The Fairy Tale about increased speed of football today

We see increased longevity at the very top of the pyramid. This has happened in almost all major sports, with the exception of golf where the increased emphasis on athleticism has brought ages down (that's a true legacy of Tiger Woods).

We can run down all of the sports, but tennis has the oldest #1 ever. Basketball has someone who is the best in his fifteenth season, which has never (remotely) happened before. Basketball is a very athletic team-sport.

This should have a (marginal) effect on speeds. Ronaldinho is by opponents and team-mates often cited as the most unpredictable player they came across (i.e. with Henry, Ronaldo, even Messi, they knew what they were doing and then they did it), but it was of diminished use once his pace withered.

 

Peculiarly, Guardiola at 'Monday Night Football' said that their superb fitness and willingness to run and create gaps was more important "than all the talk about tactics".
This echoes Zidane's priorities when he entered Real Madrid.

Details can make a meaningful difference in football, but in essence it is a simple game, greatly defined and influenced by 'simple' variables.

 

I think the 'willingness to run and create gaps' is a great point. Often teams playing a defensive-minded version of 4-2-3-1 or 4-4-2 lack that (as well as skill/ideas from central midfield).

I know it can be a trade-off and sometimes there can be benefit to a 'solid' midfield backing up a fluent attack. And not every successful team does things the same way. But for example if Arsenal do go down that route next season (perhaps they won't if they get an Arteta or Vieira; albeit Vieira would likely embrace some a combative midfielder who could also play I guess) it'll be interesting if that is the simple 'fix' that some fans might imagine, or whether instead they are actually further away from where they want to be (feasible if they only added DMs and no more attackers I really think, given the squad as it is now). This was their squad in 94/95 for example, complete with the defence which now gets a lot of credit for Wenger's early success, with IMO the quality of football and quality of his signings now getting under-stated as factors, not to say dismissed or anything obviously:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994–95_Arsenal_F.C._season

 

Nice post, thanks.

Wenger himself is a fine example. He's now more remembered for how to mix sugar with the tea (and no milk!) than his tactical innovations. Also he has said the small things help but that fitter teams simply win more games (there are a couple more 'simple' variables, arguably).

I agree with you that some things get understated. He inherited a team that had qualified for UEFA Cup football (with same points as #4) and had a fine record against their rivals (especially at home, with 3 wins and 1 draw, vs Liverpool, against the top four teams). He inherited Vieira (who was unproven though, but became one of the better central midfielders of his generation) and Bergkamp who set the standards for their play, commitment and professionalism. Wenger himself graciously admitted it - as the years rolled by he said, quite sensibly, replacements were either "rare" (Vieira) or "non-existent" (Bergkamp) in their own generation. Vieira had the professional attitude and his drive before Wenger arrived.

He also inherited a strong goalkeeper and a good set of a defenders, a proven unit that had even proven themselves in an international setting.
What is often not mentioned is that these were getting on in the years. Bould was 34, Seaman 33, Winterburn 33, Dixon 32, Adams and Keown 30. Furthermore, striker Wright was 33 when Wenger took over. David Platt made the euro 1996 squad, but was 30 years old as well and wasn't in his best form necessarily.
To get some extra years out of these players and make them adapt, with the lifestyle some of those had, even extending until the year 2000 for most cases, deserves some credit. It's not often mentioned (I think).

 

Yeah, certainly Bergkamp being integral to everything for him. Vieira he did in effect sign I think, but set up the deal before he arrived or something.

But yes, the 'solid' central midfield (with Wright/Merson for example in attack still), didn't stop that defence conceding a bit over a goal a game, and more to the point didn't help the attack score very many more than that at all in that 94/95 season. The midfield then was workmanlike/cautious and sometimes I think people over-play the job of a midfield in 'protecting' a defence, and under-appreciate that that area is where creativity originates in lots of great teams. I tend to think Arsenal's squad of late has just not been of a great quality compared to their PL rivals, and that plugging a DM or two in there won't help a lot (if that was the plan) and would also inhibit team fluency and creativity so that the goalscoring and footballing side would get worse. But we will see what happens, and maybe they'll sign then new Makelele and new Gattuso and win the league lol! If they got a new Vieira that is a bit different of course, but I don't assume Wenger would have turned down an opportunity to do that in recent years, and neither a 'new Bergkamp' or something obviously. We will see though how they do next season, and I guess the Leicester title-winning season can be seen as a missed opportunity since that certainly wasn't a team that was out-spending Arsenal (but then all the other big clubs can say the same about that season I guess).

 

Yes good comments this (and don't want to ignore Guardiola's expertise and strong record). Tellingly, both Henry and Bergkamp are #1 per Ballon d'Or finishes in their own decade (despite not winning it) and also most often nominated by FF in the decade they peaked (including years without getting votes). Of course they weren't all in their prime at the same time, Adams is 11 years older than Henry. Btw, you might like this rare interview (it passed by when it was his birthday, doesn't do interviews very often and is very, very rarely a pundit which is a shame because imho he's one of the best around as a pundit, amazing memory he has - or he just prepares himself well, haha). In a way the successor plays now for Tottenham


Interesting are coaches who make an u-turn in their style (seen in a different way: change in speeds and rhythm). One can make a strong argument for Capello (to a certain extent), or even Valverde this season. In 2015 'So Foot' placed Valverde in the Cruijff network, but very much as an attacking coach and with no 'line/link' running to LvG or Mourinho (for example). See also this:




But yes, sometimes it's made out as if Emmanuel Petit was some obscure surprise signing. In reality he was one of the best/better midfielders in the French league, and integral to Monaco's league title (first since 1987-88, with Hoddle in midfield). Probably their best and most creative midfielder although he didn't score any goals (Scifo was often injured, Tigana was manager). It had helped if Wenger could clone Ozil and Sanchez.

 

Yeah, maybe I was in danger of taking things off topic lol, by picking up on one of Guardiola's comments least related to the thread title (I guess a case can be made that if midfielders are not participating in the attacking and build-up in the final 3rd so much because they don't make forward runs then they are using less energy etc).

But thanks for the reps, and yeah maybe the old Arsenal partnership of Vieira/Petit lies in the middle of things as far as protecting defence and participating in plays including making off the ball runs goes. Both by and large might be called box to box players I guess though - maybe it'd be interesting to see running stats etc for modern midfield players to see how they compare to players like those but I can imagine someone like Kante can still run more even without getting forwards as much, so maybe as comme alluded to things wouldn't always be obvious at first glance in a visual way. There is more pressing in general nowadays even compared to the time of Vieira/Petit I suppose.

But yeah, Guardiola has played with a nominal DM at least (except if adding an extra player like Gundogan and withdrawing Fernandinho to the defence occasionally with a substitution or something), but certainly with two players in De Bruyne and Silva who both make the play as well as run into and around the opposition box without the ball (more without the ball than dribbling with it actually I suppose).

So I'm not sure how far removed his approach is from Wenger's recent one at Arsenal, and maybe the difference in points total can be more about player quality (over the 11 players overall) and the efficiency of their passing game etc (for creating goals, and keeping possession). But they didn't succeed in Europe I suppose if being harsh (though going out to an English team this time, who finished behind them in the league obviously).

Yeah, maybe Van Gaal himself is an example of a manager who changed his approach a fair bit? Although it's not to say he'd be expected to keep playing the same system he did at Ajax through his whole career.

 

I dont see Wenger, necessarly, as tactically inferior coach, he is just too mellow imo. He doesnt bring the best out of players due to his coaching style (which got mellower as he got older).. just look at Oxlade.
Saying Pep has always had superior players, hence results, is wrong. Pep made them better.

Being a manager is so much more than tactics and phylosophies, and there is always luck there...

As far as the topic is concerned, i should watch the game first but i am doubtful of it. Speed (intensity is better word) in football is not gain only by sheer physical performance, but by correct forms of first touches, one touch passes, one twos, appropriate off the ball movements, etc. Those are the tricky things. You have to do these, cleverly, at the highest intensity for 90 minutes. That separates world class from the rest and today's football from past.. let me just quote Van Basten:
“I played against Maradona and he was a great player like Messi too. There is a big difference between 25 years ago and now, though.”
“We had an area of maybe 40 metres by 50 metres in which we could play; now it’s so tight it’s only half of that,” he explained. “Players have lost 20 metres of space and there might be 10 players between them and the penalty area when they get the ball."
“You must have very good technique, be very clever to get through the defence, play quick one-twos. That is very, very difficult, and it’s the biggest change between then and now."

 

Yeah I think you saw parts of his 'true' self when he had to manage the national team (both stints), AZ and Manchester United. At Ajax, Barcelona and Bayern Munich he kind of faced institutionalized path dependency (tbf, Perarnau in his book sees LvG as a pivotal figure, which is argued by Paul Breitner there).
At the little AZ Alkmaar he had a blanket for himself and there you saw the cautious parts of him.

You might have a point on 'Wenger football with 500 million to spend' too, since Cruijff et al. remained a fan of what he was doing (cf. Mourinho..). Possibly it will not be as good as what Guardiola has done, but it will be a lot closer.

Btw, this part of the above interview connects to what we're discussing (the last paragraph, but rest added for context).

And who are playing today with foresight between the lines? At his old club Arsenal Aaron Ramsey and Mesut Özil, at Barcelona Andrés Iniesta. They are Bergkamp his style icons now. "At Ramsey, the enthusiasm radiates from it. Whether he plays with Wales at the European Championships, with Arsenal in the Champions League or in a cup game in the countryside, he plays the game to enjoy. The level of play does not matter to him, he is the true enthusiast. Ozil looks laconical, but that's because it all looks so easy for him. As if it does not cost effort. He is the ultimate stylist. Iniesta is the very best between-the-line footballer, more than anyone the man who sees things in the game that are not there yet. "

Bergkamp thinks it's nice that there are footballers who excel without taking any advantage of the position they have to take. "Football players who play straight through the systems, for whom systems really do not matter."

He is not a systems man. "Nowadays you are thrown out with systems. But it does not matter much where on the paper the dolls stand, as long as there is balance in the team and the occupation on the field is a bit accurate so that everywhere with triangles the difference can be made. Okay, you need a system as a coat rack, a starting setup. But as soon as you start playing, you have to originate the freedom by being creative. With position changes and speeding up the game, you disorganize your opponent."


Actually not a lot different from what Guardiola was saying at MNF I think (for example the part on players automatically 'compensating' for deep runs by Walker or KDB). It isn't contradictory to it, or at odds.

 

Although there are noteworthy exceptions proving the rule, Matthew Syed made a similar argument lately (his piece might be criticized for pandering to 'anti-intellectualism', which ironically he himself has often done):

Show Spoiler Hide Spoiler

Game is far simpler than tactical analysts claim
Times, The (London, England) - April 23, 2018

Conventional wisdom says that the industrial revolution was a triumph of intellectuals. The theoretical breakthroughs of Robert Hooke and Robert Boyle inspired the creation of the steam engine and the like. Indeed, technology is often defined as "the application of scientific knowledge to practical projects".

This would have come as some surprise to Thomas Newcomen, however. Biographies of the inventor of the steam engine reveal that he was a semi-literate lay preacher who knew nothing of Hooke or Boyle. Instead, he patiently tweaked his machine, increasing its effectiveness and, therefore, profitability. His machines were not created by theory, but through trial and error.

The great iconoclast Nassim Nicholas Taleb calls this the "scientism fallacy": the tendency to over-intellectualise the expertise of craftsmen. This has become rife in sport, too, with a classic case involving Richard Dawkins.

The zoologist offers this as an explanation for how a baseball player catches a ball: "He behaves as if he had solved a set of differential equations in predicting the trajectory ... At some subconscious level, something functionally equivalent to the mathematical calculations is going on."

This explanation would surprise a baseball player, however. Gerd Gigerenzer, an academic who, rather unusually, studies humans in natural settings rather than labs, has found that players typically rely not on equations but heuristics (rules of thumb). "The gaze heuristic is the simplest one and works if the ball is already high in the air," he writes. "Fix your gaze on the ball, start running, and adjust your running speed so the angle of gaze remains constant."

We see the scientism fallacy in certain types of football analysis, too. After matches, a small army of boffins seek to explain what has happened using jargon and maths. The following example from a tactics website tells its own story: "The first overload in the ballnear space is created from the right centre back pushing up as he is completely free, forming a 4v3 superiority down the flank. This is primarily resulting from the lack of shifting by the team (especially in the two strikers), resulting in poor horizontal compactness." But you will not be surprised to hear that these explanations come as a shock to the managers who are being analysed, as Marina Hyde of The Guardian has noted. Borussia Mönchengladbach coach Dieter Hecking said: "Today there are even websites, presenting alleged thoughts of us coaches after the game. I have read them once after a Wolfsburg game. I was wondering, 'Am I supposed to have come up with these highly complex things?' " The German FA's head of coaching education, Frank Wormuth, made a similar point, talking of theorists "seized by a canvas with colour patches, wondering what the painter wanted to tell them, and afterwards pay a lot of money for it. What did the painter want to tell us? Nothing. Perhaps he had just had a bad day." In other words, intellectuals are overcomplicating - and often misconceiving - what practical people have discovered naturally and organically.

This is not to say that science is irrelevant in sport. There is much to learn in (relatively) simple domains such as physiology, nutrition, medicine, etc. Science can also highlight biases or oversights in the conventional wisdom in areas such as recruitment and tactics, as the book Moneyball has revealed in baseball. The work of academics such as Chris Anderson and Stefan Szymanski has revealed interesting patterns in football, too, which managers would do well to understand.

The problem is the tendency to prioritise intellectualism over practical experience. To return to technology for a moment, James Dyson trialled 5,126 prototypes to create his revolutionary vacuum cleaner, yet had little need for theories of airflow dynamics. Indeed, these theories were later reformed to accommodate what Dyson had learnt. The same happened in the industrial revolution, where Nicolas Léonard Sadi Carnot, a French physicist, created his laws of thermodynamics after examining machines such as the steam engine. This was a seminal event but note the direction of causality. Theory had not driven practice, but the other way around.

This may seem curious. How can technologies emerge without a guiding theory? For much the same reason that football tactics advance without managers having an intimate understanding of, say, statistical regression: namely, the power of evolution. The process of clashing with rival teams highlights weaknesses, forcing a constant process of re-evaluation and reform. This is not just a battle of ideas, but of survival. If a manager keeps losing, he is sacked.

Football is a domain, then, where protagonists have what Taleb calls "skin in the game". It is not just managers who disappear when they fail to perform, but players, too. Wayne Rooney learnt to play on the street, hour after hour, building up practical expertise. As Taleb puts it: "The [sportsman] has no clue about the exact heuristic, but he goes with it - otherwise he would lose the game to another, non-intellectualising competitor."

Imagine lecturing Rooney on theoretical biomechanics to help him to kick the ball more accurately. It would be like trying to assist Newcomen by furnishing him with a textbook on thermodynamics.

Coaches (and scientists) can give practical guidance, of course. Marcel Desailly, for example, improved his speed by resisting the tendency to lean back. But these are mere nudges to a process thoroughly grounded in organic experience. The perspective of Dawkins - that Rooney is using differential equations subconsciously - is a category mistake.

My guess is that most managerial knowledge is also theoretical rather than contextual - encoded in heuristics and passed down through apprenticeship and experience of playing or watching. Pep Guardiola, for example, did not use equations to drive his tactical revolution but had a hunch derived from his education under Johan Cruyff, along with periods in Italy and Mexico, tested it, discovered its strength and weaknesses, and then slowly perfected it.

Of course, science sometimes leads directly to practical applications. The atom bomb emerging from relativity is a case in point. In general, innovation is a complex interplay between theory and practice, with the latter the principal driver.

Taleb offers a classic story from antiquity where an old wagon in the Phrygian city of Gordium had its yoke tied with a multitude of knots. These were so tightly entangled that it was difficult to figure out how to unravel them, and an oracle declared that the person who could do so would rule all Asia.

Intellectuals pondered it, theorised about it, and sought complex solutions. Alexander the Great, a more practical chap, drew his sword and with a single stroke, cut the knot in half.

"People who have always operated without skin in the game seek the complicated ... and avoid the simple like the plague," Taleb writes. "Practitioners, on the other hand, have the opposite instincts, looking for the simple ... and the effective."

 

cool vid, havent seen that one, but i meant in the context that knowledge is not the number one thing that separates the two... Pep is better mainly for other reasons, like being passionate while explaining the stuff and his attention to details are one of them. He is a perfectionist so by default his players will always have a room for improvements and he will demand it.

 

Last thing: I searched back now for a moment where he was a pundit (DB10). This is what he said when Arsenal got humiliated by Bayern Munich once again (2015).
"In my way of seeing playing principles and sometimes fairly basic concepts, for the individual, for the collective, are more important than formations and 'tactics'. The third man running is one very big difference between the Arsenal teams I was lucky to play in, and the teams of later dates."

"Is traditional, clever, playful, beautiful Dutch football dying?
Joey Voce, Liverpool
Yes. I feel it's dying, but other teams are growing [...]. When one ball is given, numbers two, three, four and five are moving already. The Dutch teams aren't playing like that. If you look at the Dutch game you see one player with the ball and one other moving. No one else. So the one who is moving gets the ball. It becomes easy to defend. So there are few successful passes and not a lot of movement. (speed??)" (FourFourTwo, February 2011)
https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/dennis-bergkamp-one-one-i-never-expected-be-arsenal-11-years

 

Yeah, I suppose my hypothesis if you like (or maybe it's just obvious, but some coaches will deem it is less important than defensive security in the midfield and some fans will seem to agree - eg regarding their diagnosis of where Arsenal have been going wrong and their reasoning for wanting their most successful manager to leave) is that the less players that are a) capable of being and b) instructed to be involved in the construction of moves in a fluid way with and without the ball, the less that a team will fashion openings and play cohesive attacking football. That seems to be how Dennis sees it too.

So, in other words, if midfielders (perhaps two of them in the defensive versions of 4-4-2 and 4-2-3-1) are there simply or primarily to win the ball and protect the defence, it can be hard to play cohesive football and a lot is put on the attacking players ahead to be able to do things individually (and it's harder for them to do that if the opposition don't have forward runs from midfield colleagues to consider). But maybe it goes back to the old arguments about winning games 1-0 vs winning them 5-4 etc (which can easily become losing 1-0 or losing 5-4 respectively obviously).

 

Per PDG his idea and suggestion here an old Laudrup interview mentioning increased speed (better to not post some of Petit his interviews ), september 1993

 

what i found extremely interesting is his clear distinction between goalscorers and true footballers..

 

Thanks and also thanks to pdg1978 for the idea.

 

Having watched it all a bit further (and actually still related to the subject of the thread) you might find these parts okay. It was when Henry was signalling his upcoming retirement (2014).

- How was it to play with Thierry Henry?
"It was not something you come across every day of course, and we liked each other. His pace and threat going forward were unmatched. Sometimes you felt you were playing with the best attacker in the world really, and I had played with some of that ilk previously, so you have a sense for what that is. Since Ronaldo, the Brazilian, no one else really had this combination of pace, power and goals. His mentality was fantastic. In every training and in every game I had always the idea he wanted to prove something for himself."

- Henry has often complimented you and named you as the best he played with. Some other Inter and Arsenal team mates too, by the way.
"It's always nice to get recognition from your former colleagues, but think - I know - he in effect means 'the best to play with him'. Did Zidane play with him, or was it Henry to play with Zidane? Do you see? For me Thierry was an obvious reference point on the field when I played.
As they say, you get only one chance for a first impression, and that was good too. When he first arrived at Arsenal he was soon regularly saying "I want Dennis to defend against me, I want him guarding me". So I'm sure the first impression was a good one, and don't forget he was already a World Cup winner..."

- Was it hard for your ego there was a new star in town? Who was about to grab all the goals.
"What was hard were the injuries and also the early substitutions. Wenger took me off around the 70th minute with 'you get tired, the match is already won' but with all the adrenaline of the moment it's not always easy to take.
But it was only natural it organically grew this way. It's not like it is the best arrangement of balance to put Pires down as the striker and Henry on the wings, you know. Sometimes I was playing without Thierry, which made me to score more goals - and headlines, though I never was an unambiguous darling of the press - but it didn't trigger sour feelings honestly. I was also growing older, was 30-31, a new phase of the career, and had occasionally scored well previously. I could be content with being Eredivisie topscorer [three times] when Romario was here, european championship topscorer, UEFA Cup topscorer, competing for the World Cup topscorer while not fit and injured. It was always about occasionally scoring well, and then doing different things on the field at other moments. It felt good and as something fresh to play deeper, and Thierry was a true phenomenon in his time I felt."


Sorry if this is superfluous but thought it might be of interest for you and it does touch upon the subject of the thread, as in 'pace' (leading to 'wins').

 

Very good input about the elements of the game that increase speed of play. For this reason, as football is about technique and your understanding of the game, I struggle to understand why people emphasis why players like Zico or Maradona from the 82 World Cup and other great players of this caliber use the excuse of speed of play about their time compared to today's game.

I find it very distasteful that people don't acknowledge the points of the game that actually increase speed of play and only mention athleticism of defenders.

I like to look at teams like Spain from 08-12 as a good barometer of what it means to play quickly and play at a fast pace. Because as you said, playing fast involves the qualities you mentioned. Teams with incredible athleticism as England, France, Brazil, and several other teams are far from the level of play that Spain exhibited in these years. Spain had players like fabregas, xabi Alonso, xavi, iniesta, busquets, and Pedro. Neither of which strikes you as the more athletic players.
Of course, there are other things that I may not be considering (and you may even have an entirely different belief). But based on my current understanding that's how I see the game. Sir Alex Ferguson, also made a comment that great players would succeed in any era (something along those lines).

I look at the Brazil team in 1982, and the only other national team I have seen have such moments of quick play at the national team level since then is Spain from 08-12.

 

Although, to be fair, the Spanish side of 08-12 did have some fast players. The likes of Alba, Villa, Pedro, and Torres do have good speed. And we see that with Barcelona, they can play even faster with the likes of Messi and Alves in there i inject even more pace.

Also, while the Spaniards lack pace and power, it would be unfair to underrate their fitness level. The idea that they just let the ball work for them while the opponents run like headless chicken is of course, a myth. Those Spaniards work really hard as well. Their collective mileage per game is at a competitive level.

Wouldn't you say that Germany of 2014 played some fast football as well?

And it's not always just about speed of play. I think teams like Chile, or the other traditional powerhouses, have also shown moments when they were on form. However, unlike Spain and Germany, those teams never had any real 'control' over games on a consistent basis. While many teams in the past played high-tempo football, very few of them could do it with the same control over the game as Germany and Spain, which have proven to be extremely oppressive to their opponents.

 

Of this list, the first name (Fabregas) has the best case. The only thing he had at his prime was decent or good stamina. He wasn't strong, not fast, not agile, not explosive, not a good header for his size, not particularly responsive or durable/injury-free either. Was still a very good and productive player (excluding penalties, set pieces), and PDG rates him high for some years.
Xavi ran more kilometers, at a higher intensity, than guys like prime Gattusso and Ji Sung Park who based their game around their work rate and intensity.

 

Ball is always faster than a player no matter how physically great you are. Passing is what determines quickness of the game, although you still need runners in your team.

Fair point. I think what separetes eras is mostly the average teams. There were teams in past that did just of a good job as worlds best right now (perhapse not as consistently), it's the average that has drastically improved making modern era incomparable to the past.

 

Could you show me this statistics? I'd love to see it!