Why Replicating Man City is a Concern at Youth Level

Why positional and tactical freedom is needed to develop young players to be world class

 

Pep Guardiola is the greatest first team coach of his generation, of that there is no doubt. He has dominated the game in Spain, Germany and England for the past 15 years. The intensity and demands he puts on his players, both in training and games, is relentless. His level of competitiveness feels unmatched. He has made 90+ point seasons a norm – asking his opponents a lot in order to match his teams level of consistency and success. 

Guardiola has changed the game tactically; inspiring and motivating coaches of young players, and of lower league teams, to incorporate his style and philosophy. His Barca side captivated and inspired the world. His Bayern side were three semi-final Champions League defeats away from global dominance and now his Man City side are a game away from completing their project. The elusive Champions League has evaded Guardiola since 2011, and now 12 years later that trophy is within his grasp again. 

He has developed and created a team in Man City which is perhaps his most complete ever. A team which is strong defensively, effective in transition, impressive on set pieces and of course capable of dominating the game with possession and chance creation. With the personnel he has at his disposal City can beat you in many different ways. Add in Erling Haaland and it almost doesn’t feel fair. And if it’s not working, they have incredible options to come and influence the game later on. 

Adding new pieces to this team each season has only made his team stronger each time. It seems that with Pep at the helm, City are an unstoppable force. And so when a team is this dominant, the feeling of adulation and replication become a formality. However, I would be conscious as a coach of young players to be inclined to seek to replicate the style and approach of Pep Guardiola. And here is why.

 

A coaching revolution

Pep's Barcelona changed the way teams played. Positional play (juego de posición) transformed the game. The use of the build up, the controlled approach of finding ways out of the defensive third, the opening of the pitch, the need for ball playing goalkeepers and defenders, all accelerated after Barca’s period of dominance 2009-2012. Guardiola inspired a new generation of players and coaches to believe in a different way of playing. Particularly in England, where the style had always been somewhat ‘direct’. Academy football was revolutionised, this new generation had a new model and idol to emulate. 

Watch any Academy game and you see the impact of Guardiola. His influence has played a part. The development of players has certainly enhanced this last decade, as evidenced by the success of the English national teams, at both youth and senior level. England are developing a higher quality of player, making English talent some of the most sought after in the game. 

 

But, I believe youth coaches need to be cautious when they seek to emulate how Man City play. There is an issue here, and that is that coaches are forgetting their place and role in the journey of a footballer. The crux of the argument is this; Guardiola’s football and approach is suited for players at the peak of their ability and development. It is the time when a talented player is ready to insert himself into a complete team situation where decision making with the ball and players movement is at a premium. 

The aspects of positional play which matters most for Guardiola are; space, time, positioning and decision making. In his approach players are required to understand how the team functions and works together, the spacing, angles and timing of movement and support. With the ball they are expected to make the best decisions of risk/retain and understand what their pass requires, as well as the intention and best option in that moment. Effectively risk is reduced until the best time to take a positive risk which leads to a successful outcome.

 As coaches we all want our players to improve their decision making, becoming more game intelligent. And yet, I am worried that we seeking to develop our young players with the desire to mirror those of players we see at Man City in their peak, resulting in a limitation on a players individual skill-set. Coaches who seek 'to play like City' become far too critical, over-demanding and restrictive on our young talent. This is a big concern and a key issue, as I feel it is limiting, not enhancing many of our young players.

 

There’s always been the criticism of youth coaches wanting to be ‘mini-Mourinho’s’. The insinuation being that they coach to win, and will do so in a manner which they have seen at senior football. By any means necessary. Often at the expense of their players development. And while the ‘mini-Guardiola’s’ might coach with a desire to play in a way which is positive and enjoyable, seeking to replicate this style will limit players development at a young age. 

 

More risk - more chance to thrive 

How do you mean? Let’s take some examples of Man City right now. 

Jack Grealish was a £100m player for what he did at Aston Villa. A young player who came through the Academy, a talented player, went out on loan as a teenager and then grew and matured to be a key figure in the team, a leader who captained the team back to the Premier League and helped secure them in the league a year after. His performances and style made City feel he was worth £100m. 

Why was he effective for Villa? Because he was given the freedom to take risks, to dribble and often lose the ball, to play without fear. He was given a free licence to play his creative, maverick style game. It helped Villa, helped Grealish and made him worth £100m. 

At City he had to learn what they expected of him in their system. No longer was he given the positional freedom, his decision making was sought to be educated and be enhanced, and he has evolved to be more suited to the City team structure and thinking. Is he better as a player? Perhaps he looks more 'intelligent' in his decisions, but that’s because he takes less risk, and is more calculated in his possession. My argument is this, had he played like this at Villa I don’t believe he gets to the level which City deem him as appealing. Grealish needed to be at a team which revolved around him, which provided freedom and allowed him to make more errors and play with more risk. He was doing this up to the age of 25. Think of that when you're criticising your 13 year old winger for losing the ball trying to play a killer pass. 

 

And this idea applies to many of their signings. Man City sign exceptional individual players. Fantastic talents. Of whom many have been the key figure in their previous team, players who were given the responsibility of being game-changers and risk takers. And when they join City they are taught to integrate within the ‘system’ and taught to make decisions which reduce risk losing possession. 

They now have more talent around them and the tactics they use are more akin to dominating possession and suffocating the opposition than in an open and transition based game. But the irony is that the players bought by City to fit into the Guardiola system didn’t come from a similar style. In fact they were more counter attacking transition based styles. Why? Because this style often a greater onus on trying to create chances. There's more onus on players to attack space and take risks – and therefore more individual responsibility to impact the attacking actions in the game.

 

To be the man, you need to be the man

My argument is, take these talented players to the expectation of what Guardiola demands on players too early and you might not get the very best out of them. Take Riyad Mahrez. Player of the season for Leicester’s title winning 2015/16 season. Scoring 17 goals and making 11 assists. A vital player for the team in their attacking play. Leicester were built to utilise the best of Mahrez and the speed and finishing of Vardy. Mahrez’s role from the right wing had the freedom to dribble and produce in the attack every time he got the ball. He was a delight and was rightly crowned player of the season. Leicester were a defensively compact, deep block team, reliant on quick counter attacks and using Mahrez as the outball and Vardy for balls in behind. 

I’ve always felt underwhelmed by Mahrez since he’s been at City. He has contributed fantastic moments and been an important for the team at times, but he’s not the same player we saw at Leicester. Two aspects to why in my opinion; importance to the team and freedom. And this is my point. Mahrez became a great player at Leicester because he was the key part of the team, he was given freedom, responsibility and the trust to take risks. He thrived. At City he plays for the system. And it’s not as exciting as he could be. Sane and Sterling were more exciting at Schalke and Liverpool, but became more efficient at City.

 

Even De Bruyne shares a similar story. The only difference being that De Bruyne has been given the freedom under Guardiola to dictate the game. To take risks. But there’s no question that De Bruyne’s time at Wolfsberg made the player we saw arrive at City. Chelsea weren’t willing or able to provide De Bruyne the playing time and responsibility to enhance his game. He needed to move to thrive. He needed to find a team which would be built around him. A season in the Bundesliga led to 10 goals, 20 assists and cup success. He was voted as Bundesliga Player of the Season. At 24 he had proven that he was ready for the very top level. He was now ready to join the City project and be a key part in City's system and success. Without that season in the Bundesliga I don’t believe he would have been ready to produce at City. He needed to take the key steps in his journey. 

 

Thierry Henry recently said that he 'learnt football' under Guardiola. And that is true, that he learnt Guardiola's style of football, the positional play system which demanded of Henry that he stay wide left and stretch the game. That he had to alter and change how he had played at Arsenal. For me it's without question that Thierry Henry was a better player at Arsenal than at Barca. As an individual he was free to create, roam and express himself. He was the man. The King. And he thrived with that responsibility and freedom Henry may have learnt to play differently under Guardiola, but I am just glad that Henry was given the freedom to be his best self while in England. 

It is why the Phil Foden journey is interesting. As a Man City academy graduate he was already there and able to work under Guardiola at a young age. Many said this was great for him and his development, to learn from world class talents and the best coach. But there’s a feeling that for all his talent, he’s short of being a consistent figure of the Man City team because perhaps a year or two out on loan might have actually benefitted him. What Foden needed was to play every week, to have the team built around him and his talent and be given the freedom and responsibility his talent justified. What I’m saying is that I believe Foden joined the Guardiola system too early in his developmental journey. 

 

The stepping stones to success

This story is commonplace amony many other players. Talented young players need to find the perfect situation to suit their development. A club and a coach which provides them opportunity, an element of freedom and the trust to take risks. Without this essential part of the journey, that final step, the movement to the truly elite, the player isn’t ready. Jude Bellingham has experienced this at both Birmingham and Dortmund, now ready for the elite world of expectation and decision making at Real Madrid. His journey has provided him with opportunity to develop, take risks, while also developing his leadership. 

Another example this resonates with is Michael Jordan's story with the Chicago Bulls. The Last Dance provided a great insight into his journey. And it has similar tone and lessons. This exciting young talent given freedom to express, be creative and thrive as an individual, a lot of individual praise and accolades, yet a player who on his own couldn’t help his team be successful at that time. But for his journey he developed his individual game at a phenomenal rate. As he matured, when he was more ready to be a stronger team player, the pieces were put around him to help the team be better, and a new coach in Phil Jackson sought to evolve his game to be a greater team player rather than just an individual machine. What happended? A dynasty was born. 

But, when you watch this journey unfold, it does feel that had Jackson come too early and imparted the triangle formation, had he taken the ball out of Michael's hands more, would Jordan have been as good? Did he need those formative years to be more selfish, more of a risk taker, freer in his game and more individual. It is this development pathway and journey which I believe needs to be followed for greatness to truly thrive. 

So what is the lesson about Man City? They buy exceptionally talented individuals from clubs below them in the food chain. And their best success stories have been when they’ve bought players who have excelled and thrived in a team where they’ve been a teams key player and and standout performer. Based on the freedom given to be creative and a risk taker. The irony being that when they join City they are educated to change their game to take less risks, but this is the final level of their development, like Jackson with the Bulls. The step towards team success, over individual brilliance. 

Understanding your role as a youth developer of talent 

Where players need to be catered to at the right time to maximise their development. By trying to rush to the end point, we neglect and forget the vital components of a players journey, and why being experts in youth development is essential. By wanting to be a coach who works at senior level, coaches often seek to coach a youth team with the view to impress their ability to win games and coach the 'team', rather than seeing their role as developing the individuals in the team to be better each week and season. 

 

So, when coaches seek to play like the Man City first team, the world's best team, the best version of juego de posicion and the one built on the ethos of a cohesive team over the individual, where excellent decision making and less risk is required, one has to ask if this is what is best for a young talent developing their game? 

If we seek to get players to this level too quickly we may deny them the chance to be truly great individuals. And do you know what the irony of this might be, Guardiola, or one of the big boys won’t sign them! Because they are now just part of a good team, and they are good players, but exceptional? Afraid not. 

Academies and youth coaches need to consider their role on the journey, and consider what these young players need. Even senior sides need to consider if their model is developing young talent for the top of the food chain to come along and pay huge fees for their players. Benfica are masters of it. Dortmund are very good too. Brighton have sought a similar model and reaping the rewards. And the Red Bull project is effectively this approach in a nut shell. And young talented players should consider this on their journey - will this club and coach make me better, provide me the opportunity to become a top player? Because that chance and choice might be a one time only deal. So choose wisely. 

At youth level players don’t need to be perfect, and they certainly don’t need to be safe in their decisions. They should be allowed to take risks, to be brave, to take shots and seek to play killer passes. We should see a game which is a bit more chaotic and a less controlled and rigid. We shouldn’t obsess with positional play and fixed positions, players movement should be freer. At youth level we should provide an environment which allows for movement, freedom and the ability to play and think forward. 

We shouldn’t be so critical on our players for making ‘poor’ decisions but instead demand they improve their skill level and level of risk taking. Only then can we actually provide our players the environment to truly thrive and allow them the chance to move up their development ladder on their way to being great. If we try to make them a Man City player too early, we we will only deny them the chance to be one latter in their career. 

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address