“The real problem of a critique of our own footballing models is to ask, when we see a unicorn, if by any chance it is not a rhinoceros”
Juan Manuel Lillo, along with many other adherents of positional play often dismiss the idea of positions or consider their relevance negligible to a deeper discussion. This can strike people ironically as reductive or perhaps some avant-garde signal of enigmatic genius rather than something practical. I think the former has merit, and the latter is some anti-intellectual strawman I have constructed to represent my conception of ‘dinosaur’ for the purposes of this post, which may, or may not be grounded in reality.
Overall, the objective of this post is to argue that positions are a paradigm which we, at least majorly subscribe to, and that perhaps, is a paradigm needing updated, because it means we misidentify rhinoceroses as unicorns.
To begin, an explanation (of my understanding as it pertains to football, and why I think it is useful, rather than anything deeper) of the Umberto Eco quote preceding the introduction. We often seek to confirm prior concepts, and adjust said concepts after encountering new information rather than attempting to reformulate the conception. Rather than being some nefarious attempt to maintain the status quo, it is that we are constrained by our current perceptual framework used to understand phenomena.
The quote, based off a Marco Polo story details Polo looking for Unicorns, something he had a prior understanding of. Thus, when he encountered a rhino – there was no definitional category for it, and, at least to him, it was a new discovery. Nevertheless, he was aware of another single-central horned animal, a unicorn and identified it as such, as it sufficiently met his conditions for ‘unicorn’. This is analogous to ‘inverted full backs’ where the conception that a football team requires a full back in all phases is juxtaposed with their seeming lack and thus an epithet is required to ensure the maintenance of the paradigm.
I think positional play advocates, particularly those schooled or deeply ingrained within the perceptual framework struggle with when asked questions relating to positions as questioners operating under a perceptual framework from which the no longer function under. Positions are not axiomatic to football. They are a by-product of a particular understanding, which is widespread and thus use and understanding is often presupposed. Lillo and co potentially recognise the criteria of similarities that may lead to the creation of a ‘formation’ or ‘position’ which simplifies proceedings, and while players in their teams may conform to traditional conceptions – i.e., Gabriel Jesus predominately ‘hugging the touchline’ as a winger for Manchester City. That is coincidental rather than purposeful with regards to aligning with dominant conceptions, as Jesus for instance is primarily used their for his off the ball abilities – juxtaposed to the more traditional conception of a winger as a tricky dribbler. This therefore highlights the necessity for individual considerations to be paramount. Positions are loaded terms and consequently carry unnecessary associated baggage in the form of connotations which can lead to misunderstandings requiring greater specificity.
A potential counterargument could suggest something approximating, why don’t we just use positions to reference the space they occupy rather than inherent characteristics associated with players who predominately occupy that space which seems more common in spheres which have surpassed the ‘defenders should defend!’ ethos. However, this generates issues with regards to rotations.
Take the left defensive midfielder for Shakhtar Donetsk and contrast it João
Cancelo at left back. They both play for possession dominant sides that often confront mid-blocks meaning the starting point for consolidated possession is frequently at the half-way line. Moreover, they play within 4-1 (2-3) build-up structures in the deep left half-space, with a winger and an advanced midfielder completing the wide triangle. Why is Taras Stepanenko a defensive midfielder for Shakhtar Donetsk and Cancelo a full back for Manchester City? They seemingly share a lot of similarities, yet I called them different positions.
This is because in deeper build-up, something which is often tangential for Shakhtar, they use their traditional left back wide and deep because they want a double pivot to better establish ball-sided passing connections against constraining pressure. Therefore, the left defensive midfielder performs a role more traditionally associated with the title whereas Cancelo usually performs the wider full back role for City before inverting higher. The defining point for when a player is called a position then seems arbitrary if deep possession is preferred in anointment compared to mid-possession. Positions as a paradigm capture a snapshot which may have been sufficient when positional rigidity was preeminent, but which is inadequate at encapsulating the multivariate expectations placed upon players in different teams.
Continuing to compare Shakhtar and Manchester City, it is typically the left back tasked with holding width, allowing the nominal winger to come inside, becoming the interiour. This is contrasted to City’s left-side dynamic where Jack Grealish starts wide to receive and inverts after receiving a complementary underlap from Bernardo Silva. Stylistically, Grealish and Manor Solomon have more commonalities, particularly with regards to what they are tasked to do in possession but have different starting points within the snapshot (Solomon can play the wide role with the full back staying narrow); however, share the positional commonality in deeper build-up of being the primary width holder and being advanced. Shakhtar’s left back moreover corresponds with Cancelo in this deeper phase despite pushing higher and staying wide later on.
This seems to continue the perception that location in deeper build-up dictates nominal position, which although arbitrary, generates consistency but I’m unsure if application of this is consistent when considering 4-2-4 deep build-up teams where the attacking midfielder and forward often operate at the same horizontal level and adapt based on ball-side requirements of the forwards, for instance. At Sassuolo, Francesco Caputo and his attacking midfield partner shared many of the same responsibilities in deep build, with divergences occurring in movements in latter phases which distinguish the two. Moreover what denotes someone’s position holistically seems unclear - almost as if, the paradigm is being reformulated alternately producing inconsistencies.
Positions then seem to me to be categories which appear to reduce the ambiguity of the intricacies in particular systems. This is sometimes necessary in wider general discussion but becomes decreasingly useful as the scope is narrowed – say within a particular club – where looking at players as dynamic spatial occupiers with various different abilities to be optimised within different phases to suite the ambition of the team is preferable.
Overall, I agree with Lillo that “you have to move and occupy a space temporarily depending on where the ball is”. This does not preclude the idea that particular players will be best suited to occupying particular spaces at particular points and thus there should be a degree of systemisation with regards to who occupies which space at which point. But it emphasises the fluidity in positioning players exhibit vertically and horizontally in relation to the teammate and the ball throughout a match. Positions may remain a useful descriptive tool, but I think that is it. Treating them with objectivity leads to entrapment within the current paradigm – leading to oversights and adjustments to attempt to make whatever is occurring fit within the model predicated on fixed positions.
The takeaway I receive at least is the importance of context rather than holding abstract ideals to suite some construct which has expired in utility. In broad settings, and as a rough descriptive tool which carries positional connotations, positions can be useful. I was worried this was a classic example of contrarianism before I reached the meta-contrarian standpoint that positions as we currently conceptualise them have utility. (Intellectual Hipsters and Meta-Contrarianism - LessWrong). However, this dynamic spatial interpretation does not preclude traditional utility – players in ‘positional play’ still somewhat adhere to traditional positional requirements. Somewhat being the crucial term with varying levels in rigidity – which is to be expected, as utility is the key aspect, hence, different teams have different requirements. Positional rigidity is something which has utility itself with regards to spatial occupation, particularly if you want to maintain a particular player in a particular region because of their skillset.
Ultimately, while I still will use positions because of the degree to which they are instantiated within my vernacular and thought, and to the degree the criteria loaded in the terms hold weight in explanation. However, it is important not to let these conceptions hold reign and rather view what a player should do in each circumstance to help the team, rather than to adhere to a conception. To see the rhinoceros for it is, rather than moulding my conception of a unicorn, because that constrains whatever potentialities may be available.
Paradoxically, I could be trying too hard to fit my conception that people try too hard to mould their present conceptions to avoid undermining the paradigm, hence avoiding undermining my own paradigm, because I like a quote.