P.S.
Here's a fine article that looks at Ten Hag's approach through this framework: https://guillaumevdw.substack.com/p/how-team-tactical-philosophy-leans
Essentially, it sees him as somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between positionism and relationism. Slightly more in the positional camp, with strong principles about spatial positioning, but then putting more emphasis on the players to creatively solve problems in the final third of the pitch than e.g. a Conte or Sarri side would. The article argues that ETH's training is designed to encourage creative solutions to predefined tactical principles (which we could contrast both with pure relationism which lets players improvise how they are going to attack, and with pure positionism where coordinated attacking movements are predefined). Ten Hag employs choreographed 'circuits' as Conte would, but the difference is that for ETH they can be a 'muscle memory' to fall back on if things aren't working out, rather than a more strict basis for match play.
BTW I'm aware that these are not new concepts, Guardiola didn't invent positionism, and debates about individualism vs collective structure in football have been around for generations. I'm also sure the current discussions about post-Guardiola positionism and its antithesis have been raging since well before I became aware of them.
... and they say football is a simple game
Like with most debates that have 2 extremes, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. You can't have a functioning team with 11 players doing what they feel all the time. Neither can they all individually meet their potential if they're burdened by strict instructions for every movement.
Off the ball, the benefit of set formations and positioning is obvious. It just works. On the ball, aside from an agreed approach (kick it long, go down the wings or whatever) it should be more free flowing IMO.
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
Like with most debates that have 2 extremes, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. You can't have a functioning team with 11 players doing what they feel all the time. Neither can they all individually meet their potential if they're burdened by strict instructions for every movement.
Off the ball, the benefit of set formations and positioning is obvious. It just works. On the ball, aside from an agreed approach (kick it long, go down the wings or whatever) it should be more free flowing IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, and I think it's in the nuances of comparing slightly more / less positionally rigorous that this can be most interesting.
E.g. it would be hard to argue that Guardiola's positionism has put a ceiling on his achievements as a coach. But you can see that a player like Grealish could be more effective if he were given more freedom to improvise, and in certain matches where a disciplined side has worked hard to study and neutralise the patterns of a Guardiola team, they could perhaps do with allowing more chaos.
Haha, a first one-star rating. Someone strongly disagrees with this sort of thing.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 31 minutes ago
Which did SAF prefer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd imagine he didn't think in precisely those terms, and of course almost all of his career preceded the emergence of Guardiola's new form of positionism. From that point of view, I think the centre of gravity of most top-level football was closer to the relationist end of the spectrum then than it is today.
It's interesting to note that Solskjaer, whose footballing education owes so much to Fergie, was much less spatially disciplined and emphasised individual problem solving in forward play, than today's median coach. He was derided as a 'vibes-based' coach. Ancelotti has also been seen as a bit of a dinosaur who lacked tactical sophistication - until he won another CL, at which point more questions are raised about whether his understanding of the value of giving his players freedom exposes the limits of positionist approaches. Maybe Solskjaer wasn't such a bad coach, and his failing was simply in not having the best players in the world in his team.
Don't worry RR, I posted an article about Duncan Edwards and someone gave it one star.
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Don't worry RR, I posted an article about Duncan Edwards and someone gave it one star.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not offended. I'm amused at the thought process.
Not confined to football either. In rugby union some teams would want the biggest and strongest forwards to trundle controlled phase by controlled phase metre at a time up the pitch before eventually trundling over the line or having a platform to unleash some smaller fast guys predictably passing along predefined lines to score in a corner.
The smaller, lighter team would attempt to create the chaos by turning scrums, cutting the lineout, kicking into space, aiming for loose play and ruck or penalty wins and in the final third missing out players in the line or have some running on unexpected lines or reacting to chips and grubbers.
And so modern, professional rugby is a bit more exciting with more combinations and probably more inventiveness - the controlled chaos? Smaller nations are more likely to cause an upset, everyone is training and being coached in similar ways.
Stop going on about stars you dweebs. Whenever I see that on an article I give 1 star cos it's funny
The missus watched the game last night and asked me what the next tactical progression would be? I asked her what she would do given the chance? I got 'the look' !
BTW, its why I enjoyed Michael Cox's books so much explaining the chronology and system development and influences. A lot harder to predict what way it will go next right enough. I've no idea.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Not confined to football either. In rugby union some teams would want the biggest and strongest forwards to trundle controlled phase by controlled phase metre at a time up the pitch before eventually trundling over the line or having a platform to unleash some smaller fast guys predictably passing along predefined lines to score in a corner.
The smaller, lighter team would attempt to create the chaos by turning scrums, cutting the lineout, kicking into space, aiming for loose play and ruck or penalty wins and in the final third missing out players in the line or have some running on unexpected lines or reacting to chips and grubbers.
And so modern, professional rugby is a bit more exciting with more combinations and probably more inventiveness - the controlled chaos? Smaller nations are more likely to cause an upset, everyone is training and being coached in similar ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting (speaking as someone with very little knowledge or interest in rugby). I wonder if there are other sports where similar parallels apply.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Not confined to football either. In rugby union some teams would want the biggest and strongest forwards to trundle controlled phase by controlled phase metre at a time up the pitch before eventually trundling over the line or having a platform to unleash some smaller fast guys predictably passing along predefined lines to score in a corner.
The smaller, lighter team would attempt to create the chaos by turning scrums, cutting the lineout, kicking into space, aiming for loose play and ruck or penalty wins and in the final third missing out players in the line or have some running on unexpected lines or reacting to chips and grubbers.
And so modern, professional rugby is a bit more exciting with more combinations and probably more inventiveness - the controlled chaos? Smaller nations are more likely to cause an upset, everyone is training and being coached in similar ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting (speaking as someone with very little knowledge or interest in rugby). I wonder if there are other sports where similar parallels apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have little knowledge too! I'm waiting for an egg chaser to destroy my casual observation! The missus watches it and I pick up on stuff, that's all.
great article
I was listening to the Gary Neville podcast the other day and he kept on saying he doesnt understand why Pep is playing Bernardo as an auxillary left back and its the reason for their poor form and I sat there stunned because even a kid with basic knowledge of tactics knows that City or Peps teams have always played with the extra men in midfield and attack areas and now with Haaland as a 9, Pep is obviously looking to get an extra man in those areas.
So he positionally sets a back 3, then Bernardo only tracks back in the one on one confrontations.
However in posession can you imagine as the opposition coach having to face Bernardo, Gundo, KDB, Grealish, Mahrez and Haaland as an attacking 6.
I thought it was obvious but I am aware Gary isn't so bright but its a bit disappointing when seasoned pundits cannot point out obvious things like that.
Regarding the 2 philosophies I to a very small extent understand why some people complain that positionism has taken away the natural automation and thrill of football but only to a small extent as I believe bus parking by the likes of Mourinho and Conte and some of the so-called inferior teams with managers who cant think out of the box is the biggest reason for damage to the game. Not positionism.
I remember watching the champions league in the early and late nineties Every game was a spectacle. Every game. I remember that Valencia side with speedy gonzalez and the like where the matches were absolutely great. As much as he was a stunning manager, Mourinho and his ilk are those that ruined football.
My last point, I agree that a combination of the 2 is the best. By the way ETH is 100% a disciple of positionism, he only flips the script when United struggle. At times it works like most games this season. Sometimes the team gets bashed like at City or Villa.
I for one especially when I watch City play often ask myself cant they have 5 minute periods where they just cause chaos and pin the opposition back.
Liverpool under Klopp do this very well against tough opponents. Granted you need your players to be efficient
Think City combined both well in that team with Sane, Sterling and Aguero but the Key thing there is that Fernandinho in his pomp could recover against literally any counter attack and David Silva is probably one of the best and most precise playmakers you will ever see in this league. KDB is good but not David Silva levels.
Funny how not everyone can be an effective playmaker. Eriksen is proof that you either have it or you dont. Him, KDB lead this league in that department with Bruno close behind.
Gone on a tangent but Tactics fascinate me in football.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 16 seconds ago
The missus watched the game last night and asked me what the next tactical progression would be? I asked her what she would do given the chance? I got 'the look' !
BTW, its why I enjoyed Michael Cox's books so much explaining the chronology and system development and influences. A lot harder to predict what way it will go next right enough. I've no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting the Pyramid" is great on charting the history of tactics. His subsequent journalism is disappointingly limited: basically a binary view whereby choreographed football = good / reliance on spontaneous player creativity = bad, with a few historical references thrown in for the illusion of intellectual rigour.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 16 seconds ago
The missus watched the game last night and asked me what the next tactical progression would be? I asked her what she would do given the chance? I got 'the look' !
BTW, its why I enjoyed Michael Cox's books so much explaining the chronology and system development and influences. A lot harder to predict what way it will go next right enough. I've no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting the Pyramid" is great on charting the history of tactics. His subsequent journalism is disappointingly limited: basically a binary view whereby choreographed football = good / reliance on spontaneous player creativity = bad, with a few historical references thrown in for the illusion of intellectual rigour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I'll always sample read a few pages of a book before buying and it never grabbed me like Cox can.
I know there are teams that we can point to and, for example, say peak Barca was the shortest - I'm not even sure that is true and maybe they were the most skilled or maybe we just admired the doing it differently - I don't know and digress.
Anyhow, in fantasyland it would be great fun putting together a 'fastest' team, a 'tallest' team, a 'strongest' team, a 'brain box' team of graduates a 'chaos' team of unpredictables etc. and coming up with a tactical game to suit them.
B10, great post.
I don't think the main accusation against positionism is that it is 'bad' as such. One aspect is that if it takes over as the universal tactical method, then football becomes stale and homogenised. The other is kind of what you're talking about: that overreliance on positionism without the ability to generate creative chaos can sometimes limit its effectiveness. We could point at Spain in the recent World Cup as an example: this was a technically very accomplished side, and able to progress the ball fluently, control possession, etc. In many respects they looked like one of the elite teams in the competition. But we remember how their campaign turned out.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah I'll always sample read a few pages of a book before buying and it never grabbed me like Cox can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, Cox is a far superior tactical analyst. He can watch and interpret the game. It turns out that Wilson was someone who did a very interesting piece of historical research, piecing together the story of tactical evolution from existing sources, but I don't think he's particularly good at thinking about the game for himself.
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
Anyhow, in fantasyland it would be great fun putting together a 'fastest' team, a 'tallest' team, a 'strongest' team, a 'brain box' team of graduates a 'chaos' team of unpredictables etc. and coming up with a tactical game to suit them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's a series of OPs for you to write there, Silver.
Rosso, Dazza, I'm waiting for your remarks on this topic. You both know a lot more about this stuff than I do.
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
Like with most debates that have 2 extremes, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. You can't have a functioning team with 11 players doing what they feel all the time. Neither can they all individually meet their potential if they're burdened by strict instructions for every movement.
Off the ball, the benefit of set formations and positioning is obvious. It just works. On the ball, aside from an agreed approach (kick it long, go down the wings or whatever) it should be more free flowing IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, and I think it's in the nuances of comparing slightly more / less positionally rigorous that this can be most interesting.
E.g. it would be hard to argue that Guardiola's positionism has put a ceiling on his achievements as a coach. But you can see that a player like Grealish could be more effective if he were given more freedom to improvise, and in certain matches where a disciplined side has worked hard to study and neutralise the patterns of a Guardiola team, they could perhaps do with allowing more chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's useful to put Guardiola in such a box. Sure his teams aren't chaotic but they're certainly not rigid in their positioning either. Fullbacks playing at centre mid, no recognised striker making it impossible for the opposition CB to mark someone (maybe partly why they're not doing so well this season).
It's pretty apparent to me that the best coaches are able to blend the two philosophies. And also that, whatever approach you choose, the limiting factor is more often the quality of the individuals - to either execute the system correctly or to improvise effectively. Hence the 'chequebook manager' comments that get bandied around.
Christ RR, I do wish I had more time available to read through your articles. I’ll try to get some time tonight to have butchers. Sounds interesting after a cursory reading.
Sign in if you want to comment
Positionism vs Relationism
Page 1 of 3
posted on 24/2/23
P.S.
Here's a fine article that looks at Ten Hag's approach through this framework: https://guillaumevdw.substack.com/p/how-team-tactical-philosophy-leans
Essentially, it sees him as somewhere in the middle of the spectrum between positionism and relationism. Slightly more in the positional camp, with strong principles about spatial positioning, but then putting more emphasis on the players to creatively solve problems in the final third of the pitch than e.g. a Conte or Sarri side would. The article argues that ETH's training is designed to encourage creative solutions to predefined tactical principles (which we could contrast both with pure relationism which lets players improvise how they are going to attack, and with pure positionism where coordinated attacking movements are predefined). Ten Hag employs choreographed 'circuits' as Conte would, but the difference is that for ETH they can be a 'muscle memory' to fall back on if things aren't working out, rather than a more strict basis for match play.
posted on 24/2/23
BTW I'm aware that these are not new concepts, Guardiola didn't invent positionism, and debates about individualism vs collective structure in football have been around for generations. I'm also sure the current discussions about post-Guardiola positionism and its antithesis have been raging since well before I became aware of them.
posted on 24/2/23
... and they say football is a simple game
posted on 24/2/23
Which did SAF prefer
posted on 24/2/23
Like with most debates that have 2 extremes, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. You can't have a functioning team with 11 players doing what they feel all the time. Neither can they all individually meet their potential if they're burdened by strict instructions for every movement.
Off the ball, the benefit of set formations and positioning is obvious. It just works. On the ball, aside from an agreed approach (kick it long, go down the wings or whatever) it should be more free flowing IMO.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
Like with most debates that have 2 extremes, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. You can't have a functioning team with 11 players doing what they feel all the time. Neither can they all individually meet their potential if they're burdened by strict instructions for every movement.
Off the ball, the benefit of set formations and positioning is obvious. It just works. On the ball, aside from an agreed approach (kick it long, go down the wings or whatever) it should be more free flowing IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, and I think it's in the nuances of comparing slightly more / less positionally rigorous that this can be most interesting.
E.g. it would be hard to argue that Guardiola's positionism has put a ceiling on his achievements as a coach. But you can see that a player like Grealish could be more effective if he were given more freedom to improvise, and in certain matches where a disciplined side has worked hard to study and neutralise the patterns of a Guardiola team, they could perhaps do with allowing more chaos.
posted on 24/2/23
Haha, a first one-star rating. Someone strongly disagrees with this sort of thing.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 31 minutes ago
Which did SAF prefer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd imagine he didn't think in precisely those terms, and of course almost all of his career preceded the emergence of Guardiola's new form of positionism. From that point of view, I think the centre of gravity of most top-level football was closer to the relationist end of the spectrum then than it is today.
It's interesting to note that Solskjaer, whose footballing education owes so much to Fergie, was much less spatially disciplined and emphasised individual problem solving in forward play, than today's median coach. He was derided as a 'vibes-based' coach. Ancelotti has also been seen as a bit of a dinosaur who lacked tactical sophistication - until he won another CL, at which point more questions are raised about whether his understanding of the value of giving his players freedom exposes the limits of positionist approaches. Maybe Solskjaer wasn't such a bad coach, and his failing was simply in not having the best players in the world in his team.
posted on 24/2/23
Don't worry RR, I posted an article about Duncan Edwards and someone gave it one star.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Don't worry RR, I posted an article about Duncan Edwards and someone gave it one star.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not offended. I'm amused at the thought process.
posted on 24/2/23
Not confined to football either. In rugby union some teams would want the biggest and strongest forwards to trundle controlled phase by controlled phase metre at a time up the pitch before eventually trundling over the line or having a platform to unleash some smaller fast guys predictably passing along predefined lines to score in a corner.
The smaller, lighter team would attempt to create the chaos by turning scrums, cutting the lineout, kicking into space, aiming for loose play and ruck or penalty wins and in the final third missing out players in the line or have some running on unexpected lines or reacting to chips and grubbers.
And so modern, professional rugby is a bit more exciting with more combinations and probably more inventiveness - the controlled chaos? Smaller nations are more likely to cause an upset, everyone is training and being coached in similar ways.
posted on 24/2/23
Stop going on about stars you dweebs. Whenever I see that on an article I give 1 star cos it's funny
posted on 24/2/23
The missus watched the game last night and asked me what the next tactical progression would be? I asked her what she would do given the chance? I got 'the look' !
BTW, its why I enjoyed Michael Cox's books so much explaining the chronology and system development and influences. A lot harder to predict what way it will go next right enough. I've no idea.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Not confined to football either. In rugby union some teams would want the biggest and strongest forwards to trundle controlled phase by controlled phase metre at a time up the pitch before eventually trundling over the line or having a platform to unleash some smaller fast guys predictably passing along predefined lines to score in a corner.
The smaller, lighter team would attempt to create the chaos by turning scrums, cutting the lineout, kicking into space, aiming for loose play and ruck or penalty wins and in the final third missing out players in the line or have some running on unexpected lines or reacting to chips and grubbers.
And so modern, professional rugby is a bit more exciting with more combinations and probably more inventiveness - the controlled chaos? Smaller nations are more likely to cause an upset, everyone is training and being coached in similar ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting (speaking as someone with very little knowledge or interest in rugby). I wonder if there are other sports where similar parallels apply.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 27 seconds ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 3 minutes ago
Not confined to football either. In rugby union some teams would want the biggest and strongest forwards to trundle controlled phase by controlled phase metre at a time up the pitch before eventually trundling over the line or having a platform to unleash some smaller fast guys predictably passing along predefined lines to score in a corner.
The smaller, lighter team would attempt to create the chaos by turning scrums, cutting the lineout, kicking into space, aiming for loose play and ruck or penalty wins and in the final third missing out players in the line or have some running on unexpected lines or reacting to chips and grubbers.
And so modern, professional rugby is a bit more exciting with more combinations and probably more inventiveness - the controlled chaos? Smaller nations are more likely to cause an upset, everyone is training and being coached in similar ways.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very interesting (speaking as someone with very little knowledge or interest in rugby). I wonder if there are other sports where similar parallels apply.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have little knowledge too! I'm waiting for an egg chaser to destroy my casual observation! The missus watches it and I pick up on stuff, that's all.
posted on 24/2/23
great article
I was listening to the Gary Neville podcast the other day and he kept on saying he doesnt understand why Pep is playing Bernardo as an auxillary left back and its the reason for their poor form and I sat there stunned because even a kid with basic knowledge of tactics knows that City or Peps teams have always played with the extra men in midfield and attack areas and now with Haaland as a 9, Pep is obviously looking to get an extra man in those areas.
So he positionally sets a back 3, then Bernardo only tracks back in the one on one confrontations.
However in posession can you imagine as the opposition coach having to face Bernardo, Gundo, KDB, Grealish, Mahrez and Haaland as an attacking 6.
I thought it was obvious but I am aware Gary isn't so bright but its a bit disappointing when seasoned pundits cannot point out obvious things like that.
Regarding the 2 philosophies I to a very small extent understand why some people complain that positionism has taken away the natural automation and thrill of football but only to a small extent as I believe bus parking by the likes of Mourinho and Conte and some of the so-called inferior teams with managers who cant think out of the box is the biggest reason for damage to the game. Not positionism.
I remember watching the champions league in the early and late nineties Every game was a spectacle. Every game. I remember that Valencia side with speedy gonzalez and the like where the matches were absolutely great. As much as he was a stunning manager, Mourinho and his ilk are those that ruined football.
My last point, I agree that a combination of the 2 is the best. By the way ETH is 100% a disciple of positionism, he only flips the script when United struggle. At times it works like most games this season. Sometimes the team gets bashed like at City or Villa.
I for one especially when I watch City play often ask myself cant they have 5 minute periods where they just cause chaos and pin the opposition back.
Liverpool under Klopp do this very well against tough opponents. Granted you need your players to be efficient
Think City combined both well in that team with Sane, Sterling and Aguero but the Key thing there is that Fernandinho in his pomp could recover against literally any counter attack and David Silva is probably one of the best and most precise playmakers you will ever see in this league. KDB is good but not David Silva levels.
Funny how not everyone can be an effective playmaker. Eriksen is proof that you either have it or you dont. Him, KDB lead this league in that department with Bruno close behind.
Gone on a tangent but Tactics fascinate me in football.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 16 seconds ago
The missus watched the game last night and asked me what the next tactical progression would be? I asked her what she would do given the chance? I got 'the look' !
BTW, its why I enjoyed Michael Cox's books so much explaining the chronology and system development and influences. A lot harder to predict what way it will go next right enough. I've no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting the Pyramid" is great on charting the history of tactics. His subsequent journalism is disappointingly limited: basically a binary view whereby choreographed football = good / reliance on spontaneous player creativity = bad, with a few historical references thrown in for the illusion of intellectual rigour.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 16 seconds ago
The missus watched the game last night and asked me what the next tactical progression would be? I asked her what she would do given the chance? I got 'the look' !
BTW, its why I enjoyed Michael Cox's books so much explaining the chronology and system development and influences. A lot harder to predict what way it will go next right enough. I've no idea.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wilson's "Inverting the Pyramid" is great on charting the history of tactics. His subsequent journalism is disappointingly limited: basically a binary view whereby choreographed football = good / reliance on spontaneous player creativity = bad, with a few historical references thrown in for the illusion of intellectual rigour.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah I'll always sample read a few pages of a book before buying and it never grabbed me like Cox can.
posted on 24/2/23
I know there are teams that we can point to and, for example, say peak Barca was the shortest - I'm not even sure that is true and maybe they were the most skilled or maybe we just admired the doing it differently - I don't know and digress.
Anyhow, in fantasyland it would be great fun putting together a 'fastest' team, a 'tallest' team, a 'strongest' team, a 'brain box' team of graduates a 'chaos' team of unpredictables etc. and coming up with a tactical game to suit them.
posted on 24/2/23
B10, great post.
I don't think the main accusation against positionism is that it is 'bad' as such. One aspect is that if it takes over as the universal tactical method, then football becomes stale and homogenised. The other is kind of what you're talking about: that overreliance on positionism without the ability to generate creative chaos can sometimes limit its effectiveness. We could point at Spain in the recent World Cup as an example: this was a technically very accomplished side, and able to progress the ball fluently, control possession, etc. In many respects they looked like one of the elite teams in the competition. But we remember how their campaign turned out.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 7 minutes ago
Yeah I'll always sample read a few pages of a book before buying and it never grabbed me like Cox can.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In my view, Cox is a far superior tactical analyst. He can watch and interpret the game. It turns out that Wilson was someone who did a very interesting piece of historical research, piecing together the story of tactical evolution from existing sources, but I don't think he's particularly good at thinking about the game for himself.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Silver (U6112)
posted 5 minutes ago
Anyhow, in fantasyland it would be great fun putting together a 'fastest' team, a 'tallest' team, a 'strongest' team, a 'brain box' team of graduates a 'chaos' team of unpredictables etc. and coming up with a tactical game to suit them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there's a series of OPs for you to write there, Silver.
posted on 24/2/23
Rosso, Dazza, I'm waiting for your remarks on this topic. You both know a lot more about this stuff than I do.
posted on 24/2/23
comment by Red Russian (U4715)
posted 50 minutes ago
comment by Bãleš left boot (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
Like with most debates that have 2 extremes, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. You can't have a functioning team with 11 players doing what they feel all the time. Neither can they all individually meet their potential if they're burdened by strict instructions for every movement.
Off the ball, the benefit of set formations and positioning is obvious. It just works. On the ball, aside from an agreed approach (kick it long, go down the wings or whatever) it should be more free flowing IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agreed, and I think it's in the nuances of comparing slightly more / less positionally rigorous that this can be most interesting.
E.g. it would be hard to argue that Guardiola's positionism has put a ceiling on his achievements as a coach. But you can see that a player like Grealish could be more effective if he were given more freedom to improvise, and in certain matches where a disciplined side has worked hard to study and neutralise the patterns of a Guardiola team, they could perhaps do with allowing more chaos.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think it's useful to put Guardiola in such a box. Sure his teams aren't chaotic but they're certainly not rigid in their positioning either. Fullbacks playing at centre mid, no recognised striker making it impossible for the opposition CB to mark someone (maybe partly why they're not doing so well this season).
It's pretty apparent to me that the best coaches are able to blend the two philosophies. And also that, whatever approach you choose, the limiting factor is more often the quality of the individuals - to either execute the system correctly or to improvise effectively. Hence the 'chequebook manager' comments that get bandied around.
posted on 24/2/23
Christ RR, I do wish I had more time available to read through your articles. I’ll try to get some time tonight to have butchers. Sounds interesting after a cursory reading.
Page 1 of 3