Hi all,
Let’s take a moment to look over some remaining ideas from Michael Cox’s Mixer that I did not get to in my initial reading review.
A counter attack forces the opponent to turn and run which makes it a viable tactic even if the attacks themselves aren’t successful.
Pressing is more about team organization than it is about raw energy.
The Mixer was filled with many little nuggets like these about tactics. The first thought demonstrates how one technique can be used differently across teams – one team might counter-attack purely as an offensive tactic while another might do so merely to force an opponent to expend energy while retreating. The second thought shows how tactics are only as effective as the team’s ability to convert its results into goal scoring opportunities – if a disorganized team presses, it will be in no position to transition quickly from defense to attack even if it manages to win possession.
A team that concedes playing zonal marking will see blame fall to the manager. By contrast, a team that man-marks will see individuals blamed.
Sometimes managers must sacrifice tactics for the sake of keeping certain star players happy.
Among the toughest parts of a manager’s job is giving star players special treatment without provoking the ire of the rest of the team.
The hidden question in The Mixer is highlighted in these notes – why do some managers ascend into the upper tier of the profession despite being middling tacticians? One aspect is how public perception influences job security – a manager who uses zonal marking will often come under fire from the press (‘a zone never scored a goal’) and might resort to tactics that shift the blame for failures onto the players.
Another reason involves star players. I suspect most (though not all) team builders would argue that the best player in the world is more valuable than the best tactician. This fact is reflected both in salaries (the top players are paid three times more than the best managers) and in perception (a great player can beat a great game plan). Managers who oversee star players will often demonstrate these perceptions by refusing to play certain tactics that suit the team just because it might force a star player out of position.
A manager that fails to train the team can only ask for certain styles that everyone is familiar with by default. If there are any changes, the lack of tactical awareness will only create confusion.
Having certain utility players capable of filling a variety of tactical roles is invaluable.
Tactical teams don’t just have a manager who knows about a bunch of different formations – they must also have players who are capable of adapting their play to suit different strategies. If a given team has a low level of tactical awareness, a manager must focus efforts in training on building knowledge about different playing styles before the team will be ready to perform at a high level using varied strategies during matches.
The tactically versatile utility player is a great short-term solution for teams with low tactical awareness. A player capable of shifting from one position to another can help a manager implement various tactical plans without forcing a major change in the roles of the other players in the team.
Managers seem to either adjust to the opposition or not. The latter type insists that their teams play a particular way and this predictability is their biggest vulnerability.
A lack of tactical work will prevent a group of gifted individuals from jelling into a team.
Managers who rarely adjust their tactics are often considered inflexible and may be perceived as vulnerable against opponents led by clever tacticians. However, these managers could simply feel that playing a consistent system brings more benefits in terms of team chemistry and cohesion than would a policy of constant adjustment. It’s often noted that great teams have a certain unity, resilience, and spirit that helps them find ways to win tough matches with late goals. These dramatic victories do not always result from a series of tactical adjustments – sometimes, a team just continues to fight and fight until they seem to force the ball into the goal through sheer will.
Teams that change formation all the time surely don’t know what they are doing.
Although anyone would prefer a manager who was expert in tactics over one who understood nothing about the game, it does seem to me that managers who emphasize their skills in ‘man-management’ – relating to players as a way to get the best out of them – are often devalued in comparison to the great strategic thinkers of the game. The reality is that just like any strategy the tactical approach must be done expertly and not too many managers are consistently expert in their application of tactics.
The key for any manager is to know his or her own strengths without overemphasizing their application. A great tactical manager might think a poor run of results means it is time to try new formations – however, it could also be more appropriate to bring the team together and rebuild confidence through encouragement and empathy.
In my brain I rearrange the letters on the page to spell your name…
Ultimately, tactics form just one component of sound management. At the start of each game, everyone gets eleven players, and the work of arranging those into the right strategy is undoubtedly crucial in the eventual result. However, managers can delude themselves into seeing things if they think moving around the pieces is the only way to spell out the desired result…
…what?
OK, fine – that last thought isn’t from The Mixer, it’s from Courtney Barnett’s ‘Pedestrian At Best’. But who better to walk us across the finish line in a riff off?
