The recent growth in Functional Play is undeniable, and with it, many questions arise.
As discussed in the latest TFA Podcast, analysing aspects of these tactics through the lenses we have become accustomed to may prove problematic.
The core ideas behind this style, which is most notably found in Fluminense, and to a smaller degree in Real Madrid and Serie As Napoli, tend to shy away from the ones in more positional approaches.
In its nature, and this can vary in degree, the interpretation of space becomes more about relations rather than positions.
Consequently, the overall structure of a team can lose some of the features we have grown to accept as normal.
Asymmetry and shorter distances between players become much more common and significant.
The occupation of space becomes much more spontaneous and uncertain.
That is not to say, of course, that these do not exist in more positional approaches.
Functional Play is not separate from the more positional systems, and vice versa.
To further understand this, it is best to look at Ahmed Moallin’s Route AB, in which he explains:
“The former (A) is necessary for the latter (B) to be understood and seamlessly fluctuated relative to a single start point which can be the domino effect of vacate/occupy. Once initial position is determined, regard for position becomes limited, only technical and temperamental understanding. I believe that 99% of play should be (B) which is born out of the 1% (A). Hence Route AB, not A to B. There is no differentiation, only coexistence and reference. This is the pinnacle of socio-affection.”
All tactics begin from a positional start point (A) and transition into interpretive movement and relations based on various factors (B).
Neither can be entirely removed from football.
However, some systems will give in more to these interpretive relations while others will adhere more to positional references.
Nonetheless, systems are always interlinked in their roots.
Returning to Functional Play, some questions come to light as it grows in popularity.
In a mix between tactical analysis and tactical theory, this article will explore the concept of rest defence in Functional Play.
For consistency, this analysis will focus on Fernando Diniz’s Fluminense as it is currently one of the more extreme examples of this style in world football.
Situational
As discussed, Functional Play becomes more about spontaneous and interpretive occupations of space while the team has the ball.
This has an immediate effect on a team’s structure, or lack thereof, in possession.
Normally, adhering to more positional references, like a Man City would, allows the team to have a clearer and more predetermined idea of who will be where.
On the other hand, rest defence is exactly what it sounds like.
In possession, the team will already be structured and prepared to go into a defensive transition in case the ball is lost.
Some teams will have man-to-man, man-to-man +1, and even zonal rest defences, all depending on their own organisation and tactics.
This is obviously easier to organise when the team remains more structured in possession, with predetermined occupations of space.
However, with such spontaneity and unpredictability, it is more difficult to prepare for defensive transition scenarios when the players are constantly going in and out of different spaces.
But enough of the theory, let’s look at how it plays out on the pitch.
Below is Fluminense in possession, against Madureira in the Carioca 2023.
This is a common trend of their behaviour in possession.
Nearly the entire attacking structure is shifted over on the right half of the pitch, with no players on the left wing (highlighted in the big white circle).
In a much tighter space, the positions become rather irrelevant.
Jhon Arias, one of the forwards, has dropped in where the right-back normally is, while the right-back is further up in the midfield.
Traditionally, rest defences will have first and second lines protecting the central lanes while the team attacks.
The players closest to the ball would then apply immediate pressure while the second line would prove cover.
Th
