When comparing it to Tiki-Taka, specially if you're looking at Guardiola, it is way more structured, meaning players move to specific places that they were trained to do. When you look at the relationist version of it, it becomes way more fluid, players move to where they can find spaces, not worrying too much on set positions.
Pep doesn't Play Tiki Taka even him himself admitted it, he left that style when he no longer had Xavi, Iniesta and Messi cause Tiki Taka has to do more with creativity and skill level of a Player.
In Barcelona Guardiola allowed "relationism" only for 3 players: Messi, Xavi and Iniesta. Other players were just supporting them in their positions around.
Here's the thing: If you can predict where your players are going to be at all times, so can the opposition - and they can come up with tactics to counter your tactics.
This. I haven’t gotten through the whole video, but what Luke doesn’t understand yet (perhaps because he hasn’t watched enough to see the pattern yet) is that for any system there is a counter system. There is a point in which systems become “stale” because they are easily countered by another system, and then it’s stale mate.
I mean… Brazil is the most heavy hitter footballing nation in the world (historically), both as a team and when it comes to creating individual talents (think Pelé, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaká, Neymar… to name a few). And they were able to win FIVE (!!!!) World Cups and be dominant for many decades and generations. All of that while also creating and developing the Beautiful Game style, which is the very reason many of us even fell in love with the sport in the first place. And they did all that while being the most creative team ever. They specifically relied on their players’ dribbling and “quick on their feet” abilities. So, yes, it IS very much possible to be creative (the “Globetrotters” of football, if you will) AND to be dominant and win World Cups. Both things are not mutually exclusive, thankfully. And, to be honest, I miss that style so much. It was magic. The jersey #10 actually meant something. There’s only so much of the European “machine” style that I (personally) can take. It’s very robotic and scripted. Football is still a sport, it should be, to a certain degree, spontaneous and unpredictable. Guardiola is great, yes, but his style took so much JOY out of the game itself. I admire his results, obviously, but I do think it lacks spark and excitement for the overall fan of the sport/game at large. It reminds me of the German style of playing, too. Very machine like. Effective, but lacks “magic”. I miss Brazil. But I’ve seen shades of that old school joy coming back from Brazil and some other teams following; hopefully it’s back in full force around the world soon.
exactly, that is one the "problems" with this modern approach to football tactics, it can damage the youth players if it is too much ingrained even at the lower level of football.
I saw (and played against) a lot of young man on the streets, who didn`t make it to their profession. Far more talented than most of those who went to play professional football. The scouts should be looking for talents on the streets again.
You mentioned Messi playing in Guardiola's system. While he did play there, he was the one player Guardiola didnt tell what to do. He just let Messi be Messi, and structured the team around him
Napoli this year were dynamite. I'd rather watch them than Pep's boring Man City team any day. Beautiful choas is what football, especially South American football, is all about. Every fan would prefer to win 4-2 than 2-0.
fr, watching man city play is boring af. players like grealish dribble to pass the ball to the defenders instead of trying to go forward and create something. as u said, "chaos" is what football is in its core, letting players be creative, and thats why when u think of the best players ever u think of all south american players like messi, maradona, pele, neymar, ronaldinho, riquelme
I think there are still some parts of relationism you would like seeing from your defensive philosophy of pressing hard and counter attacking fast. Relationism is set up for that style of defense perfectly because you have a lot of players around the ball so when you lose it, you can press hard in numbers and win it back immediately.
It's absolutely beautiful watching Fluminense play, there's no denying that. Unfortunately (for Flu's fans, which I'm not), the team suffers with injuries and is very inconsistent. And it's NOT pure chaos, AT ALL And Diniz is the new Brazil interim coach
Lots of criticism on Diniz but i really thing he is a good force to our football, coaches very rarely have the opportunity to make mistakes, and without mistakes there is no growth, but by his sheer stubbornness he has been able to develop himself and his style and i think that's very admirable. Hope is not saked and that flu is able to bring in some players to strengthen the squad. Só a cargo de curiosidade, sou rubro-negro mas torço pelo desenvolvimento do nosso futebol.
NOW, you are finally getting exposed to the true essence of what makes Football ever so fluid and entertaining. These relationist elements are there in almost all the teams, but are sadly sucked out by some managers, and this had become a trend for some time. It's good to see managers realizing the X factor that was missing in the game for some years, and where else the magic would rekindle but Brazil.
7:20 football is not always about winning, it still is entertainment, it's still the sport we play when we are kids. creativity, skills will always be important
exactly the emphasis on winning and tactics has essentially taken the flair and creativity out of the new players coming through they are all essentially robots in a system now
NO, it's about winning, and then everyone has their prefered style of football. I still don't know a supporter that would prefer his team losing but playing "good", than the opposite. Tactics always have been a thing, anybody who thinks players in the past were allowed to do what they wanted is completely wrong.
Relationism isn't just chaos, it's like laying down the skeleton as a manager and allowing the players to fill in the muscles and skin, whilst positional play structure requires the coach to handle every single aspect of the game. So there's a baseline to relationism.
On how we are able to tell where managers fall on this particular spectrum is simply watching their teams play. What the players do at every phase of play, in attack, defence. Looking at the posititions of the players, the movements they make and how often to they make them. Sometimes managers will even explain how the basics of their tactics work on channels like the coaches voice. All this adds up to how we can compare managers and their particular styles of play.
Football Meta dude is a professional football analyst. He knows how to analyze teams, its literally his job. He sees and understand things that normal fans dont see, which is normal, it is his job after all. Most fans dont sit down and analyze games frame by frame for hours every day. Thats why his channel is so valuable
Exactly 10:32 this is exactly how you do it, you can find out pretty quickly by watching games and analisying them (so maybe not so quickly...lol) where the structure is, the more repeated patterns you see, the more it is clear they have a much more rigid system on their hand, while, conversely, the more a team is reliant on individual players and their interaction with each others is definitely more on the "chaotic" end of the spectrum.
As far as I know, there isn’t a stat that necessarily quantifies where a manager falls on the spectrum of order vs chaos. I think it’s generally knowledge accrued over watching the team play, and understanding how the players move in game in relation to the initial formation. With Guardiola, he mentioned maintaining the shape, whereas Fluminence intentionally allows almost total collapse of structure. The thing that you mentioned about Messi in the case of Guardiola is correct, as Guardiola has allowed Messi a heightened degree of freedom in Barcelona, but there was still a clear structure on the pitch outside the anomaly that is Messi. Now this is more about Guardiola, but in relation to the chaos element, one of Messi’s most iconic goals is actually a perfect example of relationism, where Messi plays a one two with Busquetes in the middle before Busquetes stops the ball and just lets Messi run through Real Madrid’s defense. The play started in a clear structure, and Messi let his creative freedom surprise the opponents. By most means, this looked stupid until the play worked out. This is why Guardiola isn’t on the end of the order half of the spectrum, as exceptional creative talents like De Bruyne or the GOAT himself are granted relative creative freedom to make unexpected plays, while the other players adapt the structure to the idea. But of course, as you mentioned it means a manager must adapt to the talent he has on the team, as you can’t run chaotic play with high talent requirements when you don’t have the personnel for it.
If you want more about Diniz you should check out the video Fluminense have the wierdest football tactis in the world (by the way, Diniz is the New Brazil's National team coach)
hey there Luke! you should watch more south american football (Brazil and Argentina). it will increase your knowledge of the game, since there's a whole different approach to it outside of Europe.
The difference between the relationist and the positional play principles is the reference, the relationist refrence are the players which is not a fixed reference and explains fluidity, while the positional play's reference is the pitch-zones/space, which is a fixed reference hence the static/scripted play.
Henry once said that Guardiola used to tell them that his job is to teach the team how to get to the final third and once there the players need to do their magic to score.
Internationaly unnoticed St.Pauli from the 2nd german Bundesliga has heavily implemented this since installing their new and very young Coach. He won his first 10 games in a row with a supbar Team, that was Fighting Relegation and turned the table since then rising to Promotion battle
I had hoped you checked this. I became aware of Diniz this year and have tried to watch Fluminense matches in the brazilian tournament and in the Libertadores Cup. Very intrigued of how it will play in the future.
The thing you are missing is that you are thinking that those "creative players" are only top level players like Messi. But that's not really true. There's technical creative players at all levels, and because they are playing against players at their level too, they will excel if you give them freedom. Even in Guardiola's TikiTaka Messi had freedom to do things that weren't just Guardiola's tactical ideas. Some players just play out of their minds if they aren't constrained into a tactical system because they play more out of intuition but they don't have the "brain" to play into a very rigid tactical system, and you have to give them the chance to be more free by letting them play in positions where they can overload the opposition by just their presence, so you can actually have even stronger tactics in other areas of the pitch. Maybe you got a bunch of very creative kids, that if you teach them basic positioning and basic drills, they will just do the rest by pure intuition, you can never know.
Vini Jr from Real Madrid is very clear example of what you said. Before Ancelloti arrived at Real Madrid, Vini was just a regular player, many people even considered him a flop, but Ancelloti gave him the freedom he needed and now he's one of the best players in the world. South American players in general are not very good at playing in a rigid structure and following tactics, it has to do with how we grow up playing and our culture in general, we're not very good at following rules lol
The reason why creativity is so highly valued is because in big games where 2 tactically astute managers have good squads, sometimes you end up with stalemates, especially in knockout cups and finals. Either because the managers see eachothers traps, just play safe and say "i'm not falling for it" or often in international matches where the squad isnt as connected with eachother as on a club level. That's when the individual creativity and brilliance of playmakers like KDB, Messi, Bruno Fernandes, Ødegaard etc need the space and attempts to find the few chances that can win you the game. Edit: Messi was famously allowed to do whatever he wanted in Peps Barcelona and was exempt from most of the rules set for the rest of the team.
I love watching your understanding of the game develop. From “i understand wanting to have the ball more” to “that counter attack must be brutal” it’s really cool to see in someone else
What is being described here is how most amateur football is played. I progressed through well-coached school teams right through to old boys veterans, in some cases taking the field with guys I had played with on and off for 30 years. This is the ultimate relationism when you know each others strengths and weaknesses therefore being able to play intuitively and knowing what's likely to happen next. I think it was Ireland coach Jack Charlton who, when asked by a new player what the tactics were, replied "win the ball and pass it someone better than you!". Get the ball to the best players, for example Ronaldinho, and things will happen. The game become beautiful largely due to skill and spontaneity. Frankly, leaving money aside, I would not want to be a pro having to stick to rigid formations with a yappy coach barking instructions from the touchline.
Ok, so lets go slow here. I can see how you as a American Sport fan/coach will say "As long as we are winning I dont care if its boring" but thats why football is know as "the beautiful game", because it IS beautiful when you see players having the freedom to do magic in the field. Dont get me wrong, the end goal is the same in every sport, we all want to win. But why cant we try to win in a FUN way? Thats what Dinis philosophy try to achive. He says in every interview that "I want my players to have fun, because when they do, they will play better" and the thing is, even if it seems utopian, Diniz philosophy makes teams with a medium cast of players compete with titans like Flamengo, Palmeiras and others that are REALLy Good. Its not just euphemism like the guy makes seems, thats why the guy is now the Coach of the Brazil National Team.
this is exactly what we are missing since the end of Joga Bonito days, the last top years of the likes of Ronaldinho and Kaka was the time when we truly enjoyed football, and haven't enjoyed many big clubs game as much.
Diniz is fun to watch but I wouldn't want him to coach my team simply because his team is inconsistent and heavily reliant on first team players. He hasn't won anything significant and the most important thing in competitive football is to win. I forgot to add he has coached big teams before and you know what happened.
@@amorphous7474 i mean, tell me ONE team he has bean a coach that had a really good squad? Spoiler: he has not. The best team he had so far is this Fluminense, and even this squad is really mid tier... I dont think its fair to ask of him to win big things with the teams hes had. You can be a really good coach and iet never win big things...
There's certain players that you must give some creative flexibility to no matter how structured your team management is. That's how football works. Even Guardiola would allow certain guys to do what they want if they had the talent.
I think more than creativity, the key in relationism is giving way more agency to way more players than usual. In structured systems players would be incentivized to follow the plan while a select few are allowed to deviate from it for when the plan doesn’t work out or to allow their specific abilities (such as really good passing, dribbling, creativity or vision) to influence the game and open up more opportunities within the bounds of the system. On the other hand in relationism you would allow for more players to deviate from the plan to always try and create new opportunities, these opportunities are mostly centered around the mutual understanding of your teammates and how they play, maybe your defensive midfielder which would need to be more positionally responsible, likes to do diagonal runs and if his teammates know this and he is given the agency to do those runs, they can use that to create chances for when it happens. Because of this I would say that any player could play chaotically as long as there is familiarity with other teammates, but it would require players with one or two unique abilities to make it consistently better than a more structured system. On the other hand I would say complex structured systems require players that are positionally responsible and tactically adept while still risking becoming predictable if no agency is given to at least a couple players to open up chances when needed.
I think that's the beauty of football different philosophies that contradicts personalities, you can tell a guy is a Manchester united or Chelsea fan from their mindset
Something important to consider in more structured systems is that the players need to be tactically adept. As was mentioned in the video, the players need to be able to identify the space in order to exploit the space without compromising the team in other areas. That’s why you don’t see a “Manchester City” in lower levels of football. And as you said same goes for the other extreme where you let players express themselves on the pitch, they need to be creative and take good decisions at every moment or they compromise the team. I would say for vast majority of teams, a mix is needed where players have a set guideline to follow and yet allow for variety that arises not only from player creativity but from understanding how your specific teammates on the pitch like to play. Going to either extreme requires a very specific team that excels at what they do.
At 15:08 when you were asking about how the fast passing is different to Tiki-Taka, how I understand the difference is that in relational football, the players look for small scale or individual opportunities to progress and have the freedom to pursue those. In essence, some players might move forward a lot quickly and the team will come up to meet them. In TT, with the short passes, the whole team will collectively take ½ a step forward but maintain the overall structure. It’s surging vs incremental gains
I think the diversity of systems is great for the progress of the game and from the look of the look of things, the more chaotic structures tend to favour the 'flair players' like Ronaldinho. It is not surprising that these tactics are prevalent in South America where most of these flair players come from
I think your American football background is influencing your footie philosophy in a really interesting way. You seem to favour structure and set plays in a way that reminisces American football plays and set plays. It’s interesting as a fan of both to see how one influences the other. I may be totally wrong though
In positionism you want to create as much free space as possible, in relationism you want to outnumber your opponent. It is not pure chaos, its just that in positionism the players have clear zones on the pitch, you can point out which player active in which area, while in relationism player do not have zones, but they still have roles, and is still an organized system
The thing about the imprevisibility of the game to us, brazilians, is that we play football in almost any enviroment (on an asphalt street, on the beach, in doors etc). Many youngers will often with compete against bigger and older players in street games. That's the way they develop their skills. Most of the great brazilian players have a futsal background, where these kind of play is very regarded. So this kind of play is a way to use our style. About Diniz, he is very fond of Brasil's old style of play football, like the way we played in the 1982 World Cup. So he tries to recreate that kind of football, while many other counterparts try to emulates european style on tactical approuch.
@@BecoPlays Kinda yes, kinda no. It sure lacks facilities, but we like to play too much, so any place is a place. When I was a kid, I and the other boys use to play a improvised football in classroom in between classes. We use paper balls or plastic bottles. We also like to play in the beach etc. Just like basketball in the USA.
very cool, I've been following your channel for a while now, and I've seen you learn a lot about the sport, but I could NEVER imagine watching you watch a video about Fernando Diniz and his tactics! FLUMINENSE is my life! a hug from Brazil! I don't want to lose my coach to the national team!!!!
When all team scripting all scenario..sometimes it will be bored and opponent also can predict the tactic..its not happen in south american that they play football in street since the child..creatifity speed and technique of the team will make the different.
I think the thing to remember is the Guardiola has gradually moved more towards structure and positional play - 15 years ago his tiki-taka Barca team was a bit more relationist in its philosophy than his current Man City team. It wasn't entirely chaotic (listen to Thierry Henry's interview where he talks about not being allowed to go outside of his zone of the field) but in midfield I believe a lot of the relationist principles were seen in the short pass-and-move play of Zavi, Iniesta, Messi and Busquets.
I think pep has said the reason is that Xavi,Iniesta and Messi knew how to position themselves, when to keep the ball,when to release and when to be individualistic. They were very smart and very good at what they did he just gave positional structure to protect and press defensively and get them from the back to midfield but after that guys like Messi and Iniesta had freedom to do whatever they wanted creatively to attack and cause chaos especially Messi. pep has not been able to have a player as good at causing chaos, is versatile and has the ability to draw players out of position and attract more than one player to them since Messi. It's why his teams now look more rigid. It's why I tell people that they should never compare Haaland to Messi cause if he was anywhere near as complete and good as Messi he would be given more freedom by Pep but instead he is not intact when he tris to leave his zone Pep is always seen screaming at him telling him to get back to his zone cause he only trusts him in the six yard area while he trusted Messi to go anywhere he saw an advantage cause he was that good at every part of the pitch and with an exception football IQ.
Dude have you seen blue lock yet? Nothing but soccer chaos lol , Love you're videos man, been watching them for a few months , tryna learn soccer right along with ya honestly.😂
messi played his best football under pep. he won four out of his seven ballon dors in th e four years he played under pep. he was given a LOT of freedom by pep as he usually played a free role.
I agree with you I support what gives you results. I think on this era better results come from possesion and positional football but I've also seen so many examples of the contrary. The only thing we now is, football constantly changes, nowadays positional play gives you better results overall, but every time something works good on football someone comes up and breaks the boundaries. So we expect the balance to keep changing from order to chaos and back
agree with you Luke. "scripting" plays forces less errors, especially playing out from the back. now that you've played a bit yourself you know how hard it is to maintain a visual on the field, teammate positions, opponents positions to make a good decision WHILE controlling the ball. it's so different compared to other sports because you have to do all that while looking at your feet.
I think it comes down to players, flexibility afforded by more chaotic styles can overcome deficiencies in the skill and stamina of the side. But if you have the time and more importantly resources to build a consistent talent pool and style then as a coach a more disciplined play would suit long term. As a person who naturally favours playing as a centre back the old George Graham Arsenal offside trap is quite appealing but the evolution of the wingback is certainly more exciting to watch.
The view of football as chaotic, complex system is really different from what you see in american sport In american football for example players are just executer of a scheme, of a pattern, with one actual mind which is out of the pitch (the Off./def. Coordinator and the head coach). Football instead is so chaotic and fluid that is impossible to control, to analyse, to divide in parts. So the new philosophies are trying, rather than to control the mess that is football, to surf through it, to sail through the stormy sea. The point is that creativity is not needed because it makes the game beautiful and entertaining 🎉, creativity is being able to react to enexpected situations, the capacity of the player to deal with unpredictability Which is indeed, very valuable to win
It's a way to try and understand and is a good introduction to the fact there are other ways of organizing the team. But Diniz is more relationist and uses more set plays than Ancelotti, for exemple, so... more complex than that
I don't think it's about organization vs chaos or creativity versus coach authority, but more about what is the tool used for communication and cooperation within the team. Relationism being precisely about relations between players, and positional about space. Both can be orderly or caotic, both can rely more on players iniciative or on prearranged actions. Diniz uses a lot of set plays, with reharsed movements to play from the back. And Guardiola emphasizes the fact that positional play is a way of bolstering the players creativity bc it puts them in advantageous positions to use their abilities
IMO Argentine's tactic is a bad example for chaos or relationism. What they did was to allow Messi and only Messi to play the way he wanted and had all the other players form a structure to support his play. So it isn't too chaotic as only Messi is acting as an chaotic element. I would say that is also a good idea for a compromise. Have a base structure, but allow your players who have the ability for that to cause chaos and be less predictable for the other team.
The thing is, everybody's career starts out as a relationist player. When you' re a child you often play 5 a side futsal or even 3 v 3 at times and in those declination football can only be relationist. Relationism at high levels is "scary looking" due to taking the control away from managers, but it also take away control from the opposing manager as you can't script and prepare a defense for what essentialy is high level improvvisation.
Watching this channel to see your improvement not just on football but editing video too. I still remember you dont wanna pause video because "too much editing". Love your channel ❤ And if you are tactics, i recommend Efootball 2024. Tactics playout more realistic than fifa
It's not just about player positions. It's also where the ball goes and players moving into 'unscripted' places. If the passing is just to the 'next' position, you'll have a hard time surprising anyone.
You can tell managers structural Vs creativity of they get new players in that do the same job others did before them. The team looks the same wherever the manger goes
A nice chanel with tactics is purist football it is a nice one if you want a match analysis.That chanel with football made simple and football meta are my go to for tactics
It would be nice if you would analyze free kicks and corners. I feel there's a transferable skill the way you design plays in american football vs. football, when in those situations.
I think it depends on the players you have in your squad. If you have more technically gifted and creative players, a structured tactic doesnt suit them, it shackles them. While if you have a team full of workman-like players, a structured tactic if better suited because while they're not as creative, they know where they're supposed to be, what to do, and where to go with the ball. Messi, Ronaldinho, CR7 and such wouldn't necessarily work in a structured tactic but you can also let them do their own thing while the rest of the team can be structured around them and still work. It all depends on your squad. There's many teams that have that 1 player that's a difference maker and they're allowed to be themselves while the rest of the team has a structure to follow.
You’re comment about creativity is exactly how I feel about it. Brighton under Graham Potter played “attractive” football that created lots of chances, but the most goals they scored in 3 full seasons was 42. When they finished 16th there was people saying they should be getting into Europe simply because of the style they played. But after 32 games under De Zerbi, which is probably more “attractive” but a bit less creative, they’ve scored 61 goals. Graham Potter left Brighton for Chelsea, was sacked after around 15 games and career as a top level manager could be over because after that disaster he’s gonna need to do something special to get another job at a top team.
I would not use the word chaos, because there is definitely a degree of organization. But rather than be in specific areas, it is far more depending of the players, their skills, creativity and their chemistry. And even if you as a coach do not intend to play the style, it is vital that you learn to recognize it, so you can find a proper counter tactic.
Football has always gone through phases of chaos followed by order followed by chaos. The dribble, followed by the passing game, the Magyars, wingless wonder, catenaccio, Brasil 1970, total football etc. It's the randomness which makes it the greatest game in the world, as opposed to US sports which are just an excuse for a three course meal.
Pure chaotic system is the natural habitat of the Ronaldinho and the Messi species - that's where they are born. Chaotic teams are going to throw all the variables they can find into your beautiful lines and positions. That's how South Americans teams can beat the europeans. PS: But if you want TRUE chaos, that's 1974 Netherlands with Johan Cruijff. The dutch had pure anarchy
Did this dude just showed Ronaldinho at Barcelona, and called that chaos? Barcelona with prime Ronaldinho was not a chaotic team! That was artistic creativity, combined with structure. Ronaldinho was THE player that made a difference, and they won it all! A manager without good players is nothing. Guardiola coached only teams that were already the best in the league, and could afford quality players. Surely, if you can`t comprehend the mind (are/was not able to play like that) of players like Ronaldinho, Zidane, R9, prime CR etc., than you will call that chaos. It`s better then for you to play a more structured game, like tiki-taka (get the ball, pass the ball!).
I guess the main difference between this and tiktaka would be the freedom to occupy spaces in the pitch. Pepe had a a "form" predefined, while this relies more in free interactions between the players.
the guy at Football Meta is a professional football analyst, he works in Italy and he knows a lot of things that we - the fans, dont know. Its his job to see and understand things that normal people that dont work in football dont.. You need to check out his video about his football analyst career, its very interesting.
Orderly system based teams will always do well on average, but sometimes a bit of chaos is needed to get that win you would never get just sticking to the script. That's how a frankly average Argentina side got their hands on the World Cup, they had Messi.
7:04 just hear Ibrahimovic talk about Guardiola and you will understand why it can be a problem...not because the teams that play a more "scripted" game are not winning....clearly, since all of the top teams have massive success using those type of methods...but because it hinders certain players that perform better when they are not forced to play a certain way, and that is why managers like Guardiola don't actually want the best players in the world...they want the best players in the world that are better suited for the specific tactics that they like to use and that are more inclined to follow orders rather than players who can create chances from nothing or from a bad play....and that is one of the reason why those type of players are so important...for example, Messi was the epitome of that, but, since he was also very good at playing possession football and all of the rest of the team was very well oiled and perfect, Guadriola allowed messi to do what he wanted,and you don't get a lot of his solo goals if that wasn't the case, he didn't care about gardiola tactics...and who need to, when you can dribble 7 opposing players and then score a goal, but he was the only player he allowed to do that, and players like Ibra or Eto were intead scolded more than anything, and that is why they were forced to move away from Barcellona. Another reason that this might be a "problem" in modern football, is that in youth players the focus on developing players that are only very good at this type of positional and posession style of football are at risk of not developing properly and to either become one dimensional players, before even knowing what they are actually talented and good at, and even have players that end up stopping playing football all together because deemed "not good", when in reality, maybe they are just not good for a specific system, this is, for example one of the reasons being discussed in Italy, as to why we have a lack of real talent in the national teams compared to the past. Similar discussions are happening in Brazil , a footballing nation build around the fact that players like Pele, R9, Ronaldinho etc etc all were masters of improvisation, creating chances from nothing on their own, by being able to express themselves when they played, because that is what they were doing since they were kids in the streets or on the beach. And of course, i only talked about this from a players perspective...but of course, as explained in this video you were reacting to and the video on Fluminese by the same channel, there are also tactical advantages (and disadvantages...like every tactics) to this method....so it does work, and you do end up winning (and, as said at the start of the video....even just 15 years ago, a lot of teams in the top 5 european leagues were not playing this super rigid positional and posession style of play at all). Also, on the same vein...what happen when you go and play in a different team? you need a lot of time to adapt to the manager's specific tactic...and it might not work...or even worse, what happen in the national team? in the national team, you don't have the time to drill every play like at club level, because you have little time to spend together as a team, that is why most national teams actually use very "chaotic" style of play...because it is still the place where the individual talent, skills andattributes of the players is going to make most of the work for the team.....of course you have exceptions, like Mancini's Italy....who play very much like a club team, and that have a very specific and rigid system, and it did work very well making them win the Euro 2020...but when even one of the gears break...than you have a disaster in your hand...and you cannot just buy a new player...because you have to use the players that have performed well in that specific season and not the ones that are best suited for the system, and if you don't, like Mancini, and you keep using, not the most in from italian players, but the players that best fit your tactical system, you end up not qualifying for the World Cup...only 6 months after winning the second major international title behind the World Cup itself.
I feel the spectrum's placing is not accurate but it's a fairly accurate in terms of measuring amount of freedom allowed. Guys like Sarri and Bielsa is notorious for controlling every single movement of his players and they drills them into his system until they pass out. Arteta and Xavi being near each other since they are both students of Guardiola, Arteta was his assistant in City and Xavi was playing under him and they both know how detail oriented Guardiola is. Klopp is basically rock & roll football with the offensive movements but on the defensive side it's very rigid and strict. Ten Haag basically comes from the school of total football with lots of freedom to move around. Often giving too much freedom is a sign of a bad manager without a plan but i assume it can work on occasions as long there is fundamental ideas behind.
“they could come up with something brilliant or theycould run the team to the groud” that right there is the perfect description of Fernando Diniz’s entire coaching career here in Brazil usualy they run the team to the ground at the end of the championship, which is why after more than a decade of coaching his resumée is not impressive in terms of trophies
Regarding that spectrum in the middle of the video, it's not just the coach that matters there, but also specifically the team that they are at. For instance, you mentioned that Guardiola was coaching Messi, but it was in past, in a different team and back then Guardiola would be much closer to the middle of this spectrum for sure. His Man City is pretty different to that, it's like a super computer that he's trying to build, a mechanism. Barca wasn't that at all.
Brazil has 5 world cups with creativity, but that's their essence. If you are more conservative and if you dont have the right players, you will never be able to implement these strategies. Brazilian football is pretty much street football in a 11v11
The Purist Football has very good tactical videos you should check out. Very, very good videos. I think you'll like them. Tons of Barca and Guardiola videos which is what you like, I guess.
It's a modern concept to have the coaches win matches. For better or worst. Growing up playing soccer (and still today) it is never about being in a position, just be in the best place at the best time. This is natural soccer and every player has it, not just superstars like Messi and Neymar.
Think of creativity as adaptability. If you just keep running plays the other side smother you because you dont get regular breaks for coaches to call for the next play
I've watched the video on relationism by the excellent Football Meta. It took me a while to get my head around such a counter intuitive theory as relationism as I always had watched football through the lens of positional play and tactics. Your analysis at the end was exactly how I thought of it. There is a structure but that structure is a definite a lack of structure as players form tight square's and triangle to pass in. As I commented to Football Meta I can see relationism working in attack but definitely would want my defenders adhering to positional play as I myself prefer structure and order, both in life and football.
Creativity is the reason why football is called "The beautiful Game"
When comparing it to Tiki-Taka, specially if you're looking at Guardiola, it is way more structured, meaning players move to specific places that they were trained to do. When you look at the relationist version of it, it becomes way more fluid, players move to where they can find spaces, not worrying too much on set positions.
Pep doesn't Play Tiki Taka even him himself admitted it, he left that style when he no longer had Xavi, Iniesta and Messi cause Tiki Taka has to do more with creativity and skill level of a Player.
In Barcelona Guardiola allowed "relationism" only for 3 players: Messi, Xavi and Iniesta. Other players were just supporting them in their positions around.
@@rashadbeybutov7201 yep, Pedro and Villa were just walls for Messi to bounce passes off.
Here's the thing: If you can predict where your players are going to be at all times, so can the opposition - and they can come up with tactics to counter your tactics.
This. I haven’t gotten through the whole video, but what Luke doesn’t understand yet (perhaps because he hasn’t watched enough to see the pattern yet) is that for any system there is a counter system. There is a point in which systems become “stale” because they are easily countered by another system, and then it’s stale mate.
@@GaminGilmoreagreed but system evolves through diff uses of formation, transition as well as player roles
No. It's about where the ball goes!
I mean… Brazil is the most heavy hitter footballing nation in the world (historically), both as a team and when it comes to creating individual talents (think Pelé, Roberto Carlos, Ronaldo, Ronaldinho, Kaká, Neymar… to name a few). And they were able to win FIVE (!!!!) World Cups and be dominant for many decades and generations. All of that while also creating and developing the Beautiful Game style, which is the very reason many of us even fell in love with the sport in the first place. And they did all that while being the most creative team ever. They specifically relied on their players’ dribbling and “quick on their feet” abilities. So, yes, it IS very much possible to be creative (the “Globetrotters” of football, if you will) AND to be dominant and win World Cups. Both things are not mutually exclusive, thankfully. And, to be honest, I miss that style so much. It was magic. The jersey #10 actually meant something. There’s only so much of the European “machine” style that I (personally) can take. It’s very robotic and scripted. Football is still a sport, it should be, to a certain degree, spontaneous and unpredictable. Guardiola is great, yes, but his style took so much JOY out of the game itself. I admire his results, obviously, but I do think it lacks spark and excitement for the overall fan of the sport/game at large. It reminds me of the German style of playing, too. Very machine like. Effective, but lacks “magic”. I miss Brazil. But I’ve seen shades of that old school joy coming back from Brazil and some other teams following; hopefully it’s back in full force around the world soon.
The best players ever saw was the players who grows playing in the streets or public parks, mostly in larges cities
exactly, that is one the "problems" with this modern approach to football tactics, it can damage the youth players if it is too much ingrained even at the lower level of football.
I saw (and played against) a lot of young man on the streets, who didn`t make it to their profession. Far more talented than most of those who went to play professional football. The scouts should be looking for talents on the streets again.
You mentioned Messi playing in Guardiola's system. While he did play there, he was the one player Guardiola didnt tell what to do. He just let Messi be Messi, and structured the team around him
this^
Napoli this year were dynamite. I'd rather watch them than Pep's boring Man City team any day. Beautiful choas is what football, especially South American football, is all about. Every fan would prefer to win 4-2 than 2-0.
I will need to watch some games to think through the philosophy.
@@lukessportsacademy one of the best modern football games here in South America/Brazil is Flamengo x Santos (Ronaldinho x Neymar).
@@lukessportsacademy You should totally explore some South American football. The Libertadores is on, like the Champion's League but SA.
fr, watching man city play is boring af. players like grealish dribble to pass the ball to the defenders instead of trying to go forward and create something. as u said, "chaos" is what football is in its core, letting players be creative, and thats why when u think of the best players ever u think of all south american players like messi, maradona, pele, neymar, ronaldinho, riquelme
@@franmustdie7439 thats footbal in general nowadays
all robots in a system no players like dinho or neymar anymore
I think there are still some parts of relationism you would like seeing from your defensive philosophy of pressing hard and counter attacking fast. Relationism is set up for that style of defense perfectly because you have a lot of players around the ball so when you lose it, you can press hard in numbers and win it back immediately.
So it's like gegenpress
@@wnnr3294 yeah basically
It's absolutely beautiful watching Fluminense play, there's no denying that. Unfortunately (for Flu's fans, which I'm not), the team suffers with injuries and is very inconsistent. And it's NOT pure chaos, AT ALL
And Diniz is the new Brazil interim coach
Yes and people are saying Acelotti comes right after the european season end.
Lots of criticism on Diniz but i really thing he is a good force to our football, coaches very rarely have the opportunity to make mistakes, and without mistakes there is no growth, but by his sheer stubbornness he has been able to develop himself and his style and i think that's very admirable. Hope is not saked and that flu is able to bring in some players to strengthen the squad.
Só a cargo de curiosidade, sou rubro-negro mas torço pelo desenvolvimento do nosso futebol.
@@perfilgenerico8717the thing with Diniz is human material, wich won't be a problem heading Brazil's nacional team
NOW, you are finally getting exposed to the true essence of what makes Football ever so fluid and entertaining. These relationist elements are there in almost all the teams, but are sadly sucked out by some managers, and this had become a trend for some time. It's good to see managers realizing the X factor that was missing in the game for some years, and where else the magic would rekindle but Brazil.
7:20 football is not always about winning, it still is entertainment, it's still the sport we play when we are kids. creativity, skills will always be important
Facts
exactly
the emphasis on winning and tactics has essentially taken the flair and creativity out of the new players coming through
they are all essentially robots in a system now
NO, it's about winning, and then everyone has their prefered style of football. I still don't know a supporter that would prefer his team losing but playing "good", than the opposite.
Tactics always have been a thing, anybody who thinks players in the past were allowed to do what they wanted is completely wrong.
It about winning playing beautiful
There's a reason more people love Ronaldinho than Van Nistelrooy.
Relationism isn't just chaos, it's like laying down the skeleton as a manager and allowing the players to fill in the muscles and skin, whilst positional play structure requires the coach to handle every single aspect of the game. So there's a baseline to relationism.
True, relacionist football can transform better on an ongoing match and unpredicted situations
On how we are able to tell where managers fall on this particular spectrum is simply watching their teams play. What the players do at every phase of play, in attack, defence. Looking at the posititions of the players, the movements they make and how often to they make them.
Sometimes managers will even explain how the basics of their tactics work on channels like the coaches voice. All this adds up to how we can compare managers and their particular styles of play.
Football Meta dude is a professional football analyst. He knows how to analyze teams, its literally his job. He sees and understand things that normal fans dont see, which is normal, it is his job after all. Most fans dont sit down and analyze games frame by frame for hours every day. Thats why his channel is so valuable
Exactly 10:32 this is exactly how you do it, you can find out pretty quickly by watching games and analisying them (so maybe not so quickly...lol) where the structure is, the more repeated patterns you see, the more it is clear they have a much more rigid system on their hand, while, conversely, the more a team is reliant on individual players and their interaction with each others is definitely more on the "chaotic" end of the spectrum.
Fernando Diniz is the new coach of brazilian national team, so that reaction is very well timed hahaha
and... he's gone
As far as I know, there isn’t a stat that necessarily quantifies where a manager falls on the spectrum of order vs chaos. I think it’s generally knowledge accrued over watching the team play, and understanding how the players move in game in relation to the initial formation. With Guardiola, he mentioned maintaining the shape, whereas Fluminence intentionally allows almost total collapse of structure. The thing that you mentioned about Messi in the case of Guardiola is correct, as Guardiola has allowed Messi a heightened degree of freedom in Barcelona, but there was still a clear structure on the pitch outside the anomaly that is Messi.
Now this is more about Guardiola, but in relation to the chaos element, one of Messi’s most iconic goals is actually a perfect example of relationism, where Messi plays a one two with Busquetes in the middle before Busquetes stops the ball and just lets Messi run through Real Madrid’s defense. The play started in a clear structure, and Messi let his creative freedom surprise the opponents. By most means, this looked stupid until the play worked out. This is why Guardiola isn’t on the end of the order half of the spectrum, as exceptional creative talents like De Bruyne or the GOAT himself are granted relative creative freedom to make unexpected plays, while the other players adapt the structure to the idea. But of course, as you mentioned it means a manager must adapt to the talent he has on the team, as you can’t run chaotic play with high talent requirements when you don’t have the personnel for it.
If you want more about Diniz you should check out the video Fluminense have the wierdest football tactis in the world (by the way, Diniz is the New Brazil's National team coach)
Simplesmente uma análise tática do Dinizismo🔥🔥🔥
Quem n ta contando os dias pra estreia do homem na selecao é louco
@@rodrigoaraujo87185-0 contra argentina e 0-5 contra a Venezuela
No fluminenC sai marcelo entra ninguém, vai ser lindo ver um 5 a 0 no primeiro tempo aí ele troca meio time pra fazer mais três
Pow fiquei em shock shshshsh
Dinizismo chegando com força
hey there Luke! you should watch more south american football (Brazil and Argentina). it will increase your knowledge of the game, since there's a whole different approach to it outside of Europe.
Yeah
The difference between the relationist and the positional play principles is the reference, the relationist refrence are the players which is not a fixed reference and explains fluidity, while the positional play's reference is the pitch-zones/space, which is a fixed reference hence the static/scripted play.
There's a video of Henry talking about when he played for Pep, that he went off position, scored a goal and got subbed right after
We went from enjoy football arc to the tactics arc.
Henry once said that Guardiola used to tell them that his job is to teach the team how to get to the final third and once there the players need to do their magic to score.
Internationaly unnoticed St.Pauli from the 2nd german Bundesliga has heavily implemented this since installing their new and very young Coach. He won his first 10 games in a row with a supbar Team, that was Fighting Relegation and turned the table since then rising to Promotion battle
I had hoped you checked this. I became aware of Diniz this year and have tried to watch Fluminense matches in the brazilian tournament and in the Libertadores Cup. Very intrigued of how it will play in the future.
Diniz will be interim Brazilian NT manager until 2024 as well
The thing you are missing is that you are thinking that those "creative players" are only top level players like Messi. But that's not really true. There's technical creative players at all levels, and because they are playing against players at their level too, they will excel if you give them freedom. Even in Guardiola's TikiTaka Messi had freedom to do things that weren't just Guardiola's tactical ideas. Some players just play out of their minds if they aren't constrained into a tactical system because they play more out of intuition but they don't have the "brain" to play into a very rigid tactical system, and you have to give them the chance to be more free by letting them play in positions where they can overload the opposition by just their presence, so you can actually have even stronger tactics in other areas of the pitch. Maybe you got a bunch of very creative kids, that if you teach them basic positioning and basic drills, they will just do the rest by pure intuition, you can never know.
Great point.
Vini Jr from Real Madrid is very clear example of what you said. Before Ancelloti arrived at Real Madrid, Vini was just a regular player, many people even considered him a flop, but Ancelloti gave him the freedom he needed and now he's one of the best players in the world. South American players in general are not very good at playing in a rigid structure and following tactics, it has to do with how we grow up playing and our culture in general, we're not very good at following rules lol
The reason why creativity is so highly valued is because in big games where 2 tactically astute managers have good squads, sometimes you end up with stalemates, especially in knockout cups and finals. Either because the managers see eachothers traps, just play safe and say "i'm not falling for it" or often in international matches where the squad isnt as connected with eachother as on a club level. That's when the individual creativity and brilliance of playmakers like KDB, Messi, Bruno Fernandes, Ødegaard etc need the space and attempts to find the few chances that can win you the game.
Edit: Messi was famously allowed to do whatever he wanted in Peps Barcelona and was exempt from most of the rules set for the rest of the team.
I love watching your understanding of the game develop. From “i understand wanting to have the ball more” to “that counter attack must be brutal” it’s really cool to see in someone else
What is being described here is how most amateur football is played. I progressed through well-coached school teams right through to old boys veterans, in some cases taking the field with guys I had played with on and off for 30 years. This is the ultimate relationism when you know each others strengths and weaknesses therefore being able to play intuitively and knowing what's likely to happen next. I think it was Ireland coach Jack Charlton who, when asked by a new player what the tactics were, replied "win the ball and pass it someone better than you!". Get the ball to the best players, for example Ronaldinho, and things will happen. The game become beautiful largely due to skill and spontaneity. Frankly, leaving money aside, I would not want to be a pro having to stick to rigid formations with a yappy coach barking instructions from the touchline.
Ok, so lets go slow here.
I can see how you as a American Sport fan/coach will say "As long as we are winning I dont care if its boring" but thats why football is know as "the beautiful game", because it IS beautiful when you see players having the freedom to do magic in the field. Dont get me wrong, the end goal is the same in every sport, we all want to win. But why cant we try to win in a FUN way? Thats what Dinis philosophy try to achive. He says in every interview that "I want my players to have fun, because when they do, they will play better" and the thing is, even if it seems utopian, Diniz philosophy makes teams with a medium cast of players compete with titans like Flamengo, Palmeiras and others that are REALLy Good. Its not just euphemism like the guy makes seems, thats why the guy is now the Coach of the Brazil National Team.
this is exactly what we are missing since the end of Joga Bonito days, the last top years of the likes of Ronaldinho and Kaka was the time when we truly enjoyed football, and haven't enjoyed many big clubs game as much.
Diniz is fun to watch but I wouldn't want him to coach my team simply because his team is inconsistent and heavily reliant on first team players. He hasn't won anything significant and the most important thing in competitive football is to win.
I forgot to add he has coached big teams before and you know what happened.
@@amorphous7474 i mean, tell me ONE team he has bean a coach that had a really good squad? Spoiler: he has not.
The best team he had so far is this Fluminense, and even this squad is really mid tier...
I dont think its fair to ask of him to win big things with the teams hes had. You can be a really good coach and iet never win big things...
There's certain players that you must give some creative flexibility to no matter how structured your team management is. That's how football works. Even Guardiola would allow certain guys to do what they want if they had the talent.
I think more than creativity, the key in relationism is giving way more agency to way more players than usual. In structured systems players would be incentivized to follow the plan while a select few are allowed to deviate from it for when the plan doesn’t work out or to allow their specific abilities (such as really good passing, dribbling, creativity or vision) to influence the game and open up more opportunities within the bounds of the system. On the other hand in relationism you would allow for more players to deviate from the plan to always try and create new opportunities, these opportunities are mostly centered around the mutual understanding of your teammates and how they play, maybe your defensive midfielder which would need to be more positionally responsible, likes to do diagonal runs and if his teammates know this and he is given the agency to do those runs, they can use that to create chances for when it happens. Because of this I would say that any player could play chaotically as long as there is familiarity with other teammates, but it would require players with one or two unique abilities to make it consistently better than a more structured system. On the other hand I would say complex structured systems require players that are positionally responsible and tactically adept while still risking becoming predictable if no agency is given to at least a couple players to open up chances when needed.
Trust me you need creative players to disrupt defences otherwise possession Can quickly become Sterile its not just about beauty
I think that's the beauty of football different philosophies that contradicts personalities, you can tell a guy is a Manchester united or Chelsea fan from their mindset
Something important to consider in more structured systems is that the players need to be tactically adept. As was mentioned in the video, the players need to be able to identify the space in order to exploit the space without compromising the team in other areas. That’s why you don’t see a “Manchester City” in lower levels of football. And as you said same goes for the other extreme where you let players express themselves on the pitch, they need to be creative and take good decisions at every moment or they compromise the team. I would say for vast majority of teams, a mix is needed where players have a set guideline to follow and yet allow for variety that arises not only from player creativity but from understanding how your specific teammates on the pitch like to play. Going to either extreme requires a very specific team that excels at what they do.
At 15:08 when you were asking about how the fast passing is different to Tiki-Taka, how I understand the difference is that in relational football, the players look for small scale or individual opportunities to progress and have the freedom to pursue those. In essence, some players might move forward a lot quickly and the team will come up to meet them. In TT, with the short passes, the whole team will collectively take ½ a step forward but maintain the overall structure. It’s surging vs incremental gains
I think the diversity of systems is great for the progress of the game and from the look of the look of things, the more chaotic structures tend to favour the 'flair players' like Ronaldinho. It is not surprising that these tactics are prevalent in South America where most of these flair players come from
I think your American football background is influencing your footie philosophy in a really interesting way. You seem to favour structure and set plays in a way that reminisces American football plays and set plays. It’s interesting as a fan of both to see how one influences the other.
I may be totally wrong though
In positionism you want to create as much free space as possible, in relationism you want to outnumber your opponent. It is not pure chaos, its just that in positionism the players have clear zones on the pitch, you can point out which player active in which area, while in relationism player do not have zones, but they still have roles, and is still an organized system
Thank you for another awesome video. Keep doing what you are doing, and stay healthy.
Thanks for doing this!
The thing about the imprevisibility of the game to us, brazilians, is that we play football in almost any enviroment (on an asphalt street, on the beach, in doors etc). Many youngers will often with compete against bigger and older players in street games. That's the way they develop their skills.
Most of the great brazilian players have a futsal background, where these kind of play is very regarded. So this kind of play is a way to use our style.
About Diniz, he is very fond of Brasil's old style of play football, like the way we played in the 1982 World Cup. So he tries to recreate that kind of football, while many other counterparts try to emulates european style on tactical approuch.
I think this is for all South America we just tend to play more street football because we don’t have the same facilities that Europeans have
@@BecoPlays Kinda yes, kinda no.
It sure lacks facilities, but we like to play too much, so any place is a place.
When I was a kid, I and the other boys use to play a improvised football in classroom in between classes. We use paper balls or plastic bottles.
We also like to play in the beach etc.
Just like basketball in the USA.
@@CaiusAureliusCotta we used to the same thing, nothing like kicking a plastic bottle 😂
very cool, I've been following your channel for a while now, and I've seen you learn a lot about the sport, but I could NEVER imagine watching you watch a video about Fernando Diniz and his tactics! FLUMINENSE is my life! a hug from Brazil! I don't want to lose my coach to the national team!!!!
When all team scripting all scenario..sometimes it will be bored and opponent also can predict the tactic..its not happen in south american that they play football in street since the child..creatifity speed and technique of the team will make the different.
Looks like he will need to look at south american football, it's chaotic and quick and entirely entertaining, that's why it's fun! 😂
I like this emphasis on football tactics. Also I think sometimes playing pretty and losing is ok, can't every time.
I think the thing to remember is the Guardiola has gradually moved more towards structure and positional play - 15 years ago his tiki-taka Barca team was a bit more relationist in its philosophy than his current Man City team. It wasn't entirely chaotic (listen to Thierry Henry's interview where he talks about not being allowed to go outside of his zone of the field) but in midfield I believe a lot of the relationist principles were seen in the short pass-and-move play of Zavi, Iniesta, Messi and Busquets.
I think pep has said the reason is that Xavi,Iniesta and Messi knew how to position themselves, when to keep the ball,when to release and when to be individualistic. They were very smart and very good at what they did he just gave positional structure to protect and press defensively and get them from the back to midfield but after that guys like Messi and Iniesta had freedom to do whatever they wanted creatively to attack and cause chaos especially Messi. pep has not been able to have a player as good at causing chaos, is versatile and has the ability to draw players out of position and attract more than one player to them since Messi. It's why his teams now look more rigid. It's why I tell people that they should never compare Haaland to Messi cause if he was anywhere near as complete and good as Messi he would be given more freedom by Pep but instead he is not intact when he tris to leave his zone Pep is always seen screaming at him telling him to get back to his zone cause he only trusts him in the six yard area while he trusted Messi to go anywhere he saw an advantage cause he was that good at every part of the pitch and with an exception football IQ.
Dude have you seen blue lock yet? Nothing but soccer chaos lol , Love you're videos man, been watching them for a few months , tryna learn soccer right along with ya honestly.😂
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS. I LOVE U. Thank u! I told u about Diniz, its super fun hahaha.
messi played his best football under pep. he won four out of his seven ballon dors in th e four years he played under pep. he was given a LOT of freedom by pep as he usually played a free role.
I agree with you I support what gives you results. I think on this era better results come from possesion and positional football but I've also seen so many examples of the contrary. The only thing we now is, football constantly changes, nowadays positional play gives you better results overall, but every time something works good on football someone comes up and breaks the boundaries. So we expect the balance to keep changing from order to chaos and back
agree with you Luke. "scripting" plays forces less errors, especially playing out from the back. now that you've played a bit yourself you know how hard it is to maintain a visual on the field, teammate positions, opponents positions to make a good decision WHILE controlling the ball. it's so different compared to other sports because you have to do all that while looking at your feet.
4:37 that's Michels and Cruijff, thank you very much. (And a bit of Buckingham and the Mighty Magyars)
I think it comes down to players, flexibility afforded by more chaotic styles can overcome deficiencies in the skill and stamina of the side. But if you have the time and more importantly resources to build a consistent talent pool and style then as a coach a more disciplined play would suit long term. As a person who naturally favours playing as a centre back the old George Graham Arsenal offside trap is quite appealing but the evolution of the wingback is certainly more exciting to watch.
Malmö FF from Sweden is another team playing this style in a quite extreme way. Really entertaining to watch and it’s giving great results as well.
Yes
The view of football as chaotic, complex system is really different from what you see in american sport
In american football for example players are just executer of a scheme, of a pattern, with one actual mind which is out of the pitch (the Off./def. Coordinator and the head coach). Football instead is so chaotic and fluid that is impossible to control, to analyse, to divide in parts. So the new philosophies are trying, rather than to control the mess that is football, to surf through it, to sail through the stormy sea.
The point is that creativity is not needed because it makes the game beautiful and entertaining 🎉, creativity is being able to react to enexpected situations, the capacity of the player to deal with unpredictability
Which is indeed, very valuable to win
It's a way to try and understand and is a good introduction to the fact there are other ways of organizing the team. But Diniz is more relationist and uses more set plays than Ancelotti, for exemple, so... more complex than that
I don't think it's about organization vs chaos or creativity versus coach authority, but more about what is the tool used for communication and cooperation within the team. Relationism being precisely about relations between players, and positional about space. Both can be orderly or caotic, both can rely more on players iniciative or on prearranged actions. Diniz uses a lot of set plays, with reharsed movements to play from the back. And Guardiola emphasizes the fact that positional play is a way of bolstering the players creativity bc it puts them in advantageous positions to use their abilities
IMO Argentine's tactic is a bad example for chaos or relationism. What they did was to allow Messi and only Messi to play the way he wanted and had all the other players form a structure to support his play. So it isn't too chaotic as only Messi is acting as an chaotic element. I would say that is also a good idea for a compromise. Have a base structure, but allow your players who have the ability for that to cause chaos and be less predictable for the other team.
The thing is, everybody's career starts out as a relationist player. When you' re a child you often play 5 a side futsal or even 3 v 3 at times and in those declination football can only be relationist.
Relationism at high levels is "scary looking" due to taking the control away from managers, but it also take away control from the opposing manager as you can't script and prepare a defense for what essentialy is high level improvvisation.
Watching this channel to see your improvement not just on football but editing video too. I still remember you dont wanna pause video because "too much editing".
Love your channel ❤
And if you are tactics, i recommend Efootball 2024. Tactics playout more realistic than fifa
In soccer creativity, individual brilliance, intelligence and beauty are seen as almost important as winning
Messi on a football field is like Jokic on a basketball court
structured approaches can often be countered beforehand. the beauty of creativity is that it has to countered on the spot
It's not just about player positions. It's also where the ball goes and players moving into 'unscripted' places. If the passing is just to the 'next' position, you'll have a hard time surprising anyone.
Hey Luke you should watch Pythagoras in boots player analysis videos.
You can tell managers structural Vs creativity of they get new players in that do the same job others did before them. The team looks the same wherever the manger goes
thanks for the shoutout ill stop nagging you about the de zerbi 😂
A nice chanel with tactics is purist football it is a nice one if you want a match analysis.That chanel with football made simple and football meta are my go to for tactics
For me, Purist is the best to watch.
Yes that's where I first heard about Fluminense. @thepurist_ is my go-to along with Tifo IRL.
It would be nice if you would analyze free kicks and corners. I feel there's a transferable skill the way you design plays in american football vs. football, when in those situations.
2:38 and it was not just a guy, it was fckn Marcelo
This is why Ancelotti will be great for Brazil.
I think it depends on the players you have in your squad. If you have more technically gifted and creative players, a structured tactic doesnt suit them, it shackles them. While if you have a team full of workman-like players, a structured tactic if better suited because while they're not as creative, they know where they're supposed to be, what to do, and where to go with the ball. Messi, Ronaldinho, CR7 and such wouldn't necessarily work in a structured tactic but you can also let them do their own thing while the rest of the team can be structured around them and still work. It all depends on your squad. There's many teams that have that 1 player that's a difference maker and they're allowed to be themselves while the rest of the team has a structure to follow.
Actually Erik Ten Hag is more to the left side than he is in this video, but Man Utd still can't doing more of Ten Hag's ball as it should.
It's interesting as now this season, it's pure chaos
You’re comment about creativity is exactly how I feel about it. Brighton under Graham Potter played “attractive” football that created lots of chances, but the most goals they scored in 3 full seasons was 42. When they finished 16th there was people saying they should be getting into Europe simply because of the style they played. But after 32 games under De Zerbi, which is probably more “attractive” but a bit less creative, they’ve scored 61 goals. Graham Potter left Brighton for Chelsea, was sacked after around 15 games and career as a top level manager could be over because after that disaster he’s gonna need to do something special to get another job at a top team.
I would not use the word chaos, because there is definitely a degree of organization. But rather than be in specific areas, it is far more depending of the players, their skills, creativity and their chemistry. And even if you as a coach do not intend to play the style, it is vital that you learn to recognize it, so you can find a proper counter tactic.
Football has always gone through phases of chaos followed by order followed by chaos. The dribble, followed by the passing game, the Magyars, wingless wonder, catenaccio, Brasil 1970, total football etc. It's the randomness which makes it the greatest game in the world, as opposed to US sports which are just an excuse for a three course meal.
The first brasilian tactics created as the assimetric 4-4-2 in 1962 World Cup for use with Garrincha
Pure chaotic system is the natural habitat of the Ronaldinho and the Messi species - that's where they are born.
Chaotic teams are going to throw all the variables they can find into your beautiful lines and positions. That's how South Americans teams can beat the europeans.
PS: But if you want TRUE chaos, that's 1974 Netherlands with Johan Cruijff. The dutch had pure anarchy
Did this dude just showed Ronaldinho at Barcelona, and called that chaos? Barcelona with prime Ronaldinho was not a chaotic team! That was artistic creativity, combined with structure. Ronaldinho was THE player that made a difference, and they won it all!
A manager without good players is nothing. Guardiola coached only teams that were already the best in the league, and could afford quality players. Surely, if you can`t comprehend the mind (are/was not able to play like that) of players like Ronaldinho, Zidane, R9, prime CR etc., than you will call that chaos. It`s better then for you to play a more structured game, like tiki-taka (get the ball, pass the ball!).
I guess the main difference between this and tiktaka would be the freedom to occupy spaces in the pitch. Pepe had a a "form" predefined, while this relies more in free interactions between the players.
Guy in the video missed the fact that Fernando Diniz has just been appointed as the Brazilian national team coach
the guy at Football Meta is a professional football analyst, he works in Italy and he knows a lot of things that we - the fans, dont know. Its his job to see and understand things that normal people that dont work in football dont.. You need to check out his video about his football analyst career, its very interesting.
Orderly system based teams will always do well on average, but sometimes a bit of chaos is needed to get that win you would never get just sticking to the script.
That's how a frankly average Argentina side got their hands on the World Cup, they had Messi.
You need to see a video created by the purist football called "Fluminense have the WEIRDEST tactics in the world!"
Haha I knew this one was going to be interesting for you.
7:04 just hear Ibrahimovic talk about Guardiola and you will understand why it can be a problem...not because the teams that play a more "scripted" game are not winning....clearly, since all of the top teams have massive success using those type of methods...but because it hinders certain players that perform better when they are not forced to play a certain way, and that is why managers like Guardiola don't actually want the best players in the world...they want the best players in the world that are better suited for the specific tactics that they like to use and that are more inclined to follow orders rather than players who can create chances from nothing or from a bad play....and that is one of the reason why those type of players are so important...for example, Messi was the epitome of that, but, since he was also very good at playing possession football and all of the rest of the team was very well oiled and perfect, Guadriola allowed messi to do what he wanted,and you don't get a lot of his solo goals if that wasn't the case, he didn't care about gardiola tactics...and who need to, when you can dribble 7 opposing players and then score a goal, but he was the only player he allowed to do that, and players like Ibra or Eto were intead scolded more than anything, and that is why they were forced to move away from Barcellona.
Another reason that this might be a "problem" in modern football, is that in youth players the focus on developing players that are only very good at this type of positional and posession style of football are at risk of not developing properly and to either become one dimensional players, before even knowing what they are actually talented and good at, and even have players that end up stopping playing football all together because deemed "not good", when in reality, maybe they are just not good for a specific system, this is, for example one of the reasons being discussed in Italy, as to why we have a lack of real talent in the national teams compared to the past.
Similar discussions are happening in Brazil , a footballing nation build around the fact that players like Pele, R9, Ronaldinho etc etc all were masters of improvisation, creating chances from nothing on their own, by being able to express themselves when they played, because that is what they were doing since they were kids in the streets or on the beach.
And of course, i only talked about this from a players perspective...but of course, as explained in this video you were reacting to and the video on Fluminese by the same channel, there are also tactical advantages (and disadvantages...like every tactics) to this method....so it does work, and you do end up winning (and, as said at the start of the video....even just 15 years ago, a lot of teams in the top 5 european leagues were not playing this super rigid positional and posession style of play at all).
Also, on the same vein...what happen when you go and play in a different team? you need a lot of time to adapt to the manager's specific tactic...and it might not work...or even worse, what happen in the national team? in the national team, you don't have the time to drill every play like at club level, because you have little time to spend together as a team, that is why most national teams actually use very "chaotic" style of play...because it is still the place where the individual talent, skills andattributes of the players is going to make most of the work for the team.....of course you have exceptions, like Mancini's Italy....who play very much like a club team, and that have a very specific and rigid system, and it did work very well making them win the Euro 2020...but when even one of the gears break...than you have a disaster in your hand...and you cannot just buy a new player...because you have to use the players that have performed well in that specific season and not the ones that are best suited for the system, and if you don't, like Mancini, and you keep using, not the most in from italian players, but the players that best fit your tactical system, you end up not qualifying for the World Cup...only 6 months after winning the second major international title behind the World Cup itself.
I feel the spectrum's placing is not accurate but it's a fairly accurate in terms of measuring amount of freedom allowed. Guys like Sarri and Bielsa is notorious for controlling every single movement of his players and they drills them into his system until they pass out. Arteta and Xavi being near each other since they are both students of Guardiola, Arteta was his assistant in City and Xavi was playing under him and they both know how detail oriented Guardiola is. Klopp is basically rock & roll football with the offensive movements but on the defensive side it's very rigid and strict. Ten Haag basically comes from the school of total football with lots of freedom to move around. Often giving too much freedom is a sign of a bad manager without a plan but i assume it can work on occasions as long there is fundamental ideas behind.
“they could come up with something brilliant or theycould run the team to the groud”
that right there is the perfect description of Fernando Diniz’s entire coaching career here in Brazil
usualy they run the team to the ground at the end of the championship, which is why after more than a decade of coaching his resumée is not impressive in terms of trophies
And Diniz is now the Brazilian National Team interim coach, while Brazil wait for Anchelotti
Regarding that spectrum in the middle of the video, it's not just the coach that matters there, but also specifically the team that they are at. For instance, you mentioned that Guardiola was coaching Messi, but it was in past, in a different team and back then Guardiola would be much closer to the middle of this spectrum for sure. His Man City is pretty different to that, it's like a super computer that he's trying to build, a mechanism. Barca wasn't that at all.
You can control it, on a training first lean it on a game then apply it
Brazil has 5 world cups with creativity, but that's their essence. If you are more conservative and if you dont have the right players, you will never be able to implement these strategies. Brazilian football is pretty much street football in a 11v11
Pep allows player like Messi and KdB creativity
The Purist Football has very good tactical videos you should check out. Very, very good videos. I think you'll like them.
Tons of Barca and Guardiola videos which is what you like, I guess.
It's a modern concept to have the coaches win matches. For better or worst.
Growing up playing soccer (and still today) it is never about being in a position, just be in the best place at the best time. This is natural soccer and every player has it, not just superstars like Messi and Neymar.
2:30 indeed. Lack of vision mistaken for tactics, if you ask me.
Diniz's Fluminense won the Copa Libertadores last week. Relationism works.
Think of creativity as adaptability. If you just keep running plays the other side smother you because you dont get regular breaks for coaches to call for the next play
I've watched the video on relationism by the excellent Football Meta. It took me a while to get my head around such a counter intuitive theory as relationism as I always had watched football through the lens of positional play and tactics. Your analysis at the end was exactly how I thought of it. There is a structure but that structure is a definite a lack of structure as players form tight square's and triangle to pass in. As I commented to Football Meta I can see relationism working in attack but definitely would want my defenders adhering to positional play as I myself prefer structure and order, both in life and football.
You check stuff about Positional Play or Juego Posicional.
The eye test