Forget the Game Model, start with the Mental Model

A game model (also often referred to as performance model, or a play style), is viewed as one of the key pre-requisites to any successful coach. Here, the coach develops preferences for how they want their team to solve the game. These preferences form the basis for how they will view performance, how they will create training sessions, how they will set up their team to play, and how they will coach their players. They usually consist of a number of principles at team level, which can be broken down into sub-principles at unit level (e.g. midfield line, defensive line, forward line) and even further into sub-sub-principles (at individual positional level). In its simplest form, a game model is a set of solutions. Solutions which the coach prefers to be used as players go about solving the performance problems that football creates. A simple search of ‘Football Game Model’ on X, Google or YouTube provides thousands upon thousands of resources that go about educating you on what should be in your game model. Of which principles are most effective and which successful teams have deployed them, with screenshots and  video’s that use circles and arrows to highlight their points.

Starting with the game model however, is perhaps missing out on answering some fundamental questions. As I mentioned earlier, principles are solutions. But solutions are only worthwhile if they are in response to a specific problem. The game model as the start point may not pose these questions. What I want to propose is a model which better understands the internal logic of the game. This can be called a ‘Mental Model’ for the sport of football. It is not a set of solutions on how to solve the game, but a tool which can be used to understand its complexities, better. And if we can understand the game better, we can hopefully coach it more effectively.

Previous Mental Models

Firstly, it should be said that the game of football is incredibly complex. The aim of the mental model is to simplify this complexity but never decompose it. This decomposition of complexity is probably best exemplified by other attempts at the creation of a football mental model. These models typically refer to the ‘four phases’ of the game. On initial observation, this model can make sense in some ways. It seems logical that this model accurate depicts the story of a game at any point for a team. However, upon closer inspection there are some problems which arise. The first issue is that it implies a cyclical order of phases. It implies that we have a transition, then we are in possession. Then we transition again before finding ourselves in the out of possession phase. Anyone who has ever watched a game of football understands that this is never how the game goes. The second point relates to the conceptualision of the game being split up into four parts. The fact is that the ‘In Possession’ phase could mean a whole host of situations. Do we have the ball at a set piece? Do we have it in the final third? In our own penalty box under high pressure? In our own penalty box after a dangerous attack? All of these situations require vastly different approaches and therefore I find it difficult to have them all under the same umbrella phase of ‘In Possession’. Again, the mental model should simplify the complexity but never downplay it. A third point addresses the somewhat blurry lines between the phases. When does a transition begin and when does it end? And finally, a fourth and final point relates to the size of the pieces in the below example. The sizes of In Possession and Out of Possession being significantly larger than the two Transition phases suggests a higher importance. However, the Transition phase is consistently where football matches are won and lost, with a Transition situation presenting the most fruitful situations to exploit the opponent as they are typically not in the most efficient defending positions, collectively and individually.

So I want to propose a different mental model. A mental model that attempts to understand the internal logic of the game more, instead of just attempting to describe different phases. A mental model that never downplays the complexity of the game, rather embracing but simplifying it. Two key words form the nucleus of this mental model:

1. Balance

2. Imbalance.

The idea of balance revolves around how satisfied you are that your team is in a structure which prevents the opposition from scoring. Each team has their own balance, as the image shows. All 22 football players are constantly making football actions which are either: working towards re-balancing our team, creating imbalance in the opposition or exploiting imbalance in the opposition. These actions often have a reactionary effect on the other team. So as my team attempts to take football actions which create imbalance in the opposition, the opposition will equally (often, not always!) use actions which look to help them re-balance.

It can be taken slightly further too, to add further weight to the idea of balance. There are different types of balance at work in football and sometimes it can be possible to be high in balance in one type, whilst being low in balance in another type. The four different types of balance I am referring to here are: Numerical, Positional, Qualitative and Relational. These words are synonymous with understanding football using a contemporary Positional Play perspective. The new model can be seen below.

It is necessary to use these four different types of balance because as I mentioned earlier, it can be that one of the categories is higher in balance whilst the others are lower. This could mean the overall balance of the team is somewhere aggregated in the middle of that. But if we take a look at a practical example which demonstrate how it can be possible to have balance in one area and not the other, it will make more sense. Let’s firstly imagine our team is playing a 4-3-3 formation against a 4-5-1 formation (see below). And let’s just say we are in an established attack phase, in the opponents half, where all of the opponents defenders are behind the ball. And let’s also say that our aim with the ball is to create imbalance in central areas and progress the ball from there.

Firstly we can see below that the numerical imbalance in central areas is quite low, as we are in a 3v5 underload. This is very common when facing a zonal based defence, as the blues are employing here.

But we also see below that the positional imbalance is high due to our 10’s position, just off the shoulder of the blue 10. Our player has an open pass lane where they can be right turned immediately after. This means that we have more positional imbalance than we do numerical imbalance.

To analyse this from a qualitative perspective, we will switch to the other side of the field below. Imagine we have a young team, and our left wing (red 11) is a player who has come through our academy and only has a handful of matches at senior level. He is up against a seasoned player in blue 2. Blue 2 is an excellent 1v1 defender and is faster and stronger than red 11 at this moment. Therefore the qualitative imbalance here is low, we know that blue 2 will have the better of that duel, whilst it is a 1v1.

However, adding our left back (red 3) into the equation and equally, the opponents right sided midfielder (blue 7), could also have something to say for overall imbalance in the opposition. Let’s imagine our left back and left wing both came through the academy together, on the same teams, at the same time. They have played as a pair on the left hand side (perhaps a similar story to Gary Neville and David Beckham circa 1990) for 5/6 years and are best friends off the field. The blue 7 and 2 have only played 5 matches together and despite their greater individual experience, it could be that here the reds have a greater ability to play together. In turn, this could be the cause of a significant imbalance for the blues at a relational level.

This example, whilst farfetched it may be, demonstrates how balance and imbalance can vary within a match scenario based on those four key categories. Only coaches with a deep knowledge of the game will be able to understand each of them and how they intertwine with one another. Below I have added what this made up scenario may look like on the mental model I have proposed.

Using the Mental Model to inform the Game Model

The questions which arise from this new proposed mental model then, which should form the basis for our game model, are: what is my idea of balance? what is my idea of imbalance? how do we achieve balance in our own team whilst simulataneouslycreating and exploting imbalance in the opponent? How does all of this translate to each of the different parts of the game?

An extremely simplified starting example of these questions being answered can be seen below. The game situation is: Established Attack v Established Defence in the Opposition Half, similar to the example above.

What is my idea of balance? Equal numbers always behind the ball in our last line. Wide ahead of the ball, narrow behind the ball. As narrow as possible, as wide as necessary.

What is my idea of imbalance? We can access a key goalscoring area. Key goalscoring area’s are relative to each location of where the ball is. If the ball is in our own half we have access to key goalscoring area’s (perhaps bakrom/back space) which are different to those we have access to if we are on the oppositions byline (perhaps the second six yard box).

How do we achieve balance and imbalance? Balance: Excellent proactive situational recognition whilst we are in possession. Imbalance: Position of the ball and our players to manipulate the position of the opposition. 

How do we exploit the imbalance in the opposition? As slowly as possible, as quickly as necessary. If we can go directly into the feet of someone between the lines then we want to take that option. If we need to use a second player before finding the player between the lines then we do. This means that we don’t just exploit, exploit, exploit. We are thoughtful and reflective in our play. We probe, provoke and then penetrate.

In my opinion, it is only from the answers to these questions do we start to get true, organic answers as coaches. The answers in the above example form the basis for which formation we might choose to go for, for example. Too often coaches choose a formation first (usually because it has been popularised in one of Europe’s top 5 leagues/UEFA Champions League) and work from that. But the issue with this method is that this chosen formation might not suit your preferences as a coach. There could be colliding ideas and the coach might not even be aware. For example, modern day coaches love the idea of playing with a front five which plays high up against the opposition’s defensive line. The 5 is usually extremely wide, often having two players as wide as the field allows. Most modern coaches also want to press intensely on every single loss of possession. And finally, most coaches want to keep +1 in the last defensive line for added defensive security. But could there be some friction between these three ideas?

What is your idea of balance?

How do you want your teams to create and exploit imbalance in the opposition?