- Why do teams use it?
- How to differentiate between modes of counterpressing
- Why counterpressing is pre-emptive, not reactive
A counterpress is a coordinated action to prevent a defensive transition – ie a scenario where your team is being counterattacked as you try to regain shape. Simply put – your team seeks to regain possession via a press in a timely manner.
A counterpress can be used defensively - to prevent a counterattack, or offensively - to retain possession, thus retaining territory or pressure, or to create a simulated state of disorder upon which you can capitalise.
Ultimately, you're preventing a defensive transition.
I will analyse zonal counterpressing by analysing Klopp’s Liverpool, and positional counterpressing by analysing Guardiola’s Manchester City.
Liverpool’s Zonal Counterpress:
As presented by @Worville, Liverpool frequently make low-probability crosses from wide, and often from deep.
Aside from just crosses, their general progression game also revolves around out-to-in balls, into central zones.
An example is the use of Trent Alexander Arnold, who is the perfect candidate for this mode of progression. It may seem ‘‘very trial and error’’ – or worse, ‘‘hit and hope’’, but the beauty is in the detail. TAA attempts these balls in build—up, progression and creation.
Henderson/Elliot rotate wide in possession, as Trent inverts to maintain central numbers. They also look for those out-to-in balls.
Liverpool often play into zones of ‘‘Simulated Transition’’ - where Liverpool almost create a counterpressing opportunity to capitalise on the opposition’s defensive disorganisation when they are dangled the carrot of ball possession.
We can see how they 1) have the numbers to press after a turnover and 2) are triggered to collapse on the zone where the pass/cross is zipped into. This allows them to create pressure, choke opposition and retain possession.
The same mode of zonal counterpressing occurs when Trent is central and one of Henderson/Elliot is out wide.
Liverpool’s counterpress is not only active, triggered by the ball entering the zone, but pre-emptive: their in-possession set-up facilitates it.
Similarly, Manchester City utilise a pre-emptive counterpressing system, discussed below:
Guardiola has City set up with overloads in build-up, be it the 3-2 or the revamped 2021/22 system where rotations create a 2-3 system. City have up to five players in close proximity of the ball in most phases of possession.
City’s approach is positional: they ensure the overloads are where ball possession is in the phase - be it build-up or otherwise. Upon losing possession, they are close by to foul, prevent counter attacks and regain territorial dominance.
City implement this in most phases. By using rotations, they can overload all phases. Their counterpressing approach is cold and efficient; and has facilitated their immense defensive record in the past year.
Ultimately, Liverpool’s zonal approach is more reminiscent of an automatism-based system and when done poorly (due to fitness, injury or otherwise) can result in periods of conceding big chances.
City’s approach is far less risky but is a completely different implementation of the same idea (counterpressing). It has been interesting to compare these approaches and view the relative successes and failures.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Analysing the Role of Inverted Fullbacks in the EPL this Weekend: [Thread]
Manchester United:
- Shaw - ineffective when inverted: 4/10
- Wan Bissaka - offered verticality from underlaps and created chances (plus the goal): 8/10
Spurs:
- Udogie - inversion left Son isolated at times: 5/10
- Emerson Royal - scored, and gave rise to Skipp and Kulusevski's balance on the right wing: 6/10
Erik Ten Hag is revolutionising the way Manchester United play football. This isn’t without difficulty however – Ten Hag’s approach is risky and requires substantial change. This thread explores the topic of personnel and risk vs reward when considering ETH's principles. [Thread]
There are three key facets to consider in this discussion:
- The risky nature of Ten Hag’s principles
- The quality and implementation of coaching
- The players: in terms of individual profiles and team make-up
Further, some parameters to consider when evaluating the relative success/failure of Ten Hag’s approach:
- Time it takes to implement principles
- Limiting factors (player quality & profiles, execution of principles, luck)
- What is to be considered a success
📌 How Erik ten Hag's Manchester United struggled against West Ham's mid-block - and what this means for the players and Ten Hag's principles of play [thread].
Manchester United and West Ham lined up as such:
West Ham sat in a 442 mid-block and looked to attack United in transitions - building attacks through hold up play and direct dribbling, before subsequent set-pieces.
United were matched player for player in build-up and progression, and struggled for inspiration.
📌 Using Data to Identify Areas Where Erik ten Hag Can Improve Manchester United [thread]:
Before looking at areas at United that Erik ten Hag can improve at United, it could be worth reviewing the principles of play Ten Hag has implemented as a coach at Ajax recently:
This is 100% true. Players who doubt, don’t have confidence or clarity. They’re susceptible to possession loss, they slow down play, they’re less likely to execute actions well.
For me, there are three main aspects to achieving clarity:
1) understanding of system and principles
2) understanding of what you’re going to do
3) coaching/instructions from teammates
Ultimately, a system or coaching in that vein (#1) alleviates the prerogative of a player to make a decision in each given circumstance (#2).
To achieve absolute clarity and confidence in your actions, in any given state of the game (with time on the ball or under pressure, when you have multiple options or when you have no options), you need that overarching set of principles.
📌 The Titanic Battle Between Pep Guardiola and Diego Simeone [mini-thread]:
Atleti began in a 532 block, with City implementing their usual build-up strategies. Advantage City; over 90 minutes they would most likely have broken this block down; the progression angles are favourable and they had ultimate control in build-up.
City were able to build in their regular manner. They had an advantage over the front two, and could access most of the players in the progression chain easily, accessing their wingers.