“Go ahead, you can laugh all you want
I got my philosophy
And I trust it like the ground
That’s why my philosophy
Keeps me walking when I’m falling down”

Ben Folds Five - Philosophy

My thoughts on the game have changed considerably over the years. When I was a youth player and without a significant knowledge base in relation to the game, I was in full support of a very direct style. I was also fast and played as a striker, so I was a bit biased to say the least. I would always try to watch Premiership games whenever possible and soon became a huge fan of Manchester United. They were highly successful (I remember buying The Treble on VHS to watch before my own club games) and played a flowing, fast tempo, sometimes fairly direct style.

As I continued to grow older and learn more about the game and soccer tactics, I started trying to learn as much as I could. I watched a lot of Champions’ League games because they were on TV once every two weeks or so during the season. The more I watched and learned, the more I understood that there were numerous styles and systems of play. Where before I only thought of tactics in terms of formations and couldn’t understand why a team would choose to do anything besides launch long balls to a fast striker, I now realized that it was more nuanced than that. I also came to realize that many of these variations were, at least in their beginnings, culturally significant. Being curious as to different cultures and how they operated, I naturally began to investigate further.

Through my research I continued to understand these nuances more than ever. Now I knew that South American clubs typically played a short passing, possession based style with a slower tempo and that this was partially because it’s hot south of the equator. The short passing style required less hard running, enabling the players to last a ninety minute game. Conversely, the Northern Europeans played a direct style, hitting long balls for faster players to run onto. The winters are much harsher the closer you get to the Arctic Circle, and the pitches in Northern European nations are often muddy and waterlogged at their worst (if they’re not frozen). The cold climate also necessitated a lot of hard running from the players so they could stay warm. Watching continental European clubs allowed me to see a combination of these two polar opposites; a possession based style that allows for opportunism and more direct play when necessary or desirable.

And all of that brings me to my present state of mind. If there’s one thing that hasn’t changed in my philosophy since I first started playing and coaching, it’s my commitment to attacking. I played for a college coach who was primarily concerned with the defensive phase of the game and I felt that his style really made the attack very mechanical at times. If you’re able to attack, you can constantly put the opponent under pressure. To be able to attack constantly, you also need to have the lion’s share of possession. These are the two major tenets of my philosophy.

With regards to formation, I don’t have a preferred one, provided it allows for plenty of possession and the team plays with an attacking mentality. If using one striker, he must have target man qualities(back to goal, holds up the ball so teammates can get into attacking positions), although I think teams have a more balanced attack when they use two strikers. When using two, a contrast between a target man and a quick, shifty forward is ideal. In addition to the striker(s), I like having a playmaker who sits underneath them, dictates tempo and can play final, penetrating passes to create goal scoring chances. At least one central midfielder should be good at playing more defensively, holding his position and selecting the right opportunities to get involved offensively.

As for flank midfielders, they must be fast and skilled, able to serve some good crosses, but almost more importantly, able to take defenders 1v1 off the dribble. I see many youth club teams where the flank players are little more than glorified sprinters and it really hinders a team’s attack when the outside midfielders don’t have the skill to go at defenders. These teams struggle to break down strong defenses and may lose to lesser teams who resort to bunker and counter type strategies.

With the outside backs, again, pace is always welcomed. These players will push up on the outsides to help keep a compact team shape when attacking and thus leave spaces behind them that opposing teams might try and exploit. The ability to recover quickly is then a necessity. As these players are looking to support the attack, they must have solid technical skills that allow them to possess the ball while under pressure and switch the point of attack through direct, flighted balls across the width of the pitch to the flank midfielder or outside back. The center backs don’t do much more than stay back and keep things locked down, so their most important qualities are size and strength (although I’d hope they don’t foul unnecessarily). Being good man markers on set pieces is great and their size makes them a danger on attacking set pieces. After that, I don’t know as much about goalkeeping as I’d like. A keeper who never lets in a goal would always be welcome…but in all seriousness I place the most emphasis on shot stopping. If a keeper can stop shots, then he usually performs well enough in my opinion. Good distribution skills are a necessity though, as this style is predicated upon maintaining possession. Eighty yard punts aren’t the way to keep the ball. Throws and rolls out to the defenders or flank midfielders, on the other hand, are good ways to keep possession.

Finally, there are two teams that I currently enjoy watching simply for the way in which they play the game. Arsenal, under Arsene Wenger, is the first. I love how Arsenal have managed to play an attractive style in the super fast Premiership. Wenger has done a great job both in selecting personnel and in implementing the tactics Arsenal use. You see plenty of attacking runs from the outside backs, the wingers frequently cut inside to take on defenders and you have a great playmaker in Cesc Fabregas. They do occasionally play with my preferred two striker setup, although I like Emmanuel Adebayor and similar players who can act as target men while creating their own opportunities in and around the box. And while Arsenal may play some nice possession football, that lightning fast counter attack is killer.

As for that other team, it’s none other than the national team of Argentina. I have to admit that my favorite player in the world is Juan Roman Riquelme. The fact that Argentina’s 2006 World Cup team was built to his strengths certainly explains part of my fondness. That and the number twenty-six. Twenty-six, you say? Why 26? Because that was the number of consecutive passes they completed before Esteban Cambiasso scored against Serbia and Montenegro in the aforementioned World Cup. That’s the epitome of a possession style offense. The technical quality of the entire team is outstanding. But, Riquelme is the fulcrum and playmaker that the entire team hinges upon. While that is a bit of a weakness if he’s underperforming, it also gives him the freedom to play those penetrating passes and control the tempo. I don’t think there’s another player in the world that can dictate tempo (which, under his watch, can be exceedingly slow) or play that final pass as well as Riquelme. They also play with two strikers and during the 2006 World Cup utilized the traditional target man (Hernan Crespo) paired with the speedy, shifty forward (Javier Saviola) that I find so effective. Maybe the fact that they play so unlike most other teams is why I like them.

I think my appreciation for the finer points of the game has come a long way since I first started watching games as a twelve year old. Seeing as I went from Northern European long ball to South American slow possession ball, it’s hard to tell where I’ll eventually end up. I hope this provides insight into my thought processes and biases while you read The Upper Ninety.