The W-W formation: the future?!

It is hard to envisage how formations will evolve in response to the current formational hegemony 4-2-3-1. It is an adaptable format which matches up well against other approaches. Two defensive midfielders provide a shield for the back four, which allows the full-backs to advance. The attacking midfielder has the freedom in behind the centre-forward to influence forward play without being mired in the opposition’s central defence – and they also prevent the team from being outnumbered in midfield. Up against 4-4-2, the 4-2-3-1 has an extra central-midfielder so can enable a side to overrun the opposition. The 4-2-3-1 is also fairly immune to sides switching to a 3-5-2 or one of its variants. The two wide-midfielders can force the wing-backs to retreat preventing the opposition from generating any attacking width – whilst a three-man central-defence would also be over-resourced against one orthodox centre-forward. This contrasts with England’s 4-4-2, which was unable to overcome Algeria’s 3-4-2-1 in the group stage.

It’s therefore 4-2-3-1 which is the most robust contemporary on-pitch arrangement. The key variation to this configuration is perhaps lateral rather than longitudinal. For example, champions Spain play quite a narrow formation with Iniesta and Pedro taking up quite central roles next to Xavi. This allows Spain to control central-midfield and much of the attacking width is provided by the full-backs. The narrow 4-2-3-1 (also deployed by Brazil) is just a tweak away from 4-2-2-2. The potential difficulty with this approach is that the full-backs could be held back by opposition wingers and therefore width is lost. But the 4-2-3-1 should have sufficient flexibility for the wider midfielders to take up positions closer to the touchline. Spain actually addressed this matter in the final by bringing on Jesus Navas and deploying him at right-wing. Up until this point Holland left-back Giovanni van Bronckhorst (without a wide-midfielder to mark) was able to push up more into a defensive midfield position to limit Spain’s attacking space.

Formational oscillations in future will continue to be based upon a team trying to use the space of the pitch to best effect, in particular controlling central areas whilst retaining attacking width. Could the narrow 4-2-3-1 see the full-back role changing in response? Without a wide-midfielder to mark, the full-back could take up a more central role, akin to a holding midfielder. As WCC has noted, full-backs tend to be more advanced than their central-defensive counterparts, and in terms of average positioning over a game could be considered wide-defensive-midfielders. The step inside to a more central-defensive-midfield role is thus not particularly radical.

Under the 2-3-2-3 or W-W formation [white shirts, pictured] two central-defenders would still be in place to marshall one centre-forward, and the two (former) full-backs would join a central defensive-midfielder. (This shape is reminiscent of the metodo created in the 1930s by then Italian coach Vittorio Pozzo.) One possible shortcoming of the 4-2-3-1 is that the attacking midfielder can be shut-out by two defensive midfielders (Germany’s Mesut Ozil experienced this difficulty against Spain in the semi-final). The W-W circumnavigates this problem by placing two attacking midfielders in behind the centre-forward (without the loss of either a secure central-midfield or width). If the opposition switch to a formation with wingers, then the full-backs can return to more orthodox defensive positions. Therefore, as the Spain/Brazil model of 4-2-3-1 gains more adherents over forthcoming years, perhaps the W-W could become a viable response.

Theory of Everything

Further to our research undertaken prior to and during World Cup 2010, WCC is close to devising a football theory of everything. This will be a synthesis of the knowledge generated by our faculties, Arts & Law, Life Sciences, Physical Sciences and Social Sciences. This theory of everything will present a totalising explanatory framework of football and enable the apprehension of the deepest underlying principles of the game.

When endeavouring to understand football we need to recognize the material underpinnings of the game i.e. that it comprises anthropomorphic agents with a circumscribed range of physical capacities and options, interacting within spacetime. The space-state complexity of football is very high, but the material basis of the game renders it at least partially subject to computational principles. Therefore, from Physical Sciences, the principles of computation are a component of the theory of everything. Football is a game predicated on embodied individuals moving within a defined area with reference to a specific set of rules.

A significant degree of the complexity of football is based upon the fact that its participants are sentient agents. Underpinning human action are prompts (unconscious and conscious) from the brain. It is vital to understand the biological underpinnings of human action which are shaped by the brain – an organ which has evolved according to the principles of natural selection. Our Life Sciences faculty has demonstrated how evolutionary psychology explains many facets of human behaviour. For example, principles of sexual selection and the drive for status impact upon motivation. We cannot understand human action, including that of footballers, unless we recognize that we are an intrinsic feature of the biological world.

Our Social Sciences faculty has examined the macro-conditions of the social world within which national teams are embedded. Social norms and cultural values both shape and are shaped by the action of individuals. Structural features of society, such as religious and political formations, are the product of human interaction, but also have a top-down influence upon social settings. Research from this faculty has shown how overarching socio-political values in England (e.g. the primacy of the individual, suspicion of intelligence) may have hampered the success of the national football side.

Our Arts & Law department has explored the principle of emergence. This principle states that aggregations of micro-level behaviour may aggregate to form higher-level entities which exhibit novel or unpredictable properties. You might want your team to push out when they are protecting a 1-0 lead, but the effects of emergence render this problematic. An off-pitch example was also explored by WCC: spectators in a stand will rise to their feet when the action approaches – even though this does not improve on the view which would have been afforded had they all remained in their seats. Individually the spectators in the stand would recognize that everyone remaining seated is the rational course of action. But this rationality is subverted by properties of the higher group-level when other social factors come into consideration – such as a rational lack of trust that others will remain seated. It should also be noted that emergence has a causal impact both within and between all levels of the theory of everything cited above.

In summary, WCC has almost completed a football theory of everything, incorporating:

• Computation
• Evolutionary psychology
• Socio-political conditions
• Emergence

Chess & Football: a computational comparison

Chess is played in a defined physical area which is broken into 64 discrete spaces. Pieces move within this area following a number of specified rules: for example, rooks can move horizontally and vertically, bishops move diagonally.

As a result of prescribed rules being followed within a defined area, chess is amenable to computational principles. This is also why it is possible to calculate the total number of possible moves in a game of chess, 10¹²⁰. This is a reasonably massive number; for comparison, it is conjectured that there are about 10⁷⁵ atoms in the entire universe.
 
It may not appear that the same principles of computation could be applied to football. However, football is also played within a defined physical space and is performed with reference to a specific set of rules. Football players may have much more freedom than chess pieces, but the scope of their mobility is circumscribed by both the rules of the game and their anthropomorphic limitations. Despite greater state-space complexity, it should still be possible to compute the format of every game of football that could ever be played.
 
There are some key differences between football and chess to take into account when devising a holistic computational model of the former. For example, there are more subtle variations of action in football, with complex intersections of speed, strength and cognitive ability impacting upon the movements available to each player. The probabilistic prediction of all possible moves is also less defined, as football is predicated on continuous play rather than discrete positional changes.

Despite these added features of game complexity, the difference between chess and football is fundamentally one of degree rather than substance. A computational rendering of football simply has to take into account factors such as: playing area; rules of the game; the scope of player movement; the scope of ball movement; player motivation; refereeing fallibility; the weather; crowd responses etc. Scientists will then be able to map the entire range of possible football matches. Top mathematical minds at WCC currently consider that the approximate maximum number of different matches that could be played is 400 squadrillion (400 followed by enough zeroes to fill a medium-sized black hole).

Mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace postulated the existence of an entity that, knowing the complete state of universal conditions at a specific point in time, could accordingly envisage all past and future occurrences. (This entity subsequently became known as Laplace’s demon.) This view suggests that all events were determined from the genesis of the universe; therefore, complete knowledge of the state of spacetime at a particular juncture could enable complete predictive powers. It’s not yet possible to establish the state of the universe in its totality, but a holistic computational model of football can derive predictions from a more localised level. Once the exact initial conditions of a certain game are known, it will be possible to predict every kick, jump, shout, shrug of the shoulders and feigned injury with total accuracy. 

As chess is subject to computational principles, a computer, Deep Blue, was able to beat the human grandmaster Gary Kasparov in 1997. As a similar computational representation could calculate all of the possible moves in any football match, WCC believes the first non-biological team will triumph in a World Cup circa the year 2410.

England set to win World Cup 2014!

England may be out of World Cup 2010, but all is not lost. WCC has access to a cyber-wormhole so that it can access articles from future years. Below you can see an article which is due to be written shortly before the World Cup final of Brazil 2014. It seems that there’s only four more years of hurt to go!

The appointment of Raymond Domenech as England coach surprised many following Fabio Capello’s departure back in 2010. But the FA have been vindicated in making this controversial appointment, and also for sticking with him following the disastrous Euro 2012 qualification campaign in which England finished bottom of their group below Luxembourg and Faroe Islands. In addition England fans and pundits demonstrated equanimity and patience towards the coach, figuratively putting their hands up and stating “Rome wasn’t built in a day – let the man get on with his job.”

So here we are with the World Cup final tantalisingly close. England are riding a wave of euphoria following one of the most emphatic tournament campaigns that a nation has ever threaded together. England sailed through the supposed ‘group of death’ comprising Brazil, Italy and Egypt, and dismissed subsequent knock-out round rivals Peru, Montenegro, and Germany with similar aplomb.

There is therefore no reason why Domenech should dispense with the approach which has worked so effectively throughout World Cup 2014. What Domenech has done so well is to reintroduce Englishness to the England team. The traditional W-M formation will be deployed – and Domenech’s wing-backless wonders should wrap up this tournament in some style. International new boys and fierce local rivals Cornwall will be no pushovers, but England have scored substantially more goals (and conceded less) than the plucky Cornish superstars over this tournament. 36-year old Emile Heskey will continue to lead the line. His goal-shy days are all but forgotten and his prolific club form for Premier League overachievers Dagenham & Redbridge has been seamlessly transferred to World Cup 2014. Heskey has scored a new record of 29 goals in this tournament – although comparisons with former Golden Boot winners are rendered problematic since FIFA abolished the offside law and quadrupled the size of goals.

England v Cornwall (probable)

Wingers Glen Johnson and Adam Johnson will line up either side of Heskey. In midfield, Stephen Warnock and Barcelona’s Jamie O’Hara will provide attacking guile, bolstered by the holding pair Fabrice Muamba and Michael Mancienne. The solid defensive trio will remain Michael Dawson, Gary Cahill and Blackburn’s Phil Jones. Between the sticks, Joe Hart is a reassuring presence. Of course, Domenech has reconciled tradition with the requirements of contemporary football. Under this W-M approach the Johnson twins (as they are affectionately known), can force the opposition full-backs to retreat, whilst the four man central-midfield swamps the middle of the pitch enabling England to control games. But if an extra player is needed in defence then Mancienne can withdraw into the back-line so that the formation resembles 4-3-3. Whatever approach is deployed, England should win this game with some ease to be crowned World Cup winners 2014. WCC predicts: England 15 – Cornwall 4.

What is a team?

It’s quite simple, the TV pundits keep telling us, you just have to play your best players in their best positions. This is usually stated with reference to Steven Gerrard being positioned on England’s left (when he should be situated more centrally.) Gerrard is one of England’s most exciting and skilful players and the notion of him marauding through the centre in support of the striker is certainly appealing.

But this perspective overlooks the fact that Gerrard’s form has been better under Fabio Capello then under any previous England coach. The current suggestion seems to be that Capello has neutralised Gerrard’s effectiveness by placing him on the left of midfield. But this more defined, but still flexible positioning has improved Gerrard’s performances at international level. Gerrard was consistently disappointing for England prior to Capello’s arrival and never replicated his impressive Liverpool form for England in central-midfield. Admittedly Gerrard was paired uncomfortably with Frank Lampard for many of his appearances, but even when situated in a more advanced central position (such as the knock-out phase of World Cup 2006) his performances were decidedly lacklustre. There wasn’t a huge amount of marauding through the centre in support of the striker!

Best players in their best positions

The populist model also suggests that Wayne Rooney should be fielded as a lone centre-forward, which is a role he performs well for Man Utd. This approach works within the familiarly of a high-functioning club side, but may not translate comfortably to international level. Although Rooney has showed glimpses of form in South Africa, his performances have not suggested that he is presently equipped to lead the line on his own against reinforced international defences. Utilising him with a strike-partner or target man enables him more freedom to roam in search of the narrow margins of space which might be available.

Therefore, it isn’t simply a case of playing your best players in their best positions. A team is perhaps more than that, and Capello has to take many factors into consideration when reconciling the available talent with a functioning team structure. To the left, WCC demonstrates how a line-up of England’s best players in their best positions might look for the Germany game.

Formations: Cartesian Coordinates or Dasein?

Scientific models are not physical representations of reality in the way that flat-pack assembly instructions represent furniture, but are images which assist us to comprehend a highly complex physical world. For example, the molecules that we breathe can be represented as tiny spheres bouncing off one another. Molecules behave as if they were tiny spheres, but this does not mean that they are tiny spheres: a scientific model is a visual aid to the imagination, illuminating processes which exist beyond the limits of our sensory experience.

A football formation could be regarded as a scientific model that helps us to understand a mutable topological arrangement which constantly alters over the temporal course of the game. During a match we do not see the players organized under a neat symmetrical formation. Formations such as 4-4-2 are therefore an aid to the imagination, and should demonstrate players’ approximate positions in relation to one another. To qualify as a scientific model, this representation could be expressed via mathematical equations. Using averaged positions based on where players touch the ball during a game would provide the underpinnings necessary to confirm that formations are scientific models. A Cartesian coordinate system would therefore capture the spatial location of each player: this should tally with formational representations to a meaningful degree.
 
However, based upon Cartesian coordinates, formations are poor representations of on-pitch reality. We should be able to make predictions from scientific models, but formations do not provide sound predictions of players’ average on-field positioning. Whilst the processual activity of football is more complex and messy than a simple model can express, the model should still have some predictive scope. When we look at the above graphic, we see that the formation could perhaps be expressed as 2-4-2-2. The full-backs push on to be level with the central midfielders, with the centre-backs, based on Cartesian coordinates, essentially the only defenders.

This indicates that we do not apprehend player positioning merely based upon coordinates: we also assess the game with regard to the human significance attached to the use of space. Heidegger’s notion of Dasein shows that our spatial relation with objects is based upon how we define space with regard to the specificity of human activities or being-in-the-world. Closeness and distance therefore only have meaning in relation to aspects of existence relevant to our being: on this basis, the friend I am waving to across the street is closer than the pavement underneath me of which I am unaware. Cartesian ontology is thus an abstraction from our understanding of space as a region of existence inextricably linked to meaningful human activity. Dasein is why we do not view football formations as 2-4-2-2, despite average on-field positions.

Average on-field positions are less vital to us when considering how teams line-up, than the understanding of the value of each position. For example, football fans know that, despite the full-back having licence to push forwards down their flank, their primary responsibility is defence. The key activity for the full-back is that which takes place when they join the centre-backs in defending the goal. On-field positioning suggests that full-backs are midfielders, but defensive work is fundamental to their role, with attacking forays crucial but ancillary. This is why, despite graphical representations to the contrary (as above), we consider that teams usually line up with four defenders.

Formations are ontological and epistemological: they do not simply represent what exists on the pitch, but show us how humans organise their understanding of the game. Rather than reflecting an external physical reality, formations capture a social reality which is more meaningfully expressed when mathematical coordinates are partially eschewed.