Taking a Position on Relation in Football

If you’ve been trying to keep up with the more tactical Joneses of football Twitter over the last couple of years, it’s almost certain that you’ll have come across the words ‘position’ or ‘relation’ or some inflection of them.

In many respects, the debates about these two concepts and their place within the world of football should not be limited to a recent emergence within a particularly English-speaking context. These kinds of debates have been taking place for years. For instance, in Brazil and Argentina, the question of how a domestic playstyle should be related to the tactical ideologies imported from continental Europe have dominated the footballing discourse for decades.

More recently, though, the two terms — ‘position’ and ‘relation’— have entered the English-language discourse, mainly thanks to the writing of Jamie Hamilton, a coach working in Scotland. In terms of dating this emergence, as far as I can tell, it stems primarily from Hamilton’s discovery of Fernando Diniz, the head coach of Fluminense in Brazil. A piece appeared on Hamilton’s Medium page in September 2022 titled FERNANDO DINIZ vs THE MAN-MACHINE. Although there are formative ideas that exist on his Medium before this point, this is the catalytic moment for the discussion of “position” and “relation” in the English-language discussion.

Already in title of the piece, the stage is set for the eventual shape of the ‘position’ and ‘relation’ debate as it will emerge in Hamilton’s work. What we have here is an opposition between Fernando Diniz and a so-called ‘machine’. What is this machine? Well, it is “the prioritisation of standardisation, automation and repetition, a flattening out of human creativity through mechanized processes designed to benefit and serve some external non-human entity.” Who are the main protagonists here? The high priest is Pep Guardiola but other notable actors are Thomas Tuchel and Antonio Conte. They are the ‘positionists’.

From this point onwards, Hamilton uses the term ‘positionism’ as a perjorative framed against whatever it is that Fernando Diniz is doing. Within a couple of months — by November 2022 — he has a name for this too. What Pep Guardiola is to ‘positionism’, Fernando Diniz is to ‘relationism’.

In a tweet from that month, Hamilton writes:

POSITIONISM & RELATIONISM

POSITIONISM: where all possible relations are a function of positions

RELATIONISM: where all possible positions are a function of relations

Diniz’ Fluminense shows us a real world example of how RELATIONISM can ‘work’ in top tier pro-football.

This tweet heralded in the current debates in the English-speaking world about ‘position’ and ‘relation’ and has — to whatever extent — shaped the terms in which the discussions have taken place.

That was less than a year ago. It’s my belief that the accelerated quality of the debate has meant that too much of the discourse has simply accepted the terms of the debate set by Hamilton without really thinking through the ideas that are implicit within these terms.

This piece is an attempt to step back and think through the big picture: to return to the concepts of ‘position’ and ‘relation’ and ask whether Hamilton’s approach has helped or hindered the debate.

Defining the Terms

When it comes to any intellectual debate, it is fundamental to set out the terms clearly. In the debates about ‘position’ and ‘relation’, however, the terms have largely been under-defined.

In part, this is because of the accelerated quality of the debates. Hamilton has been developing his own technical jargon to outlay his criticism of modern football within a very short space of time (if he’ll permit the metaphor).

But on the other hand, there is a sense here that a more conscientious definition of terms might have sent the discussion in a different direction.

Take, for example, the word ‘position’. It is clear that the concept of ‘position’ in football has an incredibly broad and variegated set of meanings. The idea can be more or less foundational for a football coach, moving across a spectrum from the disciples of ‘positional play’ — also referred to as Juego de Posicion — to coaches who will implement positional ideas without these ideas forming the basis of a tactical system.

This is clear even from Hamilton’s own initial definition of ‘positionism’ which is set out as any approach “where all possible positions are a function of relations”. Clearly position still remains a function of a so-called ‘relational’ system.

As an acknowledgement of this, Hamilton isn’t interested in talking about ‘position’ or ‘positional ideas’ but rather wants to talk about ‘positionism’ which seems to refer to the extremity on the positional spectrum where ‘position’ becomes the fundamental determinant or, in his words, “where all possible relations are a function of positions”.

This approach is considered to be A Bad Thing because it overly systematises a game which should be about freedom and spontaneity (which is variously considered under the guise of a wider modern malaise in which capitalism evacuates meaning from the world — a critique I personally find compelling).

Taking the same logic to the other concept — that of ‘relation’ — presumably ‘relationism’ indicates another extreme: the point on the spectrum of ‘relational ideas’ where ‘relation’ itself becomes the controlling determinant in a tactical system. Curiously, though, the debate never touches on the perils of ‘relationism’.

Where does this leave us? ‘Positionalism’ is the point on the spectrum of ‘positional ideas’ where ‘position’ becomes the controlling factor. ‘Relationism’ is the point on the spectrum of ‘relational ideas’ where ‘relation’ becomes the controlling factor. But importantly, the two approaches aren’t dichotomous: ‘relationism’ is on the ‘positional’ spectrum and ‘positionism’ is on the ‘relational’ spectrum. Hamilton admits as much in his initial definition. ‘Position’ matters to ‘relational’ coaches and ‘relation’ matters to ‘positional’ coaches.

So why has the whole debate been set up as an opposition between ‘position’ and ‘relation’? Could the whole discussion not be presented as a warning against the dangers of exalting ‘position’ to a controlling determinant in a tactical system?

Here’s the crux of the matter: in my opinion, Hamilton leaves the terms of the debate under-defined because he wants the debate to be oppositional. He wants to set up an opposition between ‘position’ and ‘relation’. But I am not sure at all if that opposition exists.

The Dangers of Opposition

This prompts a different enquiry: an enquiry into what the ramifications of this oppositional approach might be.

As I look at it, it feels like the subsequent debates about ‘position’ and ‘relation’ have been shaped by this oppositional framework that Hamilton has snook in under the radar.

Here are some of the problems I’ve observed in general from just browsing the tactical debates:

• How do we determine if a coach is a ‘positionist’? As Hamilton has defined it, a ‘positionist’ is a coach who uses ‘position’ to be the dominant factor through which all other concepts are subsumed. This is an intellectual position. As far as I can tell, there is no way to be able to infer this from the way a team is set up. Of course, you could watch a team and identify the main tenets of ‘positional play’ and make the logical inference that the coach is probably a ‘positionist’. Equally, though, there are many coaches who implement ‘positional ideas’ without holding to the extremist form of ‘positional play’. These coaches are not ‘positionist’ by Hamilton’s definition. But I think the oppositional framework that he’s implemented leads people to simply categorise them as ‘positionists’. In essence, though, most of what is being described of as ‘positionism’ is simply football with ‘positional ideas’. This is the result of the ideological opposition set up by Hamilton.
• How do we determine if a coach is a ‘relationist’? We have the opposite problem determining if coaches are ‘relationist’. Essentially, the determination of ‘relationist’ coaches is done through definition by exclusion. If you don’t see your coach doing things that look ‘positional’, then it stands to reason that they must be ‘relational’, right? I don’t buy the logic. In the end, you are calling all teams that you don’t think are ‘positional’ ‘relationist’ when it could just be that they simply aren’t ‘positionist’. This may seem like a pedantic point but this is the danger you run into if you want to set up theoretical terms: people might actually expect clarity.
• This lack of clarity in definition means that the terms ‘positionism’ and ‘relationism’ are applied willy-nilly (yes, I used the phrase ‘willy-nilly’), all of which means that the debate has decended into a culture war. There are people who want to use the debate to argue that Brazilian national football has been ruined by an influx of European ideas. There are people who want to use the debate to denounce Guardiola’s hegemony in tactical circles. There are people who want to push back against the claims made and defend ‘positional play’. What there seems to be less of is a desire to carry the debate forward into a more fruitful dialogue where a gain is made tactically.

Where do we go from here?

So where do we go from here? At the risk of alienating both sides of the debate, here are some of my suggestions for fruitful dialogue going forward:

• It has to be said that the fundamental point of Hamilton’s argument is absolutely true. There are a group of people who have drunk so deeply at the well of Pep Guardiola that they have lost the capacity to accept that there is space for other approaches to football. The critique of ‘positionism’ is completely valid and deserves a hearing. If ‘position’ is being used as a controlling factor in your system, you are probably missing out on valuable insights about football from elsewhere.
• We need to deflate the aesthetic aspects of the debate. Talking about ‘relation’ as if it is a moral good comparative to ‘position’ is not a given. The idea of freedom is not only to be found in the purview of ‘relation’ — ‘position’ can be freeing in some ways as well. If you can’t see this, you need a broader concept of freedom and a fuller account of football. ‘Positionism’ is bad but so is ‘relationism’: it is bad to allow ‘relation’ to control your system.
• In light of this fact, we need to think more about the negative aspects of ‘relationism’. One of the under-explored aspects of ‘relational’ approaches is the impact it has on the out of possession aspect of a team’s play. There has been some interesting stuff written on this by Caio Miguel but it remains to be seen how functional the Dinizian style of play would be within a European League where positional ideas are dominant. At this point, what is done is largely pointing towards Carlo Ancelotti or teams who are less positional but, as we’ve already said, there is no oppositional dichotomy. These teams are largely hybrids of both positional and relational ideas.
• Following on from this, we need to spend more time breaking down ‘positional ideas’ and ‘relational ideas’ so that we can better explain how ‘position’ and ‘relation’ can be inter-related within the same system. Even the most stringent ‘positional’ coaches will use ‘relational ideas’ — let’s not forget that overloading to isolate is a ‘relational idea’ as much as a ‘positional’ one. Equally, ‘position’ exists in the escadinhas of South American football.
• Perhaps most importantly, we need to realise that there is a whole generative sphere of interesting tactical ideas that exists here which we are running the risk of alienating neutrals from because the oppositional approach has made the debates descend into polemics. We’re at a point now where we can shift the debate from the negative to the positive with the possibility of moving the tactical discussions into much more fruitful pastures.