I came across this fantastic Youtube post (about the place of tactical systems in modern football, and their limitations) from The Football Purist a few days ago, and felt I had to share it. (I don't think I'd come across him before; he hasn't been posting much recently - but a piece like this obviously takes a long time to prepare. I note that much of his previous output has been on a similar theme - celebrating the primacy of individual creativity over rigidly structured tactical systems.)
This video essay promotes the idea that individual flair can still trump tactical structures, and should be prioritised over them. Taking an analogy from complex adaptive systems found in Nature, like ant colonies, it suggests that a 'collective intelligence' between players can be an emergent phenomenon within the team performance - if they are given the freedom to 'self-organise' and improvise their own solutions to challenges on the pitch, rather than following 'rules' conditioned into them as part of their coach's game model. Further, it demonstrates that the swift and fluid passing patterns that grow out of such an approach - lightning-quick intuitive interactions between players that theorists have dubbed synergies - can still be cultivated through structured training drills (slightly paradoxical though that may seem!).
Some coaches, like Ancelotti and Scaloni, seem to be achieving a lot of success with this kind of philosophy.
Let us hope that this is the 'future' of our game - a game that can once again be less like a chess match and more like a piece of art.
Or of fretting needlessly about someone looking over yours....
The FPL forums over this past week have been utterly overrun with people seeking advice on how to clinch a mini-league victory.
My bitterer impulses are to tell them that if they can't make their own unaided selection decisions, they don't deserve to be anywhere near the top of even the shittiest mini-league. But I can sympathise with the anxiety. Very early in the life of this blog, I recognised that mini-leagues are - rightly - the main focus of most FPL managers' aspirations; I think that's useful for maintaining focus and motivation. [As I said back then: Playing against people you know rather than just anonymous netizens puts far more fire in your belly!]
But is there really anything specific you can do to improve your chances against one or two particular opponents? NO.
The attempt to do so is misguided; more often than not, self-harming.
If 'chasing' - seeking to overtake a rival a short way ahead of you - the tactic of desperation (that's all it is; it does nothing to actually improve your chances of achieving the result you crave) is to focus on choosing as many different players to your opponent's selection as possible; and, usually, such left-field choices that there is little chance your adversary (or many other people at all.....) would think of choosing them!
If defending a fragile lead, people attempt to 'block' by doing the exact opposite, trying to load up on as many of the same players as your opponent as possible - to reduce the scope for 'luck' to operate in the opponent's favour.
Now, there is an argument to be made for either of these approaches - but it is not the one most of their adopters seem to want to believe.
The first tactic, in particular, may be justified as a last desperate throw-of-the-dice - hut that's all it is. By taking so many wild gambles, so many long shots, you are giving yourself a very small chance of achieving a big return that most others will miss out on; but that comes at the cost of vastly increasing the likelihood of a below-average return for the week. Your chances of a big success with a play like this are infinitesimally small: in every thousand or so of the possible alternate universes, there may be a few where you're a very happy camper; but in the vast majority of all possible universes - including, almost certainly, this one - you have a miserable week, and drop places rather than gain them.
When 'blocking' a pursuer, the argument in favour only really works if..... a) you have a fairly substantial lead, and b) you can limit the differences in your starting eleven to just 2 or 3 players.
Even then, it's not a terribly convincing ploy, because.... you don't know exactly what you're going to be up against until after the gameweek deadline. Even the most 'similar' teams almost always have at least 2 or 3 different players, usually slightly more. And your opponent has at least one Free Transfer to use. He might surprise you by spending points on one or two additional ones, and making that work for him. He might also make some surprising selections from his bench, or get very lucky with his captaincy pick.
Even if you have restricted him to just 2 or 3 'differentials' in comparison to your starting team, that might still be enough for him to overhaul your lead, if the Fates smile on him. And there is always a chance that he's boosted that 'differential' number to 4 or 5 - or more - with his last week's transfers.
By focusing only on trying to thwart one particular opponent, you will often fail even in that; and you'll almost certainly diminish your squad's overall performance - perhaps even to the point where you might get caught and overtaken by one or two other players who were a long way behind you.
A truly 'optimized' selection is optimized against EVERYONE, not just one other manager.
One forum panicker I saw just now was worried that his antagonist's captaincy pick might prove to be better than his! Yes, indeed it might. And, if there's a small gap between you, that will probably prove decisive. But if you trust your captaincy pick, stick with it. There is no point second-guessing yourself,... or endlessly trying to anticipate what your nemesis might do....
This is a harsh and unfair game: it depends very largely on pure LUCK. There is no point losng sleep about the potential for bad outcomes. You just have to accept that they are possible,... likely; laugh them off when they happen, be duly grateful and relieved when they don't.
The essence of the game is to pick what you think is the best team for the week. You do that in isolation, in a vacuum - relying on your own knowledge and judgement of the EPL teams and players - without reference to what any other FPL managers are doing. You follow that same principle every week, including the final week of the season. And you see what happens. If a lot of your picks work out, you have a good week. If you have a lot of good weeks, it becomes a good season. But if not,... then you don't. C'est la vie.
You play THE GAME; you don't play individual opponents.
Football Meta's amiable and insightful Cormac has become one of my favourite Youtube tactical analysts over the past year or so. And I was particularly glad to see him just drop this video, detailing the shortcomings of the dread 'building out from the back' philosophy. (For me, he doesn't really go far enough in his critque...)
I find this tiresome dogma, which has become almost universal in the Premier League during the past decade, is stifling the life out of the game - it is the new anti-football.
It is painfully dull to watch.
It imposes far too much pressure on keepers and defenders - which, I think, wears them down mentally, undermines their confidence, and utlimately tends to make them more error-prone not just in build-up, but in all aspects of their play. (Because mistakes by a keeper or his defenders often tend to be castastrophic, yielding a goal and perhaps costing the game, their errors are placed under far closer scrutiny than those of attacking players, and tend to be given more weight than their successful defensive actions. And when they are on the ball so much, in dangerous situations, and committing costly errors - or at least coming close to doing so - so often, in almost every game, these poor buggers are often now getting pilloried by the fans.... when it's really not their fault; it's down to their manager's style of play.)
And it is founded on what I believe is a fundamental misconception: the fearful, over-conservative conviction that restricting the opponent's chances is more important to ensuring victory than creating your own. (The problem here is that you cannot play football purely as a matter of statistics, because the element of chance can never be eliminated. Even if you can prevent your opponent from getting any clearcut chances [which is just about impossible], while you manage, say, 10 chances,.... your finishing might not be good enough to convert any of the 10 chances, while your frustrated opponent might yet produce a worldie of a goal out of nothing, or perhaps pick up a soft penalty. This approach does not guarantee wins; in fact, it makes them painfully hard to achieve. If you're content to accept a more free-flowing, 'chaotic' sort of game, in which both sides might enjoy something like 20 chances, you should be able to win - and win more easily, and by bigger margins - so long as you can defend the chances made against you better than the other side defends against yours.)
Even if the core philosophy behind it weren't so misguided, it is still wrong-headed in practical terms. Its supposed justification is encapsulated in the tiresome mantra: "The quicker it goes up, the quicker it comes back."Build-up from the back started because managers like Pep became afraid that long balls out from the goalkeeper were too often resulting in an immediate loss of possession, and the more patient approach was seen as being a way to hold on to the ball more effectively,.... and eat minutes off the clock.
However, that's a very questionable proposition. If your goalkeeper can kick accurately, and if you have some well-drilled routines to create different medium- and long-range passing options for him, and if you have very quick players who can run into space behind the opposing back line to chase down a long ball over the top, or big strong players who can win most of their aerial duels and hold the ball up until other teammates can link up with them,.... there's really not that much of a problem in retaining possession from a keeper's kick. Well, yes, it is always going to be a little risky; and you might end up losing possession perhaps as much of half of the time (at worst...). But so what? Losing possession in the opposition defensive third of the pitch shouldn't be a big deal. You ought to be set up for a quick counter-press to win the ball back again, or at least hamper the speed and ease with which the other side can start to move the ball back up the pitch. And even if they do start quickly on the counter, you should have good defensive midfielders who can snuff out most such moves in the middle of the park.
A loss of possession deep in the opponent's half isn't often going to result in a goalscoring chance against you. A loss of possession in your own final third, however, almost always does.
And we are seeing such turnovers during failed build-up play more and more often in recent years.
Perhaps when building-out-from-the-back first started to appear, there was some clearer benefit to it. It had the advantage of novelty in its favour; and most sides weren't equipped to counter it very well.
Teams were still often only playing with one outright forward, or at most two; and 'high pressing' wasn't yet much of a thing. So, a back-four, or even a back-three, usually had a comfortable numerical advantage in the first line, even without having the keeper step up into the back-line to create an additional passer - and sides playing out from the back could thus usually bypass initial pressure quite easily.
But now,.... many more teams are playing with a front-three,... and are regularly pushing one or more of their midfielders or advanced full-backs up on to the opposing back-line as well; sometimes, the numerical advantage is with the attacking team. And even though it mostly still isn't, pressing has become much more sophisticated and well-drilled: teams will choose their moments to press most vigorously, saving their energy for when it can be most effective, most devastating; and they'll target particular players or areas of the pitch, so that, even though they are outnumbered across the whole back-line, they can quickly achieve a crucial overload in the area around the ball.
The slow build-up idea might have 'worked' up to a point, when it was a surprising innovation. But things have moved on, the game has caught up with it - and overtaken it.
Any tactical idea becomes limiting, self-damaging if it is too obvious, too predictable. And we now see so many managers who are so insistent on the slow build-up that they almost never stray from it, never allow their players to vary the way they play out. And that makes them very easy to 'read', easy to press,... easy to nick the ball off in dangerous positions.
I'm not sure that building-out-from-the-back ever really worked all that well. But it has now clearly become an absolute liability for many teams.
And did I mention, it's SO FUCKING BORING to watch? Aesthetics matter; this is 'the beautiful game', after all. Most fans, I'm sure, would far rather see their team come out on the losing end of a 4-3 humdinger of a game occasionally than watch them grinding out arid 1-0 and 2-0 wins most weeks. I know I would, anyway.
I think, I hope we are now seeing the last days of ponderous slow build-up from the back, in favour of more diverse, dynamic approaches to moving the ball forward from your own penalty area. It's been a long time coming. Too, too long....
