[dude8]

Hey coaches, I am taking an informal poll. Would you rather have a strong defense and play counters, or would you rather have a strong offense and outscore opponents? What about a mixture? I have two very solid defenders, two very solid mids(maybe three if I pull a forward back), and either 2 or 1 solid forwards. The other players are competent, and our keeper is strong. I am pretty sure I know what I want to do, but was curious if anyone had any thoughts. Sometimes you can't see the forest through all the trees. Thanks for any comments.

[EFCCoach]

Personally I would want strong team defense, leading to possession style offense. I expect all 11 players to work defensively and then to patiently build the attack. But it all depends on the types of players you have and the type of teams, fields, and weather you face.

[blech]

a never-ending debate. i think the answer depends on many factors. high among them is what age level are your kids and how competitive is your league? the younger they are, the more i would be encouraging more offensive play, even at the expense of defense. if the kids don't learn and develop their offensive skills early, they will be behind. especially in a less competitive league, i would want my kids learning and developing their offensive skills rather than playing defense. i.e., brazil.

that said, if your goal is to be competitive, you'll probably find it easier to work on strong defense. this will always keep you in games. and, if you have a fast forward or two, you truly will have opportunities to cash in on counters. i don't like this style, but i recognize it's value from a coaching standpoint, especially if the other side has more talent and/or physical ability. i.e., italy.

of course, if you're getting crushed every game, you have to adjust and strengthen your defense, because otherwise it's no fun for anyone.

[dude8]

blech-
we are probably the top team in our group. we play high school varsity. most of the teams are weaker, so in retrospect, i guess it doesn't matter all that much. but keep your thoughts coming. I to want more possesion, with controlled attacks, but don't mind goals off counters.

[kevbrunton]

In my opinion, whether you employ the build up attack style vs. counter attack style comes down to one question -- do your players have the individual skill to possess the ball. If you have even 1 or 2 "weaker" players, then when the ball inevitably gets over to them, you're going to lose possession and your attack breaks down.

If you only have 6 players on the field who can possess the ball, then you're going to find it hard to use a possession oriented style building the attack across the field.

If you have some good speed either out wide or up top or both, you might preach a mixture of possession vs. direct play. Make the 2 or 3 or 4 passes to create some space and then play direct to a wide player making a run up the side or to a striker up top.

If you have big strong player whose good at holding the ball and good at deft passing, then you might try something like this...

Put him up top as holding striker -- back to the goal type player. If he's never played this way, you may have to work with him on what to do, how to make quick turns, when to lay off and when to turn and shoot and when to play through to someone making a run.

Put your other 5 or 6 strong players in the central midfield and central defense making that area extremely solid. These guys can make plays to your holding striker and then train the guys who are your "weaker" players to make the runs off him.

So you play possession in the back and then go direct to your holding striker and play direct to goal (or very nearly so) with the guys running off him.

[blech]

kev, i agree with almost everything you say, if the primary goal is to win (or even just to be competitive). especially at younger levels, you'll find that you don't have that many kids who can possess the ball. should you abandon the strategy or should you go ahead and encourage them to use it, knowing that they will miss some opportunities (and even give up some goals) but hoping that they will improve as soccer players nonetheless in the process? i don't know that there is an easy answer, and i think it depends on a lot of other intangibles. my only point being that, especially at younger levels, i'd rather develop their skills.

if you'll accept a baseball analogy (it's my second sport after soccer), i was coaching a team and had a kid who had struck out literally every time he got up to bat, often without even swinging. in this one game, the pitcher got cute with him and worked the count to 3-0. i know that most everyone would say that the kid should take the next pitch. i told him to pick a spot where he hoped the ball was there and if it was close to give it his best shot. the pitch came, he swung, and he hit it. he was thrown out at first by the shortstop, but he was pretty darn happy to have hit the ball (and he only struck out about half the times after that the rest of the season).

sorry about the rant, but my point is that sometimes we need to let and to encourage the kids do things there not ready to do if we're going to help them develop as players.

dude8, you're lucky to have that kind of talent. if you have the skill to employ a build up attack, you should definitely encourage it. also, you may want to insist on it if you have large leads in games (i.e., tell them they need to string together 5 or more passes before they can attack the goal). also, in my experience, if you have a strong, fast defender (even if only one), this can give you a little more comfort to take some more risks by pushing the additional players necessary to the possession game forward.

[dude8]

blech-

thanks, good points all-
keep 'em coming.
and yes, I am very lucky to have a good pool of club players who can hold, are in shape, and usually finish.

thanks again

[empennage]

"A great offense wins games, but a great defense wins championships."

[Jeff L]

The "professional" view is; start at the back, and work forward. i.e., if you don't let in goals you don't lose, if you can manage to score one, you will win.
The "purist" will say, "It's a 'beautiful game'; go forward.
If you score more than you let in you won't lose.
It's the "chicken and egg" sydrome.
Or the optimist and pessimist.
Is the glass "half empty" or "half full"?
This can be discussed forever.
It's a personal decision, and I would probably base mine on the strengths I have in the squad. If the attack is stronger, go with that, and vice versa.
We all want to play like Brazil, but to "get the result" sometimes we have to play like Italy.
It's a personal thing, with maybe the personality of the coach coming out through his team and tactics.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

[Liverpool_SC]

Originally posted by Jeff Lancaster
The "professional" view is; start at the back, and work forward. i.e., if you don't let in goals you don't lose, if you can manage to score one, you will win.
The "purist" will say, "It's a 'beautiful game'; go forward.
If you score more than you let in you won't lose.
It's the "chicken and egg" sydrome.
Or the optimist and pessimist.
Is the glass "half empty" or "half full"?
This can be discussed forever.
It's a personal decision, and I would probably base mine on the strengths I have in the squad. If the attack is stronger, go with that, and vice versa.
We all want to play like Brazil, but to "get the result" sometimes we have to play like Italy.
It's a personal thing, with maybe the personality of the coach coming out through his team and tactics.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

Do you get royalties for using quotation remarks?

Sorry couldn't resist.


From the fan's perspective, I don't think that defensive soccer is necessarily boring or non-beautiful. I think that teams can take a defensive-first approach and still maintain an elegant style depending upon how they handle possession when they have it. Do they just boot the ball into space or do they have a coherant passing system to go along with their defensive system?