Part 2.2: Consistent v. adaptable approaches

A playing philosophy defines a team’s overall identity and style of play. It encompasses core principles, beliefs, and preferred tactics, providing a consistent framework for player decision-making and interactions on the pitch. A team may emphasise possession-based football, quick attacking transitions, or a compact defensive structure.

In contrast, match tactics refer to the specific strategies used in a given game to maximise strengths and exploit an opponent’s weaknesses. For example, a team may aim to dominate possession against a weaker opponent while employing a counter-attacking approach against stronger sides.

The challenge for coaches is finding the right balance: should they remain committed to their philosophy regardless of circumstances, or should they adjust tactics based on the match context, opposition, and scoreline? Striking this balance is key, as both approaches have distinct advantages and challenges.

The Case for Consistency

Coaches who prioritise consistency emphasise a well-defined, stable style of play, adhering to their philosophy regardless of the opponent or match context. Their approach is grounded in strong principles and a clear team identity.

The Case for Adaptability

Coaches who favour adaptability view tactical flexibility as a key advantage. They adjust their approach based on the unique challenges posed by each opponent and match situation.

This section explores how teams in the FIFA World Cup Qatar™ and FIFA Women’s World Cup Australia & New Zealand™ approached this challenge, offering key lessons for coaches. Specifically, we will:

• Identify teams with a consistent playing philosophy, reflected in stable possession shares.

• Identify teams that exhibit adaptability, demonstrated through significant possession variability.

• Assess the success rates associated with both approaches.

• Evaluate the degree of flexibility tournament football demands.

Figure 2.5 expands on the possession gap rankings from Section 2.1 by incorporating match-to-match variation for teams that participated in the FIFA World Cup 2022. In the figure, teams are ordered by average possession gap, with Spain furthest left, having the highest average surplus. Each dot represents a team's possession share per match. For instance, Spain’s possession ranged from +63.5% against Japan to +23.1% against Germany, resulting in a 40.4% variation – slightly above the tournament average (38.3%).

The table below the graph ranks teams by possession gap consistency, from most stable (smallest range) to most variable (largest range). The most consistent teams are highlighted in green, while the most variable teams are highlighted in blue. Qatar had the smallest range (9.6%), followed by Switzerland, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Senegal, and Ecuador. In contrast the team with the greatest range (most variable) was Japan (range: 72.1%), followed by Morocco, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Iran, Costa Rica and Portugal.

Figure 2.6 presents the same analysis for the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023. The average range for women’s teams was 39.3% closely mirroring the men’s tournament. The most consistent team was the Philippines (6.6%), followed by Canada, Vietnam, Germany, Italy, Nigeria, South Africa, and Morocco (all highlighted in red in the table below the graph). In contrast, England had the largest variation (78.6%), followed by Switzerland, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Japan, South Korea, Portugal, and Sweden (all highlighted in orange).

A smaller range in possession variation indicates a more consistent tactical approach throughout the tournament, often reflecting a well-defined playing style. Notably, consistency isn’t limited to teams with high or low possession shares – it can also be achieved by teams with a more balanced approach. However, analysing these teams is more complex, as similar possession figures can stem from different tactical approaches, as illustrated by the examples of Brazil and Canada.

Brazil consistently had more possession than their opponents but never overwhelmingly dominated (+19.2%, +11.0%, +24.6%, +3.3%, +0.2%). Their moderate possession numbers reflected a deliberate strategy of balancing time in and out of possession. Rather than maintaining constant control, Brazil willingly conceded possession at times, integrating spells of deeper defending to absorb pressure and create occasional counterattacking opportunities.

In contrast, Canada’s possession numbers (-2.5%, +5.3%, +15.4%) were not the result of a controlled approach to ball retention but rather a byproduct of their aggressive high-pressing strategy. By relentlessly pressing their opponents, Canada limited the opposition’s time on the ball and forced frequent turnovers.

However, consistency is not always a reflection of a team’s preferred style – it can also be a pragmatic acceptance of its role. In the women’s competition, the Philippines, Vietnam, Morocco, and South Africa consistently recorded low possession averages. These teams often relied on deep defending, a passive defensive approach, and direct attacking play. Their low possession was likely due to both a deliberate focus on defensive organization and an inability to control possession against stronger opponents.

Low consistency suggests a more adaptable or pragmatic approach, where a team adjusts its playing style based on the opponent rather than adhering to a fixed strategy. A prime example is Argentina, the tournament winners, whose possession varied significantly from match-to-match. They recorded their highest possession share in the final group-stage game against Poland (+43.3%) and their lowest in the semi-final against Croatia (-19.6%), resulting in a range of 62.9% - the fifth largest in the tournament.

Argentina demonstrated versatility by shifting between possession-based and defensive styles, as well as alternating between extreme and moderate approaches. This adaptability allowed them to dominate defensive teams like Saudi Arabia and Poland, balance possession against the Netherlands and France, and adopt a more defensive approach after taking an early lead against Croatia.

Like Argentina, both runner-up France and bronze medallist Croatia adapted their approach from game to game, demonstrating proficiency in both possession-based and defensive strategies. France controlled possession in three matches but employed a more defensive approach in four, including the final against Argentina, the semi-final against Morocco, and the quarter-final against England. Croatia, meanwhile, had more possession in four games and less in three.

A similar approach was seen with Japan in the women’s competition. While predominantly a possession-based team, they successfully switched to a defensive transition game against Spain (-46.6%). In this match, they relied on strong defensive organisation and fast counterattacks, effectively neutralising Spain’s possession-based play. Japan attempted a similar, though less extreme, approach against Sweden in the knockout stage (-3.8%), but this time, they were unable to replicate their earlier success.

Low consistency is not always the result of a deliberate game plan. It can also stem from a statistical outlier caused by the opponent or match context. A possession-oriented team may be forced into a more defensive approach against an even stronger possession-based opponent, while a defensively focused team may have to take on more possession after conceding a goal.

England in the women’s competition exemplifies the first case. They had the greatest possession range, largely due to an outlier in the final against Spain, where they recorded a possession deficit of -31.8%. Typically, a possession-based team themselves, England was either forced into or deliberately accepted a less familiar role with significantly less possession than in previous matches.

Morocco in the men’s competition illustrates the second case. Despite having less possession in six of their seven matches, they had the second-highest possession variance. Their key outlier came in the semi-final against France, where an early conceded goal forced them into a more dominant possession role (+21%) – a tactical shift dictated by necessity rather than preference.

These examples underscore the importance of adaptability in football. Even teams with a strong identity, like England (women) or Morocco (men), can be forced into an unfamiliar role. To handle such situations effectively, preparation must go beyond refining a preferred style and include the ability to adapt when needed.

A counterexample is Spain in the women’s tournament. They secured the title by sticking to their possession-based strategy. In all seven matches, including the final against England, they dominated possession, regardless of the opposition. This reflects a unique philosophy where “Plan B is to make Plan A better,” emphasising refinement over adaptation.

These examples illustrate that consistency and adaptability are not mutually exclusive but can be combined. Striking the right balance between maintaining a preferred style (consistency) and adjusting to different challenges (adaptability) depends on a team’s philosophy, strengths, and the demands of a tournament.

Spain’s success in the women’s tournament demonstrates that a well-drilled, consistent playing style can be highly effective if a team is dominant enough to impose its approach in every match. Their ability to refine and execute their possession-based strategy, regardless of the opponent, highlights the value of tactical clarity and mastery.

Conversely, Argentina, France, and Croatia demonstrated how adaptability can be a decisive factor, particularly in international tournaments where teams encounter diverse playing styles and game demands.

Similarly, England (women) and Morocco (men) exemplify that even teams with strong tactical identities may be forced into unfamiliar roles, emphasising the importance of preparation beyond a single way of playing.

Ultimately, while consistency provides a foundation, adaptability is often necessary to navigate unpredictable challenges. The most successful teams strike a balance – having a core identity but also the flexibility to shift when circumstances demand it.

(Next section coming soon)