The Way Forward | To Develop Like Barca or Atletico?

In terms of youth development, what is the better approach - to play like Barca or play like Atletico?

After last weeks encounter between Atletico Madrid and Barcelona in the Champions League it understandably generated a good debate, notably in terms of 'style'. In watching Atleti and Barca you see two very good teams, yet teams who play very different styles of football. It made me think about what we do with young footballers, how we coach them, the style of football we 'push' on to our players and the expectations we have for them. 

If we look at the history of football there has been this constant dichotomy between the purists and the pragmatists. There have been coaches who wish to play on the front foot and dominate the ball, and those willing to soak up the pressure, defend mightily and look to exploit on the counter attack. It has led to some fascinating battles and encounters with both sides coming out victorious along the way. 

We’ve seen the rise of Ajax’s totalfootball, winning European Cups, as well as Holland winning the hearts of the world in the 1974 World Cup. Their philosophy and style has become part of Holland’s make-up and development ideas for decades. It has also spread across Europe, most notably at Barcelona, laying down a blueprint for Barcelona and Spanish football to dominate football this past decade. 

Along the decades there have been the antagonists to this style, unsurprisingly those of Italian heritage. Coaches like Helenio Herrera at Inter and his Catenaccio formation and tactic. Fabio Capello overcame Cruyff’s Dream Team in 1994 in devastating fashion in the 94 European Cup final. And the 21^st century has seen the rise of Jose Mourinho, the tactician whose sides play a defensive transition based game. His battle with Pep Guardiola in Spain became one of the greatest confrontations in the history of the game, notably for their personalities, the size of the respective clubs and of course the differences in terms of style. 

The new king of defence 

Mourinho has become synonymous as the anti-thesis of ‘total football’. Yet Simeone is taking on that mantel now. Since taking over Atletico in 2011 he has transformed the culture and mentality of the club as a whole, very much in his image. And importantly he has brought success, being able to compete with La Liga’s top two and done so building his team on being extremely strong defensively, very well organised, focused and disciplined in their approach. Using a 4-4-2 (yet often without 'classic' wingers – allowing for more compactness and numbers centrally) Simeone has been fantastic for Atletico, and for Spanish and European football. 

Like Mourinho he has taken on the ‘underdog’ mentality and embraced it, with his players buying in to the needs to be defensively strong, tactically focused and organised, and extremely, extremely hard working. And it’s worked magnificently. They’ve sold players for big money and continually replaced without hardly any suffering (in fact they have progressed since 2011). 

Atletico are the best defensive side in European football at this time. Followed secondly (based on this year, 2016) by Leicester. Yes Leicester City. They follow the same kind of tactical methods of Atleti, a deep compact 4-4-2 denying space centrally and behind, incredibly organised and disciplined and very hard working looking at transitioning quickly with long direct balls and being very strong on set pieces. It’s the (defensive) formula for success. Leicester look set to win the Premier League and Atletico now are tied with Barca at the top of La Liga. 

The Italian connection should not be forgotten here, Ranieri of course is Italian and knows the Italian methods and tactics well. Simeone spent six seasons in Serie A with Inter Milan and Lazio in the late 90’s early 2000’s. And Mourinho’s time at Inter Milan as coach (2008-2010) he admits was the toughest challenge of his managerial career because of the tactical detail and challenges Italian football provided him. Look across the history of the game and some of the best coaches have come out or experienced Italian football. 

Sacchi tried to change the mentality and culture of Italian football but still understood and appreciated the nuances’ of the league. Even Pep Guardiola experienced Italian football as a player in order to gain a greater insight into the defensive tactics and mentality of Italian football. And the Italian Roberto Di Matteo embraced the defensive mentality to lead Chelsea to a surprise Champions League success in 2012. It is clear that in terms of 'master defending', Italian football has been the great educator and producer of great coaches, which has led to successful teams. 

When comparing Barca and Atleti we see two different ways to play the game. Barca want to play a possession based game, they want to dominate the ball and build the play. They require a lot of players high up the pitch and around the ball to allow for this style to work, and ultimately create chances and control games. Atleti play a more transition based game and look to benefit from set piece chances. 

Now one could argue that Barcleona’s style has been overcome at times by strong defensive sides who use deep blocks and seek to counter; Inter in 2010, Chelsea in 2012 and Atleti in 2013 and 2016. However ultimately Barca have thrived in European football this past decade. Four Champions League successes says it all. As well as Spain winning the Euro’s in 2008 and 2012 and World Cup in 2010. It’s fair to say possession football of the type Barca/Spain play has been a recipe for success more than failure. 

Now don’t think I mean they don’t defend, their success has often been when they’ve been at their sharpest and most focused and press high to regain the ball and prevent counter attacks. But their defending is much on the front foot. The teams of Mourinho and Simeone are much more about deep block defending, of making play predictable and allowing the opposition the ball, while denying them the ability to get into goal scoring areas. 

Johann Cruyff spoke about Chelsea's success in 2012, believing it was better to not have the trophy than win it the way Chelsea did. "Only Chelsea fans will be happy with this, for the rest, nobody can be happy with the outcome" Cruyff said to De Telegraph  "What especially bothers me is that a football team can forget everything and still win. I'd choose to take the steps we take at Ajax, towards the football that we all want to see," Cruyff stated.

Now this interesting and shows the arrogance of Cruyff and those who prophesise about “totalfootball” and playing the game the “right way”.  The thing is, there is no “right way”, for some there is an ideal of how to play, yet football is open for interpretation. In the senior game, there is only one thing that really matters, the result. The means in how you get there is not recorded in the history books, you either win or lose. 

However, there's no doubt that when you take a club like Barcelona this past decade, it is clear that their consistent success can be attributed to their style of football. Yes defensive football has proven capable of bringing success, yet is it consistent? And this brings me on to youth development and ponder the question about what is best for youth footballers? To play like Barca or Atletico? 

What is the best way to develop young players?

Is there a right way to play when developing young players? Cruyff doesn’t give much credit to those sides who defend their way to success, he wants sides to take the initiative and want the ball, to take responsibility and entertain in their football. I think many youth coaches would agree with this and seek to develop this with their teams. It is evident watching England and English players that there has a cultural shift.

For the past decade English football has been in a state of gradual revolution. It hasn’t been drastic or sudden but the methods and ideas at youth level in terms of coaching and youth development has been changing. Since the FA gave up their control of running elite youth development the professional clubs have been given the role of developing their programmes for young players. 

It is clear that English football has moved away (gradually) from direct football, the use of 4-4-2’s and the need for giants over skilful footballers. If we look at these three aspects we see that English coaches have sought to get the ball down more and actually look to play, as opposed to the Charles Hughes method of getting it up to the big man quickly and looking for knock downs. No doubt the game has certainly become more aesthetic. However, has it gone too far? 

Every Academy side now pretty much plays a form of football akin to Barcelona; centre backs split and the team seeks to play out through the thirds. This is pretty common across all teams. Yet is this is a problem? Well, there are some sides who struggle to play out yet are forced to and either end up conceding many goals from their lack of understanding/technical quality, or struggle to get the ball into their forwards and actually create anything. There are some coaches I know who don’t like teams playing out for this reason; it’s risky in terms of losing the ball and it doesn’t allow for the creation of enough chances. Therefore they prefer the long goal kick or the clipped channel ball from the centre backs or full backs. 

The issue with both approaches appears to be balance and compromise. There is not just one way to play football, although some will tell you there is. The ability to vary your play, offer the short passing game and ‘longer’ pass whether across the pitch or behind the opposition gives the players the choice and allows for decision making. Yet this sense that you play one way or the other is creating problems for both sides. 

The Barca aficionados tend to play possession yet without purpose and sometimes get in to the '2 touch' mentality, which sometimes takes away players freedom and expression. It becomes a robotic passing team rather than a team which allows for players individuality to shine. And it often struggles to penetrate the opposition, meaning a lack of chances and the limited development for forwards - for instance a Jamie Vardy type player doesn't get to excel in this type of style. Also by asking players to play 10-20 yard passes there is a worry that players actually don't work on their technique of playing longer passes, which is a worry. 

Take Everton. After watching them last night and throughout Martinez's time as the clubs coach it is evident that they play this form of 'Academy' football in which they seek to play out from the back, circulate the ball, seek to dominate possession and yet as evidenced last night against their rivals Liverpool, don't offer enough penetration in their play. Their football is predictable, offering very little variety and it is costing Everton results and ultimately Martinez his job. We will touch on the defending aspect of this later.

The same can be seen at United under Louis van Gaal who appears similar in his approach to play this form of 'boring' football in which the team spends a lot of time with the ball and yet doesn't offer enough penetration or quality in the final third. It all seems very pedestrian and like Martinez, looks set to lead to van Gaal's early exit from Old Trafford. Possession isn't a problem, but it needs to be purposeful, the football needs to be entertaining, to create chances and score goals. 

Now when we consider the direct style of play, it is often seen as 'ugly' and 'old fashioned', particularly for many of today's young coaches. Those who have grown up watching a better form of football both in England and particularly Europe with the increased coverage of games, view direct football as lumping the ball forward and battling for the ball. Now this style looks to get the ball forward quickly and aims to get in to the final third and up to the forwards often. And it works, sometimes. Especially if you have a forward who is strong and powerful, or quick to get in behind. It also has its benefit that a lot of modern defenders aren't used to playing against this type of football, so you see players exposed quite badly when knowing how to deal with high balls. A team like Arsenal have been guilty of this issue for the past decade when confronted by direct, aggressive sides. 

And yet, Arsenal continue to find themselves in the top four of the Premier League each season. Even Chelsea played a more possession based game last year when they went on to win the title. Yes the Allardyce, Pulis and recently Bilic's tactic of getting the ball 'in to the big man' has its benefits and can win games. But in terms of youth development there is a sense that in order to produce players who can play at the top level, they need to have the skills required to play at that level, and a more possession based game, which is purposeful and seeks to get the ball forwards with quality seems the best way to go. 

An obsession with possession and a neglect of defending?

Now one cannot forget that football involves moments with the ball, without the ball and transition. It is becoming a big issue in youth football. It appears to me that we are seeing a generation of players who seem to lack the basic understanding of defending, or lack the willingness to defend. This is a big problem. 

Those coaches who seek to replicate Barcelona and their style of football; I'm talking about coaches like Roberto Martinez, Andre Villas-Boas and Arsene Wenger have all proven to obsess about what Barca do with the ball, and forget that Barca’s success was as much about their defensive capabilities as what they did with the ball. 

Barca's style was based on their ability with the ball yes, but it was also their intensity and intelligence when they lost it and how hard they pressed to win it back and prevent counter attacks. I don't see this with sides like Everton, Chelsea under AVB and Arsenal. They seem to neglect or forget about the importance of being defensively great. Of the importance of preventing and stopping transitions. Football is not just about what you do with the ball!

These great defending sides of the past, and now sides like Atletico and Leicester have built their success by being organised, disciplined and committed to defending. My worry is that the pursuit of the technical player, of focusing and working on at what players do with the ball, without any real regard for defending, and proper defending, and not just the “press, press, press”  you hear from coaches, where players just running about like headless chickens, is producing some very ‘nice’ footballers, yet players with the skills to succeed in the game? 

Just look at Arsenal. Wenger inherited a team who knew how to defend, had a back five (4 + the GK) who were an excellent defence. Arsenal's success in the late 90's and early 2000's was built on defensive strength and excellence. As Wenger started to change Arsenal's style and recruitment the side started to look worse defensively, started to think only of when they had the ball, and haven't been able to compete with the elite of England or Europe since. You just cannot ignore the importance of great defending. 

England has this problem. When I look at some players who have come through in recent years I see players who look good with the ball, who have good technical talent, yet who don’t want to do what is necessary for what the game requires. And that is work hard for the team defensively. So why are these players coming through and getting pro contracts? Is technical talent more important than ‘team discipline’? Are we more obsessed with producing a 'Barca type' player (meaning technically excellent) and neglecting players who can offer attributes which aid a team? England are producing some excellent attacking midfielders, some brilliant forwards and good wingers, yet defenders? Or defensive midfielders? It seems this reflects our development programmes. And that's a concern. 

Coaches should not be ignoring the importance of defending. Players should be capable of defening 1v1, 2v1, 2v2, know how to defend as a unit and as a whole team. They need to have the mentality to defend also. Therefore coaches of young players cannot ignore or neglect defending. Players should be able to tackle and head the ball effectively, not being able to do these things is a negative on their development and it is clear that many young players seem to lack these valuable skills. 

So the questions is, should we be looking more at developing teams and players who can play like Atletico and Leics rather than Barca or Bayern? 

The functional over expansive - accepting mediocrity

It’s an interesting question when we consider English football. What has been the hallmarks of our cultural approach to football? Aspects like aggression, strength, physicality, an ‘up and at ‘em’ style. This is ingrained in our approach and imbedded in the minds and hearts of many fans. It is not easy to change. But should it be completely ignored? Have a look at what Eddie Jones has done with English Rubgy since taking over and you see that it's a foreign coach who has embraced what English culture is about and has succeeded on the back of it. 

When you watch Atleti and Leics you see a lot of ‘English’ style and approach within it. And yet we as nation don’t really appreciate or strive to be or play like that anymore. We seem more endeared to the football of Barcelona. Look at the three goals Atletico scored this past weekend; a cross in to the box, a well worked through the thirds central attack and a long goal kick, flicked on and finished with a run behind. Variety in their play to expose the opposition. 

By setting our sights on developing this 'Barcelona' type player, we have to ask ourselves if we are really doing a good enough job at developing players with the skill-set, poise, technique and intelligence to be of that type? We need to do better at producing great players, not just good players.

Unfortunately trying to play a more expansive type of football leads to more errors and potentially poor results. Atleti have made the least errors in the Champions League this season, why? Because they play a non-risk type game. Mourinho was the same in his approach. He wants players making smart and safe decisions to prevent risk and limit the opposition being gifted chances. Look at Everton and they style of play, the issues John Stones has had this season the errors he has made, it does make you wonder about the risk/reward benefits of taking 'risks' with the ball. 

And when people watch Everton and their continued errors you hear people criticise them for trying to play out. So when our young teams do it I hear coaches dismiss our players ability to play out effectively. Instead of trying to improve the players technical and tactical understanding they simply argue it's a waste of time. Their argue that we can't compete playing football, so we have to fight them and lump it forward instead. It's a strategy, yet is it not accepting mediocrity in our players? It's what Watford did in the 1980's under Graham Taylor, and it only took them so far until good footballing sides found them out. 

This is my concern with coaches who seek to be functional over expressive. Are we not doing young players a dis-service to their development when we seek to be functional, where we want the simple over complex? I worry that many players are being limited by a culture, predominantly as players get older 14-18 years, where players are being asked to limit their play, to simplify what they do. I've seen players creativity and expression criticised while functional play is rewarded. That is a real shame. 

In my opinion coaches need to be braver when developing youngsters, they need to allow for more risk taking and creative play. Yet they need to educate the players about the game along the way, teach them about angles, distances, support and movement. Make the players tactically aware and understand pass priorities. Educate the players about transitional moments on both sides of the ball, and make sure the players know their roles in defending. All these moments are what football is about and are key for players to develop for the modern game. 

I really appreciate and love what Atleti and Leics do in their play, and think there are elements to their game, particularly out of possession where coaches should analyse and learn. But you cant ignore they players these sides possess like Mahrez, Koke and Greizmann. These are talented players. So just because you want to 'play like Atleti' it doesn't mean you take away the creative flair of your players. And as youth coaches, where results aren't as important (necessarily), we don’t have to limit our players. It is here where they can express themselves. 

The key for coaches is allowing players to play with expression and freedom while educating players about defending. Teaching them that it is not all about what you do with the ball. The modern game is expecting this from every player, defending has become very important. A simple message for all players is that they work hard for the team at all times, defend with discipline and show a willingness to press and track players. These are elements that should apply to all players and teams. And all successful sides certainly possess these elements. 

Aiming high, not accepting mediocre

Good players know when and where to do things on the pitch, they make good decisions a most of the time. But decision making takes time to develop and coaches of young players need to be a lot more patient to understand that a players game management and game intelligence isn’t always going to be perfect as they are developing. 

In the pursuit of developing quality footballers we need to allow for times of mistakes and failures. Yet we should not tell a player stop doing something, to play more simple, to go for the ‘easy’ option all the time. If we do we will create functional players who lack the skills needed to play for the top sides. 

As developers of young players we need to give them the best chance to become players and that’s not by being functional but being expressive and striving for quality, both with the ball and without it. 

If their first team coach wishes his side to play more defensive and for their player to be more functional then fine, that's their job and they base their job on results. Our job as youth developers was to get the players to the level to become a pro. And I don’t think functional football is a way to produce professional’s. I think we need to be braver. 

And this is why when we talk of developing players for the future game we must use the model of Ajax, Barcelona and now Bayern. These sides play a style of football which requires great technical skill, creative expression and game intelligence. To allow our players to compete with the rising quality of global players we need to get our players to that level. A young player should have the skills which the game requires, and the modern game requires all it’s players, from goalkeeper, to defenders to forwards to possess the skills with and without the ball which teams like Barcelona and Atletico possess. If we aim high for our young players and they don’t reach that lofty ambition, then I’m sure we’ve still done a pretty good job, if we accept and propose mediocrity and functionality, then I think we do our young players a huge dis-service.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address