Do you believe playing styles are developing incrementally or cyclically? Will things naturally come back around, or is it more a matter of rock, paper, scissors where one style counters another for a short while, as the current style gets broadly adopted? – Paul
I dislike the term “cyclical” for tactics because it implies inevitability. Winter, spring, summer, autumn is a cycle; what happens in football tactics is not. When older ideas are repurposed for the modern age, they come with knowledge of what went before. So, to take an extreme example, when Pep Guardiola started fielding teams in a sort of 3-2-2-3 shape, it wasn’t the W-M used by Herbert Chapman in the late 1920s, because in the 100 years since, football has changed enormously: players are fitter, pitches are better, kit is better, we understand pressing, we have data and sophisticated analytical modelling.
Equally, we should be cautious of imagining there is a preferred model – that one tactical system is necessarily better than another. It’s not that there is a best way to play and everybody is striving to achieve the style closest to that. Everything is contingent: there is only ever a best way to play for a particular set of players in particular circumstances.
That said, there are clearly periods when one style is dominant. The arrival of Rafa Benítez and José Mourinho to English football in the summer of 2004, for instance, made control the defining attitude of the Premier League. The appointment of Pep Guardiola in 2016 brought his juego de posición to England, which has had a huge impact throughout the divisions, even as he evolved. First, there was the challenge of Jürgen Klopp, which resulted in Guardiola’s approach and German Gegenpressing moving closer together. Since then, he has inverted full-backs, gone to a back four comprised entirely of central defenders, and had John Stones stepping forward as the signing of Erling Haaland effectively meant the centre-forward no longer functioned as an auxiliary midfielder.
Over the last few months, there has been a radical change. There seems a general acceptance, not least from Guardiola himself, that the style he brought to England is no longer effective. Last season he spoke of the likes of Bournemouth and Newcastle playing modern football – although, in context, he was talking less about having players run more with the ball (as it has been widely interpreted) than about how the crowded fixture list makes it almost impossible to prepare players properly for juego de posición, which requires a different strategic approach for every game. In that sense, the recent shift towards more direct football is less cyclical or incremental than reactive – a means of dealing with external factors.
More generally, football finds itself not so much in a cycle as in a series of competing dialectics. As the emphasis on maintaining possession grew, central defenders – at least at elite clubs – began to be selected less for their defensive qualities than for their ability to pass the ball. That meant less focus on strength or heading ability, leaving them vulnerable against big, powerful centre-forwards. Bring back the big lumbering centre-backs of old, though, and they become susceptible to a well-targeted press. But then, big centre-forwards may not be capable of the constant rapid sprints required to press effectively.
And that’s just one element. We’ve got used to wide forwards who cut infield onto their stronger foot, but as centre-forwards get bigger, better at heading and perhaps less adept at vacating space for a teammate cutting infield, it may be that a preference grows for wide players who do not invert but beat the full-back on the outside to put in outswinging crosses.
There are always wheels within wheels, and that means terms like “cyclical” or “incremental” will always seem reductive.
With summer temperatures in North America consistently hot, will we see a return to the type of World Cup we saw in 1970 and 1982 when oppressive heat reduced the efficacy of pressing? And does this open up the tournament to teams who could pack the pitch with creative No 10s? – Jonathan
I enjoyed your newsletter in September about the new defensive mentality in football, where, as you pointed out, “we are seeing a more physical game centred on crosses, set plays and giving nothing away.” Do you think we’ll see that at next year’s World Cup too? – Bethany
This pair carry on from the previous question. The temperature definitely will be a factor. Consistent pressing will be very difficult and, as at the Club World Cup, I think we’ll see spells in games in which both teams effectively take a breather. Most sides, I suspect, will sit deep in a low block, which means very little space for No 10s. It may be that what ends up being effective is controlling the pace of games, remaining tight defensively and breaking down opponents through attrition. Set plays are likely to be a major factor.
In 2022 we had Morocco making a surprise run to the semi-finals, and in 2018 Croatia got all the way to the final itself. Which “smaller” nation do you think could make a deep run this time around (I’ve got my eye on Norway)? – Wally
It’s slightly baffling that the World Cup is such a closed shop, when there have been shocks at the Euros, the Africa Cup of Nations and the Asian Cup. But it does seem that something about the occasion – or having to play one game more than at confederational tournaments – makes a big difference. Morocco again and Senegal are probably the likeliest African sides to have a decent run (or DR Congo if they make it through the play-offs). As you say, Norway, who have had some excellent players for a while now, are playing extremely well, and Switzerland have become a very consistent side. But the team I think could really surprise people is Ecuador, who have the likes of Moisés Caicedo, Willian Pacho and Pervis Estupiñán, and qualified second from Conmebol.
José Mourinho, Pep Guardiola and Moises Caicedo all feature in this week’s mailbag. Composite: Getty Images
