ASA Roundtable: The One About False Nines
/Welcome to another edition of the #asaroundtable, ASA’s weekly discussion forum. This week, our question comes from one of our regular contributors, Cheuk Hei Ho. If you have any questions you want asked, feel free to hit us up @AnalysisEvolved, or email us at americansocceranalysis@gmail.com. Cheuk, take it away.
What are the disadvantages of playing a false 9 instead of a normal striker, say in a formation with one central forward, other than not having an aerial target? Why is having a target man good? Just occupying a defender?
Occupying two defenders, actually. Making runs behind, stretching the defense to create space between the lines, offering a regular target in the box (and not just for aerial crosses). With a false nine it's tough to arrive with numbers in the box. And there just aren't that many players out there who are actually good at playing midfielder and striker at the same time.
So you think a target man pins down the last defensive line?
Not even "target" but a guy who's constantly messing with the offside line, making runs and stuff.
Maybe that's what you mean. Think about Josef, who is not a traditional "target".
There's also the holding and linking stuff that a center forward does—false nines can do that too in some phases but not all, and they may not be as good at it.
One of the coaches should weigh in here, but the whole point of the false 9 is to drop in between the Centerbacks and get on the ball to distribute out. If the defense follows, they will likely lose their shape and allow runs in behind from the wings or a higher central midfielder. Instead of holding the ball up with a center back behind them, they find space in front of them and allow others to get higher.
The platonic ideal of false 9 set up in my head is Messi dropping off the CBs and maybe one following and then Pedro making the diagonal run in from the right into the box. Is that wrong?
That's right.
I guess my question is: how does the defense respond with a false 9 vs. a target man? It sounds like the last line of defense is pinned down by a target man. Is that the con of a false 9?
Not stretching the defense to create space for midfielders.
You have to overload to get out.
False nines are less likely to get a header off a cross, I’d think.
Yes, they arrive late as DR says, but I actually like that. I want low driven balls across the box with near and/or far post runs and someone else around the penalty dot.
I see a lot of MLS CBs getting caught in no man's land since they aren't sure who to mark.
It works if you're able to create space with passing and runs that drag defenders out of position, but if you aren't able to do that then you can end up with a ton of the ball and no way to unlock a defense. Whereas a more traditional CF [center forward] may stretch the defense more and open up space that way.
The false 9 dropping deep is supposed to create a 4v3 in midfield, right? So one thing that has to marry up with a false 9 is the idea that you want to have the ball - and this was the case for that Barça team.
Yes.
It creates overloads there instead of needing to pull someone else out of your defensive shape in case of a turnover
Wing play would necessarily be a bit contradictory here.
It provides some counter prevention.
Although when you have Dani Alves #anythingispossible
I could imagine the false nine being something that privileged teams can apply but that most teams can't / shouldn't attempt,
Yeah, that's what I am trying to get at.
You're trying to articulate why is it that non-elite teams should avoid this strategy.
Does that mean that you need more "creative" or "technical" weapons to be able to do a false 9?
Do you need Messi? Has anyone else successfully implemented a false 9 over a decent amount of time?
I could see it as maybe the optimal possession-based approach in a leading game state?
Like, in general, we think it's natural to cede possession when winning, but maybe with that extra midfielder it's possible?
Man City?
Totti did it at Roma.
Tevez did it at United
False nines have been around forever, [Jonathan] Wilson's written the same article about this at least a dozen times.
Some people credit Cruyff with being the first false nine.
Watch a compilation of Messi's goals circa 2011, they're all identical. He drops into midfield, passes through the backline to a winger, receives a cutback at the penalty spot. That's ideal false nine play. Then watch him circa 2015 with Suarez in front of him.
I think I have seen that too, but i guess Spallatti re-started the trend before Guardiola with Totti?
Patrick Mullins.
That last one isn’t true.
Maybe think of it differently. Like, space between the lines is always desirable, and if you have Messi/Totti you can do that even if the defense doesn’t follow up because they are good enough to play in the tight space.
With a traditional 9 you still use the same space but you increase the area of it because you pin the last line down.
Ah yes, perhaps 3v3 in midfield is fine with space.
Similarly 4v3 fine with less space
Does anybody else feel like using a false nine is dishonest?
It's a midfield cheat code.
Oh, you think you have a 3v3? Well, we are going to take our forward and have them play midfielder. haha!
#JusticeForCBsPulledOutOfPosition
Like, if Messi was really any good why did he have to lie about his position?
well you see, Ian, it all goes back to the argentine archetype of the pibe, or trickster.
Fraud 9 imo.
Alex Bartiromo
And with that, the conversation descended into a series of debauched jokes and uncapitalized sentences, the thread of the conversation fraying at both ends. Is there anything we can take away from this moving forward, other than the fact that using a false nine may be a strategy that only works with elite talent? These comments from Tiotal Football, point in a more general direction.
I really do love the concept here of trying to look objectively with data at MLS to corroborate/refute tactical writing that was written largely about an overpowered Barça team (even if you set aside the normal issues with tactics writing about not being falsifiable and what not).
Cheuk's intuition that if the halfspaces are so good we should over time see excess output from them in the data seems like a good one.
Figuring out how to measure that without making similar mistakes is fun and hard and good.
---------------------------