The margins are smaller with this style of football because it requires more expertise, more precision, more finesse to do it successfully. If you remember the term percentage football ie. The goofball it was called that because it doesn't live on a knife edge any semi competent footballer can hoof a ball forwards in the general direction of goal. Playing for knock-downs and physical contact is absolutely an easier brand of football to play which is why teams lower lower down the league often resort to it or even teams at the top when they are desperate for a goal, they'll throw a CB on to try and win headers to force the matter.
Pretty triangle intricate passing football is much more difficult to achieve and absolutely requires a higher standard of technical ability and finesse to perform it. It is absolutely the football style with the narrowest of margins and that's why I mentioned Barca who were fantastic but I watched many, many, many games were the pass was a little bit to strong, or the run slightly mistimed and that was a team that conquered all.
To play this way and succeed is going need buy in from the players, but fundamentally better players and better coaching than what we are seeing on the pitch.
We may disagree on the usage of terms, not sure. I'll expand on my opinion to see if we agree or where we disagree.
I agree that this style is harder, requires better players, more precision and finesse.
All football styles are "percentage football". If you hoof it there's a percentage chance you'll win the ball, get the second ball, create chaos, do something useful etc. Also a percentage chance that the opposition wins it and starts their attack.
When we try to play through the press equally there are percentage chances of various outcomes.
But no matter what style there are small margins. Doesn't matter if a chance comes from a hoof, intricate buildup through pressure, counter attack or set piece. Taking your chances or not will create small margins unless there's a massive difference in quality of the teams.
When we defend with a high press there's a bigger chance of a good break for us, there's a bigger chance of retrieving the ball quickly, but there's also a bigger chance of the opponents getting through our press into essentially a counter attacking opportunity.
When we sat back under Mourinho teams very rarely got those bigger chances from playing through us. But on the other hand they got more sustained pressure on our goal and a higher number of (initially) lower probability opportunities. But again, small margins, that one cross, that one chaotic moment in the box, that one deflected long shot.
No approach is better in isolation. No approach removes the issue of small margins that will be decisive over (imo) a much larger sample than many narratives around football take into account.
The right approach is one that fits the players and the overall strategy of the coach and club on how to develop the team. The right approach is also the one the coach knows best how to implement well.
