Minimum Width, Maximal Width… or Both?

Various elite level teams are coached to utilise different systems and principles of play. One of the many coached facets is player positioning — either in a systematic manner (i.e. structured positioning), or as a principle of play (i.e. an overarching fundamental a player can fall back on). The degree at which a team utilises the width on the field is one such coached facet.

Minimum width, is essentially a team lacking full width at any given vertical point on the pitch, with maximal width being the opposite. In a given scenario, particularly when the ball is played to one side, a team could exhibit maximal width on the ball side and minimum width on the far side — in fact this is generally convention. But for the purpose of this discussion holistically, we’ll approach width as largely symmetrical, when the ball is in a central position.

1. Minimum Width and Maximal Width can be asymmetrical in the vertical and horizontal plane.

Minimum Width: When, Where & Why

In Settled Possession

Minimum width is generally an in-possession facet. The obvious benefit of utilising minimum width, is that your players are in more threatening positions. From both expected goals and expected threat maps, we can see that at any given vertical point, central zones hold a higher threat than wider zones. This example in itself isn’t particularly practical — but it does highlight that being…