Hi Yagiz.

We have two projects that we are working on behind the scenes. The Bielsa one will follow, and we are looking at the first releases around September. 

One thing I didn't mention is that Domenec Torrent's definition literally includes the concept of relation within it: PP is positioning your players RELATIVE to everyone on the pitch to generate advantages. Where Guardiola and Diniz differ is in conceiving of how you structure these relationships - not in one disregarding relationships altogether.

It's worth remembering that all relationships on a football pitch are impossible without a concept of position. In that respect, relationism HAS to be positional.

They can still have their own unique existence. But they are still a subset, in my opinion, of a broader category: positional play.

By suggesting PP as a more general term is "useless", it seems as though you're saying "well we still have to differentiate between Guardiola and Diniz!" - absolutely! But the differentiator isn't PP - it's the way that these two coaches are using positional ideas in very different ways.

4)"If you define positional play as being all football it's a useless term. Hybrid play can also be some players have rigid positions and some are floaters. It's not only spoken about in relation to phases."

I completely disagree with this. My argument is that by restricting PP down to "what Guardiola does tactically" is unhelpful. Guardiola uses PP as a tool to achieve what he wants to strategically on a football pitch. In that sense, Guardiola's football and positional play are in different categories entirely. PP is basically a higher category of thing: like "animals" is to "dogs". The category "animals" is useful because it explains to us what kind of things "dogs" are. But it doesn't mean we then collapse "dogs" into other species of animal. "Dogs" and "spiders" are very different things but they are still animals. In the same way, Guardiola's football is very different from Fernando Diniz's football.