Five matches have taken us to the semi-finals of the Taça de Portugal, and we’ve done it without conceding a goal. Eléctrico were the first to fall, beaten 2–0 away, before the 1–0 victory over Casa Pia brought another Lisbon derby and our first test against opposition from a division above. Rebordosa and Juventude de Évora followed, both beaten away from home, 3–0 and 2–0 respectively. Paços de Ferreira were the visitors to Tapadinha in the quarter-final, where another 1–0 win secured our place in the last four.

It’s worth being honest about the route. Of the five opponents we’ve faced, only Casa Pia were playing above us, while one other club came from our own level; the remaining three were below us in the pyramid. We haven’t had to negotiate a particularly difficult sequence of fixtures, and I wouldn’t present this as evidence that we’re already capable of competing with the strongest sides in Portugal. However, cup competitions are about taking the opportunities in front of you. We’ve won five consecutive ties, kept five clean sheets and earned the right to play in a semi-final. That’s something to enjoy.

The draw has given us Sporting away, which makes this a particularly significant occasion for Atlético. It’s another Lisbon derby, but one against a club whose place in Portuguese football is rather different from our own. There is history between the sides, too, and the Taça de Portugal provides a particularly interesting connection.

The clubs met in the 1946 final, when Sporting won 4–2. Atlético had reached that final by beating Benfica 3–2 in the quarter-finals and Porto 2–1 in the semi-finals; a remarkable run against two of the country’s biggest clubs, even if Sporting ultimately proved too strong on the day. Fernando Peyroteo scored twice in the final, and Atlético were left as runners-up. Eighty years later, we have another opportunity to meet Sporting in this competition, although this time we’ll have to go across the city to Alvalade.

There is a practical benefit to reaching this stage as well. We will receive 50% of the matchday income from the semi-final, which makes the financial reward potentially significant for a club operating at our level. A visit to Sporting should bring a much larger crowd and a different scale of occasion from anything we’ve experienced so far this season. That income could make a meaningful contribution to the resources available to us; it is an opportunity to strengthen the club, not just enjoy a big afternoon of football.

I know the odds will be against us, and the difference in resources and playing level is obvious. But this is precisely the sort of fixture that makes a cup run worthwhile: a Lisbon derby, a historic opponent and a chance to test ourselves against one of the country’s biggest clubs. We’ll go to Alvalade with nothing to lose, but plenty to gain.

22 | HALF WAY THERE

Seven games into the Championship Group campaign, we’re top of the table with 19 points. Six wins and a draw have given us a four-point advantage over Mafra, and the recent sequence has been particularly pleasing. We’ve beaten Lusitano Évora 3–1 away, Paços de Ferreira 2–0 at home, Paredes 2–1 away, Marco 09 2–0 at home, Vitória de Guimarães B 2–1 away and Caldas 2–0 at home, before drawing 1–1 away at Mafra. There is a good spread of results in there, with wins at home and away and against a range of opponents.

The league table is encouraging, but I’m more interested in understanding why we’re performing as we are. The tactical framework has continued to evolve, and the latest adjustment has been moving César Sousa from his defensive midfield role into a Box-to-Box Midfielder position. The intention is to give us another player arriving in the attacking line, while retaining the central box structure that has become such an important part of our possession game. I’m looking for something closer to a 3-1-5-1 in possession: more bodies ahead of the ball, more options around the opposition’s midfield and, hopefully, more pressure on the space in and around the penalty area. You can see, below, even when the comparison is slightly different in terms of pass map vs average positions, that abandoning the advanced centre back – in favour of retention of a back three – but pushing one of the pivot players further forward means that we are able to stagger the players and create more routes through the middle. We are also no longer defined as ‘narrow’ in order to ensure that we are able to occupy each vertical channel.

Sousa’s individual output hasn’t changed dramatically. He has no goal involvements to show for the new role and remains a conservative presence in possession, but that is not necessarily a problem. His possession balance is +0.21 per 90, meaning he is winning the ball more often than he loses it. I want him to provide the platform for the more aggressive players around him, rather than turn him into something he isn’t and then combine that with his presence as another body, rather than a true box crasher in that sense.

The wider team numbers are more striking. Comparing the earlier reference point with the latest ten-game sample, goals per game have increased by 29%, expected goals by 23.6%, shots by 21.5%, shots on target by 18.8% and chances created by 16.6%. It is difficult to attribute all of that to one positional change, but the direction is encouraging. More players are getting forward, and we’re creating more opportunities as a result. Should we get promoted, and that is certainly not a given right now, I will need to assess as to whether this is too risky against better quality opposition and will, therefore, return to the more favoured 3-2-4-1 build up shape that we used earlier in the season.

Our approach is still built around control in the defensive third, although that doesn’t necessarily mean dominating possession or territory. We’re generally comfortable allowing opponents to have the ball and progress into our half, provided we can maintain our defensive organisation and protect the spaces that matter. It looks like we are struggling, but we are largely in control. We have also experimented with a 5-4-1 out of possessionshape, looking at whether a different defensive structure can help us manage those periods more effectively.

I’m conscious of how far to take these experiments. I remain reluctant to introduce tactical solutions that aren’t realistically available to AI managers in the game; there is little value in building an approach around advantages that exist only because I’m controlling the team. The challenge is to find a balance between experimentation and maintaining a credible footballing framework.

One area that still concerns me is the understanding of our forward three. Bernardo Lourenço and Pedro Ramos are playing as fairly straightforward Attacking Midfielders, while Hélder Suker leads the line as a Poacher. None of those roles should be particularly demanding in tactical terms, yet they remain among the least understood positions in the team. The interesting thing is that their performances are generally good. Lourenço has six goals and six assists in 29 appearances, while Ramos has five goals and two assists in 21 appearances (including substitute appearances). Suker has 14 goals in 19 appearances. The output is there, but the tactical understanding is lagging behind.

I have to consider whether the quality of coaching is part of the problem. Francisco Figueiredo is responsible for our attacking work, but his coaching ability is relatively modest. He is probably around the level we should expect at this club, rather than an obvious weakness in isolation. Still, if we’re asking players to develop more sophisticated relationships in the final third, the person responsible for coaching those areas matters. It may be something we need to address as the club grows.

I also then have to consider where the Player Ability is the big kicker here. These players are pretty decent at this level but no more than that. I wonder how much that is implicating their ability to do what I want: they simply do not have the footballing ability to do so.

Our fantastic cup run ended at Sporting, where we lost 2–0 at Alvalade. We were outplayed for much of the match: Sporting had 67% possession, 18 shots to our four and an xG advantage of 2.50 to 0.69. We did create a clear-cut chance, but the overall performance showed the distance between where we are and the level we eventually want to reach. It was a useful test, even if it was a difficult afternoon.

Financially, however, the occasion was extremely valuable. The gate receipts, television revenue and prize money brought in close to £500,000, a substantial sum for a club operating in Liga 3. That money gives us some additional breathing room – in the way that it wipes out our overdraft, but it doesn’t remove the need to be careful as we will likely end up here against next season. A large proportion of the squad are approaching the end of their contracts this summer, and I need to think carefully about who we retain, who we allow to leave and where we can improve.

There is also the possibility of promotion. If we go up, our ability to attract players should improve, but I don’t expect a sudden transformation in our reputation or finances. We may have to build a squad capable of competing at a higher level without having the resources to recruit extensively. Equally, replacing too many players at once carries its own risk: a new group will need time to understand one another and develop the relationships that have helped us reach this position.

For now, the priority is to keep the momentum going. We’re top of the league, our attacking output is improving and the tactical identity is becoming clearer. But the next stage will require more than simply finding better players. I need to decide which parts of this squad are worth building around, where the coaching staff need strengthening and how much change we can afford without losing the cohesion we’ve worked to establish.