Space Oriented vs Ball Oriented Attack Organization
Over the last two years there has been huge growth in the discussion around off ball positioning. While the space-oriented logic of the positional game has been at the forefront since Guardiola’s success at Barcelona, the ball-oriented logic of traditional Hungarian and Brazilian soccer has quickly been gaining ground.
TAKEAWAYS
After reading today’s article you will:
Understand space oriented (positional) vs ball oriented (functional) logic
Space oriented organization
Ball oriented organization
BACKGROUND
Guardiola’s success, starting with Barcelona in 2008 and continuing to the present day at Manchester City, coincided with an exploding market for tactical writing. Fueled by writers like Michael Cox and Jonathan Wilson, what was previously the purview of professional coaches has become widely available to the general public.
With an increasing interest in analysis and coaching information, there are now innumerable writers and websites producing tactical content both for showcase and as edutainment for the general football watching public.
Guardiola’s Barcelona came out of nowhere to capture hearts and minds worldwide in the late 2000s. They landed on fertile ground - changes in TV had made La Liga (and many other leagues) widely available in a way that they weren’t just a decade prior. The internet had grown and was ready to act as a medium to communicate the nuances of their game. And the watching public was interested in knowing more about the phenomenon.
This perfect storm of elements led to huge interest in Guardiola’s style of play, how to train it, and the key ideas behind how it worked. There was suddenly a market for those with knowledge of the Barcelona philosophy. Spain’s success at the Euros and World Cup while exhibiting some similarities further fueled the growing interest.
In the last 10-15 years, positional play ideas have become synonymous with the sport itself. There has been a certain homogenization at the top level of the sport, as Juanma Lillo famously acknowledged. The prevalence of individuals and organizations offering coach education in this style of play, something that previously didn’t really exist, has certainly contributed to the spread. When speaking with professional youth coaches here in the US, everyone uses buzzwords like ‘positional play’, ‘positional games’, ‘breaking lines’, etc. It’s jumped the shark, so to speak.
It’s in this landscape that Fernando Diniz’s Fluminense won the Copa Libertadores while playing in a wildly different way to what has become common around the rest of the world. He has demonstrated a different logic to organize the players off the ball to facilitate possession compared to what Guardiola and other European coaches have developed.
For me the most interesting aspect of this is that it’s not something completely brand new, but is more of a return to the Brazilian tradition that was a key aspect of their rise as a football powerhouse in the 50s-70s. And this idea, this logic of how to organize/structure the team off the ball, originated primarily in Hungary during the 30s-50s before being transplanted to Brazil.
I was fortunate enough to connect with the foremost researcher on the Hungarian tradition, Attila Ferenczi, who has published some 20+ books primarily explaining the fine points. Through emails, his published books, and hours of study, I believe I can explain the major differences in simple terms.
Lastly, I’ll say that a lot of the language around this topic is very confusing. What is positional play? Does it refer to space as the main reference point for off ball organization? Does it include many of the other details that have evolved to constitute a complete philosophy of play? I can’t answer these questions and don’t wish to get bogged down arguing semantics.
*Despite this I’ll say I don’t care for the term ‘relationism’ as it implies that relationships among players is somehow present in only certain styles of play. I prefer the term ‘functional’ because, as you’ll see below, the organization is based upon what each player’s function is at any given moment.
For our purposes I’ll speak just to the organization of players in possession. While these two schools of thought are broadly similar, the main difference is in which reference point takes priority - space or ball.
Positional logic is space oriented
No more than 3 players in a line. No more than 2 players in a channel. These are rules that famously underpinned Guardiola’s positioning logic.
The idea here is that by dividing the field into different zones, all players will know where their teammates are located at all times. Solving game situations involves interpreting how many and which players in are in the ball zone and based on this information, the team has internalized instructions on what zones provide an advantage.
*See an example of Guardiola’s training field. The field space has been carved into multiple zones. Off ball organization is based upon occupying specific zones depending on where the ball is located. For this reason I say the logic is space oriented.
A key concept in space oriented positioning is the ‘rational occupation of space’. In a general sense this means spreading the players across all zones of the field to maximize width and depth. In doing so, the team is able to access any zone at any time. If one side becomes too congested, the ball will be switched to the opposite side of the field, which will be less defended.
*This video covers some of the logic Man City uses when switching the ball to the opposite winger. For this to happen, players must be in predetermined positions to create the trained playing options for the ball carrier at all moments.
The objective of these positioning rules is to create conditions to find a teammate in the next offensive line. Finding these players with passes means getting the ball past the defensive line that is applying pressure to the ball. Through correct application, the team with the ball will be able to move the ball through zones of the field in search of an advantage.
*This great video explains 4 ways to create an advantage. Note that these exist in all styles of play, it's just the ways in which the team looks to create them (and where on the field they do it). The space oriented logic uses players positioned in particular spaces on the field to facilitate appearance of these advantages.
In this style of play, it’s typical to occupy the zones defended by the outside backs in the opposition defensive line - in other words, to play with two high and wide wingers. The purpose of doing this is to find the wingers in 1v1 situations against the opposition full back.
*Roberto de Zerbi’s Shakhtar creating equal numbers (1v1) against the defensive line from their own goal kick. See that the players are all occupying spaces across the entire field.
To summarize, the main reference point in off ball positioning is space on the field. Players know that the field spaces they need to occupy and when far away from the ball these players will be relatively static, their occupation of specific spaces facilitating future passages of play.
Functional logic is ball oriented
Fernando Diniz’s success at Fluminense and the radically different appearance to the main positional references seen in Europe brought a lot of discussion in online spaces. On Medium, the writer known as ‘Jozsef Bozsik’ (a reference to Hungary’s Golden Team of the 1950s) has written extensively about the history of Brazilian tactical thinking.
Originally developed by the Hungarians leading up to their 2nd place finish in the 1954 World Cup, the logic is quite different from the space oriented nature of positional play. According to Attila Ferenczi in his book on the subject, Brazil Képzés, Barca-brazil játékszervezés (trans. Brazil training, Barca-brazil game organization), the positioning logic starts with the ball. Players organize themselves diagonally to the ball and to each other.
Generally speaking there are three main roles - the 1st attacker is the one with the ball. The 2nd attacker is the one who will receive a pass from him. The 3rd attacker is the one who will receive it from the 2nd attacker. In practice, multiple players can act as the 2nd attacker, taking up a position relative to the ball carrier to allow the ball to be moved diagonally forward or backward. The 3rd attacker would be diagonal to these teammates, essentially forming a vertical or horizontal diamond shape.
*6 is the 1st attacker, the other four players are the 2nd attackers. See that they are offering support diagonally ahead and behind the ball. All three of 2, 5, 9 are available as the 3rd attacker, they are diagonal to the 2nd attackers.
Ferenczi has also written about ‘asymmetric game systems’, which is a contradiction to the ‘rational occupation of space’. Instead of maximizing width and depth, the team instead plays with shorter distances between players and as a result, the majority of players can be found in one vertical half of the field. This team positioning helps to facilitate ball progression - while space oriented positioning seeks to find 2v1 situations (or 1v1 against the opposition defensive line) through ball movement and players waiting in their zone, in contrast, ball oriented positioning finds 2v1 situations through timing of support movements and running into spaces after passing. In general, the possession play is more dynamic than in a positional system, as I would argue that there is more freedom of movement. Players can move through different zones (from a space oriented standpoint) as they are constantly rearranging themselves primarily relative to the ball and teammates.
*The most famous example of the asymmetric game system is Diniz’ Fluminense. Notice how multiple players will locate themselves within the same vertical channel (assuming the space oriented zones). This would not be possible in teams with strict adherence to ‘rational occupation of space’.
The key is to use the ball as the main reference point. This ensures that the ball carrier always has multiple options to facilitate possession. Players further away from the ball do not wait in specific spaces but instead seek to maintain connection to teammates closer to the ball, because as the ball is moved, player functions change.
While the space oriented logic attempts to create time and space by making the opponent defend as much physical space/distance as possible, the ball oriented logic attempts to use timing and short distances to create opportunities to break through the opposition defense. As Ferenczi says, it’s about ‘döntő helyen, döntő pillanatban, döntő fölény létrehozása’ (at a decisive place, at a decisive moment, to create decisive superiority). Fundamentally it’s a different way in which to create an advantage.
This is why the wingers in a space oriented team often need to be 1v1 players. They occupy the furthest space away from the ball and will receive in situations where they can immediately attack the opposing full back in a 1v1 situation. Using their qualitative advantage - being stronger in the 1v1 than the full back and given maximum space to accelerate - they must convert the team’s possession into scoring chances.
Conversely, this is why ball oriented teams group players close to one another (which is best maximized by asymmetric positioning) and will typically use game systems without wingers (such as 4-4-2 diamond). They won’t leave an attacker alone on the opposite side of the field, instead the attackers will be moving into spaces and must have the capability to play combinations, dribble, and finish.
*I have the idea that this type of play leads to development of more complete attackers, which is why the forward lines of many top European teams are stacked with South Americans. While I’m not familiar enough with the playing tradition in Argentina or it’s neighbors to offer much comment, my understanding is that it’s broadly similar in terms of creating decisive advantages via timing.
*This video (in Portuguese) goes through a lot of the tactical features of Brazil’s 1982 World Cup team, considered the greatest team to never win it. Many times camera angles weren’t as conducive to seeing players off the ball as they are today, but look closely and you’ll see the shape around the ball transforming as players switch functions, play combinations, and look for well timed break throughs.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the space oriented logic is about maximizing space available to the attacking team. This leads to spreading the team across the whole field so the opponent must defend the most physical space possible. The ball is moved in order to force defensive shifts, which are then exploited by the predetermined positioning in different spaces on the field. If you’re familiar with chess, think of a ‘tempo’, where the opponent makes a mistake and concedes an advantage to his counterpart. That small error can be enough for the attacker to snowball the advantage into a decisive one, in this case a 1v1 against the defensive line.
The ball oriented style is to use timing to create the advantage. To enable this, players are similarly in predetermined locations, but this time it’s based on proximity to the ball. The closest players offer diagonal support and further players are diagonal to those teammates. The ball carrier still knows where to expect a teammate, but there is more freedom of movement to arrive in different spaces on the field while performing the correct role per the situation. This allows players to play combinations, such as wall passes, to break through the defensive line. Due to the emphasis on timing, player movement is more dynamic and the break throughs are often done at high speed and in different spaces on the field than a space oriented team.
As a kid growing up in Podunk, Pennsylvania in a decidedly traditional American sports culture, the only connection I had to the global game was through small glimpses at Europe or South America. With Brazil reaching the World Cup final in 1998 and then winning in 2002, they were always a huge influence for me. It brings me a lot of joy to have a window into how and why they played the way they did. Wenger’s Arsenal, another major influence, displayed a mix of both types - space oriented in their own half and ball oriented in the opponent’s half. Ultimately both ways of interpreting the game are valid and can be mixed to create something effective and unique.
Next week I’ll look at training ideas to teach both styles of play.