Hi guys, I'm captain of a 7v7 (6 outfield players) side starting play soon, never really played the format... What formations and tactics are good to use in this setup? I was thinking 3-2-1 Christmas tree style, or maybe 3-1-2. Never done this as I said. Apologies if this is in the wrong forum.
I played in a 7v7 league for a while, so have a little experience with this. You actually don't want to have three defenders, because it makes the "outside back" role especially hard to define. If the outside backs overlap, you're left with only one central defender; and if they don't, you've got half of your team hanging back. We had some success playing a 2-3-1 (2-1-2-1) formation. Of course, formations are only descriptions, and shouldn't ever be rigid, especially not in smaller-sided games.
Totally agree. I play a lot of 7v7 and depending who I have on my team (both skill and tactically), we play either a 2-3-1 or a 2-1-2-1. But like Elninho said you can't be rigid. On my team where we've all played with each other for a while we do a 2-3-1 but it basically morphs into a 1-2-2-1 on offense because we're solid on defense and have lots of confidence in the one guy who stays back.
As i see it, a formation needs a spine: forward, central mid, central defender, and gk. so based on your philosophy and players is what dictates where you will arrange the remaining three players Then you need two players to provide width but its up to you if they need to be defenders wingers or midfielders or some hybrid. More important is the understanding of roles in each phase of the game. Ill save you my usual spiel about formations.
The other general assumption I make when selecting a system is that generally it is easier to get players to sprint forward to help the attack than to sprint back to help the defense. So I tend to stick the extras in the back two lines rather than in the forward line.
Agreed. It's an interesting phenomenon. Prob boils down to that people are willing to join the attack but not go pack hunting on defense. Which is odd because humans are by nature risk averse. They'd rather not lose what they have over gain something.
I think there's another aspect of it, which is what the players were doing just before the transition. Often, when a team loses a ball and switches from attack to defense, two or three players have just made lung-busting runs a moment before, and are far out of their normal positions. On the other hand, when a team wins the ball and starts the attack, players tend not to have just been sprinting. (Not to say defending is easier; sustained defending is more tiring than sustained possession. But right at that moment of transition, players don't immediately have to catch their breath.)
It's a naive way to play soccer (to go on lung busters and not be willing to come back). There's four distinct phases in the game so you can't attack, say as a fullback, and not think of the fact that we might lose the ball and I have to take care of my defensive responsibilities too. So players have to weigh that risk-reward carefully. Taking a historical view, this is why the Dutch of the 60s and 70s favored interchanging positions. If you were a fullback that bombed forward 70 yards, you didn't have to run back another 70 yards immediately. A teammate could cover your spot temporarily and over the course of the game you'd be so much fresher because at the end of a match. One of the things I dislike most about the soccer culture in the US is playing with unlimited subs. It doesn't teach you much about how to play the game for 90 minutes. You just run as hard as you can for so many minutes, take your sub, then go back out and run like a maniac. That type of play becomes too reliant on the body and not enough on the brain. Positioning and game awareness are never learned. Yes, from a practical standpoint, it'd be wise to position players with their reluctance to get back in mind. 7v7 is probably a good place to use wing backs.
Sure, interchanging positions is something any decent team will do. But that involves, among other things, knowing when teammates are bombing forward. At the amateur level, especially with makeshift teams, I've often seen players completely fail to adjust when their own fullback overlaps. For some reason they continue to defend their usual zones and expect the fullback to sprint 70 yards back. This is more of a breakdown in communication, I think. It rarely happens with a team that's played together for more than a few weeks.
We played in an adult 7 v 7 tournament this past summer. We played 3-2-1. Our strategy was that the FB on the side opposite of the ball would make a run and we would go 2-3-1 when on the attack. We had a mixed bag of talent but only gave up 1 goal in 4 games (the defender didn't press and a guy with a rocket for a foot put one past our keeper).
I hope I don't come across as condescending, but it's good that you understand that formations can be different between attacking and defending.