Tactical Porn: Is it warping our expectations of reality?

Usually when I write an article, I claim to have, or at least suggest some answers. In this one, I am simply asking a question. I'm not sure where the line is drawn.

Many human problems can come down to one simple concept; gratification delay. Porn is quick, easy, and on demand. It doesn't have to be worked for, and the viewer can see pretty much whatever they like.

The Rules of the Internet have been around since before the dawn of time. 95% of internet users won't understand 90% of the references within this list above. Anyway. Without testing the theory of Rule 34, one can reasonably assume that there is a considerable amount of truth behind it. Like my points that I continuously make about modern music, you don't have to earn it, deserve it, or be good at it. It can be made or found instantly.

Learn about gratification delay here.

I'm not here for a moral debate about porn. I'm merely using it as a parallel to illustrate my points. Most of the articles or research about porn and the effects come from very biased points of view, usually from people with an axe to grind.

Now. The experiment to explain gratification delay is a scenario involving children and food. Children are offered one cookie, which they can consume instantly. Or, they can wait while the researcher goes out to complete an errand, and be able to consume two cookies. It's one positive now versus two positives later. It's why we stay up late watching trash TV rather than getting a good night's sleep. As a species, our biggest setbacks come from valuing the now rather than the later. Like I have mentioned in other articles, it comes as a clash between two well-known mantras of life that are juxtaposed; "you only live once" versus "great things come to those who wait". "Live for today" versus "you get the chicken by hatching the egg, not by smashing it." To me, "you only live once" means to be wise and consider the future when choosing your actions, as a mistake could mean you never reach the future. It certainly doesn't mean snapbacks and selfies #YOLO.

Love a bit of that gegenpressing.

In football, we see that many top flight managers barely have the paint in the letters of their name dry on the door before they are replaced. Fans and directors demand instant success. A team like Southampton, who were nearly ruined by their owners, and went down two divisions, made a meteoric rise back to the Premier League. Two successive promotions, and creating a wave of young talent that now heavily represents the England team. Large sponsorship deals, cup finals, and European runs. They even reached their highest ever Premier League finish of 5th the year before last. Still, many fans were saying then manager, Ronald Koeman was boring and needed to be replaced. That the club wasn't ambitious enough because they kept selling their best talent at inflated prices. Southampton, on the brink of extinction, is not a distant memory. They have been back in the Premier League for about six seasons. And even if the club were able to afford hundreds of millions on star signings, that works infrequently. Chelsea and Man City are consistently bankrolled by hundreds of millions each season. There's no way clubs like Southampton can afford that, yet the clubs fans moan. There really is no pleasing some people.

I would suggest, as I frequently do, that many fans are deluded, angry, disappointed with life, and link their feelings of self-efficacy with the success of their football team. It's a dangerous game to play; to put your faith into the results of something you have no control of. Listen to any football radio call-in, and the grumpiest fans are often the ones of the most successful teams, like they've been spoilt. Nobody has sympathy for Manchester United or Arsenal fans complaining about finishing outside the top four. Nobody.

Ultimately, football is a results business, and the fans, as long term investors, have a lot of sway. It's not necessarily the season ticket holder, thirty years man and boy, but the ability to sell shirts in the Middle East, East Asia, and North America. This means that many clubs, on the football side of things, view it as a means to an end. Win trophies to sell shirts. And that produces short-termism. We're scared of failing, of falling behind, that we neglect the future. They are spinning plates, and when one falls, it can be catastrophic.

Fancy some juego de posicion constellations?

The short term thinking plagues the English game. We have changed it at the lower levels, and we're seeing some great success with the England youth teams internationally. Sadly, many of us succumb to the unfortunate reality that most of the young England stars will fail to manifest, and this success won't be replicated at senior level. We'd love it to happen, but it probably won't. Premier League teams will always buy a mediocre, but dependable foreign player, as opposed to a nineteen year old with potential, but who needs a bit of work. Between eighteen and twenty-two, Dutch, German, French, Spanish, Belgian, and Portuguese players, play four times as many games as our boys do. This summer transfer window has seen a few of our young English talent go abroad in search of game time. Something I have been suggesting for years.

At the top, the managers don't have the time or patience to build a team and develop players. Like our politicians, their primary concern is to get re-elected, not necessarily the well-being or development of the people in their care. Premier League managers need to keep their job. They won't be prepared to give a game to a seventeen year old. This means a lot of the managers play functional football. Any kind of intricate game model comes from abroad, and is usually brought into England to be implemented immediately. Foreign managers like Pep, Klopp, Conte, and Mourinho might be given six months or a season to implement their game model, but if they're not running away with the league and cup double in their second season, they run the risk of losing their job.

English coaches, and therefore English teams, aren't on the crest of the wave of tactical evolution. We're always a few years behind. Always catching up or responding, never leading the way. This naturally affects our players. Not all English coaches and players are tactically dim. That's an unfair generalisation, but it does ring true for a majority. I have had advanced tactical discussions with armchair fans in other countries. In England, the armchair fan is only concerned with football gossip.

"That Rooney's not very good, is he."
"He's leading goalscorer for club and country."
"But he's ugly, stupid, and comes across as arrogant. And he likes grannies!"

Fair enough.

The reason for this article came from a dilemma that was being discussed a few months back. Working as the development coach, at the end of training, the first team manager, myself, and a few others with inactive social lives, would then spend a long time dissecting the session, the game, and the interactions. We're not obsessed. Obsessed makes it seem like it's a hobby. We need a stronger word. One night he was talking about how his players just didn't get, what seemed to us, like a simple concept. These are decent players playing in tier three of the female game in England. I could get it, he could get it, why couldn't his players? Some of them simply couldn't conceptualise it. Their brains lacked the capacity to understand it. Others could see what was being asked of them, but didn't value it.

They were being asked to press the ball in a way which is unfamiliar within English football. It's quite popular on the continent, particularly in Spain. We were reeling off teams and coaches that had used it, and how it was a good system. From my conversations with the players, I had never got the sense that too many were into watching football. A few were. Most just loved playing it, and were good at it. They hardly even watched Match of the Day, let alone had any intrigue towards Borussia Dortmund v RB Leipzig or Sevilla v Atletico Madrid. And this is where we were drawing our inspiration from. We're hooked on this stuff. As more than obsessed coaches, we watch multiple games on television per week. When there's no games, we watch recordings, highlights, and YouTube. We are looking to enhance and expand our knowledge of football. In those hours of games, we may pick up something, maybe even one thing, that brings us closer to helping our team and players achieve success.

This is where the question then entered my head. At what level should we pitch it? Are we wasting our time teaching old dogs new tricks? Should we be trying to enhance their knowledge and understanding of the game? Should we just be working with what we've got?

Love watching two Spaniards go at it.

We both decided that under no circumstances were we ever to be okay with simply "settling" for simple, direct, English 4-4-2. It was alright for Leicester City though. Is that snobbery? Is that arrogance? A lot of it depends on the role. As development coach, I worked with mainly teenagers. They were still a lot more malleable and receptive to change. They're still ten years or so from the finished article. In the first team, the players are a bit older, though we did have a fairly young squad. The players can still learn, improve, and adapt at their age, but the club might not be so kind to afford such time and space to grow. If the results aren't coming, it won't matter that their passing is looking crisp and fluid. The players, the fans, the board want to win now. They don't want to wait for next season.

As I can see it, there are two main schools of thought; make the best with what you have, and develop your players to become better footballers. I'm not saying that both can't be done together, just that one is always a priority over the other. With young footballers, we're not looking to win today as much as we're looking to win the game in fifteen or twenty years. A win at U9 level means nothing if it doesn't translate to a win when the player is in their twenties. And as coaches, it is our job to take them from where they are, and transport them to a higher level of football ability and understanding. We do that by challenging, pushing, extending. We throw at them things that are difficult. We make them do things that they can't yet do. They struggle at first. We can't always do that in a first team environment. Our main concern is getting the job done at the weekend. If we're 3-0 up with ten minutes to go, we might give the kid some minutes. We're going to play in the way that is best for us and for the team. It doesn't matter who is left out.

What I think a lot of the friction comes from is us, as coaches, viewing these games as spectators, and witnessing the gegenpressing, or the juego de posicion, and wanting to replicate it with our teams, when in reality, that might not be what they want, nor may it be the best thing for them. Much like watching porn and then wanting to replicate what has been seen with a valued and consenting adult. The thing you're seeing is not everyone's cup of tea. What is being viewed is being performed by highly trained professionals that dedicate a lot of time and effort to being able to perform that way. Is it selfish of me to want to play like Barcelona with a team more suited to playing like Stoke? Is it devaluing them? Making them feel unappreciated? Does it leave them wondering if I think about other teams when I'm with them?

Or is it ambitious?

If you want better and can achieve better, go and pursue better. If you're in a situation where you're locked in, perhaps you have to do the best with what you've got. Winning a trophy with a 4-4-2 is still a trophy won. If you don't want to play direct football, you don't have to, but if your team doesn't or can't effectively play the way you want to play, you need to find a new team or be happy with what you've got.

We know this one. As players become older, the emphasis moves away from the development of the player to the success of the team. As their age increases, the amount of time and effort the coach will place on their development will reduce Therefore, somewhere along that line blue line is where we move from challenging and extending the individual, making the transition into making the best with what we've got. A lot of the when and where will depend on the demands of the region and the philosophy of the club.

Let's look to refine the real question underneath all this. It pertains to competitive, first team environments. When you are in charge of a group of players, you owe it to them to make them better. By the time you leave, they should be richer for your time there. Their technique and understanding will have improved. Yet this can't always be done with every player, and a one-size fits all approach inevitably leaves some neglected. Naturally, if you come in mid-season to a club in trouble, your job is to steady the ship. There's no time to prepare and to extend. Results are needed immediately. On the other hand, coming into a safe club midway into the season can be like an extended pre-season. There's no pressure to perform just yet, and the coach won't be judged until the following year. That allows time for the development of a game model.

When creating and implementing a game model with a group of players, adults competing in a first team environment, what needs to be considered before deciding upon the strategy? It's not an exact science - it rarely is in football.

• The ability of the players at your disposal.
• The ability of the players in the wider context of the competition.
• The tactical understanding of the players.
• The effectiveness of those tactics within the wider context of the competition.
• The resources available to you; coaching staff, facilities, equipment etc. to help prepare the team tactically.
• The patience and support of the stakeholders.

Most players are concerned with two things when presented with a new way of playing; can I do it? And will it win us games? If the third question of "is it hard work?" is asked, then remove such lazy players from your team. It doesn't matter what system you play, they're not prepared to fight alongside the team in the trenches.

Cover me in your shadow.

And remember to do right by them. What is best for your players? Adapting principles of juego de posicion to enhance the understanding of your youth team can be a good thing to do. Forcing a group of tanks to play intricate football is probably more for the ego of the coaches than it is for the benefit of the players. Still, I stand by what I said. I'm not happy to just play direct, simple, football. I want to improve and to experiment, and I want to be in environments that allow me to achieve success with creativity, rather than forcing it with function. Probably best I stick with development players.

What do you think?