Tactical Periodization: The Game as an "Unbreakable Whole"

Introduction

I recently finished reading Xavier Tamarit's ¿QUÉ ES LA “PERIODIZACIÓN TÁCTICA”? Vivenciar el <juego> para condicionar el Juego and wanted to write down some of the concepts that stood out most to me. My goal with this reflection series to hopefully understand the methodology at an even deeper level and possibly expose areas of my understanding that warrants further research and contemplation.

I am also fortunate to understand Spanish so I was able to read the book in its original text. Hopefully my reflections can help capture some of the pureness that is present in Tamarit's words and Professor Frade's vision.

Tactical Periodization: More than a Training Methodology

Tactical Periodization is commonly defined as a methodology of "team sport" training, developed for football but not exclusive to only this sport. The "team sport" distinction is highly important because this methodology is born as a result of Professor Vitor Frade's examination and scrutiny of existing sport training methodologies, most of which were designed for individual sports. Vitor Frade is a renown professor at the Faculty of Sport in the University of Porto and has deep ties with FC Porto.

By truly studying the nature of the game of football, Professor Frade began to realize that the game is defined by many complex properties, such as: the presence of many players, fluidity of game play and non-linear dynamics of match actions/events. This ultimately convinced him that the game cannot be understood and therefore trained in a reductionist/analytical framework, because such division of the game ultimately destroys what football really is: a constant interaction of many components. As a result, the foundation of Tactical Periodization is based on what is known as Systems Theory (more on this in a later post).

Tactical Periodization's primary concern is understanding and training the game itself as an "unbreakable whole" ("entereza inquebrantable" is the term used in the original text, a phrase coined by Professor Frade) and not its individual components in an isolated manner. What does this mean in practical terms?

• Technical ability is not developed through isolated, repetitive exercises that lack context and game logic.

• Physicality is not developed through isolated, decontextualized movements in the gym or on the sprinting track.

• Psychological skills such as confidence are not developed in a psychologist's office or through meditation exercises.

• Tactics aren't truly operationalized through film or tactic boards alone.

The game of football is a constant interaction of all these variables on a football pitch and between many players. Therefore, it is through playing the game and experiencing it for ourselves that acquisition of football specific qualities is possible. This is not to say that these aforementioned activities don't have importance, but as mentioned previously, the objective is to strive to keep the game itself at the forefront of the training and learning process.

Therefore, I would encourage readers to think of Tactical Periodization as more than just a training methodology, but rather a philosophy of how we can view football in a more wholesome way and that helps preserve its integrity in our thoughts and words.

How is Tactical Periodization different to Conventional Training Models?

As Guilerme Oliveira writes, football in its infancy was played for pure enjoyment and winning was simply a byproduct of playing and enjoying the game. As the game evolved, so too did the paradigms that underpinned the understanding of football and how to become better at it. One school of thought identified the game as being mainly a technical game, and so the focus of training was based on perfecting the technical abilities of the player away from the game. Once these skills were perfected, the game was introduced. Another school of though realized the physical demands of football and sought to prepare players via intense physically training, again away from the game itself. Once these players were deemed to be in shape, the game was re-introduced into training. Does this sound familiar to how many coaches think about technical ability and fitness in football: How many times have we seen coaches design cone mazes for dribbling? What about requiring players to run 2 miles in under a certain time limit to ensure their fitness levels are adequate?

A later school of thought then emerged to try to improve upon this reductionist thinking, one that aimed to integrate the four pillars of the game (tactical, technical, physical, psychological) and was termed "integrated training". What does integrated training look like in practical terms? Take a look at this video below. Is this a drill you would use in your training sessions? What are the flaws in it?

Although a step in the right direction, Oliveira points out that integrated training has maintained two key flaws that it has failed to overcome:

1) The name "integrated" implies that the parts can be also be disintegrated, when in reality, through the philosophy of Tactical Periodization we can identify the game as an "unbreakable whole".

2) Although integrated training exercises "integrate" the four pillars of the game there is some confusion as to which pillar should guide the direction of the training. By misinterpreting the hierarchy of the pillars, exercises ultimately become decontextualized and lose relevance to the game.

This second point is critical and is what I would consider the biggest flaw in the "drill" we saw posted above. The optics and order of the exercise are great, who can deny it. But does the game follow this logic? What is the objective of making these passes in this order? This exercise ultimately lacks context and purpose. Under the philosophy of Tactical Periodization the transfer of this activity to the game will be of minimal use, especially if we are looking to enhance passing qualities.

So what does a training activity under the framework of Tactical Periodization look like? Take a look at a sample video below, what differences can you decipher?

No training exercise is infallible, this is what makes coaching an art and not a science. The actual difference between the two exercises is not much. Applying the similar critique as above: What is the purpose of this exercise? Isn't this also lacking context and relevance? The one detail that leads me to believe this activity is more relevant is by simply looking at the title of the video: "Switch of Play Passing Drill", the key words being Switch of Play. What is a Switch of Play, to which pillar does this category of action pertain too: tactical, physical, technical or psychological? Maybe some would argue technical, others could say tactical, I would argue that it is a decisional action in response to a given circumstance (a tactical element) but that is manifested through the technical, physical and psychological pillars. In other words it encompasses all pillars. This matters because the design of this exercise respects the hierarchy of all the pillars and "unbreakable wholeness of the game". Take a closer look at the set-up and location of the exercise. It closely resembles a set-up that could a occur between the #2, #4, #6, #7 and #10 in a live game.

Therefore, by designing an activity based on a tactical objective (Switching of Play), the coach in this instance is not only training football actions but most importantly Specific (yes with a capital "S", another topic we will dive into in another post) interactions and ultimately patterns of behavior that he wants his team to be able to demonstrate if they are encountered in a live game.

Its important to recognize that this Specificity in training that is achievable through Tactical Periodization not only captures the "unbreakable wholeness" of the game but also permits managers to develop a unique and specific style of play. It is through Specificity that managers such as Mourinho (a pioneer of Tactical Periodization) has been able to achieve such a recognizable form of playing, and not just with one team, but consistently with many different levels of clubs across Europe. This constant pursuit and ability to implement his vision of the game in different set-ups should be in my opinion, the key reason why Mourinho should be considered as one of the best managers in the history of football.

Pepijn Lijnders, Jurgen Klopp's right hand man at Liverpool, was introduced to Tactical Periodization during his time at FC Porto and said a few years ago in an interview:

"I never changed the essence - high-intensity, attacking football - I changed my way of thinking about [it], and especially the way to train it. I got more structure in my ideas, a better hierarchy of my principles. Tactical periodization became my frame."

Conclusion

Tactical Periodization is a team sport training methodology developed by Professor Vitor Frade at the University of Porto. However, this methodology isn't a just a simple set of special exercises or specific periodization scheme that needs to be applied, rather it is a shift in understanding and development of a new philosophy to view and train the game of football. The game is unbreakable and in constant interaction of the four pillars, with the tactical pillar giving all actions context and purpose. By recognizing the game of football's tactical component as hierarchal to the other dimensions, managers and players can design more Specific activities that will not only permit greater transfer into competitive games but most importantly uncover the path to designing and deploying a playing vision, a style of play and team identity.

Coming Next

In the next post of this series we will begin to dive into Systems Theory, the foundation of Tactical Periodization and why its important to understand its role in the training process.