Jonathan Wilson is a football writer, more futuristic levitating brain-in-a-jar than a man. If you haven’t heard of him or read any of his stuff, you should. He’s great, even if a bit verbose at times.
He writes for a lot of publications (e.g. The Guardian, Sports Illustrated), edits his own football journal The Blizzard, and most importantly wrote the football tactical opus Inverting the Pyramid.
His pulsating football noggin also makes him a nigh-authority on eastern European and Argentine football matters, as well as his own team Sunderland, but he mainly focuses on tactics and trends in football culture.
In one of his latest articles, he ponders how tactical analysis has entered into the football journalism mainstream, a wave he’s pretty much ridden for a living.
Despite its new found popularity, Wilson believes talking tactical trends in football is still a controversial subject.
“There are many ways of consuming and enjoying football and there is… a strange antagonism between them,” he wrote.
“There are those who want, above all else, the team they support to win. There are those who want to be entertained. And there are those who want to take the game apart and understand why what happened, happened.”
As I’ve grown up, I’ve begun to enjoy sport more for its meta-properties than for its actual content. Of course, watching the action is always exciting, but I’m always equally thinking and trying to see what the teams’ strategies and tactics are. Not only what they’re trying to do and how well that’s going for them, but also how it is being reported on by the commentators and then the post-game editorials.
It is always reported who scored the goals – after all, they dictate the result, and that’s perfectly normal. However, what I find troubling is that the narrative always follows who scored the goals. For instance, “Diego Costa saves Chelsea”, or “Lewandowski denies Dortmund”.
First of all, yes, forwards can and do put in match-winning overall performances, winning every challenge, completing most of their passes and harassing the other team when not in possession. Or perhaps they are thrown on in the last few minutes of a game, and do something magical like score a header with the back of their head like Javier Hernandez.
Regardless, the goalscorers almost always remain the narrative of the game despite the natures of their performances. I remember watching Fox Sports News once and they were pronouncing Fernando Torres the saviour of Chelsea in one game, as he scored two goals.
They then showed the highlights, and both his goals were tap-ins. No discussion of the build-up, no discussion of the tactical approach to the goalscoring (maybe they were targeting the opposition’s high line or weakness to corners). Just the fact the ball was in the net and Torres kicked it last. As Jonathan Wilson has been quoted as saying (although he claims he was misquoted), “Goals are overrated”.
For me, when Wilson says goals he means moments and events. Events can be things like red cards, penalties, comedy own goals or goalkeeping saves. Tim Howard was lauded for playing out of his skin for the US in their World Cup round of 16 clash with Belgium. Howard was the target of a media and internet love-in, rather amusingly being christened the ‘Secretary of Defence’ in an edit on Wikipedia.
Belgium in that game had 38 shots at goal, and 26 of those were on target (the US had 14, and nine respectively). In addition, they had 19 corners to America’s four. What these statistics show is that Belgium were peppering the American goal and final third. The failure or weakness of the defence – because that in essence is how you concede 38 shots on target and 19 corners in 120 mins – was handily smokescreened by Howard, both physically and afterwards, too.
On the contrary, how many questions were asked about the efficacy of Belgium’s attack? In that game, their strikers were Romelu Lukaku and Divock Origi, who have a combined age of 40 and eight international goals, and while Belgium is flush with exciting attacking midfielders (Kevin Mirallas, Eden Hazard, Kevin de Bruyne to name three), their talents lie in creation.
The answers to or discussion from these questions may not provide us with an explanation to the game’s events, but they were never considered in the editorial of the game. It was all about Howard.
I’m not trying to say that Howard was worth his dues or that one isn’t allowed to think he played well, he did make 15 saves after all. I am using his performance as an example of how the football discussion – and, I guess, sport media in general – veers towards the simplistic and high visibility.
But what is bad about this, you might ask? Well, there’s nothing wrong with it. In fact, simplification and bold statements are a feature of humanity, something increasingly apparent in our falsely-enlightened modern multimedia connected times.
However, there is so much more to football than just the action. Indeed, the people who think about the game past the action tend to be more successful at it.
In the past, Dutch football introduced the philosophy of total football, which has spread and influenced countless football cultures and clubs. In the present, Swansea have adapted and maintained an approach to their football.
Furthermore, it could also be argued that the identity of the scorers, key performers, or others who are involved in highly-visible events, is already well known. So is the media just repeating what we’ve already seen? What addition is such media ‘analysis’ then making to the football discussion, other than just assuming the place of an irrelevant middle-man?
Of course, though, when I say media I mean the big wigs, not us amateurs. We’re not scrimping a living because we’re not getting paid for our tripe in the first place.
In the end though, game events are merely specks in the grand scheme. Boiling football games down like this obfuscates, ignoring most of what makes football so incredibly vibrant and interesting.
Freddie
Guest
One of the earliest pioneers of total football, before it even became a phrase, was an Englishman, Jack Reynolds, who coached both Ajax and the national team, and set the templates from which Rinus Michels later followed.
Punter
Guest
Gerd Mueller lived inside the 6 yard box & was known as 'der bomber' & most of his goals were scored between 3 to 6 yards. Yet he is regarded one of the greatest predators to ever play the game.
bryan
Guest
Classic one was Ronaldo's hat trick on the weekend. 2 tap-ins, 1 shot that took he happened to be standing in the way, hit him and beat the keeper. But the headlines were "Ronaldo Unstoppable" wtf.. 2 shots from 3 yards out on open goal?
Paul Nicholls
Roar Guru
"is more than just about who scored" - this was my tag line when returning home alone from discos in the 70s :-( And here I am telling this to AllnightDwiight. Article was a good read BTW
JonJax
Guest
Allnightdwight: "It is always reported who scored the goals – after all" eh no, not really, especially not on the tax payer funded ,National Broadcaster- ABC. That's "our ABC"- radio- both the local and national permutations, which frustratingly have real issues informing their listeners of the names of goal scorers. In fact, according to the ABC, footballers don't score goals - they "kick" them, which usually brings the response over the breakfast table -that one Geelong based ABC hack is in serious need of a "Liverpool Kiss"!
ciudadmarron
Guest
Yeah absolutely, not arguing about the genesis of the ideas. What I mean is, "on paper", you can compare Michel's system and the runs etc and get a sense of what the team was doing. However if you watch the game against Uruguay for instance you see those waves of players running forward. This isn't reflected in a lot of the literature about it. I can't recall if Meisl implemented that kind of thing. Agree 100% that the fluid movement etc had a long development before then. All I'm saying is, looking at figures and diagrams rarely tells the whole story.
ciudadmarron
Guest
Yes I remember that one but this was a guy who catalogued a huge number of games in England and counted the passes that led to goals. Will have to revisit!
Towser
Guest
In practical terms the headline is correct, however football overall is a game of emotions & goals no matter how created are part & parcel of that emotional connect. If football ceased to exist tomorrow,what would the vast majority of football followers remember,Messi/Maradona/Pele/Charlton etc or Herbert Chapman/Meisl etc? We all know the answer,gimme a Charlton thunderbolt or a Messi dribble over a bunch of whirling dervishes anyday.
j binnie
Guest
ciad - This was another East Europen coach who advocated that if every player was doing his job properly the ball could be tranferred from a goalie throwout to a strike at goal in 5 passes. The theory requires some thought but is entirely feasible if players consistently move into space and receive and pass a ball accurately over 20 metres. Think about it. Cheers jb.
Ben of Phnom Penh
Roar Guru
It is always interesting to see the difference in post-match analysis when a qualified coach is sitting on the panel as opposed to a famous ex-player or seasoned pundit.
j binnie
Guest
ciad -No offence taken. If you read between the lines you will find he seriously questions the title "|Total Football" that has widely been claimed as a Dutch innovation and he will also tell you that Michels,the coach,never ever used the term to describe his team's play.The father of the idea of 'total football" was an Austrian,Hugo Meisl, who, as a student of human movement advocated the idea that if you could get 10 players with the same mental ,physical,and skill elements their work load could be almost halved by letting them stay in the position their movement had taken them to and the rest of the players "wheeled" to maintain the required shape they were using. Meisl also stated it was highly improbable that 10 such players could ever be brought together,but it is thought that the Russians of the 1945 era were actually playing around with the idea through the coach Arkadiev who called his version of the theory,"organised disorder". Moscow Dynamo presented this style of football to the West in 1945 in an undefeated tour by the Moscow Dynamos. I think what Wilson gets over well is that innovation in football coaching is not new and has been going on since Chapman,in England, first ordered his players "to keep the point you have when you go on the field" and moved his centre half into the centre back role as we know it today. That was around 1925 and tactics have been developing non stop since them. Has it gone the full circle???? With Van Gall's much publicised "back three" experiment at both WC and Man U. it could well be on the turn. Cheers jb
ciudadmarron
Guest
Wasn't having a go jb, just I remember him trying, through accounts by their contemporaries - it's not his fault he wasn't around!p One thing that struck me as well is just how hard it is to put down on paper exactly what a formation looks like and does. He describes it quite well. But you still have to see it. A case in point with the dutch - everyone knows what total football is supposed to be about but a diagram on paper doesn't show you those incredible 11 man offside traps does it.
j binnie
Guest
ciud - In no way did I attempt to play down Wilson's book or his research and analysis but at 30 years of age when the book was written 2008 he would have been too young to ever meet and discuss their philosphies with the likes of Meisl.Hogan,Chapman,Rappan,Feola,Pozzo,Rocco or even the Russian innovators of the late 1940's.who he spends much time discussing their contributions to the tactical development of the game . Cheers.jb,
Swampy
Guest
How did Belgium have 26 shots on target and Howard make 15 saves? Were other shots cleared by defenders? I digress. Football in essence boils down to the most simple of facts. You cannot win if you do not score a goal. Clean sheets are admirable as are high possession percentage and even a high pass completion rate. But goals determine the outcome. Tap ins are under rated. Rudd Van Nistleroy's career was highly under-appreciated until well after he retired. He was the master of the tap in. Always seemingly there on the end of the final ball, calmly putting the ball past the keeper. It is the greatest skill in the game and one that I feel most people actually under rate. -- Comment from The Roar's iPhone app.
Bill
Guest
I have been meaning to read it for a while - will get on to it this week and verify.
ciudadmarron
Guest
Good article allnightdwight, cheers for the read. I'm no tactical genius but one thing that has always bugged me is the replays of goals within broadcasts which invariably focus on the end product and not the build up. In the dissection you might have the pundits later highlight positioning etc a la Mr Foster and his little circles, but during the game, nothing. 5 shots from different angles of the strike, with maybe 1 if you are lucky showing the pass beforehand - but even more rarely the passes before that. One thing that Wilson did underline is that a focus on the stats is not always helpful, particularly with regards to the passes per goal theory (can't remember the name of the bloke but he "proved" that goals come from less passes, i.e., more direct play). you can table all the stats that you want but in the end you can't account for the moments of individual brilliance upon which the game turns and which keep us coming back for more.
ciudadmarron
Guest
It's been a while since I read it jb but I seem to remember Wilson did spend a bit of time trying to get to grips with most of the minds of the innovators you mention above. I remember lots of details about Herrera in particular.
j binnie
Guest
Allnight- Jonathon Wilson's book should be mandatory reading for all who purport to be interested in football.However that doesn't make Jonathon an "expert" in football matters.simply a very clever,accurate,analyst of what has happened in our game over the last 100 years.His research is particularly accurate and takes tacticaldevelopment,step by step through the years,but like any clever journalist he never attempts to get inside the heads of the men who have actually "rung the changes" in our game,men like the Austrian Meisl who was advocating the Viennese Whirl as a theory,40 years before the Dutch "total football" you mention. Why did Chapman change the 20 year convention of 2-3-5 to 3-2-2-3 (or WM as it became known).that was to last another 20 years until the Russians started to play around with positional change for players and as a defensive structure to counteract these fast moving interchanges,Rappan,another Austrian began to toy with the forerunner of the ultra defensive game known as catenaccio.Meanwhile in South America ,with their abundance of skilful players the game took another direction and they moved into 4-2-4 formations with fast clever wingers stretching defences into wide mode and scoring goals galore.Feola is the man credited with that system in it's ultimate form but in Europe another team Hungary,was playing a fluid 4-2-4 that could quickly change to 4-4-2 simply because of the tasks given to the fast,tireless wingers they usedas ball carriers.The Magyars also copied the Austrian idea of a deep lying centre forward which took root in the pre-war"Wunderteam" In 1958 theBrazilians took another step towards "defensive",structure when they dabbled with a 4-3-3 formation when they lost possessionThe player and future coach Zagallo made this possible because of his energy and work rate. You will note,as Wilson sets out to prove, that formations are changing with one view in mind ,have what you hold at the start of the game & don't lose that advantage,Chapman's doctrine from 1925 reachingtowards ultimate development. But no,in Italy catenaccio has taken hold and the amateur psychologist Hererra almost killed off the game as a spectator sport in the early 60's. Player rewards,improved fitness and equipment,media money have all changed the game even since then and what do we find in 2014,thinkers like Van Gaal experimenting with three centre backs and 5 midfielders,with a reduction in that number by adding another striker if the team is in trouble,so is the triangle now inanother "reverse cycle" with Chapman's 'third back" theory being revisited????? Who knows,Jonathon Wilson mayhave to write an addendum to his 2008 offering which spelled out the 5-4-1 possibilites at that time. Is there another "brain"out there somewher who canput together a team of talented, superbly fit, superbly skilled players who can put Meisl's theory from the 1920's into practics. Meisl hmself doubted that possibility as the players would also have to be psychologically "matched" and maybe that will remain "the step too far" Cheers jb
Simon Smale
Roar Guru
Great read allnightdwight. I am a massive fan of Jonathan Wilson too, most of his articles are fantastic reads and I definite end feel I've appreciated the game more since I started reading his stuff.