The Relationship Between Individual Dynamics, Principles, And Systems – Tactical Analysis

Modern-day football is perhaps exposed to the largest diversity of tactics witnessed in any given time period.

The diversification of coaching philosophies, combined with higher standards than ever before in fitness, coaching, and mentality, has contributed to this phenomenon.

This breadth in tactics has become more apparent not just for the reasons above, but also because players are adhering to the coached philosophies – they have the capabilities to do so, and tactically deficient players, teams, or coaches are unsustainable at the top level; they won’t last.

Effectively, and very simply put, what we see is what is coached.

At least, more so than ever before.

When watching a Pep Guardiola side, we can say with confidence which players are meant to be where, and when there’s a moment of individual inspiration – an off-the-cuff action, which historically may have been harder to decipher whether it was individually impulsive, or a coached ploy.

And anyway, if we’re ever unsure whether a player’s actions are individualistic or coached, the player’s manager often sign-posts this post-game anyway – Guardiola in recent weeks has been incessantly banging the drum that says his fullbacks aren’t inverting enough.

With the diversification of tactics on show at the top level, classifying the different philosophies and facets down could be interesting.

In that vein, contrasting Juego de Posicion with automatisms, insinuating that they are completely distinct philosophies, can be reductive and hinges on semantics.

A more liberal approach can be adopted here, and applying a sliding scale ranging from individual actions to all-encompassing systems could work, particularly because, as discussed above, individual actions now generally fall under the coached framework, and strict systems are also obviously subject to coaching.

From here, we can gain an appreciation for the variation in coached philosophies at the top level and discuss whether principles or systems are better suited at this level, as well as where future trends may lie.

This tactical analysis piece will examine the relationship between individual dynamics, principles, and systems.

Coached Principles

Coached principles are difficult for a viewer to identify, as they manifest in various forms, often on an individual level rather than a systematic one, and are often conducive to fluidity rather than presenting themselves in an obvious and consistent manner.

To explain principles holistically, while respecting the immense complexities of micro-actions, case studies are necessary.

Erik ten Hag is one coach who utilises principles of play as a key facet of his coaching, and his work at Manchester United is the ideal microcosm of how these principles can be effectively implemented.

Ten Hag’s Manchester United aren’t bound to a strict positional setup, yet they generally exemplify optimal angles and spacing in possession, much like a sound positional system.

The gold-standard coaching principles that ten Hag offers serve as the facilitator for this to happen.

Building from the back, United adopt a fairly fluid approach.

The fullbacks aren’t pinned to an inverted position, nor are they sent into depth to create a vertical threat while maintaining the teams width.

Players aren’t sacrificed on an individual level to generate downstream opportunities for teammates – at least not on the same level as seen in certain all-encompassing systems.

The fullbacks hold a regular position, similar to their nominal position in a four-at-the-back system.

They have the licence to push on, to become a diagonal chipped ‘out ball’ from the keeper.

They can be better suited dropping very deep to offer a ground ball in the ‘security ring’, which is effectively the row of players who can recycle possession laterally to ensure United can keep the ball – the back four and goalkeeper in this scenario.

Th