The high line.

[LeeB]

I agree with that Paul.

[Drummond]

Interestingly, whilst we're top of the list for catching teams offside, we're 3rd bottom on being caught offside with 14 times. Below us are Newcastle with 13 and ManCity with 10. Chelsea and Man Utd have 35 each. (Spuds, who also play a high line have been caught 31 times).

[Somniloquism]

I expect it is for the same reason we are top for catching teams out, the coaching and enforcing players to do the same thing over and over until it is second nature. Watkins used to be caught offside so many times prior to Emery arriving. Now, when caught off, it is a 2-3 minute decision to confirm as the decision is so tight.

[Drummond]

I expect it is for the same reason we are top for catching teams out, the coaching and enforcing players to do the same thing over and over until it is second nature. Watkins used to be caught offside so many times prior to Emery arriving. Now, when caught off, it is a 2-3 minute decision to confirm as the decision is so tight.

Yep, Watkins has 5 for the season. Historically he could 5 in a game! Diaby has 4 and the others split equally.

[DrGonzo]

I don’t think you can talk about changing the high line defence in isolation. It is an integral part of the formation that allows for our fat transition and high press. To change one you would have to alter the way the whole team plays.

We don't really do a high press though, certainly not in the way people think when talking about that. We do what I'm going to call a shadow press in that we give them passing options but the only easy ones are in front of us, anything progressive, especially on the floor, is reduced to 50/50s or means the recipient will be under immense pressure as soon as he gets the ball. We're not trying to tackle them but rather trying to goad them into making mistakes.

Fair enough.  In which case we wouldn't be able to continue to "shadow press" in the same manner without playing the high line defence.  By setting up on the halfway line and only retreating slowly we compress the pitch and further reduce those passing options until the ball over the top becomes the only safe outlet.  Then we are reliant on our defenders being brave and skillful enough to maintain that high line and play the opposition forwards offside.  It's cat and mouse and forwards are a bunch of glory hunting dumb dumbs that will never have the patience to time their runs well enough to defeat the trap.  That's the gamble we take.  If we remove the high line then there will be more spaces in midfield and m ore options for the opposition defence to find a simple outlet ball...

Capiche?

[OCD]

Bit more to it than forwards not having patience. Emery's got them drilled on body shape and reading what ball the opposition are going to play. Convention is for defenders to drop back. Our defenders step forward. So the opposition players can be onside and then when the player in possession is shaping up to play a through ball, our back line steps up and that onside player is then offside.

[DrGonzo]

Well beJesus you bunch of picky f'ers....so it's not a high press and nor do we allow the strikers to get bored and wander offside...I feel though the basis of my argument is valid...If we change the highline defence we will have to alter the entire make up of our tactics. So we cannot talk about changing just this one aspect of our play.  Is that ok? XD

[Hillbilly]

I heard that IFAB has mooted going back to the 'clear daylight' interpretation of offside. I wonder how our coaching would adapt to that change in risk.

[Somniloquism]

I heard that IFAB has mooted going back to the 'clear daylight' interpretation of offside. I wonder how our coaching would adapt to that change in risk.

It has never had a clear daylight rule. and if they did bring it in and still use VAR, then what would class as clear daylight and why won't lines be drawn when it is close.

[Hillbilly]

I heard that IFAB has mooted going back to the 'clear daylight' interpretation of offside. I wonder how our coaching would adapt to that change in risk.

It has never had a clear daylight rule. and if they did bring it in and still use VAR, then what would class as clear daylight and why won't lines be drawn when it is close.

IIRC back in the preVAR days the interpretation of level was changed from being wholly behind the defender to not being entirely in front. Obviously they will still VAR the shit out of it. But it would change the dynamics of the situation by giving the attacker around a stride of leeway making it harder to step past them.

[Lastfootstamper]

Extra cheating room? Yeah, why not! Why not change the handball rule so's you can punch it in the net while we're at it, imagine how many more goals we'd see. And at the end of the day, isn't that all that matters, more goals? Bring it on!

[Somniloquism]

I heard that IFAB has mooted going back to the 'clear daylight' interpretation of offside. I wonder how our coaching would adapt to that change in risk.

It has never had a clear daylight rule. and if they did bring it in and still use VAR, then what would class as clear daylight and why won't lines be drawn when it is close.

IIRC back in the preVAR days the interpretation of level was changed from being wholly behind the defender to not being entirely in front. Obviously they will still VAR the shit out of it. But it would change the dynamics of the situation by giving the attacker around a stride of leeway making it harder to step past them.

The interpretation level was seen as benefit the attacker if it was close because of the human reaction delay of judging the pass to when the linesman might have looked along the line. However it was still a judgement call due to the exact alignment of the linesman and optical angles. VAR doesn't need any of those as the RO can mark the kicked ball frame and all other cameras are synced up, (although frame rate guestimates of final contact is still not exact, it is still faster then a linesman's reactions).

And the semi-auto system based on the accelerometer in the ball makes the decision time even closer to concurrent. So I don't know how they would instigate the 'daylight' interpretation using current VAR exactments apart from maybe stating if the decision is taking 3 minutes to make, then go with the on-field decision.