Imagine football tactics as a spectrum, on one end is chaos, on the other end is order. Through the years, the balance has constantly shifted from one approach to the other,from the all out attack of the 1-2-7 formation, to the birth of organized systems such as the WM, from dutch total football to Arrigo Sacchi's defensive prociples, the equilibrium in football is always shifting as teams to find the upper hand, with each new approach shifting, the needle further and further out into unexplored territories. Over the past 15 years, the system has shifted once more, and the dominance of positional play has pushed the whole tactical landscape further and further towards order, transforming the board world of football into a game of chess. Creativity gave way to tructure, and the ideas of the manager were seen as more important than the quality of players. But what if I told you there was a new philosophy that doesn't care about chess, structure or ideas, and is more concerned about the individual relationships between the players, creating emerging structures completely different from each other every time they attack, giving power back to the player and pushing the balance back towards chaos. And that philosophy is *RELATIONISM* . Over the years of watching football, we've become so used to seeing certain things that is ingrained into our mind, and we can quickly recognise patterns on how football should be played. But then you see a clip like this, the ball goes back to the centreback and your natural reaction is that the ball should be played away from this extremely congested area and into another free space, becomause the opposition has no cover and you can gain more ground. But Relationism doesn't care what you think, and the centreback plays the ball right back into this congested zone, But why? Relationism can also referred to as functional play and is an emerging philosophy that changes the way a team is structuredon the pitch. In its essence, it embrases the chaos of a match, but to help to clarify why it's so unique, it is important to understand what the current most used set up is. The vast majority of teams especially in Europe now use positional play as theit foundation , made popular by Guardiola, and used by managers such Xavi,Sarri, Tuchel and Arteta to name a few. The main idea of positional play is that it prescibes players with designated zones , and each individual movement serves the structure of the whole team. Lets take Guardiola's well known pitch zones as an example. Whilst it is slightly outdated, it does help explin the core priciples of the positional school of thought. One rule he set's his players is that there can be no more than 3 players in each horizontal zone, and no more than 2 players in each vertival zone, ensuring the team has cover all over the pitch. with Guardiola and why his teams are considered to be extremely fluid is because he is not concerned about which player occupies which position, and the players are free to rotate within this structure. In the opposition half a positional play team often resembles a 3-2-5 sgare, with players in these designzted areas. It doesn't matter which player is in the half space, what matters is that there is a player in this half space. Why this is so effective is because it allows players to know without thinking that a teammate will be in a specific position at a specific time , meaning they spend less mental energy on making a decision, and can ofcus more on the accuracy and precision of their play, making their thought process a lot more automatic. This is why modern football tactics are often compared to chess, as managers know which spaces will be left vacant, and it is up to the players to be able to exploit them. Over time this has led to the scripting of specific plays. Teams like De Zerbi's Brighton execute extremely accurante passing manouvers, because the players know that a specific sequence of passes will free up a player in a more dangerous position. But while this scripting can be beneficial, it does also come into some heavy criticism. One of the biggest complaints is that it is removed a certain element of creativity from the players, as they essentially function on rails to serve the whole organization of the team. This is why relationism comes into the picture. The tactics are much less concerned about where you are or what space you are going to attack, but much more interested in what you are doing, how you are moving and how you connect with your teammates. Put simply, the positioning of the players in a lot more free and dynamic, with little concern for an overarching team structure. It's a philosophy that is rooted in South America, made popular by managers such as Fernando Diniz at Fluminense, or REnato Gaucho at Gremio, but there are also some signs of it making its way into Eyurope, specifically with Luciona Spaletti at Napoli, Carlo Ancelotti at Real Madrid or Roger Schmidt with Benfica. Similarly with our chaos and order spectrum through the years, all moden managers fall somewhere along this line. Guardiola is certainly shifted to the left, but his style is definitely a lot more fluid compared to managers such as Maurizio Sarri, heavily reliant on scripted movements both in and out possession, similarly to Guardiola would be managers like Arteta or XAvi, while closer to the centre , you can find managers such Jurgen Klopp , with elements of positional play, but with an agressive gegenpress that leads to a lot of chaotic attacks. More balanced approaches can also be seen with Ten Haag or Pioli, with ctrict defensive positioning, but allowing their teams to be more fluid in attack , especially with their rapid counter attacks that are heavily reliant on the relations between the attackers. As we move closer to the right , Structure dtill plays an important part, but individual players change a team's approach. Ancelotti allows his teams more positional freedom and creativity thanks to players such Vinicius Jr or Modric with relationist qualities, while Spattetti was also influenced by relationist principles that were able to get the most out of playdrs like Kvaratskelia. Finally , it is South America managers leading this shift, Scaloni's World Cup winning tactics were heavily reliant on allowing Messi to play where he wanted and to link up play with his teammates, while the most emblematic examples of this style are Gremio's Renato Gaucho or Flumense's Fernando Diniz.Whar's interesting is that two teams on opposite ends of the spectrum actually have relatively similar statistics. Take Fluminese and Barcelona, both average over 60% possession per match, both are in the top 3 for passes per match in their league, and both rank high for pressing intensity metrics. So while their approach is completely different, both extremes look to dominate the game in a similar way, anf while we can sit here and talk about lines and formations all day when it comes to positionists, the same can be said about relationists. But that doesn't mean there aren"t patterns we can look our for. So what does this style of play actually look like? It is something like , in its purest form, it is basically street football , players go wandering, clusters of teammates emerge on one side of the pitch, while other areas are left completely vacant, skills and dribbles are encouraged and an attack can raise at any moment. However it is worth nothing that while there may be a lot of positional freedom, there are still roles players will have to abide to. They may not be confined to specific zones, but you still have defenders, a striker ready to attack in behind, and midfielders that bring the whole team together. But let's go deeper into the main prociples and patters that occur in this philosophy. We'll sue Fluminense as a template for this explanation. As stated, their main objective is to control the tempo of the game which is done with short and quick passes. From goal kicks is arguably the only time the team resembles their starting shape of 4-2-3-1 , but once the first pass is made, the structure goes away very quickly. Beating the pass is often done with overloads, the attacking set of players joining in and always look to outnumber th press, with third man passes being key of their ball progression and this constant overload allows them to slowly move up the pitch. While they rank high for possession, their field tilt is low compared to other teams, showing how they are not too concerned with moving up the pitch as quickly as possible. The vast majority of their progression is reliant on players making a pass and moving to another position. Some of the prociples unclude the give and go or the 1-2. You often see midfielders passing the ball forward before running forward with ferocious intensity to receive the ball back in a more advantaged position. These aren't necessarily first time passes, and it is all about timing and waiting for the perfect moment to make a passe. Another pattern is the diagonal, players will unexpzctedly form dialgonal lines that traditional positionist teams would struggle to create. These lines give the team options, as a pass forward could be met with a dummy giving the receiving player more options to lay the ball off, or the first player can simply look for a quick 1-2 and catch the opposition off guard. These diagonals or Ladders could appear at any moment, and when they do they provide the team with an opportunity to progress the ball forward. With this idea of dummys introduces the heavy reliance on dribbling from relationist teams. This reason Fluminense have completed the most successful dribbles than any other team in the league. However for all these combinations to emerge, the overarching that appears is the idea of tilting, or essentially the team shifting to one side of the pitch to facilitate all of their subequent plays. The vast majority of their progressions happens thanks to specific patterns that emerge only thanks to this congested area, and if the team was spread out like in the case of positional play, diagonals and 1-2's are much harder to execute. With the team tilted to one side, the objective is to use this overload to their advantage. Firstly the fullback often performs a defensive diagonal and moves inside. If the ball circulates back to the centreback, ourinstincts tell us to move the ball away,but Fluminense will force play back into this area, circulating possession and waiting for a pattern to appear. Tilting embodies the asymmetry that is so fundamental to this relationist approach, throwing the opposition off balance and creates confusion in their defensive tructure. The combination and style of play that emerge from this philosophy are certainly very entertaining but will it really become the next big thing? Maybe probably not. In many opinions , the reason why it is gaining popularity in South America is because this is how all kids in the country grow up playing football , on the streer , on small pitches and using their dribbling abilities to outmaneuver the opposition, so relationism feels like a natural progression of what they are all used to. In Europe football, positioning and structure are instilled into us from a very young age, and this philosophy is much harder to implement when doesn't occur naturally in the players. in a time where the Brazilian squad is criticised for its Europeaness and lack of flair, could relationism be the key to bring the South American side back to its glogy days? Ali AMADGHOUS Football Manager