As another season of amateur football draws to a close here in NSW, most players, teams and clubs are glaring at their division points tables to see what needs to be done to the numbers to ensure a finals spot, or to avoid relegation.
As they do, I can’t help but feel these numbers give rise to a very ugly and very useless style of football: the “Kick and Chase” game. Worse yet, I see clubs proudly parading teams that employ this style if it achieves the desired result.
I contend that this style of football not only has no effect in determining a team’s table ranking, but that it has no long term worth in football. Let’s look at some real numbers to see why.
First though, let’s define the only two styles of football that are played in the amateur leagues: kick and chase, and passing.
The kick and chase style can be seen as an unrefined version of a counterattacking style (e.g. Italy), while the passing style can be seen as an unrefined version of the Tiki-taka style (e.g. Spain).
Regardless of any other stylistic quirks, it is clear that the major characteristic of both styles is the percentage of possession employed by each. Tiki-taka aims for maximum possession, while counterattacking purposefully employs a low percentage of possession.
Proponents of either style would claim the validity of that style based on the results of their team. However, I suggest that only the passing style can claim their results reflect the value of their team, and that the results of the kick and chase team only reflect the value of their opponents.
Greater possession equals greater results
Let’s take an extreme example to look at the connection between possession and results. If you have 0% possession during an entire game, you would of course have a 0% chance of winning, but you may lose.
If you maintain 100% possession during a game, you would have a 0% chance of losing, but you may win. At the very least, we can say that as possession increases (from 0% to 100%) the chances of a more favourable result increase (from definitely not winning to definitely not losing).
Now, I am aware that the chances of a favourable result may not increase linearly. That is to say, if you have 20% possession during a game then you do not necessarily have a 20% chance of a favourable result, just as having 80% possession does not necessarily mean you have an 80% chance of a favourable result.
The only numbers we can be certain about are 0% and 100%, neither of which is likely to ever occur in football.
So why then should we bother to maintain possession? Well, to win a match you must score at least one goal. To score a goal you must have at least some possession. Let’s say that any team has a percentage chance to score a goal each minute they retain possession. We don’t know what this chance is, but it’s fair to a make a general claim that they do have some chance.
If this is the case, then the longer any team retains possession the more likely it is that they will score a goal.
Let’s say a team has a 50% chance to score every minute they retain possession. In the first minute, you have a 50% to have scored at least one goal. In the second you have a 75% chance to have scored at least one goal. The third, an 87.5% chance.
While it may not be possible to determine what percentage chance a team actually has to score while in possession, we can at least say with certainty that the more possession a team has, the more likely they are to have scored a goal.
So now we know two things about possession. The more you have, the less likely you are to lose a match and the more likely you are to score a goal. These seem like good things for any football team, but how do they specifically relate to passing and counterattacking football styles?
Controlling your own destiny
We’ve talked a lot about possession, but how does a team actually acquire it? It might be too hard to determine how a team specifically wins possession, but we can say that in the strictest sense, a team has possession when the opposing team loses it.
Now consider what teams do with possession. When a kick and chase team obtains possession, they immediately and intentionally give it up by kicking the ball as close as possible to their opponents goal, hoping it will be regained by their team.
When a passing team obtains possession, they actively work to retain it through further passing. Given that possession is only gained by a team when it is lost by their opponent, a passing team effectively dictates its level of possession while a kick and chase team has its level of possession dictated by its opposition.
We have already established that possession directly affects the likelihood of scoring and the chances of a more favourable result.
We have also established that passing teams dictate their level of possession while kick and chase teams have theirs dictated by their opponents. Given this information, we can say by extension that passing teams dictate their chances of scoring and obtaining a more favourable result while teams that play kick and chase do not.
In short, passing teams control their destiny, while kick and chase teams leave their results to fate.
The illusion of results
But wait, why do so many teams play kick and chase and seem to get good results? How often do we seen teams in professional or amateur league resort to kick and chase football to try and stave off relegation? There must be some effectiveness to this strategy right?
The short answer is no, the effectiveness is a complete illusion, but let’s take a more detailed look at why with the following example:
– A competition is played with 10 teams
– Team A plays passing football very well such that they win 99.9% of their games
– Team B plays passing football very poorly such they win 10% of their games
– Team C plays kick and chase. Their possession, and therefore their results, are dictated by their opposition
– All other teams are listed as X and we have no data on how they play or how good they are
At the end of the season, the points table is as follows:
1st: A
2nd: X
3rd: X
4th: C
———————
5th: X
6th: X
7th: X
8th: X
9th: X
10th: B
Team A has come first, team C has obtained a finals spot by finishing in the top four and team B has finished last. Given the styles of play, and the impact of possession on results what can we say about how each team has performed?
Team A has directly controlled their results and won 99.9% of their games through possession. They are a quality team and deserve to be in first.
If you were to guess how they might perform against a random team, you could reasonably guess that they would win. Team B has directly controlled their results but has lost the majority of their games because they are bad at retaining possession. If you were to guess how they might perform against a random team, you could reasonably guess they would lose.
About Team C, most interestingly, we can say absolutely nothing, because their results are entirely dictated by their opponents. If you were to guess how they might perform against a random team, you would have no idea as it would be dependent on the team.
You might think that coming fourth is a decent result, but lets consider how this result was achieved.
Team C played against team A who has a 99.9% chance of winning, and of course lost. They played against team B, who has a 10% chance of winning, and of course won. They also played against all other teams, and on average came fourth.
So whereas team A can say they came first because they are the best team, team C can only say they came fourth because on average all other teams won and lost such that team C was ranked fourth.
Imagine now, that team C has to play team A in the finals of this competition. When team C plays matches against the whole competition they average out as a fourth place team. However the final is just a one off game, and as team C’s chances of winning are dictated by their opposition they have only a %0.01 chance to win the final.
In other words, they will never beat team A.
So in the strictest sense, when winning the competition is the only result that matters, we can say that team B did no worse then team C. However, there is one major difference between the teams.
If team B improves its ability to retain possession through practice, it will have a better chance to win the competition. However, team C, playing the kick and chase style cannot influence its chances to win the competition at all.
So let’s do a quick recap:
– Possession directly influences the chances of a favourable result
– Possession directly influences the chances of scoring
– Passing football actively works to increase possession
– Passing football dictates a team’s quality
– The quality of a kick and chase team is dictated by its opposition
Once we know all of this, we know the futility of playing kick and chase football. If it looks like playing kick and chase football has saved your team from relegation, or has earned you a finals spot, look again. You will see that all that has happened is that enough teams in your competition have failed to play with the quality required to relegate you or prevent you from making the finals. If you want to play kick and chase, you may as well be playing the football lottery.
If you want to play to win, you better start playing a passing style.
Isn’t it a lot more fun to play anyway?
Futbanous
Guest
Interesting debate this. Went to watch the Roar yesterday by invitation of Rado(Roar fans in general via email)to watch a training session & intra club match at Ballymore. Throughout a lifetime of watching football I can count on one hand the number of times I've observed professionals at training,being mainly a fan at professional matches or watching on TV. Rado promised intensity & intensity we got. As its still fresh in my mind that intensity ensures that no matter the style long/short passing or various combinations of both or individual dribbling/brilliance can never be 100% perfect That sort of turns any thought of possession football being a holy grail for any football team to aspire to to be a furphy. What we get out of this debate as far as I can determine is that skill/technique is paramount. The higher the skill level the more you can produce an error free game be that any of the skills,aspects of the game mentioned above. This then ensures that you can up the ante regarding intensity whereby skill/technique overrides physicality & that is essentially in my book what football is about. Otherwise we wouldn't revere Messi & the like throughout different eras as football devotees. BTW don't know how other A-League teams train, but I saw the Roar in a trial match against Newcastle under Frank Farina just before his last A-League season & the intensity was lukewarm compared to this split Roar battle. If you follow the adage you play like you train then the Roar are well & truly on the right track. Plenty of mistakes(even a fumble by our NEW goalkeeper MIchael Theo-loved the chant by Roar fans of Michael BTW) up front particularly,but this should be ironed out by the new season.
jbinnie
Guest
Ian Forget all this nonsensical description given to forms of defence,they are simply applied ideas of coaches who will stick with them until they come unstuck. As a student of the game it is far better to envisage a "defender" as a person playing in a team that does not have possession of the ball.Every man in that team has to think in what way he can contribute to winning the ball back for his side. Conversely, an "attacker" is a person playing in the team that does have possession.Every man in that team has to try and make his opponent's job, as described above, as difficult as possible. This is usually accomplished by good receiving of the ball,quick and accurate passing,and constant movement AWAY from the player who is trying to close down their space,thus supplying as many options to the man who is actually contolling the ball at any given moment. If you think along these lines and apply the "perfect football theory" you will see to what level the theorists think the game can be taken in a perfect environment. Cheers jb
jbinnie
Guest
Ian - You are arguing a moot point here. Sure a defender can try to close down an opponent or even read and attempt, an intercept but if the attacker is also playing "perfect football" that would not,could not, occur ,for he would never make a "bad" pass and if his teamates were also playing "perfect football" they would constantly "lose" the opponents who were trying to "mark " them and provide multiple options for the ball carrier. So we come back to the original theory,"perfect football" cannot be played without the ball so in fact there is no such a thing as "perfect defense" in the theory Good defense is a worthwhile target for a coach to aim for,no doubt, but in the "perfect game".it would be impossible for the defending team to get possession ,not until the ball was in their net. Then it would be their turn to play "perfect football" Gets you thinking doesn't it????? jb
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Jbinnie, You're assuming man defense through all of that. What if the defenders are in zone ?
jbinnie
Guest
Wisey- You truly have your thinking cap on. The theory is not new, A well known tactician and coach once spelled out to his players that if everyone did their job properly the following could occur------ The goalkeeper could pass the ball 20m out to his fullback who would have taken up space away from his marker, He in turn would "receive" and in one touch could pass the ball another 20m to his playmaker who would also have "lost" his marker. The playmaker could then pick out his fast wingman with another 20m pass and using his pace he could carry the ball another 20m before squaring the ball into the box where the strlker,finding space, could score.So, in using 4 x 20m accurate passes,some good movement into space offering options ,and using minimal dribbling skills,the ball could travel from one goal to the other net and the learned gents of the press would be calling it the "goal of the year",and yet it is simply the application of skills being used by 5 team members.That's the sort of play coaches strive for,not the endless "keeping of possession" that only allows a well organised team to regroup "behind the ball". Theoretical---yes,----but possible? again - yes. Yours in football jb
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Michael, Theres a bit of chicken-and-egg, as even with amateurs, if you want to play a long-ball game, you concentrate training time on speed and endurance, while if you want to play a possession game, you concentrate on passing, receiving and moving into space. Training endurance and pace can be done with a stopwatch. Training skills is harder.
Ian Whitchurch
Guest
Jbinnie, But perfect defense would result in the defender being in a position to move into the space where that pass was going to be, and thus make the best decision not to make that now-risky pass. Generally, attacking teams can play as well as defending teams let them.
wisey_9
Roar Guru
Loving this idea of the "perfect game". I think it would end up 5-5ish Each team should be able to keep possession and score without the other team touching the ball. Even a 'keeper/defense that does everything right can be unlocked by the perfect play.
Michael
Guest
Good article, lots of comments. It all depends on the age of your amateur footballers and their abillity levels. As an active coach in junior level, I can tell you that even within the same grade, skill levels within the team and from team to team vary so VASTLY that making lovely calculations about possession and teaching tech skills doesn't work. Kick and chase can be a very valuable tool to allow a lesser technically developed team to salvage some dignity from a 9-1 whipping. Even technically proficient teams often opt for a kick & chase tactic which then leads to a lovely "passing game" attack of 4 or 5 passes resulting in a goal. In my experience, amateur football is not as simple as theory suggests. I have tried with all my might to instill a passing game into a team of mixed technical skills and success is very limited. There are many more variables involved than whether players kick and chase or play tika-takka. I think what you are talking about might be more applicable in a professional league where players have similar skill levels and similar commitment to the sport.
jbinnie
Guest
Ben - You have been thinking & it shows in your thoughts. The purpose in putting the inane question is that without the ball no team can play "perfect football", for the attacking team,in possession & playing perfect football, will ultimately score & in doing so will give that precious "possession" to the opposition. If the formerly defending team then play "perfect " football the whole episode will be repeated. So we come back to the "possession' question without which a team cannot hope to play "perfect football". My definition of "perfect football" is where a team is so well drilled that through accuracy in "receiving", "movement" &" passing" they will move a ball from one end to the other & score without the opposition getting a touch at the ball.Whether that is achieved by accurately passing the ball 10m or 50m is totally irrevelant,the important factor being the consistency achieved during a passage of play up to the point of scoring. Cheers jb
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
Hi jbinnie, which is why I thought about it and it depends on the determination of "perfect", as technical perfection on both sides will result in stagnation which will result in emotional imperfection. Hence you cannot have a perfect game as technical and emotional perfection do not equate and at the end of the day football is a game of both. Keep thinking and enjoy :)
jbinnie
Guest
Ben of PP -I am not alluding to anything Ben, simply asking a theoretical question about what would be the result in the PERFECT game. Lets take basketball as an example. Over the years the people who set the rules for this sport have almost,but not quite, removed completely the opportunity to gain possession in a legitimate manner.Result - a fast moving, high scoring game, which moves almost enedlessly from end to end.Some people like that,others abhor the lack of opportunity to break down an attack before an attempt at a basket is made,or in waiting for an attacker to make a mistake, thus reducing the PERFECT angle on the game. Thus the "perfect game" I was theorising on would see every player do his job "perfectly",so I ask you again,what would the result be?????? Have fun thinking it out. Cheers jb
Stevo
Guest
Nice read JayBee. A theoretical analysis provides food for thought but hard statistics may reveal a slightly different picture (?). Would be interesting for someone to look at the short history of the HAL and analyze teams based on your categories of playing styles and see where they finished up on the ladder. Cheers
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
Depends if perfection is a tactical or an emotional evaluation, jbinnie, which is what I suspect you are alluding to.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
No, it depends on where you have possession and what you do with it. The Japanese sides of 6 or 7 years ago had superb possession statistics with little result. Now they play a slightly more direct style and are simply fantastic.
Bondy
Guest
Dinoweb. Good post.
jbinnie
Guest
jaybee - You have put a cat into a cage of budgies here have you not?. Let me ask you a question,but before you answer I want you to think long and hard about how you are arriving at your answer--------- Would the PERFECT game of football finish 0-0 or some outlandish score like 20-20.????????? Remember ,if the game were being PERFECTLY played,every player,including goalkeepers would not make any mistakes,defenders would never miss a tackle or intercept,midfielders would never play a bad pass, and strikers would hit the target every time (unless stopped by these PERFECT defenders doing their jobs) !!!!!!!.. This is of course a purely theoretical question but may give you insight into what managers and coaches are trying to achieve. jb.
AL
Guest
Would it not be based more on percentage in the oppositions pen area?
AL
Guest
Would it not be based more on percentage in the oppositions pen area?
JayBee
Roar Rookie
I did mention that the increase in possession does not equate linearly to an increase in a better result, but that it does increase. Surely you would agree from any standpoints, that the more possession you have, whether you are the kick and chase team or the passing team, the more likely you are to score (however slim that likelihood is). If a kick and chase team had a 50/50 chance to score with each pass forward, then even they would want more possession to try this.