What's in a playing style?
As I watched Swansea dispatch Newcastle without threatening to break sweat, and amidst the usual rage-filled Toon frustration after a strikingly inept performance, I couldn’t help but marvel about how identifiable Swansea’s style of play is. Their quasi tika-taka has entrenched roots long before Garry Monk, but the seamless transition from manager to manager without any noticeable departure from the “Swansea way” is commendable.
All coaches at the highest level will have some semblance of a footballing philosophy. In a nutshell, that refers to finding the best way to put balls in the opposition’s onion bag, whilst preventing the same being done to you. Having said that- it’s clear that some teams/managers more than others have established clear reputations for playing the game in a certain (or ‘right’ if you’re a purist) way. On the possession/keep ball side, we find Swansea, Arsenal (Wenger), Everton (Martinez); whilst more direct approaches can be found with any teams managed by messrs Pulis, Allardyce, and dare I say it, Mourinho. Certainly, there is more nuance to it than this. Styles of play go beyond simple categorisations of “possession” and “direct.” But for now, let’s agree that the above team/managers have acquired a name for one of these particular styles.
Why are these styles of play so visible to even the most passive football viewer? Good coaching – encapsulated by a clear and consistent message clearly plays its part – but there is more to it than that. In order for a style to truly manifest in its purest form, one needs the players, all of them, to be fully capable of exhibiting it. Thus, what we often see from managers who are particularly reputable for certain philosophies is demand for absolute control on incomings and outgoings. Tony Pulis initially baffled the football world when he seemed to have prematurely departed his job at Palace, but cited lack of support and control in the transfer market as his reasoning. Whilst at Blackburn and West Ham, Sam Allardyce frequently made clear his need for full control over transfers amidst speculation over owner meddling. Indeed, in response to Pulis’s resignation from Palace, Arsene Wenger said “transfers should be the managers job, if not we are just robots.”
Alan Pardew: Criticised for having a lack of a consistent playing style
This brings us to Newcastle. One of the most consistent criticisms of Alan Pardew’s reign was the seemingly schizophrenic style(s) (or lack of) that characterised the Toon’s play. At times, Pardew spoke the language of possession, the need to “control games”. At others, he would emphasize the need to go “back to basics”, or to be compact. On the pitch, this translated to a bizarre hybrid of styles that satisfied very few. True, Pardew would often be direct – the infamous “long ball to Williamson”, but Newcastle were also perennially poor at set pieces, not something that should be said about a team that likes a long ball. Does this mean Pardew was wholly incompetent? He certainly had his flaws. But a look to the job he’s doing at Crystal Palace would suggest that given the right players, a direct (or any) style has the potential to be fruitful. A long ball to a Brede Hangeland or a Glenn Murray, rather than a Mike Williamson, (and delivered by an effective set piece taker) will likely give you different results.
Time will tell whether Steve McClaren is able to initiate a clear style of play. Whether his place on the board gives him an effective enough say in who comes and goes remains to be seen. What is clear: is that Newcastle’s model is business first. This doesn’t necessarily mean that incoming players aren’t any good. Most fans should be pleased enough with Wijnaldum, Mbemba, Mitrovic and possibly Thauvin (though a couple more would be nice…). But what this does mean is that the first that is asked isn’t: will player x fit seamlessly into this style of play. Really, only a manager can ask these questions. If Newcastle’s mantra had looked like this, they wouldn’t have signed Vurnon Anita, Remy Cabella, or Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa – all of whom looked out of place in an Alan Pardew side. Sure, Newcastle ask: is player x talented? But if your pegs are square, they ain’t going in round holes.
None of this is to say McClaren can’t be successful. But it has to be more challenging to inaugurate “the McClaren way” (if such a thing exists) when the priority isn’t finding players to fit the McClaren approach. That being said, the rationale of signing Thauvin is positive – that is, someone who can actually take a set piece. Nevertheless, it’s too early to tell whether Newcastle will continue to be a mismatch of styles to accommodate the disparate playing staff, or establish a truly cohesive method of playing. What won’t change, is the approach to buying and selling.
