This I agree with fully. And this is part of why I try to insist on separating in possession attacking play and defending when it comes to the high line discussion. The vast majority of teams push their defensive line up to some point between the half way line and ten yards from the half way line when they are attacking into the opposing half in my opinion.
For me a high line defensively is connected to pressing. You shouldn't have one without the other. If you press high up the pitch to win the ball, but leave your defenders far back you leave way too much space in between. If you push your defenders high up without pressing you allow opponents time on the ball to pick and time passes in behind your defenders. Incidentally in my opinion a key aspect of high pressing is for the defenders to make good decisions on when to play offside and when to drop off, primarily based on how much pressure the attackers and midfielders are putting on the opponents. If a good passer gets free from pressure it's time to backtrack...
United do press high up the pitch with a high line, although they mix it up. Against us we have seen both in recent years, sometimes they camp out in their own half when organized, sometimes they put pressure on our defenders immediately to force us into playing a long ball game. Against Arsenal (who are possibly even worse at long balls than us) they very often press very high up the pitch, employing players like Park, Welbeck and Valencia to make sure they have the stamina to do so. They also mix it up in games very well and do so as a unit.
I agree, I think quick pressing, winning the ball back quickly and playing for possession means you have to have a high line.
If we talk about the team in possession, it must be that 95% of them will push up their line when they have the ball, unless they are looking to play on the counter all game and knock it long every time, so it shouldn't really be part of the discussion. Any team can get hit on the counter because they have moved up, attempting to score when in possession and lose the ball out of position.
It's when not in possession that's important. And I think Swansea definitely played a high-line, it's just no-one talked about it because they did it well, so the story everyone commented on was that they pressed constantly. Rodgers always talks about it - winning the ball back quickly. He compares them to Barca and says 'if Lionel Messi as one of the best players in the world can press hard for 90 minutes then I'm sure I can ask my friend Nathan Dyer to do it.' So to do this, they must have a high line. If they don't there is a massive gap between the defence and midfield, or wherever the ball is. You could say that maybe they press, but only once the ball gets to around the front of the half way line, so they drop off slightly. But if they were to do this, they wouldn't be pressing hard as Rodgers spoke of, they would be getting back into position, effectively resting, and then pressing in the zone they were told to. But this wouldn't be pressing hard for 90 mins, this would be pressing as a lot of normal teams that don't radically play the possession game.
I agree that Lampard, Mikel and Mereiles can all keep posession well African, (I was about to say particularly RM as he was part of the team that did it under AVB at Porto...but he was sold just before AVB implemented his system) but maybe it's not just about being able to take the ball, lay it off under pressure, receive it back, repeat repeat. Maybe it's also about being able to make an incisive pass even though because of the more patient game, the opposition has set up deep themselves. Who is better at doing that? Lampard or a Modric? Mikel or a Carrick? I'd have to say it's the Modric/Carrick types. Or even someone like Teemu Tainio if we go back in the day. They were incisive passers that would fit it in. You hear a lot of Chelsea fans say the football under AVB was boring, because it was constantly passing to the centre backs, to the midfielders, back to the centre backs, with no penetration. I think Modric would have been absolutely key to AVB last year, and if he got him the whole story probably would have been different. But luckily we kept him and helped contribute to us getting a good manager.
So I think what could have happened is that Chelsea try and build from the back, they try and be patient, they try and draw the opposition out, but the opposition realise that Lampard works better when given space, they realise Mikel isn't that incisive, and they force that mistake. So it's pass, pass, pass, pass, and when the time comes that an incisive player would find the good ball forward, one of the Chelsea guys tries it and fails or gets forced into a mistake, the defence is caught up field as they were spread wide in order to create the passing angles, and that's when the whole problem starts. I'd be interested to see how many goals Chelsea conceded were simply quick balls over the top, or how many were scored after the opposition one the ball, then played through their guy in behind Chelsea quickly - because I think that's more what happened.
I think Cole, Bosingwa, Luiz are all definitely capable of playing the ball out of defence, and Terry is capable and experienced enough to play the ball to a team-mate or pick out a pass (he knocked some good long rangers at the Euros) even under pressure. If Neil Taylor and Ashley Williams can do it, then Terry and Cole can IMO. But I think the rest of the Chelsea team weren't suited to the game too, as well as maybe Cech not being ideal. But of course if the team isn't functioning, the opposition will score, and it will look like the defence is out of position or didn't know how to carry it out. But I think Lampard etc were good if given space, exploiting space quickly and getting the ball forward quickly. I'm sure they can keep the ball under pressure, but can they play the ball through a packed defence that has been allowed to get back because his team is playing a patient possession game? Not sure on that front. He excels under Mourinho and others exploiting space that is left, rather than trying to probe and create it for himself.
