Whenever the term systems is used in soccer the ideas of numbering, i.e. 1-4-3-3, 1-4-4-2 or a form of some principles of play, i.e. pressure, cover, balance; first, second, third attacker; high or low pressure comes to mind. In the former we have some type of organization of parts and the later actions/responsibilities. However, this way of thinking misses some vital elements in the use of the word 'systems' and this causes a big problem when theory hits the field.
Bertalanffy defines systems this way; “A system can be defined as a set of elements standing in interrelations. Interrelation means that elements, p, stand in relations, R, so that the behavior of an element p in R is different from its behavior in another relation, R.”
What Bertalanffy brings to the definition is a level of uncertainty based on the interactions caused by communication. The flow of signals from one entity to another makes for unpredictable results. What he discredits is the notion of “classical science,” the straightforward cause-and-effect, linear school of thought. This is the method that many coaching articles and sessions employ, “if you run there, your teammate can pass you the ball and you’ll take the shot.”
But such thinking is only possible under two conditions. “The first is that interactions between ‘parts’ be nonexistent or weak enough to be neglected…” and “the relation describing the parts be linear…” However, “These conditions are not fulfilled in entities called systems, i.e. consisting of parts ‘in interaction’.”
In the difference that makes a difference post I wrote about entity and process models. Now I’ll expand their meaning; entity models are complicated while process, i.e. system models are complex. Science is at odds at what the difference is so I’ll define it as ‘complexity includes the presence of action.’
Soccer is a complex sport, not a complicated one.
No comments:
Post a Comment