Times might indeed be changing for the better in Australasian football. However, the most important things never change.
Matches are still 90 minutes of 11 versus 11. Whoever scores most wins. The beautiful goals continue, just like the defensive mistakes that lead to them: mis-kicks, poorly weighted passes, dangerous tackles, unfortunate first-touches and of course ball watching.
Former Western Sydney Wanderers coach Carl Robinson has said that you can analyse a match any way you want.
In my analysis, I have used Ken Bray’s definition of ball watching from his book, How to Score: Science and the Beautiful Game: “Ball watching is a severe criticism of a defender who fails to pick up a key attacking moment.”
Criticism about defenders conceding goals was coded in different words by the game’s insiders during the last A-League season. Commentators gushed words like switched off, criminal defending, unmarked, punch-drunk, just looking at the ball, the defence asleep, flat-footed and not following runners.
Coaches more kindly used euphemisms to describe their team’s defending.
Arthur Papas said the Newcastle Jets lost one of their matches because they were not disciplined enough.
Melbourne City’s Patrick Kisnorbo stated his team’s two lapses in concentration conceded two goals.
Nick Montgomery from Central Coast Mariners said it was sloppy of them to concede a goal.
After a very narrow loss, Brisbane Roar’s Warren Moon lamented that lack of concentration and a bit of fragility cost them dearly.
Warren Moon. (Photo by Albert Perez/Getty Images)
Players also are aware of the traps of ball watching. Sometimes.
The defenders of Melbourne Victory dealt best with these hurdles over the season, conceding the fewest number of goals where ball watching was evident (8).
In contrast, Wellington Phoenix conceded the most (22). It was no surprise that these two teams also reflected the fewest overall goals conceded (Victory, 25) and the most goals conceded (Phoenix, 49).
Recently Wellington Phoenix vice-captain Oli Sail was named Wellington Sports Personality of the Year. He brought this personality to match days.
Sail clearly understood his team’s vulnerability where ball watching was concerned. In goal and preparing for yet another corner during his team’s match against Melbourne City (9th May), he shouted at his defenders, “Don’t go towards the ball, hold your (expletive deleted) shape.”
Sail was referring to the shape which appeared to consist of some defenders marking one-to-one and others marking space.
Corner kicks therefore sometimes lull players into ball watching. That is also true for crosses, where the attacking team has achieved two of the principles of play, width and penetration. This makes the task of covering or tracking defenders doubly difficult.
Therefore, fullbacks or wingbacks tend to figure most when calculating numbers of ball watching errors by individuals, and strikers least.
For the purposes of clarity and consistency the analysis was limited to studying only the defender, just seconds before the goal was scored, who I think could have prevented the goal.
Across the A-League’s regular season 60 defenders made one ball watching error. Another 26 players made two mistakes. Six players erred thrice, three players four times and one player five times. Repeat offenders undoubtedly possess other attributes which make them invaluable to their teams.
There were also 22 goals scored where the defence collectively ball watched and it was inappropriate to identify an individual.
Actual goals conceded physically on the field of play were counted. Totals therefore vary slightly from the official statistics. The amendment of scores of two matches due to a breach of competition rules by Sydney FC was impossible to include here.
Total goals conceded: 455
Less penalties scored: 45
Less own goals: 21
Less direct free kicks scored: 7
Less inconclusive evidence: 9
This works out to 373 goals remaining.
Focused defending occurred for 204 goals. Focused defending was when, despite the best efforts of speedy and alert defenders, the attacker’s guile, pace and skill prevailed and a goal was scored.
Ball watching was observed for 169 goals conceded, 45 per cent.
Similarly, last season ball watching was observed for 176 goals conceded, 44 per cent.
Overall, the more things change the more they (almost) stay the same.
Pete Rodeka
Roar Rookie
To jbinnie - thanks, yes ball watching is a vague, slippery topic, so hard to pin down. I've heard coaches lament about the standard of young players' football education. Learning well when young is the ideal but I think there are times in a match when even the best and brightest fall into the trap. If ball watching is indeed a "sin", it is often one of omission which only the sinner knows about. I am an advocate for ALM coaches teaching their players more about this. To Brainstrust - I agree that ball watching may be only one of many mistakes immediately before a goal is scored. For purposes of clarity I don't consider other errors in the prelude to the score, as the last defender still has an opportunity to rectify those mistakes. This often happens. Nor do I analyse own goals. The first goal (an own goal) in the final is a very good case to consider here. It was unfortunate for the defender that this happened. I say good on him for being there and his great effort. He did his best, we can't ask for more than that. He was a focused defender. On the second goal scored my main concern was indeed on the Melbourne City defender Carl Jenkinson. I consider that he performed his marking duties extremely well, even touching Western United attacker Aleksandar Prijovic. Jenkinson's experience in the English Premier League showed because defenders (especially on corners) will even put both their arms around would-be runners. In this ALM final and at this man-marking moment it was extremely difficult for Jenkinson to push up to create an off-side situation. I believe that he did well enough to keep both his man and the ball in view. The ball moved so fast in this dynamic, close quarters situation. Movement triggers movement and with the unfortunate and unpredictable ricochet I considered that in this instance Jenkinson demonstrated focused defending.
jbinnie
Guest
joshua - your comprehension of "man marking" and "pressing" are slightly at odds. I think your comprehension of "man marking" goes further than was ever intended in football communication. "Man marking" and "man to man marking" are 2 completely different descriptions and in your example of the Leeds left back being drawn way out of position is actually a description of "man to man" marking. Man marking is where, upon your team losing possession of the ball, you immediately pick up the nearest opponent thus making it difficult for the now attacking team to find an "unmarked" team mate. The popular media have given this practice the "modern" name of 'pressing" a tactic thought to have been introduced by a young English manager called Taylor when he took his team from 4th division to 1st division in 5 seasons with no notable activity in the transfer market of the time, the early 1970's. So it can hardly be described as "modern". Cheers jb. .
Joshua Makepeace
Roar Rookie
This reminds me of a tactic which works, but only if you get the severity right, man-marking. It used to be the best way to isolate a sole striker (and still is if you ask my school teacher) but if you look at Marcelo Bielsa's Leeds last season you can see that high-level teams can easily expose extreme man-marking. Picture Heung-Min Son dragging Stuart Dallas (a Leeds full-back) into the Spurs half, leaving acres of space behind him, all because Bielsa told him to stick with Son. It may be effective in Sunday league, but modern managers now prefer a more energy-efficient pressing style. However, man-marking can still be used in some situations at the top level.
NoMates
Roar Rookie
I know some ALM teams have had there moments but ball watching being a heugh problems is BS.
Brainstrust
Roar Rookie
Concentrating on one thing ball watching and dividing everything into no ball watching equals ok, versus ball watching is the only mistake seems improbable. Just for example the two goals in the grand final. The first goal off a corner which was an own goal effectively if Prijovic got a touch it didnt seem to change the course of the ball, what you can say is you prefer players jump for the ball and meet the ball as early as possible. The second goal you can see some ball watching by Griffiths in the lead up he leaves Connor Pain completely alone and drifts to where the ball is, yet the criteria is ball watching only on the goal scorer. The big mistake is commited by Jenkison staying with Prijovic when the other defender plays the offside trap on Wenzell Halls while Connor Pain is closed down, that leaves Wenzel Halls onside and unmarked on the other side of the area to receive the ball. However the ball isnt played to the free Wenzell Halls or even the marked Prijovic, Connor Pain goes for the shot instead and then you get this double rebound, the double rebound is another piece of fortune, Jenkinson decides to play the offside after seeing the first rebound but the second rebound straight afterwards happens before he can moves forward of Prijovic. So can you give us an example of your analysis on these two goals.
jbinnie
Guest
Pete= A strange analysis to make, using a vague source of data ,into that of ball-watching, a habit rather than a football skill. You are correct in saying it is a bad habit found somewhere, sometime, in out top class football but as I say it is a habit in a player's make up rather than a flaw in the game itself. Ball watching is the complete antithesis to modern football, as player movement, whether defending or attacking, can govern whether a goal is scored or is well defended. The basis of that statement is that on the field there are 22 players but only one ball so a player who is concentrating on where the ball is is actually ignoring the two principles in the game, pick up a man when defending or lose your nearest opponent when attacking. Ball watching is evident in our top competition but the flaw, if one can call it that. is actually a "barometer " into a player's football education at an earlier age. When discussing tactics a coach at ALM level should not have to lecture on the "sin" of ball watching, that should have been fixed long ago in the player's education ,but sadly ,as your "investigation" points out .it is a part of our game much in evidence. Cheers jb.