The NSCAA in America advocates the use of the 3-4-3 system for all youth development programs. I'm not a huge fan, myself. But, I understand why they choose to use it. Yep. The funny thing is that it (pressure/cover/balance) is probably the easiest thing to teach kids (12+) how to do.
Grinners, I disagree with certain aspects of your post regarding the 4-3-3 vs 4-4-2. The 4-4-2 is newer than the 4-3-3, however the 4-3-3 made a resurgence with coaches like Jose Mourinho using it at Chelsea. The 4-3-3 was first introduced by the Brazilians in the 1962 World Cup, but was made famous by the Dutch and Germans in 1974. The 4-4-2 was introduced in the late 80s and and early 90s and popularized by Arrigo Sacchi at AC Milan. I do agree that the sweeper stopper setup is outmoded. I prefer playing a flat back four over stopper/sweeper, because there is more flexibility with the flat back system, as opposed to the stopper/sweeper. The flat back system takes a little bit longer to learn, but once everyone including the fullbacks are on the same page, it is a very very solid system.
When did I mention anything in relation to your opening paragraph? I was talking about youth development, which as coaches, is our role...not coaching based on our own ego and on results. The sweeper system is basically using players in specific roles to cover for other players mistakes. Ive just recently reffed a NZ U18 team against a "select team" from Melbourne and the NZ, despite only being slightly better, won 6-2. The main cause of this, was the sweeper system employed by a friend of mine who is also a bit of an "old fashioned" coach. The NZ side played with a big gap between midfield and attack in a 4-4-2 system and despite poor service, their 2 forwards ran rings around the defence of the Aus team. The stopper was always caught out of position and there were massive gaps in the channels between the sweeper/stopper and full-backs. It was a perfect example of the failures of the sweeper system and how easily it can be taken advantage of.
Now that is a bit misleading. When you play with two centerbacks its really the same system but with the two centerbacks switching roles (cover versus pressure) to fit the circumstances. It is still very common to have defined outside back positions. The big difference is whether you defend in a modified zone or defend in a block. Its the modified zone that is out-dated. I watched Chelsea play a friendly in a 433 where they block defended with 10 men in the 433 shape. I can't imagine any team at less than the professional level having that much discipline. But that is the most extreme example I have seen.
Ranova, There is a difference in that a sweeper moves all along the back line to provide cover wherever the marking backs or stopper gets beat. You referenced the two center backs playing the same role as the stopper/sweeper, but by definition, they don't. As for the outside backs having defined roles, it can vary. For example, the back four and a center midfielder are appoached by an outside player on the left wing. In the following situation, A represents the attacking team. Should the outside back step to pressure or the midfielder? ----------CB-----CB---- ----RB------------------ ------------------------LB --------------------M ------------------------.A Some coaches want the left back to step to pressure and have the midfielder drop down and with the other backs. Another coach might want the midfielder to step to pressure. Depending on how you are playing, it is often the outside backs that are helping to provide width in attack.
This isn't true. It's tempting to say that it is the same, but it is not. The players move as a unit of 4. All 4 players pressure and all 4 players cover in different situations and at different angles. More importantly, is that coaches who use sweeper/stopper don't actively teach defensive principles. Edit: Jumbo got the point across better.
Either you didn't understand what I said or we just disagree. Your example has nothing to do with the difference between modified zone and block defending. As a coach for any particular play I don't care who is the first defender and who provides cover as long as the team is functioning as a unit. I certainly make a point of not criticizing players for getting the job done. I don't believe in micromanaging players. As for my example of the two centerbacks sharing roles a common variation is for the strong side centerback to play a marking back and the weakside centerback sweep, unless of course they are block defending. A system of play is supposed to help the players combine on the field. It is a means, not an end of itself.
Way too much generalization by you both. At the professional levels you are apt to see blocks of 5 to 8 players defending. But you often also see designated outside back positions in teams defending with 4 in the back, and often those outside backs maintain their flank position in a block defense primarily providing pressure or balance, and not cover unless they are beaten.
I get it. But, that isn't a great example, because it is flawed. If the RB is pressuring, then the "strongside" RCB becomes cover and does not mark. There are many moments in a game where both CBs are cover. So, the CBs do not split the roles of stopper and sweeper.
Hmmm. How do you explain the following: Between 1974 and 1994 out of 6 World Cups, 5 were won by teams with a sweeper/stopper system and between 1972 and 1996 out of 7 European Championships, 6 were won by teams with a sweeper/stopper system. In those years, teams playing with a flat back four were also around, so it's not like there was no competition for the sweeper/stopper system. Makes me wonder how any team could have have won any trophy with a sweeper/stopper system if it is so flawed?
I would ask how many teams have won those tournaments since 1998, playing with a sweeper/stopper? That's the last 3 World Cup cycles. I think you will find that not many have won since 2000 or even employed the system of play.
Surely, a new offside law and disallowing pass backs to the keeper have changed the tactics of defending considerably.
Just to make sure we are understanding each other in zone defending with a back 4, and I think flat back 4 is a misnomer. D=defedner, A=attacker, and *=ball. 1) 1st defender providing pressure on the ball D *A 2) 2nd defender, D2, - at proper distance and angle to provide cover for pressuring defender, D1. -------D2 ---D1-------- A1*-------A2 3) 2nd defenders, D2's, - at proper distance and angle to provide cover for pressuring defender, D1. --D2--------D2--- -------D1 A2------A1*----A2 4) 3rd defenders, D3's, - providing balance for areas of the field that are further away from the ball and keeping the defense compact. D1 and D2's same responsibilities as above. ---D3---- D2--------D2- ---------------D1--------- A3------------------------ --------A2-----A*1-----A2
I hate the sweeper stopper system when it's not executed correctly...The stopper generally get pulled out of position...it's crap when not played properly.
I don't think the recent changes to the offside law or to the keeper's use of hands have had much impact on team tactics. Players still use their keepers. Its just that foot skills are now important for keepers. I think the far more important change has been the substitution rules impact on team tactics. These rules have lead to increased pressure and higher work rates. Higher fitness levels have contributed too. It is hard to believe the work that modern soccer players do (the seven field players who play the full 90) in a game. Right now fitness is the only area in which the US Men's team excells, and its has caught the attention of the rest of the soccer world over the last ten years. I think that the ability to bring in a fresh attacker at the end of the game has influenced the switch from a modified zone to a block zone defense. The old system was basically a lot of 1v1 marking with a sweeper covering. Its harder to break down a block (zone) defense by simply bringing on fresh legs.
What dont you get about the fact that I did not mention anything about past tournaments. I never brought it up, and it has little bearing on a defensive set-up today.
The changes to the Laws of the Game meant that even was onsides and that players could be in offsides positions without being involved in the play. 1) Teams with dynamic players can make runs into offsides positions and pull marking backs and sweepers out of position, if the ball wasn't played to them, thus creating space to play the ball into and get behind the last defenders. Teams began to play a center forward even with and/or next to the sweeper, thus creating a 1v1 situation, or pulling a marking back out from a wide position to mark the forward. This created areas to attack that the sweeper couldn't get over fast enough to provide cover or become the pressuring defender, if the marking back got beat. 2) The back-pass change with goalies helped place a higher value on goalies that could use their feet. They could play behind the back four and be competent enough with their feet outside the box, eliminating the need for a sweeper. In my opinion, playing with a sweeper/stopper does not help the player, particularly the back line of players understanding and implementation of the principles of defending.
I'm pretty sure that everyone in this discussion (myself, Grinners, Ran, Jumbo, etc) understands block defense. I think we've even covered whole threads on it.
Grinners, Referring to your post, you mentioned that the 4-4-2 is outmoded. That is what I was responding to.
OK...but I wasnt talking about the 4-4-2 during the 50s, 60s or anytime before this decade. Its only been of late that managers have managed to exploit the large spaces in between the lines that the 4-4-2 has. The 4-4-2 has shown over the last 5 years to have significant holes in it and has an easy ability to break down. The traditional 4-4-2, which has one CM attacking leaves too much work on the remaining CM to somehow control the midfield and protect the defence. The only time a traditional 4-4-2 would work is in games like Liverpool vs Stoke, where Liverpool dont really need to worry about defending. Im fairly sure we are talking about the ability of systems in top quality matches.
Grinners89, Very few teams play a traditional 4-4-2 anymore, most play with two functional central midfielders, as opposed to the "generalisimo" in the hole. The issue that 4-3-3 brings up is that it takes a lot of discipline to have the wide forwards drop back and play defense. It requires a lot of energy to do that, especially on a big field.
Thats true...but in Junior football, the two wide players generally play more of an attacking role and arent required to consistently track back...their main purpose is to usually keep constant pressure on the opposing full-backs so that the oppositions midfield has less quality service. There are still a lot of teams that play a traditional 4-4-2 in England and they get caught out quite often. Aston Villa were playing a 4-5-1 for the majority of the 1st half of the season and when they bought Emile Heskey, they moved to a 4-4-2 and from then on they struggled. I know that part of it was fatigue, but all teams wouldve been slightly fatigued by that stage. Bringing in Heskey and altering their formation significantly reduced both Young and Milner's impact on the flanks and left their midfield almost completely exposed, even with Petrov doing a great job protecting his defence and distributing.
Youth or professional level, when the wing forwards dont drop, their teams get overwhelmed numerically in midfield.