Thread by @osegundovolante

TACTICAL ENVIRONMENTS

Thread on what it is, how it helps our understanding of tactics on a macro level, and how it relates to and perhaps clarifies the Relationism and Positionism discussion. 🧵

It is not as simple as splitting the room into two sides, but that was probably our natural reaction when Relationism came along. As with everything, there are extremes, and when putting Pep Guardiola and Fernando Diniz side by side, it may very well seem like two distinct worlds https://t.co/46qdR2GFXZtwitter.com/i/web/status/1…

However, isolating this tactical alternative and viewing it as a switch to flip, in my opinion, neglects a lot of valuable lessons this style can help us realise.

There is also an argument that aims to connect the two, assuming one exists in the other. While I do appreciate that football, as with life, is always interconnected, I believe this assumption also neglects the true purpose of exploring tactical styles.

So, where am I getting at?

Tactical environments. Every conversation regarding tactical styles, from a macro perspective, stems from the tactical environment created on the pitch.

The processes of a club combined with the ideas presented by the backroom staff ultimately construct the team’s performance on the pitch, and this performance has four dimensions – physical, mental, technical, and tactical.

When addressing performance from a tactical perspective, there are many layers to observe. These layers grow from an individual perspective all the way to the collective, which views the team’s structural behaviour as a whole.

Obviously, these are all interconnected; it is impossible to address a team’s tactical behaviour without considering the impact of the technical, physical, and mental. When all of this is considered, it is impossible to say two teams play the same exact way.

Nonetheless, similarities will emerge relating to the tactical behaviour of teams. This can be as specific as the right back moving inside behind the first line of pressure, to as broad as how the team builds up in the first phase of possession.

If we continue to expand this perspective, we ultimately reach the tactical environment constructed by the multiple tactical layers. The tactical environment can have extremely varying natures and characteristics, and this is where tactical styles begin to emerge.

Teams can have similar tactical tendencies and solutions from a micro-perspective. However, the macro tactical environment which creates these tendencies and solutions can be extremely different.

Man City can create compact structures in possession that naturally accelerate the players’ interactions. However, the tactical environment which created this compact structure is fundamentally different from the one present at Malmö when they create their compact structures. https://t.co/ZehnXFHvI9twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

In my opinion, Relationism and Positionism have emerged to describe specific tactical environments, undeniably very distinct from each other. That does not mean that football is either one or the other, or that once a team does something, it becomes the other.

From a macro perspective, where this conversation resides, it is about describing the tactical environment. Relationism encompasses more spontaneous, non-linear, emergent, and unstable environments. Positionism relates to more prescribed, linear, imposed, and stable environments.

The tactical environment constructed by a team may very well have features that resemble Relationism or Positionism. However, it is crucial for us to use these terms merely to describe a style, not to split tactics into two.

The idea of a spectrum rather than a switch to flip can help us give each team its own value. When speaking of the tactical from a macro perspective, can we describe the team’s own tactical environment rather than debate whether it is this or that?

Going forward, can we develop the language and analysis of tactics from a macro perspective?