When I started this page over a year ago I wanted to not only use my account to talk about relational football and comment on tactical phenomena, I also wanted to show that interactions and connections can be the focal point of a methodological framework and a key reference for session design. I've had the privilege of speaking to coaches, academics, methodologists that have helped me refine, articulate and most importantly understand the type of coach I want to be.
Over the first few months of this season to coach a reserve team , whilst searching for other roles, and I wanted to use this opportunity to present my ideas and way of working, aided by visual examples from session recordings. I recently shared a thread on x with these videos hoping that they be an insightful resource for those wanting to know how to apply ecological - relational- concepts in a training environment, this article broadens these concepts in more detail.
My intention is to also to show those who defend conventional practices - particularly those who work in academies- that there should be an openness to new ideas and that these concepts aren't a result of coaching trends but scientific research- Teaching games for understanding, self determination theory and ecological dynamics and most importantly- practical experience.
This article is a successor to my 'Creating an Environment for Relationsim ' article which was published last October.
I've written this article to outline 3 key messages that I believe to be important to my own personal training methodology;
creating an environment for diversification and unpredictability,
training tasks that prioritise context not outcome
and allowing players to co-design outcomes.
This also compliments my previous articles that were published throughout the summer- The Anti Game Model and Could a team be totally autonomous? For this article, I would like to bring back an emphasis on practical solutions opposed to tactical theory.
PART ONE
Training objectives: satisfying diversity and the potential for unpredictability.
In coaching culture there is the notion that everything is solved with an overload, a product of positionalism's pillar of generating numerical advantages on the pitch. There is too much 1v1+1 football, our players ability to play in 3's and 4's (groups of) is directly proportional to a coaches commitment to teaching spatial relationships. Southampton manager Will Still - then of French side Lens- had appeared on Sky Sports' flagship show Monday Night Football last season and gave an insight into how he prepares teams for matches with analysis sessions leading into the MD-1/-2 session, the theme of utilising overloads was evident during his presentation.
He mentions how if the opponent compromises their plus one overload they will look to switch to the opposite side to exploit the 2v1 at the earliest opportunity. This got me thinking, why do they choose not to explore affordances inside the block? No two possessions are ever the same yet the play is guided by the same concept each time- to find and exploit numerical superiority.
Superiorities are a situation in which a player finds himself in at a given moment in the game, in a time-space condition that is beneficial to bringing his team closer to a more progressive position/ phase space to be in a better scoring position (Seriulo 2017). Superiority becomes effective in the spaces of intervention- both in the possession phase and the moment of ball loss.
Superiorites are generated by action and inaction, constant organisation and re imagination of the team, interactions understood as a flow of proposals and responses to what the opposition asks of them. A player or group can be identified as having superiority, though no superiority is a guarantee of dominance. The natural tendency of self regulation to the system of subsystems asks players to perceive and consider the trajectories of locations and relationships that form associative play.
There are 5 types of superiority;
Numerical, positional, qualitative, dynamic and socio-affective
Coaches train too much with a preference for attacking through numerical superiority, every outcome is dependent on finding and exploiting the third man, there must be a balance and looser guidelines for attacks over, around or through. When a team is posed with a problem to solve by a defence they are too reliant on positional coach prescribed solutions, resulting in a less dynamic and more rigid game, with little space for players to explore their intuitions or spontaneity. If we train too much with an overload we risk making dribbling actions obsolete if players are not exposed to situations where they must navigate a 1v1 or 1v2.
Football needs diversification and unpredictability for a liberating, expressive and child like essence to be present.
I understand football as a game of connections; information is exchanged and the environment is to be explored, navigating control and chaos whilst embracing dynamism. Connections and interactions are not tangible if you look to analyse them, mental structures in the form of intentions, references and emotions that fluctuate with receptive information, chaos is the patterns that we don't understand yet. We should prioritise interactions and resonance structures before abstract concepts or strategies or game plans like Will Still speaks about, game plans should be complimentary to the pre existing dynamics and relations (socio-affective advantages).
Fernando Diniz spoke about this-
''Football is very rich, the field is very big, there are eleven players who can create a lot of interactions against eleven players who create a lot of interactions. So in football we have to be courageous and give ourselves a little bit of freedom to be able to create things, because nobody knows that much about football. I see an even bigger universe where we can evolve even more''.
Coaches should look to add behaviours, create environments that achieve variability and randomness where players seek to explore the environment not have their decisions interfered by shaped intention. Their tools are perception-action coupling, coaches shouldn't look to over prescribe solutions based on their own tactical perceptions; as with touch limits, intended outcomes - third man concept- overemphasising one concept in a practice can compromise the true dynamic nature of the game.
Creativity creates unpredictability, as coaches we shouldn't look to stifle that, as Rene Meulensteen says, solutions should be context dependent in relation to key references- how is the opponent defending us, who is my direct opponent what is his strengths and weaknesses, what are my strengths and weaknesses, who can I combine with close to me, how strong is our mutual understanding? I spoke about reference coaching in a previous article, if you'd like to explore this topic in more depth.
Training simplifies the complex nature of the game, players need to be exposed to more stimulating, challenging and game representative practices in order to reach a flow state where decision making becomes more personal, emotional and self regulated rather than coach regulated. Exercises must be context driven and not outcome driven, players need to find an appropriate pairing to a concept, rather than have their perceptual view of the game determined by structural scaffolding and fixed geographical phases- such as the thirds or half spaces, player perceptions should exist outside of these confines.
With Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU) and Small-Sided Games (SSGs) gaining prominence due to their capacity to develop decision-making, tactical understanding, and technical execution in dynamic, game-representative contexts. These approaches align closely with contemporary motor learning theories, including ecological dynamics, and are grounded in principles of opposed practice and self-organisation, which are critical for skill acquisition and transfer in football.
TGfU is a pedagogical model that emphasizes the development of tactical awareness and decision-making before technical skill instruction (Bunker & Thorpe, 1982). Unlike traditional skill-drill approaches, TGfU situates learning within meaningful game contexts, encouraging players to understand “why” a skill is used before mastering “how” to perform it. In football, this supports the development of perceptual-cognitive skills, such as reading the game, anticipating opponents’ actions, and selecting appropriate tactical responses.
From a motor learning perspective, TGfU aligns with ecological dynamics theory, which views skill acquisition as the emergence of functional movement solutions through continuous interaction between the individual, task, and environment (Davids et al., 2008). Rather than prescribing ideal techniques, TGfU fosters self-organisation by enabling learners to adapt their behaviours based on game affordances. This reinforces representative learning design (Pinder et al., 2011), where in training tasks are structured to mirror the perceptual and action demands of competition.
I designed a practice game to develop diagonal penetration through directional perception of the pitch, this included 2 full sized goals - which if scored in were worth 2 points- and 2 small goals worth 1 point. The pitch was split into a gris of 9 squares, 3 up and 3 along, the possession team must score by moving the ball between squares diagonally, with the defending team looking to block these squares, the possession team were supported by 2 neutral players.
As progressions, the neutrals were used as 'tabela players' in which they could only pass back to the player they received from, to encourage more give and go combinations. Additionally, the central square in the grid could be limited to 2 touches only to encourage more precise combinations and quicker through passes. The coaching points were about receiving the ball with 360 degree perception, looking for invitations to combine through give and go's, three in a line, third man.
SSGs are a practical application of TGfU principles, involving the modification of game constraints such as player numbers, pitch size, and rules to simplify or exaggerate specific tactical or technical elements. In football, SSGs are associated with increased ball contacts, more frequent decision-making opportunities, and higher player engagement (Hill-Haas et al., 2011). These features provide a rich learning environment for motor skill development, especially in the context of variable and unpredictable game scenarios.
SSGs offer an opposed practice structure, which is critical for developing perceptual-motor coupling—the ability to coordinate perception and action under pressure. This opposed nature contrasts with unopposed drills that often lack contextual information necessary for skill transfer. Empirical research supports this; Ford et al. (2010) found that players exposed to game-based practice exhibited superior decision-making and skill execution compared to those trained using isolated drills.
Moreover, SSGs facilitate self-organisation by allowing players to explore and refine their movement patterns in response to emergent game dynamics. This process is supported by nonlinear pedagogy, which encourages variability, exploration, and adaptability in learning (Chow et al., 2006). For example, reducing the number of players increases space and time, promoting exploration of passing options, while tighter spaces in 4v4 scenarios demand quicker decision-making and tighter ball control.
Using this framework there are three key pillars.
Variable Practice: Players are often required to find pairs in responses to their teammates actions to best compliment and adapt to their game. Through manipulation of constraints in SSGs, players are exposed to varied scenarios, enhancing adaptability (Schmidt & Lee, 2011).
Contextual Interference: Frequent changes in task demands in TGfU and SSGs introduce desirable difficulties, which enhance retention and transfer (Magill & Hall, 1990).
Self-Determination: Learners are given autonomy to make decisions and learn through exploration, supporting intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Traditional training focuses on drilling components- serial and block practices- most coaches train on a variety of pitch sizes depending on the physical objectives of that particular day in a team's microcycle, a certain amount of space per player is required for the facilitation and frequent repetitions of high speed actions (on an aerobic/speed day for example) and technical/tactical objectives- transitions, build up, final third. Sports science has a significant effect on the planning process , especially when balancing physical and cognitive load.
Typically, coaches train possession exercises and conditioned SSG's in small spaces, players get used to playing close together and from here interactions form naturally and intrinsically. In the games they all play 20 yards away from each other, failing to transfer these interactions to the actual game. When so widely used it becomes 'correct practice ' and is seen as unconventional and incorrect to depart from this way of working- because we exclusively accept scientific research as the principal reference. Science should guide us in preparation but not interfere or constrain us.
Methodological criteria should adapt to the intrinsic dynamics of the players and the environment, the coupling between these enhances the co-ordination and efficiency of acquisition. Coaches should design tasks representative of the environment, that are contextual sensitive and meet the demands of the ever changing demands of the game. This should not be compromised by conforming to fixed training programmes or to satisfy the overarching physical, technical (ball mastery) dimensions with isolated activation practices.
Skill acquisition is an interaction between ones action capabilities and environmental properties, technical and perceptual skills should be acquired together and not isolated- as we see in some models such as the FA four corner model. Developing each corner individually can be deductive, player behaviour is shaped by interaction and tied to the environment in which this occurs, isolated technical. tactical work often limits transfer and representation of the game.
Karl Marius Aksum, current coach of newly crowned Swedish champions Mjällby , has written extensively about representative learning design- rooted in ecological dynamics. Aksum mentions how four training components need to be present in order for creativity to flourish;
1- there must be as many effective movement actions as possible - efficacy
2- there must be potential for non standard actions - versatility
3- there must be potential for new and unique actions- originality
4- there must be opportunity for players to explore different actions through trial and error - attempts
Perception-action coupling in a training environment needs to simulate performance context; meaning players need to see, hear and feel as if they were in a game situation. Practices must represent the same perceptual cues, movement patterns and decision references as in a game, players cannot acquire information in a passive environment. Players learn to perceive and act as unified process, not in isolation, we have to prioritise training with the intention of being dynamic and not static; spaces on the pitch emerge dynamically through movement opposed to positional rigidity.
This results in a high level of transfer between training and playing, coaches need to assure that movement solutions in training are varied, complimentary to group/micro solutions to achieve greater efficiency. Introducing variability to build adaptability, training should represent the game and not just simulate it (Araújo et al 2010).
Let's take a look at a few examples to understand why do traditional practices/drills fail to transfer and think about applying solutions.
Unopposed passing patterns restrict players to pre determined movement paths, players follow choreographed runs which creates less need for scanning for emerging spaces from player jumps or adjusting body profile. No presence of an active opposition makes passing service variability and execution low- the spin, height, speed etc. Passing patterns have a fixed information source, the ball always arrives from the same side and the ball is received at the same angle, players execute the pattern rather than solve the problems.
Using mannequins or slalom poles in unopposed dribbling or passing activities also means players aren't adapting to changing affordances, resulting in a reduced perceptual load due to the absence of references. We teach players corrective tasks rather than design them to be open to interpretation, players don't move with reference to receptive information but instead what's been demanded by the coach, creating an overemphasis on executing sat speed rather than understanding context.
In unopposed finishing practices the Striker aims at a fixed target, no need to manipulate the GK with a feint or break away from the recovering defender as a result of isolated context. A line drill layoff from the coach makes the type of finish incredibly predictable, with no emphasis on decelerations on balls in behind, or using a static defender to create advantage- e.g shooting with back to goal or moving the ball on to opposite foot if the defender overcommits. The striker reacts on an absence of information and perceptual blindness.
I've used a 1v1+1 plus a GK on a narrow diagonal pitch to create an opportunity to use the wall pass/give and go, the attacker must beat the defender to score in the goal and the neutral invites an invitation to combine, this forces deception, timing and decision making under pressure. Alternatively, a 2v3 with an overload for the defending team to again focus on invitations to combine, adaptive movement patterns and diagonal perception.
Youth football often gets saturated by external methodology heavily influenced by the positional game. Being conditioned to positional game models too early, players lose the conditions to dribble, develop synergies and have less exposure to the flow state. They are told every action has a cause - effect ripple under the lens of positional theory, there are centralised solutions that are always pre dominant, the coach decides which of these are either low value or high value based on his blueprint and own tactical perceptions. Are they exploring the game or are players learning content?
Every player action is structure dependent, such as the three zones of intervention where players are often asked to not interact with the ball directly to impact the next phase space (Seriul-lo 2017). The problem with 10 v0 shadow play isn't the exercise itself but the effect it has on the copy and paste culture in coaching. An U14 coach sees a 30 second video of a professional team using this on MD+1 and decides to do this with his team that trains once a week, irrespective of the context and content. Overwhelming players with information and promotion of conformity compromises the development of player agency (O'Sullivan 2025). Are we creating environments that foster prescribing solutions or are we designing environments that are contextually adaptable?
As mentioned by Bowes and Jones, 2006; Lòpez – Felip and Turvey, 2017, the “toolboxes” of football coaches contain a series of football concepts, a set of training methods, and a list of didactic proposals very often abstract and decontextualized. The tendency to copy and paste exercises and isolated training sessions (hardly correlated with the needs, the characteristics of the footballers, and the socio-cultural context in which one trains), explains well how today the self-formation for coaches consists, in the majority of cases, in accumulating pieces of a puzzle that have no relation among themselves. No concept, game model, video, exercise, or technique alone helps to develop the potential of every coach.
A critical limitation of copy-and-paste exercises is their suppression of self-organisation. Self-organisation refers to the ability of players to adapt and find functional movement solutions based on emergent game dynamics (Seifert et al., 2013). When tasks are rigid, overly prescribed, and lack decision-making opportunities, they constrain exploratory behaviour and reduce the likelihood of developing adaptable, game-relevant skills.
The persistence of traditional, decontextualised practices in grassroots and even elite football is partly attributable to gaps in coach education. Many coaching courses still place disproportionate emphasis on technical instruction and drill-based methodology, with limited exploration of contemporary learning theories and pedagogical models (Cushion et al., 2010). This contributes to a coaching culture where exercises are recycled without critical evaluation or adaptation.
The role of the coach should be to manipulate constraints instead of prescribing actions, to avoid promoting a dependency on coach-led solutions, with command-action based coupling and limited player involvement in the strategic process. Coaches should manipulate constraints to explore variability, allowing players to have autonomy of outcomes and be able to explore the environment rather than have their decisions shaped. New intentions can emerge naturally, functional affordances prevail from players reacting to receptive information about the opponent, ball and consequence.
Relational teams align individual`autonomy with collective synchronisation, practice is not over-constrained with touch limits, pitch boundaries or jokers to create an emphasis on numerical superiority. Complex environments lead to exploration, pushing players to the heights of their creative capacities, coaches offer solutions to compliment the players natural exploration of the environment rather than overriding it.
All task constraints are either informational or instructional, outcomes are emergent either by design - informational- or spontaneously- self organising. Football is an unrepeatable game, we can't expect the same instruction to have the same effect on multiple practitioners. Performers act according to the information present in the environment, their perceptions are constructed from these functional affordances.
In the practice above, a 5v5+1 with 2 goals facing inside the pitch, the players perceptions are aligned with intentions- to combine, to orientate themselves in between the ball and the goal and attention to forming three in a line- Escadinha's and using varying ways to 'climb them'. The environment naturally creates a dependence on using the outside diagonal to circulate the ball, players start to understand the role of rhythm in our play and how it can be used to manipulate the opponents flow to set up invitations to combine and penetrate inside using diagonal perception.
Thinking about potential progressions or adaptations ahead of time is crucial in session planning in order ton keep players engaged in the task and put them in a constant state of problem solving. Could each team have a player behind the goal? Doing so they can score via a diagonal pass + third man or bounce pass for an extra point. Or create an end/safety zone with no to encourage more pausa on the ball and create more depth to penetrate? Can certain individual capabilities be encouraged to challenge the players creative capacities? E.G- Reverse or scoop passes, rabona's or nutmegs?
How these dynamics change and the way in which this is communicated is also something I've learned to value, former Manchester United coach Rene Multensteen has spoken about how the type of language used in coaching points influences whether a constraint is emergent or instructional, he would never say the word ‘change’ when proposing a constraint, which he argues gives players the impression that what they are doing is wrong. Instead, he opts for the word add as it has a more positive connotation and promotes collaboration rather than top-down, instruction dependent coaching.
PART THREE
The role of players in the training process: Executors vs Co-designers
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 the coach thinks.
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. If we refer to Seriul-lo's 3 zones of intervention, team structure or organisation should not be the priority in the zone of mutual help, the reference for players positioning, actions to information should be ball orientated and not spatial- reacting to the receptive information about the environment and its participants.
A key property of complex adaptive systems are the emergence of spontaneous alignments and formations amongst its components- synergies- Pol et al 2020. During collective sport, freedom must operate at diverse scales, there is a continuous process of reorganisation around the ball carrier, forming goal orientated synergies. These synergies emerge more spontaneously and govern the components' behaviour. There is no need for a template or guidelines to rule over these relations, functions are dynamically integrated without the need of external influence. Currently, the formation of football coaches, the methodology, and the pedagogy of coaches, seem to focus exclusively on abstract theoretical and decontextualised knowledge of the football environment.- Vaughan et al., 2019
Players should get the chance to shape the world that they play in.
Coaches should focus on aligning intentions and attuning attention to key game elements, leveraging the characteristics of individual players as 'our tactics'. The foundations for task design' model (Gibson 1979) incorporates ecological dynamics and game reference points such as - direction, consequence, ball and the opponent. This allows coaches 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 exercises with fixed attacking thirds or Tuchel's hexagon pitch.
Self organisation is a product of task design in a 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). Coaches should seek to further promote player-led strategies, socialisation and human interaction- fostering creative and collaborative problem solving.
Several outcomes can emerge, none of which are systematic or controlled, 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 practice design. The dynamic concept of task repetitiveness , co-adaptiveness and synergic role of the agents are some of the few practical consequences from training to synergise (pol et al 2020).
This is what I've looked to achieve with this practice, I've used a simple 6v6 with 2 goals at each end, in this clip two goals are scored both of which via a corta luz- dummy. The corta luz itself is just one outcome from many emergent ones, it is not over prescribed or a result of a game picture that we've targeted. Players start to look beyond demands and towards intentions, they start perceiving the environment and anticipate the corta luz, toco y me voy, tabelas...
To summarise, practices will look unstructured and 'messy', reference coaching is also slower , 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. For me, players are co designers, not just executors.
I believe the three reference points I've given for the process of session design, without overloading the article with practice examples, give coaches a good understanding of creating an environment in which associations and relations can develop and flourish.
X- JOGOFUNCIONAL1
Linkedin- https://uk.linkedin.com/in/roman-quane-057430388
Comments
Post a Comment