Inter(are)Steller:

Explorations into dynamics of space and time

There is an overall notion that I have felt towards there being a slight analytical bias towards what is legible: patterns which can be seen, replicated and fit within a certain rationalist modes of thought - which I am admittedly guilty of. The outgrowth of this tradition has been the juxtaposing one of relationism which emphasises emergent behaviours and understandings which grow between players in a more fluid, and less legible manner (or that legibility is where they are all on the same side of the pitch). This conception of football places greater emphasis on player empowerment and intuitive reading of the game to understand the dynamic, open system which cannot be algorithmically constrained - perhaps best encapsulated as placing a greater emphasis on metis - a sort of learned, practical wisdom which can defy codified or scientific articulation.

I think the synthesis to this which fits people of all aesthetic persuasions are Simone Inzaghi’s Inter - and I think this is because of the emphasis placed on the oft neglected superiority in positional play based analysis - that of the dynamic superiority. The dynamic superiority is that which is concerned with timing. What movements can help gain the initiative over the opponent to give you an advantage in receiving the ball. In this way, the dynamic superiority can be conceptualised almost as the art of separation, which means it naturally favours the attacking side, as having the ball typically confers the initiative as it i more active, in contrast to reactive defending. A team which places emphasis on the dynamic superiority is one which seeks to make the opposition the subject of their manipulation and create almost unanswerable problems through exploiting a fact of the game.

Within this, there are elements which are greater than movement towards the ball, or behind it; factors such as ball speed, distance the ball travelled, direction/speed of player rather than ball movement, and such can lead to the dynamic superiority being reversed - if you think about a slow pass into the feet of the attacker with an onrushing defender behind him - who can actually generate more momentum from behind?¹ There is also the aspect of combinations, and using superiority of knowledge with regards to how the game is going to transpire to gain dynamic advantages over the opponent - something I covered in Automatism Theory. This element, however, is not just constrained to more rigid predetermined series of actions but can fit into a more individualistic characterisation of socio-affective and qualitative superiorities where understandings between players, or a certain players skillset makes them better suited to crafting potential dynamic superiorities, and as with almost all qualities, expands the frontier of potential. The first partnership oriented one that springs to mind for example is that between Saka and Ben White where White will play a more vertical pass often for Saka to dynamically receive after initially being on the touchline so he can move into space with momentum and create separation to progress centrally. Even something as simple as an overlap is based on the dynamic superiority as the full back is attacking space at speed compared to a defender who has been stood flat by their winger. How you can weaponise the underpinnings of a tool like an overlap to more broadly encapsulate your vision of football is what I think materialises with Inter.

To explore this first, the most overt example can be seen against Atalanta who employ a man-marking system which make them a good test subject as man-marking is predicated on gaining the dynamic edge over an individual opponent. To build-up you must be able to create separation and crucially, the initiative is handed to the possessor, granting the initial dynamic superiority fully to be proactive. You have the power to manipulate the positioning of the opposition, but in addition, to chose the timings where you do, and the space and time where enacting that is most suitable as gain the dynamic superiority over the opponent. Do it incorrectly and the sequence transpires in a way where the distances and timings were wrong as such to give the defender the dynamic superiority as he charges from behind. But do it correctly, and you can catch them flat-footed or even better, going in reverse directions a la a classic up-back-through, ironically causing the defence to vertically overlap.

(The video embedding wasn’t working/potentially could cause issues so hopefully this description is sufficient but the next two paragraphs are at least aided by knowing the goal in question) In Inter’s victory this season, Thuram’s first goal exemplifies a lot of the concepts well - Pavard carries his run from centre back into space then looks to underlap following a pass to Darmian. Barella then looks to occupy the space left by the tracking of the underlapping run. They reset the attack after losing momentum but fundamentally they have pushed Atalanta back and messed with their structure. This is another crucial aspect of Inter’s game - going backwards after the initial attempt at progression failed, and looking to reset where they have more time and space rather than getting bogged down in a skirmish (although later I will touch on where this aspect is more important and how it allows for more speculative attacks). Through changing the vertical plain, they stretch the pitch again and introduce potential for movement to occur - as they too lack some organisation following an attempted dynamic attack. It is interesting after this reset that the two deepest players are Acerbi and Hakan, who like a true regista often allows flow to play around him then acts as the deepest support and distributor once the centre backs have pushed forward. Note Bastoni’s movement to become more narrow as well to create separation and grant Acerbi more time.

Çalhanoğlu then plays forward again to Darmian, but look at Barella’s movement backwards to stretch the space Darmian has to receive and basically block the opportunity for Atalanta players to compact on the ball as he is aware he is being followed (things like this will only really happen against rigid m2m teams like Atalanta). From there everything is one or two touch as you have to trust your teammates occupation of space in dynamic situations to fill where necessary when playing predominately on dynamic superiorities as its all about how quickly you act to take advantage of the gaps left by the opponent which become increasingly valuable as you edge closer to goal as all you need is the smallest bit of separation to create a good shot.

Now initially this type of analysis should generate skepticism as one good sequence can be the same as interpreting meaning from a cookbook where you can micro-analyse every factor and place symbolic significance on actions which aren’t present. The key is consistency of action which is what Inter demonstrate as they have gradually become more synchronised in their movements and their positional play. This sort of synchronicity can make them difficult to analyse in a formulaic way, as it is guided primarily by principles of space occupation (time as a variable) which rely on more informal processes.

I think this is the element which make Inter aesthetically appealing - they embody time-space concept practiced most effectively by Pep’s Barca. It features fluid rotations and interchanges within the framework of positional play without the artificiality of automatisms. The players have a deep understanding of where each other will be which allows for fluid play once the transition has been sparked by a forward pass into the compactness. This element is no longer embodied by Guardiola teams who take the game slower and do not to spark quick transitions from deep to progress vertically. Nor other dynamic superiority oriented coaches like de Zerbi and Conte who are perhaps too artificial in how they create the conditions for dynamic switches and rhythm changes in contrast to Inzaghi. Essentially what I think is aesthetically appealing is the fluid synchronicity they display while attacking - one or two touch, everything moving quickly and players moving with the momentum of play/the ball. A dynamic interpretation of their teammates, space, the ball and the opposition.

However what acts ironically as a form of separation within this comparison is that Inter players often move towards the ball, rather than ball moving to them, to create separation. This moreover allows play to unfold more dynamically as they seek to move over large spaces to find the ball, circulate and dismark. Very rarely do they hold static positions a la a Pep team, but seek and fill - prioritising what is occurring near the ball with regards to connecting play.

This can be similar to say a de Zerbi team, particularly in how they recycle possession - you create separation against man-orientation which the opponent have been able to securely establish due to the static conditions (not a crucial feature of Inzaghi’s football). The player runs towards the ball to find the free man on the far side, having the dynamic superiority over his man-marker who tracks him, opening the space in between as back to goal reception has a compacting effect.

It is this aspect which makes vertically stretching the opponent something crucial for Inzaghi because the larger the playing field is, the more space there is in between the lines for dynamic reception. Consequently, the defence often sit deep in possession, particularly the player occupying the role of centre, centre back in order to act as a bastion for recycling and draw the opposition forward. Moreover, runs are frequently made on the opponents last line, often from one of the midfielders or wingbacks to constantly stretch in the opposite directions. This emphasis on stretching the pitch and moving the ball quickly over large spaces is what I previously dubbed the vicissitudes of verticality. Essentially, adopting this mode of play can leave them them exposed to quick transitions as the conditions conducive to dynamic superiorities are reversed following a turnover for the opponent to capitalise upon.

However, another area of discontinuity from the so-called Pep zeitgeist with regards to dynamism, and a tool which makes them more anti-fragile in the face of vertical vicissitudes is their willingness to be technically scrappy in central areas, and almost deliberately provoke these transitional opportunities. What is interesting about these situations it that they deviate from artificial transitions as more classically conceptualised as they actually accept giving the ball away for periods and provoking what are essentially skirmishes for possession which encourage the opponent to fight for seconds and escape pressure. This can essentially act to draw the opponent out of position as they seek to win the ball back, and place them in the opposite direction of the eventual attack. These types of sequences are perhaps not predetermined, but factor in who benefits from serendipity, scrapping and the bounce of the ball to a greater extent. This is all moreover predicated on dynamism from a conceptual level in addition to more psychological and technical skills involved in benefitting from and acting upon skirmishes which suites a particular type of dogged player. The dynamic superiority aspect is where so-called ‘tactical’ elements come into play as you think about the direction at which the ball is being attacked from the ‘predictable’ circumstance of how you sought to progress possession. When the wing-back or centre back can come charging forward into the fracas, they are attacking with speed behind them in contrast to the defender of the opposition attempting to regain control of the ball and thus is more static. I think embracing these elements has been what Jon Mackenzie has been noticing regarding a shifting zeitgeist away from control and towards dynamism where having players and tactical set-ups which thrive up coming on top of somewhat deliberately created skirmishes and seeking to transition quick rather than ‘attempt to control the ball’ with a first pass forward mentality.

So when you attack or play a pass into a large area of space, you anticipate the opponent collapsing upon you (reverse momentum) and from this you can seek to establish a dynamic 2nd ball ethos which plans around the eventuality of losing the ball temporarily after the initial duel. And after possession is won from that situation, you are often in an even better position than if the attack worked initially, as you have provoked another transitional moment, a sort of transition within a transition where the defenders are working against the ball, and your team towards it to try and break through the last line.

This is what I mean when I say Inzaghi embraces, and perhaps epitomises the vicissitudes of verticality. You seek to create transitional conditions which you benefit from on net, and where there is a degree of ‘knowledge’ advantage as you are honed to thrive in these conditions. The quicker the ball goes forward, the quicker it goes back, but repeated multiple times if necessary. The conditions are created through their on ball vertical stretching which requires dynamic movement both forwards to expand and create runs in behind to drag defenders and back to open space between the midfield and defence in addition to showing for the ball. The first progression is not always clean, but the space has now been created to combat and Inter’s players are always running into the space with momentum which grants them the benefit when competing for second balls and instantly applying a degree of counter pressure. Compared to Inzaghi’s Lazio, this quality in competing for second balls allows them to often reverse the reversal and thus further harness the vicissitudes of verticality.

So, from a more abstract perspective, the question Inzaghi seeks to answer is how do I benefit most from the verticality and chaotic spatial conditions created. The answer is an emphasis on one or two touch play which looks to move the ball quickly and break lines consistently. It is better for the player passing forward to be initially facing to act quickly, and you better manipulate the oppositions defence by seeking to play on their last line and in between the 2nd and 3rd lines, so it is better to up and back than sideways, or to attempt to dribble to create a solution. Inter are one of the few (if the only) elite team without an elite dribbler - part of this dynamic is because they don’t play with wingers, but the 3-5-2 is part of the overall ethos of verticality - two freer midfielders and centre backs always able to make runs, wingbacks being able to attack from deep, a constant push-pull dynamic from the forwards.

The backwards recycling can be conceptualised partly as mitigation within this paradigm as fast commitment with momentum from players deeper leaves a lot of vacant space should something go wrong - this is why there is a general principle of increased verticality emphasised within this. Rarely is the ball played through midfield but rather around or over it, because the transition risk of losing the ball in midfield is too large; therefore, you either go forwards onto the runner, or backwards to reset. The deepest centre back in all phases but deeper build-up is typically quite detached vertically from play to give them time in position and aid in the general ambition of vertical stretching. It means they are always an option backwards should progression not be possible. Then upon going backwards, a new dynamic of reconfiguration occurs within the emergent space

Much of the recycling they perform against smaller teams in particular functions under the purpose of trying to get one of the wide centre backs wider, higher and free to attack the space ahead of them as they are functionally ‘unmarked’ and thus cause chaos as they come cascading into the backline, confusing defensive responsibilities and acting upon the running power they have generated.

Crucial in making this dynamic occur is provoking the proximity of the attacker; the classic de Zerbian way to do this is to put your sole on the ball and invite the forward to press to you while maintaining control. An alternative is to step out of defence and engage with the attacker more proactively (as opposed to a period of statis). However, this does not typically leave the lateral pass open as the receiving player is behind you, nor is the lateral pass desirable even if it was possible because it kills the momentum of space gained. Rather, Inzaghi is all about verticality and changes in height, so you step out then use a midfielder to bounce which opens the backwards curved pass to the oncoming defender. This allows for better ball speed - critical in exploiting space - and creates forward momentum for the receiving player while increasing the distances between himself and the forward pressing player through classic switching/overload to isolate principles. Even if the defender is hypothetically left to roam up the pitch, unperturbed, the possibility for an eventual 1-2 will occur which fits within Inter’s holistic vision of dynamic movement.

More than anything else, vertical shifting serves to discoordinate lines of a defence and create space which can be invaded, which thereby grants the potential for dynamic superiorities to be attained. Think the diagonal run from the far-side forward after the near-side forward drops deeper - something Inter like to do quite commonly, especially when Barella has the ball in wider areas for more direct attacks. This becomes increasingly potent as vertical distances increase in the opposition defence, as almost tautologically, they become less compact and thereby any man-oriented deviations, or lack thereof to allow for reception of the ball become more impactful. Moreover, Inter, because of their scrappiness are typically able to generate something in these higher ares - and generally, the more the more effective space there is to act upon and benefit from ‘serendipity’ the more likely Inter will be speculative. There is a famous dictum in positional play that the “objective is to move the opponent, not the ball”; however, while I think a great knowledge is condensed within this aphorism, it is also why I call the dynamic superiority neglected, as how the ball is received, and therefore how it is moved, in conjunction with the moving players (both IP and OOP) is important.

Perhaps a more de Zerbian example of the dynamic superiority exists in provoking the jump, whereby the expectation of a wall pass creates the potential for variation and juxtaposition, with delay providing the opportunity to instantly play forward and catch pressing teams off guard just as they raise the intensity. Typically a DM receives from the centre back, but rather than bouncing, uses the momentum of the opposition to pivot slightly to then find the pass to his near side, generally to the full back. I do think this permutation is less common in back three set-ups because of the initial positioning of the centre backs, and its contingency upon having pressable centre backs to jump rather than advancing ones, with higher wing-backs also not being able to be found via this route. Nevertheless, it is something you can see with Hakan and Bastoni at times when the structure approximates a more classic, static back 4 shape in deeper regions or in more consolidated phases of play.

However, as it pertains to the dynamic superiority more holistically, the point of time standing still around you as the opposition move more to pressure is pertinent as it subverts the typical emphasis on one-touch fast play I have emphasised throughout. Rather it uses the stillness of possession and to harness the oppositions momentum against them to find the free player. And from that description you can garner a lot about the differences in how de Zerbi and Inzaghi use the dynamic superiority respectively. The latter focuses on the rhythm changes and fluid movement to create constant potential for breaks while the former places more emphasis on rigid positioning and therefore a slower overall approach in provoking the potential for vertical breaks. Inter in a way are more proactively provocative in attempting to create potential for transitions, in addition to being generally more vertical in intent, compared to de Zerbi teams who seek to provoke. Of course there are elements of both in each game, but dichotomies and simple bifurcation is fun. By stopping the ball you often kill the oppositions pressing rhythm by not choosing a side, gaining a dynamic advantage as you simultaneously slow down their press. By keeping the ball moving all the time, you are gambling on your dynamic superiority, being superior due to coordinated synchronicity of movements and trust in the qualities of the players.

And player qualities are important within this conception of fluidity, as although there is a great amount of emphasis correctly placed upon the universality present within Inter’s squad which allows you to often see Acerbi being a player making rampaging runs in behind an opponents defence, how they set-up is influenced by who they have available, it is just good profiling has facilitated a lot of interchangeability within the squad. The only real area where you see stark contrasts in how the game is approached with Inter now is when Denzil Dumfries plays. In many ways, as a battering ram style wing-back he is an ‘unstoppable guy’ with qualities which make him extremely difficult to curtail. He often sits higher than Darmian, is used as more of an offensive outlet and interchanges less often. His more ‘specialised’ skillset limits the fluidity of this Inter team contrastingly, which is why I think Darmian is favoured as his skillset allows for shifting positions dependant on who is best placed to dynamically attack an area with Pavard or Bisseck. He remains an outlier in what has become an all-inclusive unit, but perhaps having that option, particularly in bigger games where resorting more to ‘comparative’ advantages is useful.

Overall, hopefully this piece has somewhat illustrated why I think dynamic superiorities are becoming increasingly pertinent within a shifting footballing meta where transitions are emphasised to a greater extent, and thus being able to wrestle with, and gain an element of control over the unpredictable winds of the vicissitudes of verticality. Pep has recently commented on this style of football becoming decreasingly common and definitive of the era compared to Liverpool, Newcastle and Bournemouth; but I think Inter provide a good balance between the two contrasting elements, as they seek to embrace movement, often in a controlled manner and rotate with each other, into set positions to use time as a variable almost as important as space. I think this is partially what Iraola has emphasised in his recent quotes regarding seeking to make bigger teams more used to control uncomfortable - you send shockwaves through not allowing them to play their game - it is a point I have made previously regarding Bielsa and Guardiola, with the latter often preferring a solid 2-0 victory over playing Leeds, because Leeds introduced a greater element of variance with their aggressive and proactive style. These teams prepare around the chaos, seek to control how it is generated and force it onto the opposition, which is an ironic sense of control, but one related more to probabilities than pure domination and elimination (an elimination of chance vs elicitation of chance is another potential fun dichotomy) of chance, a mode preferred by the likes of Arteta and Guardiola. Inzaghi however, seems conformable with both paradigms (not to mention being willing to be more passive off the ball at times), being able to both craft sequences through fluidity, or force them through fluidity depending on how the opposition approach the match, and what scenarios are presented in game overall. It's having a plan and a backup, where the backup (scrapping) often takes precedence over the plan, or is indexed within it. The overarching aim throughout is to be vertical and stretch space, to then be the beneficiary of these open conditions created to use the advantage conferred onto the attacking team of initiative to exploit a more static opponent.

Ultimately, the conclusion to this piece remains elusive to me, because all the points feel a bit vague, and that vagueness is perhaps testament to the incredible coaching of Inzaghi to create a multifaceted team which seems to fit and be capable of being categorised both in the meta of control and that of transition. I think that is why I have always been a little bit more attracted to Italian styles of coaching, because while the tactical and dictatorial elements of their coaching are consistently emphasised, especially coaches like Conte, Inzaghi and even de Zerbi emphasis the importance of creating situations to improvise within through verticality, especially if plan A doesn’t work in the case for Conte. Much of what I describe explicitly with Inzaghi happened under Conte, the dropping DM and the pivot being a reference point the movements of the team in a classical ‘regista’ conception. The dropping of said regista to allow the wide centre backs to split and attack space, using the benefits in possession conferred by a back 3 dynamically to use those two deeper players facing play to your advantage as their vertical and horizontal plain changes. It is just kind of how these facets occur which is different, and the how they occur, which is less regimented, although still based around aspects like rewinding the cassette through backwards passes is what is crucial. For Inzaghi, being more principle-based, the team can identify more triggers to spring these types of attacks more consistently - that for me is the key difference. As Conte still prioritises the other dynamic aspects of verticality such as scrappiness for example. This is why universality and fluidity are the ultimate differentiating variables between the two - Conte would love a player hyper-specialised like Dumfries and create hyper-specialised scenarios which are more meticulously crafted around him. Whereas wanting more flexible triggers for dynamic attacks which follow less of an augmented pattern suites having more flexible players capable of consistent rotations is more Inzaghi, and that’s why I think Inter appeal to people (I am people).

1. Think Licha under Amorim with his high recoveries or Cuti Romero just being himself.