The Future of Football Cup, a youth tournament featuring the age-group teams of PSV Eindhoven, AZ Alkmaar, RB Leipzig, and Club Brugge being held this month, has trialled five new rules.
These changes are significant and could shake up the way football is played but despite widespread media reports, FIFA is not involved with the trial.
Advertisem*nt
The first, and most obvious change, is that each half will last 30 minutes and the clock, which counts down from 30:00 to 00:00, will be stopped whenever play is interrupted.
There will be unlimited substitutions, while a caution results in a five-minute “sin bin” for the player sanctioned. The last two changes mandate kick-ins instead of throw-ins, and permit players to “self-kick” from a set-piece situation, effectively meaning a dribble or touch before another action.
These changes seem to be part of the widening sense that younger people don’t find football interesting. Apparently, it needs to be quicker, shorter and more dynamic; the latter, at least, is a tactical trend largely occurring anyway. Arsene Wenger, FIFA’s chief of global development, has also previously suggested that, though throw-ins are supposed to offer an advantage to the team in possession, he believes this is not the case because the taker’s function removes a player from the attacking team’s set-up.
The Athletic watched AZ’s 6-0 demolition of Leipzig to try to understand what impact, if any, these potential rule changes might have. First things first: it did feel quicker. The first half did, at any rate. Referee Nick Smit, who had the dubious honour of enforcing the new rules, generally did a fine job although there was one instance where the ball went out for a Leipzig goal kick and the clock maintained its relentless march downwards. In real-time, the first 30 minutes lasted dead on 38; the second 30 took 48min 32sec, about as long as a normal half and with the ball in play for about as long.
The ticking timer has a weird effect on one’s perception, though, and this probably affects the players even more. It injects a sense of hurry, with time ebbing away, rather than it being a long climb to the finish. It’s impossible to know whether this had any material effect on the game itself, and it’s worth noting that tactically, both these sides play an aggressive pressing, quick transitioning style, so they both want to get on with it. But the first half zipped past and that was fun.
This was almost certainly aided by the kick-in rule. The ball re-entered the field of play much faster than we are accustomed to seeing, but it’s extremely hard to argue this made for a more exciting spectacle, as opposed to just a quicker one. This is because, in keeping with the tactical approach of many top sides, both teams sought to circulate the ball back through the full-backs and centre-backs, even if the kick-in was in a relatively high position. The intention, as with this kind of ball circulation in play, is to lure the opposition press forwards and disrupt their shape, but it did rob the match of the slightly chaotic element that throw-ins bring.
Advertisem*nt
It’s also very much worth countering Wenger’s observations about advantage: clever teams work on their throw-ins, just as they do with other set pieces, and there are advantages to be gained. It’s simply that most teams have not bothered. Those that have, such as Liverpool and their work with Thomas Gronnemark, would testify to the benefits. That’s not to say that similar routines would not be worked out in time with kick-ins. But the observations from this game very much suggest that teams would, initially at any rate, simply use them to move the ball rapidly back and across, rather than seek to gain an immediate attacking advantage.
Leipzig did try one genuinely attacking kick-in, which due to its high position effectively became an attacking free kick on the far-left side, about level with the edge of the penalty area. The Leipzig taker bent the ball in towards the striker at about hip height. He volleyed it over. Incidentally, this kick-in had initially been called back as Leipzig tried to dribble it, but it was called back. I have no idea why and it’s clear that these rules would need explaining in-game to stop viewers from being confused by the occasional intricacy. Leipzig also ceded possession, dangerously, with an attempted cross-field switch from a kick-in that fell directly to an AZ attacker on the edge of the Leipzig penalty area, not somewhere one wants to hand the opposition the ball.
Leipzig about to try an attacking kick-in
The dribbling, or self-kick, element added a little more dynamism, mostly from free kicks, much like a tap-and-go in rugby union. Otherwise, its chief function seemed to be to drag a second defender towards the flag for corners, as the vast majority saw another attacker coming short too. That said, only a few corners were directly dribbled, and again, from a set-piece design perspective, it’s hard to see any value without coaches having the time and space to work on specific routines.
The biggest impact by far was the sin-binning. Leipzig lost two players to yellow cards and conceded two during the first spell of 10 players and one as the second binned player, a striker, was coming back on. The goals conceded in the first period were the result of terrible goalkeeping and a massive deflection, but it was very apparent that AZ were dominant and pushing forwards — as would be expected against a team a man down.
AZ were already significantly better than their opposition. Their front three of Myron van Brederode, Iman Griffith and Richonell Margaret is especially fun, which was probably The Athletic’s biggest single takeaway from this game. Soulyman Allouch also caught the eye for the Dutch side.
Advertisem*nt
Allouch came on a substitute, one of probably many but, in truth, without graphics (the game was watched on ESPN’s YouTube feed), shirt names or an accurate team sheet (sorry ESPN), it was extremely hard to keep track of. This is also something that fans will need help navigating, or what is gained in fresh players will be lost in confusion. There’s also a strong argument that too much disruption is not beneficial and it would not be a surprise if the “unlimited” quality was only really exercised because of injuries. Otherwise, coaches will probably find it simply too disruptive to be worth doing.
So, what did the game tell us, beyond the fact that AZ are worth a watch? Not much, in truth. The countdown clock works and seems like a more straightforward way of timekeeping anyway. Thirty-minute halves appear to give about the same quantity of ball-in-play time as a 45-minute half the old-fashioned way, too. As for the other changes, without being too “football data nerd” about it, how can one tell whether they were good or bad, or even did anything? Expecting a game to be quicker, with the funny heuristic trick of a ticking clock, means it’s likely a viewer will perceive it as such. But without data to compare how quickly either team normally move the ball, or how much they press, who knows?
In addition, the set-piece changes were obvious, but their tangible effects were not. Again, this is because coaches had very little time to devise anything clever but, should these rules come into effect, good teams will do exactly that, while lazy teams will continue to be lazy. Sin-binning made a huge difference and is perhaps too punitive. But, again, teams would likely adapt and make fewer tactical fouls; this would change the game, but whether such a change would be for the better very much depends on your view of what constitutes good or clever play. It will all take time to work out, though, and that would make for a confusing, potentially unsatisfying, transitional period.
The biggest issue is the number of changes. Football’s big rule upheavals, such as the introduction of the back pass rule in 1992, have tended to see at most one big transition. Otherwise, players and coaches (and referees) struggle to adapt. The two teams on show in this match seemed to get by relatively well and the referee did an excellent job, but it is easy to imagine fans and viewers being confused or annoyed, while teams will take time to adapt to the nuances of the changes. If this is The Future of Football, it will not be awful, but it will not be the same.
And, at this point, there just isn’t enough evidence to suggest the proposed changes will have the effect some seem to want, let alone to make clear whether such changes are desirable or necessary.
(Photos: YouTube/ESPN)
