How the 2000s changed tactics #4: Off-the-ball movement
Movement is not a new thing in football – as outlined by Jonathan Wilson in Inverting The Pyramid, the hallmark of the legendary Hungary side which famously beat England 6-3 in 1953 was their players’ tendency to drift out of their natural position and switch with teammates, thereby confusing the opposition about who they were supposed to be marking.
But there seems to have been a resurgence in the popularity and importance of ‘good movement’ in recent years. The main effect of good off-the-ball movement in modern football is that it draws the opposition out of position, hopefully creating space in a key area. If you’re a striker, being marked by a centre-back, then coming deep towards the play in midfield will either (a) leave you unmarked and free for a pass or (b) tempt the centre-back to follow you, therefore opening up space in the heart of the defence.
But (b) is only really effective if you have another player who can exploit the space. In the 4-4-2, a classic example of how movement worked was for one striker to drop deep, bring a centre-back with him, and then his strike partner would make a lateral run across the defence to move into the space created. But this is fairly basic; because attack and midfield were a considerable distance from each other in a 4-4-2, it was reasonably difficult for the two to interchange fluidly through movement.
The shift towards four-band formations has the natural effect of narrowing the gap between the forward(s) and any onrushing midfield players, meaning it is a lot easier to exploit the space created by the movement from a forward. Whereas in a 4-4-2 it was often simply a case of one forward assisting another, in a 4-2-3-1 formation, for example, a run from the lone striker can create space for one of three supporting players, with the widemen considerably closer than they would be in a 4-4-2.
And of course the reverse can apply (a winger creating space for a forward), there can be a knock-on effect (an attacking midfielder creating space for a more defensive midfielder) and with the advent of attacking full-backs, wide players often create space for full-backs on the overlap. In short, the fact that four band formations are naturally more fluid than three-band formations has increased the importance of movement.
The resurgence of focus on movement probably started with Arrigo Sacchi’s Milan side. As Paolo Maldini has said (also taken from ITP):
‘Before Sacchi came to Milan, the clash between two opposing players was always the key, but with him it was all about movement off the ball, and that’s where we won our matches’.
It should be understood in relation to other aspects of modern football – an increased focus on ball retention in midfield makes movement in attacking positions more valuable, whilst the increased pace of modern footballers and the tendency to play on the counter-attack (primarily because there is more space to exploit) have also contributed.
Good movement is important in all attacking positions, and the popularity of the lone striker has made it particularly vital for certain types of players who play in that role. A particular master of it was Pedro Pauleta (above), the Portuguese striker. Whereas ten years ago the primary aim of lone strikers was to hold the ball up, today they are increasingly concerned with making intelligent runs off the ball – hence why players such as Wayne Rooney and Liedson can be fielded on their own upfront, and this also partly explains the rise of the false nine.
As is the case with many aspects of beautiful modern football, Arsenal provide some of the best examples. This goal (at 1:22) shows how Robert Pires’ left-right run takes the Chelsea centre-back away, creating space for Patrick Vieira to run into:
Whilst this is a similar but more recent example; Theo Walcott’s right-left run draws Nemanja Vidic out of position, making space for Samir Nasri to exploit.
Equally, good movement on the ball can create space for opponents to move into. There are no better strikers in terms of movement than Fiorentina’s Alberto Gilardino – this video shows how a very, very simple movement creates a goal for Alessandro del Piero overlapping him on the left. Gilardino moves the ball twice towards the centre of the pitch, moving the defender five yards towards the centre – then lays the ball off for Alessandro del Piero, who is in oceans of space as a result:
Any other suggestions of relevant goals? This topic more than any other in this series has emerged because of multiple factors, so comments outlining anything excluded here would be welcome.
How the 2000s changed tactics #4: Off-the-ball movement
That Italy goal is quoted by Bilic as one of his reasonings that has made the game one about “the movement of ten players” now. His analysis on Match of the Day 2 (for UK viewers eyes only) highlighted that the games are more controlling of space based and not allowing opportunities any room. Teams are compact and defend in a block usually in their own half with nine behind the ball. (Liverpool 0-0 Man City was the example).
Bilic says to counter this you need good movement and especially key is the full-back who is usually unmarked. But that also highlights the increasing demands on players as fitness improves. Look at Ronaldo’s role at United – of course it was highly individualistic but he was expected to play as a winger/striker, similar to Robinho and movement is key. Or on another spectrum, Park and Kuyt whose role is as much defensive as well as attacking, covering great distances but are always expected also to get in to goalscoring positions. Much work only made possible by increasing fitness levels.
Of course, that leads to increasing all rounded players and the use of the hybrid striker can cause havoc to marking as Crouch showed against an Egypt back threewhen replacing a static Jermaine Defoe.
Probably the biggest difference between Ronaldo and Messi is that, Messi creates space for others through movement(off the ball and with it) and others create space for Ronaldo to run into.
Movement has been a prominent feature in most of the great teams of the decade. Especially, late running(llegada) as practiced by teams like Roma has become increasingly popular. It can be extremely effective as it is very tough to anticipate it. How do you think late runs into the box can be dealt with effectively?
The rare time Ronaldo makes a run and doesn’t get a ball definitely opens up space for others as well.
Ronaldo is a good example primarily for the way he creates space with the ball. As he gets the ball he draws two or three opponents, which means more of his team mates are open. If he runs at the defenders he further reduces their space to react to a pass to another player (it’s essentially impossible to track the pass when you, as a defender, are either backing out or committing to a challenge). The main problem with that concept is that Ronaldo does not frequently think like that, but his time with Kaká is actually teaching him that side of the game (Kaká is the consumate space-creating player in world football today). One example of how that works is Eboué’s goal against Porto last wednesday, whith Arshavin moving towards the defender and effectively making him commit to the ball and ignore Eboué. That created acres of space between the defender and the keeper, which were very effectively used.
One important aspect of the concept of the lone striker is that he needs to be a good passer. As you wrote, one option when drifting out of position is to receive the ball. Since that happens when the striker is open because the defender did not go with him, then it is good that he has either a good passing ability or a good long shot, otherwise the exercise may be a waste of energy.
Last note: moving creates not only space for the team-mates but should always be done with the intention of getting the ball in order to score. Otherwise the defender will not commit. It should also be remarked about the videos presented that the off-the-ball moves were made by non-strikers, which made them even more effective because they brought a new, “foreign” element into the heart of the defence. That caused the unbalance more than anything else.
“One important aspect of the concept of the lone striker is that he needs to be a good passer.”
I think I disagree with this statement Obviously a lone striker can’t be a bad passer, but no top-class outfield player is a bad passer. Thinking of the top strikers who can play as a single striker, only Rooney stands out as an excellent passer of the ball. Ibra is also very good, but past them I can really think of someone who is more than average by a team standards. If I’m missing someone, please let me know. Strength and speed are both more important.
Van Persie?
Another example: Germany’s second goal against Sweden at the World Cup 2006. Although Klose doesn’t move a great distance he still creates space for Podolski to move into and score.
Dennis Bergkamp and Freddie Ljungberg at the back end of the 2001-2002 season is my personal favourite. For nearly two months the same combination effectively sealed the league for Arsenal, Bergkamp dropping deeper to receive and attract defenders and Ljungberg running infield to finish. So simple, yet nobody could deal with it.
Spot on mate, as a Man Utd fan I used to hate seeing Ljungberg make those outside inside runs. How many games did Arsenal win one-nil as a result of those crucial goals
[...] How the 2000s changed tactics #4: Off-the-ball movement | Zonal Marking __________________ [...]
Look at Lyon’s Lisandro on this. He’s been fantastic in this role of space-opener. Look at Govou’s goal in the 5-5 game vs Marseille.
Yes, he is a prime example, in Porto he was constantly drifting to the left wing in a 4-3-3 formation leaving Cristian Rodriguez – or anyone else who played on the left – space to drift in. I’m not sure if the most proiminente efect of this change was to drag the CB with the CF, i think it was more about confusing the defenders and allow Lisandro to cut in with the ball.