There is something to be said in support of "direct play" since statistics show that 80% of goals have come with 3 or less touches.I hope that we dont ever become a team of long ball wonders but we should be capable of employing the long ball time and again.Ince is capable of putting the ball way up-field and that could be utilised.
I have also noticed that long balls through the middle is easy for defenders to clear but those played down the flanks do stretch the defence and create bigger problems.In essence we as a team should not be too predictable,mixing it up with short passing and some possession with the direct route sometimes might be a good mix.Ah wonder if Russell daz read deze post,anybody want to bet dat we go score 2 goals from direct play?
I've read books and seen videos that advocate the direct play and they always quote that same statistic- Recipients of that information however need to think more critically when receiving statistics such as that....behind every metric there is are many underlying factors....often which render the metric by itself inconclusive or even misleading. First question to ask yourself is what sample of games did they use to come up with that statistic- makes a huge difference
Next, just because the majority of goals come from 3 or less touches doesn't support "direct play" per se. Obviously most goals result from plays that start close to the attacking third- i.e. corners, free kicks are around the area, throw-ins in or near to the attacking third, penalty kicks, goal mouth scrambles where the second to last touch is by the defending team, defensive blunders which give a player a clear opportunity on goal, high pressure resulting in the attacking team winning the ball in a dangerous are etc...
Hardly likely is a team going to build a play from one of the the field to the next without getting fouled, losing possession, the ball going out of bounds etc... And the idea of a patient build up ("indirect football" if you may) is not necessarily to create goals that result from 50 passes, but to advance the ball with a rhythm that allows, the team in possession to control the pace of the game and to maintain a certain shape with and without the ball. A team that plays patient possession football will also score most of its goals from plays that involve 3 or less touches - doesn't advocate "direct" football. I'd bet anything that a very very small % of goal come from plays that involve 3 or less touches going from one end of the field to the next.
End of day, there are a number of things that will determine what footballing approach a coach should use - one major factor being the types of players you have at your disposal.
The direct football argument, sound or not and regardless of its merits, is a nothing more than a marketing effort to sell a philosophy... so take it for what it's worth.
