14 | IDEAS, ADAPTATION AND THE EDUCATION OF GABRIEL COSTA

I’ve started putting some thought into how I want this Atlético side to play, although I’m deliberately resisting the temptation to settle on a single formation and treat it as a finished product. There are principles I want to establish, but the shape we use to express them will depend on the players available, the opponent in front of us and, perhaps most importantly, what this group is capable of learning.

My initial sketch is a back three, two pivot midfielders, two players operating in the half-spaces, wing-backs providing width and a central forward leading the line. There are echoes here of el toque, the Uruguayan belief that the ball should be moved with purpose and intelligence, and of Ondino Viera’s insistence that football is a collective exercise in which the movement of one player must create possibilities for another. I want us to establish numerical superiority around the ball without allowing the pitch to become congested, using short combinations to draw opponents towards us before exploiting the spaces they leave behind. The two players behind the striker should offer different angles between the lines, connecting midfield to attack, while the wing-backs provide the width that allows those central combinations to breathe. The precise distribution of these responsibilities remains open to experimentation; I’m less interested in imposing a fashionable shape than in building a side that understands the relationships within it. This formation is a starting point, not a doctrine: the ambition is to marry Uruguay’s traditions of technical intelligence, collective movement and garra with a modern, adaptable structure that gives every player a purpose. Then comes the battle of starting this process in the third tier of Portuguese football!

Out of possession, things become considerably more fluid. I’m not particularly interested in maintaining the same defensive shape against every opponent. A mid-block will be an important reference point, but the height of our engagement, the aggression of our pressing and the positions we defend from will change according to the circumstances. There will be matches when we need to protect the middle and invite the opposition wide; others may demand a more aggressive approach. The objective is not tactical flexibility for its own sake, but the ability to solve different problems without losing our identity.

There are certain principles I want to preserve regardless of the shape or the opponent. The first is the courage to play through pressure, using short passing and intelligent movement to draw opponents towards the ball before finding the space they have left behind. That reflects something of el toque – not possession for its own sake, but the technical security and collective understanding to make the ball a means of controlling the game. I want to encourage dribbling where it can unsettle an opponent, particularly in situations where a player can commit a defender and open a passing lane for somebody else. We will look to progress through the middle, play to feet and begin with a relatively narrow attacking width, encouraging combinations around the ball before exploiting the spaces that emerge. Counter-attacking remains important, too; patience in possession should never become an excuse to miss an opportunity to attack quickly. The influence of Uruguayan football, from Ondino Viera’s tactical innovations to the country’s enduring tradition of competitive intelligence and garra, is a reminder that technical ambition must be matched by pragmatism. I want us to dictate the terms of a game where possible, but recognise when the situation demands something different. These principles are our starting point, not a set of instructions to follow blindly.

Teaching the System

FM27’s new tactical-effectiveness system adds another dimension to this process. The tactical screen now gives us a way to examine how comfortable individual players are with particular elements of the system, including our in-possession shape, passing style, build-up, chance creation and defensive structure. These readings are influenced by several factors, including training contribution, match exposure, a player’s tactical ability and the complexity of the instructions being asked of him.

That last point is particularly interesting. It suggests that tactical development cannot be separated from player development, and that choosing a role is only the beginning of the process. We need to consider whether a player understands the responsibilities attached to it, whether his attributes support those responsibilities and whether our training programme is helping him become more effective within the collective.

Gabriel Costa is my first case study.

At nineteen, Costa has the makings of an interesting defensive midfielder at any level of Portuguese football. His determination, aggression, concentration and work rate provide an incredibly promising foundation, while his tackling and anticipation suggest that he could become a useful presence in front of the defence. He isn’t yet a particularly accomplished creative player, with modest vision and composure, so I’m more interested in how he can contribute to the defensive structure than in asking him to become the primary architect of our possession game. This is, obviously, very early in the game for me to be thinking about player development but it ties in so closely now with tactical development that it feels silly not to address it.

In possession, I’d thought about experimenting with him as a Box-to-Box Midfielder; out of possession, he was initially assigned the Pressing Defensive Midfielder role. When I changed the latter to a standard Defensive Midfielder, his tactical-effectiveness profile improved in that area. It is a small adjustment, but a revealing one: the more aggressive role may suit his attributes, yet the alternative appears easier for him to understand within our current system. I need to work out whether this is based on game intelligence, overall current ability or something else. I also need to consider whether this will lead to the end of my ‘train the schedule that hits the most attributes’ style that I have always used within my first teams. I can, maybe, get away with this at youth level still but this might be the turning point.

My next step is to explore how role selection and individual training can influence that development. Costa is currently working on Ball Control at double intensity, which could help improve his security in possession. I am really happy to see some new areas here that cover more attributes – but that only backs up the use the wider individual foci to develop attributes hypothesis, here. I also need to consider whether his out-of-possession training assignment should reinforce the standard defensive role rather than the pressing variant – because, in previous editions, I’ve found it to have little to no impact. He is more comfortable with the standard variant but what If I need him to press? Where does the line get drawn between me developing him or me using him for what he is and is there now a line between developing an OOP role and using an OOP role in the match? For me, changing one variable at a time should help me understand what actually improves his tactical familiarity, rather than making several adjustments and guessing at the cause.

This is very much the beginning of the process and really excites me that it ties together training and player development. It interests me that I might now get the opportunity to truly build something deliberately: a tactical framework that can adapt to different opponents, supported by players who understand not just their individual roles, but how those roles contribute to the team as well as have the attributes to do so.

That, ultimately, is the work of El Taller. The ideas matter, but so does the education required to bring them to life.