In any 3 forward system to get a defensive block of 8 behind the ball requires a forward to come back and defend. This has always been true and resolved in various fashions for many years. (At one time Brazil handled it by having the left winger always drop back.) Professional players are expected to have a lot of discipline, so that is not a problem either. Actually the 433 is easier on wings than if they were playing wing-half in a 442. Also center forwards and strikers are expected to defend behind the ball too depending on circumstances. The drawback with having any forward drop back into the defensive block is that its means that they will not be as fresh for their offensive runs. With substitutions this is not as big a concern as it was 30 years ago.
In youth football, most coaches dont tell their full-backs to get forward, therefore leaving you with 7 outfield players to their 6 behind the ball.
That (large spaces in between the lines) is not a defect in a system of play but in the execution of team defensive tactics. The old modified zone defense has seams between zones which can be exploited. Block defending doesn't have individual zones so gaps to exploit are harder to find. Stretching a zone defense out of shape has always been an offensive objective. Its nothing new and common to many team sports.
One of the biggest issues that we often see when selecting players to ODP teams, or at a club level during tryouts, are the players that have played for coaches that stifle development by not allowing backs to get involved in the attack. Some still play for coaches that employ a sweeper and unfortunately, tactically, they are not very good at zonal defending because they have no experience and/or they were never taught. The difficult thing for me is that it's like pulling teeth encouraging the backs to carry the ball into space past midfield, or to get outside backs to just make the run without the ball down the wing or an overlapping run into the final third.
This is a great point and something that I really hate about a lot of Australian coaches. Although it has led to more goals conceded and a little less solidity in defence, I have my full-backs attacking as our main wide players while the wingers tuck in-field a little bit. When the team is playing well, we create many chances but so far, due to most players' inexperience as playing as a striker we havent converted as many chances or created heaps of clear-cut chances. As youth coaches, you shouldnt be coaching for your own benefit to build up your ego, but to develop players who could possibly play at the highest level.
That is so sad to hear. I have always coached on the lowest level and have seen a lot of poor coaching, but I have always thought that those problems were largely limited to recreational teams. You don't think that some of it may be due to unfamilarity with the other players or the system, such as 343 vs. 442, instead of poor coaching? From what you have said earlier I assume that you use 4 backs organized as a block zone defense. Someone who has only played a 343 is going to have no background for a 442 where the wingbacks typically are expected to get forward regularly on the wings when space presents itself. (Refering to the fact that in the 343 the back is third in line for a wing run instead of second in line.)
ranova, This are players from select teams at the highest division, Divsion II through U13. They are often on teams that either play with a sweeper, they play with 4 in the back, but the back 4 seldom if ever get forward, play the ball back to the keeper, circulate the ball around the back if the option to play forward is taken away. In essence, it's coaching for ONLY the win and not long term development. In ODP games, we play with a back 4. It varies on the team. This year we played 4-3-3 and 4-4-1-1.
The game system is 4-5-1 but it depends on the type of players. (4-2-3-1) (4-3-3)(4-1-4-1). The majority of teams use it.