There are more than two ways to play football
The impact of the Pep vs Jose debate taught us a lot about football. It's also made us forget some things
Football is a game of cliches. Managers are always speaking in cliches at their press conferences. Football punditry might be even worse.
When a club hires a former player as a coach, you’re guaranteed to hear about how “he knows the club.” You’ll probably also hear them mention club DNA. When clubs are looking for a new manager you will undoubtedly hear reports from the press saying that the club are looking for someone who plays “front-foot attacking football.” When said manager is unveiled at his introductory press conference he’ll likely mention that he wants to implement a style that sees his team playing front-foot attacking football.
The question is, what the hell does that actually mean?
In today’s day and age, front-foot attacking football seems to be used to mean a team that presses high up the pitch and has possession of the ball. If you’re not doing that you’re seen as parking the bus or playing a deep/low block1. Football has been narrowed down to just two different styles.
I believe this definition traces back to the Pep Guardiola vs Jose Mourinho debate that was spawned in La Liga at the start of the 2010s when Guardiola was managing Barcelona and Mourinho Real Madrid. Bareclona, who were comprised of three of the best passing midfielders in the world and the best player in the world, were a possession heavy side. Real Madrid who boasted a very talented side himself that included the world’s best goalscorer, opted to try and stifle Barcelona. They defended and counter attacked relying on their top players to do enough to get them the win.
Given these were the two best teams with the two best players in the world at the time, a lot of eyeballs were on them every time they played2. Over time, the narrative around the two contrasting styles of play would evolved into these two ideological differences in how to play the game. Guardiola was seen as the purveyor of beautiful football, while Mourinho was described as negative or even ‘anti-football.’
The thing is, Pep vs Jose wasn’t actually about two completely different ideological beliefs. Their ideologies were merely two sides of the same coin - how to control matches and minimize your chance of losing. They just had opposite beliefs on how to achieve that.
Mikel Arteta, who spent three and a half years as an assistant coach at Manchester City under for Guardiola, described Pep as “the most defensive manager in the world.” In Pep’s eye, if your opponent doesn’t have the ball that means they can’t score, therefore it’s best to have the ball.
His team will pass the ball and move as a unit to try and open up defenses but crucially they’re not going to force anything. They’ll be patient until the opportunity presents itself to create a good scoring chance. If they create five or six chances in a game and win 5-0 great. If they only create two chances and win 1-0, also great.
Mourinho believes that when you have the ball that’s when you can make a mistake. And since teams are at their most vulnerable right after they lose the ball, it’s best not to have a lot of it. He favored strict defensive positions and to attack in quick short bursts.
The style doesn’t mean his team can’t attack. Mourinho’s Chelsea teams averaged nearly two goals a game and his Real Madrid teams all scored over 100 goals in each La Liga season including a team record 121 in 2011-12.
Both managers overall goal is the same. Prevent the opponent from scoring. For Pep, that’s done through keeping possession of the ball. If we have the ball that means you don’t. For Mourinho, it’s through rugged defending. Both managers would be just as happy with a 1-0 win as they would a 6-0 win and both would prefer to win 1-0 then say 4-2.
The narrative took hold that Guardiola’s possession style of football is seen as the front foot attacking football. These days everything is polarized. It’s almost like we make things more black and white despite being aware of how many shades of grey there are. If you’re not doing that then you’re seen as un-modern and will probably be labelled as a team playing a low block.
Somehow we’ve fallen into this either/or dichotomy when in the same decade that we had Pep vs Jose, we also had Pep vs Klopp. These managers were ideologically different but both had the same tactic as a way of seeing out their ideologies.
Both managers were heavy on pressing/counter pressing when they lose the ball but for completely different reasons. For Klopp, a high press was a means to win the ball back close to the opponents goal to create scoring chances. For Pep, that relentless counter press is simply to win the ball back so that your opponent doesn’t have it.
Klopp’s early Liverpool teams may not have dominated possession of the ball - except you know, when teams wanted them to have the ball - but they were still attacking as hell.
That seems to be what we’re missing here. There’s more than two ways to play football. It’s possible to play without the ball without dropping into a low block. It’s possible to control a match without having the ball.
In October 2020 Manchester United defeated RB Leipzig 5-0 in the Champions League group stage. Leipzig had 53 percent of the ball but couldn’t get anywhere near United’s goal, managing only 15 touches in United’s box. They could have played that game for another hour and Leipzig wouldn’t have scored, United were in complete control of that whole match.
Seven months earlier Manchester City were at Old Trafford and held 72 percent of the ball. All that possession got them just seven shots and only 12 touches inside United’s penalty area. Hell, just a few weeks ago Liverpool were more than happy to let United have all the ball when they beat them 3-0 at Old Trafford. Despite United having all the ball Liverpool were always in control of the match.
Not having the ball does not automatically mean you’re dropping everyone deep and as Mourinho would say, “parking the bus.”
Defensively all teams want to form some sort of block and the key is to keep it compact, but playing a compact block does not automatically mean it’s a deep block. You can play a compact block higher up the pitch, you can play a compact block very high up the pitch.
On the same note, playing a compact block high up the pitch doesn’t mean you’re relentlessly pressing high up the pitch either. In 2020-21 Manchester United ditched the counter attacking style they had used in the early Ole Gunnar Solskjaer era and played a mid-block with a high defensive line but without being a relentless pressing team. They were second in the league in goals that season and conceded the second fewest. Brentford are another example of a team that doesn’t play with the ball but also doesn’t sit deep. They’re also a complete nuisance to play against.
Yet somehow the narrative has taken shape that attacking football means having the ball. Counter attacking is now spoken about like it something that should be beneath any team that has actual ambition. It’s taken such a hold that people talk as if you can’t be a top modern side you’re not playing a possession based system.
It’s true that many of the best teams in the world play this way but does that make it the best way to play? Manchester City have won four straight Premier League titles but Manchester City also have the most money and the best players in the Premier League3. In that time they’ve won the Champions League just once.
Liverpool’s more chaotic approach yielded them a Premier League and Champions League title along with two other appearances in the final. Both times they lost to Real Madrid, a team who always absorb pressure and hit their opponents with ruthless counter attacks. They’ve only won the competition six times in the last 11 years and no one has ever accused them of not playing attacking football.
So what does front-foot attacking football actually mean? It’s impossible to actually answer that question because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
In 2009 Roman Abromovich hired Carlo Ancelotti with the intent to bring an attacking style of play to Chelsea. In Ancelotti’s first season Chelsea scored 103 league goals en route to a Premier League FA Cup double. At the end of his second season he was sacked for not giving Chelsea the identity Abramovich wanted4.
Some people want their team to dominate possession and control the ball, even though some teams do this defensively and are quite boring. Some people want to see their attackers have freedom to show off their skill and cause havoc for defenders, even if it means having less control of a match.
Put either system up against an opponent that’s parking the bus and they’ll both look incredibly drab. People will have their preferences over which system they like more but in terms of which one is better from a footballing perspective? There isn’t an answer other than it really depends on your players.
If you don’t have players that will thrive in a possession based system then it’s probably not a good idea to play that way. That doesn’t mean you have to go and park the bus on the other end. There are possession based principles you could take and counter attacking ideas that could be mixed and matches into a system that suits your players. Sticking to basics isn’t always a bad thing. There are also plenty of 'negative tactics’ that could be thrown into those possession and positional based systems.
You don’t have to play a specific style in order to win the Premier League or the Champions League. You just have to play a style that fits your specific players5.
There’s more than two ways to play football.
In the same vain if you’re pragmatic that’s come to mean you play a deep block, which is not at all what pragmatic means. Grace Robertson wrote a fantastic article why this is a dumb label.
And they played frequently
As well as 115 charges
And most importantly, you have to have really good players
Absolutely, but increasingly football feels like it's a variation on a theme rather than a true clash of styles. Slot has come into Liverpool and is intent on reducing how many chances they concede. The probable top three teams converging on the same way of playing. Hmm...
There are exceptions. I love what Emery is doing at Villa and I find Eddie Howe tobe adept at setting his team up in different ways.
Sadly, the art of absorbing pressure has never been so poorly thought of and managers know they can't stay in a job by employing it regularly. When I see a true Smash and Grab though, I have to applaud.