Indoor formations?

[KevTheGooner]

Hey Folks:

What do you use as an indoor formation? My U10 indoor league plays 7v7 as do most indoor leagues, IIRC.

My adult team plays a 2-3-1 but not very well.

I thought about just dropping the striker from our usual 1-2-1-2-1 formation, making the outside mids more of a striker?

[Twenty26Six]

I've seen...

2-3-1
3-1-2
3-3

...lately, I've toyed with the idea of using 3-3 more, because it forces the kids to reposition themselves based on situation and forces them to think [and subsequently learn] about what they are doing. But, you won't win right away with a 3-3.

[jmnva]

Our indoor league is 6 v 6. Last season, I played a mix of 2-3, 3-2 and 2-1-2 with the 1. What I've found with the relatively small field is that 2 lines generally worked better.

[ranova]

Generally the indoor I have seen has everyone attacking and everyone defending. On the attack one player (a back) insures depth so as to be in a position to stop a fast attack on a turnover. On defense one player (a forward) insures depth so as to be in a position to pressure the ball when near midcourt and to be able to show to recieve a pass after a turnover. Getting everyone involved in the defense and the attack imo is better for player development, and a winning team tactic as well. For U10 I would use a 33 with emphasis on team shape with positioning limited to a front line, back line designation. This will encourage mobility on both offense and defense, and will be a foundation to build on in the future (e.g., prep for a flat back four and withdrawn forwards in later years).

[KevTheGooner]

Hmmm, sounds like people are confirming the 1-2-1-2 formation...aka 3-3. The central players have to link between the front and back.

I also think its important to have the extra player on the boards since the boards make wing play so easy and potentially deadly. Its like the boards are always an extra attacker.

[NHRef]

In 7v7 I tend to play 2-2-2 and put pressure on the mids to run both ways

I've also used, and seen 2-1-1-2 used alot (basically a 3-3, but extended by the mids front/back)

When we drop to the smaller field for 6v6, I pull a striker and go 2-2-1

[Twenty26Six]

Hmmm, sounds like people are confirming the 1-2-1-2 formation...aka 3-3. The central players have to link between the front and back.

I also think its important to have the extra player on the boards since the boards make wing play so easy and potentially deadly. Its like the boards are always an extra attacker.

1-2-1-2 is not 3-3.

You're playing on a boarded field? I thought [hoped] those were extinct.

[CoachUSA]

"...lately, I've toyed with the idea of using 3-3 more, because it forces the kids to reposition themselves based on situation and forces them to think [and subsequently learn] about what they are doing. But, you won't win right away with a 3-3."

Right on the money, especially in regards to "forcing" them to learn.
The 3-3 is great at teaching players basic concepts that translate well to the big field.

The concept of creating depth in the offensive stage can be taught by "suggesting" the kids "form a triangle" with both wings positioned outside of either post and have the center hang back at the top of the arc. Tell the wings to look for either the cross or the shot. If both are unavailable, look for the drop to the "back row". Tell the back row that it is OK to move forward with the drop and take the shot from outside. The center and opposite forward are positioned to either receive the cross and shoot or "crash" the goal, looking for the rebound. Everybody participates in the offensive stage.

On defense, the traingle concept is again emphasized. I say, "When they come down your side, stand 'em up and steer them to the wall, the center moves behind and slightly inside to support while covering the central zone and/or the attacker. If you get beat, don't chase somebodies heels, the center moves outside to defend and you move back into a support position, again slightly inside and covering the central zone. The opposite side defender needs to watch the "back door"" (easier term for kids than far post). Forwards need to participate in the defensive stage by falling back and hindering specifically denying a straight up the middle attack. The punishment is getting scored on not being yelled at or substituted.

The formation forces an attack to begin with the back line; win the ball, look forward, look diagonaly, look square, choose to either carry or pass and then move back into position. It is easy for them to know when they are in or out of position in a 3-3. Best of all, the basic elements can be communicated with a dry erase board in less than two minutes (average attention span on game day).

The beautifull game becomes the teacher.

I've also used a 3-3-1 (really a 3-diamond 4) in outdoor as a teaching formation but emphasize lateral and diagonal ball movement to a greater extent. The "1" allows for me to introduce the concept of a checking run with wall pass distribution to either wing or an overlap from the center mid. Also, the "1" scores alot so even kids with weaker skills played in this spot get chances to score.

Just my two cents.

Cheers.

[KevTheGooner]

1-2-1-2 is not 3-3.

You're playing on a boarded field? I thought [hoped] those were extinct.

True...its not a 3-3 but as CoachUSA points out if your central players drop back a bit for depth it is a 1-2-1-2

And, yes, every indoor facility around here is with boards. I hate them but have no other option.

[KevTheGooner]

I've also used a 3-3-1 (really a 3-diamond 4) in outdoor as a teaching formation but emphasize lateral and diagonal ball movement to a greater extent. The "1" allows for me to introduce the concept of a checking run with wall pass distribution to either wing or an overlap from the center mid. Also, the "1" scores alot so even kids with weaker skills played in this spot get chances to score.

Just my two cents.

Cheers.

Also is my outdoor formation but we've been shut out in three straight games. :( That has more to do with the fact that we're playing in a league way too good for us than anything else though...

[KevTheGooner]

Oh...and interesting to hear people talking about forcing the play wide in indoor. I of course teach that in outdoors but with the wall in effect I often wondered if we should teach them to defend like hockey players: "Never let them beat you along the wall." I hate to think I have to teach hockey to soccer players but its a good question......

[Twenty26Six]

True...its not a 3-3 but as CoachUSA points out if your central players drop back a bit for depth it is a 1-2-1-2

Yes. But, you're not always dropping back into space. Your "CF" would also need to get ahead of the play and stay close to the "WF" thus creating combination opportunities. Then it would be a 1-2-2-1. In defense it's a 2-3-1, with the strong-side fullback pressing and the weak-side WF dropping in. Etc, etc.

I guess the point is: we shouldn't be coaching with such rigid guidelines as presented by a 1-2-1-2. You could use the 3-3 and only use designations like "forwards" and "backs" as ranova said, plus left, right, center. With that set-up, the kids will reposition themselves into many different formations without knowing it [they dont need to know it, formations are for coaches], and you'll know they aren't understanding the tactical concepts if they don't reposition correctly. Instant and honest feedback.

It's not going to win games early, but I'm starting to see more value in the 3-3*.

*Unless field size isn't appropriate, which happens at some places. But, that shouldn't be an issue with indoor.

[KevTheGooner]

Yes. But, you're not always dropping back into space. Your "CF" would also need to get ahead of the play and stay close to the "WF" thus creating combination opportunities. Then it would be a 1-2-2-1. In defense it's a 2-3-1, with the strong-side fullback pressing and the weak-side WF dropping in. Etc, etc.

I guess the point is: we shouldn't be coaching with such rigid guidelines as presented by a 1-2-1-2. You could use the 3-3 and only use designations like "forwards" and "backs" as ranova said, plus left, right, center. With that set-up, the kids will reposition themselves into many different formations without knowing it [they dont need to know it, formations are for coaches], and you'll know they aren't understanding the tactical concepts if they don't reposition correctly. Instant and honest feedback.

It's not going to win games early, but I'm starting to see more value in the 3-3*.

*Unless field size isn't appropriate, which happens at some places. But, that shouldn't be an issue with indoor.


Yeah, I'm starting to see what you mean. There will be a lot of players who will naturally figure out when to drop, when to push, when to support, etc.

For a team of all newbies, like this one, I have found that having more "rigid" positions has been important since they have has SO much to learn. But I might try this 3-3 and see what happens.

[Twenty26Six]

For a team of all newbies, like this one, I have found that having more "rigid" positions has been important since they have has SO much to learn. But I might try this 3-3 and see what happens.

Well, you're definitely going to lose games at the expense of learning. And, truth be told, that can be a hard choice for any coach. But think of how much back patting and chest pumping you can do around hear when you stick to your guns and coach development over results.You'd be like a junior Arsene Wenger around here. ;) Plus, you could post training sessions and strategies on the board for all of us to discuss and try and help you with.

I'm laying it on thick, you feeling the pressure? :D

[KevTheGooner]

Well, you're definitely going to lose games at the expense of learning. And, truth be told, that can be a hard choice for any coach. But think of how much back patting and chest pumping you can do around hear when you stick to your guns and coach development over results.You'd be like a junior Arsene Wenger around here. ;) Plus, you could post training sessions and strategies on the board for all of us to discuss and try and help you with.

I'm laying it on thick, you feeling the pressure? :D


Ha ha...yes, I've been very Wengerian this season, believe me. I think my parents think I'm crazy that I've been focusing more on training than the games...and believe me its not easy watching my girls get crushed every other game.

We're playing in a "b" division for indoor so I bet we would actually do alright in that setting regardless of formation.

I would also think that psychologically those three "forwards" wouldn't work hard to track back and defend many times. I've seen it more often than I'd like to admit.

[Wahoo]

I'm actually trying to decide how I want my kids to play this first indoor session.

I've got a group of U12 girls who play Div 2 but the team has large differences in abilility. Some girls wanted to play a first session of indoor - these are my more athletic and soccer skilled girls so I grabbed 2 girls from other clubs and we're giving it a shot. We'll play 7v7 against Div 1 and Premier clubs. Only 1 sub unless we use a guest player or sign someone else up but the parents and kids wanted it this way. Lots of field time, play against tough competition - see how the kids respond.

These kids will not mind if they lose every game this first session (I wil though) because they know the situation (I didn't tell them - they are smart enough). I don't expect that though, if they apply themselves, I think this subsection of the full team can play with top players/clubs of their age.

Now I have never seen these girls play indoor.
I plan to play a 3-3 because (as has been mentioned) that gives the kids less "rigid structure". Previous coaches had drilled "positions" into them where I try to convince them it's a free flowing game when you really get down to it (2 positions - goalkeeper and everyone else).

However due to the fact we'll be up against "better players" I'm tempted to use something more structured: 1-2-1-2 or 1-2-2-1.
So please ... someone remind me not to overcoach - and let them play the game (until it's obvious they need more structure).
:D

Seeing as how this is a learning experience -- 3-3 should be the right call, right? Even if we get whomped early in game one this Thursday against 1 of the 2 best teams in the league.

[Twenty26Six]

In theory, 3-3 should be the way to go. You may want to mix that up with some 2-3-1 or 3-1-2. You've got U12s and they should be able to gather information from those systems, as well.

How much 3-3 you can do probably depends on the length of the field. If the field is "too long" or "too narrow" for the girls to build-up and transition properly, then you're likely to see more success with 3 lines in your formation.

But, I think you should have "three lines" tops. Why go to a system that incorporates 4 lines of players if they're never going to play that way when they're older*?

* I know, I know 4-2-3-1 and other formations have come into popularity the last ten years. But, those formations don't utilize four, rigid lines - not in that way.

[Val1]

I would add that I think the 3-3 is best, but I always utilize a sweeper. I use a sweeper outdoors as well once we hit 11v11, so it's not much of a stretch, but sweeper is especially important because it is very easy to get caught out. Small field and all.

And here's a shout for boards. They're fun, they help give the indoor game a different tempo (and that's always a good thing), they get kids thinking in creative ways (like learning how to do a give and go with the wall) and they'll help your keepers work on their reflexes and recovering from deflections, missed shots etc. We're in the planning stages of building a community indoor facility and we are planning to install the boards. So embrace the boards.

[Twenty26Six]

embrace the boards.

I'll go along with that.

But a sweeper? I can't condone that! ;)

[Wahoo]

In theory, 3-3 should be the way to go. You may want to mix that up with some 2-3-1 or 3-1-2. You've got U12s and they should be able to gather information from those systems, as well.

How much 3-3 you can do probably depends on the length of the field. If the field is "too long" or "too narrow" for the girls to build-up and transition properly, then you're likely to see more success with 3 lines in your formation.

But, I think you should have "three lines" tops. Why go to a system that incorporates 4 lines of players if they're never going to play that way when they're older*?

* I know, I know 4-2-3-1 and other formations have come into popularity the last ten years. But, those formations don't utilize four, rigid lines - not in that way.
Why go to 4 lines? honestly - because they "understand" that better. Some girls on this team LOVE structure. That's how they were taught (they had the same coach for 3 years until he moved away). When I first started working with them in the spring they needed me to give them positions when playing 4v4. They were also defined as "defenders" or "attackers" at age 10. I'm slowly breaking them of this positional identity but it's still their comfort zone.

So now to this indoor session where we'll be expected to finish at the bottom. A structured lineup will keep them organized, and may minimize some of the pains associated with playing better competition. Once they realize they can compete, they feel better moving to a more fluid style.

If I tell the girls to play a 1212, they will understand the roles and who should help attack and defend. It's not ideal but it's safe. Same with a 1221.

Now if I tell them to play a 3-3 but to fill in gaps, move into attack or play defense as needed, there is the distinct worry they'll get totally confused out there in game 1 (against one of the better opponents) and end up with 5 players playing defense and 1 attacking. Another distinct possibility is that the left and right forwards (as they line up) will stay on their sides and not come back to help defensively because they claim they are "attackers" - this would end as 2 distinct lines of 3 defenders and 3 attackers.

I'm fighting some old habits. They were taught to play "their position" rather than adapting to the game as needed. So much so that I don't use the terms "attacker" or "defender" to define positions. To them a defender "defended" and wasn't allowed to join in the attack and vice versa. Heck it took me months to convince a couple midfielders they could score goals.

2-3-1 is a possibility and the 3 mids will move up and back as needed but could have problems defensively at first. 3-1-2 won't work with this squad at this point, it would end up with 3/4 players defending and 2/3 attacking. If I put a midfielder out there, the backs won't want to join the attack even in a supporting role. Not yet at least.