Why Passing Patterns and Automatisms Are Stupid
Football is a chaotic game by nature with very few elements that coaches can control. Forcing players to do certain actions at certain times is to prepare them for certainties. As a consequence, passing patterns and automatisms can be detrimental to player development and to match results.
To add further context, there is a reason why many coaches prefer to develop and train players through themed small-sided games rather than passing patterns and automatisms — it’s because small-sided games are as close to the actual game that players can get to without actually playing it.
When talking about playing style, principles encompass a lot of the “gray area” in football that automatisms don’t. Taking away decision making from players is taking away their chance to solve the inevitable problems that football brings.
Three major issues with passing patterns and automatisms:
- They don’t prepare players for football
- They can be replaced by themed small sided games
- They look nice for spectators and that’s it
Passing patterns and automatisms don’t prepare players for football
For the sake of argument, we will assume player development is focused on from age 8–18, and that afterwards players are training with coaches in environments that are strictly results driven. There is certainly value in training players in unopposed passing patterns to work on technical ability. When developing players, coaches are focused on getting as many “reps” or “touches” as possible in a training session because it allows the player more chances to develop the technical ability.
However, once technical competence has been reached for a certain age group, development coaches make the environment opposed while still allowing the players chances to get their “reps” in. This is because the coaches are trying to simulate the game so that players are prepared for it. There are no unopposed moments in football.
The same idea applies to senior level football, or “results driven” environments. “Reps” still exist but seldom for development reasons. If you want a more in depth look into results driven training, I recommend reading: How We’re Going to Beat Liverpool. This shows how a team may train in preparation for an upcoming opponent. You’ll notice that the training games are done in a way that allows the players to practice ideas and plans as many times as possible.
You’ll also notice in the article that there are no unopposed exercises. That’s because unopposed exercises do not prepare players for football matches.
There is some element of predictability in football. We know that some teams will sit deep in a low-block, requiring accurate passing, fast movements off the ball and creativity.
You could argue that there is plenty of predictability in playing against a team with a reputation to play a certain way, no matter what, and thus prepare for it in an unopposed manner.
The issue with this is that it only shows players one solution to one problem in a game where we constantly find new problems and new solutions. It is not sustainable to train a certain way against one opponent, and another way against another opponent because eventually your players will play an opponent smart enough to work around your “solution”.
We must train our players for our upcoming opponents, but also for the chaos that football brings. That chaos comes in the form of small-sided games.
Passing patterns and automatisms can be replaced by themed small sided games
I challenge readers to show me a movement they want done that cannot be done in a small-sided game or rondo. Themed small-sided games can create a much more realistic game environment than a passing pattern or set of automatisms.
I’m going to take some of the most popular movements/ideas used in football and turn them into small-sided games to prove to you that football training does not and should not look like military training exercises.
The Up-Back-Through
I will concede that unopposed work can be useful for warming up senior level players before a match or training. Other than that, I see very little value in using them.
Above, we have a rondo that has a player from the team in possession to act as the “back” passing player. The “back” passing player has more problems to solve, angles to use and chances to improve different techniques than the “back” passing player in the unopposed circuit.
Why would we force players to do certain passes to certain players in certain positions when we can train players to recognize solutions to different problems as the game reveals them?
Drop, Turn, Shoot/Pass
The unopposed exercise above is tricky because it can easily be used as a finishing exercise. However, having said that, it can and should be argued that this is still a less than ideal finishing exercise because it is not game realistic. The “dropping” player has time to receive, turn and shoot under no real pressure.
How do we make this more realistic? Most coaches will tell the player “x touches only” but fail to consider that, in a game, if you have time and space to receive and shoot under no pressure, why would you take fewer touches? If you want the player to take fewer touches, why not make it opposed?
The small-sided game I’ve created solves this issue. The “dropping” player can now be put under realistic pressure by defenders and has to use however many touches the defender allows them to have before shooting.
Additionally, this helps attackers recognize when and where to drop into space — we are creating a smarter player now! The defenders benefit because they are always looking over their shoulder, waiting for the run of the attacker once the attacking team enters the middle third.
We get the exact same movement from the attacker while also allowing for the entire team to improve as a unit.
Playing Out From the Back
The point should be clearer now — whatever you can do unopposed can be done opposed.
When it comes to player development, a small-sided game can create a smarter player who looks for solutions to problems. There are variables in a small-sided game that will never be found in an unopposed circuit or automatism. See the second exercise above.
The LCB has the option to “pass out” to the LB, just like in the first exercise. However, they also have the option of passing it centrally to a dropping CM. This option can be used depending on the shape in which the opposition presses. This option and decision making does not exist in a passing pattern, nor does it exist when the player is taught to do something in certain scenarios.
When it comes to results driven, first team football, the idea is the same: create smarter players. However, now we are “developing” our players for what we think our opponents will do, as well as how to react to variables created in a match that coaches or analysts cannot recognize so easily.
We see in the second exercise that the RB is considering overlapping. This can be a viable passing option if the defending team allows it with their press. This is another opportunity for us to develop a player and prepare them for the match. Is this decision a good one? Will our opponent benefit from our RB advancing, or will we?
There are no certainties in football. Stop preparing players for certainties and start preparing them for football.
Passing patterns and automatisms look nice for spectators and that’s it
Every now and then we’ll see a video from the training ground of a team pop up on Twitter where many people will sit in awe of the technical perfection and the smooth sounding, ASMR like, hit of the football from one player to the other.
Seeing Sassuolo, Man City, Inter, Liverpool, etc. train like this can give the idea that this is all they do in training. “This is coaching” some will say, as they see 11 players pass the ball from one to another in a shape that resembles the one the team plays in depending on the phase of play.
In comparison, we rarely see small-sided games from training. Those videos pop up less often and there’s a few reasons why.
- They’re much more valuable in determining the plan a team has compared to an unopposed passing pattern.
- They’re where most of the coaching points come from, revealing more what the intention of the session or exercise is.
- Many coaches don’t like to reveal their best/most used small-sided games.
But passing patterns? Have them, says the coach. X player drops while Y player goes forward? Nothing we haven’t seen before, says the analyst, we can prepare for this.
Passing patterns and automatisms can be prepared for and can be stopped. Coaches like Antonio Conte or Roberto De Zerbi play football that I’m a fan of, but I’d never want to train my players like them.
Players hate passing patterns. Players also hate having all their creativity taken away because the coach has all the power.
Coaches reliant on automatisms are successful, but they aren’t sustainable. Your idea of success may not need sustainability, but I think it helps identify who creates the best footballers and who just uses them.
Conclusion
Passing patterns and automatisms are stupid. Players hate them, coaches don’t develop players as best they can if they use them, and above all, they certainly do not prepare players for football.
There is value in unopposed work, but not enough to justify how much positive attention they receive by coaches, analysts and football fans.
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/CamH___
If you want to support me and writers like me, consider paying for a Medium membership using my referral link: https://cameron-herbert.medium.com/membership
Your support will help pay for my growing coffee budget.
