How to prepare players for a totally different style

[saabrian]

I was wondering how you deal in practice/training with playing a team who has a totally different style than your own. And for this, I'm speaking primarily of high school age teams.

For example, most of the higher level teams in this area play the typical US youth (ie: English) style which is a) 100 mph forward all the time and b) boot the ball to the corners or up the flanks and turn the game into a track meet.

By contrast, my teams tend to play a style based on control, possession and change of pace. My teams' style is positive and attacking, but it's not reckless and aimless. It's a slower tempo than most of our opponents.

In other words, with the other teams, the play is always fast and with the ball very often in the air. With my teams, the play is more controlled and with the ball usually on the ground.

Yes, our possession game should hopefully limit the number of chances the other team gets but obviously I want my defenders and mids to be prepared for how to deal with that faster pace if we're playing a team that turns the game into a track meet. If my team defense can't deal with the other team's speed, then they won't neeed many chances.

I could tell my players to boot the ball to the corners during intra-team scrimmages in order to give my defenders and mids experience in dealing with that but then I risk getting use to actually playing (instead of just defendign) a style that completely the opposite of what I want.

So how would you acclimatise your players to facing a faster tempo without getting other players into what I consider bad habits? How do you prepare them for a different style without making it your own?

I usually coach younger (U12, U14, middle school) age levels where this isn't an issue. And when I've coached older teams, our "track meet" opponents haven't been good enough to pull it off. But I'm just trying to prepare for when this situation inevitably arises.

Thanks.

[Twenty26Six]

If you focus on perfection and constant refinement of your own team's tactics, this shouldn't be much of an issue. But, two things you could do to help yourself are:

(a) understand the specific strengths and weaknesses of both styles of play; understand the aspects of the game where the other formation is superior to yours; then, strengthen your team in those specific areas through training

(b) encourage your own players to recognize and analyze the different tactics between teams; this way, they can adjust on the field.

[J-Rod]

This is a darn good topic. I wish there were more responses because this, IMHO, seems to be a real issue with soccer in our country. I think this is the debate between the long ball and the small ball game. Being from the US southwest, we get a lot of South American and Latin American influences and we tend to play mostly small ball soccer. It is interesting in the adult league when get someone from England on the team who only knows the long ball game.
It is also interesting, since the state organization’s coaching infrastructure is full of long ball coaches. Yes, they are from England. They think the ultimate play is the 40-yard pass in the air. I have heard them say just that. They get very disdainful that our players don’t have this as their primary skill and that the local coaches don’t think of this enough. It makes me wonder, given the England team’s inability to compete at the European level - primarily due to the tactical naivety of the players - why we continue to emulate this coaching and playing style in the US. I think I will start paying more attention to the German-American coaches that I know. : -)
You never know when you will run into a clash in styles. We played a team of predominately Hispanic players recently from a large border city and their playing style seemed very British to me. I hadn’t seen that many direct passes up the wing and long crosses in the air to the far post in a long time. I don’t think the ball was played into the penalty area on the ground once.
Which still brings up the question. If you play small ball, i.e., possession soccer, what is the best way to prepare for the long ball, run and kick tactics?

[ranova]

I have to disagree with your characterization of the issue as short passes versus long passes and as styles of play.

Using nothing but short passes or nothing but long passes is bad tactics, not a style of play.

Controlling the tempo of the match (speed up, slow down) is a tactic, not a style of play.

Pentrating down the flanks rather than the center of the pitch is an accepted tactic (stretching the defense), not a style of play.

The ability to make an accurate 40 yard pass (or cross) should be a basic skill of any competent older youth or adult player. Advanced players should be able to pass with either foot and bend the ball as well.

Possession soccer is not equivilent to short passes. Possession soccer is when a team systematically chooses to make safe passes to maintain possession rather than make low-percentage shots or passes. Direct play is normally thought of as when rapid penatration is sought leading to an early shot on goal. Possession teams can play directly. It's just that if the direct play does not lead to a good opportunity for a shot, a pass is made to maintain possession. You can often see this in professional matches where a team rapidly moves up the field but is unable to break down the defense. The attacking team will typically then pass the ball back to its back line and retreat back into the middle third of the field stretching the defense out so that penatration can start all over again hopefully with a better opportunity for a shot. How they pass is not limited to only short or long passes. The most success usually comes from combinations of short and long passes.

[Twenty26Six]

I have to disagree with your characterization of the issue as short passes versus long passes and as styles of play.

Using nothing but short passes or nothing but long passes is bad tactics, not a style of play.

Controlling the tempo of the match (speed up, slow down) is a tactic, not a style of play.

Pentrating down the flanks rather than the center of the pitch is an accepted tactic (stretching the defense), not a style of play.

The ability to make an accurate 40 yard pass (or cross) should be a basic skill of any competent older youth or adult player. Advanced players should be able to pass with either foot and bend the ball as well.

Possession soccer is not equivilent to short passes. Possession soccer is when a team systematically chooses to make safe passes to maintain possession rather than make low-percentage shots or passes. Direct play is normally thought of as when rapid penatration is sought leading to an early shot on goal. Possession teams can play directly. It's just that if the direct play does not lead to a good opportunity for a shot, a pass is made to maintain possession. You can often see this in professional matches where a team rapidly moves up the field but is unable to break down the defense. The attacking team will typically then pass the ball back to its back line and retreat back into the middle third of the field stretching the defense out so that penatration can start all over again hopefully with a better opportunity for a shot. How they pass is not limited to only short or long passes. The most success usually comes from combinations of short and long passes.

I think you're over analyzing what he is saying. Just because he is using different nomenclature, does not mean he isn't talking from a position of awareness.

Also, a style of play may not necessarily be a tactic [A tactic is a method employed to help achieve a certain goal], because it may not be on purpose. But ANY tactic is definitely a style of play. "Style of Play", proper, is derived from a culture's belief that certain "tactics" are fundamental, correct, and advantageous if employed. Not much difference here.

The aerial, 40-yd ball is a nice skill to have. But, I don't value it very highly. It'd be close to last in the pecking order. I only see it as functionally adequate when switching the point of attack with our backs. And, even then, I'd rather see two connected, ground passes.

Re: J-Rod's post
I, myself, am very influenced by the Latin/South American style. I make players play on ground to feet whenever possible. And, I'd rather see penetration via creative dribble or combination play in the final third than ANYTHING else.

[J-Rod]

The ability to make an accurate 40 yard pass (or cross) should be a basic skill of any competent older youth or adult player.

On the ground or in the air? Which do you think is more important?
Rhetorical question, assuming you can't say both ;-)

[ranova]

On the ground or in the air? Which do you think is more important? Rhetorical question, assuming you can't say both ;-)

From your question I could assume that you think of soccer in two dimensions, don't know the typical distance from the corner flag to the far post, and don't understand that a ball in the air travels faster, farther, and is more accurate on all but perfect fields. But I don't make those assumptions so I am not going to bother to answer your questions.

[ranova]

"Style of Play", proper, is derived from a culture's belief that certain "tactics" are fundamental, correct, and advantageous if employed.

I don't agree with your definition of "style of play", although I know what people mean by "latin" style of play and "English" style of play.

I personally believe that what are often described as cultural styles of play are actually situational. For instance high school teams without enough skilled players and free substitution rules play "English" long ball because that coach believes (probably properly) that it is the best approach for his situation. Often people describe a team playing a counter-attacking style as "English", but the decision to use a counter-attacking style is usually based on the situation. Its not cultural. On the other hand if you have short, highly skilled players, playing with limited substitutions in hot weather, all teams will probably use what is referred to as a "latin" style of play. If you are facing a 3-5-2, long diagonal balls into the wing areas are an excellent way to break down the defense, which is strong centrally but weak on the flanks. Again its situational.

I play in a league with a large number of foreign players from all over the world. A few even have been on my team. Some teams do play "English" and "Latin" styles. But if they are not adjusting their tactics to the situation, they lose. The good teams do adjust. They can play any style.

[Twenty26Six]

From your question I could assume that you think of soccer in two dimensions, don't know the typical distance from the corner flag to the far post, and don't understand that a ball in the air travels faster, farther, and is more accurate on all but perfect fields. But I don't make those assumptions so I am not going to bother to answer your questions.

There's really not a reason to be snide here.

Corner kicks are few and far between in a match - compared to actual touches on the ball.

In the technical review of the UEFA Champions League 06/07... it shows a breakdown of how goals were scored.

309 Total Goals/33% of them were off a corner/following a corner. So, even in the professional game, corners aren't as significant as some would think.

Of the remaining 274 goals, 55 were crossed in the from the wing. Still only 20%.

After that, of the remaining 219 goals, 52 were forward passes through or over the defense.

This was the break-down of goals from open play...
Combinations - 23
Crosses - 55
Cut-backs [from bye-line] - 11
Diagonals - 10
Running with the ball - 20
Long range shots - 45
Forward passes - 52
Defensive errors - 6
Own goals - 6

[Twenty26Six]

I don't agree with your definition of "style of play", although I know what people mean by "latin" style of play and "English" style of play.

I personally believe that what are often described as cultural styles of play are actually situational. For instance high school teams without enough skilled players and free substitution rules play "English" long ball because that coach believes (probably properly) that it is the best approach for his situation. Often people describe a team playing a counter-attacking style as "English", but the decision to use a counter-attacking style is usually based on the situation. Its not cultural. On the other hand if you have short, highly skilled players, playing with limited substitutions in hot weather, all teams will probably use what is referred to as a "latin" style of play. If you are facing a 3-5-2, long diagonal balls into the wing areas are an excellent way to break down the defense, which is strong centrally but weak on the flanks. Again its situational.

I play in a league with a large number of foreign players from all over the world. A few even have been on my team. Some teams do play "English" and "Latin" styles. But if they are not adjusting their tactics to the situation, they lose. The good teams do adjust. They can play any style.

You play in an American league? Because if you do, then it's an American style of play - based on the amalgamation of different influences.

To see different "styles of play". Watch the Brasiliero compared to the EPL or the Bundesliga.

[Twenty26Six]

If you are facing a 3-5-2, long diagonal balls into the wing areas are an excellent way to break down the defense, which is strong centrally but weak on the flanks.

And, I'd play a 4-4-2 emphasizing numbers-up situations on the flanks - using my Fullback and winger. It'd be combination play - wall passes, 1-2s, overlaps to break down the weak flank defense. Which might be considered a "Brasilian style".

Or, I'd play a 4-3-3 with 3CMs to neutralize the 5-man midfield's advantage. Then, once past the central cluster, it'd balls played [on the ground] to the forwards in a 4-on-3 numbers-up situation. Which might be considered a "dutch style".

Those two countries, plus you, all think you are correct. Hence, why there are different "styles of play". Tactics ARE situation but, some countried think they are more correct than others. Which is why...

"Style of Play", proper, is derived from a culture's belief that certain "tactics" are fundamental, correct, and advantageous if employed.

[rca2]

Twenty26Six. Please take a look at your post again. You are literally saying that you would choose to use a particular country's style of play to handle a particular situation. That fact that your "style" choices for the situation are different from mine--a long diagonal ball--(I am ranova) does not detract from the point I made that "style" is driven by the situation rather than culture. I won't deny that the latin style has cultural aspects to it. The fans of the latin style expect to see individual displays of skill with the ball as much as North American minor league hockey fans want to see a fight. Professional sports are afterall part of the entertainment industry. I don't know of any similar comparison for other styles. No one that I know watches the EPL wanting or expecting to see someone chasing after long hopefull balls down the wings. One of England's big problems internationally is that the EPL consists mostly of foreign players.

[J-Rod]

From your question I could assume that you think of soccer in two dimensions, don't know the typical distance from the corner flag to the far post, and don't understand that a ball in the air travels faster, farther, and is more accurate on all but perfect fields.

Ouch.
I was just trying to stimulate a little discussion on a topic I find interesting.

[Twenty26Six]

Twenty26Six. Please take a look at your post again. You are literally saying that you would choose to use a particular country's style of play to handle a particular situation.

Actually, I didn't realize that they mirrored specific "styles of play" until after I had wrote them. But, nice try! ;)

Initially, I only wanted to point out that other people find other options more appropriate or effective. It doesn't make them wrong or right. However, different soccer cultures DO not agree on the same solutions to the same soccer problems. That is the basis of "style of play".

[Twenty26Six]

rca/ranova. I can't, for the life of me understand why you are so vehemontly arguing for any point in this thread.

Help me out here, why does it bug you so much that he "bad-mouthed" direct aerial play?

[Twenty26Six]

That fact that your "style" choices for the situation are different from mine--a long diagonal ball--(I am ranova) does not detract from the point I made that "style" is driven by the situation rather than culture.

If that were the case, every country would play the same tactics against each other.

Do the Belgians and Netherlands play the same style? Do they use the same tactics when each team plays the Swiss? Of course not.

[rca2]

rca/ranova. I can't, for the life of me understand why you are so vehemontly arguing for any point in this thread.

Help me out here, why does it bug you so much that he "bad-mouthed" direct aerial play?

It doesn't bug me. I don't have an ax to grind. I think that I have some worthwhile ideas and am trying to pass that along. And he didn't bad mouth aerial play. He just questioned the need for that skill in the game. I was originally trying to be helpful by providing the discussion requested to continue the thread. Then after further posts provided a clear explanation of why I think long passing is a basic skill every older youth and adult player should have and also tried to distinguish the idea of team tactics from style of play (which appears to have been unsuccessful). Then to further promote discussion explained my views regarding the basis of styles of play, which differ from yours and probably a lot of other people's views too.

I see similarities in good play accross the world. I believe its due to the amount of internationals playing in club soccer throughout the world and the large amount of foreign coaches heading both club and national teams. Also the amount of TV coverage and the expansion of television throughout the world. I don't see how you can associate a particular style of play with a country because a club of internationals playing in that country plays a particular style. The club manager/head coach probably has a lot to do with the style of play, but then they are often foreigners too. Lets face it, Brazilians have had a huge impact on the way soccer is played throughout the world over the last 50 years. It has got to the point where sportscasters say other nation's teams play more like Brazil then Brazil's teams.

Hopefully this thread will get some people thinking about this more.

[Twenty26Six]

As far as style of play goes. You need to watch more South American soccer. It's clearly not "internationals" in those teams. Those players are native to the country, and the style of play is distinct.

[FloridaSoccerCoach]

I was wondering how you deal in practice/training with playing a team who has a totally different style than your own. And for this, I'm speaking primarily of high school age teams.

For example, most of the higher level teams in this area play the typical US youth (ie: English) style which is a) 100 mph forward all the time and b) boot the ball to the corners or up the flanks and turn the game into a track meet.

By contrast, my teams tend to play a style based on control, possession and change of pace. My teams' style is positive and attacking, but it's not reckless and aimless. It's a slower tempo than most of our opponents.

In other words, with the other teams, the play is always fast and with the ball very often in the air. With my teams, the play is more controlled and with the ball usually on the ground.

Yes, our possession game should hopefully limit the number of chances the other team gets but obviously I want my defenders and mids to be prepared for how to deal with that faster pace if we're playing a team that turns the game into a track meet. If my team defense can't deal with the other team's speed, then they won't neeed many chances.

I could tell my players to boot the ball to the corners during intra-team scrimmages in order to give my defenders and mids experience in dealing with that but then I risk getting use to actually playing (instead of just defendign) a style that completely the opposite of what I want.

So how would you acclimatise your players to facing a faster tempo without getting other players into what I consider bad habits? How do you prepare them for a different style without making it your own?

I usually coach younger (U12, U14, middle school) age levels where this isn't an issue. And when I've coached older teams, our "track meet" opponents haven't been good enough to pull it off. But I'm just trying to prepare for when this situation inevitably arises.

Thanks.
Wow a long thread but most of it not dealing with the answer to your question. Personally I feel the best way to deal with teams that use the style of play that you described are best battled using low pressure. What my high school girls will do is set the defensive line right around the half-way circle on the opponent's half. Giving them their half of the field will allow your team to play very compact and closer to your own goal, not giving away any space to the 'track stars'. Most teams we play look really lost and just keep playing the way they always do and try to send it over the top, sending it mostly to our goalkeeper. If not, it's still very predictable and easy to defend. Some coaches will pick up on this and try to make corrections at half-time, telling their players to keep the ball on the ground and play combinations. I guarantee you that this will result in players trying to run with the ball too much (since they are not used to play this way) which will lead to loss of posession after which your well passing team can make it to their goal in 3-4 passes. It will require some practice and discipline (especiall from your center middies since they should never get sucked out) but it's worth it.

Hope this helps:)

Erik.

[uniteo]

Yeah, to get back to the original question...

In terms of preparing your team, the original recommendation about focusing your team on executing your style of play is an important point. Of course concentrating on your style also means understanding it's weaknesses. And coaching a girls team in a 'latin style' I run into the same issue.

Some recommendations from my experience;

-obviously to prepare them, I'd recommend scrimmages against that type of team

as for tactics:

- You'll find your team gets pulled out of shape a little more when in possession because of players trying to find open space in which to take up support positions for the player with the ball, so on a turnover you'll want to delay the advance of the other team long enough to recover positionally. The players need to be aware of the desired shape, and need to communicate and organize themselves and first defenders should put on high pressure to slow the attack.

- Sun Tzu would tell you to always give your enemy an escape route, and under high pressure, you'll allow the other team to go back to their goal as you recover.

- The passes are going to be more ambitious than what your players would play, so make sure they are playing passing lanes to take away passes on the ground to force more speculative passes in the air that are harder to control.

- Back to Sun Tzu, give them space where you want them, I would tell my team to give them the flanks and play loose on defense, of course we don't play many folks who can put in real good crosses so it's not much of a concern for us, but still I would have my outside backs with support from the wings allow the opponent to run down the line and close down in the final 20-25 yards. Hopefully they'll waste time diddling with the ball while we close down the middle so that in order to attack, they other team has to get a cross off against 2 defenders, pull the ball back, or try to go completely across the field because the middle is not available.

Basically, my idea is that against that type of team, get compact, force them to play the ball indirectly, and they'll turn it over soon enough.