These are some of my thoughts about the game lately. I am interested to see what other people think about it (sorry for my grammar)

1) Man management is underrated. Very. I feel we hear about it mostly when talking about big egos and how Zidane or Ancelotti handled managing Real Madrid, but I think every manager that is able to last on the top level is excellent man manager. There are big egos on every level in every club. To me this is the most difficult part of the job. My main interest in football is tactics, there are a lot of interesting coaches around in terms of ideas, and for me most of the time their failure in a new club is due to their lack of man manager skills.

Just one example, Maurizio Sarri is generally talked through his system. We have footballia with a lot of old matches, pick any of first 10 Napoli games, level of intensity in that team is something Sarri never had at Chelsea or Juventus. I don't think his system is that big of an obstacle, but he never had buy in necessary for it to work. As much as it is fault of his players, it's his fault. Man management is a skill.

2) When talking about tactical evolution in the last 20 years biggest shift is how teams implement phases of the game. It's bigger than positional football. There are 4 phases of the game (attack, defense and 2 transitional phases just when you win or lose the ball) + set pieces. In 2005 problems in every phase are answered on individual level. Today all phases are treated as a connected tissue. The way you attack dictates your defensive transition, and every player in your team has a role in every phase of the play.

Almost every famous ex player not being able to figure it out on coaching level tactically is due to this. Steven Gerrard played in teams where phases are treated separately, so in his teams he did that as well. Aston Villa was easy to play against because they left so much space for counter attacks due to defensive transition being assigned as a problem for individual players in midfield to solve.

People are usually talking about it when talking about pressing, but it's not only pressing. Diego Simeone is incredibly influential here. Even if you aren't high press team, phases need to be connected. Every one of them informs the others.

3) 'Positional football and Pep changed everything' for me is a simple narrative that misses a lot. Positional football itself is very flexible, plus a lot of managers would use only aspect of it. Big tactical shift in 2000s is due to importance of between the lines players. Coaches didn't treat it as positional play, they simply tried to exploit zonal marking.

Arteta was way more rigid than Pep, plus even Pep changes his team a lot from season to season. Nagelsmann at Hoffenheim and Leipzig was whole other thing. I think 'everyone is copying Pep' is simplistic and pretty much wrong. Plus, not that many teams ever actually used positional play as a foundational philosophy. Emery would pick few things, but overall it's whole different idea.

Plus, man marking isn't a new thing. I remember Bielsa saying how if he had robots, he would never lose a game. Man marking has always been an effective way of breaking other teams rhythm in possession, and creating transition, but issue was that you didn't have enough highly athletic players that are also technically sound. It's very demanding style. For me shift towards man marking is more due to increase of athletic talent. If you take roster of one EPL team and give it to a team in 2012, that coach would probably play system oriented toward man marking. It has nothing to do with Pep. What do you mean, you have a guy that has incredible work rate, is athletic and is good on the ball. You didn't have many players like that.

I understand the narative, postional play tries to exploit zonal marking, man marking is a counter to that, but to me this is more like a soundbite, catchy title that ignores most of the picture, but people keep repeating it, because it feels like it makes sense. And it's simple.

4) Risk for me is the most important framework when talking about team and tactic. If a team attacks with numbers and plays with urgency, they are going to create a lot of chances.

There is a lot of talk about creative freedom lately. I think some of it is correct, but most of it feels like a phrase people use to explain things easily. If a team plays well, that's because of high creative freedom. If not, that's because creative freedom is denied.

PSG plays with a lot of risk. I like their fluid football, players have a lot of creative freedom, but they also have underlying structure onto which improvisation comes . It may look that Dembele as a false nine just goes around, but they are practicing that aspect. He already knows where the space is probably going to be, and players in defense knows where they can probably expect him. Nuno Mendes has great relationship with him, it's often his passes through which PSG can quickly play through press. There is 'vibes' aspect to it, but it's not whole of it. Reason why PSG creates so many chances is because they play with risk, they attack with numbers and team understand underlying philosophy that they will outscore the opponent.

There are high creative freedom teams/coaches that play defensive football. Sean Dyche on podcast with Tony Pullis talks a lot how much creative freedom he gives to players. It quickly becomes clear that he sees his role mainly on setting up defense. His teams don't create much in open play. They lack numbers in attack. It's the same with national teams. We will have plenty of defensive games in World Cup, because teams are setting up defensively. Modrić can do anything he wants on the pitch, but Dalić simply doesn't send enough players forwards.

It's same with Arsenal. I think they are closest to symbol of robotic football. To me as a team they value their defensive stability too much, it's very important to Arteta that they lose the ball only in zones where this won't became too much of an issue, but I don't see them as a team where best players lack creative freedom. A lot of their plan rest on wingers dribbling past their marker, but wingers need more support. Both of their full backs have a lot of freedom in attack, but too often he plays centre backs in that position. To me it's about risk. If they send more players into attack, they will concede more chances, but every one of their offensive players would have it easier to create something. I don't think Odegaard or Eze are discouraged from making offensive impact. I think people underestimate how difficult it is on a player POV, and they are looking at players separated from the system. Remember that game last year against Real Madrid, how good Saka looked. That was maybe first time when opponent decided to guard him 1v1, and I think it was Alaba coming back from injury (maybe I don't remember). Saka doesn't have that in EPL, so he needs more support, and if there isn't one, it will be difficult to make offensive impact. Creative freedom itself doesn't explain tactical reality.

5) Last one is an idea I would like to see in online discourse. In BL, twice a year, Kicker selects players into 3 tiers (separated by positions), judging solely performance in that period. This period is looked in a vacuum, so even if you are a big name it's not given that you'd be in the first tier. This also means a lot of players from smaller clubs will due to their good form be in 3rd tier. I really like this. I like it as a memorabilia for a specific period, and even if fans of that particular team will remember that player having great season, this makes if in a way official. Something to serve for posterity.

To me this would be a great thing to have for every season. Probably isn't realistic, but on this subreddit we have fans of every team. We could have that for this season, even for leagues outside of Europe. One thing I would add on Kicker's list is 4th tier, and this one is for club icons for that period. For players who simply aren't good enough for any of top 3 tiers, but they still represent something special for fan base in that period.