Middlesbrough playing out from the back under scrutiny again but there is method to the 'madness'

Middlesbrough's method of playing the ball out from the back continues to divide opinion.

It comes under scrutiny again after QPR, with far too many sloppy moments, particularly in the second half, ultimately offering the home side encouragement in their attempts to get back into the game. Thankfully, on this occasion it didn't prove costly as Boro scored two late goals to put the game to bed and kill QPR's hopes of a comeback.

While it shouldn't take away from the enjoyment of an important and clinical victory, it would be negligent to avoid discussion of, or attempt to learn from, the poorer elements of a victory. And leaving QPR, Boro's game management and playing out from the back was most certainly a fair topic for discussion.

READ MORE:Michael Carrick's hope as Middlesbrough start to 'get the feeling' for scoring goals

READ MORE:Middlesbrough must take a key next step after passing huge mentality test at QPR

That said, as is so often the case on the odd occasion it doesn't go right, the problem isn't the idea or the tactic, it's the implementation of it. Seny Dieng and Matt Clarke were particularly culpable at QPR of being sloppy at times with their passes, or perhaps not reading certain situations and picking better passes or better options. They weren't alone in that, however, and what it ultimately served to do was offer the home side further encouragement they could get back in the game.

In examining the way Boro play, the first thing to note is the success rate. While it's usually heightened when it doesn't work compared to when it does, the fact of the matter is, it does work far more than it doesn't. They'll have good days and bad days, like any side, but far more often than not, they play the ball out from the back without any concern.

It can be anxiety-inducing undoubtedly, though, and absolutely is a risk. When it doesn't come off, more often than not it presents the opposition with a big opportunity - and that's why the failures feel like they outweigh the successes. At times, Boro's implementation and reading of the game does need improvement. It's important to understand the why though. Why Michael Carrick persists with doing it.

The most obvious benefit is in attack. If Boro can, as they often do, use it to beat the press, they ultimately open up more space for themselves further up the pitch, which, as we saw early on in the season when they struggled to break teams down, can be crucial for them. Indeed, the speed with which Boro can hurt teams when they work through the press and open the pitch up more was clearly seen in the the goals they scored against QPR.

There can be another element to the method though - and that's their control of the game - effectively a mentality of attack being the best form of defence. If Boro are in possession of the ball, the opposition can't hurt them.

That was the aim at QPR in the second half, as Boro tried to keep the ball, take the sting out of the game and halt QPR's momentum. That was the intention, at least. While it's fair to argue it wasn't carried out perfectly, the chances are the alternative would have been far worse.

QPR's attempts to get back into the game were clear, particularly when they threw Rayan Kolli on for the final 15 minutes. Extra height into the attack, QPR's plan was to pepper Boro's box with cross after cross. In keeping the ball, Boro were ultimately managing and limiting that possibility for the home side.

While there was certainly risk, and while it didn't always come off for Boro playing out, the alternative of either lumping it long or putting it in the stands would have only presented the ball back to QPR time and time again, with their centre-backs unlikely to lose many duels against Boro's attacking players. Boro's strengths, as they showed, are when the ball is on the floor, not in the air.

To give the ball back to QPR time and again would have only served to increase the amount of balls that came into their box. It's impossible to know what might have been in such a scenario, but it's safe to say QPR would have had a better chance of getting back into the game had Boro gone down that route.

They deserve credit, ultimately, for sticking to and believing in their principles, even when it wasn't always successful. They ultimately got their rewards for that, with Boro's third goal an example of it paying off. While not strictly playing out from the back, it was Boro being more methodical with the way they clear their lines.

Clarke cushioned a defensive header into Morris in the midfield who, under pressure, was calm enough to volley on for McGree. From there, with the pitch open as QPR committed, the Australian was able to pick the defence-splitting pass to send Latte Lath on his way. It was a purposeful counter executed to perfection at a time when Clarke might have just gone for the biggest header he could possibly get, or Morris might have just launched it aimlessly far to alleviate pressure for a moment at least.

It's not always pretty and it's certainly not always comfortable to watch. Some might call it madness even, to keep doing it again and again. But there is certainly method to that madness that can bring its rewards, and QPR proved that.