'The Positional Game has to be inside the player's head'.
Positional Play is a set of principles/constraints that shape player's interpretations of where/when/how spaces should be occupied.
It is an overriding organisational logic which is 'uploaded' to the players by the coach.
Positional Play is a set of principles/constraints that shape player's interpretations of where/when/how spaces should be occupied.
It is an overriding organisational logic which is 'uploaded' to the players by the coach.
Each player's landscape of affordances is always already enframed within this shared organisational logic of space occupation.
Eg in the 4v4+3 players must first occupy the 'correct' space (correct in accordance to Positional logic) before interacting/relating.
Eg in the 4v4+3 players must first occupy the 'correct' space (correct in accordance to Positional logic) before interacting/relating.
Of course, its completely valid to use this logic, and its highly effective when done well.
But coaches don't have to run that program. Relationist logic organises movements through a shared attunement to emergent, ball-oriented affordances (eg tabelas, escadinhas etc).
But coaches don't have to run that program. Relationist logic organises movements through a shared attunement to emergent, ball-oriented affordances (eg tabelas, escadinhas etc).
Relationism is about a collective appreciation of the opportunities afforded by certain emergent forms.
Players organises first through recognition of environmental cues and signs instead of starting with the set of objective spatial principles fixed in their heads.
Players organises first through recognition of environmental cues and signs instead of starting with the set of objective spatial principles fixed in their heads.
In this sense Relationism is more about a feeling for the territory (or 'terroir') of the game rather than the referencing of a map.
Loading suggestions...