BIG PICTURE VS SMALL PICTURE

A lot of analysis has started shifting to a model of understanding player synergies and how it influences small space behaviours and tendencies. On X we see a lot of interest in pieces dissecting these group dynamics using 3v3's on the wing or in the half spaces to better understand these emergent actions, player behaviours and how players make connections with each other. I believe coaching focus will take a similar course, we will put our microscope to the behaviours and nuances of smaller groups and coach into them to find a less game model centric advantage. 

Coaches will start to understand functionalism and player profiling better and how each player can be complimented by certain functions and tendencies. Thats not to say these haven't always been present in coaching, but in the positional age of 'structure first' we are less attuned to these behaviours. We should analyse them on a smaller scale to better understand the associations and synergies that are present between these players- Martin Rafelt had referred to this in his series of seminars - 'the future of football' as Big picture vs Small picture. 

 I wanted to explore in more detail how coaches can attune themselves to functional ideals and promote different frameworks for looking at smaller scale actions, the importance and varying degrees of player autonomy and how that effects our approach to game strategy, followed by ways of looking at collective frameworks for the attacking phase. This article will reference my footballing ideas- influences from relationism and ideas that I believe are in between - a-positional football- as a way of breaking down certain game concepts without rationalising or reducing it. 

Firstly, I want to introduce the concept of Self Organisation, a process in which a pattern of a system emerges solely from interactions using local information- without reference to a global pattern. The pattern is an emergent property of the system, not imposed by external ordering influence. As described by Yates, in self organising systems pattern formation occurs through interactions internal to the system, without intervention externally. An emergent property cannot be defined by examining these properties (concepts) in isolation, it requires understanding of the interactions amongst the systems components. 

Self organisation promotes a new way of redefining what it means to have an 'attacking organisation' - typically analysed or determined through the sole perspective of how the players have aligned themselves in relation to the 3 lines of defence, midfield and attack. Structure can mean something different when we choose to reimagine it, if we build a team attacking organisation that is decided by movements according to player characteristics and the synergies emergent between teammates. We will go beyond anticipation and into telepathy, creating the pre conditions for the greatest possible synergies to emerge. The player and the teammate are our primary references, not universal principles- our football is not determined by universal solutions and attacking dynamics that are contingent to creating and finding the third man. 

In this Real Madrid goal against Valladolid we see what optimal attacking structure looks like, their primary references are; the ball, the players and the present synergies- not tactical rationality. This compromises the idea of conceptual attacking organisation- this does not need to be symmetrical or rational, organisation itself can be determined by relations, feeling and ecological constraints. A new form of attacking is always emerging, we cannot be defined by pre determined conceptions, this is what Relationism seeks to reject from positional logic. 

Futsal can have a huge influence on mainstreaming these smaller group actions as angles and distances are not favourable for defenders when exchanging marking duties (i'll revisit the theory of going against defensive theory throughout this article). Actions like 'The Curtain, where a pass is played from player A to B and the receiver dribbles inside with the ball and they exchange positions, from here player A can go and 'Block' the defending player whilst he moves across- opening up a space for player C to invade. 

These group tactic solutions promote the message that creating space can be of equal importance to creating options- relating to the ball- both serve a purpose and in these situations they can compliment each other really well. Combine this with a teammate invading space or someone who can use dribble- combinations/ combinations- dribble as a way of eliminating a line of defensive pressure. Are we always attacking static lines of pressure (as we'd see on a tactic board) or are we setting up for emerging moments?  

In this example Tim Walter's old Holstein Kiel side explore these emerging moments, answering the question- how might we see these practically in a game? In Build up for example, a CB's, who would start the 'game picture' split either side of the GK, could go and join the overloaded side, vacating his position adjacent to the goalkeeper. Several opportunities could arise from this, not only does this engage with the ball side overload it drags out the opponents press, creating space to 'invade' from either a FB or with a give and go from the 'floating' defender. Alternatively, as seen in the second example, the defenders push away from the ball dragging the markers away whilst the far side CB invades the space behind the presser, whilst the rest of the local players make circular movements to liberate these areas to allow him to drive and progress. 

Further up the pitch, we might associate a parallea pass from the FB into the winger or the wide splitting midfielder as 'group tactics', with an aggressive run into the space. In situations of numerical inferiority there are opportunities for us to outplay the opponent, football isn't always solved by an overload, on arrival into higher areas connections can be made with the target attackers congregating together in front of the D. As Kiel does in this example, the receiver always dribbles from wide to inside allowing players the time to assess the opening spaces in the defensive line and how to adjust the distances in their line of three to correctly execute the dummy (corta luz) and pass in behind. This goal is scored despite Kiel being in a 4v7 underload in the camera shot- if we want to go against the momentum of the defence we have to train attacks differently.  

In coaching culture there is the notion that everything is solved (simplified) with an overload, again a product of positionalism's pillar of generating numerical advantages on the pitch. As Todd Beane posted on X- ''there is too much 1v1+1 football, our players ability to play in 3's and 4's (groups of) is directly proportionate to a coaches commitment to teaching spatial relationships''.  How are players meant to get better at attacking small spaces, develop these 'off the cuff' moments or see more slalom dribbling actions if we are always training with a numerical overload for the in possession team? We should be training attacking with numerical inferiority, if we want to play against the momentum of structured defence then our practise should reflect that. As supported by Goncalves et al 2016, high inferiority underloads in training lead to high levels of self organisation and affordances. 

Coaches should focus on aligning intentions and attuning attention to key game elements, leveraging the characteristics of individual players as 'our tactics'. In previous articles iv'e spoken about the 'foundations for task design' model which incorporates ecological dynamics and game reference points such as - direction, consequence, ball and the opponent. This allows us to consider how to design exercises to emphasise themes like diagonality and group tactic solutions whilst still allowing players to negotiate actions- task design shouldn't undermine the autonomy of player decision making as we see commonly in 'constraints' exercises that look to shape certain movement patterns- e.g attacking the thirds or Tuchel's hexagon pitch. 

There's a conception that Self organisation is a product of task design in constraints led approach, as coaches we manipulate these constraints to search for and discover their own unique movement solutions whilst exploring information present in the environment. It's worth considering how an emphasis on the social corner to encourage a greater degree of socialisation between players can help players lead and decide movement patterns- bringing players together under a shared goal (intention). I will speak about this more in depth in an upcoming article, exercises such as 'guess who' or 'football bingo' further promote player led strategies, socialisation and human interaction- fostering creative and collaborative problem solving. Socialisation is paramount, not task design. 

Several outcomes can emerge, none of which are systematic, related to diverse ways of breaking pressure; dribblings, give and go's, scoops etc. Players act from mindless repetition, repeating actions instinctively because they enjoy it- dribbling, rather than shaped repetition that is embedded in a lot of practise design. These sessions are ultimately going to look unstructured and 'messy', they will be playing into dead ends and loosing the ball, but that's where their creativity is pushed to its limits to liberate themselves from these difficulties. The coach needs to cultivate an environment where mistakes are embraced and encouraged, letting players experiment with the changing flow of the game and congestion. 

We have started to see creative group solutions emerge from Futsal influence, Walter is arguably the most high profile with his 'vacuuming' build up at Hamburg. A key characteristic of Walter's build up is getting his players to perform circular rotations and orbit the ball carrier, emptying central space. This creates decisional problems for the pressing opponent and creates movement advantages for them, as the game flow has been manipulated and changing game picture. There is superiority (numerical), movement advantage, open space around the ball- great space for dribbling and give & go's. This allows Walter's teams to outplay the opponent, especially when we start to consider the surprise of counter movements that open up space to invade higher up.  

Diniz has his trademark 'Wheeling' build up, all 3 midfielders move towards the ball and join the circular rotation with the CB, FB, pivot and second midfielder rotating round, when the 10- in this case Ganso- reaches the 6 yard box he then initiates the build up and then runs into the space inside the 'wheel'. The opponent, unknowing how to defend this, follows him deep into the wheel dragging him away from the ball carrier, giving him the time to assess his options- cross field ball to the underloaded side- the opportunity to play into the overload and escape via a paralela (3 players have aligned on the touchline) or a pass into the ST. Fluminense play exclusively from these group tactics and localised concepts.  

It's explained here by Fluminense's Ganso; the midfielder who performed as the initiator in this move speaks about the advantages of playing in short spaces, numerical superiority on the ball side and finding 'cunning' ways to disrupt the opponents defensive structure. He also emphasises to the interviewer how positions are not fixed in Diniz's world, allowing players to come to the ball and play childishly like in the street - in Portuguese they have the verb 'Brincar' for this. What's great to see in this video is how the interviewer tries to make sense of or rationalise Ganso's vision, especially when talking about the tilt and abandoning logic or rationality, whilst the Fluminense player gives us this simple playful description- ''a gente vai lá e joga'' (we all go there and play). 

Our starting reference is connections and dynamics, this is understood by attuning ourselves to how active the players are around the ball, if the play has flow (looks natural and unpredictable), if creativity is present (how are we using this to create an advantage?) and how are they finding solutions- diagonal perception, dribbling, give & go's/counter movements? We have to identify key positions to attack in the defensive block, collaboration is achieved by open coach-player | player-coach dialogue. Team dynamics between players between players are continuously evolving, these developments are essential if we want these synergies to flourish.

How do we encourage a player led strategy? The misconception that stems from the Relationism discourse is that no coaching is present nor tactics, in reality the coaches ideas are worth the same as the players ideas, they are equal propositions. The coach and the players work together to strategise, knowing how your players think and adapting to that is better than getting players to adapt to the way you think. Coaches can explain and advertise their ideas, instead of an authoritative or commanding approach. Going back to an earlier theme, training in the underload would be the best way of developing the players' ability to pursue these group tactic solutions and general problem solving. 

We should still prepare for games, as we would for any opponent, but improvisation should be embraced and not be neglected. If we study our opponent and their behaviours then we should prepare for situations that we know will occur, but that doesn't mean there isn't an opportunity to break free from our game image if the players see that the affordances are there. This way, there is no conflict between the instructions of the coach and autonomy of the players, that helps us link the where, when and how to escape pressure. 

When we talk about positions we apply the same logic, positions aren't less important in Relationism but occupying spaces shouldn't be at the expense of joining in with an action- playing from feeling. In the moment the player has to decide what is more important, what is this moment telling me and how can we improve this action to reach the goal- these reflections should happen with little coaching exposure. These are all unbalanced asymmetric ideas. As Tekzts articulates perfectly on X- 'Dynamically coached phases of play become creative solutions; mastery, decisions and execution create situations in which timing, tempo and movement are the links. Each individual action is based on goal orientated behaviour, every start position and touch changes the picture. 

Our football is built from mutual understanding, shared intention and varying layers of communication- geared towards creating a mutual idea and executing it. Decision making comes from players being attuned to affordances through, around and over, their familiarity to situations and situational priorities- how do we reach or connect with X player or Zone 14?  Although there are specific tactical- technical details- such as how diagonal perception allows for more optimal body shape and opens up more optimal progressions than an up back and through-  at the same time many tactical ideas can be spontaneous with 1-3 players. 

Recently, I had exchanged messages with Daniel Abrahams, a well renowned Sports Psychologist who previously worked with Arne Slot at Feyeonord, he gave me an insight into their 'shared intentionality' model. He told me that they had different leadership groups within the team, Dan's sessions with them were used to embed the messages ''this is YOUR team/what does HPM (high performance mindset) mean to you" and these sessions were used to drive this messaging in to create a player led culture. Leadership leads to influence, teamwork leads to following, players need to know how to influence and follow. 

This related to my ideas about 'Deciders', attacks are formed from player led instruction (verbal & non verbal cues) and understanding of what is needed to find a progression. These deciders instigate attack and launch the breakthrough inside the block with moving actions. In this example it's evident how Inter use a similar model to this, with Barella as the teams lead strategist, a smaller circulation area allows for players to investigate and explore their own solutions to Bayern's pressing structure- affordances over the pressure rather than circulating along the entire width of the pitch and playing out to the underloaded side width holder. 

As a group players can consider a move and assess how many are needed to promote and execute this, is there a necessary structure that needs to be present? A structured build up shape to create height, width and depth or an emergent structure- a line of three (Escadinha) for example. Like in the Inter example, how many players need to be aligned in the circulation area? Who attacks/invades which space and how can this be adapted - coach/player dialogue. 

Most importantly, assessing how the opponent defends us, the coach & the players adapt to these developments and they collaborate to strategise team attack. Our reference is not a fixed zone (third) of the pitch but instead how the opponent defends us- man orientated, reorganised structures or reorganising the line- dropping back or stepping up. As a coaching staff this should be the key focus of our preparation and analysis, not assimilating our game model but reacting to theirs, think of the Bruce Lee quote ''my technique is your technique''. 

As I mentioned earlier, instead of boxing our attacking actions and pictures into: Build up, Progression and Final Third- we should consider the opponent's defensive behaviours and structure as the principle references. This is what we should be asking our players, if Group Tactics are the 'small picture' then this is what can be referred to as the 'big picture'- our general tactical idea that we view and prepare for on a collective scale. 

We should also strategise ways to go against zonal defensive theory, defensively we consider that running back to goal diagonally is more efficient than retreating on a straight line because it's quicker. To have the best chance of creating opportunities we need to arrive to goal as quickly as possible. For example, if you dribble vertically the ball stays on the same line and it becomes easier for a defender or midfielder to push out from a line or bank of pressure to confront the dribbler and if there is a directional change its easier to fall back and the adjacent player steps up to him. The Solution? We need to remove the defenders reference points. 

When a player dribbles on a diagonal course it creates a moment of doubt for the defender who must leave his line unsure of where the marking must be exchanged. The defender is now reactionary, which compromises zone defence theory, the ball is moving and you have to close and defend the space with potential runs happening on the blindside simultaneously. All teams defend on a horizontal line, as that is all the offside line will allow us to do, diagonality interrupts this and opens spaces on the outside. When a player dribbles vertically it is harder for teammates to co ordinate their functions in relation to the ball carrier, they need to align ahead of him and not interfere with the path of the dribble.

The blocking example I gave earlier is another way of achieving this, player A in the center passes to the deep wide player B, instead of holding his position (positional) and moving to create an angle, or alternatively deliberately engaging with the receiver in the ball zone (relational), player A makes a diagonal run into the midfielder pushing out of his line to pressure the receiver. This takes away his ability to push out to the ball and creates a passing line diagonally inside the block and a space for a player to either invade or a space for a target player to drop and meet. It could also be a way of creating space for another player to find a shooting opportunity from outside the box, the same principle of stopping defenders from pushing out of their line to the ball carrier applies- like in Newcastle's goal vs Man United shared by Maxime Schär here.  

Another way of going against zone defensive theory is by attacking the 2nd line of pressure and not the last line, in other words an overload inside & in front of the block is more important than having 5 players statically occupying the spaces in between the defensive & midfield line. This way we get less players on the last line giving us depth and 'systematic advantage' and more players interacting with the ball locally and realigning with it to facilitate moving combinations to take us up the pitch. Our approach should be diversified based on the opponent and their behaviours. 

Asymmetric attack as players are abandoning key spaces to interact with the ball, this can be far more superior than zone attack, if you have a central overload and a strong side you then take away the reference point for some defenders- they have no fixed role defending individuals. We can see in this Argentina example multiple players aligning up the pitch in the same vertical line. 

I've spoken a lot about Seriul-lo's there zones of Mutual help, Intervention and Co-operation, specifically how its difficult to coach anything other than positional football from it because the game pictures and coaching interventions are all geared towards how the players are spatially aligned and what repetitions emerge from it. I've been wondering for a while how to coach possession phases with an alternative framework, the most logical thing i've heard so far is to change the point of reference- instead of the free zones being a reference for our structure they should instead be a reference for the opponent. 

As I mentioned in the introduction to this piece, I watched a series of seminars from Martin Rafelt (co-owner of Spielverlagerung.com) on 'the future of football'- where he had introduced a framework that I'd like to explore in more detail. I don't see this as a way to put organisation within the chaos, but instead a way to help players recognise potential strategic ideas instead of concrete one and attuning oneself to more broader footballing perceptions. 

The three zones are labeled outside, inside and upside (the block) as named by Rafelt; Outside the opponent's block means the players in front of the defensive block (defenders), the inside space means the players Inside of the opponent's first 2 lines of pressure - occupying the midfield or shadow space - and the Upside space means the players on the the opponents backline. If we was to compare both models loosely to give bridge a common understanding we'd say- the upside represents the away from the ball- the inside represents the off - the outside represents on the ball.  

In this model the coaching prioritises local information rather than 'setting up the picture' for repetitions emergent from fixed structure, focus on attainment to emergent interactions and travelling combinations are prioritised before how the players align and occupy these spaces- which still needs to happen. I believe this model could be a helpful tool for helping coaches getting their players to read the game diagonally opposed to vertically, for this a diagonal line runs through the centre of the inside circle splitting the pitch in relation to the ball and not position. This helps visualise diagonal overloads, creating directional advantages, establishes the defensive upside player (our defensive diagonal). These zones are not fixed, they are relative to where and how the opponent defends us. 

It also establishes to the players loose in possession responsibilities that they can delegate to each other whilst forming our self emergent structure, the players inside must migrate to the ball and those away from it must orientate themselves to facilitate this diagonal pathway. From this logic, the players inside the block are the ones that set the game picture, the rest of the team must adjust and adapt to it- receptive of local information= self organisation. There also must be a base behind the team to instigate attacks- for 'short not wide' circulation and defensive players pushing up into the inside or upside spaces- e.g- Bologna's roaming CB's under Thiago Motta. 

Pressure inside the opponent's block should be a trigger for our upside attacking players to facilitate double or counter movements, targeting the vertical depth for deep passes. Our coaching focus turns to core moves like straight pass- diagonal run, diagonal run-straight pass as we look to develop these telepathies between players from different lines of the team- socio-associative superiorities- affordances over. Or, inside the block encouraging players to receive whilst overcoming to eliminate the line of pressure at the same time.To receive knowing the opponent is coming and then making a positive action past the defender- affordances through. 

Some coaches might not want to concede this level of strategic control, other teams won't have the capacity to play solely from 'autonomy', so they have to decide whether they want to have more coach or player led organisation closer to their goal or closer to the oppositions goal. Like I said, for me it's almost always going to be somewhere in between, but in accordance to all our references (player, teammate, opponent, training & coaching) would some situations be naturally more 'optimal' than others? 

Take a situation from a goal kick against a high block, as Meia Armador explains there exists a spectrum between autonomy and automation in player decision making - that could result in more optimal or insufficient outcomes. Automatisms that gives a player no autonomy, (scripted A-B-C passes) situation dependent patterns- autonomy to solve certain problems for the when and where as long as it doesen't interfere with the 'game picture', principle based patterns which is where the coach gives his players certain build up solutions in relation to phase objectives (find third man, reach progression phase) but they're not necessarily scripted or fixed and finally complete autonomy- zero coach interference. 

Using examples from the game we understand that some approaches work better than others, therefore we should take this into consideration and diversify our approach in response to the information we obtain from our game reference model. Sometimes the affordances are to go long, especially if we accurately put the ball into a specific area and from here encourage our attacking players to align close to each other. Here by prioritising certain counter movements and the creation of potential self emergent structures we decide to use principle based patterns to decide our attack. Not only do we force the ball away from our goal and closer to there's, we've put ourselves in a position of the pitch where were 2/3 exchanges away from an opportunity- where in these areas the attacking play becomes more autonomous and instinctive than principle based. 

In some games it could be more beneficial, particularly with the rise of aggressive man to man pressing teams, to build up using automated patterns as they are still very effective and hard to neutralise if executed at the highest pace and technical efficiency. I'm still a big admirer of some of Conte's automation solutions in build up, especially those that connect the FB and the ST- again, exploiting the players diagonal perception of the pitch. For example, the build up to this goal vs Man City- the ball is played to Lenglet and Kane drops to open the diagonal passing lane, Son (using the counter movement) pushes beyond and receives the flick from Kane behind. 

Hansi Flick has also been using these automations at Barcelona, the pass out to Balde who plays inside (against the momentum) to Lewandoski who with a more open body shape can find the out to in run of Raphina invading the space. Just because the action is automated doesn't mean the action itself disregards the reference information, if Balde likes to dribble diagonally and make connections with the ST, Lewandoski enjoys dropping, has the ability to hit the ball in the space first time whilst playing with tight defenders and Raphina's game is always to invade space- then surely this automation acts very similar to a group tactic solution?

A paralela pass is a group tactic solution, but it can be worked into an automated pattern as its a movement-combination action that we are specifically looking to exploit. Using this in build up can be a very good way of accessing certain spaces from out to in, but in accordance to the concept of 'universal players' that we see in futsal where players commonly exchange roles and trajectories on the pitch in response to receiving in reduced spaces. The paralela opens up possibilities for diagonal play and fast vertical give and go's to accelerate up the pitch. 

More Autonomous or loose principle based patterns in build up, as seen in Argentina's play for the 2nd goal against Brazil- deciding function to find a decision by assessing how the situation develops- receptive information. Knowing how the ball will arrive will give players an indication on how important it is to influence the ball- whether this should be an immediate action- this gives them a strengthened perception of situational context. We can typically associate players orbiting the ball rather than statically occupying space, fixed structure is removed and player led solutions are promoted- players relate in the ball zone- the pitch is not occupied rationally. It can simply be where the solution is open to interpretation by the players, taking the strategic control away from the coach and towards the players. 

Coaches shouldn't be afraid to suggest 'whacky ideas' to their players, having strange solutions is far better than having predictable  or telegraphed ones, to say ''i've got this idea, lets try it out, we might confuse them (the opponent), it'll look brilliant or stupid- but we won't know until we try''. Former Derby County manager Gary Rowett was asked in an interview (I can't find the link but I can recall it perfectly) - ''who was the most tactically intriguing manager you've ever faced''? Rowett responds- ''Julian Naglesmann. We played Hoffenheim in pre season and they built up from the goal keeper with all their CB's on one corner of the pitch and all their attackers in the opposite corner. I didn't know how to press that''. 

I haven't seen footage of this game but I've tried to interpret what Rowett says and consider how Hoffenhiem played in those times. I imagine an asymmetric team shape with a diagonal arrow of players from one flank of the pitch to another, the graphic might look comical but it again goes against defensive theory- if you press with a ball orientation then there's a clear overload to exploit, if you defend this with tight or even mixed man-man you'll have to defend diagonally across the entire half pitch and removes key reference points- leading to disorganisation. Big spaces can be reached with counter or double movements, give and gos, parallels. There are a plethora of solutions can range across the automation-autonomy spectrum.  

Whatever the solution context is key and omnipresent. This boils down to two concepts; individual competence vs centralised decisions and high value vs low value solutions- all solutions are viable- ones perception of a high or low value solution will depend on how much they prioritise specific solutions 'target areas' or follow positional logic. An area of target for a positional team will be to consistently attack the half spaces to generate cutback opportunities to finish, another team will prioritise early crossing opportunities with crisscross runs to target one of the posts. 

In front of a defensive line a pass out to the width holder would be considered as a low value solution because the ball is taken away its direct course towards goal, what's being generated here is creating a chance to create a chance at goal (indirect attack) rather than going through the block centrally to attack at goal directly. Where a positional coach prioritises progression through the half spaces, I prioritise mine through to the D, which is on course to and not away from goal, which can be accessed outside to in. 

This made me consider alternative frameworks for giving the team reference points near to goal when attacking structured defence, without compromising behavioural developments and combinations from synergy. I'm interested in different ways to look at structural frameworks for looser or hybrid attacking set ups- attacking disorganisation. The coach & the players adapt to how the game develops and they collaborate to strategise team attack, that being said two or three basic pillars should be in place to ensure the intentions, positions occupied and action itself has purpose. 

Without these pillars all the concepts and frameworks we've spoken about becomes redundant as intention-action coupling is flawed without direction. An important consideration to self organisation is that learning is multi faceted and influenced by numerous factors; such as direct instruction, cues that promote attention to affordances and environmental conditions. 

Returning to the Outside-Inside-Upside framework by Rafelt we can loosely imagine which player profile compliments each zone of reference, but I'm conscious about these preconceptions ultimately shaping player profiling, youth players should be developed with these spatial references in mind, without interfering with their autonomy or these synergies.  

Players that operate primarily outside the block should give us security, micro circulation, playmaking or invasion (inside the block or behind it). 

Players that operate inside the block are used to; overload spaces or individual players, perform an anchoring role, or align in a way to direct the attack to a potential solution or connection on the upside- aligning diagonally with a target player (on the last line)- more than one player can perform this function.  

Players on the upside (offensive) gives us threat on the defensive line to attack the depth, to link diagonals (alignment of players inside the block) and to combine with deciders or moving players- those who move into the upside zone with give & go's and look to share spaces with target players. The Upside (defensive) is our auxiliary rest defender from the far side of our tilt (his reference being the opposition winger) and responsible for stabilising our possession phases- yo-yo. 

The 'free role' is often spoken about colloquially in football, my inference is that he can operate from anywhere- he can be the pressure solver by dribbling with directional advantage or performing structure breaking  (compromising) dribbles, moves to support the ball zone to give us balance or 'join dots' or act as  the 'decider' inside or upside defensive pressure. Deciders can operate or dictate the tempo- setting la pausa- from virtually any area to initiate and forward fast vertical attack. 

The anchor isn't limited to 'sitting' in front of the outside players,  from the inside position he can cover or support, he can sit in the gaps in the opponent's structure, shuttle between emergent possibilities, migrate to the ball and even embody some of the responsibilities of the free role- if technical fitness and understanding allows him to- e.g- joining dots, decider. 

In this second image, shared by Callum, Barcelona have a clear upside-inside-outside delegation, with the 5 players on the outside giving a reference in the half space (protect transition), minimum width (depth) and circulation/pausa. The players on the upside and inside are 'floating' and joining the dots inside the block to arrive in better positions. Players are delegated between function (free to roam/join the dots where they please) and positional players that give the team support behind the ball and threat beyond the ball. The minimal expectation is to have at least 2 players to provide depth on the opponent's defensive line and 3 players behind the ball and 1 at the far side (defensive diagonal)- the others migrate and align with each other and instigate attack inside the block.  

I like that in Flick's team half space occupation in between the lines isn't obligatory, if we attack with 5 players positioned rationally across the face of the backline we would consistently loose 2/3 players on the far side every time we define  or switch a side. Circulation happens in a narrow band of the pitch, the ball isn't over circulated or moved to the far side, as a result this stabilises and maintains the compactness of the team. This keeps the target zone of Barca's attacks 'active' allowing players to align and orientate themselves accordingly. 

To conclude, the future of football as I see it will demand originality, unique and diverse solutions posed by greater organised opponents and ask questions of where our priorities lie as coaches- is our reference the dominant and determined strategy set by the coach or is it the one negotiated between coach and player. Preparing teams doesn't necessarily have to mean implementing and coaching structures; our coaching should look to create concepts around the players themselves, our references should optimise conditions for the individual. 

We should aim to develop group tactic solutions and strengthen these pre existing synergies within the collective and use information about the opponent to determine our style. Our players are our tactics, self organisation in real time- coaching to prioritise and safeguard the functional unity of players, improving their game interpretation and references whilst harnessing their individual and technical qualities. 

A lot of the work that has gone in to this come to me through the research i've been doing for a paper, that tackles similar issues. This was originally meant to be part of another article- when I realised  after turning my notes and failed paper drafts  into this article I realised it was 8500 words long. I had to separate the two as it got so long , even by my standards that was too extensive, so if there are some missing remarks or elements that i've mentioned and not touched on- please feel free to message me on X and ill clear these quires up. If you've made it this far then I hope you enjoyed and took some value.