0
Quote
PART ONE
We all know how frustrating it can be to let a narrow lead slip away very late on, particularly if it's a match we were in control of for the most part, or perhaps even dominated. Arguably the most popular approach to winding down the clock and hang on to a result is to adopt a Contain strategy, alongside a combination of touchline instructions, such as Drop Deeper, Stay On Feet and Stand Off Opposition. Many apply this as a universal rule in their matches. The potential problem with this approach is that such changes may actually be counter-productive. Simply put, sometimes the manager doesn't necessarily need to be so defensive. It could make conceding more likely.
There are various different ways in which the manager can neutralise the opposition in order to clinch that vital result. The purpose of this article is to explore each avenue and provide a framework for anyone who still doesn't feel entirely comfortable when the opposition becomes desperate and impetuous in the latter stages. In many cases, it really is a case of overlooking some fairly straightforward logic which can cause enough problems for your opposition to capitalise on and be more likely to score.
The main issue to consider when adopting an extremely defensive mentality is that it invites pressure. The opposition are allowed to advance and enter their attacking phases at will before warranting sustained pressure until they are (hopefully) dispossessed. So, this approach should be far from the manager's mind if he/she happens to have had the upper-hand for the vast majority of the match, or if the opposition happens to be a significantly weaker team that have been defending up until this point. If you have been able to control the match and peg the other team back, what merit is there in dropping back and finally giving them enough space to create chances? In this situation, a slightly reduced mentality and a modified approach geared towards keeping the ball can more than suffice. Not only is this likely to be a more practical way of thwarting the opposition under the circumstances, but it's also likely to represent less of a change compared with your starting tactic. It is important to be aware of this since your team's performance is penalised according to how much you deviate from your starting tactic. So, if you started the match with a positive approach entailing an Attacking or Control strategy, your team is always going to struggle more when suddenly switching to a Contain strategy, much more so than if you were going from Standard to Contain, for example. This may be a mechanical point of view, but it's difficult to overlook due to its significance.
Not only is the team being asked to do something drastically different, but it's also inviting unnecessary pressure on top of that. This logic, combined with consideration of the mechanical aspects, strongly advocates only slight modification when you're defending against a weaker team. So, possibly a Standard mentality, alongside shouts such as Get Stuck In, Pass To Feet and/or Retain Possession. This would more than likely ensure that your team eases off slightly and comfortably holds onto the ball, allowing you to still control the game, yet still be more than stable enough defensively, even if at the expense of attacking intent. The logic in not dropping back more than that? If the smaller team haven't been able to be particularly threatening throughout the game, then they're going to struggle just as much to do so now, even when getting more players forward. No need to back off and gift them the space on a plate that they've not been able to find otherwise. It's tempting fate and represents an unnecessary risk that only makes it more likely to concede.
Naturally, it's different if you are the smaller team attempting to maintain a flattering scoreline against more decorated opposition, or if you're any type of team that has been outplayed and outfought. If you have struggled to contain a team over the course of a match, it's inevitable that when they turn up the pressure that you'll be even more overrun than you were before. In short, under these conditions your best chance is to drop back and shut-up-shop. There is little to no chance of suddenly pressuring the opposition in ways that you've been unable to previously, so better to get men behind the ball, maintain the team's shape and try to weather the storm by being as difficult as possible to break down. So, a Contain or Defensive strategy, supplemented by shouts such as Drop Deeper, Stand Off Opponents, Stay On Feet, and Play Narrower.
An alternative and even more different way of approaching this stage of a match is to be counter-attacking. Generally speaking, this method will only be as effective as your team is at counter-attacking in general. So, if you haven't built a tactic around counter-attacking and been successful with it, this approach is most likely not your best option now, of all times, when such an approach would need to be at its most effective. Alternatively, if your team has enjoyed success playing counter-attacking football, then regardless of your team's stature in relation to your opposition, it can work very well and could even allow you to threaten on the break. A Standard, Counter or Defensive (depending on how far you're deviating from your starting tactic, as well as your team's performance on the day) mentality, in addition to the touchline instructions of Drop Deeper, and Clear Ball To Flanks, possibly Get Ball Forward, or even Pass Into Space in order to encourage longer balls that play your wingers into space, which can be particularly effective if the other team has adopted a 4-2-4 shape out of desperation. Stay On Feet and Stand Off Opponents is optional here. If a Standard strategy is used, it makes more sense for your team to not be backing off so much, or else why be higher up the pitch in the first place? In contrast, with a Counter strategy, lower closing down becomes more important, so Stand Off Opponents should definitely be considered, as this mentality requires more emphasis on team shape than Standard. With Defensive though, you may as well use both Stand Off Opponents and Stay On Feet. After all, your players are sitting so deep that they may as well be looking to force to the other team to break them down in the same way as discussed earlier when defending as a weaker team. Otherwise, if midfielders in particular too readily leaving their defensive positions, opposition midfielders and forwards alike may find enough space to go unchallenged and have enough time to produce dangerous shots just outside the penalty area. Allowing such attacks defeats the purpose and compromises the strengths of sitting so deep within your own half. With the right balance, you'll defend opposition attacks and give them something that they'll struggle with on the other end. That's the key if you want to be countering at this stage. If you don't have a direct threat that's causing problems, you're simply allowing the opposition to swiftly get the ball back, allowing them to attack you again. If this is happening and your wingers aren't getting anywhere close to the corner flag, it's a sign that you may as well be adopting a more defensive strategy geared more so towards frustrating and winding down the clock.
SUMMARY
If you're the stronger team, or simply the dominant one on the day, you run a greater risk of conceding late than if you ease off only slightly, slow things down when on the ball, and seek to disrupt opposition moves sooner than if you were sitting back and inviting them in. This in turn invites pressure which could be reduced by defending against it sooner.
If you're the weaker team, or the team that's been on the backfoot for most of the game, your best chance of salvaging that fortunate result is to sit deep and aim to ensure that the opposition runs into traffic when entering their attacking phase.
If you have pace down the flanks and are confident in your ability to dispossess opposition forwards, before distributing it down the flanks, or up to your striker(s) that will either threaten themselves or find your wingers in support, then by all means adopt this approach and don't favour an all-out defensive one.
Three very different approaches that are at their most effective under different conditions. There is no one size fits all, not even for this brief period of a game. Deciding which one is better in the circumstances can make the vital difference between grinding out a result, or letting it slip away.
Part Two of three will consider the significance and effects of Opposition Instructions.
Quote
PART TWO
Opposition Instructions can represent an insurmountable obstacle for a manager looking to keep it tight. After all, when set, they override your general instructions. This can cause problems, particularly when there are conflicts within a team's level of closing down. Case in point, if you are the weaker team or have been outplayed throughout the match, and you decide to drop back and defend from deep, you will more than likely have issued the team instructions of Stand Off Opposition and Stay On Feet. Consider the dilemmas that arise when your team are generally looking to keep their shape and force the opposition to break them down, yet on occasion, players are leaving their defensive positions in order to press one of the players who you told your team to Close Down Always. For as long as it's set, players will still do this. Needless to say, this can leave gaping holes when your defending players are sitting back and looking to crowd key areas, yet one or two (or maybe even more!) have compromised the team's defensive shape by adhering to Opposition Instructions.
It goes without saying that Opposition Instructions ought to be much more in tandem with your general team instructions when being very defensive in the last period of a match. While certain instructions may have been geared towards putting certain players under more pressure, or denying them options whenever possible, this goal is made much more difficult when the player is naturally getting more space and opportunities at a point in the match where your team is backing off. For this reason, Close Down Always becomes almost redundant, as well as risky when using a Contain or Defensive strategy, and even more so when the team are told to Stand Off Opposition. In the event of trying to restrict a player who is considered to be a threat, Tackling: Hard is a more forgiving way of trying to ensure that a creative player doesn't get to do too much damage. They obviously can't be treated like everyone else, so a tweak to the tackling intensity will be warranted. After all, if they're good on the ball, it's only natural that they will be more likely to break your defence down effectively than other opposition players, as well as being the most comfortable with the extra time on the ball due to the team looking to Stand Off Opposition. However, they are still less dangerous at this stage than if they were still subject to a Close Down Always instruction, regardless of how effective this approach may have been over the course of the match when the circumstances were very different. One thing that does remain consistent between the rest of the match and latter stages is how dangerous it is to aggressively close down wingers. If the opposition are struggling to go through the middle, yet are attacking one or both flanks with ease, purely due to the fact that the wingback is being eluded when trying to defend against the winger too early.
If your team are adopting a Contain or Defensive mentality, as well as having reduced closing down and tackling urgency, Show Onto Foot instructions can be utilised differently to normal. For example, if a winger is comfortable on either foot or even favours his inside foot, and they have been given you problems throughout the match when getting beyond your wingback, it can be useful to force them onto their inside foot, thus making it more likely that the only space available to them is if they cut inside. Even if that is where the player would prefer to go by virtue of preferring to be on that foot, this can be advantageous for the defending team if they are sitting back and crowding the middle, especially if your formation has a spare DMC that isn't marking anyone, or you have a spare DC due to playing 3 at the back. This approach should definitely be considered if you're uneasy about the prospect of continuous crosses into the box in this late period of the match, or aren't particularly confident about the corner kicks that are to be conceded even if the winger fails to execute a clean cross. Needless to say, allowing a winger to drift inward and onto his stronger foot is more dangerous and asking for trouble if your team isn't defending deeply and herding attackers into cul-de-sacs. Also, no such Show Onto Foot improvisations are practical with strikers. If they warrant the attention and favour one foot over the other, it's always better to try and reduce the probability of them getting a shot off with it. No exceptions.
Tightly Marking strikers who don't have superior heading ability or explosive pace can be even more restrictive when a team is being very defensive. This is simply due to the fact that they will have less space to work with even if they do elude their marker, unlike if your team is playing with a higher mentality where the consequences can be far less forgiving. The risks are less in this case, unlike with wingers, who even if Tightly Marked successfully previously, are likely to be supplied to feet, as opposed to being played into space or to head, which is when a wingback with similar pace and a superior heading ability could have succeeded in nerfing a winger for much of the game. However, when a winger is Tightly Marked in a defensive phase where the team is adopting a Contain or Defensive mentality, it can allow for the same problems as with higher closing down if he is Tightly Marked. After all, the wingback is forced to put in a tackle much sooner than if he were sitting deeper and looking to deny the winger space, before putting in a tackle when it's more likely to dispossess. Tightly Marking a central midfielder can also be a problem when it may not have been previously, especially if your defensive shape represents two banks of four, because space could open up too readily in the middle, which is the area you should be seeking to keep tight above all else when using Contain or Defensive. An AMC can still be Tightly Marked, but only if your formation uses a DMC. Caution should be exercises though when a team uses a diamond variant. After all, the AMC can very easily find either man ahead of him, especially the support striker, who may otherwise have been under immediate pressure from your DMC had he not been so tight to an AMC. Against formations with an AMC behind 1 striker, the consequences are much less severe since, by default, the striker is still outnumbered and won't be as dangerous, even if passed into space by an AMC.
Opposition Instructions being left to the Assistant Manager and largely forgotten about is one of the most common reasons as to why a team struggles to cope with the pressure from its opposition going all-out for the elusive equalizer/winner. In addition, even for the manager who is meticulous about setting his own substitutions at the start of a match, opposition substitutions are often forgot about. This negligence can be particularly costly when a central creative player, a towering striker, or a slow but technically sound winger are able to play to their strengths, with no specialised defensive methods deployed to deal with them. There can be no denying that without due attention given to Opposition Instructions, far too many holes can open up depending on how many conflicts there are between the amount of them set in relation to your general team instructions. This applies regardless of how high your assistant's tactical knowledge rating is.
Part Three of three will consider the significance of player roles, tactical systems and formations.
Edited by Validicus, 20 August 2011 - 05:14 PM.
