“The Premier League is tactically diverse,” as I draw the same 4-4-2 to 3-4-3 box midfield, with the same interchanging positions. It is hard to focus on anything other than structure when most public analysis is hyper-focused on structures and managers.

When a team performs better than the year prior or the team wins, we go, “Wow, what a masterclass from the manager.” As if the manager kicked the ball once. All the credit goes to the manager. The manager came in and changed everything. No, the players changed everything under the manager.

In the English game, if we don’t like the notion that the coach is controlling everything, we have to talk more about what the players are doing first. People kicking the ball first, the man in suit second.

If all we consume is content about structure, we forget about the technique or the creative elements of a game. The smaller things that no one will notice. We look a lot at the bigger picture. We have to look at the players more. Talk about the players more.

When you watch a game in Brazil, for example, or even a game in the second division of Spain, you focus more on the players. I forget the manager exists, but then they pan over to him on the broadcast, and I remember they exist.

That is why something like relationism is appealing to those that are a little disenchanted by the same copy-and-paste talk around football. It is a different way of looking at things, and a different way of playing if the team is onboard with the idea. If I close my eyes, I can’t accurately predict what is happening on the pitch. That is exciting to me. There is more focus on what the players are creating on the pitch and little to no focus on the manager.

This is only one part of the theory of relationism, but players don’t magically form these diagonals because their coach told them; they are doing it themselves. They have more autonomy from the man in a suit on the side of the pitch. More choice. The coach coaches them on how to form the diagonals in practice, but there seems to be more of a creative element. Fewer barriers. Fewer instructions. 

Giving no instructions is an instruction in itself.

You can’t pin an action down on a manager. You can credit them for an idea that gets used several times in a match, but not an action. The manager and the coaches implement an idea, but they aren’t controlling each individual change in structure or every movement. The structure is ever-changing and made up by the players.

But I am Switzerland. I’m a neutral in this supposed fight between those that are against or for these resurfaced ideas. A middle man merely agreeing that there might be a problem. I want to find new ways of looking at football that could produce a change. When someone is creating a ruckus, I want to learn more, not shun them because I may disagree eventually or immediately.

At the top of the Premier League, the tactics, all the finer details, are as close to similar as you could get. If you can close your eyes and predict what is happening, then it is the same. If I have to draw a diagram and make a long speech to tell you how dissimilar things are between the teams, then they are as close to similar as you can get. I should know just by watching. It will be obvious.

In the middle and bottom of table there is some parody, in a general sense, there are different tactics being tried compared to the teams at the top of the table. And that is due to the players, their qualities, working around a lack of quality. If you want to look for something new, look at the middle or bottom of the table where they are amplifying their strengths, but the closer you get to the top, as you climb, the more the fans want you to copy the other teams because they are winning titles and you are not.