Why would some footballers rather concede a goal than break the line?
Because before losing the ball, he didn't think he would lose the ball, would it be too twisted to say so?
However, this is the case.
It's like investing, and you ask, why would he rather lose money than divest?
Because he didn't know that he would lose money later, if he knew, he would rather not make money and would withdraw his investment in advance.
The same is true of football, and if the player knew he was going to concede the ball in the end, he would definitely choose to break the siege.
Before conceding the ball, the player will have two choices, "control the ball" or "go to the bottom line".
Choose the former (unblocked possession), you can have the ball, the team can start from the backcourt to organize the attack, and even launch a quick counterattack.
If the latter is chosen (to break the siege), the team not only loses the ball, but also gives the opponent the opportunity to use the corner to complete the shot.
The difference between the two is that the former (unblocked possession) has greater returns but also greater risks.
Where are the shoes that don't get wet when you walk by the river? Some teams, if they are not careful, are cut off by their opponents in the backcourt, resulting in the loss of the ball, but this is also no way to do it.
As the technical and tactical details of football games become more and more rigorous, teams such as Barca or Manchester City who are keen on possession will choose to organize from the backcourt and gradually infiltrate the opponent's back line through passing control.
However, high risk and high return often coexist, they try to avoid big feet, but there is no such thing as a player deliberately "would rather lose the ball than go to the bottom line".
What do you think about that?