Wilson wrote a (decent to be fair) history of football tactics called, Inverting the W (I think) about ten or 15vyears ago. It was very well received.
Even though it offered no particularly great insights (agai, to be fair, why should it? He's a journalist not a coach) and the book was mostly a very well-researched chronological report of the evolution of football tactics, he has been lauded as something of a guru in the subject by his peers ever since. Why, only his peers can say but it baffles me.
(It can't be because they largely know fuck all on the subject surely but...) iIt'd be a bit like a food critic detailing the history of Russian food service and being regarded as a great chef by other food critics.
His book wasn't without fault/bias. (Remarkabley, it entirely overlooks the Revie Plan - the first time an English club successfully embraced European tactics).
Unfortunately, his reporting is so far not without fault/bias that it's difficult to take seriously. Never - in 15 years of sustained domination of English football- has he seen fit to praise City without some degree of straw-clutching mitigation or downright sarcasm of his own.
TL/DR? He's a vaguely competent historian but a tiresome journalist.
