Possession or pragmatism: The FIFA World Cup will put two distinct football identities to the test

Moments of magic

There is not much evidence to suggest that one approach is better than the other, but more recent results at international events have gone the way of teams that play pragmatically, their identity based on shoring up the midfield, holding a tight defensive line, and relying on moments of individual brilliance, set pieces, and counter attacks.

Despite having a far inferior squad than the competitors, Portugal prevailed in the Euros in 2016 with a robust, counterattacking approach. Last year, Argentina emerged victorious in Copa America by sitting back and waiting for the right moment, their tight shape allowed Lionel Messi, playing as a de-facto No. 10 in between the midfield and forward line, to provide the decisive action.

Then there is the case of defending champions France. Didier Deschamps’ side came into the 2018 World Cup with heavy expectations on them, having their pick from Europe’s elite attacking options to build an entertaining and match-winning side. They managed the latter, but with a more robust and reactive approach. Blaise Matuidi was a wide player, who tucked in to create a compact three-man midfield, creating a structure built to hit on the transition, with Kylian Mbappe’s pace and Antoine Griezmann’s creative ability providing the forward threat.

It was extremely effective, but heavily reliant on midfield duo Paul Pogba and N’Golo Kante, both of whom missed the flight to Qatar, making France’s title defence really unpredictable.

That is the drawback to this kind of system: when the balance is off, the football is monotonous and ineffective, and teams like Portugal, France, and England (who reached the final of the Euros last year) have been heavily criticised for failing to make use of a huge assembly line of attacking talent in their ranks.

That is why the lesser teams, the most dangerous examples this year include Iran, Cameroon, and Costa Rica, prefer to opt for a defensive-minded, counter-attacking approach since they have much less talented and inventive attacking options. With the star-studded lineups, this approach is harder to justify.

Holding the ball

Spain’s triumph in 2010, and Germany’s in 2014, were both built around their possession-based styles of football that had their roots in the Netherlands – with the great Ajax teams of the 1970s and 1990s. Spain loaded the midfield, passing their way through, Germany introduced verticality and a higher press, while Italy – who failed to qualify for Qatar – won the Euros last year with a focus on creating space through positional play.

There are more in-depth tactical differences between the three, but the essence is the same – holding more of the ball allows for dictating the rhythm of the game and creating the maximum number of chances. It is the more romanticised way of the game, popularised by elite-level club football, in particular by managers like Pep Guardiola and Jurgen Klopp in England.

This blueprint will be seen in the World Cup with many of the big-name sides.

Luis Enrique will put his twist to the tiki-taka to a young and vibrant Spain. The Netherlands under Louis Van Gaal, one of the longest-standing ideologues of possession-based football, will stubbornly hold the ball.

Bookmakers’ favourites Brazil, a more European-looking side than ever before with a star-studded lineup plying their trade in the continent’s top leagues, are used to keeping a lion’s share of the ball against South American teams.

Hansi Flick’s Germany will continue to be a counterpressing force, with a defensive line that is higher than the half line at times.

The drawback to this system is that international managers simply do not have the same amount of time with their players as club sides do. They cannot work on the repetitive patterns of play that can unlock deep defences, so when teams close down spaces, they find it harder to break down, and leave themselves vulnerable on the counterattack.

Will attacking teams continue attacking?

A fascinating aspect of a World Cup as unpredictable as this is to see whether lesser-known teams that have developed an identity for attacking football continue to stay true to that.

Hosts Qatar have a Spanish influence and like to hold the ball. Senegal’s AFCON-winning campaign was not built on possession but on verticality and attacking by committing numbers. Serbia have a host of talented players, and an approach that allows them to get on the ball and create spaces to attack.

Qatar’s opponent in the first game Equador have young fast attackers upfront, and the Argentine manager Gustavo Alfaro likes the attacks from the flanks. With their pace, they can be dangerous during transitions and counter-attacks. Though they have been goal-less in their last three games and netted just once in their last five.

The differences may be stylistic, but this World Cup will put the effectiveness of both approaches to the test. With the unpredictability of the conditions in Qatar, more free-flowing, high-scoring games can be expected. But in the business end of the tournament, will teams be more conservative? And if so, will that prove as effective?