The Mixer by Michael Cox (January 2019)
Michael Cox details how tactics in English soccer have changed over the past quarter century in this fascinating 2017 book. As I try to do with any sports book, I found myself paying close attention for any hint of general concepts that I could apply to a larger context beyond the world of sports.
The major theme of The Mixer is change. Cox identifies the biggest challenge of change as learning how to accept and include different types of people. The key is to incorporate valuable new ideas without compromising crucial core values. England’s soccer culture, for example, has always valued visible hard work and commitment – a player vainly chasing the ball at top speed for seventy-five yards is always going to bring a huge roar from the crowd. The influx of foreign talent introduced new types of players who were valued for their flair or tactical discipline instead of obvious displays of energy, grit, and self-sacrifice. Teams that attempted to assimilate this foreign talent saw mixed results – those that adapted their playing style flourished while teams that could not incorporate new playing styles into their existing club structure were among those that suffered poor results.
A subtler element of change is how it brings together competing definitions for a role, function, or responsibility. A good example might be job descriptions for police officers in different parts of the world. Those who will patrol safe and thriving neighborhoods are likely to require a different set of skills and experiences than those who will protect and serve in the planet’s most dangerous corners. These differences must be considered carefully by change agents because two people with experience doing the same job might have vastly contrasting interpretations of the role. A great soccer example is the fullback. In Brazil, the fullback is considered as much a wide attacker as a defender. A manager that signs a player who developed in the Brazilian system must therefore do his homework and confirm the player’s defensive capability if he requires a fullback capable of solidifying a wide area in the defense.
My favorite observation from the book was about Eric Cantona, the mercurial Frenchman who signed for Manchester United and served as the catalyst for the club’s ascent to the pinnacle of the English game. He immediately demonstrated his desire to improve by often staying on the practice field for extra training. The concept of extra practice was not new to his fellow professionals, of course, but the sight of such a highly valued and respected player giving the extra effort set a massive example. In a way, Cantona made it acceptable for others to continue working despite the manager’s declaration that training was over. Those who demand change in others must always remember to set the right example because the inertia of familiarity, habit, and social proof are often the most significant barriers to real change and progress.
One up: As far as specific managerial techniques go, I thought the note about Arsene Wenger choosing to replace departing players by tweaking the roles of remaining players was a brilliant insight. In theory, a like-for-like replacement is the surest way to ensure continued success (and might be the best practice for, say, a departing goalkeeper) but in practice the goal of finding another player just like the one who left is a hopeless task, one that reeks of a fear of change, and a sure way of starting a club down the path toward stagnation.
One down: Cox notes that innovators will become the victim of their own success if they sit and wait for others to copy their methods. This is a fair assertion. However, it makes me wonder – if someone innovated once, why wouldn’t they just innovate again? The more I think about it, the more confusing it is that so many of yesterday’s innovators become today’s dinosaurs (and eventually, dinner for tomorrow’s innovators).
Just saying: Most casual soccer fans – and perhaps a significant portion of those in the game – think of soccer as being about offense or defense. Jurgen Klopp disagreed and built his entire philosophy around dominating two additional phases of play – the transitions to and from offense and defense. He felt that if his teams could dominate these phases of play, they would regularly create goal scoring chances against disorganized defenses. I attribute his success over the past two decades to this insight about transitions and the way he applied his knowledge to train teams that create, amplify, and thrive in this chaos.
What I like the most about Klopp’s logic is the clear and simple thought process – if transition brings chaos and chaos means disorganized defenses, the team that thrives in chaos will have a significant advantage. I’ve noticed this kind of clarity when I examine success in other areas. The underlying skill is the ability to break big problems down into as many component parts as necessary before fully attacking the most important or valuable opportunities.
