Fall season is over. From a development standpoint, it was great. In the last games I saw lots of great passing and movement off the ball. All 3 teams struggled in the final 1/3 yesterday. So I've got something to focus on in the spring. My 7th (very likely) and 8th(definitely) graders will be promoted into the top division for the spring. Last fall event on the calendar is the rec tournament. I combined my younger teams to create a viable team
are these school teams or club teams based on class instead of age? we have a few middle school or junior high teams in north central indiana, but they're generally county schools where there isn't enough interest to form a local club. the quality isn't close to what it would be for club travel teams.
These are all rec teams. They are grade-based so that kids can play with their friends. Since the program is internal, we made the decision not switch to birth year. This fall season we had 12 7th grade girls teams and 11 8th grade girls teams in our program. I think we had 16 HS girls teams this season. At the HS level teams can be mixed grade and we generally organize divisions based on the average age of the players. On the boys side we have even more teams but I don't know the exact numbers. I think that we are a relatively rare club in that we have a viable rec program that runs from k to 12.
Our small high school co-ed team made it to the championship game this past Friday; their opponent was a school that hasn't lost a game in 4 years. (Short story is two schools were terrible apart so were allowed to merge their sports programs; one school's enrollment exploded and now their combined programs are winning everything.) This team had beaten us 7-2 and 4-1 already this year; we'd played even to slightly better than them for half of each game and far, far worse than them the other half. It, ah, wasn't looking good from the outside. To top it off, our head coach had to be away for a business trip so it was just me and the other assistant coach. We met for coffee after winning the playoff game and over the course of two hours schemed, plotted, and counter-schemed - formations, play style, substitution patterns, alternative formations if the first didn't work, I think we covered everything a coach could control. It was also exhausting, particularly knowing we were really up against it with this team. In the end we wound up playing a pretty standard 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield, but not because it was the default. This team loves to play balls wide and then the good ol' "kick it to the flag and run" thing. We switched our fastest backs out wide (they'd been playing centrally to provide quicker support before, which worked well against all the other teams but this one). The one big change was we put one tall senior kid as the CAM whose job was closer to a rover - man mark their best player, frustrate and irritate him, never let him get a ball uncontested. This team was used to beating us for all the 50-50 balls and this game was going to be decided on our willingness to fight for them. I told our CAM (who's a bit of a wise guy) to pretend their best player was a teacher and just drive him crazy. I think the humor helped just a little bit. TL;DR: with a fantastic left-footed goal for us and an own-goal for them the score was tied with 5 minutes to go when two of our seniors raced 2-on-3 and completed a perfect cross-and-head combination to put us up 2-1. The team held on to win a game that very nearly nobody thought we had a chance at. It wasn't Barcelona or Ajax in their primes, more England and the USA in the 80s and 90s with a little bit of Germany mixed in, but given what we had at hand it was what we needed. As the goalkeeper coach (and Dad) it made me immensely proud when my son made a reaching save on a whistled high shot, palming it over the net for a corner; that shot had beaten him every single time in every game until this one. That epitomized what I think these kids learned from this game: hard work and hard effort eventually is rewarded, even though sometimes it takes even years. I don't think there's a better lesson they could have learned from the beautiful game.
With soccer being one of the least coach-driven sports during the actual game, it's always a great feeling when you come up with some tactical plan that really works. I'm reminded of a similar plan I devised once in a HS game, also with a "shadow" to mark out our opponent's one scoring threat and force them to beat us 10v10... and it worked. That's also a small advantage to coaching HS: you see the same teams repeatedly, with the same players for four years, and it lets you devise a strategy for what you know is coming. You don't often get that in a club setting where divisions and teams are often scrambled every year.
We played this team that possessed the ball well. In contrast, my team were better 1v1 players but they moved the ball extremely well. But one thing they did was pass back to their keeper to switch the play. I had my striker "spy" the keeper and his trigger was a back pass to the GK. As soon as we saw the drop pass en route, he'd sprint to pressure the GK (and the backside forward would tighten up on the fullback on his side. We scored 2 goals of that tactical adjustment. The coach of that other team is one of those coaches that you idolize—loved the way his teams play and his players play. His teams showed that you didn't have to choose between highly technical individuals and good team play—even at young ages. So last year, out of nowhere, he said he was joining the club I coach for—I was very excited to be able to work with him and hopefully learn from him.
Been on the opposite end of the spectrum as well—when the extensive planning doesn't work. I ended last year as a lame duck coach, because I was moving to a new team at the end of the season. We were in the semis against a good team and my co-coach, IMO, over thought the formation issue. He had consulted our directors on the issue, so with my lame duck role, I decided to keep my mouth shut and be supportive even though I disagreed. I feel that teams, esp. young teams, do better playing in a system that they are familiar with. Mind you, this team had not lost in ten months—so why change the shape? He changed the shape and the players were tentative—unaccustomed to the new partnerships that appeared on the pitch.
Yep, I've seen that happen too. Last year we switched from a 3-4-3 to a 4-4-2 and the kids never really recovered. This year we switched from a 4-3-3 to a 4-4-2 but due to the similarities it only took about a half before the kids figured things out. Fortunately that half was against a team we were significantly better than so even playing poorly we still were able to beat them handily. IMO, and this is probably just IMO, somewhere between 12 and 16 kids need to be exposed to multiple formations. Perhaps not play them at random, but they should have a mental image of the roles for a select few "standard" formations - say, 4-4-2, 4-3-3, 4-2-3-1, and 3-4-3. Sometimes the best way to learn a position is to play a different one so you can understand the differences. Heck, just switching from CB to FB changes how you play in myriad ways and will help you play the other position better as you now better understand the needs and desires of your counterpart.
I agree completely. I like to use "systems of play" rather than "formation" because it is clearer when I talk about what I am about to say. At the senior level the teams shift through different "formations" as the circumstances change. More importantly, the shape on the field is determined more by the circumstances than the "formation." A classic 433 defends as a 442 shape in its own defensive half (2 lines of 4 behind the ball) and assumes a 343 shape in possession. In extreme cases of pushing forward the shape can be 244. I favor using 433 as the base for teaching team tactics, but that is a starting point, not the ending point. (For girls, 343 is also an appropriate choice as a base.) It only takes a shift of 1 or 2 players to transform to any other system. Teaching the 433 necessarily progresses to transitions to 343 and 442 shapes. The 343 mimics the shape in possession, so it is an alternative. 442 mimics the shape in defense with a low line of confrontation, so it is an alternative too, but I think the emphasis in development ought to be on possession rather than defense. So 442 is not what I would start with.
Myself included, we don't spend enough time mastering working with a partner. Going back to the essence of positional play: it's not about possession, it's about superiority. We either have Qualitative (i am a better 1v1 player than the opponent) or Quantitative (We have one more attacker than you have defenders in this part of the pitch). The most basic Quantitative superiority is 2v1apart from 1v0. We're kinda limited on space this winter, so we may spend a good bit in this 2v1 format.
@elessar78 The key is to turn an 11v11 game into a 2v1 game. Through passes are the most common way of getting numbers up on attack. Beating someone on the dribble can also be unexpected and highly effective. On defense the striker pair also wants to turn 11v11 into a 2v1 game. Strikers need to be adept at defending the passing lanes. If players are always playing numbers up, they won't learn how to create a numbers up situation. This is what I consider an advanced tactical topic though, not a fundamental.
That moment when you realize that, at the moment, your kid isn't like you. Last night we were in a tight game and in two instances my 7YO shows that she's a kind hearted soul. Not a bad thing. She was on a breakaway last night and the GK came out and went down and got the ball as my kid was about to kick it. I don't think she made contact but she stayed and made sure the GK was fine—while the play was going on around her. In the other instance, she executes a perfect PERFECT block tackle and the ball stops cold and the opponent topples over the tackle. Again, my kid stops and makes sure the opponent was okay—all while the ball is headed toward our goal. I usually don't, but I caught myself "coaching her" on the drive home about not checking to see if her opponents are okay. But props to her she said something like, "I want to make sure they are okay. That's more important." I shut up and was really proud of her. Made me realize at that moment that that isn't something I want to change about her—soccer be damned.
I always tell my players, "Make sure you show good sportsmanship and check on your opponent and help them up... after you've knocked them on their butt and scored on them." Interesting how ethics are situational, isn't it? But props to your daughter.
On some days, she comes straight from Sunday school to her indoor game. Might be playing a part. haha.
Learning how to compete in sports takes time to unlearn social behavior from other contexts. To play hard but play fairly is something that has to be taught.
It can be hard to switch gears like that. Oddly enough I'm finding that problem as I play now in adult leagues: challenges I could make cleanly I find myself pulling out of because I have to do that to be extra safe when playing with the kids. Just last night I vacillated just long enough on sliding in to a breakaway as the keeper that I got both ball and attacker; a quicker decision would have resulted in a safer slide. But then even though we won the ball I immediately yelled to stop play when he flipped over me grabbing his shin. Turns out our shins met just below our respective shin guards (thus bone-on-bone) and my bruise is a lot smaller than his. It can be very hard to tell when to be "sporting" and when to kill the play because the opponent is still a human being and ultimately always more important. All that is to say that I understand the conundrum @elessar78. I think maybe that's one of the aspects of growing up that sport provides that we don't recognize quite enough. Kind of like the intent of the hand shake line after the game - it's not to mumble "good game" while staring at the ground, it's to recognize the opponent as worthy of your thanks and respect. Boy wouldn't it be a different world if more adults treated those on opposite sides that way...
I'm now done with 2017. My team had an OK tournament. We got pounded in the 1st game and then tied the 2nd two.
One last note. I learned that my 7th and HS teams both made the Sportsmanship List for the season. When our coaches report their scores, we ask them to rate the sportmanship of the other coach, parents and players. Teams that get near perfect scores are recognized by the club at the end of the season by getting their names published on the list.
Great interview of Michele Akers published by Soccer American today: "Let them play! Structure is good to a point, but kids need to play without restrictions every practice. Free play is fun! And it develops confidence, skill, game understanding, and allows kids to discover themselves. ... It’s gotta be fun or they won’t be able to do the difficult stuff or overcome the challenges along the way." www.socceramerica.com My training philosophy is to include some free play at the end of every session, because it is fun and provides context for the training. And that is what I did.
We let them play at the end of every practice as well. But we did not use keepers. We let our keeper play as field players to work on their foot skills. My Favorite was playing with union gas cones as goals. They were about 2 feet high on on each end of the field hit it you score. But no one can help protect the cone on defense if you do and the ball hits you it’s a goal. We worked on trying things that we did that day in practice if we learned something new. Also we tried to keep the shots taken against us down. Good for the team defense.