From Tactical Trend to Football Dogma
Over the past decade, the idea of building out from the back has evolved from a novel tactical experiment to an almost sacred principle of the modern game. Managers at every level of the sport have adopted this approach, and fans have been conditioned to believe that this is simply how top-level football is supposed to be played.
But as more teams embrace this high-risk style, the cracks are beginning to show. Costly mistakes, needless goals conceded, and mounting frustration from fans and pundits alike are sparking a growing debate: does the reward truly justify the risk?
The Risk vs Reward Dilemma
The allure of build-up play lies in its ability to give a team control—from the goalkeeper all the way to the attacking third. When executed perfectly, it results in beautiful, cohesive movement and domination of possession. But when it breaks down, it often leads to instant scoring opportunities for the opposition.
The core question being asked is: does this style actually work as well as we think—or are teams blindly sticking to a philosophy that no longer guarantees results?
Why Build-Up Play Became the Default
The foundation of modern build-up was simple: if you can control the ball in all areas of the pitch, you can control the game. It allowed teams to counter aggressive presses, create numerical superiority using the goalkeeper, and stretch the pitch to exploit spaces.
A pivotal moment came in 2019 when FIFA changed the rule to allow goal kicks to be received inside the penalty area. This encouraged deeper, more intricate patterns of play and accelerated the dominance of build-up football.
With top managers like Pep Guardiola and Roberto De Zerbi pioneering this approach, it wasn’t long before build-up became more than a tactic—it became a footballing ideology.
How Defensive Teams Adapted
As more teams adopted build-up play, defensive teams quickly evolved to counter it. High presses became more aggressive and structured, transitioning from zonal marking to man-oriented pressing—where each defender locks onto an opponent, reducing passing options and increasing the chance of forcing errors.
This shift has made deep build-up less effective. The once-disruptive tactic has now become predictable, and more teams are prepared to exploit it.
The Numbers That Challenge the Narrative
Let’s take a look at some data, primarily from the Premier League and top European leagues:
- Manchester City are still the benchmark. With an XG of 5.03 from goal kicks and a goal difference of +8, their system works—but only because of the quality and adaptability of their players.
- Barcelona, despite playing out from the back in 95% of goal kicks, have a goal difference of just +1 from them—suggesting the risks may outweigh the benefits, especially considering their opponents generate higher XG from build-up situations than they do.
- Spurs, under Postecoglou, have shown one of the highest XGs conceded from short goal kicks, resulting in a net zero goal difference from them.
- Chelsea have struggled even more, with negative value created from their deep build-up attempts.
The data reveals that a strong build-up strategy does not guarantee success, especially if it isn’t supported by the right personnel or flexible game management.
Case Studies: Who’s Thriving, Who’s Struggling
- Manchester United’s struggles go beyond just their goalkeeper. While Onana was brought in to modernize their style, issues persist due to a lack of cohesion and structure in advanced build-up phases.
- Nottingham Forest under Nuno Espirito Santo present an interesting counterpoint. They rarely build from the back, instead opting for long balls into the opposition’s half—and they have a positive goal difference of +4 from goal kicks to show for it.
- Newcastle United provide a model for balance. They mix long and short goal kicks depending on pressure, have a strong high press, and enjoy one of the best goal differences in the league from goal kicks.
These examples prove that adaptability trumps rigid ideology.
Is There a Smarter Middle Ground?
The solution doesn’t have to be a full rejection of build-up. Instead, smart teams are finding a hybrid approach—playing short when the conditions are right, and going long when the opponent presses too effectively.
Coaching structured long-ball strategies, creating second-ball systems, and pressing higher up the pitch can often yield better results than risking possession in dangerous areas.
Conclusion: Modern Football Needs Flexibility, Not Philosophy
Building from the back isn’t broken—but it’s no longer the cheat code it once was. Teams that stick to it without adapting to their opponents, players, or game context are often finding themselves punished.
Tactics are meant to serve the team—not the other way around. Football doesn’t need to look the most modern to be effective. The best tactics are the ones that work.
Would you like a visual breakdown or infographic to accompany this article?
Be sure not to miss out on the latest news about Nottingham Forest
Download our brand new App and follow your favorite players, clubs, and much more
