Im confused, how did it take so long for long ball to become so irrelevant? When I watch games from 2003 every team just lobs the ball up over and over.
Most coaches prioritise keeping possession and not losing it. Long balls make it a far more riskier proposition
Defensive low bloc kills it.
For a long time long ball tactics were the baseline coaching model for up and coming British coaches and managers getting their coaching badges. It made sense given that the majority of coaches were never going to coach at a level higher than sunday league so they were taught to set up their teams in a way that wasn’t reliant on high technical skill from the players. Essentially just teach players how to play a long pass and put a couple of big strong players up front to pressure the defenders.
However, even the top level managers all started their coaching badges at the same point so this style of football filtered right through to the top levels in Britain. It’s been said that had Messi been born in England he probably would never have made it as a top level player due to his size. As a small player he likely would have flown under the radar (no pun intended) in his youth academy days and not been given the opportunities and game time to develop that a bigger player would have. He didn’t fit the mould of what English coaches were trained to look out for at the time and therefore would probably have been ignored until it was too late to turn him into the player he had the potential to become.
Tactics come in and out of fashion and every few years new ones become more popular as others die out. Once teams use one style for a while, other teams figure out how to defeat it. So teams have to switch it up after it becomes too stagnant. The nature of the game leads to tactical phases
The condition of the field/pitch is so much better, and stadiums in the UK are far more enclosed than they used to be.
long ball was effective in the past because it suited the playing style and strengths of certain players. The game has evolved, and now it’s more about possession and quick, precise passing. Different eras, different tactics.
People didn’t understand how useless they tended to be, probably. This is true of many, many, many sports strategies in almost every sport that were rarely subjected to rigorous analysis until the last 30 years. People get all upset about this, but it’s a fact, and being upset about it doesn’t change it.
If you can’t trust the evenness of the pitch, pass through the air.
Long ball isn’t inneffective. One example is you still see Man City with Ederson launching it up to Haaland be very effective, and you still see the art of the long diagonal played by deep lying midfielders and CBs, as a Spurs fan, I remember Alderweireld being expert at picking out a Winger or Dele running between the lines. There’s only two types of pass, a good one and a bad one. Top teams don’t build their team around long ball because there is a certain amount of randomness and innacuracy with long passes which leads to a lack of control. There has been a significant effort in England for decades now to nurture technique and considering most Managers in the Prem are continental and will bring a continental philosophy and approach to how they play, rather than the old school long ball merchants of yesteryear.
It’s got to do with fact that football strategy and tactics have evolved. Now teams press a lot more than before and try to control the game possession wise. Long balls do not have a great success rate . If you watch those 2003 games with lots of lobs - try and see how many of those didn’t work the first time but ball was somehow recycled by same team either in the second touch or third move. Even if they lost it the opposition team got the ball and didnt straight away move ahead with a dangerous move - as everyone was scattered in the ground . Now a days the pressing is relentless - as soon as that long lob is mid handled - there are atleast 2-3 players around to get the ball away from you and if your own team isn’t well positioned - opposition will immediately recycle the ball into a dangerous counter attack. So basically now the risks are much higher than reward compared to early 2000s - when playing a long lob
It’ll naturally evolve back to long ball at some point
They aren’t really irrelevant. They still work, but they are riskier. Putting the ball in the air like that is essentially making a pass 50/50 instead of a closer pass.
What is long ball?
Going long with the ball. Basically a tactic that relies on getting the ball forward with the least number of passes aka 1. Where the keeper /CB punts in 40-50 years down to the striker.
Pros are that the ball moves quickly into attack. Cons are that the striker must be able to hold the ball under heavy pressure and the pass must be accurate otherwise you end up overturning possession.
Kind of dead today where most teams prefer to play with a striker who presses and is more involved in the buildup play.
One of the best examples of long ball football is big Sam teams or stoke when they just joined the PL.
They are not irrelevant, nor they were very popular before, but I agree, they were used much more in the past.
My opinion is that this might have to do with the characteristics and roles of the strikers compared now and before.
Strikers now are more involved in the game play, passing, moving with the ball, so they are generally smaller than before, and a little bit faster now.
Previously strikers were more used as an anchor for the offensive plan, playing a long ball for the striker, which he will try to hold on it until the team and the wingers move to their positions.
Now it is a little different, as strikers are part of the passing more, like Benzema or Suarez.
I like it more now to be honest.
So would it be fair to say that Haaland is a very old school striker? Considering how he doesn’t get involved in the play too much and is often used as an anchor like you described.
Nah he’s too quick, too technically good to be old school and doesn’t play with his back to goal all that much, because City don’t need him to. If anything Haaland is most lethal as a counter attacking player because of his pace and power or just as a pure instinctive finisher in the box.
True old school long ball football has two strikers, a big man and little man in a 4-4-2. Big man plays back to goal, the team launches diagonal balls to him and he holds it up so everyone else can get forward. Little man, who is quick, plays off him and finishes off the chances. Kevin Phillips and Niall Quinn are about as good an example of this as you’ll see.
I think what happened was that having two guys up top with little defensive responsibilities stopped working against teams with an extra man in the middle, so everyone evolved towards a 4-3-3. At the same time, everyone got technically loads better and much fitter and stronger, so suddenly you have a generation of strikers who can do both things - finish, play on the counter and also hold up and distribute the ball.
Your typical ‘forward’ of 2023 - quick, technical guy who isn’t an absolutely lethal finisher but can create and play anywhere across the front 3 - didn’t really exist as a prototype 20-30 and certainly 40 years ago, you were either a striker or a winger. Now everyone is a Marcus Rashford type.
I see a little bit of old school in Ivan Toney and before that, Jermaine Defoe. Wout Weghorst is definitely old school.
Funny to mention Weghorst since he’s Dutch and 4-4-2 has never really been been a thing here. 4-4-3 has been the default formation at every amateur team for decades.
4-4-3 has been the default formation at every amateur team for decades.
todd boehly should have purchased ajax
Defoe and crouch
This is how Wrexham play. Mullin the little guy and Palmer the man mountain.
I like the big man big man combo like Dyche’s Burnley side. Chris Wood and Ashley Barnes together
Despite being so tall and big, he’s also ridiculously fast for his size so he actually makes loads of runs in behind rather than playing with his back to goal and being a target man involved in the link up.
He is a target man in the sense that he is a tall body to cross the ball to though.
Giroud fits the bill of an old school target man the most, but he was also a great passer and had amazing link up play
Tactics are always changing and people learn how to nullify once effective tactics. CB’s are a lot faster now than they used to be and they tend to sit just a little deeper meaning a CF will find it that much more difficult to beat them to a long ball over the top. These days more likely to be into the channel where the wide player can get onto it when it is used as thats where the space often is.