Watched Liverpool v Arsenal again at Anfield yesterday. And a newer way of thinking of the game came to me. You know how people talk about football as moments? I've long held a different view that it's about flow. Yesterday, I kinda married it together. /
Football is about moments as causative agents for flow and flow births goals. When I talk about moments, I'm not talking about magical moments but the mundane that's easy to miss. Duels, control/miscontrol, positioning etc Think about why duels are so important.
If you lose a duel, you are gifting your opposition the ball and the opportunity to put a move together. If your opponents are Manchester City, this is almost as good as giving them a goal. Arsenal's first goal was directly a result of Endo not controlling an aerial ball in his
own zone probably because of his limitations. The ball went to Saka, who generated a whipped cross with his right feet inside the box that Alisson had to jump out to & that fell to an Arsenal player, resulting in a shot on goal for a corner which also led to another shot on goal.
In other words, because of a single moment of Endo being unable to control a loose high ball, Arsenal were able to generate an effective flow that led to three shots on goal and eventually set the tone for the early goal that Liverpool conceded. The game of moments.
Most teams build themselves to be able to control moments. Good physical guys, good shotstopper, maybe a top striker. The idea is half about magical moments (the big moments that lead to goal) and half about the mundane moments. Coaches emphasize those big moments a lot.
They talk about the big tackle, the big error but it's a fundamental misconception. Mundane moments are the biggest causative agents for flow and flow can be unstoppable. As a coach, you need to emphasize more subtle details of positioning, movement, orientation and approach.
That is why finding good defenders can be hard because the good ones are experts in mundane moments that don't pop out to the eye. The eye normally focuses on the Big Moments. Of course, the best are great in both anyways. That said, too many teams are built around moments and
too few teams are built around flow. Teams like City are built primarily around flow in mind. To harness flow, you have to have intentionality, deliberateness, a plan and a purpose. Flow is a plan. You get the ball here, what happens from there? People don't plan about this.
Most decision-makers just plan to get the ball, to get the moment... They don't plan for what happens after. They don't plan to have a plan. They just think it will work out since they have good players on the pitch. Can good players generate flow? Yes, but those players must
have a team perspective. They must understand flow themselves. This is not easy to do. You are basically asking a player to also be a coach on the pitch, to have a bird's eye view. To organize the team's attacks. These players exist, yes, but are rare and it's kind of bad
planning to just find a player to handle that for you. Too risky. Also, planning has two types: meta plan & a situational plan. A meta plan is theoretical, it is a highly defined approach to the game that is on the level of a PhD dissertation. It's highly conscious intention.
In a meta plan, a player can tell you what they are doing and trying to achieve, whether the opponent likes it or not. It is not opponent-dependent. It is a philosophy that will & must play out regardless of what the opposition do. A situational plan is less detailed.
It is more opponent-dependent. It may be proactive but it is still opposition-specific. It is adaptive, instinctive, reacting to what the opposition does, taking advantage of what they give. If the opposition do this, do that. If they play like this, we play like that.
In other words, a meta plan is a plan regardless of opponents while a situational plan is opponent-dependent. Both can happen in a possession dominant, front footed approach. Meta plan is textbook football, a situational plan is also theoretical but not restricted to theory.
Now, why are these definitions and distinctions important? Because flow is about a plan, yes? So your plan will influence your flow. In other words, the reason why Manchester City look different to Arsenal and Bologna and other possession dominant teams is because they are the
only meta team in world football. Manchester City are built precisely on not just generating flow but also consciously preventing the opposition flow. Do you get that? Manchester City are the only fully conscious flow team in football, the only team where their manager actively
thinks of the opposition flow and not just his own team's flow and disrupting that flow. Remember that flow is about the opposition plan and that plan can be inherently unstoppable once they get the ball if they are a quality team. So Guardiola doesn't want them to get the ball
Other teams want to have the ball for their own intentions. Guardiola's team wants to have the ball also because of the opposition's intentions. As a result, their flow feels robotic and every game against them can feel like a python pressing you to an ultimate surrender.
Arsenal, Bologna, Leverkusen etc are less detailed, less meta, less conscious and that's why their football feels more vibrantly alive. It is still an instinctive version of football. Guardiola's teams are the only fully conscious teams in football.
There are 3 types of (good) teams in football. 1. Moments teams (built around winning moments/not much planning for their own flow) 2. Flow teams (built around generating their own flow, well planned tactically and squad wise) 3. The Conscious Team (Manchester City)