18 | A MORE CONSIDERED TRANSITION

One of the things that has become increasingly apparent during these early matches is that our attempts to transition quickly were coming at the expense of the structure we were trying to establish in possession. The counter-attacking instruction encouraged an immediate change of behaviour upon winning the ball; players moved forward, positions were vacated and, too often, our build-up became a little chaotic. When we lost the ball, we were in positions that allowed us to be countered so, to counter that, we pushed less men forward. There is a difference between playing quickly and simply playing in a hurry and there is a difference between being pragmatic and being afraid to take a risk.

I’ve therefore removed Counter and made a few adjustments: higher tempo, more creative freedom, pass into space and dribble more. The intention isn’t to abandon the idea of attacking quickly, but to find a more controlled way of doing it. I want us to move the ball with greater urgency, exploit space when it presents itself and allow players to carry possession into areas where they can cause problems, without everyone immediately abandoning their starting positions.

There is a connection here with The Taller. The structure has to provide the foundations; it should give players useful positions, passing options and relationships from which to work. Equally, The Teacher is about developing players who understand the game in front of them, rather than simply following a sequence of instructions. A little more creative freedom should help with that, provided we don’t confuse freedom with a lack of organisation. And, of course, Garra & El Toque remains central to the idea: the intensity to compete, but with the technical quality and composure to make something of possession.

It’s a relatively small adjustment on paper, but an important one in principle. We’re still looking to play forward, move quickly and unsettle opponents. I simply want us to do so with a little more thought and considerably less disorder.

19 | UP FOR THE CUP

There is a reasonably long history between Atlético and Casa Pia, although it is perhaps less familiar than the fixture against Belenenses. This is another Lisbon derby, between two clubs whose paths have crossed through several levels of Portuguese football, from the old regional and national divisions through to the Campeonato de Portugal. They may not occupy the same place in the city’s football hierarchy today, but they share a history and a geographical proximity that gives this fixture a little more significance than a routine cup tie.

The historical statistics list 24 meetings between the sides: Atlético have won 13, drawn two and lost nine. It is a record that might surprise anyone looking only at the clubs’ more recent encounters, and suggests that this has been a fairly competitive relationship over time. Atlético’s record is particularly strong at Pina Manique, where they have won seven of their 12 recorded visits.

There have been some sizeable results in both directions. Atlético’s best victories include a 3–0 away win in the 1983–84 season and another 3–0 at home. Casa Pia, however, have a rather more recent result that will be remembered less fondly in Alcântara: an 8–0 victory in November 2016, their biggest win in the fixture. That followed a 2–0 win at Tapadinha earlier in the same season.

The clubs have not met regularly since those encounters, making this cup tie a return to a fixture that has been absent for almost a decade. Casa Pia are now established a division above us, but the league position does not remove the local significance. This was a chance to make a statement against another Lisbon club, and to do it in a competition where a place in the next round was at stake.

I was pleased with this one, not simply because we won, but because it showed how some of our ideas are developing. Belenenses was our first league match; we have now played eight games since then and have not lost in the league. The adjustments to our build-up have been part of a gradual process, working out how to give the team more options without losing the organisation that makes those options possible.

That is the thinking behind what I’ve been calling structured spontaneity. I want the team to have a recognisable shape and clear responsibilities, particularly when building from the back, but I don’t want that structure to become restrictive. Removing Play Through Press and using Gabriel Costa [#6] as an Advanced Centre-Back – essentially as a one man press-beating machine – are part of that process. The intention is to find central routes forward more readily, rather than forcing the ball through the same areas or following a predictable sequence every time we have possession. I found that we have become somewhat stagnant at the back, passing the ball across the backline, waiting for a press that never really happens. When you look at the passing statistics, the defenders in the team are fantastic at keeping the ball and see an awful lot of it – Monteiro, Costa and Calegari are my first choice three – but they don’t really get it forward much, which somewhat defeats the transitional objectives I wanted to achieve.

Ahead of them. the two attacking midfielders [#20] and [#17] are now positioned centrally, rather than relying on wide players moving inside. They are playing as fairly straightforward Attacking Midfielders, with individual instructions intended to reproduce some of the movement and behaviour of channel midfielders. I’m deliberately keeping the roles simple; I want them to find useful positions, occupy the opposition’s defensive midfielder and at least one central midfielder, and give us options between the lines without adding unnecessary tactical complexity. In possession, this helps create a 2-3-4-1, with five players operating centrally, with a box formed from the two DMs [#18] and [#8] and the two AMs. The structure gives us a platform, but the players still need the freedom and judgement to recognise when to combine, carry the ball or play forward.

The numbers suggest the approach had some success. Casa Pia enjoyed 58% possession and completed more progressive passes, but we finished with 12 shots to their 11, six efforts on target to their two, and a considerably better expected-goals return: 1.53 against 0.67. We also created two clear-cut chances without conceding one. David Dinamite [#29] was – once again – particularly influential from his high risk wing back role, covering 10.9 kilometres and making 12 sprints, while completing 23 of his 26 passes. Five key passes, 1.15 expected assists and the assist for Nicolas Souza’s [#9] winning goal made for an excellent individual performance; his 8.4 rating reflected that influence.

Souza’s contribution was equally important. He scored the only goal on 70 minutes, having registered four shots and an individual xG of 1.15. Only one of those attempts was on target, but that was the one that mattered. Dinamite supplied the delivery, and the combination gave us the breakthrough against a side from the division above. There will be conversations about his involvement in games – completing less than 15 passes per 90 so far this season and taking less than two shots – but he does know where the goal is!

There is still plenty to refine, but this was another encouraging indication that the ideas are taking hold. We defended with purpose, found ways to progress through midfield and created opportunities to attack space when Casa Pia committed players forward. Winning a Lisbon derby in the cup is a good result in itself; doing so while seeing the principles we’ve been developing translate into the match makes it all the more satisfying.