Rethinking Centre Forwards
The Age of Strikers is over. The time of interchangeable false 9 has come...
When Phil Foden and Bernando Silva in particular play out front, they can receive dynamically at all angles and support across the range of the pitch, oftentimes increasing the speed and fluidity of a transition despite frequently having to receive with somewhat backwards momentum due to the nature of an advanced withdrawn role. They embody the universality required of the central attacker in Pep Guardiola’s Manchester City – more than any other player, the ‘centre forward’ must be proficient in all zones of attack because of the emphasis placed on overloading the ball side which requires them to support in whatever region the ball requires support, and thus move into the half and wide spaces of both flanks with frequency. Touchline wingers, who still have many of the skills associated with Bernardo and Foden can be more limited and still be successful a la Jack Grealish and Riyad Mahrez in this position, primarily because of their comfortable reception and capacity to hold up possession; however their capacity to attain the dynamic superiority while receiving back-to-goal is potentially reduced comparatively because they lack the agility of Bernando or Foden to sharply turn away from opposing marker in practically any circumstance.
Part of attaining the dynamic superiority links beyond reception alone, and rather incorporates its continuation through sharp movements when discussing the quick, tight interplay often associated with Manchester City. The capacity to spontaneously adapt rather than being rigid and defined by a particular skill is crucial because it allows for continued advancement in suboptimal circumstances, or rather redefines the meaning of suboptimal circumstances. Particularly in transitional circumstances from deep build-up, delay is necessary through dribbling to allow the supporting midfielders to advance and exploit the space left in behind through tight marking via prolonged up-back throughs. With more traditional centre forward profiles there is a greater degree of staticity in how this achieved which makes play more predictable as their hold-up is oriented around controlling currently occupied space rather than moving into new space facilitating a greater degree of positional interchange. Nevertheless, the difference is often not that significant in the practice of deep transitions which are manufactured via deep build-up because there is typically a more structured defence being faced, and more transparent in more spontaneous circumstances where adaptability facilitated by the greater potential for freedom of movement becomes pertinent.
Tangentially, this is partially why I think Romelu Lukaku is better suited in a front two. His range of movement is limited to a greater extent to the areas where he thrives in build-up – primarily the right half-space and then moving inwards/outwards with momentum after reception. From here a predictable course of action can be established as he looks to pin himself upon the opponent’s wide centre back and have supporting runners either side which act as backwards passing options or as a shield for rotations as he enters their vacated space to execute a switch on his stronger left foot. Lukaku thrives in a front two because he lacks the adaptable universality of Foden or Bernardo. Playing as a lone striker requires a greater degree of adaptability comparatively because you are required to support the ball-side actively on rather than just one side. Interestingly, one of the games Jack Grealish played central this season for City was against Liverpool where there was a clear leftward orientation to exploit Foden on James Milner – tactics in this instance caused a reduced importance of horizontal fluidity.
This type of universal skillset typically requires a smaller frame more suited to quick, agile movements and the capacity to wriggle away from markers and out of tight spaces contrasted to the archetypal centre forward where size, to hold-off defenders is desired. An interesting contrast between the two types of back to goal play I am discussing can be seen from these two 4-2-4 goal kick routines from Shakhtar Donetsk: Shakhtar 4-2-4 variation
In the first example Pedrinho drops deep and looks to quickly move the ball on – exemplifying abstractly in this instance, quick interplay to bypass opposition pressure, in this example through finding the free man (Dodô) down the underloaded right flank.
The second example includes Lassina Traoré holding up possession drawing a foul rather than moving it quickly or into space to switch. He here demonstrates the issue with dichotomising two profiles of hold-up with his good footwork; however, the varying ambitions through using the two skillsets can be seen, with Pedrinho dropping and using the dynamic superiority to simultaneously draw pressure and evade his marker, whilst Traoré embraces a tight marking duel.
This example is transitional and an example of where two forwards can drift into their preferred half-space, and in instances like this I think both styles of hold-up are useful therefore, and both profiles are useful in the superiorities they create (dynamic facilitated by qualitative – Pedrinho; instant qualitative – Traoré).
Nevertheless, I think it is visible that Traoré’s skillset here is less transferable to midfield and therefore less fluid. And it is the element of interchangeability that I want to emphasise when discussing universality. When coming up against man-oriented opposition like this, the greater potential for fluid interchanges where very little is directly sacrificed through the rotation allows the transition to occur quickly as all players are suited at escaping the compactness formed by the opposition through tight dribbling and interplay. Even here, the greater speed at which Pedrinho can react compared to Traoré’s more predetermined movements is crucial because the flexibility presented by his greater reactivity allows more spontaneous solutions. In deeper build-up I think this can be compensated for through automatising and using the predictability of Traoré’s hold-up in this example to create patterns where rigidity creates fluid transitions. Therefore, my endorsement of Pedrinho style forwards is not writing off more classical hold-up play, but rather attempting to situate its advantages within a context of two striker systems – which themselves are fluid as Shakhtar for example use a 4-2-4 deeper build-up shape with a 4-1-5 in more advanced regions.
I am currently unsure whether this advantage is comparative in deeper build-up contrasted to the dynamic superiority style, whilst I am sure the greater rigidity of the profiles associated with hold-up play (rigidity in the sense of fluid movements in addition to positional rigidity) does negatively contribute in tighter spaces associated with regions higher-up the pitch because they are less capable of supporting and participating in positional rotations but rather require play to happen off of them. They are a separate entity integrated within a rotation rather than integrated and interchangeable within any given attacking rotation. The principle of universality being espoused here wants all central attackers to be interchangeable to optimise attacking of space – agility, acceleration, flexibility of ball reception, close control, and other tight movement oriented are paramount.
The manifestation of this ideal for me occurred on October 19, 2021, with Phil Foden’s performance against Club Brugge where the best description of role I can conjure would be a ball-seeking free man where he acted as constant +1 to support the ball carrier and either alleviate pressure or create space for runners. The Brugge set-up seemed to be an approach of ‘passing on’ vertically between the central defender and midfielder; however, coordination was often lacking due to the subtly of his dropping which allowed him free reception and therefore full pitch access whilst transitioning after receiving under little to no pressure which could be capitalised upon via the emphasised quick, fluid movements (in addition to City’s willingness to go backwards which meant defensive positional reconfiguration was frequent). The approach was moreover complicated by the midfielders’ responsibilities in higher areas which meant as Foden accessed deeper zones, the midfielder was preoccupied whilst the defender had reached his zonal limits, equalling optimal reception conditions, as the defender recovered postionally granting large spaces in between the lines. It is difficult to think of a clearer example of the achievement of positional superiority, which typically are best exploited with interiores qualities. Oftentimes the role just required him to drop, receive and quickly move the ball to the flank where an isolated Grealish or Mahrez would be exposed to a duel receiving the ball with diagonality and forward momentum which allowed them to carry the ball directly in their stride. When tracked, the response should be more automatised through up-back through movements to expose the space, or if the player is capable, as Foden, Bernando and Pedrinho frequently are of directly turning to expose the space. The worst-case scenario was frequently a wall-pass to reconsolidate.
In this reception below, I counted 5 actions of scanning prior to reception to gain awareness of 3’s positioning before receiving to ascertain knowledge of where he can receive, how to receive and what to do afterwards. And the actions encapsulate the fundamental message of reconceptualising hold-up play by using space behind markers exploitable via the dynamic superiority harnessed by dynamic, fluid skill sets capable of maximising the small advantages. Through continuing the transition and keeping the ball moving into space, evasion of a marker is possible which allows the attack to be redirected into attacking potential underloaded space.
1) Find accessible space to move into.
2) Keep constant awareness to update knowledge of surroundings.
3) Receive and seek either a pass for an up-back through or move into the (typically) backwards space to maintain the dynamic superiority.
4) Use the superiority to access a player in space.
Notable was Foden’s incessant asking for the ball to feet, firstly because he was so frequently in space and additionally because of his comfortability receiving wherever space was accessible – and this comfortability is the crucial component because it is what facilitates the freedom of his role to act as a possession +1. This is where the advantage of the dynamic skillset is pertinent contrasted to the static pinning - rather than wait on service to build from, this type of player is simultaneously the receiver and creator.
The ball seeking nature of his play to constantly stay ahead of his marker with space to turn into, to then play a progressive action was encapsulated by his assist to João Cancelo. Rather than engage physically to gain momentum for progressive actions, use superior timing and movement to stay ahead of the marker to produce often better results because of the increased speed of actions by necessity of being required to stay ahead continuing the fluidity of a transition or catalysing it.
After recovering a penetrative run (where the transition was initially sparked by his dropping deep and spreading play to Grealish out wide, exploiting poor spatial coverage of Brugge generated by his centrality with time and space) Foden gradually moves backwards to support build-up after the transition and subsequently counterpress produced congestion.
Picture: Switching of responsibilities in action. Dynamic superiority further fostered by the confusion generated in the inertia period of relinquishment and recognition.
Foden receives almost parallel to Ruben Dias, moves centrally into the available space, and executes the through ball.
The effects of this type of player against a compact block which concedes first line coverage to a greater extent are less pronounced because opposition compactness acts to crowd out interplay, with the reduced space available fostering greater rigidity because the flow of the game is less dynamic. Foden’s reduced effectiveness against Chelsea for example. Circling back to the initial arguments, it is in these situations of rigidity where the skill set of a more traditional centre forward could be useful - Lassina Traoré before getting injured at Shakhtar for example. The argument supporting the more traditional skillset I imagine goes as follows:
The oppositions passivity produces consolidation which produces predictable circumstances to use a bigger forward to build off. There is less space to operate in compared to deeper build-up which reduces the interchangeable utility of both styles as holding off defenders uses them as a platform and draws play deeper, opening avenues further up for territorial progression and potential up-back throughs whereas dynamic superiorities require space to move into which is often impossible due to the compactness in between the 2nd and 3rd lines. When play has reached the final third, the benefits of having a skill set which usually produces a greater in box threat is more conducive to scoring goals and offers a more diversified threat for the opponent to defend rather than against half-space vertical passes or wide runs into drilled crosses/cut backs.
However, when the ball is moved out wide, as often occurs against such teams, space becomes increasingly constrained which requires both mechanisms to increase space such as underlaps through driving the defence deeper and potentially wider, in addition to players who can exploit the split seconds of opposition confusion. The dynamic profile outlined that can capably play in attacking midfield and in wide areas if need be, executes this better typically. The dynamic burst to underlap, the 1v1 skillset required upon reception to threat potential breaks in addition to a backwards pass and as noted, to exploit space left centrally to adapt around this potential underlapping threat.
Moreover, on ball-sided overloads, teammates wide countermovement’s (they go forward, the centre forward goes backwards) can moreover act to generate conditions more similar to those seen against Club Brugge.
Here Grealish runs into the channel defended by César Azpilicueta and Andreas Christensen, occupying both defenders and demonstrating why central tracking is not always possible in passive conditions as the time and space allotted to the centre back in possession makes penetrative long passes a threat, requiring the potential to drop to track runners à la Christensen. Simultaneously Kevin De Bruyne runs between Reece James and Azpilicueta to create a 3v2 pinning effect allowing Foden greater freedom.
Foden uses this small window to subtly drift out of Chelsea’s compactness to receive and quickly play it backwards to Rodri, previously inaccessible which facilitates a quick transition to the underloaded side through quick passing where Chelsea are attempting to converge compared to the slower route of working around which would have allowed Chelsea to shuttle across and maintain solidity.
In summation, I think the possession +1 model of a striker will become increasingly common as using dynamic superiorities can generate similar advantages to traditional hold-up in acting as a wall to play against whilst fostering a more fluid set-up which more quickly exploits space. Furthermore, the additional positional freedom generates greater flexibility around the positioning of the ball, which is the crucial reference point for this type of forward. This consistent extra support for the ball helps consolidate control whilst discombobulating more active and man-oriented opposition defensive set-ups, creating space for rotations.
In time, I will look to come back to this topic and reassess - nothing is definitive, nor should adaption be forced; however, at the very least, I have a tactical preference for attacking midfielder/winger profile forwards. I look forward to having discussions about this topic, as for something so big, I feel my perspective is still a little too surface level.