Tactics talk: D.C. United's winning strategy
by Steve Davis on Sep 14, 2011 10:39 AM EDT
Email
PrintA bit of a chaser on yesterday's Charlie Davies' bit:
My topic in this week's Talking Tactics column at MLSSoccer.com was D.C. United's effective counter attacking strategy Saturday, key in the 3-0 win in Southern California. It seems that most people agreed with yesterday's rant, about one player getting disproportionate credit for United's big win.
But, if you're still now sure, the MLSSoccer.com tactics piece will help flesh out more of the whys and wherefores. Here is a sample platter (but click the link above the full entree.
"Most soccer fans share a conflicted relationship with counterattacking soccer.
On one hand, a doctrine of defend-and-counter smacks of tacit capitulation, a concession to limited options as the “weaker team.”
On the other hand, counterattacking plans executed with verve and precision can be a lovely and intoxicating thing, a strategic choice that fosters a fast game where chances spill out freely on either side. And who could have a problem with that?"
(In all candor, you can also file today's Daily Soccer Fix entry under "I'm darn busy, stepping lively to get things done so I can enjoy some of today's Champions League action ... so I'll just write about something I've already written about." I mean, if I'm being honest ...)
3 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Conflicted Relationship
I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that Steve. When a Chelsea (under Mourinho) with all their talent and big bucks, decides to go against lesser teams, defend in depth and rely on counters—I can appreciate the tactical and technical execution but hold them in contempt. But Barca are a great example of a team that counters a lot—but not b/c they defend. But b/c they play with high pressure, force errors and sometimes the error gets turned into 2-3 touches among 3 players and then a goal (or other than times it’s 15 touches over 45 seconds as it gets passed around and built up). But my point is: using a counterattack doesn’t have to mean committing to defense in depth. It could be the sign of a team that forces errors. Or one that seeks to use quick, one-touch passing to dissect a defense when they’re not in shape.
Whats the problem?
This only seems to be a problem if you think soccer “should” be played a particular way.
Counter-attacking is good strategy. What should they do, hold the ball until the defending team gets players behind it, and then start playing your “beautiful game” again?
It is not just for weaker teams, (I agree with JoeWillmore) but an effective strategy for the game. Play tough D, counter attack when you get the ball.
Some Disagreement with Brian
Brian, I disagree a little with your position. Countering as a team’s primary attacking strategy doesn’t work if both teams adopt this approach. Mourinho for instance has typically let other teams come forward so it creates space for his sides to go forward. So some teams than choose to not go forward. And we have 2-3 attackers going against 7-8 defenders. And that’s some stinky cheese.
In fact I would argue that relying on counters as a way to play is bad. It’s fine as a situational tactic—when you’re overmatched or undermanned. Plus every team should be capable of breaking out quickly when defending a free kick or corner and be able to snatch a quick goal when the opportunity presents itself.
But we see some teams who either counter…or they refuse to attack (just passing the ball around the backline. And that’s bad for the game.
