Show me the way to Play

Anyone who is familiar with professional football will be accustomed to viewing teams who fudge their way through the year, with an almost invisible identity, changing their colors more times than a chameleon. It's those coaches who do employ a staunch philosophy that become more visible to the commenting public, therefore it's no surprise in an age of media hype we find this Old School vs New School dichotomy. The Old School is a very player-centric way of operating, relying on 2 to 3 players who possess impactful skill sets that often out-muscle their opponent. Sam Allardyce and Tony Pulis are famed for building sides that have 1 main target man and 2 aggressive center backs. While the remainder of the side is by no means irrelevant, its these 3 positions that their strategies rely heavily upon. In the early 00's Bolton's main striker was Kevin Davies. He was intrinsic to how Bolton formed attacks, relieved pressure and more importantly, scored goals. In a similar vein Stoke's very potent set piece routines were predicated on the aggression and force of their towering center backs, Ryan Shawcross & Robert Huth. Their aerial ability and physical stature caused chaos amongst even the most stringent of defenses. With these players in the starting 11 their teams cause is clearly strengthened, however such is the reliance on these players to the team dynamic, the team loses much of its identity when they are not selected. The New School style of play is largely built upon a unified approach that compromises free attacking movement with defensive responsibility. Brendan Rogers & Pep Guardiola are two coaches who endeavor to build a team who act as one, both on and off the ball. This allows their side to express themselves during build up play and ultimately keep possession for longer periods of time, but also enhances their teams chances of regaining the ball through amalgamated pressing patterns. The overall strategy of the new school is less functional with fewer 50/50 situations, such as long throws and deep crosses, they exploit the opposition through centering on areas where they have superior numerical or spatial advantage. While we can all agree both forms of approach have their strengths, how then do we qualify which is the "correct" way to play? In this piece I intend to explore whether there is a unified approach that can be interpreted as simply wrong or right?

There are millions of football teams that take to the field each week, all in the hope of leaving their matchups with all 3 points intact. For a side that are fighting relegation a win could get them into a position of safety. For those in mid table that win may be the catalyst for an extended period of good fortune to come. A team at the top of the table may need that win to extend their lead, establishing them as the strongest in the division. It's clear winning does great things for any side, but what then for the teams who do so in what is conceived as a "negative manner?" If we are so fixated with the concept of victory, why then do we care how that is achieved? There have been many sides throughout the years that have been chastised for a lack of aesthetics in their play. Examples of this are the Wimbledon side of '88, the Arsenal side of '91, and more recently the Greek national team of '04, who all were crowned champions of elite level competition. Each of these sides embodied high levels of defensive organization, and performed offensive functions that tested the resolve of opposing defenses. As such their mechanisms required meticulous planning and attention to detail in equal measure, but as these were viewed as destructive commodities often they are discarded as archaic forms of playing. Football at its very core is a challenge based endeavor and while some may disagree with their approach, all three sides overcame their challengers successfully, many of whom were regarded as the world's best. Why then has this form of play not become more roundly accepted? If it worked in these examples, surely it would make perfect sense to replicate around the world? This may indeed be the case, but not every team has access to a 6'4 forward with accurate heading ability. It's the matter of uniformity that becomes a great deal harder to integrate, especially in the production of future players.

Youth football is further magnified when appropriating style of play, as it's at these ages players are at their most impressionable. Having a consistent playing style is clearly advantageous at the professional level, however within a youth set up its absolutely critical. Consistency is the basis upon which any early learning is formed, and as such we are now starting to see clubs, and indeed national organizations, provide an alignment in their teaching. A possession based style is one that a high volume of clubs favor at the youth level, mainly as it lends itself well to an increased percentage of attacking opportunities. Allied to this, advances in the ability to conduct individual technical training, provides players with a platform in which to perform with more expression and creativity. Ajax, Sporting Lisbon, Barcelona & Sao Paolo, are all examples of clubs who have fashioned a holistic model, not only within identifying a club style of play, but also in the creation of those who operate within it. Their academy programs are intrinsic to the success of the 1st team, and as such, it's important to understand that their style is not built from specific instructions. Their success is predicated from the development of an ethos, that starts when the player first enters the club. Over time they become the very embodiment of the organization, playing with flair, lacking fear and using their skill to overpower the opposition. These clubs may have similar formations, and at times may even have similar playing patterns, but they are all very unique. What makes them truly unique is that they have transcended generations, and through commitment to their identity have continued to produce progressive & extremely talented footballers.

While there are many coaches who regard themselves as disciples of a certain brand of football, I remain quite translucent in my outlook. Football is ever changing, so in order to provide players with an experience that is both enlightening and relevant, I too must remain transient in what I coach. Clearly there are some cornerstones to the game that will remain consistent throughout, but I certainly do not feel there is an utterly "flawless" way to play. I can concede that there are elements of the old school approach that just doesn't sit well with me. Setting up a team to play low pressure and lump long balls forward just makes my skin crawl. At the other end of the spectrum the same can be said of the team who attempt an overly intricate passing pattern, and then show zero substance in how they transition to retain possession. For me playing "the right way" is not to focus purely on technique & passing angles, but to have players who are grounded in being interchangeable. Each game is played at a vast array of speeds, and in different stages requires a variety of skill sets. We are selling our players short if we haven't prepared them for life in those environments, both with and without the ball. In closing I want to encourage everyone to remember one ingredient this is integral to any style of play, and that's enjoyment. If players are engaged in their performance it prolongs their appetite to develop and significantly enhances their belief in what they can achieve. We all began as youngsters dreaming of what could be, lets ensure the next generation of footballers are given the chance to do so with our support.

"Football is like a religion to me. I worship the ball, and I treat it like a god. Too many players think of a football as something to kick. They should be taught to caress it and to treat it like a precious gem."

Pele