Given the relentless pace at which top level football is played nowadays, players often try to second guess their opponents. Much like a goalkeeper attempting to save a penalty, defenders regularly choose to try and predict what their opponent’s next move will be in order to provide a reaction before it’s too late. While it’s a completely understandable approach, it does come at a risk.
Defending players react not only to actions, but also to implied actions. In theory, this allows them to be better prepared to deal with the subsequent action. In practice, however, a player’s actions don’t always match up with their prior implication. This conflict between what the defender thinks the attacker is about to do, and what they actually proceed to do, can be significantly advantageous to the attacking player.
Most common in boxing, the concept of false implications can be a beneficial tool in a wide range of sports. A fighter will regularly use feints to draw a response from his opponent. This response will normally create an opening of some kind. For example, the opponent may respond to an implication by moving his hand down to block a punch to his ribs, leaving him open to being hit in the face on the ‘second shot’.
In football, using false implications to draw a response from an opponent before taking advantage of their disposition, is also a common strategy. In the moment between an implication and an action, the attacking player potentially has a distinct advantage. If they match their action with their prior implication, they hand the advantage to the defender, who has likely prepared himself to deal with such an outcome.
However, if they mismatch their action and implication, they take advantage of the fact that the defender has conceded space and time in reacting early. By leaving their position and preparing for what they perceive is about to happen, they create a gap that didn’t exist initially. Furthermore, they give themselves no time to react again to a converse action.
This concept also relates closely to that of the ‘third-man’. Generally speaking, the attention of defending players will be focused primarily on the player in possession of the ball, and the player who appears most likely to receive possession next. Another attacker can take advantage of this by becoming the third man. This can be acheived by making a run off the ball in anticipation of receiving, either from the first man(the player on the ball) or the second man(the player apparently likely to receive the ball). If he does receive the ball at either point, he is likely to be unmarked or untracked by a defending player.
To put all this into context, the clip below shows a master of false implications, Sergio Busquets, using his eyes, body shape, and angle to imply that he intends to feed Pedro on his right. In an attempt to anticipate this and prepare accordingly, Xabi Alonso shifts over to his left. This response opens up a previously non-existent passing lane to Lionel Messi. The Argentinian can receive in a central position in front of Real Madrid’s last line of defence and behind their cover shadow in midfield. If Busquets had matched implication and action, he would have played into Madrid’s hands. But instead, he plays a ‘reverse pass’ to Messi, taking full advantage of the additional power he had in the moment between implication and action.
Pep Guardiola once said that if he was reincarnated as a player, he would like to come back as Busquets. Given how frequently Busquets uses this strategy in finding his teammates free between the lines, it’s a statement that makes a lot of sense. Guardiola spoke about how he too used this concept during his playing career as a holding midfielder.
“I tried to trick the opposition into thinking I’d pass it wide again, and then – boom! – I’d split them with an inside pass to a striker.”
While false implications are a very effective way to evade cover shadows and find the free man between the lines, there are many other advantages to the concept. Not only can it be used to create space for a teammate to receive, it can also be useful in creating space for yourself. Using feints and dummies can shift an opponent one way before you move off in the other direction. The same principles apply here as before, with the aim of drawing some form of commitment or response from an opponent before taking advantage with the mismatched or ‘second action’.
The footage below, again of Busquets, shows how false implications can be effective in taking a defender out of your path, before benefiting from the newly established space. Busquets implies that he intends to continue running horizontally with the ball, inviting Hamsik to follow this implication. Busquets then turns the other way with Hamsik continuing his run, therefore removing him from the space.
False implications can also be beneficial with regards to movement off the ball. Decoy runs, where a player makes a movement to drag a defender away from space so that a teammate can then benefit from the opening, are an extremely common feature in top level football.
The video below shows Sergio Aguero engaging Manchester United’s right-back. City’s number 10 drags the defender infield, leaving space on the outside. Leroy Sane arrives late to receive from Raheem Sterling, with enough time and space to get a shot on goal.
Decoy runs are often referred to as unselfish runs, and so ‘false runs’ warrant separation. False runs or double movements involve a player on the attacking team moving his marker away from space with the intention of benefiting from the space himself. These can involve making a run to the front post before spinning off to the back post at the last second, or dropping short before darting in behind, or vice-versa on both accounts.
The examples below feature effective double movements from Romelu Lukaku and Sergio Aguero. In order to create more space to receive, they drag their defender away from the space with a false run. At the last second, they return to the space to receive with increased seperation from their marker. Once again, these types of false moves create just enough time and space for the players involves to complete the next action.
In all of the examples discussed to this point, the defenders involved were caught out due to the dilemmas created by the attacking team. By reacting to an implication rather than waiting for the action, the defender is generally choosing between two evils. Do I leave my player go and allow them to receive in space? Or do I follow him, leaving space to be exploited elsewhere? Neither are particularly attractive options as both have negative consequences.
With this in mind, players should regularly attempt to create two evils, increasing the power they have over the opponents when in possession of the ball. Guardiola has often spoken about attempting to move the opposition as opposed to the ball, drawing them one way before exploiting the space they have vacated on the other side. The effective use of false implications is key to achieving this.
False implications or masked intentions can be used on a more collective basis. One commonly seen example of this involves crowding one side of the pitch during an attack, in order to force the opposition into doing the same. The implication is that the attacking team intend to penetrate their opponent’s defensive lines down this side of the pitch.
However, often teams will only build on one side of the pitch to fool the opposition, before switching to the free space on the opposite side. Once again, the defending team has already predicted the intentions of the attacking team and reacted accordingly, therefore leaving them unable to react quickly enough to the mismatched action. Building on one side before finishing on the other has been a common feature of teams in elite football for a number of years, particularly those managed by Pep Guardiola.
The example shown below shows Quque Setien’s Real Betis using this strategy. The Spanish side build the play on the right with ehavy overloads, drawing the opponent’s defensive block over. This leaves the Betis’ left wing-back free in space on the far side. Once sufficient numbers have been drawn across to the right, the attacking team switch the play.
As mentioned earlier, mismatching implication and action can be of benefit throughout the pitch in various circumstances. For example, a striker who is through on goal and only has the keeper to beat could use the direction of his eyes and body shape to imply that he intends to shoot one way, before shooting to the opposite side of the goal. The goalkeeper, anxious to respond quickly enough, will likely have reacted to the implication and dived accordingly.
False implications can be equally beneficial to a winger who is one v one with his opposing fullback. By using subtle feints and dummies, or by pushing the ball one way before proceeding to dribble the other way, the winger can move the opponent out of his lane before progressing the play.
Whether it’s on the ball or off the ball, the principles of false implications remain the same. Players should be conscious of the additional power they have over the opponent in the moment between implication and action. By mismatching these elements, they take advantage of the fact that the defender has more than likely already reacted to the implication. Therefore, new space has been created and the opposition doesn’t have time to react again. When combined with other aspects of intelligent possessional and positional play, the use of false implications can help an attacking team to determine the positioning of their opponents, and to take advantage accordingly.