From August 2022 to May 2023, I had the opportunity to experience the life of a researcher as a participant of NTU’s URECA1 program. I’ll write a full recap of my journey as an undergraduate researcher after the next academic year, but in many ways, this was the perfect project for me. It allowed me to work on a field that I have been passionate about for many years - sports analytics in football.
Working with Professor John Komar from NIE2, we built an Expected Goals model from the last three seasons of Data in the Singapore Premier League, and applied it on top of research conducted by another URECA student to identify which styles of play are effective in Singapore, and which teams use them the most.
The full paper and my findings are below if you’re interested in taking a look at it! If there’s interest in an in-depth runthrough of the code that I wrote for it, I’ll be happy to write that up as well.
After an outstanding twenty-year playing career, mercurial forward Thierry Henry entered the coaching world with the aim of emulating the success he achieved as a player.
Following stints as a youth coach at Arsenal and an assistant coach at Belgium, Henry took over the reigns of a struggling AS Monaco from Leonardo Jardim in October 2018.
However, his tenure at his childhood club came to a quick end. He was suspended by the club in January 2019 after a disappointing four wins from twenty games. It was difficult to envision Henry succeeding at Monaco. He inherited a depleted Monaco side with key players lost to transfers and a sizable number of injuries. His lack of experience as a manager led to conflicts with his players, and perhaps his lack of coaching experience prevented him from achieving his vision of replicating the playing style of Guardiola’s Barcelona.
After a short hiatus, Henry took over the role of head coach at Montreal Impact in November 2019. The Impact are a team that have not had much success over the course of their history, giving Henry the chance to mold the team as he sees fit, with the goal of making them more competitive in the MLS over the course of his tenure.
So, after a few months in charge, how do the Impact play? To answer this question, I will be taking a look at their recent game against DC United.
Montreal’s Defensive Shape
When United had the ball, Montreal’s defensive shape resembled a 4–4–2. Throughout the match, they looked to force United to distribute the ball to the wings, where it is easier for Montreal to regain possession.
When executed correctly, Montreal’s defensive shape is fluid and effective. In this game, however, they did at times struggle with winning the second ball and recovering after losing 50–50 situations. Lapses of concentration defensively also allowed United to bypass their press and create good chances.
In their 4–4–2 shape, while United’s centre backs have the ball, Montreal’s forwards do not actively press them. Instead, they use cover shadows to limit their options for vertical progression. In this case, Bojan cuts off the passing angle to the United midfielder. The United center back instead has to play the ball down the right half space to a player who is immediately pressured by Taïder.
This sequence also showcases the defensive fluidity that Montreal can play with. Corrales (Montreal’s left back, off-screen) and Wanyama react almost instantly to Taïder’s actions. Corrales moves up to fill the gap created by Taïder on the left flank, while Wanyama covers the run of the United attacking midfielder. This fluidity is key to Montreal’s defensive prowess. In this sequence, the ball is won back shortly afterward via a Wanyama interception.
Another example of this defensive strategy can be seen in the picture below with Romell Quioto:
Once the ball reaches United’s wide players, Montreal trigger a more aggressive version of their press. Their midfielders shift over to the ball-side to block passing lines to United midfielders running in behind. One or more Impact player(s) aggressively presses the player with the ball to force him to play in a 1v1 situation.
Throughout the match, this scheme was employed successfully by Montreal, allowing them to break down United’s attacking movements and regain possession consistently.
Over the course of ninety minutes, however, Montreal did show some defensive weaknesses. Maintaining the aforementioned fluidity requires a high level of communication and discipline. At times, Montreal’s players did not cover the spaces created by the aggressive pressing on the wings.
In particular, Montreal’s right sided center-back Rod Fanni has a habit of pushing up to cover the space created by Montreal’s midfielders. This leaves the last line of defense vulnerable to diagonal runs in behind.
This was exploited by United on more than one occasion, and going forward, other teams might be able to take advantage of this to create good chances.
Fanni’s pressure is necessary in these scenarios, however it can cause more harm than good if Montreal’s midfielders are not able to cover the runs that this pressure invites. This is definitely something that the team should look into if they want to improve defensively.
Montreal also struggled sometimes with their defensive positioning, due to two reasons:
Allowing the Ball to be Easily Played Past the First Line of Pressure
At times, Bojan and Quioto did not cover the passing lane to United’s midfielders. This led to a cascading effect as Wanyama and Piette were forced to leave their positions to pressure the ball.
This caused Montreal’s defensive shape to quickly unravel, and United took advantage of this with some good combination play.
Lack of Communication and Defensive Awareness
The effectiveness of Montreal’s press is highly dependent on the fluid movement of their midfielders. When there are miscommunications defensively, there are gaping holes created in Montreal’s midfield. United exploited these through quick combination play.
At times, Montreal’s midfield duo of Wanyama and Piette were often found out of position after battling for 50–50 chances. While this did not amount to many good chances created in this match, it would be easy for other teams to take advantage of this.
In the example above, Montreal’s defence collapses as their right back, Brault-Guillard is forced to move inward to press United’s left winger Asad. This allows United’s LB to run down the line, culminating in a chance created from a cross.
Montreal’s LB Corrales is also guilty of the same — at times, his positioning is too narrow, allowing United’s wide players to get into dangerous attacking positions from the right flank.
Overall, Montreal’s press, when carried out well, negated United’s offense effectively. This led to them conceding few shots from dangerous positions. There are, however, some aspects that they need to fine-tune in order to reach an elite level defensively.
Building from the Back
Montreal have a unique approach to playing out from goal kicks — their wing backs, Corrales and Brault-Guillard, are given freedom to aggressively move up the pitch, while Montreal’s midfielders, Taïder and Piette, occupy their positions. Wanyama sits in front of the center-backs as a passing option. When it works, this setup creates space for Wanyama to drive into and move the ball forward.
In the example below Wanyama was presented with a number of options to move the ball forward once United’s first line of pressure was bypassed.
Generally, Montreal looked to play the ball wide from goal kicks to attract pressure from United players. This allowed Bojan and Taïder to find advanced positions, and Montreal subsequently looked to play the ball to them, to take advantage of the space created in midfield.
However, there were very few instances in which this was successful. More often than not, Taïder and Piette occupied positions that were too advanced. This led to Montreal struggling to play past United’s first line of pressure.
Possession was often recycled in a “u-shape” between the wing backs and center backs. Montreal lost the ball in dangerous positions due to a lack of passing options, and were often forced to play long balls up the field to escape United’s high press.
Montreal instead found more success in possession with a midfield duo of Wanyama and Piette, while Rod Fanni moved out wide to cover the forward movement of Brault-Guillard, as shown in the picture below. Piette playing in a more central role gives Montreal’s defenders more passing options, while allowing Wanyama to make driving runs from deep.
They also found success with a more conservative system, where only the ball-side wing back pushed up the field. In the picture below, we can see that Brault-Guillard is positioned near the half-way line, allowing Piette to take up a role in the right half-space. Taïder and Wanyama are in the left half-space, with Taïder in a more advanced role, as opposed to covering for Corrales. This sequence led to some promising combination play, and Montreal should look to use a system similar to this going forward.
Montreal’s struggles with building out from defense were very noticeable in this game. However, they did not struggle with retaining possession in United’s half. One can interpret this as a positive sign, chalking down their problems to a system that needs improvement, rather than players lacking the technical ability to play a possession-oriented game.
Playing Through the Team’s Strengths
Montreal has two standout players in their roster — Bojan and Wanyama. Both players are in their prime years and bring different skill sets to the table.
Bojan is adept at creating chances, both for himself and others. He is often able to beat players 1-on-1 with his technical ability, while having the vision and ability to play in other Montreal players. His innate understanding of positioning consistently makes him a passing option in the buildup phase and the final third.
In this match, Bojan was given license to roam freely. He often presented himself as a passing option in the left half-space, or behind United’s midfield. His technical ability saw him used as a ball-carrier to move the ball into the final third.
However, while watching this match, one does feel that he can be used more effectively in Montreal’s system. Montreal often struggled with finding the final ball to create scoring opportunities. In my opinion, a possible solution to this lack of creativity is using Bojan more in the buildup phase.
Bojan always positions himself well to receive the ball — hence, the onus is on his teammates to find him. Once again, there is a silver lining in the cloud, as one can argue that it is easier to train passing the ball to Bojan, rather than teaching Bojan how to position himself. If Montreal modifies their system of playing out from the back, this change should be simple enough to implement.
When given the opportunity to, Wanyama made promising late runs into the final third and linked up well with Montreal’s attackers. These opportunities did not present themselves often, however, as he was tasked with playing in a more conservative role to balance out the attacking movement of Piette and Taïder. Playing him in a midfield duo could allow Montreal to make the most out of his skillset, giving him license to make late runs and create chances with his link-up play.
If Montreal wants to achieve success consistently, they should make the most out of the abilities of their stars, and I am sure Henry will look into this going forward.
Conclusion
In this 1–0 win against DC United, Montreal showcased a competent and effective defensive scheme, along with the occasional flashes of fluid, dangerous attacking plays.
However, going forward, Henry should look to limit his team’s lapses of concentration defensively and look at changing the way in which his team plays out from the back. To improve Montreal’s chance creation, he should look to make Bojan the focal point of this team, while using Wanyama more extensively to win the battle in midfield.
Jose Mourinho became a prominent figure in the footballing world in the early 2000’s at FC Porto. In his first season, he won his first Premier Liga title with a then-record number of points. He found further success in his next season, winning the Portugese Super Cup, Primeria Liga and his first Champions League title with a win over Monaco in 2004.
His high-profile move to Chelsea came with a similar amount of success, with back-to-back title wins. However, what truly set him apart from his peers was his demeanor. He became a fan-favorite with his entertaining press conferences, where he didn’t refrain from speaking what was on his mind, reminding people of his credentials, or attempting to get into his opponents heads with bizarrely creative insults.
He set this precedent in his very first press conference at Chelsea, with this famous quote that led to his moniker – “The Special One”.
Please do not call me arrogant, because what I’m saying is true. I am [a] European Champion, so I’m not one of… of the bottle. I think I’m a special one.
From Translations to Tactics
Mourinho’s success is a result of his own volition. He committed himself to coaching at an early age due to his lack of a physical skill set to progress to the next level as a player. He moved up the ranks of Portugese football due to his drive and attention to detail. Eventually, he broke through as a translator for Bobby Robson at Sporting CP, subsequently following him to Porto and Barcelona as an assistant manager.
When I was twenty, I was nobody in football. I was somebody’s son. You know? And now, with fifty-five, I am what I am, I did what I did, because of work. Because of my talent, and because of my mentality.
When he got the opportunity to become a manager at Benfica, he employed a unique managerial style that he had been developing for years – combining his tactical astuteness with psychological motivation to transform his players into born winners. Instead of being a footballing aesthete, he preferred to be pragmatic. For him, playing reactive football and tailoring your team to the opponent’s weakness was the best way to win games. He often challenged his players publicly and privately if their performances were not up to his standard.
His philosophy made him a divisive figure among his peers and players. For every player that loved his man-management and were willing to “die for him” on the pitch, there were feuds with players who believed that he went too far with his criticism. Some of Mourinho’s peers felt that he was “anti-football” with his overly defensive tactics. But at the end of the day, his titles and success in different countries speak for themselves.
The portrait of Mourinho – his love of winning, charisma and shrewd nature made me realize that he was the leader that Niccolo Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” for. During the period of the Italian renaissance, the belief among political philosophers was that a ruler had to be virtuous and ethical in order to use his political powers effectively. However, Machiavelli’s experience with handling the affairs of the Republic of Florence proved otherwise. He strongly backed the idea that being virtuous gives you no more authority. Goodness and right are not enough to maintain power, or political office. In fact, the only concern of the ruler should be to acquire and maintain power.
The Purveyors of Pragmatism
One can draw parallels between Mourinho and Machiavelli’s rejection of conventional wisdom. They both see themselves as pragmatists in a world of idealists.
There are lots of poets in football, but poets, they don’t win titles.
Machiavelli was also a proponent of the belief that coercion creates legality – to keep yourself in the throne, it is better to rule with fear rather than affection. When Mourinho confronts his players, or challenges them to prove him wrong, he sees it as an unorthodox form of motivation. His previous feuds have also shown that he does not feel the need to be on good terms with his players. Rather, it is his responsibility to get the best out of them, even if it requires unconventional methods.
Mourinho would agree with Machiavelli’s principle of virtù, which is explained in The Prince as the quintessential quality that a ruler requires in order to “maintain his state” and “achieve great things”. One of its principles includes having a “flexible disposition”, that is, to have the presence of mind to create or identify strategies and techniques that are appropriate to particular circumstances. Again, this is similar to Mourinho’s philosophy of reacting to the opponent.
We knew where we were better than them, we tried to kill their good qualities and exploit their weaknesses.
Are Mourinho and Machiavelli similar? Yes. He’s agreed with this himself, but he states that he is not completely Machiavellian. For there are two Mourinho’s – while one is antagonistic and at times insufferable, the Mourinho in private has an extraordinary capacity for hard work and loyalty. It is important to keep this distinction in mind.
For a sport with a premise as simple as putting a ball into a net, football has played an important role in shaping society. What occurs on the field often leaves an impression on areas far away from the stadium – science, maths, and even politics have found themselves impacted by the beautiful game. Even though only twenty-two people take the field at a time, there is an infinite number of ways in which in the game can be played – over the years, this has resulted in the creation of various styles – or “schools of thought” – of football. A manager’s “philosophy” is a common blanket term often used when talking about their preferred playing style, or the qualities of players they favour. In other words, how they believe the game should be played, or what they feel gives them the greatest chance of winning.
But is it possible to take these beliefs and look at them from a more traditional philosophical standpoint? Do football managers have something in common with some of the greatest thinkers on Earth?
If one was looking to build a bridge between football and philosophy, they don’t have to look any more further than Arsene Wenger. A radical footballing mind, he singlehandedly brought English football into the modern ages by revolutionizing how athletes maintained themselves off the field. He made callisthenics, yoga and improved diets a staple of match preparation and recovery, and these measures were quickly adopted by his competitors after seeing the improvement that it had on the Arsenal players’ performance. The style of football he preached was eye-catching: at their best, Arsenal was a beautiful jazz orchestra, running a fluid offence with the help of technically gifted players.
How to Play The Beautiful Game
Wenger always wanted his teams to play with creativity and freedom, unwavering with his style over his long managing tenure. He believed that football was something greater than a sport, a means of entertainment and expression. In this regard, he shared his views on creativity with Nikolai Berdyaev.
“Only he who is free, creates.”
Berdyaev’s definition of creativity transcends most conventional definitions – not creating artefacts, but rather, he postulates that it is the bridge between God and man itself. For him, creativity can transcend the physical world, and into the spiritual world. Just as how God made something from nothing, humans, by extension, can bring something unique into this world using materials found around us.
They would also agree on why creativity is important. Wenger looked to play attacking, expansive football because he believed that the sport had “a responsibility to entertain”. This is because football is the sport of the middle class, who flock to stadiums on weekends to escape the monotony of their daily lives.
That is basically what I tried to do – to give people an experience in life that is not everyday.
Berdyaev placed the same importance on creativity, stating that it takes us from a “dull, everyday life” to the “realm of a transformed world”. If Berdyaev ever came to the Emirates, or London Colney, Arsenal’s training ground, to speak with Wenger, he would find that they see eye-to-eye on a lot of things.
The “Facilitator”
Throughout his tenure at Arsenal, Wenger had a unique strategy of investing in young players in undervalued markets and developing them into superstars. This allowed Arsenal to become a financially stable club; while allowing them to entertain and compete in the long run.
His coaching style, however, was even more uncommon. While other coaches looked to play within a system with strict guidelines, he referred to himself as nothing more than a “facilitator” for his players:
“Religiously, it is said that God created man. I am only a guide. I allow others to express what they have in them. I have not created anything. I am a facilitator of what is beautiful in man.”
The role of the “facilitator” in player development and coaching is similar to the role of Socrates in his lectures with students. The Socratic method of question and answer involves a dialogue between the teacher and the student. However, what makes this dialogue unique is that there is no predetermined outline for the dialogue, no stipulated endpoint, and there is equal impetus on the teacher and the student to propel the discussion.
I find that there are similar aspects with the Socratic dialogue and coaching players – in the sense that players need to be able to account for themselves. Coaching is also a two-way process in terms of learning, and the coach also must be open to learning something himself. Wenger as a coach was not aloof – rather, he operated on a system of mutual respect. If he ever entered the field of education, I could see Wenger using this system a lot to educate his students.
It was interesting to see how some principles of philosophers translate to the beliefs of football coaches, and how easy it was to find parallels between the two despite the very different nature of these fields. I’ll definitely be exploring this topic more in the future.
My Extended Essay (a 4000-word research paper that I wrote while doing the IB Diploma) was centered around the use of stream of consciousness in The Sound and the Fury. It’s a literary technique that aims to describe a character’s thoughts, emotions, and reactions in one continuous flow, in essence, giving readers insight into a character’s mind – how and why they think and feel.
What makes this novel special is that it is written entirely in the first person, with the plot shown through the eyes of multiple characters. William Faulkner created a personalized style of narration for every character, and throughout the novel, we got to see every character’s thought process – ranging from the more orthodox ones – from Dilsey – to more unique minds, such as Benjy, a character who is portrayed to be suffering from autism, and hence cannot distinguish between the past, present and the future.
In light of the research I had done for that essay, when I was rewatching BBC’s Sherlock a few months ago, I became quite interested in how his mind was depicted throughout the series. Moving the character from a literary to a television medium provides an opportunity to get creative with things. It was quite interesting to see how the directors of the show tackled the baffling question –
How do you approach visually showcasing the thought process of one of the greatest thinkers in the world?
Arthur Conan Doyle’s novels use Watson as the sole narrator of the duo’s adventures – hence, the readers are often limited to his point of view – when it comes to observing a crime scene, interviewing suspects, or even apprehending criminals. Holmes would eventually reveal all to the readers through his dialogues with Watson, and we were left in awe of his intellect. However, following a similar approach in a TV series would mean that the audience would not be fully engaged – moving from a character to a camera to control the narrative means that the perspective is no longer restricted. Especially if the aim of a director was to create a unique characterization of Sherlock.
With BBC’s Sherlock comes a drastic change in setting, with Baker Street moving to modern London. Moffat used this as an opportunity to update Sherlock, while also bringing over key elements from other cases. Consequently, a new setting presents the opportunity to introduce a different style of presentation and editing, leading to some of the most creative cinematography and editing I’ve seen for a Sherlock Holmes adaptation.
Deduction-On-Screen
Mirroring the way information is present almost everywhere in the modern era, BBC’s Sherlock features the extensive use of annotations on-screen. Often appearing when Sherlock sizes up a suspect or looks at clues in a crime scene, it gives us an idea of what the things he observes and the facts that he deduces from them. This “real-time processing” allows readers to remain on the same page as Sherlock, while getting an idea of how he sizes up people and crime scenes.
Image result for sherlock deduction
However, there is also a balance drawn that ensures that extraordinary abilities are not normalized – there are certain scenes where he sifts through all this information at blinding speed, and the way in which information flies across the screen really serves to highlight how fast his mind works.
This unique style of presentation offers us unique insight into Sherlock’s mind, adding a heightened level of engagement to what is arguably the most important part of the show.
The Mind Palace
“You see,” he explained, “I consider that a man’s brain originally is like a little empty attic, and you have to stock it with such furniture as you choose. The skillful workman is very careful indeed as to what he takes into his brain-attic. He will have nothing but the tools which may help him in doing his work, but of these he has a large assortment, and all in the most perfect order. It is of the highest importance, therefore, not to have useless facts elbowing out the useful ones.”
A concept thoroughly explored throughout the show is Sherlock’s “Mind Palace”, a technique that allows him to assimilate and store vast amounts of knowledge in his mind. Through making a ‘journey’ through a place he knows well (his family home), he can place various memories and bits of information in different areas, and revisit them when required. The show features this in great detail, with Sherlock using it quite often when he’s deducing.
What really highlights his abilities, are, however, when we’re brought into the perspective of his subconscious, which allows us to see the extent to which he can visualize things – whether it be his mind palace or various crime scenes. His subconscious creates such a meticulous image that he can use for detailed investigation.
Image result for sherlock shot by mary
For example, when he was shot by Mary, before he blacked out, he had to decide if he had to fall forwards or backward to maximize his chances of survival. Using the model of the room his mind had made, he gathered enough information (such as determining that the bullet did not pass through the body since he didn’t hear the glass behind him breaking) to fall backward.
Features like this in my opinion, really set apart this iteration of Sherlock from the rest – for a character that has been (rightfully) glorified throughout his portrayals, it was refreshing to see a depiction that’s more tangible – easier to be on the same page with, and someone who also has his own clearly defined flaws. Four seasons of Sherlock have been a treat to watch – and analyze.
