England, Eddie and Jose Mourinho

[Stom]

I was recently thinking about Tottenham's newfound position at the top of the Premier League table in the football, and the influence Jose Mourinho has had on that.

At first glance, Mourinho and Eddie Jones are very much alike. They're both coaches who believe in marginal gains, in going against orthodoxy, and they have both come up with creativity that goes against the usual concept of creativity being attacking in nature.

But there is something of a difference in the way Tottenham play now and the way England play under Eddie this year. And it's something that, knowing how Eddie likes to take pointers from other sports and his focus on one part of the game at a time, I hope that he will emulate.

Under Mourinho, Tottenham play football at pace. He does not believe in possession, believing that keeping the ball simply invites mistakes, leading to opposition chances.

Sound familiar?

He drills his players in transitions. In fact, this is the thing Mourinho works on more than any other part of the game. He wants the players to know exactly what to do as soon as possession is gained or lost. And, as evidenced by their performances this season: they now know.

But then comes the difference.

Mourinho drills his players so hard in transitions and makes sure they understand the framework for attacking play so that it becomes second nature. This means that when possession is won, his players can be found exactly where they're meant to be and everyone in that teams knows: put the ball in that area of the field and I'll find a team-mate.

BUT, after that, players are not coached on structured attacking. They're given a very simple, clear and effective framework and told to interpret it. What this means is that players drop deep on defence, then burst forward on attack in neat, straight lines, busting a gut to get to the edge of the opponent's penalty area within 15 seconds. Upon getting there, work on the underlying framework means their decisions are influenced by the structure but are instinctive and individual.

He trusts his players to make the decisions that will best serve the team. If they don't, they don't play. See Dele Alli.

What does this mean for England?

Football and rugby have a couple of very key differences. Mainly, if you restrict yourself to very good defence and a couple of pre-planned strike moves in football...it's unlikely you'll win. Do the same in rugby, and if the system is good enough, you can still win a high %age of the time.

So Eddie has done what Mourinho did last season for Tottenham. He's been working on a new system and putting in place the structures and systems for the players to follow. Only once the players are up to speed with understanding the structures they need to stick to can he give them the freedom to make decisions.

There's a reason why few players break into the England team quickly. If there is an injury, Eddie is more likely to shift a player from elsewhere than bring in a new player. The understanding of the framework is so vital for him and the system he is creating.

Amor, an experienced Sevens operator, coming in as the attack coach suggests this may be the plan.

As Eddie's foundational structure becomes second nature to his players, they should start to make more decision in attack for themselves. That doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in kicking, but it may mean the creation of more try scoring opportunities.

This combination of high structure combined with instinctual attack may be the best possible way to break teams down, especially when combined with what is a very good defensive system, a system that can be considered an actual attacking weapon on its own.

Basically, I retain faith that Eddie is building toward something with this England team and the parallels between this team and Mourinho's Tottenham give me hope we'll see a pretty dominant England in years to come.

[p/d]

They have the same class in defeat, I will give you that.

[Timbo]

They have the same class in defeat, I will give you that.

Eddie is normally very gracious in defeat isn’t he? It’s more when he wins that he starts giving it large with his comments.

[Cameo]

I thought the thing they had in common was meant to be that after about 3 years players got fed up with them and their methods stopped working.

Seriously, though, I think it would be crazy for you to get rid of him now but after 4 or 5 years, the idea that he has nearly at the end of phase one - putting the structure in place - and about to start on phase two - the attack - is slightly optimistic. Apart from anything else, you have had phases where you attack very well before he reverts back to the current style.

[Digby]

Eddie keeps saying we'll get to the attack. Which isn't to say we've spent no time on it, but I'll believe we're shifting bias when it actually happens in meaningful and sustained fashion

[p/d]

Kiss of death to Tottenham Stom

[Digby]

Normally that's flat track bully Harry Kane's job when coming up against a decent side

(I've no idea if that's actually true, well for Spurs anyway, he's got no record for England in big games)

[Stom]

Normally that's flat track bully Harry Kane's job when coming up against a decent side

(I've no idea if that's actually true, well for Spurs anyway, he's got no record for England in big games)

I think that’s more because England don’t have a good record in big games. He gets no service at all.

It’s an apt comparison for me: Spurs lost against the best team in the country and then to one of the best teams at countering: what Spurs themselves do. Just like we almost lost to France B.

[Digby]

Normally that's flat track bully Harry Kane's job when coming up against a decent side

(I've no idea if that's actually true, well for Spurs anyway, he's got no record for England in big games)

I think that’s more because England don’t have a good record in big games. He gets no service at all.

It’s an apt comparison for me: Spurs lost against the best team in the country and then to one of the best teams at countering: what Spurs themselves do. Just like we almost lost to France B.

I think it's because he's just not that good at the highest level, and there's an odd lack of ambition from him to still be at Spurs if he thought he was any good. But that comes with a minor caveat that maybe once every 3-4 weeks I'll see part of MoD, I wasn't even interested in watching the football when England were in a WC semi-final, so my impression of him is a hugely limited one based on both understanding and actual observation.

[Stom]

Normally that's flat track bully Harry Kane's job when coming up against a decent side

(I've no idea if that's actually true, well for Spurs anyway, he's got no record for England in big games)

I think that’s more because England don’t have a good record in big games. He gets no service at all.

It’s an apt comparison for me: Spurs lost against the best team in the country and then to one of the best teams at countering: what Spurs themselves do. Just like we almost lost to France B.

I think it's because he's just not that good at the highest level, and there's an odd lack of ambition from him to still be at Spurs if he thought he was any good. But that comes with a minor caveat that maybe once every 3-4 weeks I'll see part of MoD, I wasn't even interested in watching the football when England were in a WC semi-final, so my impression of him is a hugely limited one based on both understanding and actual observation.

Mourinho is harmed at the biggest clubs by how wedded he is to "anti-total football". When he was looked over for the Barca job several times (firstly when Bobby Robson left), he got really pissed at them and it's moulded his football since.

So he believes possession for possessions sake is pointless and builds his teams for defensive solidity and transitions - so countering at pace and when attacks break down, his teams are excellent at getting into position to prevent attacks.

Not good enough for Madrid or United, or what Chelsea became, but a better fit for a team like Tottenham, especially when they have a CF who can play more like a false nine with the physical attributes of an old school centre forward. And Son.

He's at his best at teams just below the top tier. So your Tottenhams, your Inters, your Atleticos, etc.

And the modern pressing concept has made it really tough to make his style work. When that new interpretation of gegenpressing works, it counters Mourinho's style perfectly, especially the way Liverpool's midfield hunts as a pack. And Brendan Rodgers, for all his faults, is a big student of what works and how that can fit into his systems. So he does something similar at Leicester.

[Digby]

Is gegenpressing a thing, or is that a typo?

[p/d]

Is gegenpressing a thing, or is that a typo?

Grapepressing, the art of wine making. I believe a reference to the noise Mourinho makes when his side lose

[Stom]

Is gegenpressing a thing, or is that a typo?

It’s a German style of intense pressing popularized by Klopp

[Digby]

Is gegenpressing a thing, or is that a typo?

It’s a German style of intense pressing popularized by Klopp

Ah, so any suspicions Gegen Style is a new god awful song out of South Korea were misplaced