These 2 terms are never really mentioned in AFL conversations, not with this specific wording anyway, but in Soccer there are constant Twitter threads on 1 or the other or the comparison of both approaches.
That's not to say they aren't used in AFL, they most definitely are, we just don't use the same jargon.
These notes come from a Twitter account called @ogpinions, which is a soccer analysis-based account so let's have a look at the 2 approaches.
RELATIONISM
- Refers to the relationships and interactions between players in an attempt to develop self-regulating players who can solve their own problems without coach intervention and who can adjust to variable game conditions
- Player position’s should not be predetermined but should depend on game variables such as opposition and teammates with the player being in control of their position
- Top-down guidance is associated with relationism where coaches provide game situations for players to solve and observe their natural tendencies through guidance
- It is not against positional play but is against methods that inhibit self-regulating players
- Once players develop positional understanding then self-regulation should be prioritised
POSITIONISM
- Is defined by positions on the field and from a belief that a fixed, static concept is the source from which everything else can be derived
- May not develop self-regulating players as some, most or all solutions are already provided to them and they don't develop the ability to think for themselves
- Top down control is associated here where the coach provides the solution and the players execute it and they follow a specific game model
- Can lead to a lack of adaptability where players struggle when teams behave differently then they thought they would
- The main difference is the role of the coach
Now that we have a bit more information on what these both are then what teams do you think bias one or the other?
