TIKI-TAKA: THE ORIGIN

The "tiki-taka" is back in fashion, if it ever ceased to be in recent years. Pep Guardiola's return to the bench, in particular to Bayern, has made a return to speak with strength about this concept and even some German media have already renamed "Tikki-Takken". Now, where this "tiki-taka" comes from?

Well, the first thing to say is that the name "original" is "tiqui-taca" and is, although not enough, a derogatory term to refer to this style of play where the players touch and touch the ball, according to some, so boring.

In Spain, many people think that the origin is in the journalist who died a while, Andrés Montes. Montes became very popular, first as a commentator of NBA games for Canal+. A different style of storytelling and clever use of certain phrases as well as giving nicknames to the players made him very famous. Later he commented football in "La Sexta", starting at the World Cup in Germany. The truth is that Montes made popular the term "tiqui-taca" (or tiki-taka), but the origin is much older.

Other people attribute this word to the coach Javier Clemente. Clemente, like others, also referred (or is referring actually), so derogatory to this type of game. From Clemente are sentences like "The best attack is a good defense." No comments.

The truth is that the first I heard this word is Jose Mari Maguregui (the "Magu"), former player and former coach in many teams. As a player he was basically at Ath. Bilbao, although he was in Sevilla, Espanyol and Huelva. As a coach at Racing Santander, Espanyol, Celta, At. Madrid and Almeria, among others, and in some of them, 2 or 3 times.

From the time at Espanyol, (1980-1983), is the "tiki-taka". Maguregui did a television interview where talking about different ways to play the game referred “possession” in this derogatory manner. Maguregui, like many at the time, defended a very direct game based on physical strength of the players, not the technical qualities. In the cAt Barça, there were players like Schuster, Landáburu, "Tente" Sanchez, Rubio or Estella, and Maradona would come a few years later. Although not as much as it is now, the Barça’s style has always been a style of touch and not about “power” (see the players mentioned) and Maguregui referred to them in this way, in the sense that "touch" and "touch" was boring. Hence the "tiki-taka": touching-touching.

The truth is, it was originally written "tiqui-taca" and no one else remembered it until Montes, as we have said before made it again popular from 2006. This also coincides with the "Champions" won by Barça in Paris against Arsenal. They were Xavi and Iniesta and Messi missed it because an injury. All this and, above all, from the EURO 2008, made the term popular worldwide. As "tiqui" was pretty hard to pronounce for those who do not have the sound "qu" appeared "tiki" like spelling pronunciation. The rest of the story is well known by everybody.

As the saying goes, "to Caesar what is Caesar's" and "to Magu what is Magu’s".

Jordi Pascual

You can follow me on Twitter: @JordiPascualP 

CREATIVITY AND MISTAKES

For the past few years, there is much talk about creativity in football. It is said that there are no creative players as before. That so many tactics at younger ages is not good. That we have the players to do by their own on the pitch and to "experience" with mistakes. I very much like this. But, we have to distinguish, because I think there are too much mixed concepts.

On one hand, it seems that creativity is only to do 1v1 anywhere. And, it is much more than this, adding that this action can be wrong many times. Creativity can be a 40-meter pass that no one expects to switch the orientation of the game. Creativity can be to make a bicycle shot from the edge of the box. Creativity can be delaying the game to wait for your teammates to arrive. Creativity can be many different things. The problem, as always, is when to be creative. Going out from the back dribbling when you have teammates better placed to receive a pass and get out of the pressure, is it to be creative? Make a 40-meter pass, from side to side of field, when a 10-meter vertical pass makes a partner to be alone in front of the goalkeeper, is it to be creative? Making a clearance, using a bicycle, when you are alone inside the box and you can control the ball, is it to be creative? Making a heel’s pass, not knowing if there is any partner to receive, is it to be creative?

And, with a misunderstood creativity, mistakes are coming. And, when I talk about mistakes, I mean unforced errors, which could be avoided: incorrect passes, unnecessary dribbles, all these types. Let me give an example. Imagine a 12 year old who wants to pass, the pass is intercepted by an opponent and finishes in a goal. It is a mistake, many will say, we must let them to make mistakes. But, which is the mistake? Could he make another pass easier? Did he choose the wrong pass to make? Did he kick the ball with proper surface? Did he check that there were no opponents who could intercept the ball? The child has made a mistake, yes. But which of these that we have said? Are you sure the child knows what is wrong? Because, if you do not have in mind all the variables, are you sure that he will know how to correct the mistake?

A few years ago I watched on television an international competition for youngster (U20). The left Full-back of one team always wanted to go out dribbling. Finally, he lost the ball, was forced to foul and, also, he was booked. As he had one card, he was sent off. His team was down to 10 players and lost the match. Is this creativity? Are you sure? For me it's something else.

And the one million dollars question comes. Who has to make the player to see what is wrong? The coach, right? And here comes most of the problems. There are many coaches who defend this "creativity" and these "mistakes" because they do not know what the mistakes are. It looks good to say "I give the kids freedom" when in reality, you do not know what to “fix”. The guided discovery and the trial/error process, so fashionable actually, are often confused with a lack of knowledge. And, this is often linked with that about "our time (coaches’) is in practice, the match is the time for the players." I strongly disagree with this statement. Always is "our time" (for players and coaches). Football is a team game, not only, 11 individuals on the pitch. It is one team. And, we are coaches of a team from Monday to Sunday and players are team players from Monday to Sunday. And do not confuse this with training individuals. It has nothing to do one thing with the other.

One of the classic mistakes, as coaches, is to think that the systems (formations), are what makes the way of playing of a team. It’s just the opposite. It is from the way you play (the style or model of playing), that you will choose one system or another. And the way you play is worked, as everything has to be worked. If we think that putting the players on the pitch in a certain way, we’ll play in a certain way, we are completely wrong. If we do not have clear this, how can we be clear about the mistakes of our players?

What the players must know are the different options they have and, from there, choose the one that can be better. How is this achieved? Working in practices. Not doing so is a big mistake.

Jordi Pascual

You can follow me on Twitter: @JordiPascualP

THE ENGLISH PROBLEM

The elimination, once again, of a National Team of England, in this case, in the European Under-21 played in Israel reopens, if ever it was closed, the debate about football in England.

As possible causes of this new defeat, different options are considered:

1) The level of the coaches is very low and, therefore, the educational level of the players is too.

2) Player’s salaries are so high that foreign players come at the expense of local players.

3) The typical system of play in the Islands (the famous 1-4-4-2), is not suitable to the current time.

It can be a bit of this and, perhaps, other things, though, the issue of wages does not seem to serve as an excuse. If a player is good, you will want him and you will pay him well, regardless of nationality. Perhaps, we should look at the problem in reverse: Why there is almost no English players and no English coaches outside the Islands? Is it possible that the fact of being quite well paid make them not to want to go outside? Or, maybe, there are other reasons.

And, the issue of the "system", is not convincing anybody. You know that I'm an advocate of "styles" and for me, the "systems" (formations), are just players put on the pitch in a certain way when the game begins. The most important thing is how you play.

The first thing you see when you watch the matches of the English selections is that the "A" team plays one way and the rest, in a different way. If you look at Spain, Germany, Holland and Italy (to give some examples), we find that everyone plays the same. From the U-16 to the “A” team, the style and the system ("formation") are almost identical. In England, it does not happen. I do not value what way is better. I consider that they are different. How do you want to succeed in a Club/National Team if every team plays differently? Sorry, but I do not understand it.

What also surprises me about England is the lack of competition. Competition in the sense understood in Spain. That is, any team can be champion of Spain at U-19 or U-16. In England Elite competitions are only between what is known as "Academies" which are the most important teams. In Spain and, more specifically, in Catalunya, which is the case I know best, any child of 15 years may have the option to play against Barça and Espanyol, regardless of the category where the 1st team is. A team may play 1st Catalan Division (5th Division), but U-16 team can play the Championship of Catalonia as any. That is, the competitiveness is very high. In England, "B" teams play Reserve League. In Spain, any "B" team can play in the 2nd Division (I mean sporting merit, obviously). It is true that Latins are very competitive by nature, but, the fact of playing in a league every week, knowing that you can have, as a bonus, to play the following year against one of the "big", it sure helps. Moreover, to improve, you have to play against people who are better than you. If you always play against people worse than you, hardly you get better.

Coaches are good and bad everywhere. In England, Spain, Germany, Holland and Italy. Moreover, today, it’s very easy to exchange/share information (Internet, Training Courses worldwide, etc.), Access to ideas, training methods, etc. is very broad.. This blog has followers of more than 50 countries across the 5 continents. So, to say that in England Coaching Courses are not good and, therefore, that the knowledge of coaches is not adequate is, at best, a half truth. One can get his badges and then continue their training and learning without leaving home, with a simple "click" on the computer. And coaches who believe they already know everything once they have the badge, there are everywhere.

Competition is the key to success. Competing players. Competing coaches. And, do not confuse to compete with winning at any cost, which are two completely different things. I personally want to win always. I do not like to lose even when playing alone. But I don’t want to win using any way.

Jordi Pascual

You can  follow me on Twitter: @JordiPascualP

I'M OUTRAGED

I am outraged, really outraged. This morning I woke up and I found a message from a friend saying that he had seen an old blog of my own ("Pensant sobre futbol", "Thinking about football"), in which I spoke about building up a style of playing, copied, point by point, on the website of a regional federation of Australia.

When I could, I have gone to check it and, my surprise has been a major one. It was a simple "copy and paste". Not even corrected the grammar and spelling errors. Not that. The saddest thing is that there was no mention of the source. Yes, there were sentence from Mourinho or Guilherme Oliveira whom mention was made.

What’s that? That I'm not famous or well known and there’s no need to quote me? Only the "cracks" can do good things? Because obviously, the document in question is a normal document. Is the "Technical Development Plan" of the federation. For the avoidance of doubt, the federation is the "Football NSW Southern Branch" of Australia and the responsible for this invention, Mr. James Muir. I contacted them, of course, asking for explanations about the fact and that's the answer I received:

" Hi Jordi,

Thank you for your e-mail.

The technical document is a draft document just for our local club coaches to help them with their teams and is not being sold or for profit. The document was not meant to be put online and was just for discussion and to show how we are trying to plan our club philosophy with content coming from a wide range of sources that is in line with Australia’s National Curriculum.

We do use Academy Soccer Coaches as well as other programs such as Soccer Tutor.

Once we get sufficient feedback we will acknowledge all sources and will not be using any original material, as this is just meant to start discussion.

I apologise for any inconvenience and have asked for it to be taken down.

Regards"

Fair enough, but I wonder: If it doesn’t have to be on-line, why is it? If it is a starting point for discussion, why not quote the author as it’s done with others? Could it be because, as I said, I'm not famous or known and no one will find the origin of the document? Why? Why? Why?

Make it clear that, from the moment that I have a blog on the internet is to share ideas and knowledge. So, I'm not worried, instead, thank you to the people who like my stuff, because it means that I don’t do it so badly. I, like everyone, take stuff from other blogs and websites for my work. Clubs, coaches and football lovers. Now, to copy 24 straight pages without mentioning the source and post it on the web it seems too much.

But it is what I said before. Since I'm not known, nor train neither trained at any “big” team I guess they think that they can act with impunity. At the end of the day, they think that no one will believe this person if he ever says he is the author of this writing.

And so, I am outraged.

Jordi Pascual

You can follow me on Twitter: @JordiPascualP

AND YOU, WHAT DO YOU PLAY?

In the modern game specialist are just ending. Except the only real specialist there (by force or by circumstances), which is the goalkeeper, nowadays there is almost no player that can only play in one position. That about "I'm right Full-Back, left Midfielder or Striker" is over. Today demands versatility, the player who, depending of the game and/or circumstances can make different functions: the Full-Back that makes 6 or 8 goals per season or the Winger that recover 3 or 4 balls per game. This, as examples, is the most important today.  Or maybe not? Is it possible that it is more interesting for us a striker that recovers balls and gives options for second-line players than a striker with little ability to work? Is it possible to want a Central Defender that can play as Full-back or Defensive Midfielder because he is fast and has good placement on the pitch, but has no height? Is it possible to prefer a winger that plays “wrong-footed” than a "classic" one?

I say yes. That EVERYTHING is possible.  ALL is useful.  But ALL means ALL. That is, it can be good "business as usual" as "news". Anything can be useful, if we use it correctly and appropriately. The first job of a Full-back is to defend his flank. The first job of a Winger is to cross balls and, the first job of a Striker is to score goals. And all this, go through the usual: to know the characteristics of the players we have, be clear about how the team plays, and be clear about the type of player that is needed or that can improve our team. Let us be clear, too, that any team in the World wants Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Robben or Rooney. But we're not talking about these players. We are talking about those, considered good or very good players who do not have that "status". Players who stand out enough, but when you get to a certain role, they lose much of their meaning. Or players who do nothing spectacular, but don’t do anything wrong.

It can be that, for that about trying to make as few mistakes as possible, since more and more games are decided by small details (or small errors), is much sought this type of player. As not everyone has the ability to acquire great "cracks", they seek the easiest. And not always it is. You have to know very well to see the potential of a player to guess that he can play several positions and in none of them, he will do badly. Maybe at none he will be a consummate specialist, but, as he has what they call "reliability", he can solve problems that may arise.

Now, we go to the opposite side. And what if we are able to produce a stopper that is a stopper? Or a winger that is a winger? Aren’t we interested on it? I think that, many times, we train the players without thinking about what they could do. Do not confuse "what they do" with "what they could do." Not the same. A player can be very good finishing on goal, but he is unable to create a play. It, therefore, seems logical to play Striker. Now, what kind of striker? Because not all Strikers are the same. Neither all the Wingers. There are some of them very good at crossing when running; others do it better in a static position. And, like this, any type of player you want. Even the Goalkeeper, that we said he was a specialist, can be of many types: the one that saves very well, the ones with strengths on aerials balls. Others are very good with feet, others are very good at 1v1, etc..

Therefore, I think it's a basic job of the coaches to discover, as soon as possible, the strengths and weaknesses of the players, to enhance ones and to correct others. Then, we will have players who are very good at many things. If you only do one good thing, you have to do it in an amazing way, because if not, unlikely you’ll triumph. The more records you master, more options, and this is learned when you are a child, when you start to play football. It is essential to learn the "Principles of the Game" young, to know how to orientate a mark or how to put the foot to send a ball across the field or, what it is a cover or a delay. The best players are the ones with more knowledge about these things.

By the way, and you, what do you play?

Jordi Pascual

You can follow me on Twitter: @JordiPascualP