The Next Tactical Evolution in Football
Recently, I posed the question on Twitter “What do you think the next big tactical evolution in football will be?”. The tweet had a fairly decent response, with over 100 replies. What was interesting about these replies was how similar many of the responses were. A very large majority revolved around tactical concepts team might utilize when in possession, and very few touched on potential out of possession concepts. Not only were most of the concepts centered on in possession tactics, more specifically, most of them dealt with ideas around positional play and positional fluidity. While I do not think these particular responses are wrong (in the era of Pep Guardiola, we are seeing more and more coaches and clubs attempt to build an identity revolving around similar game models), I have a different notion.
Defining “tactical evolution” is probably an appropriate place to begin, as this is most likely quite vague, and open to a variety of interpretations. In this instance, I am not necessarily referring to something game breaking or revolutionary; more of a trend. It is widely accepted that at this point in football history, any unprecedented change in tactics will be as a result of a rule change. Coaches can sit around and discuss football tactics day in and day out, and perhaps they will come up with something new, however, implementing these concepts with any degree of success is a different story. I always think of season 6, episode 7 of South Park when a coach believes they have come up with something “new” -something that has never been done before — the episode called Simpsons already did it. For those of you who do not know, the basic idea behind this episode is that every good idea has already been done previously.
Most who analyze football will tend to agree that the game is cyclical. Tactical trends come and go, and then often we will see them resurface again, granted with a few tweaks here and there. One example of a recent “tactical evolution” would be the relatively recent shift towards high pressing. Not to be confused with counter-pressing, pressing consists of when the defensive block will begin to apply pressure to an already established opposition attack, in a geographical sense. High pressing therefore refers to the tactic of pushing the defensive block about as high up the pitch as possible, with the backline often positioning themselves around the midfield, and the attacking line often pushed up right to endline, while applying intense and aggressive pressure in attempt to regain possession. High-pressing is a very viable, and often successful tactic, which is used by many of the world’s best team. Just last year for example, Bayern Munchen won the UEFA Champions League while positioning their backline about as high up the pitch as possible, pressing at nearly every possible opportunity. But how sustainable is this tactic?
When I posted that opening question on Twitter, I received quite a few comments wondering what I thought. The exciting part about this question is that there are really no right or wrong answers at this point, but here I will share mine. Again, this is not revolutionary, more a shift in trends, but I foresee clubs going away from high-block, high-pressure approaches, and shifting to a more pragmatic mid-block, in addition to PPDA numbers rising (to be clear, I mean less pressures).
Not to say high-blocks will be history, more so that teams will be better at adjusting their block heights. In addition to clubs shifting from high to mid, we may also see an increase in mid-blocks from clubs who typically defend in a low-block. Below I will explain why.
Why would clubs who are enjoying measurable success pressing the opposition into oblivion, winning the ball back high up the pitch in dangerous areas, and dominating possession as a fall out of this start to pressure less, and deeper?
SUSTAINABILITY
Already we have seen some various numbers and studies put out, one particular article from Tom Worville at The Athletic, showed us that every team in the Premier League except for Aston Villa was reducing their pressing intensity in the middle and final thirds. This most likely has a lot to do with the high number of matches in a shortened season and coming off the back of an extremely short pre-season. Simply put, high-pressing is hard, it takes a toll on players, and is not easy to sustain. Though this has come due to extraordinary circumstances, the number of matches does not appear to be decreasing any time soon. With the proposal of the Super League, the increased number of matches in the Champions League, increased number of teams in the Euro´s and the World Cup, the best players on the best teams will be playing a lot of matches. Not only will it be difficult for them to maintain this high pressing scheme week after week, we must also remember that these players are assets. Managers cannot simply just run them into the ground and move on to the next player, they need to be protected. One way to do this is to reduce their number of pressures and high intensity situations, allowing for them to maintain a sustainable tactic from match to match and season to season.
TECHNICAL AND TACTICAL QUALITIES
As mentioned in many of the replies to my initial question, positional and role fluidity could be a common theme moving forward. What does this have to do with high-block approaches? Players are becoming better and better technically, and will continue to do so. Passes will be more accurate, first touches will be cleaner, scanning more precise, and this will not just be the central midfielders, but also the central defenders, the fullbacks and even the goalkeepers. Players in possession of the ball theoretically have the advantage already as the defense must react to the attacking players actions. When the quality of these actions continues to increase, it could become nearly impossible to create pressure situations that are too difficult for the opposition to get out of, an increase in press resistant players all over the pitch; leaving the high-block exposed to acres of space in behind
In addition to the technical side, the tactical side will also develop. When teams began pressing higher, and more aggressive, they were one step ahead of the side in possession. But with time, and the increased prevalence on opposition analysis in addition to refined game models, build-up patterns and concepts will continue to develop and find new ways to exploit the high pressure. John Muller, creator of the fantastic newsletter, Space Space Space, made a brilliant series discussing build up patterns recently called the Big Book of Buildups. Here he describes various patterns used to build-play from the back and how the best teams are doing it. Many of these concepts were most likely not even needed in the past, and more of these will soon come to fruition making it even harder to succeed with high-block systems.
SPACE CONTROL
The idea of space, and controlling space in football is becoming more and more prominent. Liverpool assistant coach Pep Lijnders put this into his own words back in 2012, saying “Modern day football is constantly evolving. Nowadays teams are better organized, especially defensively, more protective of the midfield, and faster to deny the opposition time and space.”
Blocks are becoming more compact, both vertically and horizontally. This is seen, as mentioned above, in high-blocks as well. The caveat with high-blocks, however, is that there is no offside rule when players begin inside their own half. This means out of possession teams must defend the midfield line, leaving huge gaps between vertical lines, and in turn easier to play through than a mid-block.
Players in possession are often allowed more freedom in their roles than previously, and positional rotations are devised to penetrate the opposition block and create more space. In possession systems are designed to stretch the opposition blocks in every direction and attempt to create spaces in between the lines.
Space is the key, and managing this space in a relatively controlled manner is increasingly important. High-blocks simply do not offer enough “control” of much of pitch. Regardless of how high the keeper plays there is still a large portion of the pitch which cannot be controlled when the backline is pushed up to midfield. With the amount of data analysis increasing at warp speed in recent years, as well as this data having a huge impact on the way clubs and managers develop their styles. I tend to believe pitch control models which calculate risk and other data regarding high-blocks, may deter coaches from this style in the future, and data based analytics will have a larger hand in developing game models.
RISK VS REWARD, AND PRAGMATISM
With the above rationales laid out, it brings me to my final point — Risk vs Reward. If high-blocks become increasingly more difficult to implement and sustain, clubs may shy away. The value of high-blocks is often found in the idea of “pressing to score goals”, a term often used by RB Leipzig manager Jesse Marsch, and while I personally am a huge fan of this style of football, and do acknowledge it is, and can be a fantastic tool to win matches, the point of this article is what type of trends we MAY see in the future. Back to the point, if the high risk (sustainability, opposition playing through the block, data telling us otherwise in the form of pitch control and goals against) from the high press slowly starts to outweigh the reward (goals for and regaining possession), then obviously teams may decide to alter their approach.
So why did I specifically mention mid-blocks as a replacement if high-blocks go out of fashion? Well for almost all of the above reasons when comparing to the other option; low-blocks.
Sustainability: For a team to defend in an old fashioned 4–4–2 low-block over the course of 90 minutes, it can be about as exhausting as defending in a high block. Shifting side to side, blocking shots, defending crosses, last ditch tackles and never-ending clearances without coming away with possession is quite the task. It can also take quite the toll, both mentally and physically on a team. Mid-blocks can offer a solution in between. With the ability to “rest” during opposition build-ups, as well as the risk averse options when attempting to maintain possession in attacking transitions and playing out of pressure, compared to the same in a low block, where you may be 10 yards from your own goal. What this means is that a mid-block can theoretically offer a chance to still defend “high”, without exerting the energy of a high-block, while also offering a better solution for maintaining possession and not having to defend for 90 minutes such as in a low-block.
Technical and tactical qualities: With teams and players increasing their ability to build-up play from the back under high pressure, these same technical and tactical qualities can help when implementing a mid-block. Keepers who are better coming off their lines and covering space in behind, as well as playing a manageable pass upon successfully sweeping, are becoming more and more available. Players who understand tactics, defensive concepts, zonal-marking and various principles out of possession thanks to the ever-increasing details of game models, make mid-blocks a more viable option than in the past. Players perhaps did not have the same understanding of “team defending” and what it means to support and cover as they do now. Decision making when considering things such as when should the pressure actually begin? Should I track this runner? Should we press now? Are all principles and sub-principles of the game models, meaning teams do not need to just sit back and defend for their lives. It allows for the teams to still pressure the opposition before they reach the final third, but at the same time is led by decision making as opposed to the non-stop nature of pressing in a high-block.
Space Control: A well-organized mid-block in theory will control more of the pitch than a low-block. When defending in a mid-block, you are often going to simply allow the opposition to have possession in their own third of the pitch. That is ok, they are most likely not going to be a goal threat from here. At the same time, you are not allowing them to circulate possession inside of your half of the pitch at will, like a low-block may tend to do. Keeping them further away from the goal can help to prevent what many people may call a “lucky” goal, I prefer to call them fine margins. These are goals that come from deflections, long shots, a bit of poor defending right in front of the goal or a bounce that goes in favor of the attacking team. Of course, mid-blocks can still concede goals, however I feel like they can be used to control MORE of the pitch than a low block, and in turn offer better circumstances to prevent marginal goals. A mid-block will also prevent more opportunities for the opposition to play through the center of the pitch than a low-block would. Many of the world’s most creative players like to receive between the lines and penetrate the opposition blocks from central locations, particularly zone 14. Again, a well-organized mid-block should in theory prevent these situations and force the opposition to find other ways towards goal.
CONCLUSION
Obviously, I do not know what the future of football holds. I asked myself the same question which I asked on Twitter, and this is what I came up with from trends I have seen in football, as well as my thoughts on the way the game may start to lean. To be clear, this not something I am convinced of, merely a process of thinking out loud and putting some thoughts down on paper. I also do not think this means the end of pressing in any way, I am actually a firm exponent of high-pressing, high-block football, and I believe we will continue to see it as a viable and successful tactic among many clubs. This also does not mean that I believe clubs will simply defend exclusively in a mid-block, but that teams will be better at adjusting their pressure height and first line of engagement, not only from game to game, but moment to moment within each game. Pressures will be guided by pressing triggers based on opposition actions, as opposed to simply geographical locations of the ball, in turn allowing for a more tailored and controllable approach.
Just to reemphasize, this theory is based on football at the highest level. High pressing will most likely continue to be a viable options in youth football and the lower leagues, where the above variables simply do not all apply.
One final comment, as mentioned above, counter-pressing and high-pressing is not one and the same. They are two different tactical concepts. I do not imagine seeing a decrease in counter-pressing numbers any time soon. With more emphasis on controlling the game in possession and teams finding ways to intertwine the phases of the game (in possession to defending transitions) I feel that counter-pressing schemes will continue to evolve and work as a great source for dominating territory and possession.
