IFK Värnamo are a newly inaugurated Allsvenskan side managed by Kim Hellberg, who is assisted by the wonderful David Selini. Those in football tactics spheres are likely already familiar with Selini, who has produced mountainous amounts of great content throughout the years and continues to publish threads on Twitter detailing some thought processes behind decisions, offering a unique level of insight. Rather than analyse the team in depth, this post will discuss one of the two most pertinent concepts frequently mentioned by Dave: Following the pressure, with a planned follow-up on dynamic width – because they reveal themselves to be important principles in a tactically flexible, but nevertheless frequently front-footed side.
Following the pressure:
This entails the supporting player ahead of the ball adapting around the opposition’s pressure of the ball carrier through maintaining close proximity to exploit the space they leave in behind; shadowing their movement to find openings. The effectiveness comes from the flexibility of the principle with regards to occupying valuable space and providing a passing option to the ball carrier – because it is designed to work around opposing pressure, it does not suffer the same the pitfalls (rigidity) common of many structured schemes designed to build out from the back. The shorter distances allow the players to better work around the oppositions cover shadow, which because of the following movement is frequently insufficient because it is one-step behind the following player. The player following has the dynamic advantage through reacting to the presser’s movement, who is focused primarily on the ball, with additional focus on the following player reducing the effectiveness of said pressure by diverting attention – creating potential openings. Updating information around the following player is too difficult a task to perform simultaneous with effective application of pressure, meaning the following player can exploit the situation of information asymmetry as they are on the presser’s blind-side. This can broadly be considered to be dynamically adapting to the oppositions cover shadow and using the benefit of initiative to 1-step stay ahead.
This type of player-oriented possession strategy is interesting because of its flexibility to ball and opposition positioning, essentially functioning to provide the +1 to escape pressure, a more abstract and general principle than particular shapes or spacing regimes. Against non-man-oriented schemes, the shorter distances typically don’t hurt the subsequent transition either as the receiving player can turn forward into, then attack the forward space – using the lack of opposition tracking to turn and break. The trade-off of slightly higher reception seems worth it for the increased security of receiving the ball through following the pressure. To aide with following pressure, depth is frequently added by the centre backs to create space in between the lines to move into for reception.
By staying close to the first line, Värnamo pose problems for the opposition, as if they get too close, they reduce spatial coverage in between the 2nd and 3rd lines for dropping forwards to exploit. This essentially functions to undermine the pressing efforts of a semi-passive two seeking to piston play out wide, as a numerical support is always provided, with space to receive in between the 1st and 2nd lines and a link-up player on an opponent’s blind-side. The close proximity in essence allows for fluid transitions between a back 2 and 3 and the corresponding chain reactions associated (wider ‘CB’s’, higher full backs etc.,)
Moreover, situations where the player being followed reacts, typically when the midfielder drops into the first line to provide an option around pressure, can lead to reduced horizontal compactness, allowing for a direct breaking of pressure or ball carrying, rather than the indirect circumvention via the following player. This can be conceptualised more abstractly as a fluid transition between a double pivot to a 3-1 build-up set-up, where because of the defender’s confidence and composure in possession, they can adapt to the opposition’s response, or lack thereof to infiltrate.
This type of movement additionally provides time and space for the ball carrier because the presser is adapting his cover shadow, slowing the intensity of pressure, which grants the ball carrier more time to think, and more effectively execute passes which break lines. This should be reminiscent of de Zerbism, standing on the ball and using the dynamic movement off the ball to create time, while the halting on the ball allows for full technical control while waiting for errors in the oppositions’ movement to exploit – or from a more ‘positive’ perspective, it allows your teammates time to better position themselves to receive. This is pertinent when considering the dynamic advantage conferred by following the pressure.
In combination with the following the pressure concept – I think the panoptic view of the passer compared to the limited view of the pressing forward is something pertinent with regards to adapting around the dynamic movement happening ahead of play – playing into the idea of knowledge asymmetries. The centre back, particularly when standing on the ball is in complete control with constantly updated information to pounce with the line breaking opportunity presents itself contrasted
In this particular example, I think the pressing team would’ve been ok with better coordination between forward and winger; however, that exemplifies in part the value of following pressure. Because it is a dynamic process, it can be difficult for the opponent to constantly update and react, which leads to coordination errors, which leads to space opening. Additionally, through getting the winger narrow via the dropping player, they were able to score through an underlap after the fullback received from the pivot, showing then that discoordination caused to the pressing team leads to worse spatial coverage, and chain effects of who covers whom as the reactivity around the follower creates collective reactivity once pressure is broken (provided the opposition commit).
(Also interesting in that move was pre-emptive widening by the CB anticipating the following player to create 3 #coordination)
Then the question becomes, against Värnamo, why don’t teams adopt a more man-oriented approach to higher pressing to counter the reactionary following of pressure, with their own reacting following of support? Fire with fire. Firstly, as I mentioned when talking about automatisms, Värnamo practice this concept every game, progressively gaining proficiency which grants them a type of qualitative superiority contrasted to their opposition, and thus, because they are generating a different defensive approach for however many games, they may face Värnamo throughout the season, we can expect decreased proficiency in practicing the scheme compared to if it were their main defensive approach. Man-oriented schemes are perhaps simple theoretically for players to understand because of the clearness of the reference point, but they are high risk because of reduced emphasis on zonal coverage and more qualitative elements, being reliant on duels with fewer covering mechanisms for space which has been exposed when contrasted to a zonal mid-block with man-oriented features for instance. Moreover, without coordination of covering mechanisms for when the system is undermined – the system can be cut through – adding complexity to the initial simplicity because the team must function as a chain and prioritising soon becomes key as equality cannot be consistently maintained.
Värnamo moreover have shown themselves to be adaptable, and in this counterfactual, I envisage the marked becoming aware of the situation when following the pressure, vacating central spaces, opening up a more vertical pass, for up-back through combinations with frequently occur within their game regardless. If I were to design a defensive scheme which seeks to press high against the following of pressure, it would likely entail central players tracking the deep supporting players until they entered wider zones from the ball carrier, and from there, cutting the diagonal access (through centralising) would be key, although because of the man-oriented elements, (out of possession team) centre backs would be given the freedom to step-up on droppers in between the lines. This however is firstly in the abstract – I do not know the strengths and limitations of the hypothetical team which basically undermines the point of the exercise, as context is king. And secondly this approach risks more direct balls in behind as it would require a high line to maintain compactness vertically to support the man-oriented pressure and functioning additionally as a man-oriented covering mechanism from players in between the 2nd and 3rd lines following pressure. But nevertheless, think something like Spurs under Antonio Conte (they can be high pressing at times – they just don’t seek direct turnovers, per se. Don’t say anything bad about Conte!), and the off-ball roles of the midfielders, apply pressure and track the player in between the lines, but once they drop and widen, vacate and resume zonal positioning – it attempts to move play backwards primarily through disincentivising forward passes rather than ‘forcing’ the turnover through intense application of pressure around the ball and collective picking up of supporting players.
Nevertheless – here is an example of more rigid man-orientation being undermined by Värnamo’s vertical proficiency. The midfield splits to open passing lanes and dynamically occupy the expanded space as the full backs act similarly.
The centre back remains composed in possession despite lacking an easy wide option
Cut directly through the centre which is now open because the man-orientation in its reactivity was manipulated to be less centrally compact as it definitionally focuses on coverage of the opposition’s players. Dynamic dropping grants the forward the advantage upon reception. If there’s one thing you notice about Värnamo directly, it is perhaps how frequently, comfortably and effectively they use up-back through combinations – which is at least partially linked following the pressure creating the potential for combinations when the opponent reacts.
To best explain the concept, I think one should think of the most rudimentary and widely applied example of following pressure: the underlap. You move outside the oppositions cover shadow, naturally oriented around cutting central angles through moving in-to-out to provide a wider progressive passing option. The opposition then adapts to prevent the pass down the line, opening the centre for passes, which then requires covering, freeing space behind the pressure, typically resulting in gained territory. Although largely discussed with regards to build-up and creating an extra defender in the last line, who then has space to progress into – the adaptability of the concept allows it to be progressive in implementation additionally – as these pictures shows the offer of various depths around the presser.
Please follow Dave for better explanations which come from the source rather than an interpretation – and thanks to Dave for helping me better understand this concept which is remarkable for its flexibility and legibility – him mentioning it was eye-opening in a way. If nothing else, hopefully this post leads you to him and the fantastic work being done at Värnamo
Brilliant read, Jack. I really enjoyed reading your observations and ideas around an aspect of our style of play. I agree with your observation that adopting a strict man-marking scheme would open up attractive space behind, and then we would want to use that space. Really good spotting the up-back-through combinations too.
Top work mate.
Regards,
David
I finally finished reading for the 2nd time to see if this element can be adopted to sharpen the idea of double-pivots returning to front-footed sides.