I stumbled across this piece earlier this week while trawling through the latest issue of Spielraum, the Swiss tactics and development magazine that has a habit of spotting trends long before the mainstream notices them. Buried between a study on St. Gallen’s pressing rotations and a feature on the tactical identity of the Challenge League, this analysis stopped me in my tracks.

Anyone who has been watching our matches closely will recognise the fingerprints immediately despite neither Inaki or Chur being named, directly. The writer lays out, with almost forensic calm, a tactical identity built on intensity, directness, and territorial control. Reading it felt like having an outsider decode what we see every weekend: the running power, the suffocating press, the relentless turnovers, and the chaotic order that somehow produces clean sheets.

So I’ve reproduced the article below, not because it flatters us, but because it explains us. Or perhaps more accurately: it explains the team we are becoming.

——

A Team built on controlled chaos and field dominance: A tactical profile of Chur

This is a side that lives in the tension between aggression and control, willingly accepting technical imperfections if it preserves the game’s tempo, territory, and emotional intensity. Their statistical signature paints a portrait of a team that keeps the ball reasonably often, runs harder than almost anyone, and presses with a density and conviction that suffocates opponents long before they reach the defensive third. It is a football built not on polish but on impact, volume, and repeat pressure.

The possession number suggests a team that keeps the ball with intent-not a low-block counter unit but a side comfortable sustaining phases. Yet the poor pass completion tells us the build-up is deliberately vertical, prioritising field progression over ball retention. This is reminiscent of teams like Atalanta or Stuttgart: sides that tolerate technical risk to generate momentum. They maintain a low volume of final-third passes, which indicates they don’t establish structured positional play. Instead, they attack the final third through:

• Direct ball speed, not circulation
• Running power rather than elaborate combination
• Early crosses into dynamic movements
• Dribbling as the primary disorganisation tool

The high cross completion rate strengthens this idea: they don’t cross speculatively; they cross when the structure is tilted and the run is available. It implies rehearsed wide patterns and coordinated box entries. Think Iraola’s Bournemouth – not patient possession, but purposeful possession. The volume of dribbles suggests they systematically create isolation zones for 1v1 superiority rather than overloading everywhere. Wingers or wide midfielders are key accelerators. When they get the defender square, the team attacks immediately. The shot numbers reveal the outcome: although the approach is messy, it is overwhelmingly productive. This is an attack built on:

• High shot volume
• High-quality shot locations (because so many reach the target)
• Relentless territorial pressure
• It is high-frequency football, not high-refinement football.

The team loses the ball more than most, which pairs logically with dribble reliance and direct progression. But they also win possession back extremely often-meaning the model is predicated on creating chaos and then owning the chaos. This is the hallmark of Bielsista counterpressure and Iraola’s rest-defence traps. The triggers happen immediately after turnovers. The low OPPDA value indicates that the team compresses space as soon as the opponent attempts to play, launching high-intensity sprints to force mistakes. The rhythm of their games is therefore:

Vertical attack → Turnover (good or bad) → Immediate re-engagement → Regain in the opponent’s half → Shoot again before the block resets

This loop repeats over and over. They don’t want defensive organisation – they want perpetual transitional pressure.

Despite technical imprecision with the ball, the side displays elite defensive outcomes: few shots conceded, few on target, and extremely low numbers of opposition passes attempted. That last element is crucial: the opponents simply cannot construct attacks because the press denies sequences.

Their defensive block is:

• Medium-to-high, rarely settled deep
• Compact horizontally, forcing outside play
• Aggressive in the first two lines, guiding passes into predictable traps
• Supported by extreme work-rate, shown by high sprint metrics

The team doesn’t defend with volume: low tackles, low blocks – this is because they don’t allow stable opposition attacks. The interceptions figure, however, is high. This fits a team that prioritises:

• Lane jumping rather than duel winning
• Reading passes rather than contesting dribbles
• Anticipation over reaction

It’s similar to Marco Rose’s Salzburg: pressing sides where you spend more time intercepting forced passes than tackling stable carriers. The clean sheet numbers confirm the effectiveness. This is a system where the defensive phase is so brief and so aggressive that opponents rarely create meaningful pressure. The foul count is high because the team frequently challenges in transition moments, often without deep defensive cover behind them. These are tactical fouls, used as part of game control; a necessary by-product of hyper-pressing behaviours. Yet the low volume of overall tackles shows attempted this isn’t a reckless side lunging into duels-rather, they foul to disrupt when the press break is imminent, not because they are perpetually out of control. This is typical of Guardiola’s early City, Nagelsmann’s Hoffenheim, and even prime Simeone-teams whose aggression is calibrated rather than chaotic. Taken as a whole, the team’s profile is unmistakable:

• A proactive, vertical-possession side
• Pressing-first, possession-second in its footballing logic
• Transition dominant in both directions
• Territorially suffocating without needing deep defensive actions
• Athletically extreme, relying heavily on intensity
• Technically imperfect but structurally assertive

In modern footballing terms, this is a club occupying the same stylistic space as Rayo under Iraola, Atalanta under Gasperini (less polished, more direct), Early Dortmund under Klopp, Lens under Haise in their red-zone pressing sequences and Stuttgart under Hoeneß for verticality and running power. A side that does not seek to dominate through sterile possession or elaborate positional networks, but through momentum, territory, and repeated waves of pressure.

In essence: Football as emotional intensity weaponised into tactical structure.