Malmö apply relational principles to their play, but when things get tough in a match, they retreat back to rigid positional play. The question now is why isn’t your team retreating to relational principles when a match is easy?

Mark Lievisse Adriaanse writing about Henrik Rydström and Malmö for NRC (translated to English from Dutch):

Rydström, says Moisander, “is not a dictator.” During the week, Malmö trains according to Rydström’s ideas, and mutual relationships are formed. “But before the match, he doesn’t give clear instructions that you shouldn’t do certain things or that you should do certain things.” During the match against Halmstads, it is noticeable that Rydström does not stand on the sidelines shouting for instructions. Sometimes he calls a player over to him to ask questions about the match and then to join in the conversation.

Many trainers have the “illusion of control,” says Rydström himself. They want to dictate exactly where players should stand. For Rydström, the principles of the game are “non-negotiable.” For example, to look for diagonal passes through the opponent’s lines. And by luring the opponent out of their normal positions with an ‘overload’ on one flank and then playing them over.

By keeping a single outfield player on the other flank, the game can also be shifted to an area where there is a lot of space. If the ball is lost in the crowd, he says, it is easier to win it back. But in the execution of these principles, players have a lot of freedom. The point, says Rydström, is to create a framework within which players have the space for their own creativity, expression, and initiative.

The first manager I think of when I read this is Real Madrid manager Carlo Ancelotti. His way of approaching managing a game sounds similar. This is a style of play built for those that excel at man management. Putting players in an environment where they will excel on their own. Allowing them to find their own solutions.

There has to be a lot of trust that has to be built between the manager and the players because the onus is on those on the pitch. The players have to be confident in themselves to not be afraid to make mistakes when they take a risk without instructions.

It sounds great to me because it is unpredictable. Why wouldn’t you want your team to play like this if they could do it and win?

Some people prefer predictability. Eleven players perfectly choreographing movements on a pitch is beautiful.

Teams are afraid to lose because they need the money. They need to finish in the top four. They need to win silverware. Fanbases want easy wins; they want titles. Managers have to fulfill expectations.

The style only matters if you win, and Malmö win matches.

When things get tough during a match, players fall back into old positional patterns, Rydström says after the match against the stubborn, defensive Halmstads. Sometimes they even started playing the long ball. “Why?” he says in frustration. At the same time, he acknowledges, those larger spaces also made it harder for Halmstads to defend.

Fight or flight. The team reverts back to positional play because you don’t want to be surprised when you are under attack. You want everything to be predictable. You want to close your eyes and know where everyone else is on the pitch.

If everyone is in fight or flight, why wouldn’t you want to take advantage and go on the offensive by playing more unpredictably?