with-the-ball-top-european-league-opta-stats-analysis.html

Very interesting, but I don't understand how the average ratio of shots attempted/conceded can be above 1. Surely every shot attempt made by one team is a shot conceded by another?

[PhaseofPlay]

Very interesting, but I don't understand how the average ratio of shots attempted/conceded can be above 1. Surely every shot attempt made by one team is a shot conceded by another?

It means shots attempted and conceded on the same team. The threshold question could have been better phrased as "Does a team that keeps the ball defensively also create more shots offensively?"

[Nessy76]

It means shots attempted and conceded on the same team. The threshold question could have been better phrased as "Does a team that keeps the ball defensively also create more shots offensively?"

No, I understand that, but the average still has to be 1, doesn't it? All shots attempted by all teams should equal all shots conceded by all teams, or where are the extra shots coming from? In other words, for every team with a ratio above 1, there should be one below the line.

[PhaseofPlay]

No, I understand that, but the average still has to be 1, doesn't it? All shots attempted by all teams should equal all shots conceded by all teams, or where are the extra shots coming from? In other words, for every team with a ratio above 1, there should be one below the line.

Not on the same team. If they were comparing two teams in the same game, yes. The stats table is not comparing two teams in the same game, but each individual team's possession to shots attempted/conceded

[Nessy76]

Not on the same team. If they were comparing two teams in the same game, yes. The stats table is not comparing two teams in the same game, but each individual team's possession to shots attempted/conceded

It's comparing ALL shots by ALL teams, so yes it should. Where are the extra shots coming from? When can a team attempt a shot without another team in the sample conceding one?

[PhaseofPlay]

It's comparing ALL shots by ALL teams, so yes it should. Where are the extra shots coming from? When can a team attempt a shot without another team in the sample conceding one?

You are probably best off contacting the author of the article for his method, then, because I'm reading it different so his/her method obviously isn't very clear. It seems to me to be a ratio of:

shots attempted:shots conceded:short passes played

... assessed for each individual team and evaluated, then ranked and compared against the same ratio and evaluation of other teams, within the top divisions, and across the noted leagues. It isn't, in my view, an evaluation of zero sum games between two teams competing against each other. The data source (whoscored.com) is there to be seen, it's just a matter of how the author was plotting the graph I think?

[JohnHobbes]

It's comparing ALL shots by ALL teams, so yes it should. Where are the extra shots coming from? When can a team attempt a shot without another team in the sample conceding one?

No, it's comparing for each team over the season. So Liverpool had approx 1.6 whilst Stoke were around 0.65

Overall they will aggregrate to 1 but of course some teams are above and the rest below.

[Vulmea]

My first topic, please go easy.. 

With the unveiling of Brendan Rodgers as our new manager, a one point Tom Warner pointed – not for the first time – towards what he sees as our playing philosophy, demanding ‘relentless attack’ from the team. It got me thinking about reasons why.

problem is Tom's words had little to do with our style in the future and everything to do with FSG looking back and trying to generate some synergy with the fans

when they first watched LFC DVD's to try and understand the club Werner and Henry were very taken with the relentless waves of red with which Liverpool used to dominate games back in the 60's and 70's - it still happens occasionally these days - that continual push when you can feel the goal coming, the opposition dropping deeper, chance afer chance being created - it happened most often when teams arrived knowing they were beaten, expecting the inevitable domination in the last 20....if we can get back to that, when teams expect to get beat, then the risks inherant in that type of approach are reduced.

Rodgers has himself said he wants teams to arrive knowing they are in for a very difficult 90 minutes - that is part of the process - teams last season came with  a belief that they could get a result - a relief for the most part justified by our terrible finishing and lady luck but that belief grew through the season - I can't remember a season like the last one for the number of chances missed (good chances not these mythical different chances to everybody else's that some imagine to justify whatever pre-judged  tactical point they want to make).

None of which deflects form the point, 'relentless attacking football' was a throwback phrase to what Liverpool sides used to do - an appeal to the nebulas 'Liverpool Way'

I'm auld enough to remember 2 points for a win - from a time me grandad used to call us the 'draw specialists' - it was introduced specifically to incentivise teams to try and win
- - completely missing the fact for some teams the only way to try and win was to defend as hard as they could and try and nick one on the break - if they wanted to incentivise attacking play they needed to set a different measure - goals scored being the most obvious- the problem with that is obviously individual games can seriously skew the points total
- is a goal scored against 9 men worth the same as one scored against 11 - should the 7th goal in a rout be worth the same as each goal  in a 1- 1 hard fought draw- should you get an extra point for every three goals - would team just stop when they got to 3 -

other options considered were scrapping the offside rule - the counter was teams would just drop deep to cover the goal langer -

only allowing three defenders in the final third etc etc



statistically I dont think the three points instead of two has made that much difference to the title winners has it?