Youth soccer game coaching tactics (what are the most rediculous)

I have an idea of these terms, but am curious if what you mean is different than what I mean when you say

 

In general there are three basic types of defensive organization: man-to-man, zone, and modified zone (a mix of zone and man-to-man).

Generations ago man-to-man defenses predominated in soccer. A player marked an individual opponent whenever and wherever necessary.

Then modified zones began to be used in soccer to counter the strategy of dragging fullbacks away from the goal to creat space. An example of modified zone is where a player is assigned a zone of responsibility in which he defends against all opponents man-to-man. In soccer this type of modified zone organization is sometimes called zonal marking.

Another common example of modified zone in soccer is the classic defense on corners where 2 players are designated to defend zones (areas at each goal post) and the others mark someone man-to-man.

A pure zone defense has the team defending the field as a team rather than as individuals or in separate zones. In basketball it is common to see teams switch between man-to-man and zone defenses. Pure zones are relatively new to soccer. You see them most in high level soccer with teams typically playing zone in a 442 shape with 2 lines of 4 defending behind the ball. I have seen Chelsea use a 433 shape in a pure zone in a friendly. This is usually seen in a delayed high pressure defense (line of confrontration about 10 yards over the half line. And you also will see a 433 shape in a high pressure defense (pressing box to box).

For a long time USSF and USYSA has advocated teaching zone defense initially. They don't come out and say this, but when you are teaching "pressure, cover, and balance" you are teaching a zone defense. My experience is that many youth coaches don't understand this, so they don't understand "pressure, cover, and balance." They end up teaching zonal marking because in the 1980s and 1990s zonal marking was predominate. Unless they also played another sport like basketball, they won't have experience in a zone defense.

A further confusion results from the fact that in practice when the defense has their back against the goal line, every defense reverts to man-to-man coverage out of necessity. Everyone has to be tightly marked in that area. When defending restarts in that area, coaches for that reason will consider the number of players left available for man-marking when assigning players to defend an area. It is all a tradeoff.

Please pardon the long answer, which you didn't need, but I wanted to be clear for everyone.

 

My senior year of high school I coached a U-15 Co-Ed Recreation team. I came from a small town and most of the boys on my team had a season of varsity soccer under their belts. (It was funny coaching teammates, I guess they still help respect for me as their captain) Needless to say it was a step down in competition. Well it was my first solo "head coaching" gig and I was a bit over zealous. Looking back on our double digit win margin during most games, makes me cringe. Also how when we were clearly ahead I would still argue calls. Looking back on it I would probably go back and slap some sense in myself lol.

 

I don't think ajbirch07's attitude was driven by participation in the match. It appears to be a purely natural difference in values and perspective everyone should gain with life-experience. To a high school athlete, winning a soccer match, has much more importance than to someone older and more experienced, typically. (There are always exceptions.)

I can remember at 13 being unable to imagine myself ever reaching the far distant future age of 20. Nothing changed my priorites as much as becoming a father myself, like flipping a switch, and totally unexpected. And this is typical too. Single males make significantly different decisions than non-single males. This is not a comment on anyone's marital status, just a comment that people's values change with experience. This is also not a judgment as to whose values are better. Just a statement that values change.

 

Yes I wasn't participating in the match it was more of a sense of crushing the competition. To this day I'm still embarrassed about how I acted. During practices I was always calm and had the same expectations every practice. My focus was always to teach teamwork while instilling a scrappy, high energy work ethic. It was just when we were up 12-0 and I just had to challenge a bad offside call that I'm embarrassed about.

 

rca2 - Thanks for a great, enlightening answer.

I'm familiar with pressure etc... but what is the task of each individual in zone defense as opposed to zonal marking? In zonal marking, it's easy - mark the opponent. I don't see what you have people doing in pure zone defense? Making their area more "dense" with defenders such that it discourages passing there? Standing in passing lanes to opponents that may be behind them? Love to get a better idea of what each defending player is supposed to do.


High pressure defense ... I remember playing against opponents in high school who pressed the whole length of the field and I hated it... not having much ball control skills and playing defense, it was very hard to handle. They were quite successful at getting the ball from us in the attacking third, unfortunately.

You also reminded me of this post I recently wrote up about striker drifting, which is related to what you discussed about dragging fullbacks out of position. (I refer to zone defending as I understand it, but may update the post if I realize that it's something other than what I thought.)
http://www.rockthepitch.com/blog/striker-drifting-what-how-used/

 

In a pure zone defense (not defending in the danger area in front of the goal), there are no individual assignments and no individual zones. There is no man-marking off the ball. Just a collective team responsibility to defend the entire field. The defensive organization is defined as a team shape and how many players are defending behind the ball. Typical would be a 442 shape--2 lines of 4 behind the ball and 2 players in front of the ball providing additional depth and usually placed to interfere with back passes to the opposing backs.

For simplicity think of this in terms of a transition from attack to defense. Regardless of numbers or shape USYSA explains the zone defense as having three player roles: pressure, cover and balance. They refer to these roles as 1st defender (pressure), 2nd defender (cover) and 3rd defender (balance). The roles are shared by all and the individual's role will change with the circumstances. These roles are also in order of priority. The player nearest the attacker (with the ball) assumes the first defender role. His role is no different than a "1st defender" in a man-to-man or zonal marking system. Immediate pressure on the ball is the defense's first priority. The second defender's role is the next important defense priority: depth behind the first defender. In other systems a sweeper or CB would perform this function. In a pure zone, it performed by the nearest player available. The rest of the team are third defenders who move to supporting positions to fit the circumstances. They provide "balance," which normally means width and depending on their position in the team "shape" probably "cover" (depth) as well.

In practice the defensive shape is like an amoeba making constant adjustments as the opponents and ball move around the field. The concept is to maintain the ideal shape for the changing circumstances. The advantage of the pure zone, is that the team as a whole will adjust more quickly because the functions are determined by which player is closest, rather than predetermined roles. For instance if the team uses a sweeper, the time it takes a sweeper to switch sides to follow a switch in fields by the opponents can be exploited. In a zone, whoever is closest to the first defender provides him cover.

Taking basketball as an example, in a zone defense after a turnover ideally you want your tallest players in back of the formation near the basket positioned for rebounding--but nonetheless you set up the defensive shape based on who is available first. A quick transition is more important than assigning fixed positions. Later when it can be done safely the players will switch spots within the formation.

 

So rca2, what you're saying is that in zonal marking, only certain players will provide pressure or cover or balance (a la a sweeper), and others may never do so? Aside from the sweeper example, I'm having a hard time even picturing how such a system would work.

Even in a true zonal system, players must position themselves in relation to the opponents--in fact, to specific opponents who are near them. So even though the roles are more fluid, marking is still done essentially one-on-one at any given time, and defenders position themselves based on that one player they are marking (goal side, ball side, proper angle & distance, etc.).

Are there situations in a zonal system where you feel defenders should simply cover space, rather than mark relative to a defender? Because in my world, that's usually a recipe for disaster (saying: Space doesn't score goals, players do).

 

A big difference between zone and man. The time it takes to transition from defense to attack in a possession game is a lot less in a zone then in man. In man you might have to track a player from one side of the field to the other. Then move back to start a possession game. That is why in man you try to counter more.

Another difference is you don't have to be a great 1 v1 tackler to play in a zone. In man you have to work on your tackling more then in a zone. There are more double teams in zone then man on defense.

 

So the difference between zone defense and zonal marking is that in zone, the second defender provides cover (i.e. ready nearby in case the 1st defender is beat), whereas in zonal marking, the second defender doesn't provide cover, he marks the man in his zone. Is that it properly?

So in other words zone defense in soccer isn't like zone defense in basketball, which is really "zonal marking" in soccer terms, where each player has a space to defend and he marks opponents entering it. Zone defense in soccer means that players work to defend the specific zone of the pitch where the ball is currently located? Is that how you understand it? If so, that clarifies things...the basketball terminology got me confused.

Also, what would it mean to provide width on defense? To mark someone/space that is further away than the first two defenders' area? I thought you're meant to be compact on defense, so this seems counterintuitive.

I hear what you're saying about maintaining the 4-4-2, but that seems true about zonal marking as well, so i don't see that as a distinguishing trait between the two, rather more of a difference vs man-to-man marking.

 

No. In a zone defense "the second defender" is not a person but a role that may be assumed by anyone. (Maybe that is not what you meant, but it is how I interpret what you wrote.) In zonal marking players are man-marking within individual zones. They are not adjusting to provide cover and balance; they are man-marking within their assigned areas. There are no second and third defenders or second and third defender roles. IF you have a sweeper then he is providing cover and not assigned a zone or man-marking duties. In a zone defense there is no one second defender or sweeper. It is a role that may be assumed by any player depending on circumstances. In a modified zone defense, you might have a sweeper, some zonal marking and some man-to-man marking (or any other mix).

You have to consider that no one (except maybe U-Littles) plays exclusively man-to-man or zone defense in a match. Generally its a mix of zone and man-to-man depending on circumstances including area of the field.

Where it gets really confusing is that a flat-back four may be organized as a zone or as zonal marking. If teams are playing well, its difficult to tell which they are using from just observing. Except for teams defending in a zone with 2 lines of 4, zonal marking is far more common than than anything else.

In the future I think more high level teams will move to DMs and CBs defending the center as a zonal block of 4 with flank players adding width with zonal marking. This is how I describe Brazil in the 2010 finals. This frees the fullbacks from responsibility to hang back against a counterattack. I think the norm is only one DM staying back with the fullbacks playing conservatively.

 

Yes and No.

I don't know anyone that plays a zonal-marking system like that.

Zonal marking ismore or less a concept used to define how players interact 1v1 in a zonal defensive system.

The "zones of occupance" (if you want to be hyper-technical) still move around the field, and the covering/balancing zones work in connection with the pressuring zones.

 

A "sweeper" is not "zonal marking." A team that combines zonal marking (man-marking within individual zones) with a sweeper is using a modified zone defense. "Pressure, cover, and balance" are a description of how to play a (pure) zone defense. Not a (pure) man-to-man. Not a modified zone, which is any organization that combines elements of man-to-man with elements of zone. In theory you could have a modified zone defense where all 10 field players were zonal marking, but I think that is rare.

I would say that "in a true zonal system, players must position themselves in relation to the opponents" but not in relation to specific opponents but thinking of the whole situation and the maintaining the proper team shape for the circumstances. In other words in a pure zone, the "first defender" will be keying on the opponent with the ball, but everyone else will be cuing on their teammates primarily and the positions of the opponents as a secondary consideration. If you notice the trend in high level soccer defending zonally in two lines of four, the entire line will maintain spacing and move to the strong side of the field leaving no one in the vicinity of the weak side opponents. When the ball is switched the team races to adjust forming a compact two line of four shape on the new side of attack. If the players were concerned about marking opponents on the weak side, their shape would be stretched out. The faster that the team can adjust from side to side, the more compact they can stay.

Visually this clue is how to distinguish a pure zone defense from a modified zone where movements of players are restricted to certain areas of the field.

 

I wasn't describing a particular defensive organization. Zonal marking is a possible element of defenses like man-to-man marking. Elsewhere I mentioned that while you could have all 10 players zonal marking, I don't think that actually happens. I have played on teams that had 9 players zonally marking (stacked 3x3) with a sweeper and played on one novice pickup team, where the backs zonally marked 4 across. It was a forced choice due to the lack of experience of most players.

I think introducing more terms in the discussion is going to create more confusion. Zone, Modified Zone, and Man-to-Man are three general classifications of defensive organizations for the multitude of different possible defensive organizations. The old tactical USSF concept of the field with four channels lengthwise was suited to describing zonal marking as it adjusts to circumstances. The new tactical concept of the field is not with its giant central channel and two narrow flanking channels. It lends itself to a discussion of a zone defense. And I think that if we start discussing the fact that the individual zones for zonal marking move around the field as circumstances change, we will only create more confusion.

Your characterization of zonal marking as a description of how players function in a zone defense is why I say most coaches teach zonal marking (a modified zone defense)--rather than an actual zone defense which is what I interpret USYSA's "pressure, cover and balance" to want taught initially to U-Littles playing 4v4. That is not saying you are wrong. That is me saying that most coaches see it your way.

 

I'm still a bit confuzzled by your terminology and disagree that PCB means you don't necessarily mark players farther from the ball.

In your example, the weak side opponent need not be marked tightly, but the weak side defender must still be aware of that player, have good body shape, and position himself to be able to able to slide over if the ball is switched. The farther from goal and farther from the ball, the further away the defender can be from the opponent--but IMO that opponent is still being "marked", even if from 30 yards away--one defender taking responsibility for one attacker. Perhaps it's just that my definition of "mark" is a bit more expansive? I do not take it to mean you must be tight on an opponent. To me, it simply means to take responsibility for tracking one opponent. That tracking may be very tight (what most think of as "marking") or extremely lose (e.g. ball is in the attacking right corner, and the left back is simply keeping an eye on the opponents right winger who is just hanging out).

 

There is such a thing as defending an area rather than marking an individual. A point that I have made elsewhere is that in soccer most coaches teach a zone defense as zonal marking. This is why I still remember the Chelsea 433 zone defense. It stands out as an exception. Unique because it was a pure zone and because the shape was 433. The discipline in the execution was outstanding. The opponent could not figure out how to break it down, because there were no seams between zones and no man-marking so the normal runs and passing didn't result in anything but shifting the perfect defensive shape from side to side or up and down the field.

Unless you are Barca (and simply play through impossibly tight spaces) the way to beat a zone is rapid switches until they slow down their adjustments or through balls around or behind the defense. Excellent long passing and receiving skills help a lot.

 

I think the issue for a few of us is that it does seem that way.

Player do not defend in the same zone the whole game. A "back four" does not cover the full width of the field the whole game. The zones most certainly do move, because the players move. If I can find the time to draw a diagram, I will try.

No one plays a pure zone. Even the "two lines of 4" zone that you speak about incorporates a lot of zonal marking. Chelsea, Liverpool, and Roy Hodgson's England have used that technique in the past. It's still heavily shaped by zonal marking. The high pressure of Barcelona and Bayern has a lot of zonal marking also.

Finally, pressure, cover, and balance are not exclusive to a "pure" zone. They are just concepts like you first said.

I do agree that modified zone, zone, and man-to-man are the three classicifications. However, I see the lines as much blurrier and grayer than most.

 

Even in a man defense It is a mix of man marking near the ball and a zone far from the ball.

 

The only thing I disagree with is that no one uses a pure zone. It is very rare. I remember distinctly watching Chelsea using a pure zone 433 for a friendly in the States. I remember it because it is the only time (in 50 years) I ever saw anyone play a pure zone right back to the goal line and use a 433 to boot.

The only reason I make the distinction is because the visual cues are different in a pure zone and in zonal marking. When you initially teach a pure zone, you don't need the opposing team, just the location of the ball and the defending team. To initally teach zonal defending you need the attacker with the ball and the opponents in or moving into the individual's zone. You don't need the defender's team mates. This illustrates how the visual cues are different. You need more when you put it all together to factor in the offsides rule and how the individual zones adjust as the ball moves around the field. And of course also when you cover switching assignments to adjust for absent team mates or flooded zones. Then you need the whole team especially the keeper.

 

I disagree with the latter, as all you are teaching is who steps to pressure the ball, and IMO this has little to do with your defensive system. It's just simple first-person defending. Without teammates, there's nothing to teach.

In your former example, I fail to see what you're accomplishing at all. If there are no opponents other than the player with the ball, what do the other defenders do except stand in their allotted space on the field?

I'm really having trouble visualizing your distinction--especially since you say you've only ever seen a "pure zone" once, meaning I've probably never seen it either. And I can't reconcile your description with my belief that ALL defensive positioning must be relative to both ball and opponents. In my world you can't have only one of those.

 

If your comment is about zonal defending, that is not true. You are teaching how to mark within a zone. I think you are assuming that there is only one opponent, and that the ball and opponent are both within the zone.

.
In a pure zone individual players do not have "allotted space on the field." Assigning individual areas to defend is the essence of zonal marking.

If done properly, a pure zone and zonal marking are difficult to tell apart. And as I have remarked elsewhere we have a generation who have played nothing but zonal marking, but you probably meant that you have never seen a pure zone used--"in 11v11 soccer." It is used in basketball and basketball 23 (or 32) zone defenses are adapted for 6v6 indoor soccer a lot. In 11v11 think of the classic defense on corners where two players are assigned to protect the area near the two goal posts until the ball is won or cleared up field. That is an example of defending an area without man marking.

Hope that helps some, rather than further confuses it.

 

You wrote, "To initally teach zonal defending you need the attacker with the ball and the opponents in or moving into the individual's zone. You don't need the defender's team mates." Are you saying that you are only training one defender, or perhaps what you meant is that each defender positions themselves independently of the other defenders?

Well, what is an "alloted space on the field" but a zone? My wording may not have been elegant, but I think we are talking about the same thing--aren't we? You typically see zonal defending diagrammed in "lanes" across the field, the central lanes being a bit narrower than the outer ones, and each defender has responsibility for a zone. Those zones are somewhat fluid, and players can shift as opponents enter/leave zones, but where they go still depends on the location of those opponents and the ball.

Maybe the reason is that on a much smaller field, you can quickly get to a player to cover them more tightly. As you've said yourself, at some point you have to actually close on a specific player (either with the ball or without) and "man mark". On a big soccer field, if you don't, your opponent will find whatever space you are not covering and use that to exploit you. I'm still a bit unclear on how you're defining "pure" zone defense, but that's probably because I have a strong bias that it doesn't work very well in soccer.

I get the guarding-the-posts thing, but that's a corner case , especially when all your other players in that situation will be man-marking. In my view, it doesn't happen during the run of play.