How to develop a game model? Part 2

One of the most debated topics among coaches is which system to use for their team. Opinions vary:

- Some coaches believe their team should be able to play different systems, adapting to various game situations.

- Others focus on mastering one specific system thoroughly.

- Some prefer to switch formations during different phases of the game, such as attack and defense.

- Others adjust their formation in response to the opponent’s tactics.

Historically, each approach has had its successes, but modern football commonly demands that teams exhibit tactical flexibility. This often means playing different systems not only from one match to another but also within a single game. A frequent strategy seen in recent years involves central midfielders dropping between the central defenders to form a dynamic back three. This adjustment allows full backs to take higher positions and wingers to operate in the half spaces, enhancing both defensive stability and offensive reach.

In the previous section, we discussed the individual requirements of positions within the system, using Position Six (P6) as an example. We touched on what is meant by Mesolevel requirements but did not explore it in detail. Mesolevel requirements pertain to the behaviors of a group of players within the team. According to the model of tactical periodization, we can distinguish among intersectorial, sectorial, and group sectors.

To simplify, let's start with the sectors. In a 4-3-3 formation, for example, there are three distinct sectors: the defensive line, the midfield trio, and the attacking line. The term "intersectorial" refers to the connections between different sectors, such as the interaction between the number six and the two central defenders, or between P10 and P8 with the attacking line. When we talk about a group, we are referring to a smaller subset of players, such as two strikers, or a winger and a fullback.

This method can be applied effectively at both the micro and macro scales. Training forms 2 and 3 provide examples of how this approach is implemented for each scale respectively.

Training Form 2 demonstrates how to develop a training session based on the introduced model. This form is considerably more complex than Training Form 1, as it involves more players and incorporates various phases and sub-phases of the game. This highlights an important principle: the complexity of a training session increases with the number of players and the range of game phases involved. This is why it's crucial during training to engage with all three levels (micro, meso, and macro).

Training Form 3 illustrates how to create a training session on the micro-level, rooted in real-game scenarios. It's important to note that this form still includes different phases and sub-phases of the game. I want to emphasize that isolating a specific moment of the game is possible, but in my opinion, it may not fully represent the continuous flow of the game through its various phases. For example, if we train frontal offensive 1 vs 1 over the wing and decide to end the exercise immediately after a loss of possession, this would be incomplete. In an actual game, after losing possession, the scenario would naturally transition into attack-defense for the attacker and defense-attack for the defender. Therefore, the training form should include these transitions to better simulate game reality.

Unfortunately, I often see coaches isolating specific moments without considering the game's dynamic flow. This is a crucial consideration for coaches when planning and executing training sessions. While it is possible to focus on specific details by isolating an action, it is also essential to consider how the game could continue after a change of possession.

Ideally, each training session should incorporate at least one follow-up action in a transition moment to mimic the game more closely. Continuous training forms are generally more reflective of game reality because they include teammates, opponents, time pressure, spatial constraints, and opponent pressure. In contrast, unopposed practice might be simpler for players to understand and execute due to the absence of direct pressure, but it is less representative of actual game conditions.

Training drills that are unopposed are still valuable for introducing concepts or as a methodological step from unopposed to opposed drills and eventually to game-like scenarios.

We have now discussed the importance of understanding and utilizing all three levels—micro, meso, and macro—as well as the five scales identified in the method of tactical periodization. I have also provided an introduction on how to design training forms based on these scales. We will revisit this discussion when we begin to talk about the training model.

Start by determining the core values that encapsulate the team's ethos for each Main Phase of the game. For example, the values selected, such as Dominant, Creative, and Attractive, will guide the overall strategy and define the character of play.