Over the last few years there's been a sea change in the approach to the set up of a team's formation. From the straightforward 4-4-2 and similar, coaches have moved to 4-2-3-1, 4-4-1-1, 4-1-4-1 etc, which incorporates defensive midfielders, false number 9's and other such 'modern' positions. To be progressive and current, indulging in such avant-garde ideologies seems to now be the status quo for a lot of coaches.

From what I have read on the internet and heard being said on some coaching education courses, it also appears to be the norm to criticise the old ways of thinking. The pertinent point that needs to be made though is that nothing which is being pedalled as new is actually new. It is merely the re-organisation of what has gone before.

If we look at the defensive midfielder position, it has always been the case that at least one of the central midfielders sat and protected, whilst the others joined in on the attack. When we go a few decades back then this position would be closely related, if not a mirror image of, the old half back position. Somehow though, it has become en vogue to call that position defensive midfielder and give them their own line in the formation, as in the 2 of a 4-2-3-1.

Another example of the past being repackaged as new would be roles played by the 3 in a 4-2-3-1. These days they'll be termed as attacking midfielders however these positions were covered previously by inside forwards and wingers, depending on whether the 3 are set up wide or closer together. The central position of the 3 could also be covered previously by the central midfielder who was furthest forward in an attack, with the wider positions being covered by wingers or wide midfielders.

My thoughts on it all are that the addition of the extra layers added into the formation and the 'creation' of new positions are merely a smokescreen to create an illusion of either progress and development in relation to what has gone before it or to make the proposer appear to be far more knowledgeable about the game than they actually are.

In essence, these things on their own don't change anything to the technical side of the game at the vast majority of levels and certainly, if people wish to champion this approach to make themselves appear clued up then it doesn't hurt anyone but my issue with the new classifications of positions and formations is the effect that it can have on players who operate below the top level.

For instance when I was developing and learning the game, a central midfielder learned to both defend and attack which was also the case for a wide midfielder. What i'm seeing now from a lot midfielders is that they've been told that they're either defensive or attacking and therefore they believe that they either don't have to leave the centre circle to when their team attacks or they don't need to work back when their team is defending. I'm generalising to an extent here however it does place unrealistic expectations in the heads of players in relation to their ability and what they should be doing on the pitch.

This isn't a problem for the Jose Mourinho's and Pepe Guardiola's of this world because they have the knowledge and experience at the top level as well as the players with the ability and discipline who for example, can really execute in the last third of the pitch when asked to but also have the positional awareness and discipline to be an asset defensively when the other team have the ball.

When you use that approach to re-organise formations at the lower levels of football though, I don't believe that it transfers effectively because the coaches are far less tactically knowledgeable and the players have far less ability and therefore the intricacies of the positioning only cause confusion and eventual loss of confidence. That's not to be critical of all of those operating at lower levels, of which I am one, but it stands to reason that we are at these levels because we lack something to take us to a higher level. Therefore, i'm not a great believer that we should directly copy what works at the top level just because we play the same game. It's akin to asking a painter and decorator to re-paint the Sistine Chapel. Even if I do think my dad would make a good job of it!

In the coming season at Largs Thistle, we'll be concentrating on keeping the formations and the instructions simple and straightforward so that the players are acutely aware of what is expected of them. The upside of our approach will be that if the players don't to carry out what is expected of them, then they can't claim that they misunderstood the brief they were given.

"We tend.....to meet any new situation by reorganising; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency, and demoralisation.” - Charlton Ogburn Jr.