Should Fulham Go All Out Attack Away From Home?

[White Noise]

http://cravencottagenewsround.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/away-wins-and-the-blackpool-effect/


Away wins and the Blackpool effect


November 1, 2011

rich


If there was a criticism of the Roy Hodgson era it was that away from home we never really seemed interested in attacking.  Hodgson denied that we played differently on our travels, but anyone who watched the team scuffle to horribly attritional narrow defeats in those seasons knows better: we kept everyone behind the ball and hoped that inspiration might strike.  It never did, unless we had either secured our Premiership status or needed to win to stay up, in which case all of a sudden things became different (as did results).

Football has always been a conservative game run by conservative people who knew what they liked and liked what they knew. Outside influences have been foisted on our game in the Premiership era, but the prevailing ethos in British football remains a 'get stuck in' version of 4-4-2, with perspiration not far behind points as the barometer of success (I exaggerate for effect... but not by much).

So when it comes to playing away from home there's never been much of a challenge to the 'hope for the best' approach. "Win your home games" is the mantra for any struggling side, as if whatever obstacles (mental or otherwise) are erected before/in away games really can't be overcome so a defensive approach is probably best.

Nobody's ever really understood home field advantage.  Certainly the crowd might help (or not, if it's restless), travel arrangements might make a difference of course, and basic familiarity with the environment/pitch must play a part.  Some say that defending your own patch is an intrinsic human trait and accounts for home teams' improved performances. Others suggest it's all about refereeing.  Probably all of these are important, each contributing a small edge and combining to make a larger one.

But in addition to all this, I've always thought a lot of away day blues are down to the aforementioned negative approach: teams tell themselves that going away from home is harder, adjust their play slightly, which then makes it harder to play away successfully. It feels like there should be a latin phrase to slip in here.  Quintus sunt latrimae rerum.

Then last season Blackpool came into the league and Ian Holloway had them attack everyone.  This was initially successful as superior teams were blown away by this unexpected barrage of tangerine madness.  Blackpool lost their way and lost a lot of games, but their approach was instructive: positive play away from home actually yields results!

http://www.statto.com/football/teams/blackpool/2010-2011/results



Now we learn that this year's season has enjoyed more goals per game and more away wins than ever before.  Is this the Blackpool effect?  Is this something we should be copying?

[MJG]

I think it does have a lot to do with Blackpool, but I also think it goes a bit wider than that.
The subjects having an effect on the football we are watching I believe come from the following:

-Poorer defenders. The art of defending is changing, because of the laws of the game, formations and skill levels.

-The Barcelona effect. It's lovely to watch and it's effective. Teams are more open to attacking in numbers, also their use of the fullbacks as wide men really. Also look at their center backs now, you have Mascherano playing there sometimes.

-Blackpool......attack-attack-attack philosophy away from home. Better to get two wins away than 5 draws away. They seemed to not fear teams (especially first half of the season) and this seems to be how the three promoted teams have started this season and then look at the established Prem teams near the bottom still playing the cautious way they have done for years. Is it a coincidence that all three of us who came up together are struggling? Also you have to start well and get points on the board or it's a long hard season.

-Formations. With full backs being used higher up the field, if the holding midfielders don't do their job then gaps appear at the back, just watch Chelsea-Arsenal to see some of that. The move as we are trying to do to have 4 attackers plus the full backs means more attackers in the last third against less defenders sometimes.


I would love us to be more attacking away from home, but you know exactly what fans would say if we went away and lost 4-3 (Should have been more defensive, should have gone to 442 or 451, why are the full backs bombing on, etc etc)

I have listed a few things above but if I had to pick one thing that's the difference, it's the art of defending is being lost.

[epsomraver]

The only manager who really played the same away as at home was Tigana.

[FC Silver Fox]

You both talk a lot of sense. Can't help agreeing with you.

[jarv]

Don't know the numbers biut I recall in the Alec Stock era we used to win away quite often.  Mullery and Slough won the midfield and set Barrett, Conway and Earle on their way.
What a team!! 065.gif

[ron]

They say that cricket is the ultimate game of subtlety, but football at prem level demands a certain level of it. All out attack is maybe OK for extra time in a cup tie when trailing by an odd goal, not at any other time. At the end of the day (oops, I said it) Blackpool got relegated, so surely greater depth of thought is needed. 

[White Noise]

Blackpool possibly had the element of surprise on their side - no-one was expecting then to come and attack away from home. It would have been interesting to see if sides worked them out in a second season.

[ron]

Blackpool possibly had the element of surprise on their side - no-one was expecting then to come and attack away from home. It would have been interesting to see if sides worked them out in a second season.

A repeat of history in the early 'sixties when Ipswich, on the roll with two successive promotions, took the old 1st Division by surprise and took the trophy with the striking power of messrs Crawford and Phillips......having been worked out, down they went..........even we got to manage ten against them! ...(OK, OK forget the 2-4 defeat the following weekend when they sobered up !).......

[MJG]

Blackpool possibly had the element of surprise on their side - no-one was expecting then to come and attack away from home. It would have been interesting to see if sides worked them out in a second season.

I think the newer clubs have the surprise element and momentum from promotion.
If you look at Hull & Blackpool, both great for half a season and then Hull almost went down first season and just stayed up and Pool fell out the lge like a stone.

As I said below, teams start getting defensive, they realise 'god we can stay up' and play a different way. Also second time round clubs have cottoned on to how they play.

[HatterDon]

If you build your side to be solid in defense and quick on the counter-attack, then you should relish going on the road. Stifle the home attack for 15 minutes and the crowd gets on them. They go a bit overboard trying to get the upper hand and you nail them with a quick counter. OR, EVEN BETTER, nick an early goal against an attacking team, pull back and keep your shape, and they'll come at you with everthing. Quick counter can be nail in their coffin time.

The problem is if you are a team who always wants to play the ball out of defense on the ground with repeated short passing. If you do that exclusively, then you can't counter attack quickly. I'm not proposing long ball tactics, but I do think that the quick two-or-three man move works very well as a change of pace. Witness Murphy to Zamora to Dempsey to 0-1 at Wigan.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

If you build your side to be solid in defense and quick on the counter-attack, then you should relish going on the road. Stifle the home attack for 15 minutes and the crowd gets on them. They go a bit overboard trying to get the upper hand and you nail them with a quick counter. OR, EVEN BETTER, nick an early goal against an attacking team, pull back and keep your shape, and they'll come at you with everthing. Quick counter can be nail in their coffin time.

The problem is if you are a team who always wants to play the ball out of defense on the ground with repeated short passing. If you do that exclusively, then you can't counter attack quickly. I'm not proposing long ball tactics, but I do think that the quick two-or-three man move works very well as a change of pace. Witness Murphy to Zamora to Dempsey to 0-1 at Wigan.

The other option is to press and win the ball higher up the pitch - as seen with Dembele's goal. Sidwell pressed, won the ball and launched a counter from within the wigan half.

Of course this method does not work against good teams as they rarely lose possession in this way.

[richie17]

pressing requires high energy in midfield and pace at the back (because of the high line). We're short of both which is why we tend to sit deeper and keep shape, which is the alternative to pressing.  The downside to this is that we win the ball further from the opponent's goal so either need pace in attack to strike quickly or simply have to build up like we do, which sadly affords opposing teams plenty of opportunity to regroup.  and if they do press, we can get a bit stuck in our own half.

[Tom]

To answer you question WN, sure why not. What we have been doing hasn't been working so why not change it up and plus we haven't be getting it done on the road or getting points except for the Wigan game.

[Burt]

Underpinning any successful team is a solid defence.

It would be good to see a bit more ambition away from home, but not at the expense of leaving the back door open.

[Tom]

Underpinning any successful team is a solid defence.

It would be good to see a bit more ambition away from home, but not at the expense of leaving the back door open.

You never want to leave your back door open! Personally mine is a one way street.  065.gif