Building from the Back

[Grace T.]

Interesting video about how "we must build from the back" doesn't seem to be working any more because of the high press on the pro level. Particularly focusing on how it doesn't seem to be working for Onana. The high press seems to be resulting in errors resulting in easy goals against. The prescription on the pro level seems to be that teams need to be able to adapt on the fly.

I'm not sure it ultimately changes things on the youth level because while it's easier to learn to go long it's quite a bit harder to learn to build from the back, and if you don't learn it you won't be able to do it. The US at the academies at least emphasizes a US academy style play where they should learn to build from the back but have some freedom to go long if need to be. Where I do think the US education is deficient is when it comes to goal kicks. Firstly, at the young ages too often still the goalkicks are given to the big legged defenders. And even when they are older there is very little by way of tactical training about how the goalkeeper needs to make the decision to go short or long (to the extent goalkicks are practiced, it's usually short, so the team can have the benefit of practicing building).

 

[pitchplease]

Interesting video about how "we must build from the back" doesn't seem to be working any more because of the high press on the pro level. Particularly focusing on how it doesn't seem to be working for Onana. The high press seems to be resulting in errors resulting in easy goals against. The prescription on the pro level seems to be that teams need to be able to adapt on the fly.

I'm not sure it ultimately changes things on the youth level because while it's easier to learn to go long it's quite a bit harder to learn to build from the back, and if you don't learn it you won't be able to do it. The US at the academies at least emphasizes a US academy style play where they should learn to build from the back but have some freedom to go long if need to be. Where I do think the US education is deficient is when it comes to goal kicks. Firstly, at the young ages too often still the goalkicks are given to the big legged defenders. And even when they are older there is very little by way of tactical training about how the goalkeeper needs to make the decision to go short or long (to the extent goalkicks are practiced, it's usually short, so the team can have the benefit of practicing building).

interesting perspective, for sure! at my son's academy, we specifically play from the back, and it is very rare for us to not. we also play a very high press and rely on our speedy backs to track back. the only time we tend to struggle is with the long ball style of soccer. we tend to look lost in translation sometimes when teams play kick ball, and have a harder time adjusting. overall, we are fun to watch

 

[Dale Earnhardt Jr Jr]

interesting perspective, for sure! at my son's academy, we specifically play from the back, and it is very rare for us to not. we also play a very high press and rely on our speedy backs to track back. the only time we tend to struggle is with the long ball style of soccer. we tend to look lost in translation sometimes when teams play kick ball, and have a harder time adjusting. overall, we are fun to watch

I see this phrase used a lot when it comes to long passes (typically aerial passes). Do you use it pejoratively?

 

[pitchplease]

1. Definition of Kick-Ball Style​

A "kick-ball" (or "long-ball") style is a straightforward, less technical strategy where a team frequently bypasses midfield play by launching long passes forward—often aiming for tall or physically strong attackers. It relies on:

• Directness: Minimizing short passes; instead, quickly sending the ball into advanced areas.
• Aerial duels: Targeting physical strikers or midfielders who can win headers or hold up the ball.
• Second balls: Playing for knockdowns or rebounds after contested long passes.

2. Key Characteristics​

• Long balls from defense/goalkicks: Defenders or the goalkeeper hoof the ball upfield rather than playing out from the back.
• Limited midfield buildup: Midfielders act more as battlers than playmakers, focusing on winning loose balls.
• High tempo/chaos: The game becomes a series of 50-50 challenges, with less controlled possession.
• Set-piece reliance: Teams using this style often depend on corners, throw-ins, or free kicks to create chances.

3. Why Teams Use It​

• Underdog strategy: Smaller or less technical teams may use it to compete against stronger opponents.
• Exploiting weaknesses: Targeting slower defenders or poor aerial defenders in the opposition.
• Weather/pitch conditions: Effective on muddy or windy days when passing football is harder

 

[Dale Earnhardt Jr Jr]

1. Definition of Kick-Ball Style​

A "kick-ball" (or "long-ball") style is a straightforward, less technical strategy where a team frequently bypasses midfield play by launching long passes forward—often aiming for tall or physically strong attackers. It relies on:

• Directness: Minimizing short passes; instead, quickly sending the ball into advanced areas.
• Aerial duels: Targeting physical strikers or midfielders who can win headers or hold up the ball.
• Second balls: Playing for knockdowns or rebounds after contested long passes.

2. Key Characteristics​

• Long balls from defense/goalkicks: Defenders or the goalkeeper hoof the ball upfield rather than playing out from the back.
• Limited midfield buildup: Midfielders act more as battlers than playmakers, focusing on winning loose balls.
• High tempo/chaos: The game becomes a series of 50-50 challenges, with less controlled possession.
• Set-piece reliance: Teams using this style often depend on corners, throw-ins, or free kicks to create chances.

3. Why Teams Use It​

• Underdog strategy: Smaller or less technical teams may use it to compete against stronger opponents.
• Exploiting weaknesses: Targeting slower defenders or poor aerial defenders in the opposition.
• Weather/pitch conditions: Effective on muddy or windy days when passing football is harder

I get that. I was wondering if you use it pejoratively. I know several people who do. I was curious and interested in engaging in a discussion of whether you thought so because you appeared knowledgeable in your prior response.

 

[pitchplease]

im more knowledgeable when it comes to the style of soccer that my son plays and how his team as a whole play. when i say kickball soccer, it isnt a style that suits our team in general. we had a game a few weeks ago and they played 90 minutes of direct soccer. it was an ugly game. my son said the coach told them that it wasnt a great game for them, but they still won by a decent amount of goals, even though the ball was more like a ping pong ball. some players excel with that style, because soccer isnt a one size fits all. i just know what works for my kid. that's all.

 

[watfly]

I get that. I was wondering if you use it pejoratively. I know several people who do. I was curious and interested in engaging in a discussion of whether you thought so because you appeared knowledgeable in your prior response.

I'll engage. I consider it "kickball" when long kicks are sent forward with just the hope that your bigger, faster players will get to the ball before a defender. I see the difference as between "blindly" kicking a long ball forward vs. "strategically" kicking it forward with a precise intent. A well placed long ball to an attacker in full sprint is a thing of beauty. Building out the back or sending a long ball with intent both have their purpose in soccer. A long ball is warranted when your attackers "have numbers" down field.

This is another thing that is rarely taught in youth soccer is the concept of having "numbers" advantage on certain areas of the field. Having numbers increases your odds of success if you move the play towards the number advantages. However, you need the soccer IQ and field vision to identify the advantage which can also change quickly.

But yes, "kickball" is typically used in the pejorative on this forum with most people can't distinguishing the difference between long passes and just booting the ball.

 

[watfly]

Interesting video about how "we must build from the back" doesn't seem to be working any more because of the high press on the pro level. Particularly focusing on how it doesn't seem to be working for Onana. The high press seems to be resulting in errors resulting in easy goals against. The prescription on the pro level seems to be that teams need to be able to adapt on the fly.

I'm not sure it ultimately changes things on the youth level because while it's easier to learn to go long it's quite a bit harder to learn to build from the back, and if you don't learn it you won't be able to do it. The US at the academies at least emphasizes a US academy style play where they should learn to build from the back but have some freedom to go long if need to be. Where I do think the US education is deficient is when it comes to goal kicks. Firstly, at the young ages too often still the goalkicks are given to the big legged defenders. And even when they are older there is very little by way of tactical training about how the goalkeeper needs to make the decision to go short or long (to the extent goalkicks are practiced, it's usually short, so the team can have the benefit of practicing building).

I think the problem is that building out the back has become gospel for American youth soccer and not just a tool. Remember the PDI's of 8 years ago even mandated a build out line to encourage BOTB. How has that worked out for us?

 

[chipmonk]

Interesting video about how "we must build from the back" doesn't seem to be working any more because of the high press on the pro level. Particularly focusing on how it doesn't seem to be working for Onana. The high press seems to be resulting in errors resulting in easy goals against. The prescription on the pro level seems to be that teams need to be able to adapt on the fly.

I'm not sure it ultimately changes things on the youth level because while it's easier to learn to go long it's quite a bit harder to learn to build from the back, and if you don't learn it you won't be able to do it. The US at the academies at least emphasizes a US academy style play where they should learn to build from the back but have some freedom to go long if need to be. Where I do think the US education is deficient is when it comes to goal kicks. Firstly, at the young ages too often still the goalkicks are given to the big legged defenders. And even when they are older there is very little by way of tactical training about how the goalkeeper needs to make the decision to go short or long (to the extent goalkicks are practiced, it's usually short, so the team can have the benefit of practicing building).

I think the analysis is a bit contrived (which he somewhat acknowledged). If your main metric is goal difference when starting from your own goal kick, you’re kinda stacking the deck in your favor. Cherry picking Nottingham Forest this season which has a pretty low goal scoring total but a highly organized defense is more of an outlier at this point than proof. The overall point that you need to adapt and sometimes play direct to keep the high press honest is great, and probably also best demonstrated by City with Emerson racking up record assists for a goalkeeper.

I would even further argue that Forest’s success is not due to their direct style from the back, but just from their deep block and effective counter attack. A deep block will usually have a decent goal difference from goal kicks whether build or play long. Low possession, low pressure strategy with hopeful counter attacks has long been an effective way to beat the higher possession, higher ‘skill’ teams. Forest is executing exceptionally well this season. Italian catenaccio was maybe the hallmark of this with gattuso chasing down the 50/50s and pirlo with his pinpoint long balls.

 

[LASTMAN14]

Put this EPL table together to get an idea of the topic up for discussion. All data in the table are team rankings for total passes, long passes and wins. Overall I felt more teams with greater possession, fewer long passes, and had more wins were closer to the top. Especially if you consider the top 10 teams.

Team/Table Position	Total Passes	Long Passes	Wins
Liverpool	3​	11​	1​
Arsenal	4​	18​	2​
Man City	1​	19​	3​
N. Forest	20​	8​	5​
New Castle	11​	16​	4​
Chelsea	2​	13​	7​
Aston villa	10​	17​	6​
AFC Bournemouth	16​	2​	8​
Fulham	7​	7​	10​
Brighton H&A	9​	14​	11​
Brentford	15​	4​	9​
Crystal Palace	17​	3​	12​
Everton	19​	1​	17​
ManU	6​	10​	15​
Wolves	14​	6​	14​
Tottenham	5​	20​	13​
Westham	12​	5​	16​
Ipswich	18​	12​	18​
Leicester	13​	9​	19​
Southampton	8​	15​	20​

 

[watfly]

Put this EPL table together to get an idea of the topic up for discussion. All data in the table are team rankings for total passes, long passes and wins. Overall I felt more teams with greater possession, fewer long passes, and had more wins were closer to the top. Especially if you consider the top 10 teams.

Team/Table Position	Total Passes	Long Passes	Wins
Liverpool	3​	11​	1​
Arsenal	4​	18​	2​
Man City	1​	19​	3​
N. Forest	20​	8​	5​
New Castle	11​	16​	4​
Chelsea	2​	13​	7​
Aston villa	10​	17​	6​
AFC Bournemouth	16​	2​	8​
Fulham	7​	7​	10​
Brighton H&A	9​	14​	11​
Brentford	15​	4​	9​
Crystal Palace	17​	3​	12​
Everton	19​	1​	17​
ManU	6​	10​	15​
Wolves	14​	6​	14​
Tottenham	5​	20​	13​
Westham	12​	5​	16​
Ipswich	18​	12​	18​
Leicester	13​	9​	19​
Southampton	8​	15​	20​

I would suspect that playing from behind (or ahead for that matter) has an impact on the nature and amount of passes.

 

[Dale Earnhardt Jr Jr]

I'll engage. I consider it "kickball" when long kicks are sent forward with just the hope that your bigger, faster players will get to the ball before a defender. I see the difference as between "blindly" kicking a long ball forward vs. "strategically" kicking it forward with a precise intent. A well placed long ball to an attacker in full sprint is a thing of beauty. Building out the back or sending a long ball with intent both have their purpose in soccer. A long ball is warranted when your attackers "have numbers" down field.

This is another thing that is rarely taught in youth soccer is the concept of having "numbers" advantage on certain areas of the field. Having numbers increases your odds of success if you move the play towards the number advantages. However, you need the soccer IQ and field vision to identify the advantage which can also change quickly.

But yes, "kickball" is typically used in the pejorative on this forum with most people can't distinguishing the difference between long passes and just booting the ball.

I see it similarly. Aerial passes into pockets of space in the midfield that break a press, or vertical balls to forwards making a run, or other passes sent long with purpose do not constitute the kickball I grew up with which just became a contest of giants high up the pitch. It was an ugly game. But now, I still see such a strong bias towards the possession game which seems to ignore the benefits of well-placed aerial balls. It seems like a real hole in the way kids are developed.

 

[Grace T.]

I see it similarly. Aerial passes into pockets of space in the midfield that break a press, or vertical balls to forwards making a run, or other passes sent long with purpose do not constitute the kickball I grew up with which just became a contest of giants high up the pitch. It was an ugly game. But now, I still see such a strong bias towards the possession game which seems to ignore the benefits of well-placed aerial balls. It seems like a real hole in the way kids are developed.

I do point out your limiting factor is the goalkeeper. Being able to put it in the other half with precision (not just booting it wildly even with a big legged kid) is a feat most male goalkeepers (do the majority of girls ever get there?) don’t start doing until 15-16 and that’s only the higher level goalkeepers who can actually play with their feet. You could go back to having the defender do it, but then it telegraphs what you are doing, forces you to put your most mature players at center back, takes away your short game, and most of them just boot it wildly too (since precision takes many many reps). So kids only really get to work on it for 2-3 years. The academies tend to favor the super tall goalkeepers (even though it’s been shown a few times now that for shot stopping your ideal is between 6 3-6 4) so that shaves a year or two on the boys side. Nobody really seems to train it either at mlsn or ecnl (don’t know about the academies)…gk coaches certainly don’t work on the tactics since they need the other players and you are lucky to have more than a corner of the field to even practice mechanics.

 

[sigmabody]

Another factor to consider (which I've talked to my son about) is the difference in priorities, in this case between just winning, and producing players who are attractive for higher level opportunities (academy, college, etc.).

My son's club has a "technical director", and a strict focus on playing out of the back. Their play style plan seems very much aligned with "do what the big clubs do". Even some of the presentation materials from the club on "why we do this" don't make much sense when considered carefully; I don't think the technical director in this case is particularly innovative or thoughtful in this respect, he just formalized following the perceived leaders.

This approach can work reasonably well when you have good spacing, excellent ball control and pacing on passes, and know when to be flexible (eg: if the other team attacks this with a press). Virtually none of the teams in the club have most of these attributes (let alone all of them). As a result, this formalized and uniform technical strategy undoubtedly hurts the club teams in terms of wins, and that's easily observable on the field (and a source of frustration for many parents).

However, there's an argument that at the pre-college level, wins don't matter for much, and IF academy and college scouts are looking for players who play a control style of offense (and bias to building from the back, etc.), then the approach might be better for the kids overall, even if it leads to more losses on the field for the club teams. That's a big "if", but it does seem to be the case that this has been the generally accepted "correct way" to play, and thus kids who are used to playing this way might show better for scouts. In my mind, that's the gamble here, even though the strategy makes little sense for all but the highest level teams (and as per the video, may not make sense even for many very high level teams).

As a parent who is overall less concerned with my son's team winning (as I am with his individual development and experience), I'm okay with accepting that trade-off, and I've explained that to him as well. If you're a mid tier club team doing this on purpose, you're either not prioritizing winning, or your technical direction is bad (imho). But as the saying goes, and is accurate here, there's more to player development than winning.

 

[watfly]

Another factor to consider (which I've talked to my son about) is the difference in priorities, in this case between just winning, and producing players who are attractive for higher level opportunities (academy, college, etc.).

My son's club has a "technical director", and a strict focus on playing out of the back. Their play style plan seems very much aligned with "do what the big clubs do". Even some of the presentation materials from the club on "why we do this" don't make much sense when considered carefully; I don't think the technical director in this case is particularly innovative or thoughtful in this respect, he just formalized following the perceived leaders.

This approach can work reasonably well when you have good spacing, excellent ball control and pacing on passes, and know when to be flexible (eg: if the other team attacks this with a press). Virtually none of the teams in the club have most of these attributes (let alone all of them). As a result, this formalized and uniform technical strategy undoubtedly hurts the club teams in terms of wins, and that's easily observable on the field (and a source of frustration for many parents).

However, there's an argument that at the pre-college level, wins don't matter for much, and IF academy and college scouts are looking for players who play a control style of offense (and bias to building from the back, etc.), then the approach might be better for the kids overall, even if it leads to more losses on the field for the club teams. That's a big "if", but it does seem to be the case that this has been the generally accepted "correct way" to play, and thus kids who are used to playing this way might show better for scouts. In my mind, that's the gamble here, even though the strategy makes little sense for all but the highest level teams (and as per the video, may not make sense even for many very high level teams).

As a parent who is overall less concerned with my son's team winning (as I am with his individual development and experience), I'm okay with accepting that trade-off, and I've explained that to him as well. If you're a mid tier club team doing this on purpose, you're either not prioritizing winning, or your technical direction is bad (imho). But as the saying goes, and is accurate here, there's more to player development than winning.

Just expanding the discussion, not disagreeing with you.

Do kids even know why their supposed to build out the back and maintain possession? I suspect most kids and even some coaches don't understand its purpose. I think there is a big difference between possession with a purpose as opposed to possession for the sake of possession. Are we trying to develop a rigid possession or tiki-taka style, that was a fad a decade or two ago, but has been effectively abandoned in favor of a more flexible style?

I also think there is a big difference between playing for wins and playing winning soccer. Kids need to learn when to adapt on the field and take what is given to them, as opposed to being held hostage to a strict style of play. This hinders them from developing a soccer IQ.

 

[Jamisfoes]

I also think there is a big difference between playing for wins and playing winning soccer. Kids need to learn when to adapt on the field and take what is given to them, as opposed to being held hostage to a strict style of play. This hinders them from developing a soccer IQ.

Style of play is very important. If your player is technical, he might not enjoy being on a team that boots the ball and bypasses the midfield all the time. It’s very difficult to play possession football. You first need to have a group of kids who are technically competent to do it. And you need a coach who has the patience and the support from the parents to stick with it. In a way, you do need to hold them hostage to that style until they have learned it.

 

[watfly]

Style of play is very important. If your player is technical, he might not enjoy being on a team that boots the ball and bypasses the midfield all the time. It’s very difficult to play possession football. You first need to have a group of kids who are technically competent to do it. And you need a coach who has the patience and the support from the parents to stick with it. In a way, you do need to hold them hostage to that style until they have learned it.

I'm not suggesting to just boot the ball. I'm suggesting kids shouldn't be held hostage to one style of play, particularly a pure possession style. No one plays full tiki-taka anymore because its no longer is effective. Teams figured it out. Also a strict possession style seems to go hand in hand with joysticking. Focusing on one style of play is one of the reasons kids don't develop soccer IQ. There is a time and place for possession and there is a time and place to send the long ball.

A blasted, non-directed keeper punt or goal kick drives me as crazy as a negative pass to preserve possession when you could send a high percentage long ball to your wing in space.

I will add that most people who complain about "boot ball", are the ones whose kids team lost to a team that played more direct.

 

[sigmabody]

I'm not suggesting to just boot the ball. I'm suggesting kids shouldn't be held hostage to one style of play, particularly a pure possession style. No one plays full tiki-taka anymore because its no longer is effective. Teams figured it out. Also a strict possession style seems to go hand in hand with joysticking. Focusing on one style of play is one of the reasons kids don't develop soccer IQ. There is a time and place for possession and there is a time and place to send the long ball.

In my narrow experience:
- My son's team coaches tiki-taka exclusively, per the rigid uniform style mandated by the technical director. They don't practice anything else, they don't coach anything else, and any play not in that style is generally criticized by the coaches (no matter the game circumstance), as per the technical direction for the club.
- They lose because of this, because (as noted) other teams have figured this out, and they are not perfectly skilled, so they miss passes, traps, are slow on the ball, rarely attack, etc.
- They tend to lose to teams which play direct, and exploit weaknesses on long balls, in part because they never train against this. Almost all their training is on small field areas, and they rarely if ever have long passes in any training session.
- Some of the players will send balls long in games (generally, those with higher soccer IQ, and/or parental coaching also). These are sometimes criticized by coaches and/or players, and sometimes not, usually depending on outcomes.
- The team is pitifully and laughably bad with handling long balls (direct plays, free kicks, corners, etc.). They simply didn't ever practice this, based on the technical direction and training planning from that.
- There's also a strong emphasis on futsal, with even older teams having futsal practice sessions.

Now, I hope this leads to kids who are perceived as more skilled at higher levels (because they play possession soccer). It's pretty clearly not "winning" soccer, but the general consensus among the coaches (and some parents) is that it's "good" soccer. They are getting better at short, quick passing; we shall see if that translates into being perceived as "good" players down the road.

 

[espola]

Put this EPL table together to get an idea of the topic up for discussion. All data in the table are team rankings for total passes, long passes and wins. Overall I felt more teams with greater possession, fewer long passes, and had more wins were closer to the top. Especially if you consider the top 10 teams.

Team/Table Position	Total Passes	Long Passes	Wins
Liverpool	3​	11​	1​
Arsenal	4​	18​	2​
Man City	1​	19​	3​
N. Forest	20​	8​	5​
New Castle	11​	16​	4​
Chelsea	2​	13​	7​
Aston villa	10​	17​	6​
AFC Bournemouth	16​	2​	8​
Fulham	7​	7​	10​
Brighton H&A	9​	14​	11​
Brentford	15​	4​	9​
Crystal Palace	17​	3​	12​
Everton	19​	1​	17​
ManU	6​	10​	15​
Wolves	14​	6​	14​
Tottenham	5​	20​	13​
Westham	12​	5​	16​
Ipswich	18​	12​	18​
Leicester	13​	9​	19​
Southampton	8​	15​	20​

How can Southampton have only 8 Total Passes when they have 15 Long Passes? And looking up the table, Tottenham is even worse -- 5 and 20.

 

[espola]

In my narrow experience:
- My son's team coaches tiki-taka exclusively, per the rigid uniform style mandated by the technical director. They don't practice anything else, they don't coach anything else, and any play not in that style is generally criticized by the coaches (no matter the game circumstance), as per the technical direction for the club.
- They lose because of this, because (as noted) other teams have figured this out, and they are not perfectly skilled, so they miss passes, traps, are slow on the ball, rarely attack, etc.
- They tend to lose to teams which play direct, and exploit weaknesses on long balls, in part because they never train against this. Almost all their training is on small field areas, and they rarely if ever have long passes in any training session.
- Some of the players will send balls long in games (generally, those with higher soccer IQ, and/or parental coaching also). These are sometimes criticized by coaches and/or players, and sometimes not, usually depending on outcomes.
- The team is pitifully and laughably bad with handling long balls (direct plays, free kicks, corners, etc.). They simply didn't ever practice this, based on the technical direction and training planning from that.
- There's also a strong emphasis on futsal, with even older teams having futsal practice sessions.

Now, I hope this leads to kids who are perceived as more skilled at higher levels (because they play possession soccer). It's pretty clearly not "winning" soccer, but the general consensus among the coaches (and some parents) is that it's "good" soccer. They are getting better at short, quick passing; we shall see if that translates into being perceived as "good" players down the road.

If Player A makes a 50-yard diagonal pass up the field to his Teammate Player B, and Player B maintains control of the ball, is that not "possession"?