Lots of clubs, coaches, and federations have a game model. This influences how you view the pitch, and therefore the areas that are prioritised in attack and defence. Let's look at why this came about, potential limitations, different ways the pitch is viewed, and a more modern, adaptable approach.
A lot of football observers, even casual fans with limited understanding, will talk about the pitch in thirds. And there is a growing understanding, even from armchair managers, that teams sometimes have to behave differently in different areas of the pitch. But if you view the pitch in thirds, what do you do about half spaces? You've got the two wings, and the centre, which creates nine zones, so where do the half spaces go?
And what about the research that said the majority of goals were assisted from Zone 14? And do you behave differently in different parts of the third? Surely how you behave in the back half of the defensive third is more emergency defending, compared to the front half of the defensive third?
The Basics
This one is easy enough. It's simple, common sense, and easy to understand. It provides useful reference points to players learning the game, and has permeated the lexicon of football parlance to even the most "get rid of it!" fans. It can help teams understand where to press, what shapes to make in what situations, and how to build.
Some coaches have basic principles for their teams to follow in these thirds. For example;
Defensive third; Safety first
Midfield third; Keep possession
Attacking third; Express yourself
This can be taken a step further, when factoring the four phases of the game, if your game model does indeed believe in four phases.
Defensive Third:
In Possession - Build-up
Negative Transition - Defend the goal
Out of Possession - Defend deep
Positive Transition - Play forward
Midfield Third:
In Possession - Control and destabilise the opponent
Negative Transition - Slow down the attack
Out of Possession - Control the opponent
Positive Transition - Find options in the final third
Attacking Third:
In Possession - Create chances
Negative Transition - Press
Out of Possession - High block
Positive Transition - Go to goal
Like most frameworks, even though it is useful, it can be limited. What you do with the ball on the wing is different to what you do with it in the centre.
By adding three vertical columns to our horizontal rows, we now have nine zones on the pitch. This helps to understand, with more clarity, what kind of risk can be taken in which area. I believe that ultimately, your strategy or choice of tactics sets the bar for the level of risk you're willing to accept. I prefer to dominate possession, with risk averse play. Let's keep the ball, be patient, and not give the ball away cheaply to our opponents. Especially as, in order to play like this, we have to be open and expansive. Losing the ball, therefore becomes fatal. Other coaches, with their different levels of risk, will move along this spectrum. Some will prefer to get the ball forward quicker, not looking to lose possession in their own half, but losing up at the other end of the pitch, far from goal.
(It's important to note, despite the orientation of the pitches in this article, verticality always refers to the same orientation of goal to goal, and horizontality refers to playing across the pitch from wing to wing.)
Nine zones like this allows for a little more specialisation within tactical instructions. For instance, you might ask your wingers to be wide when in possession in the midfield third, but start to play narrower in the attacking third, to combine with the striker, and allow space out wide for overlaps.
Some coaches choose not to refer to the zones on the pitch as "defensive" etc. As the basic thirds themselves are limited, more specificity is added within this model.
This model labels the three zones differently, from the perspective of what to do while in possession. It also labels the penalty area as the "finishing zone," distinguishing it from the rest of the attacking third. The framing of the attacking third as the "incision zone" shows that the aim here is to get the ball into the box. Once in the box, the focus switches from creating to finishing. Some coaches may choose to include "emergency defending" as a zone in their own penalty area, however, the perspective of the above pitch is an offensive one, not a defensive one.
Although this provides more detail than the basic three thirds model, it still deals in absolutes. As we know, games aren't played on paper. We'll go into that in more detail shortly, however I feel that none of this is adequate justification for abandoning these types of models altogether, as they prove useful for different levels of understanding. To me, it's like when you're young and learning about light in physics class, you are told light is a wave. This is only a limited view of how light functions, but it's a necessary framework for young minds. It's only later, when you have a firm grasp of the basics, that you begin to learn about photons, and that light has the properties of both a wave and a particle.
Framing this model through an in-possession lens sends the message to teams what should occur in each area of the pitch. In the build-up zone, we have to by-pass the opposition's press and break into the middle third. In the consolidation zone, we're keeping the ball, dominating possession, and looking to supply the front line. In the incision zone, the objective is to create chances in the penalty area.
Account for Half Spaces?
After adding in the wings, many teams went further and added the half spaces. What is the purpose? Strategically, as football has progressed, the half space has increased in value. I'll show you why.
The modern game is all about vision, angles, space, options etc.
The RB in the above picture can see the whole field, but due to the proximity of their position on the pitch to the touchline, can only play in 180 degrees of the pitch. They can see more, but their options are limited.
The holding midfielder, in possession centrally, can play in any direction, but can only see half of the pitch. Options have increased, but vision has decreased.
Now that the CB is in possession in the half space, their positioning allows them to see much of the field, while also not being too close to the touchline, allowing them possibilities to play in all directions. This provides the player with both a high level of vision and options. It makes them less predictable.
Football used to be about knock-downs, second balls, and crosses. As teams improved and evolved, the way they created chances changed too. The CM in possession of the ball in the half space has multiple options for linking up and assisting chances. Many of the passes played eliminate an opponent with either a diagonal ball for a straight run, or a straight ball for a diagonal run. Diagonal passes are deadly, because they break opposition lines along two planes.
With two strikers being increasingly rare in football, and possession increasing, as teams kept the ball for longer and made longer sequences of passes, the game became more positional. Teams would keep the ball for longer, and get players into important and useful areas of the pitch. A second striker used to provide ready-made support. This job has now transferred to the wingers, who come into those interior corridors to provide support to the striker. However, this reduces the width, meaning the right and left back would push up to perform much of the roles previously filled by wingers. The effect this has is that teams often get five players into their attacking line, and occupy all five vertical channels.
The patient build-up play of the best possession teams allows them to get five players into their frontline. Perhaps it's risky to commit so many players forward, but then aren't you better placed to press upon negative transition?
Hopeful crosses from distance have become a thing of the past. And switches of play from one wing to the other are increasingly rare, especially in the attacking half. Crosses still provide a large source of goals in football, but the cross types are different. Crosses are of shorter distances, spend less time in the air, or are typically on the ground. Cut-backs are huge!
Football is no longer a game of hit and hope. The above crossing matrix may provide a good indication of what to do from each area in the attacking half, but the danger is when context is lacking, some may view a picture like this as a script. Do you have to do an early cross from the area marked "early?" What if the opposition backline is disorganised, and you can find a teammate at the back post? Are all crosses from the "low" area hit along the ground? No. Realistically, these are the most common or successful types of crosses from these areas, but it's not illegal to do something different, if the picture within the game demands it. And as we dive a little deeper, it's worth remembering that this is a framework, not a script.
Should it be flexible?
In a word; yes! The game changes. Teams press differently, and cede different areas of the pitch based on a whole range of factors. What's the score? How long left? Do we have any potential subs or tactical changes to make or respond to? Are we the stronger or the weaker team?
Imagine we've got a goal kick. Using the model above, we're in the build-up zone. But if the opposition are pressing us on the edge of our own box, will that affect what we do? Are we more likely to go longer rather than build up? If the opposition does overcommit with their press, and we break through their first line, we're now into the consolidation zone, but if we have the ball in that pocket just in front of their holding midfielder, and the opposition are playing with a high defensive line, are we not now realistically in the "incision zone" as it's likely one through ball could create a scoring chance? A literal reading of the above model may prove to be too rigid. Imagine Blue 8 is in possession of the ball, and the rest of the picture is still pretty much the same. Blue 8 is technically within the build-up zone, but with one decent pass, they could put any of the blue front three in on goal, which would then make it more incision rather than build-up.
Likewise, if our opponents, the red team, are dropping off and not looking to press, then our phase of "building" the attack would surely cover more of the pitch. It's fluid. The concepts of build-up, consolidate, and incision are fine. They provide simplicity and clarity, and providing that all participants are aware of the fluidity and context, they could be quite useful for painting pictures and layering concepts or principles. In some ways, it may make more sense to use the ideas of through, around, or over, because any of those three could be used at any time, in any area of the pitch. We might change the priority, like choosing over if the opposition have a high line, or around if they are sitting deep.
Analysis and Training
The above are aerial photos of Bayern's training ground when Pep was coach. Notice how the pitches have different grids painted on them. This suggests that perhaps there isn't an absolute, but instead there are different models that work best in certain situations. The painted lines on a grass pitch don't move, like the lines of an opponent's formation. In training, we can control more variables. We can instruct the opposition to play a certain way, creating the challenges for our focus team that we want to see.
A team like Bayern, playing two matches a week, across various competitions, would regularly face different opponents with different ways of playing. Some may accuse Pep of thinking too deeply, trying to be too clever, or changing too much based on the opponent. His trophy haul, and the millions given to him to invest in assembling playing squads by three of the world's biggest clubs, may suggest that his methods work. Each game will be different. You may be playing against a high, mid, or low block. A back three, four, or five. Holding midfielder, two holding midfielders, a CAM, no CAM. Inverted wingers, attacking full-backs, one, two, or three up top.
Keep in mind that top coaches don't think in formations the same way the rest of us do. They think more in shapes. At a goal kick, they may start as a 3-4-3, then how the midfielders and wingers rotate, it can quickly become a 3-1-3-3, then into a 3-2-2-3, a 3-4-1-2 as they progress up the pitch, before creating a chance at goal from getting five into their front line, ending in something like a 2-3-5. That's how it could look if you took aerial photographs every few seconds.
Looking at those training pitches above, which would be best for working on playing out from the keeper, combining in the midfield, pinning the opposition back in their own half by dominating possession, getting the full-backs to overlap the wingers? A lot of that will likely depend on how you feel are the best ways of doing those things. Essentially, any methods you use, it will involve getting certain players into certain positions. Therefore, lines on the pitch help. That's why, personally, I didn't mind playing on pitches in the US with lots of different lines on them.
It's quite common in the US to play on pitches with American football and lacrosse lines. I liked it, because you could tell the defence to step up five or ten yards, and they'd maintain that line, rather than subconsciously dropping back, creating more space. You could be clearer with your wingers on which height and width to go to, and more clearly define the roles of central midfielders.
It's useful for training. How useful is it for analysis?
The above picture shows Lyon out of possession in a 4-diamond-2. The vertical lines give us an idea of the width Lyon have in each of their units. With both teams here in start positions, it provides a clear picture of what either team's ideas might be. Without even reading the Total Football Analysis article, it's already helped me pick up on a few things. Bayern have a front three, and Lyon a back four, allowing their wing backs to position themselves wider, away from the CBs, in anticipation of a long ball from the keeper. The Bayern keeper's body shape might suggest she is left-footed. The Bayern LCB is not in a position to receive a short pass, due to her body shape, facing her own goal. Lyon may have identified this as a pressing trigger with their front two, one forcing the keeper to play down one side, and the other ready to hunt with her, in case the short ball comes. The Lyon backline look happy and prepared to deal with a long ball from the keeper, and Lyon's diamond midfield outnumbers Bayern 4v3, severely disrupting their build-up and ability to play centrally.
It's common for teams to divide the pitch into five columns vertically when assessing out of possession performance. A common instruction to the defending team is often something simple like occupy the three vertical columns that are closest to the ball. Simple. Have Lyon done that? Let's pause the video and draw some lines. Yes! These vertical columns would help us see if Lyon continue to do this as Bayern shift the ball laterally across the pitch, keeping their units close together (horizontal compactness = distance from left sided player to right sided player, vertical compactness = distance from back line to forward line). Do Lyon maintain horizontal compactness? Are they using the opponents or their teammates as reference? This would tell us if they are more zone or man-orientated in their positioning. And does anyone disconnect? For instance, their RB and two CBs come across to the right wing, but the LB stays way out left, as the opposition have kept a winger on the touchline, and they fancy winning that 1v1 defensively, so can have one player man-marking.
As ever, there's a lot to this. When watching the game back, you may view different aspects through different lenses. Again, context is key. What are you actually looking for, and why?
What do they do at PSV?
As you can probably guess, PSV's approach is both common sense, and functional. They take into account that pictures change, and the game is fluid, while also knowing learning players need some kind of guide.
The first thing to be aware of is the number system they use in the Netherlands. I don't wish to dwell on that roundabout debate on Twitter where coaches are arguing over numbers, specifically is a 6 the CDM or the CB. If you've read Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson, you don't need to waste your time with such pointless bickering.
What do you think about this? Not right, is it! Feels like it should be illegal. 5 should not be a left back, and 3 should not be a centre back. Bickering aside, lots of clubs and entire football cultures have numbers and positions that are synonymous. When I was on the USSF B License, the tutors kept correcting us if we said a position, like striker or winger. We had to say the number. Their idea there was to standardise the positions within their 4-3-3, as the USA has lots of people from all over the world, with often different names or understanding for the same idea or concept.
What about these two?
Wrong, isn't it? Feel like I need a shower. Sorry for putting you through that.
Joking aside, as the game is more global than ever, it's important to standardise your ideas within your own organisation. You need a common language. We should also be observing other footballing cultures. Success leaves clues. Although I'm never putting a 5 at left back. I'm open-minded, but that's a step too far.
I urge you to go to PSV in person and tell them how wrong they are. And you can find out about opportunities to go to Eindhoven by clicking this link.
The next thing that was difficult to get on board with is that they don't use numbers on their tactics boards or diagrams.
They feel that by putting numbers on the players, some players may feel pigeon-holed. "I can't do that, because that's not my position." Maybe this will cause some players to not pay attention, or become averse to rotations, switching positions, roaming, or covering for each other.
Realistically though, what are we looking at? If you isolate it, it's actually a 3v3. What do we need to overcome our opponent in this situation? We need one, two, and three player moves. What the English FA are now calling "core moves." How we solve this problem isn't determined by our formation or positions, as right now, we're in a 3v3. How do we exploit the space and the numbers? With passing or dribbling to attract or exploit, with movement, and with support angles. Our decision making and our combinations is how we win this 3v3. Therefore, does it matter who is who?
We may think this is a LB, CM, and LW, as those are the people you'd expect in this part of the pitch. But what if your LW made a run inside to receive a pass that never came, and your striker drifted out to the left wing? What if that's not your CM in there, but actually your CB who played a one-two to break a line, and moved forward to enter the midfield line, and was replaced in the defensive line by his teammate?
Here's some movements you might expect while building in a 4-3-3. Maybe not all at the same time. The point being illustrated is that players move all the time, and their starting and finishing positions could be different. The midfield three are marked or covered, so rotate to create new angles, hoping to arrive unmarked in each other's spaces. With the CB receiving in space, the CF thinks about making a run in behind, and is replaced by the LW, who may potentially drag away the opposition RB, creating space for the blue LB to run into. If the red RW follows the blue LB making a forward run, that creates more space for the blue CB, the 4, who may carry the ball wider into that vacant space. These movements have just changed our 4-3-3 into a 3-5-2.
If we get too bogged down with positions and formations, we miss the movements and rotations. Players are educated to solve problems in smaller situations. This is why PSV work so much on 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, small overloads, rondos, possession games, and do lots of individual technical work. The players are equipped to solve the small problems.
If you're in a 2v3, can you hold the ball long enough for help to arrive and make it a 3v3? Or recognise that the 2v3 won't work, so shift the ball to another area in search of that superiority. If you're in a 3v3, what movements and positions can you take to isolate opponents and make it a 3v2, 2v1, 3v1, or 1v0?
How do PSV view the pitch? In the defensive half, there are three zones dividing the half horizontally, with a zone inside the six-yard box. These zones are labelled by numbers, representing the predominant position within that zone, such as the keeper, CB, CM, attacking midfielder. The entire opposition half is labelled 9, which corresponds to the striker. Looking vertically, there are five vertical columns, with the halfspaces being marked out.
They use these ideas to structure their training sessions. In "Attacking Week 1" they were playing "+1 in box 3." What does that mean? Attacking week 1 is their scheme of work, with them focussing on attacking for several weeks at a time. Box 3 is the penalty area. The main principle of this session is to "outplay your opponent" with dominating your 1v1 always being on the cards. After this main principle comes their sub principles, and for this session, they are looking at; through/over the press, pass/dribble, position in between, bounce/turn, support.
In their sessions, PSV will also include what they call a "base" and a "dynamic" shape.
This idea speaks to their fluidity. The coaches themselves will help the players to understand in which areas they want to create superiority (+1), and these formations, within the context of their pitch zones, give them ideas as to which players need to make which shapes. This is where the players use their individual abilities to combine in small groups (3v3 etc.). As we keep saying, don't think in terms of formations, but think in terms of shapes. What shape, on what part of the pitch, with which players?
Your philosophy and game model, distilled down, can help you create pitch zones that work for you and your team.
Example from Futsal
I'm going to finish off with a futsal example, as I often do, because, as futsal is "football on steroids," the over-exaggerations of certain aspects can really highlight the points being made. You can get variation in pitch size and quality from week to week in football, and that does affect the game. However, in the National Futsal League, the third division of English futsal, the maximum court size is 40x20m, while the minimum is 30x16m. The smallest court is nearly three quarters the size of the biggest court. In my experience, these variances affect futsal way more than I've ever seen in football.
This is a common picture. The red team is attacking in a 3-1, with the green team defending in a diamond. The large amount of space on the wings forces the defending team to sit deeper, and protect the space just outside the D.
Next week, the court may be a completely different size, therefore affecting the game massively. The picture above shows the smallest possible court (shaded) on top of the biggest possible court.
After moving the players and the goals, and drawing on a couple of Ds, you can see how this much smaller court turns it into a very different game. On the smaller court, I'd rather be the team that is out of possession. Invasion games are about the creation and exploitation of space. Well, on the smaller court, there's hardly any space to exploit. So why not defend compact, wait for the opposition to make a mistake, and then hit them on the break?
The most common defensive shape in futsal is the diamond. That's because it gives the defending team more coverage, with the outfielders having three lines of width and three lines of depth. The thing is, any system has its weak points, and a shape or formation is like a cheap blanket; you can keep your feet warm or your head warm, but not both.
Potential vulnerabilities of this diamond are that if the window between pivot and wing isn't closed, the opponents can play into their pivot to receive in the pocket. Or the opposition can play the ball down the line, creating another threatening 1v1 in a wide area.
The pass wide means the entire defending team in green have to shift over to their right wing. This could potentially create a 2v1, 2v2, or 1v1 with space for the reds, as they play the ball back into the centre, or switch from left wing to right wring. With three vertical lines in the green defence, they will happily take this gamble, and will keep shifting across the court together in their diamond shape. Their 1-2-1 gives them width while defending, and although there are potential vulnerabilities, it's their constant covering and readjusting that mitigates against these vulnerabilities.
This is why teams would defend in a 1-2-1 rather than a 2-2 on a big court. However, when playing on a minimum sized court, you can sometimes get in each other's way, and this leaves the middle of the diamond exposed. Which is why we've changed how we defend, and will adjust our strategy in this league based on the courts we're playing on.
Playing in a 2-2 on this smaller court, you're less likely to be pulled out of position, because there is less space for the opposition to pull you into. If you sit at the halfway line, there's no space in behind for the opposition to play into, and you're therefore defending about 10-12 metres of territory, which you can happily do in a square shape. If the opposition move the ball laterally, you're only adjusting by 3-4 metres, as the court is 16m wide, rather than 20m wide. It's a considerably easier adjustment to make
One vulnerability of the 2-2 is that without assigned pressure to the opposition fix, this ball straight into the pivot can be a killer. The front two defenders, the green 6 and 8, must have a pressure-cover dynamic going on up top.
When the opposition do move the ball laterally, if the front two aren't close together, this one pass can kill the entire team.
Now with the green 6 tucking in and closing that gap, the red team have to play around. The switch of play forces the greens to readjust, but it's a smaller court, so they can cover that ground. If a team did this on a bigger court, they would be completely pulled apart. Unless you've got some very fast players, full of energy, and maybe playing a more man-oriented system, it wouldn't work.
Just as in football, context is key. What are the playing conditions? Who are the personnel? What is the state of the game?
Has this worked for us? The sample size is ten games. After seven league games, we were pointless and bottom. We were trying to keep possession and to defend in a diamond. In those seven games, we scored 35 and conceded 95. That works out as scoring 5 goals per game, and conceding 13.5 goals per game. Not even close. Lots of double-figure losses, by double-figure margins.
The catch is, similar to football, futsal can be quite idealistic. You've got to play a certain way, or you're branded as not playing futsal. But the reality is, on small courts, there's not much futsal to be played. So should we try to appease the masses by appealing to an arbitrary aesthetic? The boys wanted points, and they didn't care how we got them. This is what made us change to a 2-2 instead of defending in the 1-2-1 we had previously. Also, energy was a factor. We were regularly getting between zero and two subs at games.
The switch to a 2-2 was a success. We had far less of the ball. My estimations would be around 20-30% possession per match. But we picked up seven points from a possible nine. One team had previously beaten us 15-2, and we then beat them 3-2 in the return game. Another was 12-5 at home. We went to their place and got an 8-8 draw, a match in which we were either always level or in front.
The amount of goals we scored increased from 5 per game to 7.6 per game. More dramatically, our goals conceded halved, from 13.5 per game, down to 6.6 per game. Quite a change, right? Again, we must come back to this being a small sample size. There are always other variables, some known and some hidden. We'll see if this continues when the league restarts in January, and then into the second phase of the season.
What had happened was that we had become significantly harder to break down. Teams were overcommitting in attack, acting desperate and frustrated. This lead to sloppy passes, slower movements, and unnecessary shots. We would then pick them off on counters. We would rarely make more than two passes in a game. Is this anti-futsal? Well, let's remember that at the elite level, two thirds of goals are scored from one pass or less, so surely what we're doing is just more in-line with that.
Our more compact shape on a smaller court made it harder for teams to break us down. The moral of the story here is to know your team, know the competition, know the constraints of the environment in which you play, and work out a plan that maximises your abilities. On a bigger court, I want the ball. The large space favours the attacking team. On a smaller court, I don't want the ball, taking that old Jose Mourinho idea of "if you don't have the ball, you can't make a mistake."
Are pitch zones useful or useless?
Ultimately, all things considered, I believe they are useful. Like anything, there's going to be limitations. It's hard to provide a grand unifying theory for football. It's even harder to get players to understand and think about the game on that level. Do they have the time, desire, or capacity to achieve that depth of understanding? Do they even need to? Our job as coaches is to get them to understand "when you're here, do this." As I type this on the laptop, I don't need to know how a computer works. I just need to know how to type, write coherently, and backup my points. My depth of understanding of the programmes and the codes they use to put this article on the screen in front of you has no bearing on my ability to produce an article that you may find interesting.
There's always context. We often find this in training when using conditions or challenges. Think of a training game where the coach says something like "you can't cross the halfway line until you've made five passes." But then the possession team finds a player in space by the halfway line, and instead of driving forward into the space, they have to stop and play backwards, due to the five pass constraint. It's important players understand the where and when, and why certain things might be needed or pushed for.
For young players in particular, I think that pitch zones build a useful framework for them. It's like scaffolding, or something called intellectual compartmentalisation. As coaches, we are helping them develop their lenses through which they see and interpret the game of football. Ever had players continuously make the same basic mistakes, like receiving with the wrong foot, turning into pressure, passing when they should dribble, or dribbling when they should pass? No matter how many times you tell them, they just don't get it. They might be decent technically, but their positioning and decision making lets them down. And when you teach the team something new, like a goal kick routine, their eyes glaze over with boredom. They're present physically, but mentally they are miles away.
Part of the issue here, besides my gripes with the formats within youth football (although I'm very pleased with the recent announcement by the FA!), is that coaches don't teach enough in the way of concepts or principles. The game is all about decisions, and there is risk and reward associated with everything. Although not all-encompassing, and often flawed, these pitch zones provide enough of an idea, enough of the time, that they are useful to players. As long as we don't overcomplicate it and make it too restrictive, I think dividing pitches into a way that suits your ideas or your game model makes a lot of sense.
Players have to make decisions in the moment, based on the information they have available to them. Pitch zones, with their associated principles, give players a cheat sheet to face these problems with. Think about the needs of your players, and implement something that works in your environment.