Tiki Taka vs Direct Football

[OldBob]

What would the fans prefer the team to play moving forward. Stick with Tiki Taka football or play direct football (not necessarily long ball)?

[An Away Move]

It all depends on outcome. 

[Ian Nacho]

Had to vote direct seeing as the poster is named Old Bob. 

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

Bit too black and white. Way too many imponderables. There’s tika Taka and there’s fluid football, there’s direct and there’s hoof it. Think what vast majority want is right style to fit any given situation without neglecting having an identity as a team.

[OldBob]

17 minutes ago, Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot said:

Bit too black and white. Way too many imponderables. There’s tika Taka and there’s fluid football, there’s direct and there’s hoof it. Think what vast majority want is right style to fit any given situation without neglecting having an identity as a team.

Granted, direct football has more variables. In a nutshell, should we carry on playing how we have over recent time or go direct, where if the pass in behind is on we play it or if the defenders/keepers under pressure and there’s no pass on, rather than playing a risky pass, we get rid of it. Not necessarily saying that’s what we do 100 percent of the time but we aren’t construed to all these rules of ‘playing the right way’. Pearson side had the best balance of everything in my opinion. Could play the passing game well at times but if there was a clear advantage of knocking it in behind we played it. Or if the opposition couldn’t handle a big man up top pressuring defences, we’d play the likes of Wood or Ulloa rather than Nugent or Vardy. 

Edited 9 June by OldBob

[Steve_Guppy_Left_Foot]

8 minutes ago, OldBob said:

Granted, direct football has more variables. In a nutshell, should we carry on playing how we have over recent time or go direct, where if the pass in behind is on we play it or if the defenders/keepers under pressure and there’s no pass on, rather than playing a risky pass, we get rid of it. Not necessarily saying that’s what we do 100 percent of the time but we aren’t construed to all these rules of ‘playing the right way’. Pearson side had the best balance of everything in my opinion. Could play the passing game well at times but if there was a clear advantage of knocking it in behind we played it. Or if the opposition couldn’t handle a big man up top pressuring defences, we’d play the likes of Wood or Ulloa rather than Nugent or Vardy. 

Personally would absolutely play the way you describe under Pearson. We don’t have the personnel to play the way we did last year in the prem and be competitive. Have to see what manager we get in and what they think is best.

[Stadt]

Who plays direct football successfully?

 

I’m an advocate for being direct when it’s right but the good sides all build up with primarily short passes.

 

Leverkusen are incredibly indirect.

[honeybradger]

Tiki take is fine when it works but is incredibly frustrating when it doesnt work ie. playing overly risky passes out from the back or taking a major risk to beat the press only to not capitalise on the space that's been created.

 

Possession managers seem to like to stroke their own egos by likening the style to a tactical game like chess but if it was chess then it would often times be an overly elaborate gambit that results in blunders and missed opportunities. At the end of the day it's about finding something that works, not what sounds the smartest on paper.

[OldBob]

32 minutes ago, Stadt said:

Who plays direct football successfully?

 

I’m an advocate for being direct when it’s right but the good sides all build up with primarily short passes.

 

Leverkusen are incredibly indirect.

Everton - despite their points deduction and not having any decent strikers when DCL is injured the majority of the time, they have managed to become a real tough team to come up against. In my opinion will kick on and get European place the end of this season coming 

 

West Ham - Moyes took over a team that was trying to play ‘nice football’ whiles being dragged into relegation and turned it into a solid mid table team that also now has a European trophy 

 

Brentford - Thomas Frank adapts to the teams he plays. They’ve been in the prem a number of seasons now despite not having the biggest budget. Even look how they dealt with their best striker in Tony not playing for half the season 

Edited 9 June by OldBob

[OldBob]

10 minutes ago, honeybradger said:

Tiki take is fine when it works but is incredibly frustrating when it doesnt work ie. playing overly risky passes out from the back or taking a major risk to beat the press only to not capitalise on the space that's been created.

 

Possession managers seem to like to stroke their own egos by likening the style to a tactical game like chess but if it was chess then it would often times be an overly elaborate gambit that results in blunders and missed opportunities. At the end of the day it's about finding something that works, not what sounds the smartest on paper.

Couldn’t have put it any better myself. It’s more of an imagine thing in my opinion. There seems to be a cluster of bang average managers getting jobs now because they are seen to be playing ‘the right way’. Trends come and go though, so sooner or later they’ll be teams at the top of table who will buck the trend and the rest of the league will follow like they always do. You only have to look the best team in Europe (if you base it on the champions league) at the moment, in Real Madrid. Completely ignored the football snobs and did what was needed to win the game. Love to see it!

[Scotch]

I couldn't care less what our new managers preference is... as long as he's not married to it and realises that there is a time and place for both. 

[wsk]

I agree, the fans need energising again. I remember when the king power had one of the best atmospheres in the country. The football over recent times just seemed to of drained all of that!

[Dan LCFC]

Football with speed. I was quite on the tiki taka train a while ago but I've seen the light - it's effective with the right players but it'll never quite get the pulses racing. I mean does Pep even strictly play pure tiki taka anymore? I think he's adapted it somewhat.

 

In truth I want adaptability. I want a manager who is capable of winning with 70% of the ball and is capable of winning with 30% of the ball, and is happy with either outcome.

[dmayne7]

Nuance is key but if you're talking about the tiki taka being possession above all else (which it isn't) Vs direct (which doesn't mean route one either), then it's direct every time. Even at their extremes, what would you rather; passing it about sideways for 5 mins or launching the ball into the box when you need a goal?

 

Some of the best football we played was probably under Pearson in terms of entertainment because it had a bit of everything. I suppose playing with conviction and a positive mindset is above everything else.

[dmayne7]

Just now, Dan LCFC said:

Football with speed. I was quite on the tiki taka train a while ago but I've seen the light - it's effective with the right players but it'll never quite get the pulses racing. I mean does Pep even strictly play pure tiki taka anymore? I think he's adapted it somewhat.

 

In truth I want adaptability. I want a manager who is capable of winning with 70% of the ball and is capable of winning with 30% of the ball, and is happy with either outcome.

Bang on with everything here mate. I used to slam Pep's football but it's not half as structured or slow as it used to be. Not unusual to see Ederson launch it forward to mix it up.

 

I don't think any rational fan expects their team to be full throttle for 90 mins but if you took Enzo's style, it needed to be playing at a really high tempo for 10 mins, then taking a breather for 5. That would have made a massive difference to the enjoyment for lots of people. Hearing him refer to football as a game of chess is so stupid; it's only that if you complicate the life out of it.

[Dan LCFC]

1 hour ago, dmayne7 said:

Bang on with everything here mate. I used to slam Pep's football but it's not half as structured or slow as it used to be. Not unusual to see Ederson launch it forward to mix it up.

 

I don't think any rational fan expects their team to be full throttle for 90 mins but if you took Enzo's style, it needed to be playing at a really high tempo for 10 mins, then taking a breather for 5. That would have made a massive difference to the enjoyment for lots of people. Hearing him refer to football as a game of chess is so stupid; it's only that if you complicate the life out of it.

If Maresca doesn't add a bit more to his game then he's not going to make it at Chelsea or at a top level.

 

I'm trying to avoid the Real Madrid route I keep going down because it's as flawed in a way as the Man City comparison - they have exceptional players. But I think their versatility is their real asset. To answer an above question, which successful sides play direct - well they definitely can. I'd say Liverpool surely. They play out, but they can be direct as well.

 

I really think our fans will never properly take to the type of football Top supposedly wants us to play. They will tolerate it when we're winning but we won't properly engage and respond to it. I hope Top's so called vision isn't quite as dogmatic as made out.

[The_77]

21 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

If Maresca doesn't add a bit more to his game then he's not going to make it at Chelsea or at a top level.

 

I'm trying to avoid the Real Madrid route I keep going down because it's as flawed in a way as the Man City comparison - they have exceptional players. But I think their versatility is their real asset. To answer an above question, which successful sides play direct - well they definitely can. I'd say Liverpool surely. They play out, but they can be direct as well.

 

I really think our fans will never properly take to the type of football Top supposedly wants us to play. They will tolerate it when we're winning but we won't properly engage and respond to it. I hope Top's so called vision isn't quite as dogmatic as made out.

I think this “vision” that keeps getting touted is less about our success on the football pitch and maybe a little more about having players we can profit off of by selling them to bigger clubs. Those clubs are more likely to play possession-based football and want ready-made players.

 

That said, it could just as well be nothing but a billionaire’s ego, who wants a side that looks like Man City if you squint enough and don’t look at the league table. 

[S1DDO]

Winning Football

[Fish]

6 hours ago, Stadt said:

Who plays direct football successfully?

 

I’m an advocate for being direct when it’s right but the good sides all build up with primarily short passes.

 

Leverkusen are incredibly indirect.

I can’t agree . They were forward thinking and took on shots and  oppotunities immediately. Very good at efforts to retrieve the ball .

[Daggers]

Maresca’s tickytacky or R*dgers’ tickytacky?

[kushiro]

10 hours ago, An Away Move said:

It all depends on outcome. 

 

Too right. 

 

It's amazing how old this debate is, and how old the terminology is.

 

I was looking at match reports from 1906 (in relation to the Panini thread).  Early in the season, Chelsea  beat Leicester Fosse 1-0, and the report said this about their style:

 

 

 

But the very next week, Chelsea lost 3-1 at Forest, and this was the response:

 

 

 

 

Edited 10 June by kushiro

[Lako42]

Route one, nothing more. 

[The Quick Brown Fox]

I put direct. 

 

I go to the football to be entertained, and unfortunately as effective as the pass pass pass build up can be. It's ****ing dull. There was only a handful of games last season where the stadium was loud, up for it and the game was exciting and that was the games where we played fast attacking football. 

 

Give me the excitement over the boring build up play any day of the week. 

[leicsmac]

Whatever style is best suited to get a result in the situation.

 

Everything else is just froth.

[davieG]

It'll be tippy tappy against parked busses and more direct against teams that play more direct.

 

The imbalance of the league is the problem causing teams to resort to parking the bus. Even up the on field and they'll be less buses and more open play.