retired_barbiej

No you don't, direct and long passing are for poor passes of the ball. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree to an extent as a poor passer will not be able to accurately pass the ball over longer distances hence shorter passing ensures better conversion rate of passes. This is just my personal openion

retired_elpata

No you don't, direct and long passing are for poor passes of the ball. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree to an extent as a poor passer will not be able to accurately pass the ball over longer distances hence shorter passing ensures better conversion rate of passes. This is just my personal openion </BLOCKQUOTE>

For shorter passing though, you need technical players, if not they dwell on the ball too much and give it away. Or can't handle passing it around. Thats from what I've seen and what SI said in GQ.

Why do people always presume direct passing is long distance?

retired_candi9399

i understand that srtikers rarely pass but your instruction will come into play when they do. If direct means forward and the sriker has the ball wouldn't that make him more likely to try and find his partner further up the pitch. this would be more often more difficult than say if he was set to mixed passing which is what iwould probably use. Is this right.

retired_janellewood86

No you don't, direct and long passing are for poor passes of the ball. </BLOCKQUOTE>

I would disagree to an extent as a poor passer will not be able to accurately pass the ball over longer distances hence shorter passing ensures better conversion rate of passes. This is just my personal openion </BLOCKQUOTE>

But then again if your players can't pass very well and make a short pass to no one, chances are the opposition will intercept in a dangerous position. Direct or long ball reduces or eliminates this risk, though it can still give the ball away. However, if you are a poor team you're likely to be playing poor teams who won't be able to defend the aerial ball or the ball infront of the pacy striker.

Your choice for poor teams is give the ball away in midfield, or give the ball to the opposition centre backs. I know which one I'd choose.

retired_elpata

No, you'd want direct so he found his partner or atleast tried to. Set to mixed or short would mean he'd pass back, sideways etc and to someone else other than the striker.

retired_barbiej

Direct passing means the ball will be quickly moved forward to the strikers hence they need to be accurate or just lump it forward hoping that a striker would latch onto it and since PAGEY124 is in league 2 i personally believe direct style of play is not recomended.

Doesn't it say in the manual "Direct passing should be used with Dominant teams" or something like that?

retired_elpata

Direct passing means the ball will be quickly moved forward to the strikers hence they need to be accurate or just lump it forward hoping that a striker would latch onto it and since PAGEY124 is in league 2 i personally believe direct style of play is not recomended.

Doesn't it say in the manual "Direct passing should be used with Dominant teams" or something like that? </BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope thats short passing

Direct doesn't mean quickly, thats tempo. Tempo is how fast you move the ball about not the passing itself.

All direct means is for example, if your defender has the ball, he will try and pass it to a midfielder rather than pass it sideways to another defender. If the midfielder has the ball, he'd look at giving it a striker.

ilj1234

well shorter passing is definately working better in the lower leagues with me than direct so I agree with Abramovic, cheers

retired_elpata

Read the manual, it tells you direct is better for teams who lack pace and good passing through out the team. Its also better if you are one of the weaker teams in the league.

For a short passing game you need lots of stamina, work rate, decisions throuhg out the team.

retired_candi9399

pagey124 are you using short passing with your defenders. or just mid and att.