Yeah, but you can try. Not for me to speak for her, but I’m pretty sure she’d tell you that they wilfully complicate quite a lot of stuff in the fields of gender and culture etc. Some of that is necessary. Some of it isn’t. (Her organisation has to simplify it to disseminate it)
But more relevantly: all writing is about transfer of information. The issue with the tactics writing we’re talking about is that I’m not sure the people transferring the information actually have it, just an impression of it.
I don’t really agree with the idea that - when everything is unfalsifiable - the most complicated solution is the most likely. But I would suggest that believing that is the root of the problem.
The most credible post-game tactical stuff, I’d have said, is the stuff that has been informed by knowledge of what the teams were trying to do, not just an interpretation of what you think they were trying to do.
All writing is the transfer of information. When you only have an impression, your impression, of that information, what are you transferring?
