For former Celtic manager Wilfried Nancy, relationism is not the opposite of structure. The game still depends on players connecting around the ball, creating time for each other and knowing when to leave their positions.

In his first Training Ground Guru interview since leaving Celtic, Wilfried Nancy said his football is “about connection” and that “connection for me is more important than everything.” When asked whether he was close to Jamie Hamilton’s idea of relationism, he answered: “I do both.” He called it “minestrone soup”: positional play gives players enough structure to see the game, but “the most important… is the connection between four players.”

Relationism asks what relationships the players can create

Relationism does not reject structure. Hamilton described relationism as starting with the players in front of the coach: “Who do I have? Who are these people? Who are these players? What are their qualities?” The system is still a system, but it should grow from how those players combine rather than from a formation diagram waiting to be filled.

Instead of asking whether the left winger has stayed wide enough to keep the spacing correct, the coach asks whether the winger, full-back, midfielder and striker have created a useful relationship around the ball. Do they have short passing distances? Can one player attract a marker so another can arrive? Is there a third-man option? Is there enough density to counter-press if the combination fails?

Nancy’s model sits closer to that relational side than a rigid positional grid. BBC Sport’s analysis of his Celtic showed wing-backs high and wide, a midfield box around the striker, and asymmetrical clusters designed to draw pressure and attack the space it opened. The point of that cluster was not neat occupation of every lane. It was to make the next pass easier, pull defenders toward the ball, and let team-mates attack the spaces those movements opened. Nancy’s “concepts” provide references, but the attack depends on players reading each other’s movement at short distance.

This is why “freedom” has to be defined carefully. In a strict positional model, freedom can mean receiving in a pre-created pocket because team-mates have pinned defenders elsewhere. In a relational model, freedom is more often the permission to move toward the ball, overload one side, swap heights, play one-twos, or abandon the expected lane if the shared picture demands it. The coach still protects the team with principles, rest-defence responsibilities and counter-pressing cues, but the local solution belongs to the players.

Responsibility drops when the system chooses before the player does

Responsibility drops when players are treated as slots. Jamie Hamilton told Training Ground Guru that restrictive positional coaching led him to say things like, “Hey, no, you have to be there,” and criticised the habit of arriving with a pre-designed system and asking which player fits which slot. His point is not that organisation is useless. It is that the coach has to start from the players’ qualities, not only from a pattern.

FIFA’s position-specific training model makes the same coaching distinction in practice design. Its first phase uses high-repetition work with largely predetermined choices, but it says that phase lacks real decision-making and pressure. The later phases add opposed situations and fuller game realism, with coaches moving between phases depending on age, experience and player needs.

The test is whether players still read pressure before acting

On-ball responsibility starts before the first touch. A PLOS ONE eye-tracking study of four elite central midfielders in 11v11 play recorded 869 scans, found that scan duration changed with ball context, and warned that the small sample should be treated carefully. The study also pointed to earlier work on 27 Premier League players and almost 10,000 possessions that linked higher scan frequency before receiving with a small positive effect on passing performance.

Nils Nielsen’s FIFA session shows the coaching version of that test. In a central build-up practice, players were asked to decide whether to turn and drive forward, play forward, return the ball, or keep possession depending on team-mates’ movement and opposition pressure. The structure gives a central zone and clear task. The player still has to solve the pressure.

If a pattern improves body shape but players stop scanning, the coach has gone too far. If a player receives, checks the opponent, turns when free, bounces when pressed, carries when space opens and recycles when the forward pass is blocked, the structure is still leaving the decision with the player.

Rules and zones can guide without scripting every solution

Constraints can shape the problem without writing the answer. The FA Boot Room warns that playbooks can oversimplify football, then describes constraints such as pitch size, player distribution, markings and individual restrictions or rewards. One example constrained a number 10 to no one-touch backwards passes, forcing him to consider receiving on the turn without banning safer backward play altogether.

Another FA Boot Room session review praised practices that give players room to explore, try things out and solve problems. It also noted the use of probing questions rather than constant instructions. That gives the coach a way to keep structure light: change the space, the numbers or the scoring rule, then watch whether players find better solutions.

The same shape can demand different choices

Roberto De Zerbi’s build-up is a good example of structure creating cues rather than one fixed answer. Coaches’ Voice describes his teams using a deep double pivot and goalkeeper involvement to draw opponents high, but also says they can play short around the press or clip the ball over it when the press fully commits, which requires players with the confidence to receive under pressure.

Analytics FC’s Brighton analysis described the timing inside that structure: players could pause on the ball to draw pressure, then accelerate through the lines, while Jason Steele also used chipped passes over Arsenal’s press to reach the attacking line quickly. The same build-up shape produced pauses, short combinations and direct releases because the opponent’s pressure changed the correct choice.

The amount of structure depends on players, time and risk

Player quality limits how much structure a team can carry. More rotations, deeper build-up and narrower connections ask players to receive on the half-turn, spot the next pass quickly and protect the first transition if the ball is lost. A coach can ask for more detail only if the players can protect the ball and the team can protect the space behind it.

Nancy’s short Celtic spell shows the time problem. In his Training Ground Guru interview, he said it was “a no-brainer that I didn’t have enough time,” and that his idea was not to change everything, but to bring something new step by step. When structure changes quickly, the defensive side matters too: if the team loses the ball with fewer players behind it, the counter-press has to be coordinated.

A coach can keep adding structure while four answers stay clear: the ball-carrier has useful options, the receiver checks the game before acting, players can break the pattern when pressure changes, and the team can defend the loss. When those answers disappear, the next fix is usually less detail, more opposed practice, or a structure better matched to the players on the pitch.