I've notice that a lot of teams facing stronger/better opposition are defending only in the middle of the pitch and in their 18 yard box when being attacked. For example, both Oman and Palestine allowed Australia and Japan respectively to control the flanks during build up play and only really made attempts to regain the ball in the centre of the pitch.

I understand that it's a desperate tactic, but why persist with it when it continues to fail and allows more chances to be created for the opposition?

Because otherwise you are defending more space which leads to you getting stretched even further and will cause more problems than it's worth. There is no point playing wide and pressing high if you are never going to control possession or tempo as you'll just exhaust players chasing the ball for most of the game. If you can defend the middle of the pitch, it makes it harder for the opposition to control the game and are forced to create opportunities from wide areas which are easier to defend than those from the middle of the pitch. This can frustrates the opposition and causes them to over commit forward allowing for opportunities to break on the counter.

Cheers for that MT. I totally understand that reason when holding out for a 0-0 draw, but I just couldn't understand why coaches are persisting with it and having everyone back for it. It just seems to be embracing for the inevitable 2nd goal?

It's a calculated risk. A manager needs to look at what players he has and weigh up the risk of conceding by sitting deep and narrow and allowing the opposition to play side to side against the risk of coming out and being proactive. Conventional football logic generally states that a team that has conceded needs to come out and play but the reality is that such tactics can really open the floodgates

Sitting deep and tight can work, especially against sides that want to play on the ground like Japan and Australia.
Celtic did the exact same thing against Guardiola's Barcelona, scored a goal of a set piece, another of a quick counter, frustrated their opponents by making them play wide and ended up winning the game. Whether they would have done it the whole game if they conceded first is debatable though.

playing narrow and sitting deep works a charm in football manager when up against a giant team :D

It's a catch 22 when playing against Tim Cahill. Do you shut down the guys who are servicing him, or double mark him?

Palestine were well out of their depth in all aspects v Japan.

Cheers fellas.

I do understand the tactic, I just suppose I get frustrated by poor coaching when it's clear that a tactic isn't working and nothing is done about it.

I think it's far worse when a coach does it in a salary capped league where there is no significance in the quality of the squads. Says a lot about their coaching ability IMO.

It should only be a tactic employed when there is a massive gap in skill level or you're 2 players down because of red cards. You're kidding yourself if you do it in the A-League.

Exactly. In tourney's like the AC, sometimes it's about stopping the bleeding. Sometimes it works, sometimes you come up against a Josh Kennedy or Cahill and it will never work. As EG said though, it's more concerning that coaches are unable to adapt when they see their back 4 getting shredded for 45 minutes.

Maybe employ your defensive mids to shut down the corner flag cross and counter up the wings? Try SOMETHING! Simply crossing your legs and clenching your asshole tends not to work

Well explained , mate.=d>

I'd have gone into a lot more detail, with a lot of waffle.](*,)

Good, succinct response, MT.