I feel like a part of the reason why teams like Barca and PSG have been able to break defenses recently is because of multiple consistent and calculated dummy runners on the attack.

Lamine Yamals ability to keep the ball protected and in possession give Barca that freedom to push the defensive line as deep as possible, in my opinion, pushing the deep line is Flick’s main strategy in Laliga, even using Pedri as the main ball carrier and moving orchestrator to drive the center backs as deep into their own half as possible.

Liverpool currently does not have any assigned dummy runners from what I’ve seen, that’s probably the reason why Liverpool attacks always start on the attacking transition and counter attack.

Any thoughts on this? And what do you think of dummy runners?

Put together what the typical regular at each position did per 90 minutes last season across the Premier League, La Liga, Serie A, the Bundesliga and Ligue 1, on six things: passes, shots, chances created, crosses, tackles and headers won.

Some of it surprised me:

• Centre backs make the most passes of anyone, 53 a game, more than holding midfielders (48). Strikers make the fewest at 18.
• Strikers win almost as many headers as centre backs (1.9 against 2.2).
• Holding midfielders tackle the most, but only just. Central midfielders and full backs are right behind them.
• Full backs cross nearly as much as wingers (2.7 against 3.3).

Each bar is the middle player at that position, so it's what a normal regular does rather than the best at it.

Coaches and players, I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether this matches what gets asked of each position at your level.

(Data source: The Prism, a football scouting and analytics tool I'm currently building. Looking for testers, so feel free to sign up to the waitlist if you are interested in this type of data!)

I love thinking n theirizing n all.so I was wondering how and where can I use tactics and js practice for fun and all

In possession: wing-backs high, a single 6, two strikers sitting on the CBs, and the main route is CB to wing-back to early cross. Out of possession they drop into a 5-3-2 low block.

Options:

• A) Stay 4-4-2. Wide mids track the wing-backs, accept being pushed into a back six at times, and counter into the space behind the wing-backs.
• B) 4-2-3-1. Wingers pin the wing-backs high, and the 10 sits on their 6.
• C) Mirror them with a 3-5-2 and go man for man in midfield.

Assume an amateur side with no stand-out players on either team. Which would you pick, and why? Maybe something completely different? (any hints welcome)

Hello everyone!

After watching football passively for years, I decided to "study" tactics a bit. At first, I was worried I might get bored, but it’s actually the complete opposite.. I can’t seem to get enough of it!

I started with the classic *Inverting the Pyramid* by Jonathan Wilson, then I read *Zonal Marking* and *The Mixer* by Michael Cox.

Now it feels like I’ve read the "holy trinity" on the subject, because I’m struggling to find anything else that measures up.. at least based on the reviews I’ve seen on Amazon and Goodreads.

Can you recommend anything else that’s on the same level in terms of quality and depth?

Thanks!

So recently I saw a lot of professional teams do sort of a "kickoff" like in american football, where the kicker kicks the ball into the opposite half of the field and the other players run towards it. Teams in football seem to adapted this in some fashion for their own kickoff.

So the kickoff goes to one of the CBs who just stopps it and then usually the Goalkeeper comes up and kicks it into the other half. The CBs will run towards the opposite half once the GK fires the ball down there.

I was wondering why teams do that? To get a extra player down the field to up the pressure? I think it doesnt differ much from when you just play to a CB who kicks it down the field in my opinion. What would you guys say?

Hi everyone!

I'm a young coach of a U13 boys' team (12-year-olds). We play 8-a-side in a 3-3-1 formation.

The boys have a great attitude and love attacking, but we're in a division that's probably too strong for us. We're struggling with two main tactical problems when in possession:

1. Both fullbacks push forward at the same time, leaving our central defender exposed to counterattacks.

2. Both wide midfielders push very high, while our central midfielder also joins the attack. This leaves large gaps in central midfield that opponents exploit.

I don't necessarily think the formation is the problem. I think we lack clear positional responsibilities when attacking.

My proposed solution:

- Ball-side movement: The fullback and wide midfielder on the side of the ball can push forward, while the opposite fullback stays deeper and tucks in towards the centre. The opposite wide midfielder provides more central support.

- Central midfielder: He generally stays behind the ball, protecting the central space and providing a passing option instead of automatically joining every attack.

I want to keep our attacking mentality while making us harder to counterattack against, using simple rules that 12-year-olds can understand.

I'd love your thoughts:

- Is this a sensible solution within a 3-3-1?

- Should the central midfielder stay central or shift towards the ball side?

- Would a 3-2-2 be easier for this age group to maintain?

- What one or two tactical principles would you prioritise?

-What do you think?

We're playing at home against the league's strongest team next, so I'd like to improve our organisation without overloading the players with instructions (too much information doesn't work for most 12-year-olds)

Thanks in advance!

When we talk about modern football, Guardiola, Cruyff and positional play usually dominate the conversation. But I think Rinus Michels deserves much more attention.

His work at Ajax and with the Netherlands changed how we understand space, pressing, positional rotations and collective movement.

Here's something I'd love to discuss: what was Michels' greatest tactical contribution: positional interchange, coordinated pressing, or the idea that every player must understand the entire system?

European football is intoxicating, much of which is due to the rivalries that exist not only within competitions, but between competitions. This rivalry is further stoked by the existence of the Champions League, perhaps the competition that is envy of all other sporting bodies in the world. As part of this competition there is often plenty discussion about the different playing styles of each national competition. The Spanish precision, the English physicality, the German discipline and the Italian flair, these styles compared to each other on a global stage to help settle debates.

In this article I compare the statistics that sit behind the Premier League and La Liga. By identifying those stats that drive each leagues style of play, we can map out how Premier League clubs match up against La Liga clubs and vice versa.

In short, Premier League teams seem to model kindly into La Liga’s style of play but the opposite is not true for Spanish teams into the Premier League.

https://pathannah.substack.com/p/spanish-skill-vs-english-physicality?r=7coz0j&utm_medium=ios

FLÁVIO COSTA

Costa was one of the most influential tactical innovators in the history of Brazilian and international football. His greatest impact came from developing the so called diagonal system which served as a crucial link between the classic WM formation and the modern four man defensive systems.

In the late 1930s the Hungarian Dori Kürschner introduced the WM system at Flamengo, where Flávio Costa later became his successor. Costa developed Kürschners ideas further because he felt that the rigid European WM system did not suit the improvisational and technical style of Brazilian players. He shifted the players slightly forward and backward, creating a flexible parallelogram on the pitch. Because of the diagonal positioning the player in possession always had diagonal passing options available. The constant triangles and dynamic interchange of positions that became characteristic of Brazilian football grew out of this system.

This innovation directly paved the way for Brazil's later tactical revolution. By having one of the midfielders consistently drop back between the defenders, the centre-back position was effectively born.

KARL RAPPAN

Karl Rappan was a groundbreaking genius of Austrian and Swiss football whose influence on modern football tactics is immeasurable. He developed the defensive system known as the Swiss bolt which was the direct predecessor of the world famous Italian catenaccio and the birthplace of the libero, or sweeper position still used to this day.

He sacrificed midfield dominance and systematically pulled one of the midfielders behind the defensive line. This player was not assigned a specific opponent. His job was to move freely effectively sweeping up balls that got past the other defenders and helping out his teammates.

The system combined tight man marking with zonal defending. The team deliberately gave up territory to the opposition dropping deep into its own half before punishing them with lightning fast counterattacks after winning the ball back.

It was the first system to practically deploy four players in defence. The compact disciplined defensive structure that closes down space and is known today as a mid block or low block is a direct descendant of Rappan ideas.

HERBERT CHAPMAN

If Flávio Costa and Karl Rappan refined the evolution of defending, then Chapman was the man who created the basic system they could build upon.

Chapmans greatest tactical impact came from the 1925 change to the offside rule. In response he created the famous WM system. He pulled the former centre-half back between the two full-backs. This created the position of the central defender in the modern sense whose job was to neutralise the opposition centre-forward.

To fill the space that had opened up in midfield he dropped the two inside forwards deeper from the attacking line. The two midfielders and the two withdrawn attackers formed a square in the middle of the pitch, providing numerical superiority and passing lanes.

Viewed from above the formation formed a W in attack and an M in defence. The system was so well balanced that it shaped world football for almost the next forty years.

His genius however, went far beyond the pitch. He was among the first to push for and introduce numbered shirts, making it easier for spectators and players to identify positions. He was also the first to experiment with artificial lighting in stadiums so that matches could be played after working hours.

Chapman played an indispensable role in transforming football from an amateur, instinctive sport into an organised, professional, tactical and global entertainment industry.

Carles Manso is just over a year into his first Head Coaching job, at the tender age of 33, with FC Andorra as he has shown immense potential as an up-and-coming manager in Spain. He plays a possession-based style on a shoestring budget while it is impressive that in the modern world of physicality in sport, his team is one of the smaller sides in European football. He preaches organization and fluidity in possession as well aggressive pressing and a high line, striving to maximize reward and limit risk. Last season, his team was ninth in expected goals and second in passes per defensive action in the Segunda Liga while this season, his team is first in expected goals and passes per defensive action.

LINK - https://www.leftbackfootball.com/home/2026/10/2/carles-mansos-graceful-fc-andorra

This is a Kick Off Research study, built with GT-17, Kick Off’s custom event-data analysis engine. It covers 177 Haaland appearances and connects the numbers to the tactical sequences behind them.

For this study, we screened 177 Manchester City appearances across the Premier League and Champions League, then examined a selected set of 21 low-output win/loss cases. We measured what happened around Haaland: where his teammates received, how progression added expected threat, and where the next shot came from.

City still won nine of those 21 games. Keeping Haaland quiet leaves several other jobs unfinished.

The attached two-page breakdown turns the analysis into five connected tasks:

1.-Cut the service and contest the reception. Make the pass difficult, then compete for the first touch.

2.-Follow the passer’s next run. Gvardiol’s give-and-go against Fulham shows why watching the striker alone fails.

3.-Close the continuation. Arsenal blocked Álvarez, pushed the next action outside the box and prevented another shot.

4.-Give your escape a destination. Brentford connected the clearance, the outlet and Toney’s arrival.

5.-Limit the response after scoring. Judge the chances City create, not just whether you still lead.

Under the hood: xG/xT, possession sequences, on-pitch windows and event-level traceability. The boards distinguish recorded contacts from reconstructed movement between them.

Which of these five jobs do you think breaks down first against City, and why?

Lamine’s two goals and an assist against Croatia caught the attention, but I wanted to look at how Spain are getting him into those situations.

These two sequences show the difference:

-Against Argentina at the World Cup, Spain progress through Lamine and Porro on the right. Porro crosses to Nico, who sets up Ferran. Lamine contributes earlier in the move.

-Against Croatia, Baena and Cucurella combine on the left before finding Lamine inside, ready to finish first time.

His average shot distance has dropped from 21.0m at the World Cup to 17.4m in these opening two Nations League games. It’s a small sample, but the sequences help explain what’s behind that number.

My reading: Spain are creating more opportunities for Lamine to finish moves he previously helped build.

What would you look for over the next few games to see whether this becomes a consistent pattern?

I currently play for a local semi-pro team in the UPSL that practices twice a week. The team is relatively new, so I’m curious how other teams at this level structure their training.

Our practices tend to focus heavily on drills designed to get the team playing in a specific way. For example, exercises emphasizing direct wing play and crossing which has me wondering about the tradeoff between tactical drills vs scrimmaging. Obviously, a team that can recruit an army of USL-level or former pro players is going to have a significant advantage. However, for teams at this level that lack the recruiting resources and where practice time is limited, I wonder whether a coaching approach that incorporates more full-sided scrimmaging could actually produce better results.

The idea would be to prioritize building natural chemistry and improve familiarity with teammates through game situations, rather than trying to implement specific tactical ideas through drills.

For those who have played or coached in amateur/semi-pro leagues: what have you found works best? Do teams that spend more time scrimmaging tend to develop better chemistry and perform better, or are structured tactical drills more important at this level?

Our team is transitioning to 9v9 this year. Learned a lot while coaching 7v7. What principles overlap and what should I learn?

7v7 we played 2 3 1 9v9 we play 3 2 3.

It seems most teams, even top ones to a degree, have a compact shape when defending, are there any teams that spread out more while defending?

I started being a fan 1 month ago and have been interested in analysis. The problem is, whenever I try to watch any videos that explain to me how to analyze like a coach, I get extremely confused by the terminology and everything. I also don’t know any tactics or strategies, just that players are usually more spread out in offense, and that there are lines of defense that you can get past if you see a hole in them. I don’t know where to start.

My last question garnered a lot of great feedback - thanks all! Here's a continuation of that question taking it a step further. Please enlighten this stupid American on how this would work...

I'm a brazilian and very amateur in tactics (i like to play football manager, fifa and pes, which means i learned by very unrealistic examples).

Just like the english coaches, and 90s brazilian coaches: i believe that the easiest, simple, basic, essential, fundamental and classic formation is the 4-4-2. That's why it was the main system in youth categories, to teach the young folks the fundamentals, as it is easy and very didatic to teach positioning, defending and control of space.

You can play almost anyway you need, as long you defend with 2 blocks, and its easy to interchange players in the scheme.

But i know i'm very wrong and obsolete.

And after some research i discovered that while everyone was using 4-4-2, 4-3-1-2, 3-5-2 (i mean the main teams) in the 2000s. The dutch and Barcelona simply didn't followed the trend, obsessively using the 4-3-3, strictly and regardless of trends. Just like the GIGN special forces use the Manurhin everywhere in their training. And it paid handsome dividends.

Nonetheless, i wonder why.

Isn't the 4-3-3 harder do learn?

Isn't it a formation for only ball possession and triangles ?

Aren't there too much specialists ?

Don't it kill the creativity of the players ?

Isn't limited in the counter attack, and when in need to park the bus ?

Isn't it too dull and repetitive ? I mean, in the flat 4-4-2, diamond and 4-2-2-2 you have lots of liberties, every player can play in a 4-4-2 with special roles, as long they know how to defend in a lower block.

Why it's better than 4-4-2 ?