Transitory complex systems.

In the last post the complex systems exhibited a permanent nature. You can count on them. But there is another type of complex system that deserves attention. These are the transitory ones that people form in spontaneous and unpredictable manner.

Here’s a simple diagram of a 4v4 scenario. The attackers are numbered 1-4, the defenders are a-d and the ball is $. At any moment each player has a wide number of options to consider. The options can be mixed between members of both teams and the ball. For example, 1 may have $, a, b and 4 under observation while c has 1, $, d and 3 in mind. As long as no one moves independently you can connect the dots in a straightforward fashion. If-then scenarios are easy. This is what the freeze technique does in practice. It removes the element of complexity, i.e. independent movement and reduces the game to being simply complicated. At this level soccer can be understood in linear cause and effect terms. Even the permanent complex systems can be manipulated, at least on paper, to this level.

But on the field it’s different. No two players have the same ‘geographic view’ of the game, neither the same temporal sense nor starting point. Everybody is making sense of the game from entirely different points of view, perspectives and timescales. Sometimes it’s a wonder that anyone is on the same page at all.

This is a problem for communication. Harmonized action depends on at least an implicit level of understanding and agreement between players. If players are unaware of each other this is impossible. If they are aware of each other, but can’t agree on a course of action it’s difficult at best. When you add the dynamic nature of the game in the mix, i.e. every player independently moving where and when they choose while the ball is also in motion the opportunities to create and maintain transitory complex systems is very difficult. Players need to know who, when and where to connect with and share why they are connected. This way they can pool their resources for what they need to get done how they’ll do it. The time to carry out all of this may only be milliseconds and then they have to start all over.

While this is in another post it's worth repeating Boyd's point from D&C;

“The degree to which we cooperate, or compete, with others is driven by the need to satisfy this basic goal. If we believe that it is not possible to satisfy it alone, without help from others, history shows us that we will agree to constraints upon our independent action—in order to collectively pool skills and talents in the form of nations, corporations, labor unions, mafias, etc. —so that obstacles standing in the way of the basic goal can either be removed or overcome. On the other hand, if the group cannot or does not attempt to overcome obstacles deemed important to many (or possibly any) of its individual members, the group must risk losing these alienated members. Under these circumstances, the alienated members may dissolve their relationship and remain independent, form a group of their own, or join another collective body in order to improve their capacity for independent action.”