Resource Footy Tactics: Could Relationism work in Australian Football?

[GremioPower]

Relationism is a new way of playing soccer (Association football). Its main advocate is Fluminense’s (and Brazil’s) coach Fernando Diniz.

This season, Fluminense has won the Copa Libertadores and the Rio de Janeiro state league playing a style that ignores consolidated concepts in soccer.

It’s a really interesting approach to the world’s game. Answering my own question, I think it’s translatable into footy.

Here, there are a few videos on “Relationism”:

 

[Expat power]

If you had to pick one coach who would be watching Fluminense and be willing to give it a go who would it be (obviously not our coach). I’d say Hartwig or Fly.

 

[TazD]

Ken would petition the league to install mechanical rabbits on the boundary before even watching a game of soccer.

 

[EskimoPAFC]

In the AFL if this was successful they would change the rules so you can't have more than 3 people near each other or some other ******ed shit.

 

[GremioPower]

In the AFL if this was successful they would change the rules so you can't have more than 3 people near each other or some other ******ed s**t.

Unless it was implemented by a Victorian club…

 

[GremioPower]

If you had to pick one coach who would be watching Fluminense and be willing to give it a go who would it be (obviously not our coach). I’d say Hartwig or Fly.

Ken would petition the league to install mechanical rabbits on the boundary before even watching a game of soccer.

Funny, but it actually fits into Kenny’s “boundary-leaning congested” football. It’s that and much more, though.

 

[1954]

Kern wouldn't be able to spell `Relationism' let alone implement it GP, and if he ever hears of the word there would have to be a strong chance he would think it had something to do with his in-laws.

 

[GremioPower]

Kern wouldn't be able to spell `Relationism' let alone implement it GP, and if he ever hears of the word there would have to be a strong chance he would think it had something to do with is in-laws.

I know, but it’s something people should start paying attention to.

The new ”next big thing” in footy might be it.

 

[PortWTF]

It does kind of remind me of some things I saw Collingwood do the last two years under Macrae. They will almost always try to generate an outnumber anywhere on the ground, which can leave them totally exposed if they don't get the ball, but it looked like this year they really perfected it. It means your positions around the ground become very dynamic and I think this caught out other teams which try and play very structured positions.

 

[ploppy]

In the AFL if this was successful they would change the rules so you can't have more than 3 people near each other or some other ******ed s**t.

ken already had 15 people around the ball a few metres apart ....it doesnt work...you know what we be revolutionary is to leave the full forward in the goal square...that would freak out defences.

 

[Janus]

Relationism is a new way of playing soccer (Association football). It’s main advocate is Fluminense’s (and Brazil’s) coach Fernando Diniz.

This season, Fluminense has won the Copa Libertadores and the Rio de Janeiro state league playing a style that ignores consolidated concepts in soccer.

It’s a really interesting approach to the world’s game. Answering my own question, I think it’s translatable into footy.

Here, there are a few videos on “Relationism”:

You know I've always been an advocate for formlessness over structure in football, but the one thing that association football requires that Australian football doesn't is for the ball to constantly be in motion, which is why relationism works as an offensive style. The closer players are together, the quicker passes can become (wall passes etc) and the more options that defenders have to cover. This creates opportunities to score because modern association football defences very rarely man-mark and instead advocate zonal marking because they are designed to defend against teams that expand the ground when they attack.

I'd say the Western Bulldogs back in 2016 played this kind of style with their fast handball and constant movement 'in the phonebox'. The issue is that unlike association football, Australian Rules football has the ability to generate the equivalent of free kicks through marking opportunities - the very nature of the game forces it into positional play at times.

You could incorporate elements of it when advocating for a play on style, though.

 

[GremioPower]

Australian Rules football has the ability to generate the equivalent of free kicks through marking opportunities

Marks aren't an issue to Relationism. After all, one can still play on.

In Relationism, you aren't stuck into generating numeric advantages in a crowded part of the pitch. You can still choose to explore free spaces. The opposition can't simply ignore what's going on elsewhere.

In one of the videos, this is actually shown. In one play, Fluminense passes the ball towards the center, and there's space on the other side. There's a threat of a long ball. So, the opposition moves to stop that. However, by doing so, they give Fluminense an advantage on the side where they are playing before.

Imagine that Port is playing in the right wing, near the 50m arc. We kick the ball back towards the corridor. The player that marks the ball gets set to kick the ball to the left pocket, where we have an open target. The defense rushes to close that, and we play on moving the ball back to the right where the opposition is now outnumbered.

Anothe concept, "escadinha", is almost an inverted rugby line. In footy, would be about moving the ball through congestions with quick handballs. This would be possible because you would have more passing options than defenders to stop it. Still, the structure is done in a way to move the ball forward.

I'm not an expert in either sport. Someone that actually studies the games could do a better job in exploring how those concepts could be translated into footy.

 

[VineValerian]

ken already had 15 people around the ball a few metres apart ....it doesnt work...you know what we be revolutionary is to leave the full forward in the goal square...that would freak out defences.

Wait. What?
You mean Port actually have a defined, sustainable game plan, and a structure to suit our personell?
Well lawdy, lawdy, and bless my soul.
I've been deluded all this time.

 

[chiwigi]

It does kind of remind me of some things I saw Collingwood do the last two years under Macrae. They will almost always try to generate an outnumber anywhere on the ground, which can leave them totally exposed if they don't get the ball, but it looked like this year they really perfected it. It means your positions around the ground become very dynamic and I think this caught out other teams which try and play very structured positions.

I was going to say this,. Neat handballs and out the back. I also agree with Janus, the 'mark' kills it as the flow is easily changed.
Mess up a handball and you're ****ed though as unlike in soccer you aren't getting to the other side of the ground in time.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

It actually reminds me a lot of how (Aussie Rules) football used to be played as the game transitioned from completely set positions to some fluidity through positions through to the zone football of today.

A particular concept that resonated was 'hunting in packs' where players worked in tight groups to bring down an opponent and work the ball out then run it forward to actual forwards who played in a forward role. And this was a concept that was around in the 1970s.

I saw Port Adelaide sides in the 1990s in particular play this type of football, it was a natural progression for a team whose players had played together successfully for some time and anticipated what each other would do.

 

[Janus]

Marks aren't an issue to Relationism. After all, one can still play on.

In Relationism, you aren't stuck into generating numeric advantages in a crowded part of the pitch. You can still choose to explore free spaces. The opposition can't simply ignore what's going on elsewhere.

In one of the videos, this is actually shown. In one play, Fluminense passes the ball towards the center, and there's space on the other side. There's a threat of a long ball. So, the opposition moves to stop that. However, by doing so, they give Fluminense an advantage on the side where they are playing before.

Imagine that Port is playing in the right wing, near the 50m arc. We kick the ball back towards the corridor. The player that marks the ball gets set to kick the ball to the left pocket, where we have an open target. The defense rushes to close that, and we play on moving the ball back to the right where the opposition is now outnumbered.

Anothe concept, "escadinha", is almost an inverted rugby line. In footy, would be about moving the ball through congestions with quick handballs. This would be possible because you would have more passing options than defenders to stop it. Still, the structure is done in a way to move the ball forward.

I'm not an expert in either sport. Someone that actually studies the games could do a better job in exploring how those concepts could be translated into footy.

I'm not saying it can't work. Fluid styles of play are always the best. It's why I don't think we could ever play the right style of football when we had guys like Jonas who constantly wanted to slow the play down and wait for players to get into set positions. All I'm saying is that because Australian football has that added layer of the mark and gives the player the ability to assess options that may not be apparent if he simply plays on quickly, then we should do that. There's a time to play on and a time to hold onto the ball - what we need is a hybrid style.

Found an article that goes a bit more in-depth to the concepts behind relationism:



toco y me voy in football would be playing on. Port was number one for playing on through the middle of last season when we actually looked like we could do something.

tabelas is a simple 1-2 handball with a stationary player, enabling the player with the ball to get a step on his opponent.

escadinhas - as you mentioned, the concept of using diagonal passing/movement to advance up the field while at the same time changing attacking lanes - making defence a 270 degree proposition instead of just a 180 degree one and forcing defenders to use peripheral vision. Requires players who can actually kick. It's why my best 23 has no players who have a kicking efficiency of less than 75% at half-back, who will be the guys who generate most of our play (once they or the key backs intercept from the high press).

corta luz - the use of individual skill to 'skin' an opponent. Guys like Butters, Rozee, Horne-Francis, Houston, Marshall and possibly Bergman and Sinn could do this.

tilting - the overloading of one side of the field or the other, using the sideline as a resting defender., so that if the ball is lost in the attacking phase the team can quickly use their numerical supremacy to press the advantage (gengenpressing). Of course, in order to use the sideline as a defender in Australian Rules, you kind of need a ruck that can at least give you a 50/50 shot at winning the clearance. Soldo should give us that.

defensive diagonal - having a half-back in a position to cover the opponent wing. In 2017, we tried playing an overload type of system against Adelaide, and what they would do is whip the ball out the back and then across to the opposite wing where we had no cover - no defensive diagonal. This is where the recruitment of Zerk-Thatcher to pair with Aliir comes in. Both of these guys should be playing the defensive diagonal role as interceptors. They should be instructed to push forward and exploit space when available.

yo-yo - pushing the play centrally only to move back to the tilted side (as in your example).

See, I think we're going to be playing three key backs as resting defenders (two on the side of the ground we are attacking, and the other as the defensive diagonal), and our half-backs will become those extra mids that can overload on either side of the ground. There's no other reason why we would go after both Ratugolea AND Zerk-Thatcher (and both of them would be expecting to play games), since as has been noted, neither of them are particularly good as pure defenders - but they both are good at intercept marking.

 

[GremioPower]

unlike in soccer you aren't getting to the other side of the ground in time.

No, you’re not. It’s really risky in soccer as well.

Diniz is considered a madman to be pushing this forward. In a bad day, his teams can get crushed. But he thinks the risk is worth. It’s finally paying off.

 

[GremioPower]

I'm not saying it can't work. Fluid styles of play are always the best. It's why I don't think we could ever play the right style of football when we had guys like Jonas who constantly wanted to slow the play down and wait for players to get into set positions. All I'm saying is that because Australian football has that added layer of the mark and gives the player the ability to assess options that may not be apparent if he simply plays on quickly, then we should do that. There's a time to play on and a time to hold onto the ball - what we need is a hybrid style.

Found an article that goes a bit more in-depth to the concepts behind relationism:



toco y me voy in football would be playing on. Port was number one for playing on through the middle of last season when we actually looked like we could do something.

tabelas is a simple 1-2 handball with a stationary player, enabling the player with the ball to get a step on his opponent.

escadinhas - as you mentioned, the concept of using diagonal passing/movement to advance up the field while at the same time changing attacking lanes - making defence a 270 degree proposition instead of just a 180 degree one and forcing defenders to use peripheral vision. Requires players who can actually kick. It's why my best 23 has no players who have a kicking efficiency of less than 75% at half-back, who will be the guys who generate most of our play (once they or the key backs intercept from the high press).

corta luz - the use of individual skill to 'skin' an opponent. Guys like Butters, Rozee, Horne-Francis, Houston, Marshall and possibly Bergman and Sinn could do this.

tilting - the overloading of one side of the field or the other, using the sideline as a resting defender., so that if the ball is lost in the attacking phase the team can quickly use their numerical supremacy to press the advantage (gengenpressing). Of course, in order to use the sideline as a defender in Australian Rules, you kind of need a ruck that can at least give you a 50/50 shot at winning the clearance. Soldo should give us that.

defensive diagonal - having a half-back in a position to cover the opponent wing. In 2017, we tried playing an overload type of system against Adelaide, and what they would do is whip the ball out the back and then across to the opposite wing where we had no cover - no defensive diagonal. This is where the recruitment of Zerk-Thatcher to pair with Aliir comes in. Both of these guys should be playing the defensive diagonal role as interceptors. They should be instructed to push forward and exploit space when available.

yo-yo - pushing the play centrally only to move back to the tilted side (as in your example).

See, I think we're going to be playing three key backs as resting defenders (two on the side of the ground we are attacking, and the other as the defensive diagonal), and our half-backs will become those extra mids that can overload on either side of the ground. There's no other reason why we would go after both Ratugolea AND Zerk-Thatcher (and both of them would be expecting to play games), since as has been noted, neither of them are particularly good as pure defenders - but they both are good at intercept marking.

Now, it’s a matter of actually doing it.

No more could, would, should

 

[GremioPower]

It actually reminds me a lot of how (Aussie Rules) football used to be played as the game transitioned from completely set positions to some fluidity through positions through to the zone football of today.

A particular concept that resonated was 'hunting in packs' where players worked in tight groups to bring down an opponent and work the ball out then run it forward to actual forwards who played in a forward role. And this was a concept that was around in the 1970s.

I saw Port Adelaide sides in the 1990s in particular play this type of football, it was a natural progression for a team whose players had played together successfully for some time and anticipated what each other would do.

There’s nothing new. The novelty is in how you do it and why. But all those things were already there.