Coach Rui Faria: Football Philosophy and Methodology

OK, let's dive right into the fascinating, sometimes a pretty

debated world of elite football coaching.

Absolutely. It's complex territory.

It really is. Today, we're taking a deep

plunge into insights drawn from someone who's well spent nearly

two decades operating right at the highest levels of the game,

working very closely with a truly celebrated leader.

A unique perspective. Definitely, we're going to

explore, you know, the absolute cornerstone of tactical

methodology, peel back the layers on that sometimes tricky

relationship between sports science and, well, what actually

happens out on the pitch. That's a big one.

Huge. We'll dissect the intricate

dance of adapting your fundamental approach, your core

ideas, to different clubs, different cultural environments.

Which is never straightforward. Never, And ultimately, we really

want to hone in on what truly makes the decisive difference in

developing both individual players and, crucially,

successful, winning teams. You know, it's, it's very easy

these days, isn't it? Especially with all the data,

the tactical analysis flashing up on screen.

Oh yeah, everywhere. To watch a game and feel like

you understand exactly what's happening down.

There like you've got it all figured out.

Right. But the insights we're digging

into today, they push well beyond that surface level.

They get right to the heart of the why.

The why behind the tactics? Exactly the why behind the

decisions, the fundamental principles guiding the daily

grind, the training, and maybe most importantly, that often

overlooked human. Element, the people involved.

The people, it underpins everything in this sport,

doesn't it? So our mission today really is

to pull out those crucial Nuggets of knowledge, those

perspectives from this incredibly experienced

viewpoint. To help you, the listener, get

genuinely well informed. Precisely well informed on what

it really takes to drive success in such a, let's face it,

demanding environment. Absolutely.

So for this deep dive, our mission is exactly that.

Unpack the foundational ideas, the philosophies that haven't

just shaped success at the very pinnacle of the game.

But also use that experience as a lens, a way to maybe question

some of the more, let's say, fashionable trends we see

cropping up in modern football today.

That was like a plan. Where do we start?

All right, let's kick things off with what's presented as the

absolute bedrock, the non negotiable starting point for

any coach. OK, the point is made so

forcefully. The absolute necessity for a

coach, especially at the elite level, to have a crystal clear,

really well defined idea. The idea with a capital I

almost. Exactly.

An idea of how they want their team to play and just as

importantly, how they want to organize everything around the

game. Yeah.

Why is having the idea just so fundamental?

Well, because without that core idea you simply have no

consistent reference point, nothing to anchor to, right?

Think about it logically. What are your specific

principles when your team is defending?

How are you going to build a tax?

What's the immediate plan? The reaction when you win the

ball back? Those crucial transition

moments. And when you lose it, and

conversely, yeah, what's the organization when you lose

possession, How do you shift between those moments?

All these fundamental parts of the game, every single one,

Everyone, everyone must stem directly from that central,

overarching idea of how you want to play.

And if that vision isn't clear, like truly clear in your own

mind, then what then? How can you possibly design A

productive training session? What criteria do you even use to

pick exercises or drills? You're just guessing, maybe.

Pretty much, yeah. Every single thing you plan and

do, every drill, every tactical instruction you give, every bit

of feedback, individual or collect a pen, it has to be

intrinsically linked back to this core idea.

It's the absolute anchor. Without it, the whole process

just drifts. And from the perspective we're

drawing on, it feels like this lack of a clear vision might be

a well significant struggle for quite a few coaches.

Right now you see signs of it. Yeah, it's not framed as like a

harsh criticism of individuals, more an observation.

You can see it may be reflected in how their works organized or

the lack of consistent progress, how things seem to chop and

change maybe based on the last result.

Or external pressures. Yeah, there's a sense sometimes

of being a bit lost in the process.

Lost. Yeah, that's a good word for it.

Precisely. And this is exactly where

methodology fits in. It's not about having some

rigid, inflexible script you can never deviate from.

Not just a playbook, no. No, it's more like a fundamental

guide. Your methodology provides the

necessary framework, the reference point for absolutely

everything you do. It helps you control the

process. Control how?

Not control in a stifling way like crushing creativity, but

control to make sure you're consistently moving in the

direction set by your core idea. It gives stability to your

ideas. Which must be vital under

pressure. Absolutely critical during

competition, Yeah. When things inevitably aren't

going perfectly to plan, it gives you the clear criteria you

need to make quick, effective decisions on the training pitch

and during the match itself. Without a coherent methodology,

one that's directly tied to your core idea, you're basically

trying to build something really complex without any kind of

foundation. Like that blueprint analogy you

mentioned. Exactly trying to build without

blueprints. Yeah, that really helps

visualize it. It's like trying to construct AI

don't know a complicated house by just grabbing whatever tools

or materials are lying around that day.

Just randomly picking stuff without.

Any overarching design for what the final thing is supposed to

look like. You might, you know, manage to

put up some walls. Maybe even slap a roof on.

Something might get built. But it's going to be

inconsistent, probably unstable, and almost certainly not the

building you actually set out to create in the first place.

Exactly. The idea and the methodology.

They're inseparable. They're intrinsically linked.

The idea tells you what you want to build.

The final shape, the function, the methodology gives you the

systematic approach, the tools, the discipline process to

actually build it. And keeps you focused.

And crucially, yeah, it keeps you focused and disciplined

throughout that whole construction process.

OK, so we've established the idea as the foundation

methodology, as the guide, the structure.

Let's go a layer deeper now and talk about philosophy.

OK, we hear philosophy thrown around all the time in football

talk, but it often feels a bit simplified, doesn't it?

It does, yeah. Often very superficial.

People tend to just equate it with the style of play.

They'll say, oh, their philosophy is just playing a

passing game. Or you know, they believe in

counter attacking football. And that's where the term gets

really underestimated. Philosophy in coaching.

In reality, it's profoundly deeper than just the style you

adopt. It encompasses absolutely

everything that defines your entire approach to the job.

It's the absolute overarching direction you are fundamentally

committed to following. It dictates how you choose to

interact with your players every single day.

Your communication style. How you communicate complex

stuff effectively? Yeah.

Your approach to giving feedback, Is it corrective?

Is it positive? Are you naturally positive in

how you interact? Do you have the patience

required? Patience to develop ideas over

time. Exactly, to genuinely develop

intricate ideas over time and see them through the tough

periods. Your philosophy is intrinsically

woven with your deepest beliefs, your core personality traits,

ultimately who you are as a person beyond just being the

coach. Wow, so it's really personal.

Deeply personal. And this naturally leads us to

maybe the single most critical element within that philosophy,

which is absolute belief. You simply must believe with

every fiber of your being in your core idea and your coaching

philosophy. Why is that so critical?

Because if that belief isn't genuine, if it's not truly

authentic, it just won't be transmitted effectively to the

players. They'll sense it.

They are incredibly perceptive. They will sense any lack of

conviction immediately. To be truly effective, you have

to be utterly true to your fundamental principles, and that

demands unwavering belief from within yourself first.

It does feel like looking at football today, there's a bit of

generalization happening with philosophies.

Lots of descriptions sound quite similar, almost generic.

Yeah, they often boil down to that surface level style, like

we play a passing game. Right.

Why do you think that generalization might be so

common? Is it just a lack of

understanding of that deeper philosophical commitment you're

talking about? It can certainly be influenced,

maybe limited by the cultural context you're in, or it might

simply stem from that under appreciation of just how deep

coaching philosophy truly runs. Like we discussed.

Yeah, it's so intrinsically linked to the coach's

personality, their core beliefs. If you haven't done the hard

work to genuinely define those deeper personal aspects of your

philosophy for yourself, it's. Easier to just.

It's maybe natural to just default to what's currently

fashionable, what's being talked about, what's perceived as

successful right now. Following the trend.

And this connects directly to the prevalence of trends.

While there are undeniably tendencies, evolutions, and how

the game is played, you absolutely cannot afford to be a

fundamentalist. A fundamentalist explain that.

The rigid idea that there's only one single way to play football

or only one single way to win, it's incredibly restrictive.

Ultimately, it limits you. Because the game is

unpredictable. Exactly.

Football is inherently unpredictable, dynamic, and

fundamentally open to lots of different approaches.

The more options, the more tools, the more different

answers you have prepared to face that unpredictability.

The better off you are. The better equipped your team

will be, reducing your entire coaching philosophy just down to

the style of play, is simply too shallow, too short sighted for

the depth of personal belief needed to navigate the

complexities and challenges of this sport at the top level.

You use that term fundamentalist and it hits quite hard as a

warning against a certain approach.

So picking up on that, what does avoiding fundamentalism look

like in practice on the pitch? How does that rigidity hurt

A-Team if you are too tied to just one way?

OK, let's take a really common example we see all the time

today, A-Team absolutely committed to building play from

the back, starting deep, goalkeeper, defenders.

Right playing out from the back. Yeah, now imagine you're in a

match. You've been trying this for the

whole first half, 45 minutes. But the opposition, they've done

their homework, they're pressing high really effectively.

Making it difficult. They're consistently winning the

ball back high up the pitch. In your defensive third, maybe

in the first or second phase of your build up, you just cannot

get the ball past their midfield line cleanly.

OK, stuck. Now you have to honestly ask

yourself, if you've tried this for 45 minutes and it is clearly

not working, is it really an intelligent or effective

approach to the game if you possess no alternative answer?

If you have no Plan B. Exactly.

If you don't have a different tool in the toolbox, a different

strategy, a different pattern of play that you've actually

prepared and can switch to, your team must be equipped.

They must be trained and prepared to do it differently

when Plan A is being shut down South.

Effectively. And there's maybe that extra

layer of pressure now too, isn't there?

Because of statistics, the media narrative.

How so? Well the numbers track things

like short build up percentage, even if that play eventually

goes long because all the short options were blocked.

I see the stats don't tell the whole story.

Right. So this external focus on

certain metrics might maybe inadvertently push coaches

towards chasing those fashionable numbers or

tendencies. Instead of just finding the best

solution for the actual game situation.

Exactly the pragmatic solution for what the opposition is doing

right there, right then. Exactly.

You need to cultivate a deep, intuitive understanding that the

game is inherently open. There are many valid ways to

achieve your objectives. You absolutely have to empower

your team. Empower them how?

Give them the capacity, the knowledge to read the game

situation themselves and understand when the dynamics

demand something different, a change of rhythm, a different

way to progress the ball. So players aren't just waiting

for instructions. I shouldn't feel like they're

completely reliant on constant micromanagement from the

sideline for every single decision.

This kind of adaptability requires dedicated preparation,

working on these different options in training.

Practicing Plan B. Plan C.

Having spent time practicing various ways to bypass a high

press, for instance, when you break it down, it really is just

common sense, isn't it, considering how fluid and

unpredictable competitive football actually is?

Yeah, that perspective on common sense in an unpredictable game

makes total sense. OK, let's shift now from the

idea and philosophy to the actual application of

methodology, especially how it adapts.

When you move to totally different contexts, new clubs,

new countries, distinct football cultures, big shifts.

There's often this perception, isn't there, that really

successful coaches just have a fixed, rigid blueprint that they

just stamp it on to every team they manage, no matter where or

who the players are. Yeah, that perception exists,

but the reality based on experience, it's quite

different. The core principles, the

foundational pillars of your methodology, they stay constant.

The core doesn't change. They don't fundamentally change

just because you're in a new country or at a different club.

The operation of your methodology, the systematic

application? That's fundamentally the same,

however. But.

You absolutely must adapt that operation to the specific

reality you walk into. This includes the club's

culture, the country's broader football culture and, maybe most

critically, the existing beliefs, experiences and

characteristics of the players you actually have.

You mentioned arriving at Chelsea back in 2004 as an

example of this. Yes, I recall it vividly.

Many of the established really important players in that squad,

they were genuinely apprehensive, almost worried.

Worried why? Because the training was so

profoundly different from what they were used to, their

previous experience involved a lot of pure running, rigorous

interval training, a very traditional focus on fitness

work, often done away from the ball.

And your approach was? With us from day one, the

absolute central focus was playing football.

Just playing, playing, playing, playing.

So what was the response to their worry?

My immediate response was just to transmit confidence, to

reassure them. I simply told them, concentrate

entirely on giving your absolute best effort in every session.

Actively enjoy playing football again.

Focus intensely on improving yourselves as players within

this new framework. And building belief.

I reiterated my belief that the method we were implementing was

the right way and that they should trust and believe in it.

Give it a chance. And what happened?

What unfolded was that through the actual lived experience,

going through the method day after day, competing fiercely,

beginning to feel the positive results on the pitch, the

players genuinely felt good, often even better, fitter,

sharper than they had before. So the experience proved it.

Their confidence in the approach grew naturally because they were

experiencing its tangible value first hand.

In competition. Doubts are completely natural,

understandable when something's new and different, but letting

them test the method in the heat of matches gradually dissolve

those doubts. So the fundamentals didn't

change, but the application did. Exactly.

The fundamental principles of the method were unwavering, but

slight. Necessary adaptations were made

to the operation based on their existing physical backgrounds,

their mental backgrounds, their beliefs, integrating them into

our way of working. That's such a crucial

distinction, especially because of the public story.

The sort of track apps view often makes success sound almost

miraculous or instant. Nothing is instant.

Was there a significant adaptation period needed then,

even if it was more about building belief through

experience rather than just changing tactics?

Belief in your process is absolutely paramount, and you

transmit that through consistency and ultimately

results. If you're given, say, an hour

and a half for a training session, what's the single most

important thing you want to achieve?

Play. Football.

You want to play football, you want the players to improve by

doing the activity itself, by performing the actions, the

skills, the decision making that are central to the game.

Like the pianist analogy. Exactly like that analogy, which

isn't mine, but it captures it perfectly.

A great pianist improves by playing the piano, right?

They don't spend hours running laps around the piano or doing

finger push ups hoping it'll magically make them a better

musician. They play.

This core philosophy drives the deliberate choice to structure

training overwhelmingly around playing based exercises, what we

call methodological specificity. And you contrasted that game

centric approach with maybe what's sometimes seen today.

Well, you contrast that with, say, the past.

When you arrived at a major club there was often immense

immediate pressure, expectation to win titles right away.

Deliver now. Deliver now Today you

occasionally see coaches arriving at big clubs where

there seems less immediate pressure to win major trophies.

The focus is perhaps more on the long term future development,

sometimes even appearing to dismiss or overlook the club's

history of past successes. As if winning isn't the main

thing. You see top teams go years

without significant silverware, almost as if winning isn't seen

as a crucial fundamental part of that club's identity and

purpose. Back then in 2004 at Chelsea,

the expectation was undeniably immediate success and the

methodology was designed specifically to deliver that

while simultaneously developing the players abilities through

the act of playing. OK, thinking about training

design itself now, in this modern age, the Internet gives

coaches access to, well, what seems like an infinite library

of exercises and drills. Endless options.

So with all that available, what's the crucial element?

What's to the logic or the system needed behind actually

selecting and organizing those exercises?

You absolutely need your own logic, your own internal

framework. You need a deep, internalized

understanding of what is truly good for you, for your specific

team, and most importantly, for your unique idea of how the game

should be played. Tailored to your idea.

You need to understand what can realistically work in your

specific context with the players you actually have, and

you need to bring order to your whole process.

Order, not rigidity. Exactly.

It's not about being rigidly controlling in some bureaucratic

way. It's about not losing control of

the overall developmental process, having a clear logical

structure, a progression, A rationale behind every single

session. And training isn't static, you

said. No.

It's a dynamic, constantly evolving process.

You're perpetually drawing on new insights, adapting,

designing new exercises, building a specific reality

tailored for that exact moment in the season.

Based on the next game. For the specific time available

between matches, whether it's just two days for recovery and

prep or a full week, this constant creation and adaptation

always guided by your fundamental logic and

methodology, that's absolutely key to effective training.

And if you're not rigidly controlling every minute based

on, say, external metrics or a fixed plan, what then is the

real fundamental test, the definitive proof of whether

you're training, design and overall methodology are actually

working? In football, maybe more than any

other sport, the matches are the ultimate test.

Simple as that. The game tells the truth.

They provide the clearest, most authentic image of what you

truly have as a team, how the team is performing under

pressure, which tactical aspects are working well, and

critically, what specifically needs improvement.

So the match dictates the next steps.

The feedback drive directly from the matches is the essential

data you use to structure and build your subsequent work.

You identify those areas needing attention.

Then you design your exercises, your drills, your feedback

sessions, specifically around addressing those particular

aspects. It's a continuous cycle driven

by performance. But it's complex, right?

Balancing work and recovery. Hugely complex.

You also need to understand the specific moment in the season

when the next match is, how to intelligently balance the

critical need for recovery with the need for effective work.

You have to be able to design exercises and manage intensity

so players improve without causing undue fatigue when

recovery is the absolute priority.

A balancing act. It's a multi faceted puzzle.

You're considering many related factors simultaneously, all

guided by your core methodology and your deeply held beliefs

about fitness and preparation within the specific context of

playing football. And you mentioned seeing

something recently that highlighted this focus young

kids doing gym work. Yeah, building on that point

about training focus, I found it quite striking seeing footage of

very young kids, maybe only 12 years old, part of the very

important European Academy team and gaining quite significant

structure, gym work. And then you hear people asking

the question, wondering why we don't seem to be producing as

many truly extraordinary, spontaneously creative players

today. That observation feels quite

pointed, maybe even a bit controversial in the context of

modern trends, especially coming from someone with your

background, which includes sports science.

You're not fundamentally against sports science itself, are you?

Not at all, not at all, and that's a crucial point to

understand. My background includes sports

science, so I have a deep appreciation for its potential

value. I absolutely believe there's an

important place for it in football.

But there's a problem. The significant problem, as I

see it, is that too many individuals currently operating

as sports scientists within football simply do not

understand the game itself at a sufficiently deep level.

Don't understand football? They tend to fall into what you

could call the expert paradox. The expert paradox.

Acquiring deeper and deeper knowledge about smaller and

smaller areas, but excessively analyzing the game's inherent

complexity, breaking it down into isolated, fragmented

components. You go from the whole game to

the player, to physiological systems, then even narrower

aspect. You become an expert in

something that represents A continuously diminishing piece

of the game as a unified whole. This often results in having

numerous experts with incredibly profound knowledge of a very

narrow, isolated area. But they miss the big picture.

But critically lack a comprehensive holistic

understanding of the game's overall complexity and the

crucial interconnectedness of all its various elements.

You shared a really powerful anecdote that seems to

illustrate this point about relying solely on metrics.

It involved a player aiming to break a record for consecutive

matches played. Yes, this was a player, a very

important player, focused intensely on achieving this

specific goal. Playing consecutive matches, the

sports science test being done were consistently indicating

clear objective signs of physical fatigue.

The data said he was tired. Objectively, yes.

Yet despite these scientific readings, he continued to play

match after match, performing at a high level without

experiencing any apparent physical problems or breakdowns.

So what does that tell us? This wasn't about dismissing or

ignoring the science entirely. It was about recognizing that

the players immense mental strength, his deep emotional

drive, his laser like focus on achieving his objective.

These were factors that transcended and in that specific

case seemed to override. With the purely physical signs

alone, we're indicating a. Human element again.

Exactly. So science and objective signs

aren't the entire picture. Information from science is

undeniably important, absolutely, but it must be

placed in its proper context given the appropriate weight.

It absolutely must not be elevated to a status where it

becomes more important than what is truly fundamental in

football. Which is.

Which is the game itself, the complex human element, the

players mental resilience, their emotional state, their intuitive

understanding. You mentioned the size of some

sports science departments now. Consider the size of some

departments in top clubs today, sometimes 30 or more people for

a playing squad of maybe 25 players.

That's a lot of staff per player.

You have to ask pragmatically, what are all those people

actually doing day-to-day today? Sometimes, maybe

unintentionally, they might feel pressure to justify their

existence or show their value. Leading them to push players.

Leading them to push players to do extra work.

At the elite high performance level, where recovery time is

often incredibly minimal and precious, any unnecessary,

counterproductive extra work can actively hinder crucial recovery

or even increase injury risk. Every detail matters.

At this level, every single small detail matters immensely.

Therefore, sports science certainly plays an important

part. It should be a valuable plus, a

compliment that enhances the fundamental work.

But not the main thing. But it absolutely cannot and

should not override what is truly fundamental the coaching,

the core methodology, the actual football work on the pitch, and

the ability of the coaching staff to maintain insightful

control of that process. Within this discussion about

measurement and science, you also brought up specificity.

What, in your view, is true specificity in football

training? I would strongly argue against

the idea of finding specificity in the gym.

While gym work can contribute to general physical capacity, true

specificity in football is found in playing the game itself.

On the pitch. On the pitch, and the most

important specificity, the one that dictates the relevance of

everything else, is the specificity directly related to

your team, style of play, your specific game model.

Your idea again. That level of specificity is

what truly tells you if a particular football exercise on

the pitch, a small sided game, a positional drill is genuinely

effective and relevant for developing players within your

unique way of playing. So you can develop physical

aspects on the pitch too. Many, if not most aspects of a

player's required performance capacity thing, sometimes

targeted in isolation elsewhere, can be effectively developed

right there on the training pitch within the appropriate

context of playing football. We don't necessarily needing

significant time in a separate gym environment.

And bringing that back to your earlier observation about those

12 year old kids doing intensive gym work and the question about

fewer extraordinary players emerging.

I believe there's a strong correlation there.

I think it happens because young players are being overly focused

on aspects that are either not truly fundamental for the

development as football players, or those aspects are being

worked on in isolation in the wrong context.

So what should the focus be for kids?

For children, 98% of their developmental work should be

happening on the pitch actively playing football.

You need to create the correct context for that development

through intelligently designed small sided games and exercises.

Games that teach. Games that inherently challenge

them to develop all the necessary aspects.

Individual technical skills, decision making under pressure,

tactical understanding, physical capacities within game actions.

Everything they need to become a complete football player is

fundably contained within the game itself.

This conversation around measurement leads us nicely to

another big topic in modern football, the widespread use of

GPS technology. GPS.

You mentioned an experience at a major club where the decision

was made to stop using GPS devices extensively with the

players and how that was seen externally as maybe being old

fashioned. Right.

Again, it's critical to understand that there was

nothing inherently against GPS technology itself or the

principles of using data. The core issue was that the

technology was, in my view, being misused.

Misused how? In a way that had the potential

to negatively influence the players mindset and the overall

team culture. How so?

Relying heavily on GPS data to monitor and control load every

single day can inadvertently create a negative habit among

players. They might become overly focused

on hitting certain distance or intensity numbers after every

single session. Chasing numbers?

Chasing numbers? Yeah, sometimes even competing

against teammates data. Also, different GPS devices can

give varying measures, and the accuracy of some algorithms used

to calculate metrics like high speed running or acceleration,

well, that can certainly be debated.

Except maybe distance. Except maybe total distance

covered, which is generally more reliable.

My personal experience was simply that I didn't need

extensive GPS monitoring daily to effectively control the

training process and manage player load.

You've done it without before. I had been doing so successfully

throughout my entire career without relying on them, and

significantly during those two seasons at that specific club

where we weren't heavily emphasizing GPS data in that

manner. Yeah, the player availability,

meaning the percentage of the squad fit and available for

selection, was actually better than in previous years at the

club when GPS was being used much more extensively.

That's a significant finding. It was so the decision wasn't

about making some grand philosophical statement against

tech just for the sake of it. It was about finding the correct

supportive place for data and avoiding the potential

misconceptions, the overemphasis and the negative cultural

implications that can come from misusing GPS.

The. Cultural impact.

Creating a culture where players primary focus after training is

immediately checking their GPS numbers, how much they ran, what

high intensities they hit. They can actually potentially

hurt the team's focus and priorities more than it benefits

them. Because the main aspects aren't

those numbers. Exactly.

The truly main decisive aspects of the game are not those

particular numbers. Perhaps this widespread culture,

this intense focus on raw running numbers, distance

intensities, maybe it's inadvertently scaring the

development of the game and players in a certain potentially

suboptimal direction. And that connects directly to

the concept of intensity itself. We usually think of intensity in

football, mostly physically right sprints, high speed runs,

pressing. That's the common view, yes.

But you highlight there's a different, maybe more important

type of intensity. Yes, absolutely.

There are crucial mental and emotional aspects of intensity.

They can be far, far more important than the purely

physical expression. Intensity is deeply,

fundamentally related to your level of focus.

Your concentration levels your awareness of the constantly

changing context of the game, your understanding of the

specific moment within that game.

Can you give an example? Consider, for a powerful

example, a player stepping up to take a deciding penalty kick.

World Cup final last moments. Ultimate pressure.

The hopes of their entire nation resting on that single kick, the

level of demanding focus, of mental and emotional

concentration required in that precise moment, is incredibly

high. It is a moment of immense

intensity. But physically?

But it has virtually no physical expression whatsoever.

The player is standing still, waiting.

Right, that's a great example. It clearly demonstrates that

intensity isn't always and isn't primarily tied to physical

output or running. You don't necessarily need to be

sprinting around to make the best possible pass, the most

intelligent positional adjustment, or the most crucial

defensive interception. Decisions matter more.

These critical decisions are linked to your intense focus to

truly being mentally in the game, actively reading and

interpreting the situation, understanding what's needed

rather than just expending energy running back and forth

without purpose. You see that sometimes, don't

you? Teams struggling to slow down.

You observe many matches today where teams seem to struggle to

deliberately slow the game down, to be more cerebral, to really

think their way through situations.

What you often witness is relentless, almost frantic

running, making the game feel overwhelmingly physical.

Intensity of thought versus intensity of movement.

Intensity for me should be fundamentally related first and

foremost to the brain. Focus, concentration, decision

making before it's about maximum physical exertion.

Shifting gears slightly, you've spoken about experiencing a

unique tactical culture in Italy, describing it as

remarkably adaptable. What made that stand out

compared to other places? In Italy, it was genuinely

remarkable, almost incredible, to witness how when one team

made a significant structural or system change during a match

altering formation for example, the opposing team was almost

immediately able to adapt and directly match that change.

This capacity for instant structural adjustment was

something I hadn't seen to that same degree elsewhere.

How does that happen? Is it just ingrained?

This high level of tactical adaptability doesn't happen by

chance. It comes directly from specific

methodology and dedicated practice.

If you spend significant time in training, playing, and

practicing structural and positional changes, your team

becomes inherently prepared to recognize and execute those

adjustments in a match. So.

Structure matters as much as movement.

Structural changes altering player positioning formation

inherently and significantly influence the space is created

on the pitch, both for your team and how the opposition is

affected. While dynamic movement within

the structure is undoubtedly important gives life to the

team, the fundamental positions players occupy by design also

naturally create specific spaces that need to be managed.

Managing space. A nice fight, you call it.

Managing those spaces, attacking and defending becomes a

fascinating, complex fight during the game, and in Italy

this battle for space was particularly special precisely

because of this ingrained culture of immediate structural

adaptation, not just subtle dynamic tweaks within a fixed

shape. They were pragmatic.

Incredibly pragmatic, they offered an immediate structural

answer to whatever tactical change the opponent attempted.

And you contrasted that specifically with experiences

elsewhere where the opposition might wait much longer.

Exactly. In other places, the opposition

might be much slower to react, sometimes almost waiting a long

time to see how a change plays out before trying to adapt.

In Italy, the response felt much more immediate, proactive, often

involving directly mirroring the structural change to neutralize

its effect right away. Fascinating cultural difference.

Let's turn now to the players themselves.

How does player quality interact with the methodology?

You can have the most brilliant method theoretically, but you

still need the players, right? Absolutely.

Player quality is without question decisive for success in

football. As a coach, you are

fundamentally dependent on the qualities and capabilities of

the players you have. Simple as that.

So what's the coach's role then in relation to that quality?

Your fundamental role as a coach is to take your message, your

idea, and make it as crystal clear and uncomplicated as

possible for that specific group of players.

You need to create the conditions through your

methodology and training design. For them to succeed.

For those players to feel comfortable and empowered using

their unique individual skills to contribute effectively to the

team's overall idea and objectives.

And crucially, your core idea itself needs to be realistically

influenced and shaped by the actual quality and

characteristics of the players you have.

You have to tailor the idea to the players.

You must design a system and approach that maximizes their

potential. You absolutely must take the

time to deeply understand the players you have and tailor your

ideas to match that reality. The main objective is helping

them perform at their absolute best, contributing maximally to

the team. Which means giving them freedom.

This demands giving sufficient space for players individual

creativity and intuition. You cannot, for example,

restrict or stifle a naturally highly creative player just

because you're rigidly preconceived idea doesn't

immediately seem to accommodate their flair.

So the team concepts act like a culture.

Having clear, well defined concepts of play understood by

everyone acts like an inherent culture for the team.

It influences how players naturally operate and make

decisions within the system and the players individual

qualities. Speed, skill, technique,

tactical intelligence, these influence everything.

Like transitions finishing. From the efficiency of

transitions to the quality of finishing in front of goal,

everything. Sometimes in discussions about

tactical methodology, it feels like the focus is almost

entirely on the collective unit, maybe unintentionally losing

sight of the individual player within that structure.

But understanding the individual is absolutely fundamental to

maximizing the collective. The better you truly know and

understand each individual player strengths, weaknesses,

motivations, personality, the better equipped you are to

create the environment and provide the guidance needed to

get the very best out of them. Human first, player second.

It's crucial to see and understand the player, first as

a human being, then as a football player.

You simply cannot and should not try to separate those two

aspects. One inevitably influences the

other profoundly. What about that saying the team

is more important than any individual?

I agree with that concept absolutely.

In terms of philosophy, collective goals, discipline

must be prioritized over purely selfish interests.

But there's a crucial nuance, which is when you make the

effort to understand and develop each individual player well,

when you support them and help them maximize their unique

potential within the team framework, their subsequent

contribution to the collective effort will be significantly

higher. Making the team stronger

overall. And when the contributions of

all individuals are maximized, the team as a whole inevitably

becomes much bigger, much stronger and much more

successful. Let's touch briefly on the

coaching staff structure. There's an observation that

today there seems to be a much greater emphasis on staff

alignment, having increasingly large teams of coaches support

staff, perhaps more than in the past.

The structures have certainly grown.

You've seen this evolution first hand.

What's your perspective? My personal perspective based on

my experience at the highest levels is that I don't

necessarily believe in having excessively large Staffs.

That's interesting, given the trend, why not?

Because quite pragmatically, more people often translates

into more information, more complexity, and potentially it

can easily lead to what I describe as a big mess.

Too much noise. Too much noise, too many

opinions potentially pulling in different directions.

My preferred model has always been having a clear leader at

the top with well defined ideas and direction, supported by a

relatively small core group of individuals who specialize in

specific key areas. These core people contribute

significantly to planning, are deeply involved in the essential

daily work and are part of the key decision making unit and

others. Support that core.

Work can then be delegated efficiently to others in

different support areas, but the primary intervention guidance

and ultimate decision making flows from that compact core

group working directly with the leader.

So less is more. The principle here is strongly

less is more. A pragmatic, streamlined

approach keeps the core message crystal clear among those

driving decisions. Ensure is consistent direction,

avoids wasted time and crucial information getting lost or

diluted through too many layers. And avoids unnecessary

complexity. And prevents adding unneeded

information. They can simply complicate

things. Within that streamline

structure, you mentioned the incredibly crucial role of a

buffer, someone working very closely with the leader managing

information flow. That role is absolutely crucial,

fundamental in my opinion, to the effective operation of a top

coaching team. The person working closely with

or immediately behind the leader needs excellent, comprehensive

understanding and control of the overall process.

What do they do specifically? They're strategically positioned

to pick up information from various sources, players, other

staff, external sources analysis.

A significant amount of incoming information can be effectively

channelled through this person, who then filters, processes and

reports the essential elements to the leader.

As a filter. Exactly.

This role saves the leader an immense amount of time and can

very often preempt potential problems or stressful situations

before they even reach the leader's desk.

This buffer filters the noise, distills information down to

what's truly fundamental, relevant, actionable.

Sometimes solving problems themselves.

Sometimes even resolving less critical issues themselves

without needing to add to the leader's worries or workload.

It's essential for controlling the information flow and the

overall process efficiently without creating unnecessary

extra work or distractions for the boss.

Thinking about coach education now, if the game has perhaps, as

you suggest, drifted a bit too far into overmeasurement, away

from a deeper, more holistic understanding, how can education

systems help steer it back? It's definitely a significant

challenge, partly because sometimes people involved aren't

even fully aware that there are fundamentally different ways of

looking at the game and approaching coaching.

Information is incredibly abundant everywhere now.

Many people talk about it constantly.

Here's a truly key point that needs emphasis.

Theory or methodology alone does not make you a great coach.

Just knowing it isn't enough. Knowing the theory,

understanding concepts. It's important, yes, but true

greatness in coaching comes from how you operationalize that

theory. How you build, lead, adapt,

manage the process day in day out with real people in dynamic

situations. Simply having knowledge of the

theory doesn't make you a coach. So what's the first step for

education? The absolute first step, I

believe, is for people involved, educators and aspiring coaches

to be genuinely open to exploring different directions

and perspectives, to understand there isn't just one single path

or one single truth. My proposed approach for

effective education would be fundamentally this Start by

intensely looking at football itself.

Spend time thinking deeply about your desired style of play, how

you specifically want to modulate the game's rhythm and

structure. Consciously work to make that

vision your unique identity as a leader and coach.

Build from the game outwards. Build your foundational idea and

philosophy directly from the game itself and your

interpretation of it. Then, and only then, do you

systematically integrate other areas of knowledge, the

sciences, support departments, etcetera.

Your absolute priority should always be your core football

idea and a clear understanding of how these other areas can

effectively influence, complement and support that.

Not the other way around. The problem I increasingly see

today is people prioritizing it the other way around.

They're starting with fragmented scientific data or trends and

trying to build a football idea from that rather than starting

with the football. Within this, there's the idea

that football today is primarily A sprinting game.

Football has always involved sprinting.

It's inherent. I remember it being a

significant component throughout my entire career.

Perhaps today we simply Sprint too much.

Too much. Why?

And this is potentially influenced by the culture and

environment we're creating around the game.

The culture of numbers again. I genuinely worry about this

widespread culture of numbers that is permeated down to

younger levels. You see kids today who seem to

feel putting on a GPS device is as fundamental, as essential as

putting on their actual football boots.

Is a GPS as important as a boot? Is it really?

We are perhaps unintentionally, creating a culture where they

feel they're primarily expected to deliver certain physical

numbers and training. Maybe we should be far more

concerned with developing intelligent, effective football

behaviors and decision making on the pitch then focusing

excessively on isolated fitness numbers.

So the core issue in education. Comes down to defining what's

truly fundamental and critically, who is providing the

education. The educators themselves need a

deep, nuanced understanding of football first and foremost, and

understand the correct supportive position of other

important areas like sports science within that hierarchy.

The problem is when science becomes the priority.

The problem arises when that specific area, sports science

data analysis, becomes the primary focus or priority over

the game itself. You used the glass bottle

analogy earlier. Think about that again.

Football is complex, systemic, everything's related.

The main reference point for everything you do must always be

playing football itself. Everything needs to relate back

to that central activity. Don't break the game down into

such incredibly small, isolated pieces.

Like fragmented glass. Like fragmenting a glass bottle.

So the individual parts, the shards, lose their fundamental

relationship to the whole, the original bottle shape.

You want to break it down analytically to understand

components, yes, but always keep the shape, always understand and

show these pieces are integral parts, the original bottle.

And you believe playing develops most capacities?

By simply playing the game in the correct, well designed

context, you can develop, I'd strongly argue, 98% of the

necessary capacities of football player needs.

We have powerful testimonies, examples of so many truly great

players from the past. Who developed differently?

Who developed and do extraordinary talents without

extensive gym work, without constant monitoring, simply by

playing the game endlessly, developing a deep intuitive love

and understanding for. It, but there's still room for

physical work. Of course, every individual is

different. There's legitimate space for

players who developed physically through different means.

Targeted physical work has its place.

But when you were specifically teaching the game, developing

football players, you must concentrate on the game itself,

on the pitch. Where do they learn more?

If a 12 year old spends an hour in the gym instead of an hour on

the pitch, where will they gain more of what's essential to

become a football player from the pitch?

Naturally, education should focus on what's crucial for that

core development. It reflects society's focus on

numbers, maybe. It's perhaps also a reflection

of society today heavily focused on numbers, measurement, instant

data and football being a massive global business

inevitably tolerates or absorbs many external influences and

mistakes like this tendency towards over measuring

everything. With such intense, demanding

experiences over so many years at the absolute top level, the

constant pressure, the media scrutiny, how did you personally

manage yourself day-to-day to stay grounded, focused, stay in

a positive space? For me, honestly, it was quite

simple. I just never stopped liking

football. Still love the game.

I still have a deep love for the game itself.

I genuinely enjoy the intellectual challenge,

dissecting ideas, reflecting on what others at the top level are

saying and doing, placing myself hypothetically in their position

to think how I might view things or approach certain situations.

That keeps you engaged. That constant engagement with

the game, that process of reflection and challenging

different perspectives is what keeps me personally involved and

mentally engaged. You're still involved, now

observing. I haven't completely walked

away. I continue to be involved, for

example doing technical observer work for UEFA, which allows me

to see many matches live at the highest level.

Yeah, so I am still watching football differently, but

perhaps from a slightly different perspective now,

observing more keenly the mental aspects, the tactical evolution,

and critically observing the direction the game as a whole is

evolving. Sometimes I find myself

questioning if that current direction is truly the best one.

And your conclusion? I have my own internal

conclusions that perhaps in some ways it's not, especially when

things seem to become overly complex.

Too many people involved, clubs starting to resemble large

hospitals with vast medical and sports science departments that

maybe over shadow the core football functions.

But. Science still has a place.

Again, let me reiterate, this isn't a criticism of the

dedicated professionals in those areas.

I understand their value having come from that background.

But football is fundamentally much more than just those

components in isolation. If sports science complements

and helps, offers valuable feedback, makes a small specific

contribution, that's important, useful.

But not more important in the game.

But when that area becomes more important, when it takes

priority over what is truly fundamental, the game itself,

the human element, the art and science of coaching, it simply

makes no sense in terms of developing players and teams

effectively. I continue to enjoy observing

and thinking about football from this slightly different

perspective now. Finally, let's touch on the

example of Portugal. There seems to have been a

significant coaching revolution there, arguably starting maybe 2

decades ago, heavily influenced, perhaps ignited by the wave of

success that emerged then. A big shift happened.

What was the broader impact of that period and what lessons

might it hold for countries maybe like the USA that are

currently working really hard to upgrade and professionalize

their coaching education systems?

The success that emerged from Portugal during that period,

particularly the global impact of the celebrated leader I

worked with, it had a huge, undeniably crucial influence

within Portugal itself. Oh so.

Before that era, most young people in Portugal primarily

dreamed of being football players.

After that period of success, he started seeing young kids

actively thinking about becoming coaches.

It opened up a completely different perspective on the

game, seeing coaching as a legitimate, impactful profession

and pathway. So it inspired coaches.

Yes, there was a massive and direct influence on coaching

development and aspirations within the country.

Today, Portugal has produced and continues to produce many

excellent, highly respected coaches at the top levels

worldwide. And players too, right?

And for the size of the country, around 10 million people, the

sheer number of top quality players it consistently produces

and exports globally is genuinely amazing.

It's a huge success story in player development nationally.

What's the secret? What do you attribute that

success to? I attribute a large part of it

to a fundamental priority placed on training as training

football, a focus on not losing precious time with other things

that are less fundamental to the core process of becoming a

football player. Like the Brazilian St. players?

Think back to the stories of the best Brazilian players of the

past. Many came from the streets.

Very little formal coaching, just the game itself.

Natural talent, endless playing while structured coaching is

certainly improved conditions introduced valuable

methodologies. Something's been lost.

I believe something fundamental has been somewhat lost in modern

development, That inherent fantasy, the spontaneity, the

creativity that often came from the simple freedom to play the

game endlessly without excessive structure or constant external

direction. You find it disappointing

sometimes. It is disappointing, sometimes

frustrating, to see young kids today spending significant time

on activities that might be less impactful.

Instead of simply playing football, training sessions can

become overly formal, rigid. Too much structure.

Unnecessary warmups before warmups, maybe even mandated gym

work before players even touch a ball on the pitch.

While routine and some structure are needed, perhaps not all

those complex, time consuming phases are truly beneficial,

especially for young minds and bodies.

So the pragmatic approach is. The pragmatic approach, the one

that yields the best results from each session, is to get the

players actively playing football as quickly and as much

as possible. Creating challenging exercises.

We should focus on creating good, challenging training

exercises that aren't overly complex exercises where kids are

naturally presented with problems to solve within the

dynamic context of the game itself.

Guided Discovery. You provide them with gradual

wealth, timed information and guidance that genuinely helps

them find those solutions themselves, fostering a sense of

guided discovery within the playing environment that, in my

view, is truly fundamental for long term development.

And that links back to Portugal's success.

And I believe the success in Portugal stems significantly

from giving this level of priority and importance to

coaching what is truly, at the core, the game itself.

Wow. We really have covered a

tremendous amount of fascinating ground in this deep.

Dive a lot to unpack. Definitely starting from that

absolute necessity of a coach having a clear core idea and

philosophy, navigating the crucial need for adaptability

across different contexts. Exploring the hands on

application of methodology and training.

Offering a critical, insightful perspective on the evolving role

of sports science and measurement.

Highlighting the non negotiable importance of the individual

player and the coaching staff structure.

And finally, drawing tangible lessons from national context,

like the Portuguese example. It's been really comprehensive.

The fundamental take away? I believe it just remains the

inherent complexity of the game itself and the absolute

unwavering need to keep the main reference point actively playing

football in its most holistic sense, right at the very heart

of everything we do in. Coaching, training development.

Everything. It's just far too easy to get

lost in the surrounding noise, the endless numbers, the

fragmented analysis, the measurement, but the game

itself, the spontaneous dynamic interaction that must always be

the absolute priority. So for you listening, think

about how these deep insights might challenge your own

perceptions of coaching, player development, maybe even how you

approach learning and applying complex information in your own

field or interests. Yeah.

What does this mean for how you view the game when you watch it,

or how you might approach acquiring and applying knowledge

more broadly? And perhaps as just a final

thought to leave you with, consider this.

In a world that is increasingly fixated on data metrics,

quantifying every single element, are we potentially

losing some of that invaluable fantasy, that intuitive

understanding, or perhaps even the pure, unadulterated joy that

comes from simply doing and experiencing the core activity

itself? Fantasy versus data.

It's certainly something worth reflecting on further, don't you

think? Absolutely a lot to think about

long after this deep dive ends. Thank you for joining us.

We truly hope you found these insights valuable and genuinely

thought provoding.

Coach Rui Faria: Football Philosophy and Methodology

About this episode