Quite wrong. In fact, it's more likely to be the opposite, but there aren't any rules here.Probably doing it wrong, but I go correlate rigid-fluid with how good the team is. Example, if I'm managing Eastbourne Borough, I'll be on very rigid, if I'm managing Arsenal or West Ham I'll be on Very Fluid. Feel free to shoot me down, I'm no expert
It makes perfect sense. If you have a team mixed with the James Milners and David Silvas of this world, you'd play a rigid style. James Milner will do what he does best - hassle opponents and keep it simple in possession. David Silva will do what he does best - focus on playmaking duties, where you can give him more creative freedom. You don't want Milner playing through balls and trying to be clever when you have the real masters in your team who could do it blindfolded. Specific roles for specific players. That's what a rigid setup is about.But that doesn't really make sense. With a world class team most of your players should be more versatile. Your defenders will of course be specialized in that area but still able to make an above average pass, your attackers can still perform a decent tackle etc.
I'm not arguing with your definition. I agree completely that this is how fluid vs. rigid philosphies work.Specific roles for specific players. That's what a rigid setup is about. (...) Everyone contributing equally in a more fluid setup.
They may have more players capable of thinking out the box, but it's not always wanted by the manager if they've been given specific jobs to do. It depends on the team and they players at their disposal.I'm not arguing with your definition. I agree completely that this is how fluid vs. rigid philosphies work.
But I completely disagree that better teams will generally play more rigidly. On the contrary, they have more players capable of thinking out of the box - and acting on it. I know that Ronaldo may not contribute much defensively, but that's because he's Ronaldo and not because he plays for Real Madrid.