Automatism Theory

Was unable to think of a good Conte-based pun.

Automatism: A passage of play predicated on a previously formulated set of actions rather than spontaneously developed. Differentiated from principle-based play as the plan is actionable, rather than abstract.

As pressing systems become more sophisticated and effective, the automatisation of consolidated possession sequences is a logical response. Pressing seeks to limit the time, space, and options available to the player in possession which in tandem, provoke suboptimal decisions and technical errors – generating opportunities for turnovers. Automatisation crucially generates more time in an effective or relative sense for the player in possession as they are already aware of their next action, and consequently, time spent processing and assessing options is eliminated which increases the speed at which they can conduct said action. This allows the ball carrier to play in more limited space, as they require less time. Superior knowledge is the fundamental concept to apply to automatisation. The players performing the automatism are more aware of the aims and consequences of their actions. This links to the ‘dynamic superiority’ I think best described by Judah Davies (» Team Analysis: Napoli (spielverlagerung.com) as “both superior timing (through initiating the movement) and superior speed (due to having more momentum as they began their run earlier) to their opponent.” The additional layer added by automatisation versus the is dynamic superiority which it encompasses is the actionability of the plan enhancing direct knowledge of a given sequence.

Automatisms for this reason often exist at the fringes, by which I mean, the touching point between possession maintained and turnover generated with slight errors potentially being disastrous as effective and quick execution are paramount. They often seek to vertically stretch an opponent and manipulate positioning with clairvoyance; baiting and subsequently exposing uncovered space following compaction attempts, whereby the more compact the positioning, the worse the subsequent spatial coverage, creating a structure which incentivises close calls. Effective and quick execution within tight spaces is what make the possession sequences seen under managers such as Antonio Conte aesthetic. The players are performing at a seemingly impossible level of swiftness if spontaneously reacting. Automatisation in essence, makes possible difficult sequences through reducing thinking time by setting a clear goal to be acted upon, which is known by the team, who can act with superior knowledge in positioning and action compared to the opposition reacting to events sequentially.

Many sequences have an intended recipient should the automatism go accordingly to plan, and the opposition react as anticipated, meaning the cutting of particular options is; firstly less effective as the possession team require less space and time and secondly, the creation of options to be cut is often planned to generate space elsewhere. This functions under the pretence non-automatised conditions may make pressing opportunities look advantageous but because of the aforementioned factors are a poisoned chalice making previously considered unavailable options, available, through quicker circulation or seemingly aimless passes into space, where in actuality a trigger has implied the necessity for a player to occupy the space. The difficulty comes prior in assessing the opponents response, and knowing when to contextually adapt when they act unsuspectingly.

The prerequisite condition for automatisation is the creation of predictable playing circumstances which is why they frequently occur from deeper possession phases where the numerical superiority, often provided by the goalkeeper allows for control to be ascertained through the consistent creation of free men, thus allowing the team in possession greater control of the circumstances. Moreover, vertically stretching the opponent to create spaces in between the lines is often a critical component of automatised sequences, which can be achieved more effectively in deeper regions where the last line of defence advancement is limited by the half-way line, as they cannot use offside as a tool for making space ineffective.

To practically demonstrate these concepts, consider this sequence:

The ball circulated to Andrea Bastoni after Borussia Mönchengladbach counterpressing on the (now) far-side. Notice Gagliardini’s forward movement which is counterintuitive to typical principles of supporting the ball carrier and providing an accessible direct progressive central pass.

Young’s body positioning anticipates the forward pass from Bastoni and works under the pretence of teammates anticipating his action through supporting movement. The pass is played under tight pressure which means performing an action quickly is necessitated reducing spontaneous thinking time. However, automatisms increase ‘effective’ time because Young’s action is premediated and thus already thought through, thereby negating the necessity of calculation, which can be exploited when conducting the action through moving at a higher tempo. Thus, baiting the pressing team high as Young is seemingly in an inopportune position to receive due to limited options; however, the opponents compaction attempts can be reversed, with the uncovered space being exposed by the ability to conduct a successful action, while the limited supporting options are not particularly important because there is a defined end-point, in this example predicated on playing the ball into a dropping player into space rather than circulating short.

In essence, this difficult pass (because of unknowable teammate positioning and countermovement’s should it not be automatised) becomes easy as Young only has to unthinkingly play it into the uncovered space created via the high pressing and premeditated movements. Viewed individually, past actions, such as Gagliardini’s movement, may seem poor from a theoretical perspective because it limited Bastoni’s passing options to Young (directly and through externalities additionally such as making the Marcelo Brozović pass suboptimal, as he would lack support from his near-side midfielder), who could be pressured via tight marking and forced into a turnover or otherwise be constrained through a backwards pass to Bastoni where the compounding constraining effects of the byline, and touchline would result in a turnover. However, viewed holistically, Inter only ever had one aim and optimised accordingly rather than spontaneously building from possession principles, which would prioritise keeping options open in individual movements with good spacing creating options to break the pressure and access the far-side. This optimisation gave them superior knowledge when acting, which thereby allowed actions to be conducted at greater speed, giving them the advantage as they were better prepared around the feasible possibilities, and studied the most common and sensible reactions (i.e., attempt to constrain Young via tight marking) thus allowing for them prepare, analyse, and subsequently exploit weaknesses (space in between the 2nd and 3rd line from high pressing).

The strength of the automatism was each action implied a subsequent (often two-three passes ahead) action which had been trained and prepared around, negating the time required to find a solution, thus hastening the process of enacting said solution. In essence, the speed of thought (and therefore increased speed of action) decreases the amount of time the opponent has available to compact around the ball which otherwise would have been sufficient in a non-automatised move, thus exposing the attempted compaction through moving into the vacated space.

To go back to the sequence in question, Samir Handanović’s pass carried the implication of the automatism – acting as the trigger. This provoked Gagliardini’s forward movement and the deepening of Young’s play as he sought to vertically compact Mönchengladbach’s pressing to expose poor spatial coverage behind despite it increasing the difficulty of his own reception. Bastoni moreover receives onto his left foot rather than centrally, signalling a desire to build wide.

Gagliardini’s previously counterintuitive movement now becomes a complementary rotation to Lautaro Martínez’s run into the vacated space where Young’s pass was aimed (knowing the space would be vacated). A transition now occurs with Inter attacking the space and Matteo Darmian free on the far-side. Meaning they built backwards, used the goalkeeper to alleviate pressure which consolidated play enough to transform the situation into something predictable allowing for the triggering of an automatism which baited high pressure and exploited the lack of spatial coverage caused by the compactness of the failed pressure, to then switch again now that play was compacting around the ball-carrier (and previous ball carriers on the now far-side).

To summarise; automatisation grants superior knowledge to the team in possession which increases speed of action in addition to allowing clairvoyant manoeuvres where the utility is only perceivable 2 or 3 actions ahead. This often creates a transitional game-state because it involves fast build-up from deep, with depth being important because it allows for easier achievement of numerical superiorities and vertical stretching. From an aesthetic perspective this could be perceived as creating a slower base game-state as teams look to consolidate possession and create predictable moments to generate transitional or ‘artificial counter attacking’ conditions. However, those transitional moments are often conducted with such excellence, that their occurrence is the most enjoyable part of a match. Nevertheless, de gustibus non est disputandum. Automatisms are likely to stay and become increasingly prevalent to expose issues associated with higher pressing, particularly the man-oriented variety as they allow for more effective execution within tight spaces in addition to exploitation of space created via positional manipulation.

Issues occur when the superior knowledge is undercut by predictability of action with the opposition becoming aware and countering particular sequences. However, optimisation of qualitative superiorities via automatisation can partially resolve this by essentially creating a difficult to solve problem, at least directly, à la Romelu Lukaku at Inter. Moreover, direct responses often lead to suboptimal defensive positioning from a sequential perspective which could realistically be considered by a coach as a discretion trigger whereby direct countering actions by the opposition allow the players more freedom to spontaneously react or otherwise generate another automatism predicated on the defending teams counter (if anticipatable).