Short passing with high width.....bad idea ?

[GersFan]

If you play a short passing game, is it best to keep it narrow, or at most 'mixed' width ?

Or is it ok to play a short passing game with high width ?

In theory, I would think that if your players are more spaced out (high width) this would make it more difficult to find short passing options. But is this the reality in the game ?

For those that play a short passing, what do you do in terms of the 'width' option ?

Also, if you play a short passing game, are you best to play 'through the middle' ? Or can it work if you play 'down both flanks' ?

Cheers, any help much appreciated.

[tomasj]

If you play a short passing game, is it best to keep it narrow, or at most 'mixed' width ?

Or is it ok to play a short passing game with high width ?

In theory, I would think that if your players are more spaced out (high width) this would make it more difficult to find short passing options. But is this the reality in the game ?

For those that play a short passing, what do you do in terms of the 'width' option ?

Also, if you play a short passing game, are you best to play 'through the middle' ? Or can it work if you play 'down both flanks' ?

Cheers, any help much appreciated.

This reply is based on observations from 9.1.0 and 9.2.0, and much less on 9.3.0.

I find that high width is very useful for drawing out opponents when they are pressing you, and as such creates more space for passing. For sides that aren't pressing, high width is better than narrow, simply because you need more options playing against a veritable Maginot Line of defenders.

I find short passing works best down the flanks, and with full-backs having forward runs, just because you get more passing options. When I let my team play short-passing style, I keep one MC with high creativity and passing on 'Mixed' or 'Direct' for those killer balls and my two forwards on 'Direct' in case we get counter-attacks.

[Canabary]

Highly depends on your team and what you want to achieve.

If you want to keep the ball away from the opponents and basically just sit back and defend, then a short wide game wouldn't be too bad. You push the ball wide, spreading out the attackers as you keep the ball within your team, making it difficult for the opposition to concentrate their efforts on one part of the pitch. If you play a short and narrow defensive game, they could cluster you and overtake the ball quite easily.

Short and wide is in that aspect not the best of moves for a quick attacking sort of football. You can move the ball out wide, spreading your opponents, but at the same time your players are all over the pitch, and you limit your attacks to "narrow" parts of the pitch. Which is quite ironic considering you want to play "wide". With a short but more narrow game you get your players collected a lot more, and can use more of the pitch in your attacks, as players are availible at most places and stick close to the ball carrier.

Of course you can play wide and short with a relative success rate, but in the end, you'll end up relying heavily on a few players instead of using the entire team to your advantage.

At least that's my theory.... I'm not sure if I'm correct or not. Haven't tested it too much. Mostly only with Spain and Barca, but it's my belief that a short passing game is best adapted to a better side, as they will be much more capeable of creating shooting possibilities through play than their weaker counter parts who will fairl at breaking through a defense as their technique fails them under pressure. But again, just my theory.

[Ljuba82]

....short passing with high width may be very good idea...whwn opponent "park the bus in front of goal".

...but if you are mainly defending...it's generaly bad idea...