The four quadrants of football

This blog won't be about Ian Graham's book, How to Win the Premier League. I might write about it at some point when I've finished reading it, but really y'all should just read it yourselves, it’s good.

However, reading it reminded me I haven't written anything fun in a while. Let's rectify that.

Going back through the five years of Get Goalside, there was something I forgot I'd thought about. It was a piece theorising why the best teams throughout history tend to play a possession-focused game and, equally, why weaker teams tend towards deep blocks and long balls.

Here's the core idea:

"'what makes a football team 'good'?' is easily answered (though much harder implemented): being better at controlling the ball and better at controlling the space. [...] From here, from this basic framework, you can break down football archetypes into the 2x2 quadrants that high-or-low space and ball control form."

I want to poke at this. I suspect it'll seem like kindergarten tactics to some readers, but we've all got to go through kindergarten once.

Let's try filling in this 2x2(x2) matrix (each segment needs to cover in- and out-of-possession sides of things).

High space control, high ball control
In possession: Guardiola-ball (for want of a better term)
Out of possession: aggressive, zone/option-oriented press

High space control, low ball control
In possession: [unsure - defensive possession with low-technical players?]
Out of possession: effective block, but little direct pressure on the ball carrier

Low space control, high ball control
In possession: Vertical ground passes or ball-carrying (Red Bull-ball? for want of a better term)
Out of possession: aggressive ball- and/or player-oriented press (Bielsa’s Leeds)

Low space control, low ball control
In possession: hoof ball
Out of possession: low pressure on ball-carrier and porous in the middle

Trying to fill in these archetypes, it becomes more clear what each space and ball control is being distiled into. In possession, ball control is obvious, while space control feels more about the amount of controlled passing options available. If you think about times when a team feels like it's losing control despite retaining possession, it's when they're passing around a press/block, where each pass is the only one available, often going backwards.

Out of possession, space control (intuitively) would be about denying these options. People talk about compactness, but the compactness isn't exactly an aim in itself, it's a method of achieving an aim. Compactness for compactness’ sake is silly. The ultimate aim is to prevent progression through the most dangerous area of the pitch. Blocking passing lanes and being close to potential receivers, that's out of possession space control.

'Ball control' when out of possession, meanwhile, might sound weird, but strong duel ability would count, as would applying pressure to ball carriers. Maybe tenuously, you could count the pressure on a ball-carrier as an extension of the duel, or a preamble, but it's not exactly controversial to say that pressure on the ball-carrier affects control of the ball.

Simple stuff so far. But you can start to use this as building blocks for more complex things.

You should always try and maximise your advantages relative to your opponent. If your team has elite ball control in possession, that makes your in-possession plan obvious. But if your ball control in possession is only moderate and your opponent's out of possession ball control is great, maybe you change tack. You can also play in a certain style to affect how the opponent plays in response: playing a low ball-control style in possession often lowers the ball control the opponent is able to have while in possession too.

So far, sounds like basic match planning, but these balances will flow and flux moment to moment in-game. None more so than in the ‘transition’ phases. Ultimately, these moments are not so separate to settled possesson as the popular distinction might make them seem; you could just phrase them as moments where space and/or ball control is up for grabs. (This also makes terminology around ‘manufactured’ transitions easier, when teams try and coax a press to then rush through - they’re just trying to reduce the space control of the out of possesion team).

Frameworks aren’t inherently good, but they can be a useful bedrock or scaffolding or starting point for further ideas. For example, you can start to imagine how you’d use this space-ball control matrix to build out a suite of KPIs, geared specifically towards identifying space control or ball control.

Unfortunately, there are some potential flaws in this particular framework.

On a team-wide level, 'ball control' should probably include the ability to offload the ball if under intense pressure, which requires teammate options, which is also more or less how I've defined 'space control' in possession. Diniz-ball seems like a useful test case here, if positionism discourse is willing to stoop to the level of kindergarteners. Are the interchanges between players in close spaces about achieving high space control, high ball control, or both?

Secondly, is there an inherent advantage that space control has over ball control, or vice-versa? If you have to choose between optimising one or the other, is there a clear answer which it should be? If there is, does that affect the usefulness of the matrix?

I suspect that there are more. Are there holes in this you can find? Or, in the other direction, are there advantages that I've downplayed too much or have missed completely?

Assuming that this theory tracks, that means that football is:

- a game of space control and ball control, in and out of possession…

- …where the aim is to score more and concede fewer than the opponent (read the recent 'understanding AI' piece for that differentiation)

And everything goes from there.

Unclear at this stage how it leads to Premier League titles. Maybe that’ll be in the second half of the book.