Been umming and aahing over whether to get involved in this thread / debate for a few days now. It’s a can of worms and ultimately you’ll never convince anyone that one way to play is better than the other unless it’s backed up with results. Even then someone’s preference will remain their preference otherwise every team / coach / manager or supporter will demand their team plays the same way as the team currently enjoying most success!!
This is of course as impossible as it would be as impractical as it would be boring! The beauty of football is the contrasting styles and the challenge of all involved in football is to meet those challenges and figure out a way of being successful.
Of course there are other things to consider.....
To be able to play in any style players will need a degree of proficiency in the skills needed to play football. The evidence backs up that playing, coaching or being coached in a way that allows maximum touches of the football, from an early age aids this and it’s why the game has evolved to require coaches to pass qualifications and for children to play different formats of the game ie 4/5/7/9/11 a side on a progressive basis as they age.
Of course as with anything their are trends. People steal ideas copy people who have success and change their minds and want a different approach each time success doesn’t come as quickly as they’d hope. This is the case in any business and most definitely sport.
We’ve (in the main) all lived through various trends and an ever evolving game.
The WM formation, Ramsey’s “wingless wonders” (which was basically a 442!), the Brazilian way in the 70s, the Dutch total football under Rinus Michels, the Italians defence first approach, Platinis France, the Italians high press at AC Milan with Satchi, Germany’s efficiency using young players from their 21s all the way to Spain’s tikitaka.
They are all a constant evolution. Football, as with life, is cyclical and it constantly reinvents itself often adapting the using the same principles.
Most of us are still currently a little obsessed with Pep and Spain’s tikitaka. Like it suggests a better football pedigree. Like the coach has more knowledge and the players possess more skill. It’s bred football snobbery.
With the obsession with Spain came the obsession with Futsal. Another version of good old 5 a side. It’s played in Europe, in particular Spain, Argentina and Brazil. It became many peoples answer to all our problems instead of what it should’ve been which was another tool to help players improve a part of their game.
When Spain went from 2008 to 2012 as European Champions - World Cup winners - European champions, the world was convinced. However in winning the World Cup in 2010 they won all 4 knock out stage games 1-0 with some of the most mind numbing, bored out of my skull, depressing football I’d ever witnessed!! The incessant short passing meant you saw no end to end football, no transition form attack to defence or defence to attack and it was awful to watch and once Spain had scored it was game over as they DEFENDED for the the rest of the game by keeping the ball.
When they turned up at the 2014 World Cup it was all but over for the bookies and Spain were nailed on.....they returned home early having played 3 lost 3 and scored none!! I joked at the time that we needed to tear up the coaching manuals, ban Futsal and go back to 9 year olds playing 11 a side on full size pitches with league tables!!
Lo and behold, 2 years later we were embarrassed by Iceland in the last 16 of the Euros and suddenly there were endless references to the Icelandic youth / coaching structure and how incredible it was......suddenly they had a system and a structure of qualified coaches which was the envy of Europe. It was wasted on people that they really hadn’t enjoyed much sustained success before or after that or that they had achieved the result based on hard work, a game plan and a little bit of luck, not to mention an horrific performance from their opposition!!! Funnily enough those are the very things in football, that to experience any success at all, remain constant regardless of style of play!
I guess what I’m saying is, in a very long winded way, is that football constantly evolves because any system you play is only effective until the opposition work out a way to combat it or manage to do it better.
This is why we play different systems and is why the general rule for managers is, if you think you are a better side or have better players, match up the formation of your opponents and you’re likely to be successful. If you aren’t as good as them then find a system or a formation to combat that and try to outwit them.
Simple rule is, be better or be different.....
So is there a right and wrong way to play? Of course not. Anyone who says there is is lying, deluded or a footballing snob. There’s a right way for you and a right way for me maybe. There may even be a right way to win this game and a different right way to win that game. But right and wrong is subjective based on many factors.
I’m going to plagiarise a little here but what doesn’t change is the actual nature of the game of football.
Football is a space invasion game.
The object is to invade the oppositions space by bringing the ball closer to their goal in order to score! If the team can’t bring the ball forward to invade the space in opponent’s half or defending third, then scoring is incredibly difficult!
Therefore, the philosophy is that the player should always try to play the ball forward whenever possible.
This is where Charles Hughes devleloped the idea of his book “The Winning Formula”. Charles concluded that most goals were scored with less than 4 passes (statistically true) and in order to provide more chances to score the ball should be put nearer the goal as quickly as possible.
He thought attitude (positive or negative) was the key difference between success and failure. Forward passing is only one of the ways to achieve this goal. For instance, the player can make a shot, dribble or run with the ball to play the ball forward also, but he argued direct play embodies a positive attitude and possession play (movements with high numbers of consecutive passes) embodies a negative attitude. He argued possession play demonstrated a fear of losing the ball and losing whereas direct play showed a desire to score. (Going back to the Spain example, it could be argued that he was correct.)
As a result, he made a passing check list to explain his philosophy and give a guideline to players how to play forward whenever possible. The check list is in order of priority from an attacker’s point of view and forms the basis of all coaching qualifications and does to this day. (Only the interpretation changes....I’ll come to that later)
The point was, that in possession each player on the ball should rapidly consider these options in this order of priority when making a decision on who to pass to :-
1. A pass into space behind the defence to force defenders to face their own goal.
2. A pass to the feet of the most advanced attacker meaning the ball has travelled the furthest forward while retaining possession.
3. A pass beyond at least one defender. To eliminate that player or players to move further up the pitch. (Now called ‘breaking lines’)
4. A cross-field pass to switch the line of attacker. If the opposition have moved across to block routes forward we need to ‘switch play’.
5. A pass backwards to a supporting player. A last resort in order to try again from the top!
Unfortunately for Charles Hughes this was lauded at the time as ground breaking only to be ridiculed later as the game evolved and classed as ‘long ball’, ‘direct play’ or ‘booting it’!!!
However the passing checklist stands the test of time and is relevant today as it was when he wrote it....as it was for years prior to anyone writing it!!
Football is an invasion game. The object is to go forwards into the area that the opponents are defending!
When I did my UEFA Licence I argued with the tutors (no surprise there I hear a few of you say) one of whom was a university lecturer and the other who was an old school ex army PTA, that if the passing checklist was still applicable then pass option no 1 (for each players first choice to be a pass in behind the opposition defence - inc the GK) simply encouraged each player to play long balls from all areas of the pitch. They agreed to a degree but they argued back that it became a decision based on risk and reward. The risk remains the same (loss of possession around the final third or penalty box) but the chance of success changes depending on when you actually choose this option. It carried a far higher chance of success of the ball in behind the defence was played from a position nearer the goal and over a shorter distance than it did if it was executed by the goalkeeper from his own area......
It makes sense and if you consider it, it is effective. Of course, given the choice we’d all kick it once from gk to cf so he can shoot and score but if each time you tried it you were met with failure and continuously didn’t score you’d have to consider trying to get the ball into other areas of the pitch before you attempt this pass.
This is where the game has evolved and developed. Players and tactics have improved so much that the chances of scoring from one direct kick have decreased to a bare minimum and teams are now having to try much much harder to be better or be different to the opposition. Players are fitter, taller, stronger and quicker. Coaching has become more intelligent and detailed. Opposition analysis is on another level. Defending has become a skill. Pitches have become better and moving the ball around the pitch has become easier and more beneficial. Trying to outwit, be better than or be different to your opponent has never been more difficult and as such the ways of trying to beat them has become more complex and takes more time.
I hear you all say, “why do oppositions manage to score so many goals of such a basic nature against us?” Well they have found a way to be better.....if we improved that part of our game they’d need to find a way of being different.......
The other consistent criticism I hear is that “players at this level can’t play that way”.
I beg to differ. They can. But it comes back to can other teams do it better? Do they have better players? Do they have a better way of defending against it? Are we able to do it differently once we’ve been ‘found out’?
You also have to consider the coaches and the academies. All coaches go through the same process and the same courses. There was a movement within the FA a few years back after consistently failing to achieve at major tournaments to find out style. Our way of cultivating a culture of football unique to us and incorporating our best styles. They came up with “The England DNA”. Passing through the thirds at high tempo with energy and aggression.
The coaching courses were rewritten, the brochures and documents killed the rain forests and the boxes needing to be ticked for everyone from Man United to Stumblebum United were numerous.
The style and way we wanted to play had to be addressed at the bottom and incorporated all the way to the top. Contact hours, touches of the football, format of mini soccer, welfare, safeguarding, equal game time, fairness, development over results, league tables disappeared, goal sizes changed.....the lot!!
So it didn’t matter who you coached or what age group the coaching pathway was to educate coaches into how the England dna worked. Now you can’t say we’re Southend we can’t play this way, because the coaches at Southend went on the same pathway and coaching courses as the coaches at Man United. They were educated to coach football the same way.
Therefore the academies are coaching footballers the same way whether it’s Southend United or Southend Manor the kids get the same message albeit different levels of ability of the coach to relay it or the player to take it onboard and it’s the same message to the players at Man City or Liverpool. The only difference is the ability of the player to execute it better, but the type of player we are producing is the same type.
Unfortunately this means that the players we have and the players we are bringing through from our academy are probably more likely to be at home with and able to play this type of football than they are being direct and playing forwards quickly using less touches and physicality. That’s just a fact. Who in our squad under the age of 30 is better suited to long balls, heading and beating people up physically? It just ain’t happening!!
What also comes into play is what do players and coaches want to do? What do they enjoy? What gives them job satisfaction and would drive them to get up and go to work? Now footballers will swallow pretty much anything if they’re winning but let’s suppose we went long ball and we’re still losing?
Standing around in the ****ing rain at training each day while you practice kicking it from the gk while most of the players watch it go over their heads and the rest try and stick their head on it isn’t much fun for anyone, coaches or players! I know an ex international who walked of the training ground last season complaining about having not kicked a football for 40 minutes while standing watching it go over his head!
So to conclude, do I think the passing checklist is still relevant today? Absolutely. Has it evolved with the game? Yes most definitely. Passing forwards is stil the objective. It’s still players primary choice of pass. However it has become more difficult to do this and the risk / reward and become balanced differently. Now players, facilities and capabilities have changed they are having to look at options 2, 3, 4 and sometimes 5 in order to achieve their goals.....which is to score a goal!!
However short passing, especially sideways and backwards has only ever had one objective and thats to try and create an opportunity to play forwards. To invite opposition players towards the ball to enable you to try and play it into the area they have exposed.....preferably an area between their back line and the goal (no 1), but if not, past their press and into your forwards feet (2), failing that, between their players and between lines (3) and failing that, sideways air backwards to have another go (4/5)!!!
Are we any good at it? Sometimes yes. Do we need to be better or do we need to do it differently???? Oh yes, for sure!! We need to be able to do it quicker. To recognise that the forward pass is on quicker. We need to sometimes take the risk of trying to get in behind them from the GK (Oxley does this really well and Cox used to read it brilliantly and Kelman did do early season too).
But in order to do it better we need movement. When I’m coaching I call it target and connectors. If the connectors aren’t making good movement or not available the targets have no chance of getting it. If the target isn’t on the move or available then the connectors have no one to pass to.....either way it will be a chance to play forwards lost and result in either a backwards or sideways pass or taking too long and a loss of possession. Our problem has been both and the result has been both!
We’ve seen Hobson with no connector to give it to with catastrophic consequences....we’ve seen Hutchinson and lately Taylor unable to find a target and moaned at them for being caught in possession or going backwards....we’ve seen forwards not get goal scoring chances.....None of this means we’d have been better if we’d just booted it. As is evident when Lennon launches it aimlessly upfield!
But what we do need to do is to do it better or to do it differently.....ultimately make better decisions on when to do either! Failing that recruit differently and try a different approach!!
