• Setting the Scene
• Analysing Relationism
• Manchester City Vs Fluminense
• Is Compromise Possible?
Setting the Scene: Positionism and Relationism
So, the FIFA Club World Cup came down to this. Manchester City faced Fluminense, and Pep Guardiola faced Fernando Diniz, the respective victors of the Champions League and Copa Libertadores.
But this was not just the meeting of two champions; this was an unparalleled collision of independently intriguing tactical paradigms. It was a collision of ideology, of principles, and of continental cultures.
Rarely does the result of a final lie on the periphery, but for many tactically attentive neutrals, this game was unique. The financial disparity between European and South American football is clear; it will always influence the result of such a contest. Therefore, rather than using this tournament as a comparative metric of continental quality, is it not more interesting to compare styles and ideas?
Too often, people can be overly insular in their outlook on life; football is no different. Perhaps we’re all guilty of this on occasion. After all, it’s easier for existing beliefs to remain unchallenged. How can you be wrong if you’ve never heard an opposing view to your own? That’s the myth we subconsciously accept when we decide to remain insular. Cognitive development only occurs when our existing beliefs are challenged.
“Awareness of ignorance is the beginning of wisdom.” – Socrates
Indeed, Jamie Hamilton’s coining of the term ‘relationism’ has challenged countless tactically interested individuals, particularly those residing in Europe, where positionism is king. Ultimately, our response to such a challenge determines how much we gain from it.
Some view Jamie Hamilton’s contributions as damaging to football tactical discourse; others deny there’s any ideological distinction to be made. Hamilton’s assertion seems to be that the prevalence of positionism detracts from the aesthetics of ‘The Beautiful Game’. But perhaps, as is often the case, finding an ideological compromise – a third way, if you will – is most beneficial.
At this point, I should probably define the tactical paradigms I’m discussing:
‘Positionism’, or ‘positional play’, is where player positions are determined by static zones. Movement occurs between these pre-determined positions, and patterns of play are often pre-planned. Positional teams create a clear structure with the principle aim of controlling space. Relations between players emerge via positional rotations.
‘Relationism’, ‘functional play’, is where player positions are determined by teammates, the ball, and the opponent. Movement occurs in an ostensibly chaotic manner, with structure emerging via complex but natural interactions between players. Relations are the primary focus, with positions appearing secondarily.
In possession, positional teams occupy the full width of the pitch to stretch their opponent and to create pre-planned structural superiorities. This approach lends itself to tactical battles between managers; it creates the feel of a game of chess.
Relational teams, on the other hand, will often overload the space around the ball to maximise connections between teammates. This leaves zones unoccupied but gives players the creative freedom to interact regardless of pre-planned formations.
The distinction between these tactical paradigms involves rethinking positional reference points. With positionism, those reference points are zones on the pitch; with relationism, they’re teammates, the ball, and the opponent. Both paradigms are a means of creating collective coherence, but they do so in different ways.
“I don’t like it when a player says, ‘I like freedom; I want to play for myself’. Because the player has to understand he is part of a team with ten other players. If everyone wants to be a jazz musician, it will be chaos.” – Pep Guardiola
In positional teams, players maintain the occupation of pre-determined spaces, waiting for the ball to move into their zone. In relational teams, players are free to move towards the ball to interact with teammates. They're allowed to be jazz musicians.
“Guardiola’s style is positional; mine is anti-positional. Players are allowed to migrate positions. In certain moments, players all move together in the same parts of the field. Players are more free…which has more to do with our culture.” – Fernando Diniz
Positionism seeks to establish control; relationism embraces chaos. Some claim that the positionism-relationism debate extends far beyond football. You can have similar theoretical debates in politics, for instance. It’s authoritarianism versus libertarianism. Is order necessary to achieve collective coherence and to prevent anarchy, tyranny, and chaos? Or does order inhibit creative freedom and individual aspiration?
As we’ve established, Guardiola believes collective coherence is best achieved through order and strict methodology. In his view, order ensures individuals don’t inhibit collective efficacy. Diniz, on the other hand, believes order limits the creative output of individuals within the team.
Analysing a Relational Game
Having outlined the theoretical assumptions surrounding positionism and relationism, the logical next step is to consider analytical or practical application.
Positional games are conducive to structural and numerical breakdowns of intentional tactical systems, something Jamie Hamilton has criticised. But how do you analyse a team whose positions emerge as mere coincidence? How does a team’s orientation influence the appropriate form of analysis?
As the name suggests, any analysis of relational teams should focus on uncovering dynamic, individual connections rather than evaluating the structural intentions of a head coach. While dynamic patterns are undoubtedly studied by analysts of a positional game, the overarching objective of relational analysis must differ.
Such considerations challenge my own methods of analysis: how do you analyse relations between discs on a tactics board? Maybe you can’t. Perhaps the mere consideration of any such attempt would be to undermine and misinterpret the beauty of relationism; it’s likely that Jamie Hamilton would argue exactly that.
By definition, relationism goes beyond structures and the static visualisations I typically create. In fact, as we’ve established, the inspiration for relationism extends beyond football itself. It delves into the realms of culture, politics, morality, and liberty. Nonetheless, I’ll endeavour to produce two forms of tactical visualisation analysing Manchester City versus Fluminense: one based on positional principles and the other inspired by relationism.
Unlike structures, relationships are invisible. But by watching teams like Fluminense, we can see the physical outcomes of such associations. Just as emergent positions within relational teams are reflections of dynamic and interpersonal connections, I hope my visualisations can be used as a window into the unseen.
Manchester City versus Fluminense
Having established the ideological and theoretical backdrop of the 2023 Club World Cup Final, the game itself can be used to visualise the practical application of such considerations. But one should avoid taking preconceived assumptions into practical analysis with the intention of mere reiteration.
Such approaches contribute to the homogenisation of football tactical discourse and application, a process Juan Manuel Lillo – ironically, perhaps, Pep Guardiola’s assistant – has sought to challenge. Lillo argues that the globalisation of football methodology has inhibited the influence of culture.
“We don’t even realise the mess we’ve made. We’ve globalised methodology to an extent that it’s crept into the World Cup: if you got the Cameroon and Brazil players to change shirts at half-time you wouldn’t even realise.” – Juan Manuel Lillo
With his work on relationism, Jamie Hamilton has provided a healthy opposition to this tactical hegemony. The relational concepts Hamilton has publicised will influence and inform my analysis of Manchester City versus Fluminense.
But it’s worth remembering that practical analysis should not be used as a means of repeating an ideological viewpoint. Rather, it should be an engine for epistemological development; analyse what you see, not what you already understand to be true.
Is Compromise Possible?
There’s no ultimate solution to an oppositional positionism-relationism debate. There’s no endgame. But that, in itself, is the view we should reach. We shouldn’t seek to prove which paradigm is objectively right or wrong. Any path to such a conclusion limits the opportunities for learning.
Some consider the relationism-positionism distinction to be a false dichotomy. They argue that the concepts associated with relationism are also applicable to positionism. But this argument adds very little to the debate. As has been discussed, there are clear distinctions between relationism and positionism, even if tactical concepts aren’t exclusive to just one paradigm.
As explained by Jamie Hamilton, there seems to be a continuum between the two paradigms: you can be somewhere between extreme forms of positionism and relationism. Establishing difference between the two extremes isn’t a false dichotomy. While relationism and positionism are both methods of creating collective coherence, they do so from profoundly different starting points.
With relationism, those starting points encourage the variability of natural and unpredictable human dynamics. With positionism, the principle focus on structure seeks to promote situations of control. Many South American footballers are more suited to relational principles than the strict methodology we see in parts of Europe. Context is key when discussing tactical application.
Yes, you’ve read this far to find me sitting firmly on the fence. But my point is, in this context, the fence is the best place to sit. Reaching any divisive conclusion would be reductive. There’s no right or wrong; there’s just difference. This shouldn’t be about replacing one idea with another; it should be about gaining an appreciation for alternative ideas. Relationism shouldn’t be dismissed as a false dichotomy, and positionism shouldn’t be criticised on the grounds of prevalence; both points of view are unhelpful.
Our time should be spent attempting to further understand variance in football, rather than reducing it to ideas we already understand. I don’t pretend to understand the cultural significance of ‘Jogo Bonito’ (The Beautiful Game’) in Brazil, or ‘La Nuestra’ (‘Our Way’) in Argentina. But not understanding is more interesting than claiming absolute knowledge.
You can have beneficial debates attempting to establish the comparative efficacy of tactical paradigms. Indeed, the prevalence of positionism is a reflection of its contemporary success. Assessing efficacy is crucial when considering practical application, but that doesn’t mean positionism is the only school of thought worth discussing.
Like many aspiring tactical analysts, my ideological starting point was based on positionism. In truth, I still lean towards positional principles and analysis. But challenging existing knowledge with varying points of view is the best way to develop.
Establishing and studying difference in football is hugely beneficial. Manchester City versus Fluminense was difference to the extreme; it was the ultimate final.
The introduction of relational ideas in this article were inspired by the work of Jamie Hamilton. Find his work here: https://medium.com/@stirlingj1982.