To people old enough to remember the phrase, it conjures up an image of “Route 1” football – a mental picture of a consistent barrage of long forward balls in the general direction of the opponent’s penalty box.
When the ball reached such areas, it was generally expected that a huge mountain of a centre forward would get their elbows out, lean in to defenders and try to get a flick on for a smaller man running forward into the penalty area to “gamble”.
If that didn’t work, then a box-to-box running midfielder would try to get on the end of the “second ball” – a situation where the ball was unsuccessfully cleared by the defender as a result of the aforementioned “attention” by the battering ram style centre forward. The midfielder would then try to get a shot at goal or create an opportunity for someone else.
Statistical analysis carried out by Hughes, at the top level of the game, tended to show that most goals were scored from moves involving 5 passes or less.
Potentially, this sole fact, taken out of context and adapted by some, led to a number of teams playing ‘biff-bash-fightball’ – an alleged strategy favoured by teams with limited resources and an even more limited imagination.
Now I don’t know Charles Hughes, personally, although I was in the room when he provided a brief introduction to the group when I undertook my Advanced Licence coaching course at Lilleshall in 1994. He seemed pleasant and unassuming enough.
I believe that, if you look at key statistical analysis from major tournaments (World Cup and UEFA Championships) his research and analysis of statistics is as valid today as it was when he did it.
MISREPRESENTATION ?
However, I feel that his work has been grossly misrepresented. His descriptions of direct play are NOT about biffing the ball in the general direction of the opposing penalty area - and he says as much in his book (The Winning Formula - 1990). On Page 8 in the Introduction he talks about the flaws in the theory of possession play as a general premise but goes on to say:
“To point out this flaw is NOT an endorsement of kick and rush tactics, with the ball being punted forward in the general direction of the opponent’s penalty area at every opportunity.”
He elaborates by adding:
“Success comes, as might be expected, in a balance of the extremes of possession play and kick and rush”
To close on this aspect, he goes on to make the point starting on page 9 and going to page 10:
“Some people see advocates of direct play as people who wish to sacrifice the fine skills and beauty of the game in order to win.
Critics of direct play say that it is all about playing long balls forward to the exclusion of all else.
This is simply untrue.
Certainly the ability to hit long, accurate forward passes is an essential weapon in the armoury of outstanding players, but so is the ability to control the ball, to turn with it, run with it, dribble with it and cross it; just as important is the ability to head or shoot for goal with accuracy, to say nothing of a wide range of defensive techniques. An outstanding player, in direct play, as in any other system, is one who has mastered all these techniques and who has the skill to know which technique to use in any and every situation.”
So, clearly NOT, in my opinion, an endorsement of what everyone assumes he was responsible for - “Route 1 Football”.
Whilst he looks closely at statistical analysis of games at the top level of the game (and again, in his book he asks what other industry in the world would determine its tactics and strategy without analysing relevant statistics) he also clearly states that without development of good technique( and ALL technique; not Just the ability to play a long pass), control, dribbling, turning, running with the ball, passing and an ability to create and then exploit space, you will not see any reward for your efforts (see above).
Sadly, in my opinion, a few professional managers and coaches hijacked his use of statistical analysis and thought 'Right, most goals come from 5 passes or less, so let's bash it forward, fight for it and perhaps we'll get a goal scoring opportunity from a regained possession (Again, I don't KNOW them personally, but that was my assessment of those tactics from some of those teams at that time - which was mostly a few years ago now).
Now you may think that there is some merit to that but I don't think you'll win too many championships that way (at senior level) and I can't imagine the players or paying spectators enjoying it too much.
Kids Football
Although in kids’ football, you still see some coaches / managers playing the big, strong, quick kid up front and having the less developed players smash it forward so he can score lots of goals.
On the subject of young players, in his “FA Book of Coaching Soccer Tactics and Skills” (1980 and reprinted in 87 which is when my copy is from) sometimes called “FACTS”, he says in chapter 1 regarding Systems Of Play on page 13:
“Sadly, the backlash of all this is in the schools with the result that too great an emphasis has been placed not only on systems of play, but also on the playing of 11 a-side football.
The development of young players would be better served by playing small sided games. It would be even better served if school masters would dedicate themselves to the task of teaching techniques and developing those techniques by simple progressive practices, leading to small sided games and eventually, when the players are technically and physically equipped, ending in the 11 a-side game”
This is all stuff we are told the FA doesn’t, or hasn’t until recently, done - which may well be the case but, if we have concentrated on trying to replicate, or maybe imitate (see my earlier blog post) the adult game, it definitely wasn’t Charles Hughes’ fault.
He goes on to say:
“We should be persuading schoolmasters, and others who coach young players, of the importance of their task. Should they fail in their task, should the foundations be less than sure, then a soccer superstructure will fail to arise.”
So, this would seem to be advocating a similar approach to what the Dutch have been saying and doing for so long. Whilst we may not have been doing it so well at grassroots, I believe that education, the internet and so on is now driving an enlightened view and allowing grassroots coaches to be the coach they would like to be.
More on Statistical Analysis
I believe if you look at FIFA's stats, they will STILL show that most goals are scored from 5 passes or less and from set plays, so certainly his analysis is not null and void.
However, we now see from FIFA that there are statistics to show that most successful sides, whilst their goals come in, broadly, Hughes' view, they also show that those sides have more possession than their less successful rivals.
Are these mutually exclusive views? No, I don't think so. As someone in management once said 'There is no one right way'. So, extrapolating the theory, there surely is no one wrong way, either, certainly not Charles Hughes'.
To be fair, I don't think he was ever given a proper platform on which to expand on his ideas and I can only recall seeing him interviewed once.
The press castigated him and his views without, in my opinion, ever truly investigating the issues (would you have expected anything else from the “popular” press?).
Sadly he got absolutely no support from any quarter and I'm fairly confident that in any conversation which comes up, I'm the only person I know who actively sticks up for what he stood for (or, more accurately, what I believe he stood for).
Additionally, he was not the only person to analyse, statistically, the outcome of games and come up with the conclusions he did. A gentleman by the name of Wing Commander Charles Reep carried out his own analysis (before Hughes) and came up with broadly the same conclusions.
I firmly believe that as the years pass and the mindset against Mr Hughes subsides, his work will be re-assessed and he will be recognised for the student of the game and opinion former that I believe him to be.
ANOTHER VIEW
As I’ve said, I don’t know Charles Hughes and have never spoken with him although there are people who do and have. I have been told by a third party, who knows someone who worked with Charles Hughes for a while, that he was indeed a ‘long-ball’ merchant.
But having read my post above and the extracts from two of his books, I’ll leave you to make up your own minds and see the attached links for another view.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/profile-the-professor-breaks-cover-charles-hughes-1507161.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/england/2326576/England-managers-need-direction.html
No comments:
Post a Comment