When do you give up on an optimal strategy?
That’s a great question, and one that I have been thinking about quite a bit about recently, especially since learning a little more about soccer and the tactics that seperate the contenders from the pretenders. I am no expert, but the one thing I have half an idea about is “playing out from the back”.
In soccer/football, when an opposing team puts the ball out of play on the goal line, the goal keeper restarts play by kicking it out. Until recently, the most common strategy, whether you’re playing under 8’s or in the Premier League, was to hoof it as far as you can up field. And why not? After all, the odds of you being scored against when the ball is 60 meters from your goal border on zero.
However, in recent years, a balding European who manages an elite Manchester based football club has decided that the best way to play is from “out the back”, or in simple terms, playing a short pass to your nearest defender. The upside is immediate; you control possession. The downside is equally visible; you trade off possession. 13 trophies in 6 years suggests that it may be working though.
It looks like lots of teams have tried to replicate it, but very few have conceded. In fact there are compilation videos made every week of lesser skilled teams trying to execute this tactic, failing, and promptly conceding. In a game where a single goal is enough to win, it’s a massive risk.
So, when do you quit a tactic that works for the best, but might not work for the rest? It doesn’t have to be sporting either, plenty of things that work at McKinsey won’t work at McDonalds.
I’d be interested to hear your thoughts.