Anwar Wilson

As always Spielverlagerung articles are really interesting, and I actually agree that the future is probably about combining ideas. My point was less “PSG’s ideology wins forever” and more “in this final, under pressure, PSG kept trying to play while Arsenal relied almost entirely on protecting.”

As always Spielverlagerung articles are really interesting, and I actually agree that the future is probably about combining ideas. My point was less “PSG’s ideology wins forever” and more “in this final, under pressure, PSG kept trying to play while Arsenal relied almost entirely on protecting.”

I saw an article from Soccer Analytics that estimated chance accounts for around 21% of the variance in points awarded in the Premier League. That means skill, work, and quality matter more. Of course, but it also means luck is not nothing. So as a coach, I can’t only judge the game by the result. To me, that is where philosophy actually shows up.

And this is where the “pragmatism” argument gets difficult for me. Because if pragmatism only means “finding a way to win,” then the entire idea becomes dependent on the result. If you win, it was pragmatic. If you lose, it wasn’t. That feels too convenient.

That does not mean my thread is perfect. Of course I have preferences. Of course I have a bias toward teams that want to play, attack, carry, combine, and solve pressure with the ball. But the thread was not written from the final result. It was written from the actions I saw.

In the first 90 minutes, Arsenal had four shots. Across 120 minutes, around 0.5 xG. This is the Premier League champion. This is a team built over years. So yes, I understand the logic, but I still find myself asking: Is that the best version of the project?

To me, “be good enough at everything to find ways to win” is not really a game idea. It is a results aspiration. Every team wants to find ways to win. The question is: how? Through what behaviours? Through what intentions? Through what repeated actions? Through what kind of football?

My own belief is simple: You should attack as much as possible and defend as much as necessary. That does not mean defending is bad. Defending is part of the game. Suffering is part of the game. Protecting space is part of the game. But the intention matters.

ARSENAL DEFENDED A LEAD, PSG DEFENDED AN IDEA I don’t think Arsenal lost the Champions League final simply because PSG were better on the night I think they lost because, after six minutes, they stopped behaving like the team they’ve spent years trying to become [THREAD🧵👇]

That defensive solution made sense. It protected the wide area, but every defensive solution creates a new attacking question. When Rice dropped, PSG started threatening the space behind him with midfield runners. If Rice becomes the extra center back, who controls the runner behind him?

Arsenal’s issue was not just that they defended deep. The issue was that when they won the ball, they couldn’t keep it. They could win moments. They could not win possession. And without possession, the block never gets to breathe.

The strange thing is that Arsenal’s best progression came when their center backs drove forward with the ball. Not through elaborate possession. Not through a long passing sequence. Just courage from the back line. A carry that forced PSG to respond.

Did you read the whole post?

I am very familiar with the organization and all of its efforts and I happen to agree with their stance.