Tactical adaptability vs. Tactical variety

[LPQR]

Hi all, this thread aims to develop a debate around a few things related to how tactics can be approached in a more conceptual way rather than a 'trick the match engine' way. I've noticed a lot of people focusing on specific styles of football, or, a better way to word it would be 'specific brands of football' and not having the success they expect. Additionally I have seen a lot of ideas of systems that take for granted the idea that football is played in a uni-dimensional way, i.e. you will only(mostly) see counters when you've instructed your team to play counter-attacking football and that you will only see pass and move when you're playing tiki-taka.

In an attempt to challenge these assumptions I will start from the basic foundation of tactics: the idea that each team/manager looks to strategically exploit all the possible areas of the game the team can have a better influence on.  Ok, so to start with, let's shed some light on that title, how I define the terms used above and how they differ in their approach of this very foundation:

Tactical adaptability - a number of systems that play in defined, various ways (the idea that you can have a team learn a number of systems and employ them according to the opponent you face)

Tactical variety - one system that is designed to create variety through the complexity of situational play it covers (the idea that you can surprise the opponent through the complexity of one system)

 

 

 Part one: Tactical adaptability

'mainly used in a tactical style that seeks to exploit a specific strong area of the team and focus on shifting the dynamics of play to create a situation where the team is efficient. the ability to adapt in this scenario is the ability to change the system as much as possible to suit the situation you're in while compromising as little as possible from the focus on your teams' strength'

Advantages:

- one dimension of play to perfection: so, for example you have a team with very high work-rate, speed and stamina overall and the rest of your squad's attributes are nowhere near as good. You will naturally look to exploit that side of the game and limit situations where your teams' weaknesses are exposed as much as possible. In this case a good example of style would be playing a wing-based system that absorbs pressure deeper and looks to deny the opponent space through the players' ability to cover a lot of ground on the pitch using their work-rate, stamina and speed. This approach is extremely effective in the lower tiers of football as the teams are less able to perform complex systems and rely on the tactical intelligence of the players to perform duties which are considered to be advanced in the game. For example a half-back is a role that requires incredible intelligence in positional play and the ability to rely on the reading of the game and technical ability to be effective. A Sergio  Busquets is naturally more suited for the role as, let's say a Guy Moussi. When you can't rely on players performing complex duties you seek to get the team to perfect a certain set of moves in a certain set of situation. If the situation doesn't occur, the team looks to pressure the opponent into creating that situation. For example, take Leicester - the work-rate of the two forwards and the combative tasks they perform on the pitch is no coincidence, as Leicester look to exploit one specific situation of play:  exploiting space behind the opposition. When the opposition leaves little space or plays in a more balanced, compact way, the two forwards will look to destabilize an area of the pitch by putting an opponent under pressure in order to create that space, and the opportunity to exploit it. The Leicester team of last year was specifically known for its' perfect transitions from defense to attack and their ability to exploit one specific area of the game to maximum potential. 

- a number of systems relying on exploiting one dimension of play: let's use the same example as above in terms of ironing out a system of play by specifically focusing on a number of attributes your squad is superior in: so, let's use high work-rate, stamina and speed again. The team could be instructed to employ a number of systems based on these strengths. At its' most radical point, think from Ranieri to Klopp: both rely a lot on these attributes, however, arguably, Klopp focuses a lot more on the technical side of the game than Ranieri does. Still, let's say your team is as good enough technically as Liverpool is at the moment and you have them taught to play in two systems which you will employ depending on the situation: if the opponent is superior in midfield you can fall back and absorb pressure and exploit the speed of your team in space. If the opponent has a more fragile middle of the park you can move up into a high pressure, aggressive position on the pitch to exploit that and counter-press the opposition. Two systems taught to perfection, both relying on a few key attributes of the players and they're executed in a number of situations of play.

 

Issues to be considered:

 

In my opinion the most common way that people tend to think tactics in FM is through common, fixed ideas of playing football and interpreting a style of play uni-dimensionally, i.e. passing football, defensive football, counter-attacking, etc. So basically, deciding on a style of play that usually involves these terms and tailoring tactical instructions in the creator to achieve that specific, defined way of playing, which most of the times involves defining an entire system based on a style of football that only happens in a very specific situation of the game. It's true, that's what you hear the pundits say 'oh, they're playing counter attacking, they're playing a possession game' and so on. These are terms that have come to be embedded in the discourse of understanding the game and at the same time create so much confusion between FM users. There are a few things that need to be considered, however, before you can think of an entire system of play with a definition as simple as that:

- in which phase of play are the actions that these specific terms imply exercised?
passing football happens when you are in possession, what does your team do when defending? how does it defend? attacking football happens when your team has the space left by the opposition to attack, so how does your team manage possession?  and counter football happens when you get an opportunity to attack let's say... in 20% of the game time while defending for 80% of its' duration, so how does your team play for the majority of the match? 
 

- terminology is situational: specific situations of play happen more often than others, depending on how the two football styles of the opponents clash. thus, you might find that with a 4-4-2 structured, counter system you win against teams that leave space behind their d-line and struggle against teams that have a lower d-line. But if that is your only way of attacking aren't you exploiting just one possible situation of the game? Does that mean you have to have a different system to counter every football style that the opposition throws at you?  In real life, yes, that's how things might work, however even there, managers aim for a compromise between adapting an existing tactical foundation to circumstances of play. Plus, do not forget that the available 'ways to instruct how your team plays' present infinite times more possibilities IRL then the FM match engine and tactical creator provides. 

[LPQR]

Part two: Tactical variety

'a tactical style focused on exploiting and creating as many situations of play as possible through complex player movement and intelligent mechanisms of play. The ability to create variety in this case would be the team's ability to unsettle any type of opposition by constantly shifting the dynamics of play to exploit a weakness in the opponent's style of play and creating situations where that would be exposed'

The idea would be to not have to change your entire system according to the opponent but rather focus on your team being able to exploit so many areas of play that it's pretty much impossible not to be able to find one that the opposition is weak in

Advantages

- balancing a number of dimensions of play: this approach is mainly employed in sides that have a number of players of great tactical intelligence amongst their ranks. So, for example let's say the squad isn't particularly formidable in any technical department but they do have the ability to read the situation and make a decision that would benefit the team as a result. That could be switching play to the right or left side of the pitch depending on where the team would exploit space better or passing the ball to a player that the passer considers to be better positioned to initiate an attack. The overall tactical intelligence of the players also changes the dynamics of play according to the team's ability to manage space and position itself better to create situations of numerical superiority when attacking or defending. When we're talking about the tactical intelligence of a player, I believe the best modern examples to be Andrea Pirlo and Sergio Busquets, especially because their roles are implicitly designed to exploit their football brains rather than physique or technique. These are players that dictate tempo, maintain the balance of the team in key phases of the game, shift the focus of play and generally, move intelligently on the pitch. Their reading of the game is crucial and in most cases it can single-handedly decide if most of the attacks of the match will come through the left side of the pitch or the center or if the opposition's most dangerous moves are intercepted in the center of the pitch.

- Not relying on a few key players:  as opposed to a radical system looking to exploit either counters or possession, the system will still perform a number of other ways in which it looks to outperform the opposition even if let's say, Mahrez and Vardy are not on the pitch. They will look to exploit less counters and for example, if the strongest players on the pitch are Kante, Drinkwater and Albrighton, the team will focus more on creating opportunities through passing and the ability of the midfielders to control the middle of the pitch with their strength, work rate and movement.

- Overall balance and exploiting space: you will have noticed in the above paragraph that the key word for this type of approach is 'space'. One of the key 'assets' a manager can have an influence on is how his team controls areas of the pitch and how much of it is covered by his team and in what way. An example of achieving maximum control of the pitch would be having a very high defensive line, playing wide and restricting the 'active' area of play so that more of it falls within your players' reach. As the team relies on one system to unsettle different kinds of opposition, a balanced approach is required for the tactical foundation (or instructions, FM speaking) so that the team can adapt to situations of play accordingly, i.e. be able to deal with high pressing teams as well as teams sitting deep using a variation of the existing tactical foundation. In other words, the team doesn't look to radically exploit one dimension of play, it however looks to approach the situation through covering a variety of situations of play, depending on what is favorable for the team in the respective situation. Your team will be high enough the pitch to create a pressing situation when appropriate and deep enough to have 9-10 men behind the ball when defending. Your team will exploit the wide players when there is space behind the opposition or the will exploit passing and movement in midfield when camped inside the opposition area. You will find this style in Italy more than other places: teams can play deep and use pace when the opposition is pressing or they will push high up the pitch when the opponent displays weakness in keeping the ball, they constantly look to move in a way that positions them better depending on how the opponent is playing.

A lot of these mechanisms of play, however in a different context and formulation are covered by @Cleon in his fantastic thread about attacking football: 

he describes them as ways to break down an opposition and focuses on a a few key principles based on which that can be achieved: 

 

Support – teammates should be available in supporting positions ahead, to the side and behind the ball (first attacker or player in possession). This requires good dispersal when in possession to spread the field. Angles, distance and timing of passes becomes important.

 

Mobility – The ability to interchange positions and provide good movement to support the play. Movement on and off the ball to create space for the first attacker or other players.

 

Improvisation/Creativity – The ability to provide inventive and unpredictable play, either through individual skills or small group combinations. For example: 1vs1’s, 1-2’s, overlaps, feint movements, etc.

 

Width – The ability to stretch out opponents laterally across the field and also provide opportunity for penetration via wide areas. Correct positioning also gives opportunities to switch the play to exploit the weak side.

A tactical system focused on creating variety will look to exploit as many of these principles as possible in as many situations of play as possible, involving as many players as possible in the process (i.e. not focusing on rigidly defined responsibility for the player's involvement in phases of play) So for example, if this approach would be used with Leicester, rather than focusing specifically on Mahrez to be creative and initiate attacks with defense-splitting passes and Vardy to find the space in which to make runs, Leicester would be looking to attack in a number of ways which could involve N'golo Kante dribbling down the right side of the pitch with Drinkwater covering for him or Wes Morgan pushing out wide so that only one player is left to challenge Fuchs making a run forward. 

 

Issues to be considered

- advanced level of football: in order for the team to be able to exploit a number of dimensions of play and create complex movements on the pitch you will need the tactical intelligence mentioned above. The players ability of reading the game and generally speaking, making decisions will influence pretty much how every situation unfolds. The players also need to be able to perform reasonably well in duties other than their specialty in case the situation they're presented with requires a different approach.

 

 

[LPQR]

reserved(2)

[setzel]

So talking about fm  tactics all night was not enough i see

 

 

Goddaaaaaaaamn quality thread incoming

[LPQR]

3 minutes ago, setzel said:

So talking about fm  tactics all night was not enough i see

 

 

Goddaaaaaaaamn quality thread incoming

 never enough tactic talk, cheers!

[ianscousemac]

Really enjoyed this so far.  

[yipster1986]

Bloody hell, the release of FM17 brings up a lot of interesting threads! I'm following 4 very closely, now this one will be added and I'm thinking about starting my own as well. This'll become a fulltime job

[LPQR]

post updated with part 2

[Ceching You Out]

While reading these, the dichotomy between structured and fluid came to mind. Your 'tactical adaptability' follows more structured thinking -- do the few things we're good at, don't worry about the rest -- while 'tactical variety' corresponds to a more fluid, "my instructions are merely a suggestion" mentality. Now granted it's not a one-to-one relationship because you're talking about managerial decisions as opposed to players decisions, but there is a correlation.

Curious to see where you go with this!

[LPQR]

39 minutes ago, Ceching You Out said:

While reading these, the dichotomy between structured and fluid came to mind. Your 'tactical adaptability' follows more structured thinking -- do the few things we're good at, don't worry about the rest -- while 'tactical variety' corresponds to a more fluid, "my instructions are merely a suggestion" mentality. Now granted it's not a one-to-one relationship because you're talking about managerial decisions as opposed to players decisions, but there is a correlation.

Curious to see where you go with this!

absolutely spot on, in terms of applying the concept to the ME there's a very tight knit correlation between the two approaches I'm talking about and team shape. I didn't want to use FM terminology because it blurs the boundaries of the ideas i'm trying to get across, but yes, team shape will influence a lot of factors that go in to playing in one style or the other. The tricky thing about tactics is that so many people are talking about the same thing but in different formulations that sometimes it all seems like a web with millions of aspects and definitions. I like to think of it a bit like art in that sense  

The discourse that I'm trying to implement is one based on my understanding of the 'bigger picture' and this will definitely vary from the discourse of the ME, the tactical creator or other people's, so that's why I'm glad when there's a debate and there's a chance to see how other people interpret these things, it's a two-way learning process, the way I see it

[davehibb]

@LPQR Great insight here once again mate.

[LPQR]

6 hours ago, davehibb said:

@LPQR Great insight here once again mate.

cheers Dave

[Ceching You Out]

18 hours ago, LPQR said:

absolutely spot on, in terms of applying the concept to the ME there's a very tight knit correlation between the two approaches I'm talking about and team shape. I didn't want to use FM terminology because it blurs the boundaries of the ideas i'm trying to get across, but yes, team shape will influence a lot of factors that go in to playing in one style or the other. The tricky thing about tactics is that so many people are talking about the same thing but in different formulations that sometimes it all seems like a web with millions of aspects and definitions. I like to think of it a bit like art in that sense  

The discourse that I'm trying to implement is one based on my understanding of the 'bigger picture' and this will definitely vary from the discourse of the ME, the tactical creator or other people's, so that's why I'm glad when there's a debate and there's a chance to see how other people interpret these things, it's a two-way learning process, the way I see it

Makes sense not to use the FM and philosophical terms interchangeably; definitely causes some of the confusion around here! Another way to roughly outline the dichotomy you're describing -- Mourinho versus Guardiola. Both can be effective, but two different approaches to tactics.

Art is a good comparison. Once you have the basic techniques down for any medium, there are near infinite combinations. Same with tactics between players, what they're asked to do, formations, and what the team is asked to do as a whole.

[LPQR]

On 11/2/2016 at 16:54, Ceching You Out said:

Makes sense not to use the FM and philosophical terms interchangeably; definitely causes some of the confusion around here! Another way to roughly outline the dichotomy you're describing -- Mourinho versus Guardiola. Both can be effective, but two different approaches to tactics.

Art is a good comparison. Once you have the basic techniques down for any medium, there are near infinite combinations. Same with tactics between players, what they're asked to do, formations, and what the team is asked to do as a whole.

Absolutely  in this case, though, it's like art in the sense that people use specific things that they notice in game  in order to come up with 'all encompassing' definitions that others might find tough to process because they see different patterns in the game. So it's a world of concepts, definitions, approaches and terminology that you're never 100% sure they apply to the same things you notice, or a part of them, and if so, which part of them. That's why sometimes people make it look easy when describing why and how this system works: in their mind all the patterns are obvious and need no further explanation, however the difference in perception with someone who reads that description could be light-years away  Hence, the idea of this thread: I will try to explain how I think things through going in as much detail as possible about the patterns that I see in the game and how and why I define the issues I consider to be of importance as well as how they relate to or differ from other 'interpretations' of football.