IF retweeted
๐งต
Thereโs an increasing amount of talk around relationism at the moment, which Iโm glad to see.
But I think the relationship between relationism and positional play is often framed as more binary than it actually is. ๐
IF retweeted
If this was someone's first game of football watching and they were told the best player in the world was involved in this game, they'd think you were on about Djed Spence.
IF retweeted
A word for Pedro Porro: he can ping the ball with good long passes from deep build-up,he can cross from wide,he has the athleticism to make depth runs for his winger to find and can manipulate the ball well. He actually has a unique blend of traits as a right-back at this level.
IF retweeted
Here's why England and Argentina should both want Spain to beat France tonight โ and it's not for the reason you think...
A lot has been made of France as clear tournament favourites. I don't buy it.
Yes, they are the most lethal team with the most impressive array of attacking threats โ and yes, for that reason they should be marginal favourites โ but that doesn't mean they are obviously the best team.
The truth is, nobody should be staking their entire mortgage or reputation on any of the four contenders at this point. They're almost impossible to separate.
But separate them we will, because that's human nature โ we are wired to track what's different about them rather than what's the same. It's a survival instinct.
But in doing so, we have a natural tendency to overweight what we see. Because we don't die if we detect a tiger that turns out not to be a tiger.
So what I'm observing with France is a combination of the halo effect, anchoring bias and confirmation bias.
They have serious depth and quality in attack. They started the tournament well and continue to play well in virtually every game, smashing teams who are clearly weaker than them.
But answer this:
Do you really know much more about France now than you did before the tournament began?
Has anything really changed? Or are you just more confident about them?
I'm seeing a lot of tweets about strength of opposition faced up to this point (based on FIFA rankings) but not so much about tournament conditions.
France and Spain are a good match for the first semi final because they've both had it easy in the latter regard โ France have barely travelled, while Spain's knockout route has been exclusively in climate-controlled venues.
For both teams, this will be the first game where they have to take a twin approach and fully account for what the opposition bring rather than focus mostly on themselves.
These are not 80-20 games now. It's not even 60-40. We're as close to 50-50 as you're going to get and that changes the dynamics entirely.
We haven't seen either team in this context yet. Maybe Spain have more valuable intelligence on France than vice-versa. Let's see.
However, there's one good reason why England and Argentina should both want Spain to win and I believe it's connected to the emotional context directly created by what went before.
For me, the modern age of the World Cup began in 1974.
That's when the presidency of Joao Havelange began and FIFA embraced a new commercial model, with a new trophy to replace the old Jules Rimet trophy kept by Brazil for winning three times.
Since then, 13 finals have produced 18 teams returning to the final within 20 years of their previous final โ meaning, the last final appearance is a living memory for the players on the pitch, if not always a playing memory.
Of those 18 teams, 15 reversed the previous result. Check out the list:
Did it reverse? Yes โ
No โ
1974 โ ๐ฉ๐ช West Germany โ
1978 โ ๐ณ๐ฑ Netherlands โ
1982 โ ๐ฎ๐น Italy โ
1982 โ ๐ฉ๐ช West Germany โ
1986 โ ๐ฆ๐ท Argentina โ
1986 โ ๐ฉ๐ช West Germany โ
1990 โ ๐ฉ๐ช West Germany โ
1990 โ ๐ฆ๐ท Argentina โ
1994 โ ๐ฎ๐น Italy โ
1998 โ ๐ง๐ท Brazil โ
2002 โ ๐ง๐ท Brazil โ
2002 โ ๐ฉ๐ช Germany โ
2006 โ ๐ฎ๐น Italy โ
2006 โ ๐ซ๐ท France โ
2014 โ ๐ฉ๐ช Germany โ
2018 โ ๐ซ๐ท France โ
2022 โ ๐ฆ๐ท Argentina โ
2022 โ ๐ซ๐ท France โ
Make of these numbers what you will.
Personally, I think there's a very strong case to be made for the pressure being asymmetric on the returning finalist โ the previous loser has to heal the pain of the last occasion, the previous winner can only match what happened last time, they can never better it.
If this pattern is going to hold for a 13th consecutive time, then that means either France winning the final or Spain losing the final.
If France beat Argentina, then the pattern will stretch to 17/20 and 14 on the spin.
For me, this is the single biggest reason why both England and Argentina should be wanting Spain to win tonight.
IF retweeted
From a tactical perspective, contrary to what most people think, signing Tudor and then De Zerbi is actually consistent and aligned with a clear idea, although it may not be intentional and we cannot know. Both of these coaches are specialists who are very good at implementing automatisms extremely quickly. Usually, they do very well early on in their roles by drilling those automatisms precisely. This is also made possible because they have a clear game model which barely changes. However, due to the pressure and the situation, Tudor changed a lot at Spurs and tinkered too much, not giving the continuity he usually does.
I do not think Spurs would have got relegated with Frank or Tudor, and I would be very surprised if they do with De Zerbi. Long term, I like the appointment on a strategic and tactical level, despite some issues with the out-of-possession approach; it is all dependent on how socially competent and mature De Zerbi decides to be.








