So how does the 'minimum' feature there? I think you're oversimplifying...do you really think ETH, someone renowned for being a thoughtful, smart tactician, would bother trotting out something as basic as width=space? We were taught that at under 13 level.
ffs
So why does he say 'create minimum width'? What's the difference with 'creating width'?
For reference, here is what Ten Hag actually said:
The relevant bit starts around 5:00. It's in Dutch, but there are English subtitles and they are accurate. But to be exact, the Dutch is 'in de breedte, in de minimale breedte, zoals wij d.at noemen', i.e, 'in the width, in the minimal width, as we call it'. Why would he specify it this way if he's just talking about creating width in the general sense?
That argument would hold more water if "minimum width" wasn't already a term/concept associated with the famously narrower set-ups of Leipzig-style managers like Naglesmann, Hassenhuettl and Marsch (who literally had the term pinned on the Leeds' dressing room wall even as they were being criticised for their set-up being overly narrow), in exactly the sense the above video describes.
Given VDB's clearly narrower positioning in that goal, it seems unlikely that ETH accidentally used a pre-existing term incorrectly in relation to something that just so happened to be a perfect example of the correct usage.
We've seen Ten Hag's United team. We've seen Guardiola's City team. The contrast in approach just isn't there. Also, I've seen the interview before. Nothing Ten Hag says nor any of the sequences of play shown give weight to the tactical concept proposed in the Tifo video. Look at how he describes minimum width when discussing the highlight in question - Van de Beek, on the far side, 'keeping it wide', 'to lure the defender and create space to execute team play'.
Analysing the next clip, he talks again about the player on the far side keeping it wide and in doing so providing a 'threat' and 'stressing' the defenders, while three players move to the right touchline during the build-up play.
Next clip, against a set defence Ajax have one player high and wide on the left, one high and wide on the right, an attacker stretching the pitch through the middle and two players in the no.10 area. Sounds quite like a Guardiola setup, no? They score because the opposition left back is drawn out to challenge the touchline-hugging right-sided player and one of the two no.10s also moves out wide on that side and drags a centre half with him, and they exploit the space. The left-sided attacker again plays his part without being directly involved because the opposition right back is naturally concerned with him and is positioned accordingly - if the attacker wasn't there he may well have been tucked in more and been in position to challenge the goalscorer.
Finally in the last clip, play again progresses down the right side with the full back on the touchline. As Ten Hag states, the left full back is ultimately able to score with a well timed third-man run into the box because the left sided attacker peels away from the play on the far side, pulling the opposition right back with him and creating the pocket of space to attack and causing the defender to be too preoccupied with the forwards position to recognise the danger from the runner.
Evidence enough of Ten Hag's Ajax using the full width of the pitch among those highlights, and in the instances where the far-side attacker is not quite on the touchline he is in a perfectly normal position for a wide attacker (with the exception being the last clip, where Tadic seemed to recognise and look to correct the lack of width being provided which led to the goal).
The clip originally in question, for example - at that moment the game is incredibly stretched vertically and Ajax take the entire Juventus attack and midfield out the game. It is not necessary for Van de Beek to be on the touchline. Counter-attacks and other situations where the defending team are low on numbers, unorganised or otherwise compromised and vulnerable often don't require it.
Counters were mentioned in the Tifo video, discussing the merits of minimum over maximum width - why would any team feel the need to maintain full use of the width of the pitch when attacking a backline consisting of two or three players?? Against a defensive line which cannot hope to adequately cover the width of the pitch, it just is not needed. The more well-organised and set a team is in their defensive shape, the more width their opponent is likely to need in attempting to break them down. It's a basic concept that applies to every team, not a niche idea used by particular sides/ managers.
The video talks about Guardiola using maximum width, then goes on to talk about how minimum width doesn't have the same issue of players being heavily spread out and how that can negatively impact the team's ability to perform quick interchanges and counter-press - because Guardiola's sides are known for being weak in these areas!? Sides using maximum width compensate by looking to 'overload to isolate' accordingly to the numpty in the video, before going on to describe the kind of situation that Ten Hag - minimal width user - says his teams try to engineer?? The video is a disaster.
Look at Man City yesterday - Grealish's positioning for his early chance and then for his goal, Mahrez's positioning for Haaland's opener. They aren't on the touchline - they would be adhering to the principles of minimum width if you were inclined to think that video is accurate.
Guardiola's sides try to monopolise possession. They spend more time than basically any other team trying to break down an organised opponent - that is why the wide positioning of their wingers seems extreme, generally.
Ten Hag also often has his wingers stationed very wide. I find it quite baffling that someone can be of the opinion that Antony is never looking to hug the touchline as my impression is that that is exactly what he predominantly looks to do. At United, we mostly see the wide men near the touchline and the full backs in more of a tucked-in position. If the winger moves infield, usually the full back adjusts to provide the wide option, or vice versa. As I see it, we usually try to create space between the opposition full backs and centre backs with the positioning of our wingers, and then try to exploit that space with runners - the full backs, Fred and Bruno spring to mind mostly. I don't know how anyone can watch us play and arrive at the conclusion that our approach to width is in stark contrast to Guardiola and City.
Also, it makes perfect sense that managers who setup with midfield diamonds and magic rectangles and any other kind of naturally narrower formation would want to hammer home the need for width in attack.
