Football coaches shackled by their own philosophy

Gripped by possession, paralysed by fear of its loss... by Neil Barnett

There is danger that a large number of Premier League sides are being sucked into a bubble of inactivity through their addiction to possession, to ‘playing out from the back’.

My Chelsea have been amongst the worst offenders.

What’s worse, ‘Possession’ options have been restricted by another addiction. The high press of opposing attackers. The result is that the game slo-o-o-o-o-ws down, centre-backs passing the ball square to each other, plod, plod, plod, before one desperately drives a long hoof upfield when aggressively closed down.

It’s leaving supporters frustrated and not entertained.

The Premier League is the most popular worldwide, the most marketable, because of its intensity. If that is allowed to go, broadcasters globally might not be so enthusiastic.

All this century I have said, admittedly a generalisation, you can divide the four top European leagues as follows:
Spain: Technique
Italy: Tactics
Germany: Running
England: Passion

And, of course, the most appealing of those, both in the stadium and through a television screen, is passion.

Even as recently as 2021 when Thomas Tuchel came to Chelsea, he was quickly expressing his astonishment in press conferences at the extraordinary number of high-tempo sprints players made in the Premier League. It has constantly been singled out as different from football anywhere else in the world.

But not now. Plod… plod… plod!

I first experienced it at Chelsea when Maurizio Sarri was manager. And it’s not a condition that us English are inoculated against, it returned under the leadership of Graham Potter. Now it’s here again with Enzo Maresca.

But Chelsea are by no means alone. Already relegated Southampton, Ipswich, Leicester, Wolves, West Ham – as I write they’re the bottom five clubs – all try to play the same tactical football against clearly better footballers. Does that make sense? At the other end of the table, though not as far away as in previous seasons, out-of-form Manchester City have stalled in the defensive third. Brighton, Bournemouth, Manchester United all play the same way.

There is nothing wrong – nothing at all – with playing out from the back. It’s doing it slowly, pedestrianly, with short passes that trap you in a cul-de-sac that there is everything wrong with.

And it becomes boring. Or infuriating, as you commit the football sin of losing the ball in your own half. An addiction to possession leads to you losing it in the most dangerous areas!

But the phase of coaching which has followed is making the spectacle potentially worse. Move your full-backs into midfield in possession.

It’s absolutely wrong to blame Pep Guardiola for these developments. He more than anyone brought playing out from the back and moving a full-back into midfield to the game, but he was being inventive, creative, asking opposition questions they didn’t readily have answers to. Those who have copied haven’t got such good players, and now the answers have started being discovered.

Here are just some of the things that cause your own side problems by moving full-backs into midfield.

1. Most full-backs aren’t talented enough in midfield. They can’t supply the breakthrough pass in the congested area.

2. Wingers get isolated without a full-back to help them up the flank. They’re played high to occupy the opposing full-backs, and frequently receive the ball closely marked and without their own full-back to support them. They’ve become a pawn to occupy the opposition full-back, to stay wide and make midfield bigger.

3. Modern full-backs are sometimes asked to get into defensive midfield in possession, but also increasingly into attacking areas, so that the area where you want your most creative players is becoming congested by your own team. At Chelsea, what starts as 4-1-4-1 in shape, and can become 4-4-2 against the ball, increasingly in possession becomes 3-1-5-1 with the five behind the striker made up of two wingers, the two starting No 10s, and a full-back. No wonder Cole Palmer’s goals and assists have dried up. The intention is creating an overload in midfield. The result has been overcrowding.

4. Worst of all, this coaching obsession of creating an overload/overcrowding in midfield is leaving the team with an absence of penalty area players. The Pep way was that on some signal, which at Manchester City down the years has probably been Kevin De Bruyne being in possession, the team overloads the penalty area. That’s how Raheem Sterling scored so many goals. Now with everyone in midfield, and just two players wide, no-one goes into the penalty area because the likelihood is the ball won’t get there. And when it does, too frequently no-one is there anyway.

5. Shooting from outside the area is not an easy option because of the overcrowding, it too often gets blocked, so you just move the ball back to the centre-backs and start again. Plod… plod… plod!

6. Then, of course, when you lose the ball, the ‘transition’ is far harder for the team now defending because the full-back upfield has to race back into position and everyone defensively is changing position when they should be simply marking. Here is why the high press can be so effective. The opposition defence is insecure by bad design! I don’t see such a huge difference between the high press – win the ball, go for goal – and the awful football of the 1980s when the Charles Hughes methods were an addiction, lump the ball forward, win it upfield, because most goals are scored with only three touches from the attacking team.

7. With the attacking midfield areas so congested, it’s harder to get round the back into dangerous areas to cross the ball into the penalty area. The attacking team has fewer players wide to construct the attack. Lesser sides are invited to park the bus against midfield possession because they can create gridlock. Increasingly, crosses have come from 30 or more yards out from goal, the easiest angles to defend. There may be more crosses than there used to be, but they ask fewer questions.

The Chelsea-Tottenham derby has retained its intensity which may be something to do with Postecoglou’s tactics where his defensive high line and mad high press leaves holes all over the pitch and intensity can erupt beautifully. But such passion has been notably absent from the Chelsea-Arsenal and Chelsea-West Ham derbies this season. And, of course, the Manchester derby was an all-time slow march.

Coaching philosophies now hold greater sway, with coaches themselves, with sporting directors and hierarchies, than getting the best out of your best players. Coaches will claim that is what their philosophies are for. But great players need freedom, not methods.

This season, reducing passion still further, I’ve seen more and more empty seats in Premier League stadia. The club owners may not be concerned. As admission prices have been hiked by increasing corporate areas, the overall income from match admissions has probably increased. This is very much the ownership philosophy for American sports.

But if passion reduces on the pitch, and the public from the stands, the pounds will surely follow suit from the broadcasters. Serie A was the biggest League in the 1990s and early 2000s. Not now! Don’t say it can’t happen here.

The Joy Of Football podcast is available now and every week on all major platforms, and has a presence on major social media