Bringing Ricardo Quaresma to Tapadinha as assistant manager is an appointment I am particularly pleased with. It gives the coaching staff a figure with an extraordinary playing career, but also someone whose understanding of Portuguese football comes from having experienced it at almost every level. For a young manager taking his first senior job, having that experience alongside him could prove invaluable.

Born in Lisbon in 1983, Quaresma came through Sporting’s academy after being spotted as a ten-year-old. He made his senior debut as a teenager and was part of the Sporting side that won the league and cup double in 2001–02. A move to Barcelona followed in 2003, before he returned to Portugal with Porto, where he found a more settled home and won three consecutive league titles. His career subsequently took him to Inter, Chelsea, Beşiktaş, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey, before finishing at Vitória de Guimarães in 2022.

Internationally, he earned 80 caps for Portugal and was part of the side that won Euro 2016. His goal against Croatia in the round of 16 remains one of the defining moments of that tournament; a reminder of the individual quality that made him such a distinctive player. The trivela became his signature, but his game was built around more than a spectacular technique. He was an instinctive, inventive footballer who was comfortable taking responsibility and attempting things that others might not see.

There is a useful contrast between the two men. Santi has come into management through sports science, youth coaching and an interest in the educational side of the game. Quaresma has experienced the dressing rooms, the pressure and the demands of elite football first-hand. Santi doesn’t expect them to approach every situation in the same way, and that is probably a good thing. An assistant should offer another perspective, challenge decisions when necessary and help translate ideas into something players can understand and apply.

There is also a local connection. Quaresma grew up in Lisbon and came through one of the city’s great football institutions; now he returns to the city in a very different capacity, at a club trying to establish itself in the professional game. Santi wants the players to benefit from that experience, particularly the younger members of the squad who are still learning what a career in senior football requires.

A famous name doesn’t guarantee success, nor does a great playing career automatically make someone a great coach. There are questions about his alignment of tactical styles compared to Santi’s but Quaresma brings a level of experience, credibility and footballing knowledge that would be difficult to replicate elsewhere. He is Santi’s second in command, and the intention is for him to be more than a name on the staff list.

32 | THE EIGHT-WEEK EXPERIMENT

Eight weeks ago, I introduced the first proper stage of Atlético’s tactical development programme. The intention was relatively straightforward: having established our physical preparedness and initial match sharpness during June and July, August would mark the beginning of a more deliberate attempt to develop the team’s understanding and effectiveness within our chosen game model.

Rather than distribute attention across every tactical area each week, I opted for a structured four-week rotation. The eight areas were divided into four pairs, with each receiving concentrated attention on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday.

The cycle would then repeat, giving us two complete rotations across August and September. The intention wasn’t simply to increase familiarity with individual instructions, but to develop a more coherent understanding of how the different elements of our football relate to one another.

There were, of course, interruptions. Two-game weeks on 22 August and 20 September required some compromise, particularly around workload and the balance between tactical development and match preparation. Nevertheless, the underlying structure remained intact.

What questions has it answered?

Firstly, the programme has given us a repeatable framework for tactical development. Rather than changing training priorities reactively, we have established a sequence that allows each area to receive dedicated attention before returning to it later in the cycle. Secondly, the results provide evidence of progression across the eight tactical areas. The changes are not particularly dramatic, and I wouldn’t pretend that eight weeks of work has transformed the team’s tactical capabilities; however, the indicators give us something tangible to evaluate rather than relying entirely on subjective impressions. Perhaps most importantly, we now have a baseline against which subsequent development can be measured. We can begin to distinguish between areas that respond quickly to concentrated training and those that require a different approach.

What questions does it now raise?

This is where I find the results more interesting.

Has the improvement been sufficient to justify the time invested? We have completed two rotations, but does that represent meaningful tactical development, or have we simply made incremental progress that would have happened through normal training and match exposure? Would we benefit from, instead of a week where I run three of two-types of session, two of four-types of session, with less individual development at this time?

For ‘In Possession’ – the pizza at the end is the same level as the pizza two weeks prior, but it is a different colour. Is this a different metric that is now being measured? It’s at the same level but the orange indicating that it may drop soon? Or is that over-thinking?

Are Tactical Understanding and Tactical Effectiveness developing together? FM27 makes an important distinction between these concepts, and I want to understand whether improvements in one necessarily translate into improvements in the other. Are we developing the collective or simply improving individual indicators? Our intention is to create a recognisable Atlético identity, not eight independently successful training categories. The relationship between these areas is arguably more important than their individual progression. 

And finally, are we measuring the right things? A training indicator can tell us something about development, but it cannot independently tell us whether the team is making better decisions, recognising opportunities or executing our intended football under pressure.

What happens next?

For now, I am reluctant to abandon the existing rotation. It provides structure, consistency and a manageable workload, particularly when balanced against the demands of a competitive season. October will provide another opportunity to evaluate the approach before making a decision on the transition into Maintain. This is still very much a work in progress. I don’t have definitive answers, and I suspect that is precisely why the exercise is worthwhile.