Osher Boim

Football | 25 | Israel | [email protected] | scouting and analysis ⚽

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

On Symbolic Thinking, Tactical Analysis, and Everything In Between

Recently, @MartinRafelt published a sharp and insightful thread about circulation versus penetration—or, as he more precisely framed it: “neutral actions,” which keep the attack alive without real progress, and “value actions,” which break lines, create advantages, and generate threat.

[Martin Rafelt @MartinRafelt]

The popularity of a very circulation-focused play is partially the result of just thinking of "do succesful action" (under-perceiving the actual value of actions). And then you go and stack up succesful actions being happy with that.

Helps a lot to make the distinction between..

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

I cant stress this enough👇🏻

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

Now leave all the bullshit the AI wrote here for you, imagine someone saying that 5-4-1 (Box midfield) is better than 4-3-3 for possession (depends on so many different things and lack context) and when one of the four players in the middle is a Fullback, it's genius.
because that's what you did here.
One fullback step inside and one creates a back 3 = 3 CB and 2 DM, it doesn't matter if you call the DM fullback or not, it's still doing the work of a DM in attack.
The only advantage this has is maybe a better rest defence because you simply have more defenders in the middle and in the starting 11, but it comes with a very high attacking cost, which many like to hide to sound smart.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

Now leave all the bullshit the AI wrote here for you, imagine someone saying that 5-4-1 (Box midfield) is better than 4-3-3 for possession (depends on so many different things and lack context) and when one of the four players in the middle is a Fullback, it's genius.
because that's what you did here.
One fullback step inside and one creates a back 3 = 3 CB and 2 DM, it doesn't matter if you call the DM fullback or not, it's still doing the work of a DM in attack.
The only advantage this has is maybe a better rest defence because you simply have more defenders in the middle and in the starting 11, but it comes with a very high attacking cost, which many like to hide to sound smart.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

I completely disagree. This is poor defending that relies on excessive individualism, and the list of things that could have been done better is very long. If this is the future of football, then the game is dead. Defending can be almost as beautiful as attacking, there’s no need to ignore it.

What we saw today is the complete opposite of what you’ll see in tomorrow’s match. What you saw today is a reaction to the dominance of positional play in recent years, but like any reaction, it’s gone too far.

Open football and man-marking don’t have to mean bad defending or a “let’s just score more than the opponent” approach. You can mark players individually while still taking into account the player on the ball, your teammates, the opposition, and the space. Today was just bad.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@Omer_Moav שמע אתה לוזר אפס משועמם

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

After re-watching the match between Paris and Bayern I am increasingly convinced that this is what is happening before our eyes:
Positional play led to its own downfall because like any highly organized strategy, it has an antidote.
Positional play (at least as we know it) will soon come to an end because coaches have finally understood that the best way to counter it is to use man marking.

The solution was obvious a long time ago, and I don't understand why it took so long for man marking to regain dominance in football.

Now, for the important questions for me: Does it make football look better?

Not necessarily, and I say this as someone who has been talking for years about the many problems positional play causes in football.
The absurd defenses created by man marking are quite an eyesore to me (from
Being extremely zonal to extremely man-oriented), plus the lack of composure teams display with the ball when facing man-marking defences, as they are tempted to rush into the free spaces that are formed too quickly and even before the right conditions are met.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@stirling_j https://t.co/9tLkyrB0cz

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@IJaSport Man marking=no free man. The whole building called positional play collapsed.

[The Purist @ThePurist_]

In the same way we look at teams of 20+ years ago and think: How are they so bad at defending?

Some day people will look at football from this era and think: How are they so bad at attacking?

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

Bielsa exemplifies the main issue of logical thinking in football. From their view, they are “objective” because they simply interpret the game without inserting their opinion about what’s happening. Bielsa observes “the actions players perform” and builds his training based on them but how to label those actions, how to divide them, and how to “grasp” them depends entirely on Bielsa’s personal view, which means it doesn’t truly represent objective football, because... such a thing doesn’t exist.

[Jamie Hamilton @stirling_j]

Bielsa saying he doesn't interfere with the game etc.
But he plays M2M+1 in pretty much every game in every context.
I like a lot about Bielsa, but I don't think he's a good example of a coach who doesn't impose his own ideas/interpretation onto his teams.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@yoavr מה זה עונה 75 יואב

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@stirling_j https://t.co/4pFK7BpwxO

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

After re-watching the match between Paris and Bayern I am increasingly convinced that this is what is happening before our eyes:
Positional play led to its own downfall because like any highly organized strategy, it has an antidote.
Positional play (at least as we know it) will soon come to an end because coaches have finally understood that the best way to counter it is to use man marking.

The solution was obvious a long time ago, and I don't understand why it took so long for man marking to regain dominance in football.

Now, for the important questions for me: Does it make football look better?

Not necessarily, and I say this as someone who has been talking for years about the many problems positional play causes in football.
The absurd defenses created by man marking are quite an eyesore to me (from
Being extremely zonal to extremely man-oriented), plus the lack of composure teams display with the ball when facing man-marking defences, as they are tempted to rush into the free spaces that are formed too quickly and even before the right conditions are met.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@stirling_j I love your analysis style. You show how much depth there is in football just by understanding and explaining the little things you feel when watching a play
no advanced stats no amazing editing skills no super big theories
just real insight
Much respect.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

The more players you have in a certain area, the more freedom each of them has because the tactical responsibility is divided among more players.
The defensive responsibility in a diamond for example is divided between 4 players in the midfield, so each of them can move wherever they want without necessarily having negative consequences, as opposed to a 2 player midfield where it requires much more caution from everyone.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

I think there are a few formations where in certain positions it would be very difficult for a player to leave their position without completely collapsing the team. For example the two CDMs in a 4-4-2 must be relatively positional in their play otherwise the rest defence would probably become impossible, so as a non-positional coach I would look for a different formation or solution if I wanted to see my CDMs move freely.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@stirling_j Amazing

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

@stirling_j We need both
https://t.co/T9XGN4yXfv

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

I know there is a theory that man marking is not a new problem and positional teams have dealt with it in the past. That is true, and we have seen a lot of teams use man marking against City for example and fail, because positional play has ways to deal with such defenses. But for sure positional teams will be harmed in the thing that is most important to them: complete control of what is happening in the game. Against man marking it is much more difficult to create this control: You need to create future space, the space is not there to begin with.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

After re-watching the match between Paris and Bayern I am increasingly convinced that this is what is happening before our eyes:
Positional play led to its own downfall because like any highly organized strategy, it has an antidote.
Positional play (at least as we know it) will soon come to an end because coaches have finally understood that the best way to counter it is to use man marking.

The solution was obvious a long time ago, and I don't understand why it took so long for man marking to regain dominance in football.

Now, for the important questions for me: Does it make football look better?

Not necessarily, and I say this as someone who has been talking for years about the many problems positional play causes in football.
The absurd defenses created by man marking are quite an eyesore to me (from
Being extremely zonal to extremely man-oriented), plus the lack of composure teams display with the ball when facing man-marking defences, as they are tempted to rush into the free spaces that are formed too quickly and even before the right conditions are met.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

I love it and completely agree with you.
Also, it would be somewhat amusing if the dominance of positional play worldwide, which has led to an increased use of man marking, forces coaches to revert to relying more on individual skills and technical players, and less on rigid structures, potentially causing positional play to bring about its own downfall.
I also wrote a piece that could
Link to your thread in here
https://t.co/TaQX05yWBg

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

We have the idea in our head that if the coach doesn't impose a structure on his players then (in terms of rest defense at least) the team will be exposed, but that's a false premise. It's like saying that you can't score a goal except from an attack that has a pre-prepared pattern that the team works on in training. This is of course not true, A lot of goals come from the creativity of the players or from an interaction that at least on some level wasn't too planned.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

There is no such thing as "too much freedom" in football, there is freedom that does not necessarily lead to good football.

A team with "too much freedom" does not necessarily need structure but rather to improve its players' understanding of the problems that arise due to a lack of tactical knowledge in certain situations.

The idea that freedom and structure are opposites that need to be balanced is one way to see football, not the only way. Neither freedom nor structure guarantees good football, nor does a team that balances the two.
It is only an understanding of specific tactical situations and how the players learns to solve them and this can be achieved in many different ways.

For example, if our players are too close to each other and there isn’t enough space to create options, I can expect my team to understand they need to "open the game" a little by creating better spacing. The players need to feel it and the coach's job (in my opinion) is to help them develop this sense for the solution.

This is very different from the coach simply telling his wingers to stay wide because he thinks that the team needs spacing, which is an act of imposing structure. The difference between these approaches is huge.

[Tactx @Tactx_]

Fluidity within a structure.

It's what top teams aim for, and it works for the players.

A dressing room with too much coaching structure will crave freedom.

A dressing room with too much freedom will crave structure.

Finding the balance and buy-in—priceless.

[Osher Boim @boim_osher]

Yes, good football is relative, but we can agree that every team needs to respond in a certain way when losing the ball because it's inevitable. You can prepare for this moment by establishing boundaries for players through structure, and you can also teach players the importance of this situation, helping them learn to adapt to this moment spontaneously. Spontaneously doesn't mean the team will necessarily concede a goal from the counter, that is the point.